Let me see, if I can break this down to some manageable chunks.
Demons have no innocents. They have no civilian population. They have no elderly or children.
No innocents you say...innocent of what exactly?
I mean if the argument is, that "every" demon is created from a sinful mortal soul, then Yes, there are no innocent demons.If the argument is, that every Demon has committed a sinful (ie Evil) act during their demonic lifespans...well, that might not be the case.
Demons have societies, that seem to have many of the features of mortal societies.
You have Major cities where you would have traders, "service industries", tradespeople, "priests and priestesses" and citizens.
It is feasible that a demon could (Yes its a tenuous could) live out the vast majority of its demonic existence without having even meet a mortal, let alone "sinned" against one.
(Actually the reasons for this seem flighty...Why do demons congregate together to form more complex societies, as its not strictly necessary for them? Is it some kind of social urge carried over from their mortal existence?...)
You have a hierarchy where strength rules supreme, still someone demonic has to be at the bottom of this hierarchy. The newly formed demons and the weakest among them might actually be scraping out a meager existence, living off the scraps of their demonic betters, without every having as much as a chance to get their claws on any mortals (or petitioners or souls for that matter).
These are just some of the considerations, in viewing demon-kind as just some blob of Evil that rampages through the planes. They are horrible beings, that would very likely corrupt, twist or outright destroy most of what they can get their claws on. They are also a " civilization" with all that entails: culture, arts and history.
(In fact they might be much more like your "average" Evil mortal humanoid species, like orcs, gnolls or bugbears)
Destroying them is a wholly good act unless you find one that's actually on the cusp of ceasing to be a demon or you're using some kind of [Evil] spell or the like to destroy them.
To put it bluntly, genocide of demons is completely and wholly different from mortal genocide.
Lest me break this down a bit further.
Destroying a demon is a wholly good act an be viewed two different way, and I'm not sure which one your are using here...
I you mean that its a good act (non-Alignment wise) for the multiverse in general, then that might be the case, in some cases. Or if its a tenet preached by a particular faith as a good act for that particular religion, then again you might be right (again there might be Alignment issues -> see the intent vs. action Alignment difficulties.
However if you mean that its a "Good" act, as in a aligned act that pushes your Alignment towards Good or even Neutral, I would disagree.
Such a view, would in my opinion (and at least partially rules-wise), create a lot of counterintuitive situations.
(Here are a few)
- That a Fiend slaying another fiend is actually being moved towards Goodness. This makes internal conflicts in the Lower Planes a strange thing where the victor would end up not being Fiends anymore? (ie they murder each other until someone shifts to Neutral and beyond).
- A variation of the above. It means that a Fiend, whos an actual soldier might in fact be closer to being "Good" alignment wise, then a demonic trader who has never set foot outside a Major Lower Plane city?
- It would create weird situations, where those Demon-lords (and Ladies) who are cannibalizing each other for power to ascend into Godhood, are in fact catapulting themselves into being Neutral or Good Goddess's or Gods?
To put it bluntly, genocide of demons is completely and wholly different from mortal genocide
This is very much up for debate, as what genocide is Alignment-wise...
In that case, you've got yourself an issue, a contradiction, even. Because if he's doing that, then he's basically scouring entire material plane worlds at a time and essentially will just go down the path of wiping out all mortal life.Eh. Change that to his SUCCESS actually having negative effects as the planes get lop-sided and you might have something.Campaign Idea: After many years of distrust from his celestial allies, Ragathiel decides that he's done playing Mr. Nice Guy and wages war on the Fiendish races with no limits on any actions his armies will take.
And it works. The invincible armies of hell lose battle after battle, demons are put on the back foot, and the daemons look like they will ironically get eradicated before mortals do. The problem is, Ragathiel's new brutally effective tactics are having negative effects on the planes around him as well. The PCs might have to make alliances with beings they don't trust to bring an end to the fallen empyreal lord's undiscriminating crusade.
Well, I imagine that campaign would start with the PC's home town annihilated by the Unfettered Crusade because one of their neighbors was a part of an infernal cult.
Only way to make sure you've got them all is a targeted meteor strike.
Well, the contradiction is entirely the point of the campaign pitch. How do you deal with an ally whose tactics are undeniably effective against a common foe, but which exact toohigh a price on innocent people?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Kjeldorn, but Demons and the Abyss don't work that way, at all. You just don't have a humble Dretch potatoe farmer minding its own business farming potatoes for all eternity. Demons have specific drives and impulses and they act on them. Demons, and Fiends altogether, fully represent their alignment.
Killing a Demon in and of itself is not a Good act, but stopping it from doing more Evil is, which as a Demon it is trying to do. That's why genociding them isn't a bad thing. They are Evil. They are literally made of Evil.
Sorry Kjeldorn, but Demons and the Abyss don't work that way, at all. You just don't have a humble Dretch potatoe farmer minding its own business farming potatoes for all eternity. Demons have specific drives and impulses and they act on them. Demons, and Fiends altogether, fully represent their alignment.
Potato farms? no probably not ^^' (then again who knows about the soil conditions of different abyssal realms...)
But Crafts-people? Merchants? Diplomats? Why not?
The demons have to get their gear from somewhere right?, as I'm guessing that they don't enter into the Lower Planes "Fully Formed" (with gear and all...)
Unless the majority of the demonic existence is taken up with punching holes in planer walls, to raid their gear from other place, such as other Lower Planes, Upper Planes or the Material Plane (wizards towers or tempels...)
Yup, Fiends are the litteral embodiment of their Alignments. They are full of impulses to further their nature. They also seem to be able to supress these, if its to their advantage. The more advanced the demon, the more they seem able to compartmentalize their need to indulge their nature, in order to accomplish a higher goal. Granted that goal often seems far far worse, then their base desires...
All that doesn't mean that they can't build cities, create art or found religions (or at least cults) though.
Killing a Demon in and of itself is not a Good act, but stopping it from doing more Evil is, which as a Demon it is trying to do. That's why genociding them isn't a bad thing. They are Evil. They are literally made of Evil.
Now this I understand. Its also mostly correct, in my opinion.
My problem with it is the genocide part. You want to clog up every single planar rift, magical gate, gate-spell or whatever with Celestials to kill any Fiend that tries to use it to escape the Lower Planes, you'll be mostly on the side of "Good".That however is the end of it. You are "stopping" Evil, your are not exterminating it. Its the burden of Good to know that important limit, and while it might be thinner the a knifes edge, it is there.
In my opinion, "Good" isn't expedient and it isn't easy. It's a long hard slog (potentially eternal...) where, you can't save everyone. However it has to attempt doing just that, saving everyone. Once you have decided that someone is beyond saving, a precedent has been set. "Good" no longer has to try, beyond this "limit" or "border".
|
|
They have cities yes, and crafters and barterers and the like, doesn't make them not be Evil.
Good does not have to save everyone. It does not have to offer redemption to everyone. Good people can do that, yes, but if you don't it doesn't make you not Good. It doesn't make you the best Good if you do do that. How many people on your side, how many innocents are you going to let be hurt, just to try to redeem one creature? Redemption is neither guaranteed, nor owed.
They have cities yes, and crafters and barterers and the like, doesn't make them not be Evil.
Nope, but it does make them a civilization, which make exterminating them having a quite different connotation, then say exterminating black puddings.
Good does not have to save everyone. It does not have to offer redemption to everyone. Good people can do that, yes, but if you don't it doesn't make you not Good. It doesn't make you the best Good if you do do that.
Actually that's how I prefer things, However a strict reading of "Good" would suggest otherwise. The whole "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" doesn't really scream "and if you don't its genocide-time!" to me...
The general attitude also seems rather inefficient, given that killing all the Evil people, just creates a fast lane into the Lower Planes.More Evil souls-> More fiends -> more "work" for the Celestials...
(Funny story idea -> a soul, now a Celestial of some sort, remembers a particular enemy in life, and recognizes his/her enemy on a planar battlefield, where said enemy is now a Fiend of some sort...would be even better if they were estranged lovers...)
How many people on your side, how many innocents are you going to let be hurt, just to try to redeem one creature? Redemption is neither guaranteed, nor owed.
It's the general "for the greater Good" argument. A Line has to drawn somewhere, you draw it one place, I'm arguing for it to be drawn another place.
|
|
"Nope, but it does make them a civilization, which make exterminating them having a quite different connotation, then say exterminating black puddings."
No it doesn't.
Respect for life also means you respect lives that could be snuffed out by Evil.
And killing someone Evil doesn't meant they automatically turn into a Fiend that spreads more Evil. Most turn into Petitioners who suffer or simply quintessence for the Plane. So the "can't kill them cause they'll just get stronger and eviler" is a bs arguing tactic to make Redeemers even more holier than thou.
For the Greater Good is also BS, because it implies you there is a Good above others, a Good that justifies you sacrificing others because it's Gooder than other options. There is no Greater Good.
Sorry Kjeldorn, but Demons and the Abyss don't work that way, at all. You just don't have a humble Dretch potatoe farmer minding its own business farming potatoes for all eternity. Demons have specific drives and impulses and they act on them. Demons, and Fiends altogether, fully represent their alignment.
Killing a Demon in and of itself is not a Good act, but stopping it from doing more Evil is, which as a Demon it is trying to do. That's why genociding them isn't a bad thing. They are Evil. They are literally made of Evil.
So if Ragathiel decided that the most expedient option of fighting fiends was to completely annihilate evil souls on the mortal plane to prevent more fiends from spawning, is he justified in doing so?
|
|
So if Ragathiel decided that the most expedient option of fighting fiends was to completely annihilate evil souls on the mortal plane to prevent more fiends from spawning, is he justified in doing so?Sorry Kjeldorn, but Demons and the Abyss don't work that way, at all. You just don't have a humble Dretch potatoe farmer minding its own business farming potatoes for all eternity. Demons have specific drives and impulses and they act on them. Demons, and Fiends altogether, fully represent their alignment.
Killing a Demon in and of itself is not a Good act, but stopping it from doing more Evil is, which as a Demon it is trying to do. That's why genociding them isn't a bad thing. They are Evil. They are literally made of Evil.
No, people are much more malleable in their acts and alignments. Specific Evil groups, sure, wipe em out. But every single soul no matter the degree of Evil? No.
Fiends are max evil.
So if Ragathiel decided that the most expedient option of fighting fiends was to completely annihilate evil souls on the mortal plane to prevent more fiends from spawning, is he justified in doing so?Sorry Kjeldorn, but Demons and the Abyss don't work that way, at all. You just don't have a humble Dretch potatoe farmer minding its own business farming potatoes for all eternity. Demons have specific drives and impulses and they act on them. Demons, and Fiends altogether, fully represent their alignment.
Killing a Demon in and of itself is not a Good act, but stopping it from doing more Evil is, which as a Demon it is trying to do. That's why genociding them isn't a bad thing. They are Evil. They are literally made of Evil.
No, people are much more malleable in their acts and alignments. Specific Evil groups, sure, wipe em out. But every single soul no matter the degree of Evil? No.
Fiends are max evil.
In my campaign pitch, though, those would be the kind of tactics that Ragathiel is using that got him kicked out of heaven in the first place.
Is the act of destroying fiendkind once and for all, beings who exist to cause only torment and horror upon the multiverse, worth the annihilation of millions upon millions of souls who might have made a different choice? If it is, are you morally obligated to help? If it isn't, how do you respond?
Those would be the kind of questions the PCs would need to grapple with in that kind of campaign.
Killing all mortals wouldn't end fiends though. There's countless fiends, possibly more than mortals.
So I don't really get that path.
That would be only a part of Ragathiel's overall strategy. What is the overall strategy? I don't know yet, this is only a campaign pitch.
The whole point is to explore what kind of actions are justified in pursuing an undeniably good goal. What is the price you need to pay for a multiverse without fiends, and are you willing to pay it? Is it even possible for you to pay it?
"Nope, but it does make them a civilization, which make exterminating them having a quite different connotation, then say exterminating black puddings."
No it doesn't.
Why doesn't it? if civilization has no value in and of itself, what's the point of striving to protect it?
Respect for life also means you respect lives that could be snuffed out by Evil.
Oh we agree. Both have to be respected, thus a choice between the two should be an absolute last resort. (for someone who supposed to respect it...)
And killing someone Evil doesn't meant they automatically turn into a Fiend that spreads more Evil. Most turn into Petitioners who suffer or simply quintessence for the Plane. So the "can't kill them cause they'll just get stronger and eviler" is a bs arguing tactic to make Redeemers even more holier than thou.
Yup and no plane, that we know of, spontaneously generates Fiends out of the quintessence that makes up the planar matter..
I have no intent to make Redeemers holier then thou (that their job...), I'm just arguing it a valid tactic, and not choosing it says something about that particular persons "holistic" approach to solving the problem.For the Greater Good is also BS, because it implies you there is a Good above others, a Good that justifies you sacrificing others because it's Gooder than other options. There is no Greater Good.
I think you might have misunderstood a bit...I was trying to say that your argument "How many people on your side, how many innocents are you going to let be hurt, just to try to redeem one creature? Redemption is neither guaranteed, nor owed." is in essence a for the greater good argument.
As it does, in fact, suggest that there is a Good above the other. Its seems to be, "that is okay to kill Evil, because risking anything by not killing it right away would be a lesser choice?"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Why doesn't it? if civilization has no value in and of itself, what's the point of striving to protect it?"
Uh, the people who make it up determine its value.
"Yup and no plane, that we know of, spontaneously generates Fiends out of the quintessence that makes up the planar matter.."
The Abyss does that.
"I think you might have misunderstood a bit."
No, stopping Evil is Good, redeeming Evil is Good, they are both valid. One is not inherently more Good than the other.
Epic mirror of opposition? Epic helm of opposite alignment? :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kjeldorn: Just because you have a civilization or a job doesn't mean you're not Evil. Those are not mutually exclusive things. Being a craftsman doesn't preclude you from being Evil. Having cities, art, or religion doesn't preclude them from being Evil. I'm not sure what those things have to do with the discussion at hand. Civilization is not inherently a thing worth preserving. None of those things are inherently worth preserving, particularly if they are Evil.
I agree with you that destroying Evil is not by necessity a Good act, but your above-mentioned argument doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
Actually stopping Evil isn't necessarily Good for the general reason that the Lower Planes haven't shifted to Neutral because they spend a fair amount of time killing their own kind/other fiends. Context matters to some degree ("I killed the demon to take his minions and grow my power for further baby eating" vs "I killed the demon to save the village of Potatoville from its rampage").
/nitpick
The former isn't stopping Evil, it's just killing something that happens to be Evil, the latter is stopping Evil.
I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet - the idea of "stop the production of more fiends by killing all the mortals" is the actual qlippoth agenda.
Yeah, if a good god or demigod simply adopted the qlippoth agenda and started carrying it out, they'd fall.
And, honestly, the complete annihilation of the Prime Material would hurt the Outer Planes but not doom them -- I'm pretty sure every Outer Plane hosts mortal populations at this point.
There's probably billions of mortals living in Dis and the Bolgias of Hell, for example.
And while the Axiomite God-Mind probably CAN count the exact number of mortals living in Axis, I'd expect that number to be ludicrous.
Hell, there might be more mortals in Axis than in the entire Material Plane.
No, I mean you changed your mind on whether he's killing actual people unrelated to the demons. You said one thing and then later you said another thing that contradicted it.Well, the contradiction is entirely the point of the campaign pitch. How do you deal with an ally whose tactics are undeniably effective against a common foe, but which exact toohigh a price on innocent people?In that case, you've got yourself an issue, a contradiction, even. Because if he's doing that, then he's basically scouring entire material plane worlds at a time and essentially will just go down the path of wiping out all mortal life.Eh. Change that to his SUCCESS actually having negative effects as the planes get lop-sided and you might have something.Campaign Idea: After many years of distrust from his celestial allies, Ragathiel decides that he's done playing Mr. Nice Guy and wages war on the Fiendish races with no limits on any actions his armies will take.
And it works. The invincible armies of hell lose battle after battle, demons are put on the back foot, and the daemons look like they will ironically get eradicated before mortals do. The problem is, Ragathiel's new brutally effective tactics are having negative effects on the planes around him as well. The PCs might have to make alliances with beings they don't trust to bring an end to the fallen empyreal lord's undiscriminating crusade.
Well, I imagine that campaign would start with the PC's home town annihilated by the Unfettered Crusade because one of their neighbors was a part of an infernal cult.
Only way to make sure you've got them all is a targeted meteor strike.
Those people would be collateral damage. Justified as an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of the overall strategy.
Kjeldorn: Just because you have a civilization or a job doesn't mean you're not Evil. Those are not mutually exclusive things. Being a craftsman doesn't preclude you from being Evil. Having cities, art, or religion doesn't preclude them from being Evil. I'm not sure what those things have to do with the discussion at hand. Civilization is not inherently a thing worth preserving. None of those things are inherently worth preserving, particularly if they are Evil.
I agree with you that destroying Evil is not by necessity a Good act, but your above-mentioned argument doesn't make sense to me.
Having slept on in, I kind of see where your coming from. Further more my usage of civilization wasn't the best, nor necessarily fully correct as it didn't fully convey the meaning that I was intending.
Civilization is not a "Good" construct, and while its a construct that one could assign a "value" Alignment-wise, what that might be is debatable (I would lean lightly Lawful, but again its debatable)
Otherwise, Yes, I think we might be close to being on the same page. As I have pointed out before, I have not problem in stopping "Evil" with excessively violent means.
I do however, draw the line at genocide.
My reasoning (in game terms at least) is the following:
Yes, I know that may seem strange, that I okay with killing Fiends, while being opposed to exterminating them. But I view it, as the difference between killing and murder.
Murder requires a certain intentionality, Knowledge of the finality and lack of empathy and understanding with the victim, when its done, that not quite the same for killing someone on the battlefield.
That is also what genocide is, murder on the grandest scale.
Its what I call an aligned Alignment act. It follow the idea, that there are some acts that are so aligned to a particular side of the "Good" - "Neutral" - "Evil" arch, that they are by world-lore, a "Good", "Evil" or "Neutral" act in and of themselves.
I would really think that genocide is an "Evil" act (and I further think, that if that question was ever put up the game designers, that they would probably some down to the same conclusion...for a vide verity of reasons)
Does that then mean that genocide is always an "Evil" act? Well, kind of. Its a bit like some of the debates about the other decidedly "Evil" acts, like torture and rape, where any attempt to justify them very very often boils down to either an incredibly contrived set of circumstances, or some kind of utilitarian argument where it okay to cause any amount of harm, as long as the benefits gained outweighs the harm dealt.
Now I actually fine with both approaches to Alignment. Both the restricted use of aligned acts and the more utilitarian approach. What I don't like is mixing them. Either there are clearly defined aligned acts with its benefits and consequences, or there is just doing what the players want to do in order to accomplish their goals, without a kind of moral-tracker following them.
Finally, if any of my posts have come across, as this is the only right way of doing things, then that wasn't my intention.
My intention was a attempt to provide the context to Ventnor's campaign pitch.
If people don't think its accurate or that it doesn't work, well then they are free to modify it or even discount it all together.
None of that makes any sense. If you're okay with killing with them then you're okay with exterminating them.
Agree to disagree then.
I, kind of don't get most of your answers either...
Edit: Meh, that sounded a bit too aggressive...its litteral, I don't really understand where your answers are coming from, without a more detailed explanation.
I would cut off his wings and drop him from a high altitude.
|
None of that makes any sense. If you're okay with killing with them then you're okay with exterminating them.Agree to disagree then.
I, kind of don't get most of your answers either...
Edit: Meh, that sounded a bit too aggressive...its litteral, I don't really understand where your answers are coming from, without a more detailed explanation.
Traditionally speaking, throughout the history of D&D, killing evil things, but in particular Evil Outsiders is considered a Good Act.
The issue with these sorts of ideas is that people ontetpret Alignment in different ways and try to prescribe certain activities as a particular Alignment absolutely.
We do try to exterminate things in real life, such as diseases, parasites, and other harmful things. This is not evil. Demons and Devils are literal and figurative embodiments of Evil. Their very existence, even them sitting in an empty room for eons, their very existence strengthens Evil, which is both a physical force of reality as it is a concept.
Furthermore, Good is not stupid, is not <always> nice, is not the same thing as acceptance, and is not defensive, allowing bad things to happen before they act.
If you want Ragathiel to fall, rewrite his character and have him do nothing. Let him let Evil stuff happen unchecked. I mean, all it takes for evil to prevail is,. . .
None of that makes any sense. If you're okay with killing with them then you're okay with exterminating them.Agree to disagree then.
I, kind of don't get most of your answers either...
Edit: Meh, that sounded a bit too aggressive...its litteral, I don't really understand where your answers are coming from, without a more detailed explanation.
Traditionally speaking, throughout the history of D&D, killing evil things, but in particular Evil Outsiders is considered a Good Act.
The issue with these sorts of ideas is that people ontetpret Alignment in different ways and try to prescribe certain activities as a particular Alignment absolutely.
We do try to exterminate things in real life, such as diseases, parasites, and other harmful things. This is not evil. Demons and Devils are literal and figurative embodiments of Evil. Their very existence, even them sitting in an empty room for eons, their very existence strengthens Evil, which is both a physical force of reality as it is a concept.
Furthermore, Good is not stupid, is not <always> nice, is not the same thing as acceptance, and is not defensive, allowing bad things to happen before they act.
If you want Ragathiel to fall, rewrite his character and have him do nothing. Let him let Evil stuff happen unchecked. I mean, all it takes for evil to prevail is,. . .
*Fails save to get entangled in thread again...*
Okay, I'll try and keep it short (and I'll probably fail again)
Traditionally speaking, throughout the history of D&D, killing evil things, but in particular Evil Outsiders is considered a Good Act.
I understand that, but I'll be honest, I don't find appeals to tradition to be terribly persuasive.
The issue with these sorts of ideas is that people ontetpret Alignment in different ways and try to prescribe certain activities as a particular Alignment absolutely.
Again I understand this. However, there has already been established a trend, of coining certain aligned actions, as clearly and unmistakably of a particular Alignment. Simply see any discussion about if torture is "Evil".
We do try to exterminate things in real life, such as diseases, parasites, and other harmful things. This is not evil. Demons and Devils are literal and figurative embodiments of Evil. Their very existence, even them sitting in an empty room for eons, their very existence strengthens Evil, which is both a physical force of reality as it is a concept.
I have deliberately avoided making any real life comparisons, as I don't really see any arguments, that wouldn't side-track the actual matter of the discussion.
But let me say this: Diseases, parasites and such aren't sentient, culture creating beings capable of moderating or changing their in-born behaviours.
Furthermore, Good is not stupid, is not <always> nice, is not the same thing as acceptance, and is not defensive, allowing bad things to happen before they act.
I agree, "Good" isn't always nice. Ragathiel wants to go ahead and strike at an assembled Fiendish army, somewhere in the Abyss, before they attack some or other goodly target? Sure go ahead.
Ragathiel wants to attack the Abyss, for the express perpose of exterminating every single demon he can find, and even if that is to prevent another army of forming in the future, I believe that he has ultimately overstepped some kind of Alignment boundary.If you want Ragathiel to fall, rewrite his character and have him do nothing. Let him let Evil stuff happen unchecked. I mean, all it takes for evil to prevail is,. . .
There really isn't any need for a rewrite. Ragathiel's own backstory provides more then enough hooks, for possible scenarios for his Fall. Maybe his nature, his "fiendish taint", get's the better of him? Maybe he never finds lasting acceptance from his fellow Empyreal Lords (and Ladies)? Maybe his rage and lust for vengeance gets the better of him...and so on.
Why do you have a problem with it in this context when it's not so much an appeal to tradition as it is establishing the context in which we're having this discussion?Traditionally speaking, throughout the history of D&D, killing evil things, but in particular Evil Outsiders is considered a Good Act.I understand that, but I'll be honest, I don't find appeals to tradition to be terribly persuasive.
I clearly said, that I understod the general argument.
My problem is the vagueness of the tradition of "killing evil things, but in particular Evil Outsiders is considered a Good Act", because its fundamentally context-less.It lacks a clear context as to how these killings of "Evil" things makes one "Good". Without such a context, it risks descending into a question of where, who, how and why this would be applicable to, without causing weird implication for the parties involved. For example the question of: Does a fiend become less Evil by killing a Evil mortal? becomes a valid question without the proper context.
Unless I missed something, Pathfinder has not thrown out or completely redefined alignment, and thus is still part of the tradition it descends from in this regard.
Lets just say that Alignment, seems to differ slightly from edition to edition (almost as if ,the writers and designers, get to wiggle with the definition ever so often, probably to get their particular vision to the fore).
Why do we even assume he has a fiendish taint. His mother was a non-evil deity, which should completely override his father's side, as far as his nature.
So its mostly just a "according to legends" kind of thing. Nothing really tangible or concrete.
Although, it would be kind of great, if it was basically just the other Empyreal lords (and Ladies) snubbing him, because of his parentage...
|
|
Ok, but is that referring to nature or nurture?
Remember, his mother was a deity, and a flame deity at that. But, one that abandon him to his father's devices. He was raised by his father, and his court, and no telling how much time that entailed.
So, you read his Fiendish nature, but I read his first hand expetience with just how callous and depraved evil is, and a refussal to allow it to get its hooks on.
You read thay heaven finally gave in and trusted him, I read he bloody well went far above and beyond to prove himself worthy, and continues to do so as he personally leads armies into battle against Evil. He doesn't pass the buck to others, like some other LG deities, but does it himself.
Ok, but is that referring to nature or nurture?
Remember, his mother was a deity, and a flame deity at that. But, one that abandon him to his father's devices. He was raised by his father, and his court, and no telling how much time that entailed.
So, you read his Fiendish natute, but I read his first hand expetience with just how callous and depraved evil is, and a refussal to allow it to get its hooks on.
You read thay heaven finally gave in and trusted him, I read he bloody well went far above and beyond to prove himself worthy, and continues to do so as he personally leads armies into battle against Evil. He doesn't pass the buck to others, like some other LG deities, but does it himself.
A question of nature or nurture?...not really...Sure its an interesting question, but that doesn't really factor in the much for me.
What I always defer to is, fundamentally, is it an interesting story.
As for reading different thing into a figure like Ragathiel. Well its kind of what people do, when you don't have all the "right" answers on some sort of check list.
He is ultimately what you what him and his story to be.
To me, beings like him are just like any mortal, who struggles with their existence. He's being pulled in different directions by different aspects of himself. His fiendish blood might urge him to be merciless, while his intellect knows this is wrong, just to name an example.
Ok, but is that referring to nature or nurture?
Remember, his mother was a deity, and a flame deity at that. But, one that abandon him to his father's devices. He was raised by his father, and his court, and no telling how much time that entailed.
So, you read his Fiendish nature, but I read his first hand expetience with just how callous and depraved evil is, and a refussal to allow it to get its hooks on.
You read thay heaven finally gave in and trusted him, I read he bloody well went far above and beyond to prove himself worthy, and continues to do so as he personally leads armies into battle against Evil. He doesn't pass the buck to others, like some other LG deities, but does it himself.
You've got it backwards. Princes of Darkness says, when discussing Dispater's wives:
His second, Feronia, was a demigoddess from the Plane of Fire, and after a tryst lasting but a few centuries, she left the First King—somewhat congenially—taking with her the babe who would become the empyreal lord Ragathiel.
He was raised, apparently, in his mother's realm in the Plane of Fire.
|
|
Ok, but is that referring to nature or nurture?
Remember, his mother was a deity, and a flame deity at that. But, one that abandon him to his father's devices. He was raised by his father, and his court, and no telling how much time that entailed.
So, you read his Fiendish natute, but I read his first hand expetience with just how callous and depraved evil is, and a refussal to allow it to get its hooks on.
You read thay heaven finally gave in and trusted him, I read he bloody well went far above and beyond to prove himself worthy, and continues to do so as he personally leads armies into battle against Evil. He doesn't pass the buck to others, like some other LG deities, but does it himself.
A question of nature or nurture?...not really...Sure its an interesting question, but that doesn't really factor in the much for me.
What I always defer to is, fundamentally, is it an interesting story.
As for reading different thing into a figure like Ragathiel. Well its kind of what people do, when you don't have all the "right" answers on some sort of check list.
He is ultimately what you what him and his story to be.To me, beings like him are just like any mortal, who struggles with their existence. He's being pulled in different directions by different aspects of himself. His fiendish blood might urge him to be merciless, while his intellect knows this is wrong, just to name an example.
Sure, just giving my perspective.
Old Man: Have you ever heard the story of Darth Plaguis?
Ragathiel: ?
Old Man: ***Transforms into the senate***
Ragathiel: !
Old Man: Unlimited Poooowaah!
Ragathiel: I hate sand!
Old Man: Gooooood!
Abadar: I have a beard...and the high ground!
Ragathiel: Oh s*%@ waahhh... ***Tumbles and falls***