|
Spinning off from Devils and Demons...
What about Good aligned outsiders? What roles do they play? What are their origins?
I have always found Angels to be great antagonists to PCs in the past. Let's face it, PCs don't always act very "Good." In fact PCs, in my games anyway, usually straddle the line of good and evil and come in conflict with both sides.
And imagine the moral implications for PCs when they find out that the BBEG is in fact a LAWFUL Good Angel, attempting to destroy the chaos in the world and replace our chaotic tendencies with organized lawful ways.
I mean, now what do they do? Say the plot revolves around a barbarian culture being eradicated by a Lawful Good Angel. Do they kill the Angel? Do they let it go free to wreck havoc again later on the forces of chaos?
There has been some information about them in the Great Beyond part of the Campaign Setting, but not much.
The problem/challenge with good outsiders as antagonists is that they're still good.
An archon could try to eradicate a culture, but he couldn't do so by killing everyone who doesn't want to abandon the culture. Killing people is an evil act.
Of course, it doesn't mean that they cannot be nasty - good can be nasty, just not evil - or that some of their followers will be blinded by their radiance and wander off the path of righteousness...
I would think at some point we'll get a Chronicles on this
|
|
There has been some information about them in the Great Beyond part of the Campaign Setting, but not much.
The problem/challenge with good outsiders as antagonists is that they're still good.
An archon could try to eradicate a culture, but he couldn't do so by killing everyone who doesn't want to abandon the culture. Killing people is an evil act.
Of course, it doesn't mean that they cannot be nasty - good can be nasty, just not evil - or that some of their followers will be blinded by their radiance and wander off the path of righteousness...
Sure they can kill off entire populations. As D&D defines it, killing is not evil. Good characters do it all the time. Clerics and Priests that are good are allowed to kill evil and even expected to do so. Therefore killing is not an evil act.
Based upon that definition that D&D used (I know it is not Pathfinder, but still...) a LG Angel can easily defend killing off chaotic populations. Capital punishment is used often by Lawful societies to maintain the rule of law. Even societies that are considered Good are known to use cpaital punishment from time to time.
Really, if killing people were an evil act then all characters would need to adjust their alignments to Evil and some would need to pick new Gods as well.
I think the reason so many people do not use Angels as bad guys is they are locked into the stereotypes used in our real society of what is Good and Evil. D&D has its own definitions and under those definitions, Angels can certainly play the part of bad guys to mortal heroes.
There are two Axis of conflict in the game, Good vs Evil, which is the most common one played up these days, but also Law vs Chaos, which was the original axis of conflict in D&D, and historicly pantheons were more about Law vs Chaos than they were Good vs Evil.
In my personal games Law vs Chaos is normally the underlying alignment conflict. Lawful societies do everything in their power to eliminate lawlessness, crime and individual freedoms for the greater good. BTW that is how I use Lawful and Chaotic in city alignments. A chaotic city still has rules and laws, just they value individual freedom within the reigns of the law. Lawful societies tend to have heavy handed, or excessive laws and individual freedom is considered a threat to the survival of the society as a whole.
My outsiders really play up that Law vs Chaos conflict as well. Demons are unpredictable brutes of raw power. They care about nothing but their own wanton wants. Devils are the ultimate keepers of law, using contracts and tradition to advance their own agendas. My Angels are the same way. My Archons are Lawful in the extreme. A violation of the Law is serious, regardless of the law. Breaking one's word, jaywalking, littering- if there is a law against doing it they will come down hard on you if you violate the law. They are willing to allow for special exceptions, but there is always a penalty to be paid. My Angels follow the same theory. Some are chaotic, and value freedom of will over rigid dogma and promote individual freedoms. It would not be unusual to find a CG Angel attempting to free slaves, or educate the masses. It would not be unusual to find a LG Angel arresting crimnals and flogging them, or bringing lawless rebels to justice and execution. Well no more unusual than finding demons and devils wandering about anyway...
In actual angelic lore, there are evil angels. Angel means messanger. Sometimes those messages or pain and suffering. For example, One of the archangels of punishment is Kezef, angel of wrath and destruction.
Also, both Gabriel and Michael are angels of death. The exact meaning varies by scholar and religion.
The point is, Angels are typically celestial servants and act at the will of their deity. This can mean doing bad things for a greater good, but I have to agree the the alignment system would prevent wholesale slaughter. Of course a mass ritual that will shift everyone's alignment one step toward good or law might still be seen as akin to brainwashing.
I should point out that "Angels" as a named class of outsiders in Golarion's cosmology are one of two NG outsider types native to Nirvana. They're distinct from angels/aasimon as they existed in 1e/2e/3e etc as a class of good outsiders that didn't exist native to a specific plane but served as divine servitors to good deities.
There's no race of good outsiders in Golarion that serve as generic divine servitors (though -many- outsiders choose to serve gods, and some gods might have originally been one of the group of celestials etc that currently serve them from time to time).
|
I should point out that "Angels" as a named class of outsiders in Golarion's cosmology are one of two NG outsider types native to Nirvana. They're distinct from angels/aasimon as they existed in 1e/2e/3e etc as a class of good outsiders that didn't exist native to a specific plane but served as divine servitors to good deities.
There's no race of good outsiders in Golarion that serve as generic divine servitors (though -many- outsiders choose to serve gods, and some gods might have originally been one of the group of celestials etc that currently serve them from time to time).
We can count on all the old open content angel types being folded into the new classification, right? I got a soft spot a mile wide for the planetars. I'm not sure how they became the iconic image for D&D angels for me, it just sort of happened.
Put me down in the "wholesale slaughter is a no-no for good outsiders" too. I can see a LN or CN outsider getting away with that, but any celestial is going to be moving to Fallville once he earns the genocide merit badge. An evil barbarian culture might wind up on the angel's hitlist, but even then as KaeYoss suggested, I think the culture itself would be warred against rather than burning out the entire population along with it.
I mean could LG and CG celestials get along if either of them accepted doing things like that to cultures and mortals simply because they were chaotic or lawful? There's a reason why only the fiends have a Blood War.(okay, several)
The Empyreals came exclusively from the ranks of angels, didn't they? No archons, eladrin, etc. in the mix?
We can count on all the old open content angel types being folded into the new classification, right?
If they're OGL, they're included. Some of the 2e era aasimon sadly aren't included in that list.
I mean could LG and CG celestials get along if either of them accepted doing things like that to cultures and mortals simply because they were chaotic or lawful? There's a reason why only the fiends have a Blood War.(okay, several)
Each of the celestials has their own particular take on how they should best work towards their own particular notion of universal Good. And at times, planar politics may lead to odd bedfellows, especially when it comes to the Abyss, the Maelstrom, and certain proclivities of Abbadon's fiends.
The Empyreals came exclusively from the ranks of angels, didn't they? No archons, eladrin, etc. in the mix?
The listing of Empyreal lords includes all of the four major celestial types.
Sure they can kill off entire populations. As D&D defines it, killing is not evil. Good characters do it all the time. Clerics and Priests that are good are allowed to kill evil and even expected to do so. Therefore killing is not an evil act.
Even in D&D with its moral dissonance, killing innocents is an evil act.
Usually, the killing that happens in D&D is done out of self defense or to stop evil deeds (i.e. killing attacking and/or evil creatures and characters), and while I admit that there's always some leeway, killing a shopkeep over a price dispute won't award any paladin an extra-awesome mount and holy sword, unless you play in Ab3's old group or something.
So unless we're talking about a chaotic evil society, the angel cannot just kill them all. And even then, you depend on your GM to handwave it - I know I wouldn't let them engage in wholesale slaughter on general premises like "the book lists that country as CE, so I nuke them all".
Based upon that definition that D&D used (I know it is not Pathfinder, but still...) a LG Angel can easily defend killing off chaotic populations. Capital punishment is used often by Lawful societies to maintain the rule of law. Even societies that are considered Good are known to use cpaital punishment from time to time.
Lawful Good societies never use capital punishment for minor offenses. They might not use it at all, and even if they do, it's for stuff like rape, murder, treason, not for Being Different.
And I don't think that any good society will put a whole culture to the trial as a whole.
Really, if killing people were an evil act then all characters would need to adjust their alignments to Evil and some would need to pick new Gods as well.
Even in D&D, it's not nearly as easy as you put it.
I think the reason so many people do not use Angels as bad guys is they are locked into the stereotypes used in our real society of what is Good and Evil. D&D has its own definitions and under those definitions, Angels can certainly play the part of bad guys to mortal heroes.
Not if they kill innocents for no other reason than that they don't agree with their philosophy. That's Evil even in D&D.
There are two Axis of conflict in the game, Good vs Evil, which is the most common one played up these days, but also Law vs Chaos, which was the original axis of conflict in D&D, and historicly pantheons were more about Law vs Chaos than they were Good vs Evil.
I know about the two alignment axes. I also know that D&D started with only one, and that in the past, deities were often more about the ethnical axis than the moral one.
Doesn't mean that you can ignore one axis if you pursue the other. Not if both are part of your very being. And celestials in D&D are all incarnations of Good. They couldn't ignore it if they wanted to.
They might go for a more lenient definition of good and favour order or chaos, but they cannot ignore the Good in themselves.
And genocide of non-evil humanoids is definetly not Good. In fact, I'd argue that it's Evil.
Devils are the ultimate keepers of law
They're not, unless they're LN. Which official PF devils aren't.
, using contracts and tradition to advance their own agendas. My Angels are the same way. My Archons are Lawful in the extreme. A violation of the Law is serious, regardless of the law. Breaking one's word, jaywalking, littering- if there is a law against doing it they will come down hard on you if you violate the law.
If you want your archons to be LN rather than LG, it's your call. But PF has them LG, so they may be stern, but it will be stern but fair. They will NOT kill for jaywalking or forgetting to pay taxes. Doing so would be LN at best, probably LE.
In actual angelic lore, there are evil angels.
In PF, ther aren't.
Angels in PF are Always Good outsiders. So are all other celestials (some are Always LG, or Always NG, or Always CG, but all are all good, all the time)
Angel means messanger. Sometimes those messages or pain and suffering. For example, One of the archangels of punishment is Kezef, angel of wrath and destruction.
In D&D, Kezef would not be a celestial. He would be Evil.
I'm not saying that there cannot be evil creatures with wings, but they will not be angels as PF defines them, and they will not be Good.
Of course a mass ritual that will shift everyone's alignment one step toward good or law might still be seen as akin to brainwashing.
Would be an act of Order, I'd say. Maybe an act of Goodness, too, since they try to make them all better persons.
The real fun part would be a mass ritual to shift everyone closer to Chaos. That would be a paradox, like ordering someone to have a free will.
I agree on all points about angels in Pathfinder and that Kezef would be evil. For a homebrew it is sometimes interesting to muddy the waters. I have been doing that with my d20 Modern game.
I like that the Angels are shifting to the NG role since the Guardinals (as a whole) are not OGL. While I love the Guardinals from my Planescape days, they really do not fit the NG celestial role of the Pathfinder setting. The avoral and leonal work better as outsiders specificly tied to a deity. I would favor seeing them revisioned to serve Sarenrae as messengers and warriors.
The bralani and ghaele could serve Desna or they could serve nature directly (in the form of the Green Faith).
The real fun part would be a mass ritual to shift everyone closer to Chaos. That would be a paradox, like ordering someone to have a free will.
We have something like that in Louisiana. It is called Mardi Gras.
|
|
I know that current D&D and Pathfinder both emphasize the moral axis of alingments over the ethical axis. I often wonder why Lawful or Chaotic is even included anymore.
For the rest of my comments I am going to use the term Celestials, instead of Angels- because I was using Angels as a loose term for all good aligned outsiders and that is incorrect.
Celestials are the ultimate incarnations of Good, that is true. But there are different definition of what is Good. That is where you get Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic interpretations on it. A Lawful Good Celestial represents and is infused not only with Good but also Law. Law is just as important and co-equal a notion as Good. Chaos would be just as horrific and punishable as evil.
If a Lawful Good Celestial would be expected to punish or slay an evil being, then by the same token he should be expected to punish or slay lawbreakers.
In Judeo/Christian beliefs "the wages of sin is death." And it is important to note there is no misdemeanor or felony sins. Failure to keep a ritual, lying, stealing and murder are all equal sins in the eyes of God. Pretty darn harsh. But that is Lawful Good. Remember the story of the Ark of the Covenent? It could only be touched by priests. Anyone else who touched it would be killed for it was a sin for anyone else to touch it. While it was being transported the wagon it was on tilted and it nearly fell to the ground. A commoner (non-priest) grabbed the Ark to save it and he was struck down dead. He had good, noble intentions, but he sinned and was killed for his good act.
Here is a tale of an "innocent" man, killed for doing a selfless-good thing.
Don't forget the stories of Sodom and Gommorah. An entire city destroyed by the wrath of God. (Drawing a brain fart here with names- so please forgive me) The one good family in the city was sent away and told not to look back. The man's wife glanced back and was turned to a pillar of salt. She was undeniably good, as that is the only way she was allowed to leave the city. God's commands are law and she disobeyed his law (thereby she could be Chaotic) and was struck down for it. She was not struck down for being evil.
I definitely believe that ONLY Neutral Good Celestials would be averse to punishing or killing because of ethical beliefs. A Lawful Good Celestial is fully justified in killing "innocents."
In the alignment system both moral and ethical axis are coequal and must be treated as so. Chaos is as punishable as Evil.
Krome,
Your description of lawful good reminds me of the Harmonium from planescape. Law took a greater place than good, neutral, or evil in that faction.
There was a reason the other factions called them hardheads.
Still, I can see the point of your arguemnet. Fanatics of any belief can push the boundries and commit terrible actions while still being quite kind and just in other ways. The same can be said of the representitives of those beliefs.
I know that current D&D and Pathfinder both emphasize the moral axis of alingments over the ethical axis. I often wonder why Lawful or Chaotic is even included anymore.
It does make a difference. But good stays good, just as evil stays evil. Evil will not become chaos any more than good will become order. If you're LG, you need to do both the lawful thing AND the good thing in order to stay that way. If you're LG incarnate, you have even less chance.
Celestials are the ultimate incarnations of Good, that is true. But there are different definition of what is Good. That is where you get Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic interpretations on it. A Lawful Good Celestial represents and is infused not only with Good but also Law. Law is just as important and co-equal a notion as Good. Chaos would be just as horrific and punishable as evil.
I agree that order and goodness go hand in hand for the Archon type. I also agree that chaos might be as punishable as evil.
But the punishment must be justifiable as both good and lawful.
Killing someone for minor infractions might be lawful - it might also be chaotic, mind you - but it is definetly not good.
Plus, just as celestials don't walk around and kill everyone who's a bit evil - the selfish guy - they won't walk around and kill everyone who's a bit chaotic.
If a Lawful Good Celestial would be expected to punish or slay an evil being, then by the same token he should be expected to punish or slay lawbreakers.
They're not expected to kill every evildoer they ever meet. In fact, as long as they don't break laws, it would actually be quite chaotic to do so. So other celestials would have to hunt them down.
In Judeo/Christian beliefs "the wages of sin is death."
Note that D&D doesn't subscribe to that .
And it is important to note there is no misdemeanor or felony sins. Failure to keep a ritual, lying, stealing and murder are all equal sins in the eyes of God. Pretty darn harsh. But that is Lawful Good.
No, it's not. It's Lawful. Not Lawful good. That guy Jesus did good work in that regard: He showed that sins can be forgiven. The part with the stone was particularly good.
Remember the story of the Ark of the Covenent? It could only be touched by priests. Anyone else who touched it would be killed for it was a sin for anyone else to touch it. While it was being transported the wagon it was on tilted and it nearly fell to the ground. A commoner (non-priest) grabbed the Ark to save it and he was struck down dead. He had good, noble intentions, but he sinned and was killed for his good act.Here is a tale of an "innocent" man, killed for doing a selfless-good thing.
Yeah. Pretty hard. Definetly not LG.
Celetsials aren't just about gumballs, rainbows, unicorns, and butterflies. If they were, they would have undoubtedly been wiped out long ago.
They aren't devils and demons, either.
They won't go around and do things a paladin would instantly lose his powers for. And I'd say that celestials are held to higher standards still.
|
|
quoting stuff from me and I would be quoting stuff from him but I am too lazy to do all that stuff ;)
I agree LG Celestials would not go about killing for a minor infraction of the law. That was just sort of used as extreme examples really. :)
And true D&D does not necessarily embrace the wages of sin is death, but they certainly do not disregard it either. It is sort of the backbone to allow adventurers to invade a goblin tribes lair and kill wantonly and without remorse.
The examples I used were to illustrate how LG can justify extreme judgments in certain cases. I certainly would not have LG Celestials kill a PC cause he spat on the sidewalk (that is what irate store owners, who lost their eye to an orc spitting, are for).
In the movie Constantine, Gabriel essentially becomes a fallen angel by helping a fiend try to conquer the world. However, the justification, though a little twisted, could be modified to non-psycho reasoning. In a non-Christian religion, in fact the logic can become quite solid.
The other thing to remember about D&D is that killing is not necessarily evil, either. Killing seems to fall into the Neutral moral category, used for Good or Evil. It sort of all falls upon justification I suppose, the reason for the killing is more important than the act itself.
For example I will refer you over to a thread on a playtest of PRPG in the Temple of Elemental Evil. Read it if for nothing else it is a great read and lots of fun.
The players run into brigands- not in the act of committing an evil deed, an Ogre rummaging through its stuff, and warriors defending their base from intrusion by bloodthirsty invaders (the PCs). And yet the PCs fight and slaughter most these characters. Surely the PCs must be evil to invade someone else's property and kill the people who were defending it, and some occupants who were just looking at their stuff (PCs have no idea how the Ogre came about owning the stuff). But in fact the PCs are Good. What they have done is considered Good in D&D (in the real world they would have been slapped in jail for life and branded murderers).
If what the PCs have done can be considered Good, then those same kinds of deeds applied on Celestial terms and by "perfect" standards can also be deemed Good.
The D&D definitions of Good and Evil don't exactly fit with our own real world definitions of Good and Evil.
There are two Axis of conflict in the game, Good vs Evil, which is the most common one played up these days, but also Law vs Chaos, which was the original axis of conflict in D&D, and historicly pantheons were more about Law vs Chaos than they were Good vs Evil.
"Law vs Chaos", as far as remotely playable characters were concerned, never was anything more than stand-in for "Good vs Evil". Neither in books, that inspired inclusion of these forces in DnD, nor in DnD itself. I also don't remember it being the original axis of conflict in DnD. Original modules by Gigax were pretty much about the party killing evil creatures and taking their stuff. Law-Chaos axis was actual only for PCs and friendly NPCs, not for monsters.
|
Whether we all perfectly like it or not, the 'always good' thing seems to outweigh the law/chaos divide. While the Demon Lords, Daemon Horsemen and Archdevils all have their seperate little cliques, the 'Empyreals' represent all four celestial races, some of which are always Lawful Good, but others of which are not. Good apparently 'plays better with others' than Evil, and the grouping of the planes has always been a 'top-down' affair, rather than a left-right division based on the Law/Chaos divide (although Eberron through that into a loop, with planes that had both angels and demons as native outsiders).
If a game-setting had more of a focus on a Law/Chaos divide (either in addition to or in place of the current Good/Evil divide), I'd expect to see grand alliances of demons, slaadi and bralani throwing themselves against the lockstep tyrannical armies of uncaring Order, while the devils, archons and inevitables/formians/modrons marched in precise formations to hold the rampaging tides of savage Anarchy at bay.
While that could be a neat thing to see, it's not any iteration of the game I've seen, and so the idea of Angels going all Judge Dredd, enforcing Law (especially *mortal laws!*) over Good, doesn't fit as well here.
I'd expect to see grand alliances of demons, slaadi and bralani throwing themselves against the lockstep tyrannical armies of uncaring Order, while the devils, archons and inevitables/formians/modrons marched in precise formations to hold the rampaging tides of savage Anarchy at bay.
The Abyss and the Maelstrom are much more active within Golarion's cosmology as forces intent on promoting their cosmological perspective of letting the world burn or returning the cosmos to a state of instability and perfect freedom. So such alliances, while not grand in the sense you might think, aren't inconceivable. But they're also not monolithic along L/C lines either, because the G/E axis is equally important in such affairs.
The cooperation of Saranrae (NG) with Asmodeus (LE) to imprison Rovagug (CE) I think stands as a prior example of what you might see among planar relations. I'm also rather fond of proteans with a burning hatred of the 9 Hells. ;)
I also tend to (try) to view each outsider race's perspective on mixed alignments as such: archons for instance may be entirely incapable of truly seeing a difference between Law and Good, they're both inseperable parts of the same concept, and they're mostly unable to seperate them into two different methods of action. Promoting one will lead to them promoting the other as a result, they can't go all merciless law and neglect an entire half of their metaphysical nature for instance.
Same with devils and L and E, or azata with C and G, etc.
|
The cooperation of Saranrae (NG) with Asmodeus (LE) to imprison Rovagug (CE) I think stands as a prior example of what you might see among planar relations.
Yes, Weaklings dragging down the Strong through clinging force of numbers is typical amongst the soft and mewling so-called 'Gods' of the Great Beyond. No single 'God' could imprison the Rough Beast; no single 'God' could even harm the glorious Lord of Destruction. It took all of the planar leadership to distract Rovagug long enough that the Great Betrayer and the Sky-B$#~% could push Him into His cell. And even now, He stirs! The prison crumbles and the Rough Beast awakens. Tremble as He crawls forth from the Pit to finish the glorious task He began! Shout your praises as this flawed world burns in the last true Holocaust of Freedom!
ROVAGUG FHTAGN!
In the movie Constantine, Gabriel essentially becomes a fallen angel by helping a fiend try to conquer the world.
Yeah. Notice the "fallen" part. Remember the scene where he cries out "father?" before being swept away by hellish powers, no longer protected by the grace of God.
However, the justification, though a little twisted, could be modified to non-psycho reasoning. In a non-Christian religion, in fact the logic can become quite solid.
Not a Good-aligned religion, though.
The other thing to remember about D&D is that killing is not necessarily evil, either. Killing seems to fall into the Neutral moral category, used for Good or Evil. It sort of all falls upon justification I suppose, the reason for the killing is more important than the act itself.
The reason is important, and also the one who is killed. Killing a good person will better have a great justification. "he isn't lawful" won't cut it.
|
|
There are two Axis of conflict in the game, Good vs Evil, which is the most common one played up these days, but also Law vs Chaos, which was the original axis of conflict in D&D, and historicly pantheons were more about Law vs Chaos than they were Good vs Evil."Law vs Chaos", as far as remotely playable characters were concerned, never was anything more than stand-in for "Good vs Evil". Neither in books, that inspired inclusion of these forces in DnD, nor in DnD itself. I also don't remember it being the original axis of conflict in DnD. Original modules by Gigax were pretty much about the party killing evil creatures and taking their stuff. Law-Chaos axis was actual only for PCs and friendly NPCs, not for monsters.
In the earliest Basic D&D books there were three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. Good and Evil did not come into play until AD&D came out.
Actually nearly all old myths deal with law vs chaos. The Greek and Norse Myths are almost exclusively law vs chaos. There is hardly any good vs evil in them. The Old testament stories can be seen as law vs chaos and only in the New Testament did good vs evil appear. Think about it for a bit and read some old myths and bible stories...
The Mystara setting didn't have Good or Evil at all until it was converted for AD&D, and then, I believe it was an option.
|
|
The cooperation of Saranrae (NG) with Asmodeus (LE) to imprison Rovagug (CE) I think stands as a prior example of what you might see among planar relations.Yes, Weaklings dragging down the Strong through clinging force of numbers is typical amongst the soft and mewling so-called 'Gods' of the Great Beyond. No single 'God' could imprison the Rough Beast; no single 'God' could even harm the glorious Lord of Destruction. It took all of the planar leadership to distract Rovagug long enough that the Great Betrayer and the Sky-b~!~! could push Him into His cell. And even now, He stirs! The prison crumbles and the Rough Beast awakens. Tremble as He crawls forth from the Pit to finish the glorious task He began! Shout your praises as this flawed world burns in the last true Holocaust of Freedom!
ROVAGUG FHTAGN!
this reminds me of Gnosticism with the whole idea that the world is flawed and created by a flawed deity with Archons set against mortals to keep them imprisoned in their illusory reality... ahhhhh here is an interesting way to play Golarion...
BTW many Gnostics (like there are THAT many of them) consider the Abrahamic God to be the Demiurge, a flawed creator who works against the will of the true unknowable god and is therefore evil. It is amazingly interesting to me that a religion exists that references the same Bible and sees that same god as evil. Some even venerate Cain, the first murderer, as a way to Gnosis...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I'm also rather fond of proteans with a burning hatred of the 9 Hells. ;)
Now that's a Xanxost shout out if I ever heard one...
Law vs. Chaos is certainly in the Lore of Old D&D... The Queen of Chaos and the Wind Dukes of Aqaa was all about LvC. Not to mention that the Melnibonean heroes and gods like Elric, Stormbringer, and Count Arioch were in the original Deities & Demigods. No bigger proponent of Order and Chaos than Moorecock!
--Vrock'em Sock'em Robots
|
|
However, the justification, though a little twisted, could be modified to non-psycho reasoning. In a non-Christian religion, in fact the logic can become quite solid.Not a Good-aligned religion, though.
Certainly it could be a good religion. If Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be considered evil religions by some, then certainly such a religion can exist.
Remember good does not equal law, and evil does not equal chaos. In a truly Lawful Good society, the saying from Star Trek, "The good of the many out weigh the need of the few, or the one." Or something along those lines. Sacrificing one or a few for the good of the many is perfectly acceptable.
A Chaotic Good society replies back "The good of the one out weighs the need of the many." (or however it went) becomes the motto. In such a society the idea of sacrificing even one person for the greater good is anathema.
A Neutral Good society would likely reply back with something like, "One would sacrifice himself for the good of the many." Essentially saying the society would never sacrifice someone, but that person should be willing to make the sacrifice if necessary.
It still seems logical to me that a LG celestial would be willing to sacrifice some barbarians for the sake and good of the society as a whole. And since the reason behind killing is what makes the difference as said above, then this is still a good thing. Otherwise, killing in general, no matter the reason, is evil, and all PCs are evil.
Also, consider the fiends. The primary "War" between fiends is between law and chaos. It's not evil vs evil, it is law vs chaos, demons vs devils. If it were simply evil vs evil, then there would be no distinction of devil vs demon. It would be demon vs demon vs devil vs devil vs demon vs devil... a free for all.
Would the celestials go to such an extreme and have a law vs chaos war... probably not, not a full fledged war. Would they work against each other in subtle means? most definitely.
It still seems logical to me that a LG celestial would be willing to sacrifice some barbarians for the sake and good of the society as a whole.
I agree that a LG celestial could sacrifice an innocent group for the sake of a larger "good" goal. But they would probably cry while doing it, maybe spend a century or two doing penance and feeling bad about it. Then they would do it again, if necessary.
Supernatural is doing a neat pop culture take on angels that is different than we're used to seeing. Much more Old Testament feel.
In the earliest Basic D&D books there were three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. Good and Evil did not come into play until AD&D came out.
Temple of Evil Chaos, from, I believe, the second D&D adventure ever printed, says all you need to know about what "Chaos" meant or Evil's role in DnD. Given, that Law vs Chaos conflict in DnD was directly lifted from Moorecock's books, where "Chaos" was, for all intents and purposes, just a more pretentious way to write "Evil", this is not surprising. Alignments were such because PCs were automatically assumed to be on the side of playable races opposed by monsters, aka Evil vs. Good, in practical. If you fight things that want to kill/eat/enslave your race and cannot be persuaded otherwise, you fight evil by any sensible definition of the word.
Actually nearly all old myths deal with law vs chaos.
Old myths deal with us vs them.
The Greek and Norse Myths are almost exclusively law vs chaos.
Wrong. If only because law and chaos as they apply to DnD are flimsy intellectual constructs that lost most meaning as soon as they stopped be sustitutes for good and evil. Their associated qualities aren't even mutualy exclusive in 3E (don't remember about older editions)
There is hardly any good vs evil in them.
Read them again. Particularly parts about monster-slaying heroes. Then see above.
|
|
Actually nearly all old myths deal with law vs chaos.Old myths deal with us vs them.
Depends on which myths you are referring to. Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian myth all started with a primordial chaos, from which order came. Figures like Tiamat, Typhon and Apep were all seen as creatures of that chaos that wanted to drag the universe back into chaos and darkness. (The Bible also starts out with a formeless expanse, with God dividing the earth from the sea, darkness from light, etc. and imposing order upon the chaos. Similar creation stories can be seen in Japanese and Hindu beliefs.)
The Egyptians, with the concept of Maat, and Babylonians, with the battles between Tiamat, the primordial chaos, and Marduk, the god of cities and civilization, are *very much* the sort of thing that Krome was talking about. The Titans vs. Gods battles of ancient Greek myth also dealt more peripherally with this sort of concept.
There is hardly any good vs evil in them.Read them again. Particularly parts about monster-slaying heroes. Then see above.
Being rude and dismissive is annoying when someone is right. When someone is blatantly wrong? It's just comical.
Read them again yourself. Many of the Greek heroes were nasty pieces of work, killing family and friends, and even random passersby that they didn't like (or who got in their way) in between coming up with spectacular methods of butchering their enemies (and their families, and sometimes their *cities*). Many Greek 'monsters' were people who had pissed off one of the *extremely* petty and vicious gods, and been turned into monsters.
The monster-slaying 'hero' who killed Medusa? Used her head to kill off an entire court full of people whose only crime was being in the same room as the king he *wanted* to kill.
It's all too common for modern audiences to think of things in black and white, and forget that 'good-guy' god Zeus was a serial rapist, and shining sun-god Apollo murdered anyone who performed a healing miracle that he could not, and Athena 'the wise' turned people she didn't like into spiders. Loki? The source of many of the wondrous items and servant-creatures of the Norse pantheon (Odin's spear and horse, for instance, come from his efforts). Odin, Thor's grey-beared old dad? A malicious prankster who would assume human form and pretend to be an old hermit, smiting people dead who treated him disrespectfully. A man who ripped his own eyeball out for power.
Judging ancient figures of myth by modern standards of 'good' or 'evil' is kinda pointless. They weren't worshipped by people who had the faintest notion of those more modern concepts.
But the battle between primordial chaos and the gods of the cities, order and civilization? Yeah, those exist in figures like Tiamat and Marduk, Apep and Set, etc.
Actually nearly all old myths deal with law vs chaos. The Greek and Norse Myths are almost exclusively law vs chaos. There is hardly any good vs evil in them. The Old testament stories can be seen as law vs chaos and only in the New Testament did good vs evil appear. Think about it for a bit and read some old myths and bible stories...
Well, if I had to choose a holy book out of the big ones, I'd choose the Christian Bible. But that's just for my personal life. For D&D, I prefer keeping them all out.
Remember good does not equal law, and evil does not equal chaos.
I know. But order does not exclude good, and chaos does not exclude evil.
In a truly Lawful Good society, the saying from Star Trek, "The good of the many out weigh the need of the few, or the one." Or something along those lines. Sacrificing one or a few for the good of the many is perfectly acceptable.
I think that's more LN. LG would first test whether it's necessary.
It still seems logical to me that a LG celestial would be willing to sacrifice some barbarians for the sake and good of the society as a whole.
Will that save lives? Because there are less free spirits around, some people will not die? Don't think so, either.
LG will gladly take away rights to save lives, and might take lives to save lives, but it won't take away lives to save rights.
Also, consider the fiends. The primary "War" between fiends is between law and chaos. It's not evil vs evil, it is law vs chaos, demons vs devils.
It's not law vs chaos. It's LE vs CE.
Face it: alignment in D&d is composed of two components. You can be neutral on either axis, or both, but if you're not, you don't get to ignore one component to fulfill the tenets of the other.
A LG outsider's actions have to be both lawful and good. Not just one. That would be NG, or LN.
Depends on which myths you are referring to. Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian myth all started with a primordial chaos, from which order came. Figures like Tiamat, Typhon and Apep were all seen as creatures of that chaos that wanted to drag the universe back into chaos and darkness.
No. They were seen as incarnation of "them". I.e. of things that want to kill "us" or our protector gods just because or due to some old enmity. With causes of conflict more often than not being completely unrelated to creation myths.
The Egyptians, with the concept of Maat,
Except Maat also (and more importantly) was the representation of Good as the Egyptians understood it. Granted, that was quite lawful good, and she represented physical laws, alongside with moral laws. But saying that she is pure Law or that Law, in DnD sense, is more important to her image than Good, in DnD sense? Ridiculous.
and Babylonians, with the battles between Tiamat, the primordial chaos, and Marduk, the god of cities and civilization
Too bad, that these battles were invented mostly to show how much ass Marduk, the patron god of Babylon, kicked, in comparison to gods of subjugated cities. Also; the first historical example of law vs chaos conflict being good vs evil conflict in disguise :). (I know, that Marduk wasn't terribly nice, but for authors being "their" god apparently was enough to qualify him as a "good guy" :))
Read them again yourself. Many of the Greek heroes were nasty pieces of work, killing family and friends, and even random passersby that they didn't like (or who got in their way)
The only one who killed his family and friends, without being very thoroughly condemned for that (yeah, Greek myths did pass moral judgements left and right, even if they look hypocritical, considering how gods themselves behaved), was Hercules, and his excuse was a bout of insanity directly caused by a hateful goddess (when sane he was a comparatively nice guy). Well, of course there were major dicks among the rest, but nowhere near that extent.
It's all too common for modern audiences to think of things in black and white, and forget that 'good-guy' god Zeus was a serial rapist, and and forget that 'good-guy' god Zeus was a serial rapist, and shining sun-god Apollo murdered anyone who performed a healing miracle that he could not, and Athena 'the wise' turned people she didn't like into spiders.
Well, thinking in black and white is what you do right here. Anyway, how Greek gods being gigantic bastards from our viewpoint (and, probably, chaotic/neutral evil in DnD system) plants them on the "law" side of a conflict between law and chaos? Did you forget what exactly I'm arguing against?
The source of many of the wondrous items and servant-creatures of the Norse pantheon (Odin's spear and horse, for instance, come from his efforts).
And murderer (and he did it for lulz).
Odin, Thor's grey-beared old dad? A malicious prankster who would assume human form and pretend to be an old hermit, smiting people dead who treated him disrespectfully.
Uh, and you complain about modernized black-and-white thinking? I belive, that from authors' viewpoint this was a moral lesson, not a prank.
Judging ancient figures of myth by modern standards of 'good' or 'evil' is kinda pointless. They weren't worshipped by people who had the faintest notion of those more modern concepts.
They had. See above. Except their definitions of good and evil were different and, usually, way more lax and more forgiving to one of "us", than ours. But, anyway, how judging these figures by standards of 'law' and 'chaos' which are much more modern and, also, ill-defined and artificial is any more sensible?
But the battle between primordial chaos and the gods of the cities, order and civilization? Yeah, those exist in figures like Tiamat and Marduk, Apep and Set, etc.
Except not. Tiamat and Marduk, see above. Set, after his demonization, was evil first and foremost (by practically any definition) and represented evil. Apep was a bestial personification of all that was evil, which included chaos and accompanied destruction (it is not accidental, that chaos always serves as a stand-in for evil or "even worse evil" whenever law and chaos are used as sides in the conflict instead of good and evil :). His opponent, Maat embodied a moral code according to which souls of the dead were judged.
|
Krome wrote:
In Judeo/Christian beliefs "the wages of sin is death."
Note that D&D doesn't subscribe to that .
That is how the D&D alignment system was written.
Attempts have been made to reinterpet it otherwise. They have inevitably led to confusion and degradation of the alignment system, and the related outer planar structure.
|
|
In the earliest Basic D&D books there were three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. Good and Evil did not come into play until AD&D came out.Temple of Evil Chaos, from, I believe, the second D&D adventure ever printed, says all you need to know about what "Chaos" meant or Evil's role in DnD. Given, that Law vs Chaos conflict in DnD was directly lifted from Moorecock's books, where "Chaos" was, for all intents and purposes, just a more pretentious way to write "Evil", this is not surprising. Alignments were such because PCs were automatically assumed to be on the side of playable races opposed by monsters, aka Evil vs. Good, in practical. If you fight things that want to kill/eat/enslave your race and cannot be persuaded otherwise, you fight evil by any sensible definition of the word.
Actually nearly all old myths deal with law vs chaos.Old myths deal with us vs them.
The Greek and Norse Myths are almost exclusively law vs chaos.Wrong. If only because law and chaos as they apply to DnD are flimsy intellectual constructs that lost most meaning as soon as they stopped be sustitutes for good and evil. Their associated qualities aren't even mutualy exclusive in 3E (don't remember about older editions)
There is hardly any good vs evil in them.Read them again. Particularly parts about monster-slaying heroes. Then see above.
Set was not an evil god in the Egyptian religion. In no way shape or fashion could that be argued. Yet in D&D he is regarded as Evil. The reason he was not evil is because he represented the Desert, storms, and aggressiveness. A whole line of Pharaohs are named after him- the Setis. His religion lost to the cults of Horus and Osiris. But there was at least one Pharaoh that claimed not to be the embodiment of Horus, but of Set.
Odin was a god of Law, not good. His staff was engraved with the contracts he had made. Zeus was a god of law, rulership, and the sky. Both of these gods did things that were not Good by any stretch of the imagination. The Greek Gods frequently fought one another's heroes, or destroyed cities.
Even Hades was a god of Law and not evil. He was compassionate enough to allow one of his deceased to leave with her husband, as long as he did not look back. He looked back and she was lost to him.
The Jewish God struck people down for minor disobediences. Someone looks over their shoulder at a city being destroyed and is struck dead. A commoner touches the Ark of the Covenant to save it and is struck dead. Does anyone claim these are acts of Goodness? Or were they acts of Law?
Sorry, but read those stories again. There is no way they are good vs evil. I would like to hear how you defend that killing innocent people with good intentions is good.
|
|
The Egyptians, with the concept of Maat,Except Maat also (and more importantly) was the representation of Good as the Egyptians understood it. Granted, that was quite lawful good, and she represented physical laws, alongside with moral laws. But saying that she is pure Law or that Law, in DnD sense, is more important to her image than Good, in DnD sense? Ridiculous.
Absolutely not. Maat was Balance.
from Wikipedia
Maat or Mayet, thought to have been pronounced as *Muʔʕat (Muh-aht),[1] was the Ancient Egyptian concept of truth, balance, order— law, morality, and justice– sometimes personified as a goddess.[3][4] Ma'at was seen as being in charge with regulating the stars, seasons, and the actions of both mortals and the deities, [5] after she had set the order of the universe from chaos at the moment of creation.
She does judge morality, but her overall emphasis is once again Law.
and someone said the stories were not law vs chaos but us vs them. Which is true- Them=chaos & Us=Law and Order
That is why the word for foreigner in Latin is Barber from which we get Barbarian. Foreigner = choas.
The Jewish God struck people down for minor disobediences. Someone looks over their shoulder at a city being destroyed and is struck dead. A commoner touches the Ark of the Covenant to save it and is struck dead. Does anyone claim these are acts of Goodness? Or were they acts of Law?
They were acts of Law. Not necessarily lawful in the way D&D defines it. But the Old Testament God was very much about obedience.
The Old Testament God could also lose (his) temper, be quite blunt, swear, and was very earthy. The ancient Jewish people were also very earthy.
But you won't see the swearing unless you can translate directly from Hebrew. Going from Greek to English it gets filtered out.
|
|
Odin, Thor's grey-beared old dad? A malicious prankster who would assume human form and pretend to be an old hermit, smiting people dead who treated him disrespectfully.
Uh, and you complain about modernized black-and-white thinking? I belive, that from authors' viewpoint this was a moral lesson, not a prank.apparently was enough to qualify him as a "good guy" :))
So if I interpret this correctly (I may be off here) it is good to kill someone who treats you with disrespect. So what does one have to do to be evil?
However in D&D that would not be evil... here in lies the rub... real modern morals vs fantasy morals.
Fact is in D&D terms, killing is NOT evil. Killing a sentient being is not evil. Going into a village and killing most everyone there and looting the place of all valuables is not evil.
Remember Burnt Offerings? The PCs mount an attack on a goblin village, attacking women and children there.
So let's assume for a minute that a LG celestial who does not wish to kill the blasphemous barbarians is debating what should be done.
"Their free spirited ways are ruining the world, leading to degradation of society everywhere. They must be stopped from destroying civilization.
"What options are left? I suppose I could entrap them and imprison them for their remaining lives until they all die out. Essentially condemning them to a lifetime of captivity and punishment. I can descend and beat them with my Lawful whip, ripping their flesh over and over again as punishment for the error of their ways, until they understand their treacherous freedoms will lead to the destruction of the world by plummeting it into the depths of chaos and eventual destruction and death and ruin.
"Or, those few who threaten millions might be sacrificed for the greater good a brief moment of pain and elevating their souls for the inevitable judgment of the gods. But I am Good, I cannot kill them. Nor can I stand idly and allow them to destroy millions. Sometimes sacrifices must be made. Can I sacrifice myself to do the right thing for the millions of innocent lives? For the greater good of the world, must I sacrifice myself and these blasphemers?"
|
|
The Jewish God struck people down for minor disobediences. Someone looks over their shoulder at a city being destroyed and is struck dead. A commoner touches the Ark of the Covenant to save it and is struck dead. Does anyone claim these are acts of Goodness? Or were they acts of Law?They were acts of Law. Not necessarily lawful in the way D&D defines it. But the Old Testament God was very much about obedience.
The Old Testament God could also lose (his) temper, be quite blunt, swear, and was very earthy. The ancient Jewish people were also very earthy.
But you won't see the swearing unless you can translate directly from Hebrew. Going from Greek to English it gets filtered out.
Such as Deborah (forgive me if I get the wrong woman) Who was obedient and faithful to her mother-in-law and her new faith. She was sent to her cousin (uncle?) to uncover his feet... which was a euphanism for penis. She was sent to seduce him. And I believe it was her again (perhaps not- without looking them up I get names mixed up) that acted as a prostitute and conceived a son. The founding fathers of Judaism frequently enjoyed the company of prostitutes. But they forbid Temple Prostitutes which were sinful.
You are right these were acts of Law and obedience. It was not about Good. Which was my point.
You know, the Abrahamic God, is considered by many Gnostics to be the Demiurge, the flawed and disobedient (and yes, evil) creator of the world who seeks to entrap mortals in this illusion of reality. *I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS- SO DO NOT EVEN TRY TO GO THERE*
law vs chaos...
|
|
Absolutely not. Maat was Balance.
. . .
Indeed.
What you have there is the confusion of "Good" the alignment" with "good" the conformity with social norms.In the Abyss, betraying your closest friend (up to that point) is a a good and proper thing in its cultural context.
This is the error of the moral relativists, confusing conformity with societal norms with overarching morality.
Note, this also applies to the Law-Chaos axis.
In the Abyss, making alliances only to break them is, however perverse, in accordance with the "laws" of the Abyss. Keeping an alliance would be "socially antagonistic", aka "chaotic".
Conversely in Hell, making an alliance only to subvert it is "lawful", despite the open acknowledgement that the alliance is made solely with the intent to subvert it. Failing to make alliances because you cannot bring yourself to subvert them becomes "chaotic". This naturally contrasts with the equally Lawful Seven Heavens, where making an alliance you expect to subvert is "chaotic" and refusing to make promises you know you cannot keep is "lawful", no matter how "appropriate" it would be to make that alliance.
The alignments remain static. The expressions vary, and the terms used to define those expressions vary among the different groups. Neither changes the static nature of the alignments one bit.
|
|
Since morals (and ethics) are entirely a human invention, and differ by culture and period in history, moral relativism is merely an acknowledgement of the futility of moral absolutism.
After all, if there was such a thing as 'absolute' always-evil, then there would logically have to be such a thing as 'absolute' always-good. We can quibble and argue about whether or not cannibalism is *always* evil, but can even the most strenuously ardent supporter of the 'always evil' argument posit a single act that is *always* good?
Is charity always good, even if the generosity comes from a desire to be seen and lauded as 'charitable' because it's the latest fad to be seen on the 'top giver' list?
Is love always good, even if it ends in a stalker terrorizing and eventually murdering someone who doesn't return their affection?
Is hope always good, even when it's the hope of a desperate person who uses the money that they were supposed to use to pay their mortgage or buy groceries for their kids with on a batch of lottery tickets, all on a 'hope' for a better life?
Is faith always good, even when it's the faith of someone who waits outside of a reproductive services clinic to plant a bullets in the skull of the nurse leaving after a day's volunteer work?
'All things in moderation,' the cliche goes.
Things commonly called 'bad,' or 'negative emotions' like anger, hate, fear, lust and pride, are valuable and important things. There are things in this world that *should* make a person angry. There are actions and events that one *should* hate, and want to take action to oppose, prevent or correct. There are absolutely things that *should* be feared and avoided. Without lust, we'd be extinct. Without pride, we'd have no innovators, no champions, no heroes, nobody willing to say, 'I know that everyone is supposed to do X, but I'm gonna do Y!'
'Bad' things can be not only good, but necessary. A man without fear is a man without common sense. A man without pride is a selfless automaton. I man without anger will stand by and watch his family threatened, too timid or passive to take action.
'Good' things can also be bad, if taken to extremes. Love can be bad, for both parties, even if it *is* requited. Hope can bind someone's arms and leave them unwilling to take action, waiting for a 'ship to come in,' while their lives wither on the vine. There are so many examples of faith leading to atrocity that this post could go on forever.
Moral relativism may sound like some wishy-washy two-faced politically-correct weasel-word term, but it's, like most true things, just terribly unpopular, because it *doesn't make us humans look good.*
Black and white morality is easy. And, like most easy choices, it's a trap. It reduces other people's complex decisions down to numbers, and any philosophy that reduces people to numbers is, IMO, soulless.
|
|
Since morals (and ethics) are entirely a human invention, and differ by culture and period in history, moral relativism is merely an acknowledgement of the futility of moral absolutism.
No, it is an abdication of moral responsibility; a refusal to judge for fear of being held accountable.
Again you are confusing the moral absolutism integral to a culture with the moral absolutism that transcends cultural boundaries. Just because a culture, or a particular individual, is incapable of the leap to grant the same privileges of personal supremacy, and the consequent "immunity" to being transgressed against to others in no way means that such a presumption of privilege does not exist, and would not in fact transcend personal and cultural boundaries.
Everyone is capable of "Thou shalt not murder me". It is a sign of personal and cultural maturity when that becomes "Thou shalt not murder others of the community", and a sign of transcendence when it becomes "Thou shalt not murder those outside the community".
Since morals (and ethics) are entirely a human invention, and differ by culture and period in history, moral relativism is merely an acknowledgement of the futility of moral absolutism.
Morals and ethics are not the same thing. Morals are customs and specific to individual cultures. Ethics are a system of evaluation of "good" vs. "evil" that have nothing to do with individual societies or customs. The STUDY of ethics is a human invention, like the study of physics, but the concept of ethics goes beyond the existence of humanity.
After all, if there was such a thing as 'absolute' always-evil, then there would logically have to be such a thing as 'absolute' always-good.
This does not follow. For example, there exists the concept of absolute zero (zero degrees Kelvin). Does that mean there must be an "absolute infinity," some measurable "equal but opposite" of zero? Of course not. We acknowledge the existence of absolute zero and then degrees of separation from absolute zero. In ethical terms, we can acknowledge that some actions are evil, regardless of when or where those actions are performed and all other actions exist on a continuum that is "less-evil" than those. Perhaps there is such a thing as "absolute good," but it does not follow from the existence of evil that there must be such a thing.
We can quibble and argue about whether or not cannibalism is *always* evil, but can even the most strenuously ardent supporter of the 'always evil' argument posit a single act that is *always* good?
Is charity always good, even if the generosity comes from a desire to be seen and lauded as 'charitable' because it's the latest fad to be seen on the 'top giver' list?
Is love always good, even if it ends in a stalker terrorizing and eventually murdering someone who doesn't return their affection?
Is hope always good, even when it's the hope of a desperate person who uses the money that they were supposed to use to pay their mortgage or buy groceries for their kids with on a batch of lottery tickets, all on a 'hope' for a better life?
Is faith always good, even when it's the faith of someone who waits outside of a reproductive services clinic to plant a bullets in the skull of the nurse leaving after a day's volunteer work?
I think we could seriously debate whether these are truly examples of charity, love, hope, or faith.
'All things in moderation,' the cliche goes.
Moderation does not equal relativism.
Things commonly called 'bad,' or 'negative emotions' like anger, hate, fear, lust and pride, are valuable and important things. There are things in this world that *should* make a person angry. There are actions and events that one *should* hate, and want to take action to oppose, prevent or correct. There are absolutely things that *should* be feared and avoided. Without lust, we'd be extinct. Without pride, we'd have no innovators, no champions, no heroes, nobody willing to say, 'I know that everyone is supposed to do X, but I'm gonna do Y!'
Be careful not to assume that the (culturally specific) teachings of a particular religion (or religions) is the basis of one's definition of "evil." It may be true that anger, hate, fear, lust, and pride, for example, are not "evil," (even though Christianity suggests that some of them are sins) but that does not rule out the possibility that evil still exists in a non-culturally relative way. That is, murder may still be evil, even though righteous anger might not be.
O
Sorry, but read those stories again. There is no way they are good vs evil.
Since those considerations lacked the moral component (good versus evil), we cannot use them to describe D&D gods, especially not if we're talking about D&D gods that don't ignore the moral axis.
A god that strikes down people for minor infractions might be very lawful in the D&D sense, but not good at all.
I would like to hear how you defend that killing innocent people with good intentions is good.
Wait, weren't you arguing that this should be possible? LG angels killing CG people just because they upset order and all that?
and someone said the stories were not law vs chaos but us vs them. Which is true- Them=chaos & Us=Law and Order
Of course. They all wanted to make perfectly clear that the laws they were imposing on people were justified, that they were right. So the others were cast as the villains with their unlawful ways, so everyone gets the message that those laws we want you to follow are for your own good.
Fact is in D&D terms, killing is NOT evil.
Not inherently, no.
Going into a village and killing most everyone there and looting the place of all valuables is not evil.
Now there, we disagree. Going into a village and killing most everyone there is very probably very evil. Whether looting the place afterwards is evil or not doesn't concern me right now.
Remember Burnt Offerings? The PCs mount an attack on a goblin village, attacking women and children there.
No, they're not. They mount an attack on a goblin strongholt - in order to kill their leaders, who plan to consign a town of 1200 to the flames - and kill those leaders, and everyone who attacks them.
Now, I'll grant you that the waters become muddied at this point, since you could argue that some of those goblins only defend their home, but the justification for that isn't that hard: Those leaders must be stopped or hundreds of innocents will die; the goblins harbour those leaders, and help them - they gladly mounted the first raid! So for the greater good, those monsters must die if they get in the way. The fact that they're quite evil little buggers is in favour of the characters.
But, and this is a very big BUT:
Killing noncombatant (male or female - saying all women are helpless and none of the men are is sexist!) and minor goblins isn't part of the deal. There's certainly the possibility, but that doesn't mean it won't be an evil act if they do it. In fact, the goblin nursery is empty, but the adventure suggests that if the GM wants to raise some moral questions, he can fill it with little goblins and see what the players do about them. The adventure doesn't condone killing the young and the helpless as good acts.
So let's assume for a minute that a LG celestial who does not wish to kill the blasphemous barbarians is debating what should be done.(follows a lot of musing)
Or, he can oppose them in non-lethal ways. He's one of the good guys, and lawful good at that. He doesn't see slaughter and destruction as the only choice, not even as the first.
In fact, since you're the one who brought Constantine into this (I think it was you - if not: I'm chaotic neutral and don't care about fair): I say he would definetly let those unruly sorts live, as a test to the lawful people! He can see whether those lawful people are really lawful or just out of convenience. If the drunken ranting of some barbarian can sway them, they're not worthy of being lawful.
He will keep teaching what he things is the best way to everyone, and see who will listen to him or his own lawful heart and stay civilised, and who will stray from the path. That way, he knows who will be worthy to enter the heavenly realms of Order and Goodness, and who will be sent elsewhere after their death.
Is love always good?
Here I thought it was (almost) always evil, but with a really good PR in movies and such.
|
|
Since morals (and ethics) are entirely a human invention, and differ by culture and period in history, moral relativism is merely an acknowledgement of the futility of moral absolutism.Morals and ethics are not the same thing. Morals are customs and specific to individual cultures. Ethics are a system of evaluation of "good" vs. "evil" that have nothing to do with individual societies or customs. The STUDY of ethics is a human invention, like the study of physics, but the concept of ethics goes beyond the existence of humanity.
Uhm, evidence to back this statement up, please. Give me an example of ethics that is non-human.
Also, please note that two people from different cultures will have different ideas about ethics. I bet you and a Palestinian will have very different views on the ethics of suicide attacks, for example. To claim that ethics are outside culture cannot be true because different cultures have different ethical standards.
|
|
Uhm, evidence to back this statement up, please. Give me an example of ethics that is non-human.
First, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Second, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194023/ethics/59239/Prehuman-ethi cs
Third, Set is operating from a dodgy premise. IF morals are entirely a human invention, then moral relativism IS an acknowledgment blah blah. I don't think, particularly for purposes of discussing D&D (which, we are all discussing D&D on the D&D messageboard, RIGHT?), that is an assumption that we can make or that has been proven.
Fourth, addressing whoever's point above about acts that are always good, that stumbles into the morass of intents and results. As Aslan said, whoever does Good in the name of Tash honors Me, and whoever does Evil in My name, honors Tash. Aslan said it, so it must be true.
Fifth, why are we arguing about this? Doesn't anyone realize that alignment arguments are a trap for the unwary?
|
|
Also, please note that two people from different cultures will have different ideas about ethics. I bet you and a Palestinian will have very different views on the ethics of suicide attacks, for example. To claim that ethics are outside culture cannot be true because different cultures have different ethical standards.
Actually, Palestinians feel the same way as other people about suicide attacks directed at themselves - they reject it utterly as a horrific crime against humanity and divinity.
That they do not reject it when performed by themselves is a prime indicator of a lack of a mature morality within their culture - they have not been able to make the leap to acknowledging the individual and collective humanity in others as being identical to their own. In an individual, such behavior would properly be recognized as sociopathic.That people seek to excuse such behavior on the grounds of moral relativism is a prime indicator of their lack of a mature morality, the inability to accept responsibility for passing judgement in regards to their own morality out of fear, guilt, or similar feeling of inferiority.
So in fact to claim that ethics are outside culture can be true, despite different cultures having different degrees of ethical maturity.
How was it that Orson Scott Card phrased it in Speaker for the Dead?
Recognizing the stranger as the same as us instead of a savage beast does not reflect an achievement for the stranger, but an achievement for us. (A very loose paraphrase.)
|
|
In an individual, such behavior would properly be recognized as sociopathic.
And then there are the bombers themselves. A sociopath is someone unable to feel empathy or recognize the value of people other than themselves. A suicide bomber is someone who believes so strongly in their mission to make the world a better place for their own people that they are willing to kill themselves. Kinda the exact opposite of a sociopath, who has an unhealthy inability to recognize the values in others lives, the suicide bomber has an unhealthy inability to recognize the value of *their own life.*
Both have a different measurement of the valuation of life than polite society considers proper or healthy (for us *or* them), but they express it very differently.
A sociopath is more likely to grow up in a society that condemns their self-interest and 'live in the closet.' A suicide bomber is more likely to grow up among a people who urge them to this sort of action, profiting by convincing their sons and daughters to kill themselves in the most ghoulish fashion possible. In the end, they are just one more victim in the pile of victims they leave behind, victims of a society that taught them that their own life had no value at all, and that they could only 'earn paradise' by killing a bunch of other people with their deaths.
And there's my 'moral relatavism' moment of the day. A suicide bomber isn't necessarily evil. The people who preyed on their feelings of helplessness and worthlessness and then brought them explosives to strap to their body, the people who remain alive after the bombing, to convince yet more of their own to kill themselves are the true evil, IMO.
|
|
And then there are the bombers themselves. A sociopath is someone unable to feel empathy or recognize the value of people other than themselves. A suicide bomber is someone who believes so strongly in their mission to make the world a better place for their own people that they are willing to kill themselves. Kinda the exact opposite of a sociopath, who has an unhealthy inability to recognize the values in others lives, the suicide bomber has an unhealthy inability to recognize the value of *their own life.*
In a more normalized culture that might be a reasonable conclusion.
In a sociopathic culture it instead demonstrates a futher degree of insanity, a particular variety of martyr complex that sees recognition coming from both their culture and their expected transcendence. It is in fact just more of the same selfish, self-obsessed behavior.This is in stark contrast to self-destructive expressions in other cultures, which are almost always based on an immediate pseudo-gratification - that is, people sacrificing themselves to save others, ranging from diving on a grenade to charging a machine gun to running into a burning building to save someone.
Both have a different measurement of the valuation of life than polite society considers proper or healthy (for us *or* them), but they express it very differently.
No, one has a measure that, while often questioned by those unwilling to make the committment is ultimately derived from solid, sound, healthy principles, while the other is derived from the same unsound basis as the culture it derives from.
A sociopath is more likely to grow up in a society that condemns their self-interest and 'live in the closet.' A suicide bomber is more likely to grow up among a people who urge them to this sort of action, profiting by convincing their sons and daughters to kill themselves in the most ghoulish fashion possible. In the end, they are just one more victim in the pile of victims they leave behind, victims of a society that taught them that their own life had no value at all, and that they could only 'earn paradise' by killing a bunch of other people with their deaths.
Indeed.
A diseased culture producing diseased individuals.And there's my 'moral relatavism' moment of the day. A suicide bomber isn't necessarily evil. The people who preyed on their feelings of helplessness and worthlessness and then brought them explosives to strap to their body, the people who remain alive after the bombing, to convince yet more of their own to kill themselves are the true evil, IMO.
Wrong yet again.
They are Evil, just as their culture is Evil.What they do is in accordance with the norms of that culture, and so exclusively from that perspective is "good".
It is similar to a virus. From the perspective of the virus, it is a "good" thing to destroy a cell in the course of reproducing. From the perspective of the creature the cell is part of, it is a very "bad" thing for the virus to exist at all. A virus has no awareness beyond simple reproduction, and so concepts of Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) are not relevant to describing its functioning. A person, wich such an awareness, is subject to the greater judgements above and beyond the 'live in a closet' standards of its culture, which may not be capable of acknowledging the essential humanity of anyone not part of the culture just as a sociopath has no real appreciation for the existence of others.