Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2021, 09:38:54 PM
I would say the Aztecs fit Chaotic Evil pretty well.

Nah, definitely Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil would want to be able to sacrifice the priests too.

LE says "I believe in hierarchy and order, even if mainly because it is useful as a tool to exploit and oppress others".

And even then, evil by our standards. The actual Aztec priests probably thought they were doing the right thing on some level, beyond just doing their jobs.

Quote from: Marchand on September 21, 2021, 09:51:55 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2021, 09:38:54 PM
I would say the Aztecs fit Chaotic Evil pretty well.

Nah, definitely Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil would want to be able to sacrifice the priests too.

LE says "I believe in hierarchy and order, even if mainly because it is useful as a tool to exploit and oppress others".

And even then, evil by our standards. The actual Aztec priests probably thought they were doing the right thing on some level, beyond just doing their jobs.

By that definition, everybody would be Good. And possibly Lawful Good.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2021, 09:38:54 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 21, 2021, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 21, 2021, 01:36:02 PM

Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.

If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.

And I'd take the witch-hunters who are at least nominally Christian and are trying to save souls with their actions instead of feeding their enemies into the machine for the good of the State and/or their blood gods.

How horrible were the Aztecs? So horrible that other tribes in the region (whom the Aztecs raided to supply their human sacrifices) gladly sided with the alien foreign invader Cortez in order to destroy them.

Even by local standards of the time, the Aztecs were Chaotic Evil.

  Dont know if I agree with chaotic evil.  By definition it seems chaotic evil would be terrible at empires.  Lawful evil seems a better fit.

Well, part of the problem of assessing alignment is the tend towards absolutism.
Does Chaotic always mean completely without order? Are the people amorphous blobs with no discernable anatomy? Does the sun randomly rise and set, and wheel around the sky over a Chaotic city? Do they build homes with all randomly placed walls?

Some order and some chaos is a part of every mortal thing. Cities and people and rules. Only on the Planes do you get examples of extreme alignment, and even then, it's because the planes are strange and mythical.

I like the concept of "Might makes right" to define Chaotic Evil, and I'd put the Aztecs in that category.

  Lawful evil sort of like might makes right as well, and they also like to have a nice long rule book.  If the Aztecs were a smaller tribe, and pillaged and sacrificed I could see Chaotic Evil, but they did begin, expand, and control a pretty vast empire.  I think you have a hard time doing that without a pretty well established set of societal norms and a few firm rules.  I can agree it certainly doesnt mean there was some chaotic behavior, I am speaking from the terms of what the rulers and leaders of their society were able to sell as norms.   

   From an outsider's perspective, I think something like a Viking culture might be more on the lines of Chaotic Evil than the Aztecs.  Had human sacrifices as well, were brutal, took slaves, etc.  But had no interest in establishing empires and were more or less seasonal raiders.   

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2021, 10:00:10 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 21, 2021, 09:51:55 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2021, 09:38:54 PM
I would say the Aztecs fit Chaotic Evil pretty well.

Nah, definitely Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil would want to be able to sacrifice the priests too.

LE says "I believe in hierarchy and order, even if mainly because it is useful as a tool to exploit and oppress others".

And even then, evil by our standards. The actual Aztec priests probably thought they were doing the right thing on some level, beyond just doing their jobs.

By that definition, everybody would be Good. And possibly Lawful Good.

Yup, that's why I don't think the good/evil axis works when baked into a gameworld through an alignment system. Or at least I haven't seen it done well. I don't really want to get into moral relativism arguments in game.

It's one area where Skyrim fell a bit flat for me - most factions have reasons to like or not like them. Like the Nords vs Imperials or Foresworn vs Nords. I would probably be inclined to get behind the Imperials except they tried to cut my fucking head off at the start of the game. And then they had the cheek to try and recruit me. Take a hike, pal.

Sorry, off-topic... I actually kind of like Skyrim.

Anyway yeah I prefer my alignment to be more "objective" in game world terms. It is about being pledged to this or that supernatural force, or it is about whether or not human settlement expands into wilderness inhabited by monsters, for example. Helps to reinforce the setting in players' minds.

In terms of stability, the Aztec Empire lasted just under a hundred years, during which they had eight different Emperors and the first half of all their reigns had to largely be devoted to putting down all the rebellions their taking the throne caused. They were notorious for ganking local nobles whenever they failed to meet the arbitrary tributes the Emperor demanded and would replace them with various Imperial cronies who could rule as they pleased so long as they met the tribute demands.

In the end, despite a nominal population of 3-6 million, a single foreign invader with a force of just 620 men (most armed with just swords and shields) and no reinforcements (since he'd stolen then scuttled the boats just to get to the mainland from Cuba; Cortez was a D&D adventurer before they were even cool) who didn't even speak the language was able to win enough popular support to utterly destroy it.

That's not a lawful society. Maybe you could argue Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil, but I think Lawful would be way too big a stretch for the empire as a whole.

I would always include good, evil, and neutral in any game I was running.

It could be a one-shot homemade anthro-game, a more typical 1977-style AD&D game, or the Ayundell game I'm working on, that will always be there along with lawful and chaotic.

One reason is that it makes heroic fantasy work better (get lost Critical Theory, which is selectively applied in any case), the other is logical.

In most such worlds life can be dangerous. Any society is surrounded by any number of monsters and hostile tribes. The only way such a society is going to even survive, let alone thrive, is if its folk operate on more or less the same wavelength. One of the most important factors with that is alignment. It does not have to be absolutely rigid- lawful good and neutral good presents no problems- but it has to be in the same area.

The idea of "multicultural" in any case, and this includes alignment, never works. Having something important to center around does. This is why Amish can raise a barn or home in such a short time while increasingly multicultural societies have trouble filling in a pothole. It is interesting to note that the ones pushing "multiculturalism" are NOT practicing it, quite the opposite in fact. There is a reason for that.

In The Peaceful Realm (Ayundell's version of "Arcadia") alignment is usually neutral good with some neutrals, but there they have good tendencies. Because all creatures there share that alignment rules and such are consistent for all of them and all can live with them- plus THEY ARE UNITED.

In The Nine Caverns of Tyranny and Torment (pretty obvious that one) they are lawful evil, ruled by the line of Archdukes. They are evil- slavery, raids, etc.- but because they are lawful and follow a disciplined, orderly set of regulations they too are united. Thus attacking them is as dangerous as attacking The Seven Noble Realms because they are organized and disciplined, this including an intelligent security protocol.

Many centuries ago the shadow elves lived there, and being chaotic evil refused to obey and in fact tried to usurp power from the then-Archduke (Ayundell has no immortals). Although united in purpose and having a good plan for their efforts the infighting among those elves, their chaotic infighting that MUST happen with chaotic evil beings, along with the superior numbers and discipline of the Archduke's forces, assured they would lose and lose badly, the few survivors making their way to The Endless Caves of Chaos and Madness, where they now have a considerable empire, but it is plagued by infighting and rumors of an invasion of the Nine Caverns will remain just that- any such invasion will never get past the first cavern and the forces of the five-dragon matriarchal council Tiamat.

The point is alignment is vital for fantasy gaming because it adds an extra dimension to gaming. Heroes are only as good as the villains. If a good character must enter a temple and encounters a blue dragon guarding it the result in heroic fantasy is obvious but suppose it is a bronze dragon sworn to an oath to let no one pass? The mission is vital and the lives of thousands of innocents depend on it, but how would a good hero deal with maybe having to kill a good creature- assuming he doesn't kill him first (how would the dragon feel? What would he do differently- maybe hold back and maybe die because he did?).

In Ayundell the kingdom of Venesha, part of the Alliance, is a greedy and decadent pleasure land. Although slavery is outlawed in the Alliance because of a treaty with several powerful good-aligned realms it exists in the shadows and slaver gangs exist. Evil beings have no problem dealing with Venesha but good-aligned ones (azuralupins, red pandas, elves, vulpinish, elves, humans from good-aligned realms, etc.) tend to shun it- but must sometimes deal with them. Dwarfs, once enslaved as a race, particularly dislike Venesha and the lisharians who run the place from behind the throne. Alignment makes such dealings and adventures much more interesting because sometimes it can make a player's life easier (an elf traveling to The Peaceful Realm) or more complicated (an azuralupin dealing with the ruling body in Venesha).

A player may want to be chaotic evil if he thinks "huh I can do ANYTHING I want so pfffffft on everyone else with your sissy rules" but will soon find that nobody trusts him, nobody wants him around, and the consequences far outweigh the benefits- even among chaotic evil adventurers he has to sleep with one eye open and never accept a drink from his "friend" if he has something that friend wants. A lawful good character can be trusted and friends are true but if executing evil Lord Nastnaughty (whom has surrendered) then and there would be for the best his morals would forbid this and in fact he'd have to prevent the chaotic good blue draconfolk from grabbing Nastynaughty and electrocuting him like an electric eel with his electrical ability.   

Problem is, RPGs are increasingly opposed to anything like that. Good and evil are becoming no-nos in an increasing relativistic society, and this has hurt gaming.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 22, 2021, 08:42:15 AM
In terms of stability, the Aztec Empire lasted just under a hundred years, during which they had eight different Emperors and the first half of all their reigns had to largely be devoted to putting down all the rebellions their taking the throne caused. They were notorious for ganking local nobles whenever they failed to meet the arbitrary tributes the Emperor demanded and would replace them with various Imperial cronies who could rule as they pleased so long as they met the tribute demands.

In the end, despite a nominal population of 3-6 million, a single foreign invader with a force of just 620 men (most armed with just swords and shields) and no reinforcements (since he'd stolen then scuttled the boats just to get to the mainland from Cuba; Cortez was a D&D adventurer before they were even cool) who didn't even speak the language was able to win enough popular support to utterly destroy it.

That's not a lawful society. Maybe you could argue Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil, but I think Lawful would be way too big a stretch for the empire as a whole.

Aztec society may have been a case of "anarcho-tyranny." This is when some are expected to absolutely follow rigid rules while the privileged do not have to. I doubt any of those emperors were deposed by commoners.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 21, 2021, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 21, 2021, 01:36:02 PM

Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.

If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.

And I'd take the witch-hunters who are at least nominally Christian and are trying to save souls with their actions

I'm agnostic btw, so that doesn't convince me. I picked Aztecs because my death would be quicker and less torturous with my heart torn out in record time than being strangled over several minutes by the witch-hunter's noose while my brain desperately screams for oxygen.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 22, 2021, 08:42:15 AM
In terms of stability, the Aztec Empire lasted just under a hundred years, during which they had eight different Emperors and the first half of all their reigns had to largely be devoted to putting down all the rebellions their taking the throne caused. They were notorious for ganking local nobles whenever they failed to meet the arbitrary tributes the Emperor demanded and would replace them with various Imperial cronies who could rule as they pleased so long as they met the tribute demands.

In the end, despite a nominal population of 3-6 million, a single foreign invader with a force of just 620 men (most armed with just swords and shields) and no reinforcements (since he'd stolen then scuttled the boats just to get to the mainland from Cuba; Cortez was a D&D adventurer before they were even cool) who didn't even speak the language was able to win enough popular support to utterly destroy it.

That's not a lawful society. Maybe you could argue Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil, but I think Lawful would be way too big a stretch for the empire as a whole.

That's a good case.

Let me put it another way...

I do not dispute that Good, Evil, Neutrality exist in "D&D" (or any other game) as some moral dimension.

What I'm less concerned with is those words put on someone's character sheet. Because ultimately when I step back and look at the time spent on debating who/what is alignment in practice, play, and all the hairsplitting trying to pigeonhole famous characters into alignment in order to justify ones actions at the table... I say just remove all that stuff, and *play* your PC the way you want.

I don't need a singular example of where Batman tortured someone in order to save <X> for your PC to do the same under the auspices of Alignment (in order to not be dinged for it).

I'm pretty confident doing evil shit is evil. Doing good shit is good. It only matters insofar as NPC's react to such actions - be they authorities, or divine mandates.

I think alignment gets in the way of the nuances of Deities specific dogmas (which is why deities typically are worshipped by a swath of society across alignments - Lawful good sailors drop copper at Umberlee's (Chaotic Evil) shrines in order to have good fortune at sea. The gods care about those they're directly connected to - Paladins and Clerics typically, where general alignment still takes a backseat to the actual dogmas of the faith.

Players and their PC's will choose as they will, and you as a GM know whether their PC's are evil/good/neutral. And the only time it really matters is when someone is under some supernatural circumstance which requires objectivity. Contrary to what people believe - just because it says "Good" on your character sheet, might conflict with the actual actions of their PC. Hell in real life we see it all the time - deluded individuals that think they're crusading for "good" while doing heinous shit.

I think alignment is useful for general navigation of medians.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 22, 2021, 11:00:00 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 21, 2021, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 21, 2021, 01:36:02 PM

Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.

If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.

And I'd take the witch-hunters who are at least nominally Christian and are trying to save souls with their actions

I'm agnostic btw, so that doesn't convince me. I picked Aztecs because my death would be quicker and less torturous with my heart torn out in record time than being strangled over several minutes by the witch-hunter's noose while my brain desperately screams for oxygen.

Aztecs also skinned people alive, dismembered them alive, drowned them, sentenced them to gladitorial combats (with no arena), tied them up and shot them with darts,etc.  The heart thing was Huitzilipochtli's service. Basically it got rid of enemy warriors captured in little wars. Xipe Totec liked skinning folks. Tezcatlipoca did the heart thing once a year after treating the victim like a god for the span of that year but he had to be an attractive captured warrior and the priests kept the sacrifice's head (whereas Huitzilipochtli ate warriors like pop corn after any war and wars were called to feed him) and his priests made soup out of meat from their victim's legs.

The Maya (or at least some of them) were dreadfully sadistic on top of being callous and blood thirsty though they had abandoned their cities for a wider spread more agrarian life by the time the Columbian contact happened.

Also your brain doesn't scream for oxygen, you just black out. Hypoxia just makes you sleepy and anoxia makes you insensate. If you are revived you will have no memory of any thing but feeling tired and then waking up probably with a canula in your nose. When your brain "screams" it is because your lungs are too full of carbon dioxide like when you have a plastic bag over your head. That is what your body senses that causes suffocation panic. It can also sense pain from blister agents and such but a lack of oxygen just makes you drift off and black out. You might feel a mild head ache. Many gases that replace oxygen have no effect on you in terms of discomfort. You body isn't good at sensing carbon monoxide or inerts like nitrogen. Something that burns tissue like flourine will be noticed as it makes the tissues swell up as does ammonia. 

Now the noose would be scary and it would hurt your neck to be held up by one unless they dropped you at neck breaking speed but it should pinch off your carotid quickly, blacking you out rather than leaving you gasping. Noose is better than being strangled or garotted  from behind with a cord because your weight does a hell of a good job of rapidly tightening a noose and then pulling on it. Most necks will not stand up to it for long at all. Most of what you see in people being hanged without the drop is nervous actions and not a sign of the person suffering.

Cortez had a hell of a lot of allies marching with him from the other local tribes the Aztecs kept down and he surprised those allies by fighting in formation instead of send out champions who sough to wounding enemy champions to take them captive and he also would go for the leaders to break the courage of their warbands and would cut off their paths of retreat He took leaders hostage too. His new form of warfare was adapted by his allies who went from treating the wars as a sort of ritualized almost sporting affair that they weren't competitive at to directly eliminating enemy strength and not wasting your own. Disease helped a lot too. And The Spaniards were welcomed at first because the emperor was a superstitious idiot who though they might be the sons of Quetzecoatl who exiled himself after disgracing himself while drunk on Pulche. Quetzecoatl had said he would come back to punish them all for getting him drunk causing him to sleep with his sister. The emperor thought maybe he could calm the returned enemy down and they would forswear vengeance or at least be more lenient with them for submitting to the promised return. Later the emperor was sent out to calm down the people of his city who were revolting against the invaders, not all of whom were Spanish and the crowd stones and spears into him instead of listening to him and he was dragged back inside where he perished of his wounds.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 09:42:06 AM
I would always include good, evil, and neutral in any game I was running.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 22, 2021, 09:42:06 AM
The point is alignment is vital for fantasy gaming because it adds an extra dimension to gaming. Heroes are only as good as the villains. If a good character must enter a temple and encounters a blue dragon guarding it the result in heroic fantasy is obvious but suppose it is a bronze dragon sworn to an oath to let no one pass? The mission is vital and the lives of thousands of innocents depend on it, but how would a good hero deal with maybe having to kill a good creature- assuming he doesn't kill him first (how would the dragon feel? What would he do differently- maybe hold back and maybe die because he did?).

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 11:30:03 AM
Players and their PC's will choose as they will, and you as a GM know whether their PC's are evil/good/neutral. And the only time it really matters is when someone is under some supernatural circumstance which requires objectivity. Contrary to what people believe - just because it says "Good" on your character sheet, might conflict with the actual actions of their PC. Hell in real life we see it all the time - deluded individuals that think they're crusading for "good" while doing heinous shit.

I think alignment is useful for general navigation of medians.

I think this goes back to my point from the OP. In history, there were an awful lot of people who believed they were crusading for good while doing what to us is heinous shit - it was often the norm.

One doesn't need an absolute alignment system for characters to have moral codes. I had a Harn character who was a devout Agrikan, acting for what he believed to be the good of the world and the people. He tried to be an exemplary pillar to the people of the village where he was stationed as cleric. But then, much of what he did was heinous to our modern-day morality.

For me, some of the most interesting villains have been in systems without alignment, which I think is from more thinking about these different justifications and varying moral codes in those games.

Alignment is like a decent to good analogy:  It's a starting point to establish rough areas.  The more you get down into the details, the less useful it becomes. 

Don't take that too far, because like all analogies (and alignment discussions), it eventually breaks down. 

Hence why I've abandoned alignment in my settings outside of the Moorcockian cosmic balance. That avoids a lot of arguments about ethical calculus.

I especially despise arguments about what alignments apply to real cultures because (ignoring for a moment that applying a game convention to real life is blatantly stupid) there's a lot of cherry picking, cultural posturing, exoticism, and presentism. In a few centuries, the United States might be considered the single most evil civilization to have existed in the Americas by the enlightened scholars of Neo-Wakanda. Or whatever.