Note when I say “Good” and “Evil” I mean it in terms of the cosmic forces and dogma set out by the Dragonlance Pantheon and paradigm, I’m aware that they are actually far harder to define than that in real life.
As almost everyone here knows; at the end of the WoS trilogy Paladine sacrifices his divinity so that Takhisis could be stripped of hers, this was done so that cosmic balance could be preserved. However in that case why didn’t Gilean also have to become mortal? The answer seems kind of obvious, the balance is between Good and Evil, hence the Gods of Neutrality did not need to suffer. Both the Good and Evil side of “cosmic scales” were reduced by an equal amount; Gilean, being part of the fulcrum didn’t matter.
One could argue that Gilean is more than just a force of Moral Neutrality, he is also the total balancing point, such that he balances not just Good and Evil but also the Neutral Gods as well. However this role seems to be better taken by the High God, who seems to not just embody total balance but is also the source of everything, containing mutually contradictory opposite essences inside himself (and hence transcending mortal understanding, and the D&D Alignment system ;) ).
However this does not mean that nothing changes, the force of Neutrality in Dragonlance appears to not just be a balance of Good and Evil, but an active force of balance in itself. If the Gods of Neutrality get far stronger than either the Gods of Good and Evil then the balance will not only exist but will be more strongly enforced. This would seem like a good thing in Dragonlance cosmology. However would it also not restrict an individual’s ability to choose to be Good or Evil?
A God’s power depends on his/her worshipers; however a powerful god can also encourage and empower his/her followers far better than a weaker god can. Hence the forces of Neutrality currently have more “divine firepower” than the forces of Good and Evil currently do (esp since the Pantheon have lost their leaders, not just their most powerful members). Hence the Neutral Gods are in a stronger position to recruit followers; therefore they can limit the movement of the “cosmic scale of morality”.
With all these essentially neutral doctrines and dogma’s being promoted (if not enforced in places), will it not in the long run effect people disposition to choose Evil and Good views? Will the strength of Neutrality mean that it is harder for people to choose to be Good or Evil?
On a kind of related so related note, what of forces in the Dragonlance Mythos beyond the Good-Neutral-Evil? Do they also have a role in the balance of cosmic forces?
Most obviously there is Chaos, he was kind of a bit of a wild card, as he represented Chaos as primeval oblivion and formlessness rather than Chaos as in personal freedom and opposition to strong society (which most of the “Chaotic” gods in the pantheon promote). This in a way could be viewed as being more dangerous and destructive, and maybe more “evil” than the Gods of Evil ever were (who desire the domination of Krynn rather than it’s destruction). This was obviously demonstrated by the fact that Good, Neutrality and Evil combined to fight him off.
The High God, as I mentioned earlier seems to transcend even Neutrality, being instead the source of everything, rather than just balance. However despite intervening in the All-Saints War s/he didn’t apparently didn’t during the War against Chaos (which seemed to me to be a lot more destructive than the All-Saints War) and the Theft of the World, which seems a bit odd…
The existence of Chaos does not quite work with the original concept of the High God, the High God originally seemed to be the source of everything, now he seems to embody creation and is the counter-thesis to Chaos, which embodies destruction. Before the High God incorporated creation and destruction in his nature (as shown by two of the three magic artefacts accredited to him, the Chimes of Creation and the Cymbals of Destruction)
Here Dragonlance appears to change from being fundamentally Monotheistic (abet a bit deistic) to being Dualistic.
The Dragon Overlords could also perhaps be viewed as something different from the traditional Evil, as they opposed the Gods and seeked ascension themselves, they also seemed less interested in the domination of mortals (the traditional goal of the Evil pantheon) and more in just obtaining power and remoulding the world to suit them, enslavement seemed a means to an end rather than a goal.
Could there exist other, more Alien mindsets on the borders of the Krynnish planes? Perhaps something resembling the Lovecraftesk Far Realms for example.
And could someone please get the appendix of the War of Souls trilogy online, by hitting Wizards with a big stick or otherwise, it is VERY annoying that my paperback copy of Dragons of a Vanished Moon lacked it.
Neutrality in itself has never tried to hold sway over the people in general, not like the gods of good and evil. Chislev stays in the wild. Gilean writes in his library. Reorx plays with his dwarves. Shinare cheats him at dice (well... you tell me something that Shinare does). Sirrion is invoked by lovers. Zivilyn looks wise. These gods do not have anyone who looks outside their own domain, as they shouldn't, since they are to do with neither type of interfering.
Gilean would not have had to sacrifice his place in the heavens, since he balances out the extremes of good and evil in the world, and there will always be such forces, regardless even if all the good deities sacrificed themselves to wipe out the evil deities. People are people, and if there's some guiding force of nuetrality, it means the world will never completely sink into depravity, materialism and selfishness, as this would be evil (aHA! WotC *is* an agent of evil!), but nor will there be holy crusades to destroy 'evil' races such as goblins, ogres or draconians. As free willed creatures, it is their choice to be good or evil, and never giving them a chance... well, that's evil too.
The High God doesn't interfere with the day-to-day running of Krynn, so he wouldn't be a balancing point. It would be like your dad coming over to play with your new Lego on Christmas Day, when you're not finished with it.
The High God didn't interfere with the Chaos War because at the time, the authors had the two mixed up, or they were the same or something. Since then, it's been explained that Reorx was 'confused', and the High God presumably didn't do anything about it because Krynn was Chaos's toy as much as anyone elses.
Let's see - if Gilean is like the High God, I think it's no accident - he alone, after all, was chosen to hold the big guy's book, which apparently is a pretty big deal. Also, I don't think the Neutrals do nothing - they work for Free Will. Rmemeber Gilean's gifts, and the race he created? Free Will, and humans, who vacillate the most in alignment. I think under a Neutral-guided heavens, Krynn might see tons of good and evil still - but, since Free Will is emphasized, there will be a mathematical progression involved - Gilean plays with probability, since if people are free to choose good and evil the world over, in the grand scheme of things good and evil will be balanced most of the time. If you're looking for big changes sweeping across Krynn, well maybe those races that are almost racially aligned with good or evil - like elves or ogres, etc. - might see a decline, while humans will rise, since they are so malleable.
Didn't Chaos create some things, too? I know the guy was wroth at having been locked up, so he tore the house down, but he, and he-as-the-graygem created some things, too - not just destroyed.
I think it's unlikely that Gilean would foster a bunch of wishy-washy people, though - I think the mathematical probability thing I mentioned earlier seems more his style, as the aloof scholar type. Just give a nudge here and there to make sure the numbers aren't off by too much on either side, and otherwise leave them to it - there wouldn't be as much Free Will if he got down in the seething mass of everyday life with mortals like Paladine and Takhisis did, since he'd be guiding people directly and he's a lot bigger than they are.
:-)
I just want to be there when it happens
I think Gilean personally has always been between his two more powerful siblings and quite suddenly he will work towards I think having his own brush with hubris....perhaps create his own race of dragons (he has done so in my games already) or start working to create groups to keep the others permanently in check this time.
In truth I've always been struck by the fact how the Gods of Evil and the Gods of Good stress their personal ties. The Gods of Evil except for Takhasis seem to value their connections to one another with the Brothers of Magic the most obvious examples yet the Gods of Evil also constantly forgiving Takhasis her many aggressions.
That's why I'm leaning towards the Black Moon God for God of Evil than Sarganos or Chemosh.
Chiselev loves bunnies and so forth so its possible Gilean might support her if she were to make a move to drastically reduce civilization on the planet Krynn....
Maybe allied with Zebomin to bring about a flood.
If Gilean supports them and the World Tree, goodbye Krynn.
Gilean is too often shown in necessarily a favorable light but really all you have to do is scare him enough and I'm sure he'll do something drastic to preserve his precious "balance"
Gilean, since I can remember, has always been about watching, recording, and seeing what these people that were created do. Sort of like a deity-scientist type of figure. If he sees Good or Evil starting to dominate, he tips things back towards the middle, largely, I think, because he already knows what will happen if they gain control of the masses - And that's not interesting at all, therefore. Too much influence spoils the project.
That's why, even with the gods back, this is going to be more an 'age of mortals' than ever. The gods are back, but they're disorganized, lacking followers, lacking power. Gilean alone could make a full-fledged effort one way or the other, but he chooses not to. So the choice, ultimately, resides with mortals - Not the gods.
A very interesting set of circumstances.
You can argue that he wanted Takhisis punished, but quite frankly, she'd be punished enough by no longer leading the gods of evil and by them not listening to her anymore. Anyone have a take on this I missed?
-Drachasor
PS. I admit part of my bias might come from the fact I didn't care a great deal for DoSF...and less for the 5th age books (all of which seemed rather forced...especially the MW&TH ones, sadly**).
*He doesn't advocate the Kingpriest line either....rather he advocates a non-misguided good.
**Not their best work...but they were constrained in a straight-jacket, essentially.
She'd crossed her lesser gods too often at that point and all of them would have banded against her
By making Takhisis mortal she would have been in the world but basically would have had no power. Imagine her followers reaction who were expecting an award (power, prestige, money) for following her and they now get nothing!
Likewise the individual Good Gods, with the possible exception of Paladine and Kiri-Jolith don’t seem to be actively opposing some “grand scheme” of the Evil Gods or trying to organise the followers of Good into a organised, active force. (I think Paladine realised the problem with that after the Istar incident…). Even the normal Champion of Good, the Knights of Solammina are not a particularly large force.
In fact as a general rule all the Gods seem to be concentrating of just encouraging the domains they embody). (Chislev; protecting nature, Shinare; Furthering industry, Branchala; encouraging music, Morgion; spreading disease etc) often the domains they control are not always exclusive to their Alignment or even actually relating to ethics and alignment in any sense at all. For example, although music and healing are viewed as “good things” and so fall into the domains of Mishakal and Branchala respectively, there is nothing contradictory is for Evil Clerics to heal their allies, likewise the actions of sea animals seem pretty much out of the realms of ethical debate yet fall into the domain of Habbakuk, a Good God. Therefore to say that Gilean did not need to sacrifice his life to ensure balance because the Gods of Neutrality do not have a grand goal of furthering Neutrality is less convincing because neither really do the Evil or Good Gods either.
However Despite this, I believe that a person’s opinions are generally taken up by people “under their command”, esp if they happen to be a deity, as no one what’s to be seen to disagree with their boss that much, hence the ethical ideals of the neutral gods will be encouraged to some point by their followers. Hence with there simply being more Neutral Gods about, there will be more Neutral Clergy, and hence more people actively encouraging “Neutrality ethics”. However, I suppose the Neutral clerics never had the kind of Evangelical recruitment drive that some of the Good and Evil gods did, so maybe not.
The point raised by Maofeng about Gilean’s gift being free-will, the ability to choose between Good and Evil was a good one, and perhaps the most convincing point against Gilean not wishing to encourage a greater tendency towards neutrality. I do like the idea of Gilean, gifting free will so balance can be achieved through a normal distribution rather than enforcing Neutral views upon the Star Spirits. Maybe in this way he does represent balance without restriction.
However Takhisis and Paladine were the most powerful Gods, had the biggest clergy and group of worshippers and were out of all the Gods, the “purest” in following their Alignment, so maybe their removal will mean that there is less encouragement for mortals to follow the extremes of alignment.
As to the High God, yes I did rather get the impression that they had ignored him in Summer Flame by references to him as “the father of the Gods”. He seemed to have not been a part of Dragonlance during the first series of novels and adventures, being added in when they tried to expand, deepen and clarify the setting, hence had a slightly “unofficial” air about him and that he wasn’t actually conceived by Tracy or Margaret.
Now the two have been kind of shoehorned uncomfortably beside each other, in various somewhat contradictory ways (Chaos being the first child, or the High and Chaos embodying Order/Creation and Disorder/Destruction respectively seem to be the most popular). But then DL has always been a bit messy in places, despite or maybe because of having so many good ideas in it (I prefer Chaos to the High God myself, far more interesting) Maybe Tracy and Margaret came up with the idea of Chaos and also decided it was better, so added it despite the contradictions it would cause.
Kalanth, interesting idea, although it does retain perhaps a bit too much of D&D's dipolar approach to ethics, however adding it would perhaps require less rearranging of rules and "feel" than cutting alignment out completely and could be good if you wanted to keep Paladins falling from grace and stuff.
I admit I have a concern that Krynn might end up too much like the Realms or some other world...and too little like the Krynn I grew up with (well, there will always be Kender and such...but I think my meaning is clear). Hopefully something wonderful will be rescued from the whole Fifth Age mess*).
-Drachasor
*I say "mess" because DoSF was meant to be the last Krynn book, then the first Fifth Age books threw utter chaos into Krynn, and the last Trilogy with the Gods coming back somehow had to get order back. After DoSF it seemed everyone tried to desperately deal with material that didn't want to have to work with....hence "mess."
Originally posted by Illithidbix
As to the High God, yes I did rather get the impression that they had ignored him in Summer Flame by references to him as “the father of the Gods”. He seemed to have not been a part of Dragonlance during the first series of novels and adventures, being added in when they tried to expand, deepen and clarify the setting, hence had a slightly “unofficial” air about him and that he wasn’t actually conceived by Tracy or Margaret.
The High God actually shows up in DL5 _Dragons of Mystery_, the first DL sourcebook, which Margaret and Tracy both worked on. He's also mentioned in DLA.
Matthew "The One to Blame" Martin
For example, although music and healing are viewed as “good things” and so fall into the domains of Mishakal and Branchala respectively, there is nothing contradictory is for Evil Clerics to heal their allies
No, but they would do it because they would benefit from having tougher companions. Clerics of Mishakal would heal people regardless, because they love and repect life. Equally, evil clerics may be into heavy metal or goth (and hence sound burst), but that doesn't stop a cleric of Branchala using their gifts in good ways. It's not the specific domain that means the god is good, but that they are good, and these are their domains as well.
then the first Fifth Age books threw utter chaos into Krynn
Actually, DoSF threw Chaos into Krynn :D
Originally posted by pddisc
No, but they would do it because they would benefit from having tougher companions. Clerics of Mishakal would heal people regardless, because they love and repect life.
Except now it seems Mishakal is gearing up to get some followers prepared to smite evil with the best of them (and heal the innocents* along the way).
-Drachasor
*Ehh, the neutrals too, I suppose.
Originally posted by Drachasor
Hmm, well the new books for 3E seem to imply that all the Gods are changing in this regard. They are all getting much more active with recruiting worshippers, and Mishikel (sp please...can't book at the moment) is getting some people who (to paraphrase) "use a sword for good in one hand and heal with the other." So I expect there will be a dramatic change in Krynn (not that there already hasn't been).
Gah - Where is this written? Do we really need to candy-coat every damn thing in DL in order to attract new players to the world? We already have the Harping LoS, "generalist" WoHS, no more Pally or Takhy, and now they're even going after the HOotS! Where will it end? Mishy's clerics have always been rather pacifistic uber-healers - it's in the books - and now they are really Sword Knights with a more convincing veneer of religion spraypainted over the perfect little PC's package: act however you want, and still get your abilities.
DL makes me think I need a blood-pressure monitor at home.
I admit I have a concern that Krynn might end up too much like the Realms or some other world...and too little like the Krynn I grew up with (well, there will always be Kender and such...but I think my meaning is clear). Hopefully something wonderful will be rescued from the whole Fifth Age mess*).
Aye - I tried starting a thread about something that (and other things) a few days back called "Nasty Little Questions." There were good responses.
Getting back on topic, I think the notion that Neutral gods tend to embody their domains more than their alignments is a good argument against the fear that Neutrals will take over. Also, Gilean is spoken of as a rather uncaring patron - not something most people go for (not that it bothers people on this world much, but...eh, I don't want to go into it), which is evinced by Gilean's worshippers and priests: librarians, ascetics, etc. Not your everyday cleric-about-town. Now the guy isn't even doing the Astinus thing anymore to attract followers - and even then he only had the one library full of monks. Nope, I don't see Gilean sending hordes of brown-robed clerics forth telling everyone in the world to "Shhhh!" - and he is the difference between the pantheons. Sure, neutral has him, and good and evil don't, but what is he really? He's just an anchor, keeping everything more or less on an even keel. I get the impression that if the High God had a really heavy table to weight everything down, he would have laid the Big Book on that instead - Gilean fulfills a cosmic role in the DL universe, but on Krynn's surface he represents a very small, niche market that can hardly be said to be any sort of huge asset in any sort of hostile takeover by the neutrals.
I would agree that the personalities and domains of the Neutral Gods means it is unlikely that they would try to actively promote any , and that it is really only Gilean and perhaps also Zivilyn who are regularly concerned about the balance, and as noted earlier Gilean did seem to favour free-will and aloofness, relying on the people to balance themselves rather than enforcing it.
However as I argued earlier I would say that bar Paladine and Takhisis the Gods of Good and Evil are pretty similar to the gods of Neutrility in that respect, and also do not intend to actively enforce any grand Scheme to further the existence of their ethos. Yes, they do of course pursue plenty of smaller ones on the go to encourage their domains, Hiddikule for example may try to encourage dishonesty and mass-corruption amongst the marketplaces of Krynn, however he doesn’t try to raise vast armies that reshape nations like Takhisis did. So really all the gods seem mostly just to care about their domains until of course the world became so unbalanced or strife-ridden that it appeared to threaten everything.
Paladine and Takhisis seemed to embody perhaps the “purest” ideals of “Good” and “Evil”, they were leaders of the pantheons, the unifying force and the ones who really seemed to plan ahead. This is perhaps one of the reasons they were so powerful, they had a great drive to shape the world more than the rest of the Gods.
Now however both Paladine and Takhisis are dead (or mortal at least), and hence the greatest forces of “pure” Good and Evil no longer exist, so without their influence there will be less extreme tendencies towards Good or Evil. So in this way maybe Neutrality will gain more sway.
It depends on the response of the Good and Evil Pantheons to there loss, will they attempt to become more unified and work together for the “vision” held by Takhisis and Paladine? Or will they remain more tied to their less epic interests, and has Krynn now become a world where mortals act without so much influence from cosmic agendas?
Hiddikule for example may try to encourage dishonesty and mass-corruption amongst the marketplaces of Krynn, however he doesn’t try to raise vast armies that reshape nations like Takhisis did.
No, but then Takhisis never won, did she? If Hiddukel started trying to muscle in on her people by raising a different army, not only would each work against each other (it was bad enough when they all worked just for Takky), but they would each be less powerful and therefore even less successful than they already were.
Hiddukel works by corrupting people's souls, by offering them power and wealth... and by having them have greed or lust, he has them. Look at The Irda book - the cleric in there is not granted spells by feeling little in his gods eyes or whatever, but by thinking about all the power and wealth he would stand to gain by becoming a cleric of Hiddukel.
Takhisis and Paladine only seemed like the ones who only did anything, because they were the only ones who worked with huge armies. Kiri-Jolith was only a sidekick to Paladine, and now he wears his father's mantle for the war part. Mishakal acted as a healer, and brought back those fallen in battle to fight anew. Equally, Sargonnas contributed his strong people to Takhisis, Chemosh undead creatures, and so on.
There may be less influence directly from Paladine and Takhisis, now they're incapacited in their various ways, but then again, maybe not. Sargonnas will probably take over Takhisis's place as leader of evil, and his newly established minotaur realm in Silvanesti shows that. The Knights of Neraka, originally created by Takhisis, remain, and even if many have no honour, almost all are still evil. The Knights of Solamnia are still good, even without Paladine. There is no loss of good and evil because Takhisis died and Paladine became mortal.
That's another point. Everyone is discounting Valthonis as a force for good, since they're saying that 'Takky's dead and Paladine's mortal' as if it means he isn't doing anything any more because he might get hurt. It says in the AoM book that he has a large group of followers.
Wouldn't it be cool if one of those followers was a cleric of Mishakal who fell in love with Valthonis...
What is the Balance? Does balance equal neutrality? After all, the gods of neutrality are called the Gods of Balance in the DLCS.
Or does balance remain somewhere in between good, neutrality, and evil (as presented on Tracy's site)?
I asked Margaret about this once, and she thinks the two aren't mutually exclusive. Basically, the compromise I can think of is that you have three points in a triangle, each point being an alignment. Good and evil pull towards their respective corners. Neutrality, however, doesn't pull towards its corner. Instead, it pulls towards the middle.
My personal view of how the High God and Chaos/Ionthas fit into the grand scheme of things is somewhat different than that presented in the appendix of Vanished Moon and Dragons of Summer Flame. Vanished Moon presents the High God as LG and both sources paint Chaos as being CE.
My view is along the lines of the dual-axis alignment model of D&D. The gods of Krynn represent the good/neutral/evil axis. The Law/Chaos axis is then represented by the High God (representing Law and Order {not the TV show ;) }) and Chaos (representing Chaos, Disorder, and Destruction). Note that Neutrality on the Law/Neutral/Chaos axis isn't represented so much, but I don't see that as a problem.
While this model probably doesn't work for standard DL, I do think it would work nicely for my alternate Darklance setup for Dragonlance.
HG
|
Pal---Taki
\ /
Gilean
|
Chaos
/edit- gah. this stupid software is killing my picture. alright, imagine that paladine, takhi, and gilean make a triangle.
See, the way i figure it is that since the high god gave the essence of creation to gilean in the form of the tobril, Gilean went from being a lesser god to being the link between The Creator (HG) and the raw essence of Creation (Ionthas). The manual, as it were, on how to turn raw Chaos into creation. So while Gilean holds his position as the fulcrum of the balance among GNE, he also has a similar function on the L/C.
See, my view of dragonlancian theology is heavily influenced by my own hinduism. It just happens that the concept of balance fits exactly with early hindu though, and the Law/Chaos pole with later vedantic thought =)
The way i figure is this. First there was essence. From this, a sentience arose, and separated itself from this essence. The two parts became the High God (the thought) and Chaos (the essence). The High god created out of Chaos, doing the universe etc etc, and gave it to paladine and takhisis to watch over. Chaos resented this forced trapping of his essence into lawfully ordered reality and tried to destroy it. The HG realised that for reality to hold, the act of creation must be recorded and given over for safekeeping. He summoned gilean/astinus out of space and time, and gave over the tobril. Thus, the balance on both axes was maintained.
The All Saints War happened because Chaos influenced Takhisis to start her eternal power struggle, with the end goal of dissolution. HG stepped in, and forced law onto creation again. And so on, and so forth. Yeah, i'm much more neutral centric than MLM. The appendix states that its good vs. evil, but i don't buy that on the grand scale of things. Its more a law vs chaos, since good and evil in his thought represent creation and destruction. To me they are too tinged with human morals to be objective enough to cover the act of creation.
This, of course, goes into more theology than needed, so i'll stop here =)
Originally posted by talinthas
see, trampas, thats the view i've been pushing the whole time.
*nods* I remember you mentioning that previously, and it has influenced my own thoughts.
The High God and Chaos just don't work in the GNE triangle that sets up the balance, and there is no reason that they should. They are Beyond it, after all.
*nods* Agreed. While Chaos seemed pretty evil in Summer Flame, I think a lot of that can be attributed to how we perceive good and evil. He was trying to undo what had been created, which fits right in with disorder.
See, the way i figure it is that since the high god gave the essence of creation to gilean in the form of the tobril, Gilean went from being a lesser god to being the link between The Creator (HG) and the raw essence of Creation (Ionthas). The manual, as it were, on how to turn raw Chaos into creation. So while Gilean holds his position as the fulcrum of the balance among GNE, he also has a similar function on the L/C.
That's a very interesting thought.
I think the Balance is basically on the good/evil scale, but it also applies in many other ways as well. There is a balance between Order and Chaos. While there is a balance between good and evil in High Sorcery, so too is there a balance between High Sorcery and Wild Sorcery. Etc. etc.
See, my view of dragonlancian theology is heavily influenced by my own hinduism. It just happens that the concept of balance fits exactly with early hindu though, and the Law/Chaos pole with later vedantic thought =)
Coolness.
The way i figure is this. First there was essence. From this, a sentience arose, and separated itself from this essence. The two parts became the High God (the thought) and Chaos (the essence). The High god created out of Chaos, doing the universe etc etc, and gave it to paladine and takhisis to watch over. Chaos resented this forced trapping of his essence into lawfully ordered reality and tried to destroy it. The HG realised that for reality to hold, the act of creation must be recorded and given over for safekeeping. He summoned gilean/astinus out of space and time, and gave over the tobril. Thus, the balance on both axes was maintained.
Interesting take. There could be other variations to this theme, but that isn't a bad perspective on things.
Yeah, i'm much more neutral centric than MLM. The appendix states that its good vs. evil, but i don't buy that on the grand scale of things. Its more a law vs chaos, since good and evil in his thought represent creation and destruction. To me they are too tinged with human morals to be objective enough to cover the act of creation.
I like the Appendix (it deserves capitalizing now ;) ), and I think it has some interesting points, especially in relation to the gods.
I think the thing that one has to consider is how we view Order and Chaos. Oftentimes, Order is equated to good and Chaos is equated to evil. I've seen this in various works of fantasy fiction.
Very interesting thoughts, Tal. I'm not sure if I fully agree, but your thoughts give me food for thought.
2ndly I would just like to say that I think that some of the ideas in the posts have been really cool.
Originally posted by pddisc
There may be less influence directly from Paladine and Takhisis, now they're incapacited in their various ways, but then again, maybe not. Sargonnas will probably take over Takhisis's place as leader of evil, and his newly established minotaur realm in Silvanesti shows that. The Knights of Neraka, originally created by Takhisis, remain, and even if many have no honour, almost all are still evil. The Knights of Solamnia are still good, even without Paladine. There is no loss of good and evil because Takhisis died and Paladine became mortal.
Hmm, it almost seems to me that you are not only saying that the balance is maintained but the “loss” of Takhisis and Paladine won’t make any difference. That seems a bit stretching considering how much infuelnce they both had, and not just in opposing each others actions. Just how much will be compensated by the remaining Gods remains to be seen, I still think the Good Gods lack a particular Leader and Sargonnas, while powerful perhaps doesn’t have Takhisis’s cunning and charisma, even if he does now have her strength. If he can force Chemosh to submit to him also remains to be seen.
And yes I agree Paladine can still make a great difference even without his powers as a deity. This seems perfectly in keeping with the fact that the post WoS theme is still one of the “Age of Mortals”. And perhaps the loss of the most active members of the Pantheons will mean that the Gods take more backseat approach.
The fact that Law, Evil and Neutrality are portrayed as a Triangle rather than a line is one of the reasons I considered whether Neutrality is an active force in itself, more so than just a fulcrum for the other two. The fact that it can be portrayed as actively pulling towards the centre made me wonder if there is therefore a greater tendency towards Neutrality, as with the “loss” of Takhisis and Paladine the Good and Evil forces are both weaker, yet Neutrality is as strong as ever. Hence will this mean that the forces of Neutrality
Of course it could possibly be said that Neutrality, unlike Good and Evil do not pull constantly with all their strength. Perhaps when Good and Evil is balanced Neutrality does not attempt to reduce the strength of both, however when one side becomes stronger and unbalancing Neutrality attempts to counteract the unbalancing force. Hence also the “force” of Neutrality is proportional to the imbalance, the greater the imbalance is the more influence and activity Neutrality tries to exert. (Kind of like elastic)
I agree that the High God and Chaos seemed to represent forces beyond the Good, Neutrality and Evil balance (in my first post I used them as examples of exactly that), and also transcend the other Gods. However, like I said the exact relationship and role between each other is confusing as different interpretations are given. It also seems very difficult to give them a normal Alignment. According to the Alignment guide defined in the players handbook Chaos definitely seemed Chaotic Evil, he not only wanted the destruction of the world but rather seemed to enjoy causing mischief through the Graygem as well, and was portrayed as having quite a human type personality, abet that of a insanely destructive, psychotic, sadistic git. However he is meant to be the ideal of complete formlessness and Chaos, which would hint of an extreme version of Chaotic Neutral.
The alignment system seems to fail to distinguish between people not caring about what happens to other, which is mostly viewed as Evil yet, also some Neutral perspectives and actively causing pain due to sadistic enjoyment.
The trouble is that the extremes of Chaos and Law are utterly inhuman, it could be argued that Perfect Law could only be achieved with Total Stasis, where there is total symmetry and nothing ever changes (however that this could be the view of Total Neutrality as well…), similarly Total Chaos is impossible to comprehend as it implies more than just total formlessness (which perhaps would seem ironically to closely resemble total Order and Stasis). Perhaps with Total Chaos not even the “laws” of rationality are obeyed, and so Paradox’s exist and Total Contradictions occur as everything becomes possible, and all possibilities exist, even ironically every conceivable facet and combination of Law and Order also must therefore exist. (And hence Total Stasis as well as perpetual change… aghhrr… brain bleeding moment… like I said it’s impossible to comprehend)
However Good and Evil fundamentally rely upon Sentient minds to exist, if all intelligence was stricken from Krynn then balance between Good and Evil would cease to become an issue.
However Law (or Order at least) and Chaos exist in nature and will continue regardless of whether anyone can perceive it. (Unless you’re an Idealist. Although some people would argue that at heart there is only Law if you’re a determinist, and Chaos if you believe that appearance of order is an illusion)
One of the things I dislike in traditional D&D is reducing Good and Evil down into things like Positive and Negative energy, which is taking the whole cosmic forces a little too far.
Your ideas are very interesting Talinthas, however I may have misread it but I don’t get at which point Chaos (as in Ionthas) became sentient. The original sentience that arose from the Essence separated itself from the rest of the Essence to become the High God, and the rest of the Essence left was therefore Ionthas. However if the sentience had separated itself, when did the rest of the essence form another sentience and personality (and why did that one remain)?
Maybe the absence, and “hole” created by the self-extraction of the High God created a sentience of an exact opposite of the High God, and this “anti-sentience” became the personality of Ionthas. (Kind of like in Quantum Physics where a hole (created by a particle leaving) in a “cloud “of particles can behave like a particle itself, sorry not the best analogy… umm maybe a shape cut from a lump of putty leaves an impression the opposite of the shape cut.).
Maybe during formation of the Graygem Ionthas also separated his sentience from the essence.
I agree that Creation transcends morality, and I personally disagree with the whole “Evil cannot create, only corrupt approach”, since so many technological developments come from research originally commissioned for weapon development, and history is ridden with example of genius applied to achieve utter horror, the best example of this is the Holocaust.
I don't think it works like that. I see it as more that the gods reflect and use the nature of any particular person or people, and so without Paladine and Takhisis, these same people are going to do good or ill, just without these two gods.
Take Bob, the cleric of Paladine. When Takhisis stole the world, did that mean that Bob would stop doing good things? He may even have learnt mysticism, and used that to smite with, or something. Now, the gods come back again, and Bob is faced with a choice; remain a mystic or become a cleric of a different god.
Is he more likely to choose a neutral god now because of weight of numbers? People aren't going to choose a god so randomly. They have less variety of good and evil gods now, but so what? It might mean less clerics, but it won't mean less good and evil.
Also, the loss of Paladine and Takhisis means that the other Gods will not at all take a backseat approach, and the exact opposite. They now no longer have someone who all good/evil people will naturally turn to when they want clerical power. The evil gods are going to be scrabbling over every single last spare soul they can get their hands on, whilst the good gods will be wanting to reassure the populace that all is well, they're back, and have to have willing people to spread this message. Although they're going to be less of an influence now, that does not mean they don't want to be.
However what the Gods can do is empower their followers with clerical abilities, organise them (I’m sure you’ll appreciate the puns to be had with clerical…
) and orchestrate them in plans that encourage the vision and ideals of the Gods, and so encourage more Good and Evil in the world through that way.Therefore some guy who was born in some backwater village who is a nice, kind, devoted person, always going out of his way to help other but is also brave, courageous and quick witted (normal hero potential type) is more likely to achieve great things for the cause of Good if he is spotted by a good god and given deitic “sponsorship” than if he merely had to strike out on his own (which he might not do at all unless encouraged by someone).
And no I don’t believe that people randomly choose what god they follow, they follow the one closest to their nature, or who can provide them with certain powers (which is normally the Evil Worshippers line of reasoning). And presumably Bob the ex-Cleric of Paladine (providing he’s still basically a nice person and hasn’t gone postal or bitter and twisted due to brutality of the Dragon-Overlords and co. (or devoted himself to Mina…
)) would devote himself to the newly returned Gods of Good, even if he chooses not to become a cleric of one of them.However it isn’t the truly devoted that are going to be effected, without Paladine’s influence there are going to less Good organisations actively promoting charity, good works and helping people when they need it, thus the forces of Good are going to be weaker. People doing Good acts often encourages other people to do them as well, the same with evil acts (if they’re doing it, why shouldn’t I?).
It’s less the fact that people are going to choose the neutral gods because there are more of them, but rather that the loss of Paladine and Takhisis means there is less power bestowed upon individuals to promote the causes of good and evil, even if the number of good and evil individuals remains unchanged. In this way people may chose a more neutral approach to life as they remain less effected by the cosmic struggle and try to lead a more “normal” life.
As for whether Good and Evil comes from the Gods, well I kind of think it does, because Paladine and Takhisis existed before the mortals (or they did in some before the creation story in the WoS appendix). Where it first came from is far more debatable, presumably they were part of the High Gods nature.
However Good (note capital) is different in my conception from a good (note small case). One is a great cosmic force, embodied by the Good Gods it is presumably far more definable (although we haven’t actually ever been given the definition) than “good” is commonly. As demonstrated by the study of ethics, normal good and evil are far less easy to define.
The Creation story in the Appendix of the WoS is quite different from the ones that have appeared elsewhere (DLCS and earlier), the High God appears to embody good in that, Neutrality being a result of some of the Gods fearing change in the world, Evil being actively opposing the High God’s plan. However this is meant to be from Paladine’s view point so I would consider it at least slightly biased.
Interestingly it does mention that if the followers of Neutrality attempt to restrict the choice then they will bring “ill and ruin”, much like the Followers of Good did with Istar.
Originally posted by Illithidbix
The Creation story in the Appendix of the WoS is quite different from the ones that have appeared elsewhere (DLCS and earlier), the High God appears to embody good in that, Neutrality being a result of some of the Gods fearing change in the world, Evil being actively opposing the High God’s plan. However this is meant to be from Paladine’s view point so I would consider it at least slightly biased.
Interestingly it does mention that if the followers of Neutrality attempt to restrict the choice then they will bring “ill and ruin”, much like the Followers of Good did with Istar.
And both this interpretation of the Neutral gods and the High God's foretelling come from the same source--the legend of the Graygem. The Neutral gods _did_ try to anchor the world and prevent the pendulum from swinging, and it _did_ bring about trouble--the Second Cataclysm.
Matthew L. Martin, providing insight into authorial intent.
Presumably, though, the neutral gods decided not to bother trying to anchor neutrality to the world, just like the good gods gave up on trying to take over. Both have submitted to merely opposing the evil gods.
However it isn’t the truly devoted that are going to be effected, without Paladine’s influence there are going to less Good organisations actively promoting charity, good works and helping people when they need it, thus the forces of Good are going to be weaker. People doing Good acts often encourages other people to do them as well, the same with evil acts (if they’re doing it, why shouldn’t I?).
Here's where you've really missed my point.
Say there are 100 deific units, spread between the 6 divine-spell granting gods of good. Solinari gets none. Paladine has more, Majere has fewer, whatever. When Paladine turns mortal, these deific units are spread fairly between the remaining gods. Hell, we can even say that some got given to Solinari, to clear up all the issues with people wanting to play mage/clerics. There is no less divine good - each of the remaining gods have stepped a little into Paladine's gap.
Now, with the good worshippers, the ex-clerics of Paladine, and all the other potential worshippers of Paladine, are not going to stop there. The same numbers of people are going to devote themselves to the good gods, and probably even set up new locations, temples and so on, dedicated to different gods than Paladine. There are still the same amount of good people. So why do you think there's less effective goodness going on?
If there were 100 worshippers of each good god in, say, Palanthas, totalling 600, then after Paladine goes away, the same number of people are left. Some will carry on working in the Paladine-devoted orphanages, some will swap right over to other gods. None will stop being good. So there is no less good.
Well this is a possibility, but can you prove this is what actually happened? I mean isn't it also plausible that the Good and Evil "deitfic units" of both Gods merged and cancelled each other out (possibly with a bang).
I fail to recall where something along either lines are really mentioned in the books (either novels or gaming). The description in VM made me think of the later.
I do not doubt that the former followers would still continue doing good works, or that good needs Good Gods to exist.
I think there is less effective goodness going on because they no longer have the mind of Paladine directing and organising them, and have the Might of Paladine gifting them with their abilities (you're idea on Paladine's power being distributed amongst the remaining five may cancel). Even if this is not demonstrated in overt ways of legions of clerics calling smiting the undead hordes of Lord Soth, think about what he managed to do disguised as Fizben. Finally, if nothing else Paladine had more drive and vision than any of the other Good God, he always seemed (to me at least) to be the one taking the most active role in dealing with Mortals and countering Evil. Surely with him his deity hood their will still be some loss, the way you say it implies that Paladine didn’t really actually do anything to further the cause of God at all.
Originally posted by pddisc
Takhisis and Paladine only seemed like the ones who only did anything, because they were the only ones who worked with huge armies. Kiri-Jolith was only a sidekick to Paladine, and now he wears his father's mantle for the war part. Mishakal acted as a healer, and brought back those fallen in battle to fight anew. Equally, Sargonnas contributed his strong people to Takhisis, Chemosh undead creatures, and so on.
From what I get Paladine may have originally went out of his way to make "good" prominent on Krynn (before the All Saints War), but after the ASW he was mainly reacting to Tak's attempts to conquer the world. Even the KingPriest can't be laid at Paladine's feet, because the KingPriest knew of the balance and actively opposed against Paladine's teachings. Paladine leads by example, he knows about free will and lets everyone deside (whether he agrees with them or not) and only gets really involved when Tak causes problems. So Tak is really the only one (beside Choas) working against the "balance" issue.
*Edit- the above should all be in the past tense...lol.
Originally posted by pddisc
I'm not sure if that can count as the neutral gods' attempt at gaining absolute balance, because it went utterly wrong; there seemed no way that the Greygem was going to anchor the world. Although chaos is the ultimate in uncaring and beyond good or evil, that's the very reason why it won't count. Neutral in this case would have had to have been a mid-ground between good and evil, and the Greygem was never going to acheive that. This kind of neutrality is the kind which has nothing happening, rather than lots of utterly random things, which is what the Greygem did.
Just because the Neutrals were wrong doesn't invalidate what they tried to do. they tried to anchor neutrality, plain and simple. at the time they probably weren't good at balancing anything (since the balance was kind of still "new" way back then). Just like Paladine learned he couldn't fight Tak head on without destroying Krynn. and just like the HG stated, when any ONE "side" (good/evil/neutral) tries to force thier view point (whether good/evil/neutral) on the world it will have dire portents for Krynn. It just took some millinium for the Neutrals "cataclysm" to happen.
I think that deific power is not something that can be lost. In FR, the Time of Troubles had loads of mortals become gods by slaying other gods and consuming their essence, or some such. It's not happened in DL, as it's not such a silly world, but both are D&D based, and the systems hold true, for me at least. As a physicist you should know energy can't be lost, and since there was no explosion described, there is at least as much reason to think that the power would be shared out as wasted.
If Paladine is now out of the picture, then it is possible that the forces of good might be slightly less organised. But then, how often did Paladine actually appear? Fairly infrequently. OK, so he sorted out a lot of the problems in the War of the Lance, but any other god could have done it, albeit not so humorously as with Fizban. The other gods can take over Paladine's old roles, and add their own flavour or spin to it.
Paladine's more forthrightness when dealing with evil is being filled by Mishakal, who is forming a smite-y branch of clerics. Kiri-Jolith has the Knights of Solamnia.
Paladine didn't do nothing by simply filling his role as head of good forces. He filled those roles. Now he's gone, the others have to make up for it.
The Kingpriest originally believed in Paladine's plan, but it went wrong because power corrupts and so on. Paladine supplied the power. The Greygem only started up because Hiddukel or Chemosh or whoever tricked Chislev or Lunitari or whoever into convincing Reorx to make it. It never was going to anchor neutrality, whereas the Kingpriest could have made the world good, and Takhisis taking over in one of her attempts would have anchored evil. Takhisis was opposed by everyone else, Paladine opposed himself, and the neutrals never had opposition foil their scheme, because it was a crap, self defeating one. Chaos would have anchored chaos rather than neutrality into the world.
Originally posted by pddisc
Paladine did further the cause of good, of course he did, but if, as I believe, his power was shared between the other gods, his loss isn't so much. Really, all the other gods of good could have given all their power to Paladine and become mortal, and he could have just done all the good god stuff. But diversity is good.
I think that deific power is not something that can be lost. In FR, the Time of Troubles had loads of mortals become gods by slaying other gods and consuming their essence, or some such. It's not happened in DL, as it's not such a silly world, but both are D&D based, and the systems hold true, for me at least. As a physicist you should know energy can't be lost, and since there was no explosion described, there is at least as much reason to think that the power would be shared out as wasted.
If Paladine is now out of the picture, then it is possible that the forces of good might be slightly less organised. But then, how often did Paladine actually appear? Fairly infrequently. OK, so he sorted out a lot of the problems in the War of the Lance, but any other god could have done it, albeit not so humorously as with Fizban. The other gods can take over Paladine's old roles, and add their own flavour or spin to it.
Paladine's more forthrightness when dealing with evil is being filled by Mishakal, who is forming a smite-y branch of clerics. Kiri-Jolith has the Knights of Solamnia.
Paladine didn't do nothing by simply filling his role as head of good forces. He filled those roles. Now he's gone, the others have to make up for it.
The Kingpriest originally believed in Paladine's plan, but it went wrong because power corrupts and so on. Paladine supplied the power. The Greygem only started up because Hiddukel or Chemosh or whoever tricked Chislev or Lunitari or whoever into convincing Reorx to make it. It never was going to anchor neutrality, whereas the Kingpriest could have made the world good, and Takhisis taking over in one of her attempts would have anchored evil. Takhisis was opposed by everyone else, Paladine opposed himself, and the neutrals never had opposition foil their scheme, because it was a crap, self defeating one. Chaos would have anchored chaos rather than neutrality into the world.
I know Paladine furthers good (or furthered), but he wasn't really active UNTIL Tak started trying to take over. Even then once Tak was stopped he became like all the other Gods (except Tak) in letting mortals decide there own fate. This doesn't mean he agreed with evil, only that he let his mortal servants spread his good word.
As for not loosing energy, in this world this is true, but when you through Magic into the picture it isn't necessarily so. Krynn for the most part follows many if not all of the laws of physics (except with magic), and the Gods are just chalk full of magic. So what you say MAY be true, but could also NOT be true...there could actually be a loss of power on the "Good" and "Evil" sides.
I'm not so sure the Kingpriest was corrupt. Oh, he was deffinately wanting power, but he wanted it to "wipe Evil from this world" (paraphrasing of course). He was arrogant (and this is putting it litely), but still good. He just couldn't except any other opinions on how "good" should be spread. Of course good intentions pave the way to Hell and all that, but still he wasn't evil per say.
It doesn't matter that Hiddukel tricked them or not, or even whether the Greygem would have ever anchored Neutrality. Why doesn't it matter, because they believed it would. That was thier whole reason they (Chislev, Reorx, etc) had the thing made. Actually Chislev (she is more responsible than Reorx) should hold most the blame for the destruction in DoSF, because she is the one who was tricked, she is the one who talked Reorx into creating the gem, and Reorx because he didn't tell anyone what he thought he had done. Hiddukel should get the most blame though, since he went through all the trouble of lying to Chislev in the first place. So whether there was ever a chance of the Greygem anchoring Neutrality is irrelivant, because Chislev believed it would and activilly TRIED to force Neutrality onto the world and it's mortals. And from what the HG said, trying to force good, evil, or neutrality on the world is a big "no, no" which would have bad reprocutions for Krynn (mortals, planet, Gods, etc), and it did in the form or DoSF and the near unravelling of existance at the hands of Chaos.