Alignment again, but with some reality attached

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hello there, folks.
The Alignment Wars are a nice little bunch of arguments, no? Or, you might say they are a redundant bunch of arguments. Or a silly bunch of arguments. Or whatever.
Good is this. Good is that. Evil is this. Evil is that. Good is absolute. Good is relative. Good is Balance. Etc.

A lot - not all, but many - D&D worlds are based upon a quasi-medieval version of Europe or Asia.
Consider the kind of world that medieval world was.

It was a capital crime to question the divine right of the King.
In other words, saying the King did not deserve to be King, or finding fault with the King in any way, got you killed.
Criticizing Authority in any way got you killed, or worse, it drew the attention of the Inquisition.
Most people lived very wretched and very short lives, and their sole function was to provide taxes in the form of food for the nobility.
The nobility lived in what we might call an absolute authority situation - the lord of the house was quite literally the lord. God help anyone who questioned him openly, including his family.
This is a world where when one got married, your local lord got to savor your wife first, and then you got to have her.
This is a world where mental illness was diagnosed as demonic possession, and you could look forward to having the demon burned out of you, or purged by other grisly methods (the last insane person to be burned at the stake was in Switzerland in 1792.)
This is a world where war meant your own country sent an army across your lands, and that army took everything you had, on their way to fight the enemy.
And if you were a commoner and did not kneel immediately to your betters, death was your fate (remember Shogun?)

This is not a world where life was important. Not a world where life mattered.
Duty to your King? Duty to your lord? Duty to your peers? Duty to your husband? Bringing in the crops, keeping the defenses strong, being ready for war?
Yes.

It was an appalling world.
As recently as the 1800s, in Sweden, a man was expected to beat his wife each and every day, to ensure that her ethical and moral standing remained high.
Today in Sweden, beating one's wife means 20 years in prison.

The point being, if you are going to use the so-called 9 alignments to represent medieval people, it isn't going to resemble modern world ethics at all.
Even a lawful good or neutral good character, who is defined in medieval terms, is going to be an appalling monster compared to the average person of today.
Look at the Swedish example above. In the 1800s, by the standards of THAT time, a lawful good person might beat his wife each and every day, to ensure that her ethics and morality remained high (if you are a female reading this, and find this unpleasant, I don't blame you - I think it perfectly ghastly, that they thought like that.)

A lawful good character of medieval nature might:

Kill a peasant out of hand, summarily, for refusing to kneel.
Walk in and violate a peasant's wife, if he was of high born status.
Beat his wife and children, or even kill his wife and children, because they did not do as it suited him. From peasant to noble, this was the norm.
Kill anyone (whether they were friend or foe, an active enemy or a helpless prisoner) on the command of his lord - indeed, refusal to do so would have been treason.
Kill anyone who spoke openly against his lord or the king.

Now, I think that by OUR standards of 21st century Earth, we'd call this behavior Lawful or Neutral Evil, but ... well heck, think about this:

Imagine if you were transported back in time with a collection of D&D products.
Imagine a local lord of Europe or Asia caught you.
Imagine you told him and his men about Dungeons and Dragons, what it was, how it worked, and why you played it.
Now, imagine what would happen then.
Do I really need to comment on what would happen then?

- - -

So imagine now, that you are playing a character who is good, as WE would think of good, in a world like that world.
Your character believes in values as we in the modern world would ... that character values life, values protecting people, values freedom of thought and expression, values equality and tolerance.
Such a character is going to be TRULY SPECIAL in the medieval world. Such a character is not going to be popular in that world. Indeed, the people of that world might think your character to be quite evil!

I guess you'd have to say the medieval world was a rather evil world, by the standards of modern Earth.
Everyone was evil, or close to it. Certainly, they were violent, unsympathetic, and unfriendly.

I guess that's the point.
In a real simulation of a medieval setting - if your setting simulates a true medieval culture, EVERYONE in that culture is evil or has evil tendencies, by the standards most people live by today.
An evil, dark world full of evil, dark people. They did not call it the Dark Ages for no reason!

The question is, are you going to play a character who is lawful good, by the standards of medieval society, or are you playing a lawful good character, by our standards?
These two characters certainly would be very different from each other!

My character Edena, was a good aligned character, by medieval standards, when he was low level.
In other words, he believed very much in duty, loyalty, obedience, and morality ... and by today's standards, he was a low life murderer and thug.
After Edena discovered modern society, and after about a hundred years of exposure to it, Edena became good as we would think of good.
Ever since that time, Edena has been considered quite evil in every medieval society he has visited and made a name in.

 

[jdavis]

I normally don't use modern standards in D&D. I normally don't use pure medieval standards either. I try to use High Fantasy standards, I want my chaotic good to be Robin Hood good, for example. It is closer to Medieval standards but it is a little more idealistic. I think it is good for excessivly good characters to be looked down apon by those in power, and to be looked up to by the common folk. I think it is good for Lawful good characters to sometimes have to choose between the lawful and the good as sometimes it is not the same. I like my orcs to be evil, my damsels to be in distress and my Dragons to be cunning evil beast who like to snack on the odd virgin every now and then. The hero is the guy who kills the orcs saves the princess and out foxes the dragon. I'm sure everybody has their own spin on their world.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Many fantasy books that I have read present a medieval or quasi-medieval world in which 20th century values are superimposed.

The most outstanding example of this, perhaps, are the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
The works of Ursula LeGuin do this.
The works of Terry Brooks do this.
The works of Anne McCaffrey do this (although I must say that I think McCaffrey's world is more 19th century-ish.)
The works of Stephen Donaldson do this.

The works, by those authors representing Conan the Barbarian, sometimes do this and sometimes they do not do this.
The works representing the Guardians of the Flame do not do this - they portray a more medieval setting.
The works of Edgar Rice Burroughs with his John Carter series present a quasi-medieval world with quasi-medieval values.

So I guess it varies by author.
Just as it varies by DM, how their campaign setting is going to be.

Again, I am merely saying that if the campaign setting is truly medieval, or close to being medieval, the society and people are going to be pretty rough. Values such as we cherish in modern life simply aren't going to fit in very well.

The works of John Norman, with his Gor series, do not represent either a medieval world with modern values, nor do they represent a medieval world, with medieval values.
I do not know WHAT category to put the world of Gor in!

 

[jdavis]

Tolken is pretty true High Fantasy, the Orcs are bad they were created that way, the elves are generally good, although they have tendencies towards vanity and standoffishness......you could go on and on.

I wouldn't put it all off on applying 20th century morals though, I sort of like to play in a world that is like what the knights and kings tried to portray as opposed to what they actually did. Knights were good men who lived by a code, Strong Kings were once mighty warriors who earned their thone by the grace of god. It's sort of what they liked to portray themselves as as opposed to how they actually were. That Great Crusades Mentality, as opposed to what the Great Crusades actaully were. Of course sometimes a Peasant just gets in the way, but I'll feel bad that I rode him over later. What there's a Demon possesed serf, well we need to do something about that, in my gaming world he would really be demon possessed instead of mentally unbalanced.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I understand, jdavis.
It sounds like your campaign world would be a fun world to roleplay in.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Using the medieval modern as a guide, I can give new descriptions to the nine alignments:

Lawful good:

This person believes strictly in upholding the laws of the land, the rightful authority of his lord, the divine right of the King, and the rank and privilege of local clergy.
This person also maintains a strict household in which woman are the chattel of men, children obey their parents, and the honor and morality of the household is stawartly maintained.

Neutral good:

This person believes in a settled, orderly world where each has his proper place.
The King has divine right.
The lords have their fiefdoms.
The peasants, have their obligations.
Religions, have their rightful authority.
Women, have their duty to serve men.
A peaceful, quiet world in which order is maintained, free from the horror and anarchy of war, famine, and plague, is the most desirable situation.

Chaotic good:

This person is a troublemaker, but a troublemaker for just causes. The rightful King should be in power, not the usurper. The rightful lord should be in the castle, not a brigand. Religions should stay within their tenets, not fall into blasphemy.
If it takes war or rebellion to bring this about, so be it. It is the right thing to do.

Lawful neutral:

This person puts Number One first, and everyone else LAST.
An orderly society is necessary and desirable, for in an orderly society Number One can get ahead, fulfilling his needs and wants within the limits placed by society.

Neutral:

This person also puts Number One first, and everyone else last.
Nothing matters but getting ahead, and satisfying the urges and wants of Number One. If an orderly society is the way to accomplish that, so be it. If disorder and war make for better advancement, they will suit just fine.

Chaotic Neutral:

This person puts Number One first, everyone else last, and has decided it's high time to tear apart the current social order, so that he can rise to the top of a new order.
Thus, war, rebellion, rabble-rousing, thievery, and whatever else it takes are the norm for this person, so long as it leads to profit and advancement for him.

Lawful Evil:

This person believes in a social order that eschews the rightful place of the King, the rightful place of the religions, the rightful place of the lords, and the due place of peasants and women.
This person wants to create a horrific world filled with blasphemy, warped minds, unnatural social structures, and destructive thinking.

(A paladin on the world of Gor, for example, would be lawful evil.)

Neutral Evil:

This horrific person is willing to use whatever nefarious means it takes, without any scruples, honor, or ethics whatsoever, to see to it that the rightful order is thrown down, and perversion takes it's place.
There is nothing this person won't stoop to doing, and there is no limit to the vileness he would inflict upon the decent, established order in which men prosper, and have prospered, since the dawn of time.

Chaotic Evil:

This person is a warmonger who will not be satisfied until he has torn down all of society, bringing massacre, famine, and plague upon all decent folk, because he is lost in warped dreams of delusion and madness.
If he gets his way, society will disintegrate and be replaced by anarchy and the deepest perversions of the Lower Planes.

 

[Vaxalon]

It never ceases to amaze me that some people think that totally self-centered people are neutral.

Such a sad world we live in.

Selfishness is evil. The larger the circles of people that you would lay down your comfort, health, wealth, and life for, the more "good" you are... and if that circle has noone in it but yourself, then you are not good at all.

 

[Turjan]

Looking at the original post, I think it's a double misconception behind this thesis.

1) Fantasy worlds are not medieval. They don't even look very similar to medieval standards. Nearly all standard institutions that belong to a typical medieval city are missing from all fantasy cities that I know. Most fantasy cities have a modern layout as far as society, institutions and industries are concerned. I don't think there is anything wrong with it though, as a high magic fantasy world cannot resemble a truly medieval world.

2) The examples given above, like the swedish customs from 1800, are modern. In medieval times the role of the woman in society was much better. One example: here in Berlin the divorce laws were pretty liberal until about 1400. If the man dared to beat his wife, she could go to court and get a divorce. She was allowed to take everything with her that she had brought into the marriage, and this was usually most of the stuff the family owned. Then again, the people of this city had never been very religeous. They had been suffering from a bann of 50 years by the pope as they had killed a priest whom they didn't like; things happen .
Even the inquisition had its worst days after the end of the middle ages, if you neglect what had happened to the Katharers (sp?). The typical witch hunt for instance is a typical modern age phenomenon, reaching it's top level after the year 1600. During the middle ages burning of witches was a very rare event.

Anyway, you are right that medieval times had different moral standards compared to today. But many of the standards that you mentioned are founded on religion. As the typical fantasy campaign follows a different religion, moral standards should be significantly different to medieval ones.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Very cool thread Edena - just the sorts of things I like to discuss.

As far as medieval ethics versus modern (or proto-modern) there is a need to be careful in our views. The medieval period is hardly homogenous - there's a lot of variety in the past.

For example - your quote from the story Shogun, this is a situation that was pretty strict under the Tokugawa Shogunate (a period of high stability and order) but in the era immediately previous, the Sengoku Jidai(sp?), it was possible for peasants to rise to very high levels. The Taisho of Japan before Tokugawa Ieyasu became Shogun was Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a peasant.

Getting to the main issue - did people believe things to be good which we consider to be evil? The ancient Greeks held the free interchange of ideals to be a high virtue, and while kings did try to censor philosophers who criticised them, it was the king who was considered to be in the wrong by the populace, not the philosopher.

Much of our ideals of good and right derive from philosophical and religious systems that are thousands of years old. The fact that kings or the like claimed the right to slay peasants just 'cause they felt affronted by them was often argued as legally acceptable, but not often was it considered "good". In fact, in many cases, medieval cultures had stronger notions of good and evil than the modern world.

Also, we need to be careful when we say that because a historical source makes a statement of morality like "It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country." that's what people thought. Until very recently in history, written histories were made for the wealthy and powerful and they tended to paint the rich and powerful in the best possible light. A historian who writes a history that says the king is wrong for being a tyrant better be ready to flee from the king - even though most of the people might agree with him.

I think I've gotten a bit lost here. I'll post and see if it makes sense to others.

 

[Gossamerblade]

Okay, I'm not feeling deep enough to argue medieval morals/alignments vs. modern. I just want to give my opinion (for whatever it's worth).

RPGs are fantasy. The worlds and characters are imaginary. Determining alignment is one of the ways we define the characters we create.

Historical re-creation groups may be concerned with the finer points of past societies' morals, but I don't think it has much bearing on the fantasy worlds I play in.

We are products of a modern society. The moral outlook of the society we live in influences everything we do, even playing a fantasy game.