Well...maybe i'm not the first to have this cross through their heads, but before she goes to far with her draconic transformation, couldn't she stop and become a preserver? I could see her becoming one to keep her precious forest around her alive while she would still be able to use her magic without fear of killing it off. Another thought which crossed my mind is something similar to Oronis leading her down the trail to becoming and avangion...just a thought though...might become a true forest "spirit"...but whatever, just a thought and wanted to know how plausible it was.
I agree Lalali uy becomes an Avangion in FY11 in my campaign or at least begins the path. I like the idea of her arch enemy becoming even more at odds with his old nemesis. NOW they REALLY have a reason to dislike each other. In my campaign, there are more evils out there than just the Sorceror Kings and their minions. There are other Champions and lieutenants as well as other Kingdoms to conquer
Even though she talks the talk of preservation and restoration she is evil to the core and would not give up her power to become an avangion. She likes to style herself as the rain goddess because of her huge ego and realizes the value of expanding the forest, but would never be willing to personally sacrifice for the good of the world by giving up her draconic ways.
I think she is sincere enough in a way but isn't willing to change personally. Although she is evil I doubt she sees herself as such. To her I think the Athasian plantlife is a small sacrifice to pay to keep Rajaat locked away and to keep her city safe.
Things do seem to be changing now that Rajaat is out of the picture again and Borys is gone. The ovatures to Nibenay seem to show her fear of the changing times and a renewed disire to form alliances against what might be coming. With Kalak and Alabach-Re having been killed by what seems to be a halfling-backed conspiracy, several new Avangion appearances, and the short-lived but vengance filled return of the her dread master, I think the SKs have reason enough to regroup and think about their situation.
I'd personally like to see a real alliance form between the Oba and the Shadow King. Right now they seem to be feeling out the waters, but when Dregoth suddenly returns from the dead and attempts to sieze godhood right in their backyard.....
in the end the SKs are definitely still very self-serving; but on a level wholly different from mortals...they are, after all, rulers of large cities with vast cultural riches and histories...they "care" for their subjects and their domains to a degree, and wouldn't let their aims destroy what they've worked thousands of years on.
and why NOT an evil preserver? just because they're evil doesn't mean they won't tread the preserver path if it suits their needs...in some ways that in and of itself is much more sinister...again, just playing around with the subjective ideals of "good" and "evil"... :P
i often wonder if "evil" becomes incredibly subjective to beings that live for thousands of years? i view the SK's as once evil characters, lusting for glory and power during the ravages of the Cleansing Wars; but as the aeons wore on their hunger, greed, and hatred were replaced by a cool, apathetic detachment. their desire for power and control is still there, as is their selfish ways; but their stance on morality is probably a bit skewed due to their incredible longevity. they probably have a greater view of cause and effect, and can see certain destructive or cataclysmic events as merely necessesary...an ends to a means so-to-speak. to the slave in the pits, or the freeman, or noble the ways of their God and master may seem dark and sinister, even evil, but that's from the perception of a mortal who's only lived a few decades and will only live a few decades beyond that.
Wow, I think exactly like you. :D
In Mikael Salomon's 2004 version of Salem's Lot, the vampire Barlow is described by one of the characters - who is unaware of his vampiric nature - as being "beyond good and evil". The phrase was very well delivered, and was well written, and sent goosebumps down my back. I saw an immediate paralell between the immortal and very old Barlow (who kills for a living) and the immortal and very old Champions (who kill on the slightless whim).
Also, if you think of it, they may never truely have been the kind for random, thoughtless, or depraved evil. They were leaders in a huge war that spanned thousands of years, and most likely truely believed in the 'rightness' of their actions, never seeing themselves as evil- most likely that trait would have been displaced upon the races being Cleansed- ie cleaning up the evil in the world. They may think that yes, what they were doing was not 'good' but it is the lesser evil of the choices they had to make.
i often wonder if "evil" becomes incredibly subjective to beings that live for thousands of years? i view the SK's as once evil characters, lusting for glory and power during the ravages of the Cleansing Wars; but as the aeons wore on their hunger, greed, and hatred were replaced by a cool, apathetic detachment. their desire for power and control is still there, as is their selfish ways; but their stance on morality is probably a bit skewed due to their incredible longevity. they probably have a greater view of cause and effect, and can see certain destructive or cataclysmic events as merely necessesary...an ends to a means so-to-speak. to the slave in the pits, or the freeman, or noble the ways of their God and master may seem dark and sinister, even evil, but that's from the perception of a mortal who's only lived a few decades and will only live a few decades beyond that.
Wow, I think he's hit the nail on the head.
No sentient being can be "beyond" good and evil. Good and evil are behavior descriptions, and whether or not you agree with a particular set of behavior descriptions for each category, when a thing has the capacity for choice, its actions and general behavior falls into one of those categories as either good or evil depending on whatever set of behaviors you place in which category.
Just because you go around for thousands of years killing people and hanging them on spikes doesn't mean your behavior is any less evil than the guy who only did it once during a war.
Only nature -- weather phenomena, astronomical events, physical effects of the world, etc. -- and (perhaps) animals are beyond good and evil because they have no intelligence, nor any capacity for choice (arguable in the case of animals, since many display specific personality behaviors, and even the ability to choose).
Immortality does not make one beyond good and evil. Having to kill innocents in order to survive does not make one's actions in pursuit of that survival any less evil, nor does finding excuses for one's behavior ("...well, I HAD to do X to get to goal Y...").
Yes, sure, the Champions/SK's can argue all they want that the ends justify the means, that they have a "broader perspective of good and evil", they might have convinced themselves of it after telling themselves this for thousands of years, even, but that still doesn't make it true. You may have heard the phrase: "Mussolini made the trains run on time." Does that stop Mussolini from being an evil bastard? Nope.
Aside: in the cyberpunk book "Altered Carbon" by Richard Morgan, a superelite of "Metusaleh" (from the biblical character, who was said to be 800+ years) exists, keeping themselves alive artificially, a process that is reserver only for the super-rich. The author, and the characters in the novel, portrayed most of these as detached from the world, seeing themselves as superior beings. At the same time, because of this very detachment, they were seen as evil incarnate - not caring one whit for other beings.
Personally, I see cold, aloof so-called "amoral" beings as more evil than the chaotic evil, cackling sorcerer - somehow, the fact that they can't even bring themselves to care that their actions inflict pain/kills an entire village/thousands of slaves/etc makes them all the more inhuman to me.
Obviously, there aren't any correct answers here - evil and good, like so many other things, is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
...but anyone who doesn't think the sorcerer-monarchs are evil are WRONG! :P
WWII was called the "good War" by many Americans, and even though they didn't put any heads on spikes they bombed the (looking for the doo-doo icon...) outta the civilians in Dresden. I am certain that most Americans would jump upon such an example as "justified" or "an exception," just as much as the Sorceror Kings would do as well. ("Was the bombing of Dresden evil? Let's ask some of the civilians killed in the air-raid...")
In the mind of the Soceror Kings / Queens, they have brought stability, civilization, and life to their people. In their minds, they saved Athas (from Rajaat -not themselves...), and without them, the citizens of Athas would live savage, barbaric lives like those struggling out in the wastes.
Watching over countless generations of existence, they feel that most people are content when they have enough to eat, and when they can live normal, mundane lives working, getting married, raising a family, etc. The various Sorceror Kings surely credit themselves with giving most of their subjects ("including the slaves," I am sure they would contend) the stability to enjoy such mundane pleasures of living. In the mind of a SM, they have provided this stability for countless people -compared to the centuries of warfare that existed before (nevermind the fact that they were responsible for the centuries of warfare...)
Good and evil are relative things. Once you find an evil greater than yourself, you can always label yourself as "good." I am sure that you see this everywhere in the City States:
"At least I am not like that tyrant in Tyr" (when Kalak was around...)
"At least we are well fed" (Draj)
"At least we are not getting our hearts ripped out like in Draj"
"At least ...." (Insert excuse here.)
itf
The non-subjective good and evil required by the mechanics of the game are defined by consensusal reality. Sorry, I don't want to go into what that means, but anyone who has played "Mage: The Acension" will understand.
The non-subjective good and evil required by the mechanics of the game are defined by consensusal reality. Sorry, I don't want to go into what that means, but anyone who has played "Mage: The Acension" will understand.
Yes! Paradigm!!
:D
Greyorm, to me it doesn't matter if the "beyond good and evil" archetype does not exist in reality, it only matters to me that some people are perceived that way, and that perhaps in a fantasy universe like Athas such an archetype might actually exist, the product of so many thousands of years of life.
Except that it cannot logically exist. This is the problem. It's like trying to depict a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it...except that God can do anything...You can't do it because it is logically impossible to depict. The human mind cannot concieve of its actuality, therefore depiction is impossible.
You can say, "Oh, they're beyond good and evil" but all you need is one person they've tortured for pleasure or personal power in order to disprove that statement, even in a fantasy world.
Second, good and evil aren't quite as subjective as folks might think, the pop philosophy of moral relativism aside. There are actually some clear cut areas of "evil" and "good", usually hinging around empathy. Frex, you will find very few (if any) cultures where murder is considered good or righteous.
If it helps, instead of saying "evil" say "willfully, needlessly cruel" -- since that is what the word "evil" is used to describe. That moves it from a concept to an actual behavior, since you can't redefine the definition as you can when you are just using a placeholder noun, and in so doing avoids the pitfalls of pop moral relativism.
If it helps, instead of saying "evil" say "willfully, needlessly cruel" -- since that is what the word "evil" is used to describe. That moves it from a concept to an actual behavior, since you can't redefine the definition as you can when you are just using a placeholder noun, and in so doing avoids the pitfalls of pop moral relativism.
It can get pretty hard to determine what willful is. Free will might merely be an illusion, in which case there are no real willful actions.
For instance if someone is compulsively drawn to commit acts that they detest and wish they could stop preforming with all their heart would you consider those acts to be willfully commited. There are a number of serial killers that might be honestly described in that way. I would not claim that they aren't evil merely because they are not intentionally doing these horrible things.
I mean on the surface it seems that we have the freedom to decide things for ourselves. But aren't the decisions we make dictated by our individual circumstances and life expiriences, the pull of our emotions, and our hardwired instinct.
Also, who determines need and what level of justification is necessary? Many people eat the flesh of animals in what could be considered a needlessly cruel and willful manner, are they evil? Is it evil to kill in the defense of your country, if so many people in our military are evil despite their possibly pure intentions and repentance for their deeds. I don't think you've made it much more concrete.
Except that it cannot logically exist. This is the problem. It's like trying to depict a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it...except that God can do anything...You can't do it because it is logically impossible to depict. The human mind cannot concieve of its actuality, therefore depiction is impossible.
That argument is used to outline the paradox of omnipotentance.
If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything. Could he therefore create a rock that he could not lift? If he did there would be something that he couldn't do. I he couldn't, than then there would also be something that he couldn't do.
If he is omnipotent, the answer of course is: that he could do so. But if he did he would be giving up his omnipotence. As long as he does not do anything like that he will remain omnipotent.
Getting back to the whole point of the argument however, there are a lot of things in a Fantasy Game that couldn't exsist in reality.
Second, good and evil aren't quite as subjective as folks might think, the pop philosophy of moral relativism aside. There are actually some clear cut areas of "evil" and "good", usually hinging around empathy. Frex, you will find very few (if any) cultures where murder is considered good or righteous.
So you are saying that cultures define good and evil. Many cultures in the past have glorified the slaughter of other peoples. In fact its only a recent thing to think that killing any person is an evil act rather than just your own people. If good and evil are defined by culture then they are not set in stone, but are relative to the cultural enviroment.
When does the good outwiegh the evil and vise versa? How do you measure the combined acts of a person? If someone has killed and destroyed, but also defended and created, how does one weigh the balance? If these things aren't subjective please tell me exactly how I measure them.
It can get pretty hard to determine what willful is. Free will might merely be an illusion, in which case there are no real willful actions.
I'm not interested in a high-level philosophy debate with an illusion created by my own mind, since you are only saying what I want you to say anyways...Point taken? It is ridiculous to drag things out to that level of abstraction because the scope of such thinking is unnecessary to the discussion, as well as a failure to understand what the original philosophical assertions regarding free will and illusion were made to highlight and discuss.
Getting back to the whole point of the argument however, there are a lot of things in a Fantasy Game that couldn't exsist in reality.
You are missing the point. I am saying it can't exist even in a fantasy game because the human mind can not describe or understand such a thing. It isn't because "it isn't realistic" (like a dragon flying), it is because it is impossible intellectually and descriptively. You can't portray it, so the statement is meaningless and unusable -- just like an unliftable rock.
"They're beyond behavioral descriptions."
"What does that mean? How does that look?"
"I don't know."
So you are saying that cultures define good and evil.
Nope, didn't say that at all. Please read what I said more carefully.
If these things aren't subjective please tell me exactly how I measure them.
Already did. Of course, I wasn't talking about measuring a person's deeds on some karmic scale, either, or even attempting to; I was talking about specific actions in specific contexts and categorizing those.
But I'm not interested in discussing pop philosophy moral relativism. I did that for two years in college and it is now about as stimulating for me as would be reading a book meant for 3-5 year olds. So instead, here are a couple of links that touch on and discuss the complexities of the issue beyond the overly simplistic pop level: The Moral Relativism Frame, What's wrong with relativism, and What's the Use?
So yea, that's pretty harsh for most people's likes. Fortunately, I don't enforce such strict definitions in my games -- because then nobody could play a character which is good 100% of the time. I personally, in gaming terms, dislike the Alignment system, and chose a more freeform Allegiance ststem from d20 Modern. For the Sorcerer-Kings, they are typical of the ends just5ify the means sort of machiavellian philosophy -- to me, that places them squarely and solidly into the "evil" camp. Every one of them would simply use their people as resources to be expended if the end result was to their liking. Look at how Kalak wanted to sacrifice his whole city to become a full Dragon. Even Lalai-puy, which some people think is good -- can hardly be considered as such, she abuses her power -- convincing her people that she's a goddess, has them waiting on her hand and foot, and with blind loyalty to run off and get killed in her name on her whim. She cares nothing for her people, they are merely a resource, a stepping stone to her own personal power. Oronis is radically different -- he does not have any direct power within his city (New Kurn), in fact, he refuses to take any position or office. He cares about restoring Athas, cares deeply for the people of Kurn, and is even reluctant to advise any of the city leaders on what to do. He does not lord his power over other people, and yet they still would follow him to death if necessary -- even when he does what he can to discourage the notion (ok, some of the Oronis stuff is my own personal speculation/view on him).
Ok, my little bit on this: Good and evil transcend cultures, cultures don't define good and evil. Each and every person has the ability to know right from wrong -- some get it confused from time to time however, especially when they begin to rationalize something wrong to make it seem right in their mind. Good and Evil are not transitive, flexible options, they are rather cut and dry. Hell, I'd rather there was no "neutral" between the two -- because you are either good or bad, there is no half-way in my mind. If you are selfless and dedicated to helping others, if you are self-sacrificing, loving, considerate, etc. you are good. If you lack even one of them, you are not good, thus evil. Not only must you have all the qualities, but also must uphold and continue to have all those qualities every second of your life, or else you are evil.
So its a matter of ones own conscience then? To do something you feel is wrong, is evil. To do something you feel is right is good. I can buy that. Its still subjective in that case as not everyone's conscience says the same things to them.
I don't buy the no neutrality thing. If you are a person who tries to do the right thing and usually does, but fall to temptation now and again. I don't think you are evil. Its a spectrum there are degrees of good and evil. Sure you fall more on one side or the other, but its hard to make the call sometimes, thats where neutrality comes in.
Also you could consider those who avoid evil acts, but don't pursue good acts to be neutral. For instance someone who is willing to help others, but also considers their own interests a little more important then others. Would be considered neutral in my book. Maybe they are kind of mean and don't like to give of their time, but they donate some of their money to a cause that they believe will help others, not out of guilt, but generosity.
I personally believe in the exsistance of repentance and forgiveness. And that good and evil aren't black and white. But a spectrum.
You are missing the point. I am saying it can't exist even in a fantasy game because the human mind can not describe or understand such a thing. It isn't because "it isn't realistic" (like a dragon flying), it is because it is impossible intellectually and descriptively. You can't portray it, so the statement is meaningless and unusable -- just like an unliftable rock.
"They're beyond behavioral descriptions."
"What does that mean? How does that look?"
"I don't know."
1. Just because the human mind cannot concieve of something or describe it does not mean that it cannot exist.
2. Just because you cannot concieve of it doesn't mean that other cannot. And if your mind is incapable of handling the idea than no one can make you understand.
3. There is enough meaning in the statement to get an idea of what it means and to use it to enrich a game. I can't cocieve of how magic works, but I can still use it in a game.
4. The human mind can concieve of many many logically impossible things.
5. The unliftable rock is very easy to understand and describe. And I already explained the fault in that specific example. If god is omnipotent then he can do anything, until he does something that would remove his omnipotence.
So its a matter of ones own conscience then? To do something you feel is wrong, is evil. To do something you feel is right is good. I can buy that. Its still subjective in that case as not everyone's conscience says the same things to them.
I don't buy the no neutrality thing. If you are a person who tries to do the right thing and usually does, but fall to temptation now and again. I don't think you are evil. Its a spectrum there are degrees of good and evil. Sure you fall more on one side or the other, but its hard to make the call sometimes, thats where neutrality comes in.
Also you could consider those who avoid evil acts, but don't pursue good acts to be neutral. For instance someone who is willing to help others, but also considers their own interests a little more important then others. Would be considered neutral in my book. Maybe they are kind of mean and don't like to give of their time, but they donate some of their money to a cause that they believe will help others, not out of guilt, but generosity.
I personally believe in the exsistance of repentance and forgiveness. And that good and evil aren't black and white. But a spectrum.
I believe in absolution, justification, and many other interesting and way off-topic religious arguments that focus on this very thing. I don't think it is possible, at all, for a person to ever be "good" by their own strength. I do not believe people can ever do anything to become good -- we all are pretty screwed up. I believe that "goodness" comes from an external source, that it is above and beyond any one person, group, or culture. It is an absolute which we cannot ever hope to attain without God's help. But as I said, this strolls heavily into a religious argument, and while I have no problem discussing religion, I feel that in the context of Dark Sun, Dungeons & Dragons, and the Wizards.COMmunity in general this is not the time nor the place to discuss doctrine.
TYhat's why I provided an explanation for what I do in my games -- the Allegiences system from d20 Modern. This provides a better context, and does I think a better job providing a motly assortment of allegiences for people to chose. I also still very much hold to that the Sorcerer-Kings are quite indisputibly evil. Time does not somehow make evil be good. The only one which is good, isn't even a Sorcerer-King persay -- he stepped down from that position.
Also, simple 4+ dimensional objects are logically possible, but cannot be imagined by a human mind because the entirety of our thinking is done in 3 dimensions, no more. Another one for computers.
Metamorphosis, plus thousands of years of love, loss, joy, sadness, and genocidal rage, plus having hundreds of friends and family and lovers die of old age, assassinations, plus having killed all of the members of your designated race...and then discovering there is still purpose within your heart, all of those things IMO can make an horrible mix up of your psyche and thus your emotions, priorities, etc.
Enough of a mess that you don't care if your acts are good or evil, by your or someone else's definition, since you simply don't care anymore: its all been done a thousand times over, and will be done so again. And when I say "don't care anymore", I don't mean the SK is so phased out he'll take the quikest route to attaining his goals, but rather that he doesn't care if his goals are attained, or how. A SK has a hundred goals, half of them long term, and has had hundreds of others in the past, half of which came to fruition and half of which failed so miserably as to drive a normal person over the edge of sanity with frustation at the universe. All of this is very good at making someone experience all of the emotions of the human spectrum, several times over, so much so that weither you feel sad or happy, it no longer matters to you. (The only real goals each one of SKs cares about and is still motivated to attain/defend, are personal power, continued personal life, continued human life, and keeping Rajaat imprisonned.)
In RaFoaDK, you can see that Hamanu feels emotions and acts upon them, but you also see that he acts upon them out of sheer boredom, why he kills on whims and such. He doesn't seek joy, rarely feels sadness, doesn't care about pain, even prolonged, continuous pain.
In short, Hamanu is the prime example of an immortal man who has done everything twice over and now a days only cares about 2 or 3 things anymore. To Hamanu, what endangers Urik and human life is evil, who attempts to free Rajaat is evil, and who attempts to dethrone him and thus cast Urik into mortal danger is evil. Thus, Hamanu is thoroughly good, but is aware that his methods and personal feelings are thoroughly evil.
This sounds a bit like beyond good and evil to me. A SK's alignment would look like a H-G's, but changes every day, even from moment to moment, between good and evil and neutrality, in whatever direction their whim takes them.
However, good and evil in the D&D are somewhat less subjective, and are essential to the workings of the system.
The sorcerer kings are most definatly evil in game terms.
I can't see the Oba ever becoming a preserver. She cares about the environment, and her people, but for purely selfish ends, just like all the other dragons do/did. She has no reason to give up all the power she already has as a dragon. Too much work, too much risk, and virtually no gain.
Even a sorcerer-queen canot defile enough to make truly large difference on a world wide scale. Nor can the powers of an avangion restore enough. Orinis has been at it for hundreds of years and hes got what, one hundred square miles restored, at best?
As far as the Oba is concerned, all the other defilers are the problem. The world is hers and if they woudl just kick off and die, she and her followers could (try to) restore the world and exploit it for her own ends.
If she could some how learn how to preserve, without too much effort, as a dragon, she'd probably jump at it. It would be in her own best interest to not destroy life everytime she needed a spell, and "own best interest" is the bottom line of most any evil being.
#1 doesn't matter, and neither the rest, because: if it exists and you can not understand it to describe it, then you functionally can not depict it as you cannot describe it, its effects, the manner of its function, and its consequences. It is meaningless.
Flying dragons? Magic? Yes. You can describe these, even if they don't work from a "physics" or "chemistry" (etc) standpoint. They can be imagined and depicted. They have real, actual meaning.
Logical impossibilities? No. They cannot be depicted. It does not matter that I can write 0=1, it is an impossibility and thus useless, empty, undepictable, and unexplainable. It makes no sense. They have no real, actual meaning.
There is an important difference between dragons/magic/etc. and logical impossibilities. They are not the same thing for reasons that should be apparent.
That is the last time I explain it however, I am done here.
Ok, my little bit on this: Good and evil transcend cultures, cultures don't define good and evil. Each and every person has the ability to know right from wrong -- some get it confused from time to time however, especially when they begin to rationalize something wrong to make it seem right in their mind. Good and Evil are not transitive, flexible options, they are rather cut and dry. Hell, I'd rather there was no "neutral" between the two -- because you are either good or bad, there is no half-way in my mind. If you are selfless and dedicated to helping others, if you are self-sacrificing, loving, considerate, etc. you are good. If you lack even one of them, you are not good, thus evil. Not only must you have all the qualities, but also must uphold and continue to have all those qualities every second of your life, or else you are evil.
Ah yes, the fallacy that is Moral Law.
God don't get me started on this again, between you and Chris my head is going to explode trying to explain why this doesn't work.
couldn't Lalai-Puy stop and become a preserver? I could see her becoming one to keep her precious forest around her alive while she would still be able to use her magic without fear of killing it off. Another thought which crossed my mind is something similar to Oronis leading her down the trail to becoming and avangion...just a thought though...might become a true forest "spirit"...but whatever, just a thought and wanted to know how plausible it was.
Lalai-Puy may recognise the sense in having, as flindbar said (Watcha flindy
) waaaaaay back up this post, “an enormous battery at her defiling disposal should she ever need it”. Catch is, the reason she values the forest is AS a resource to be used/sacrificed for her well-beyond-modest desires, and THAT makes her evil. To be good you need to recognise the forest as having inherent, intrinsic, worth, in itself, unconditionally, rather than value-in-so-far-as-it-is-useful.Ah yes, the fallacy that is Moral Law.
God don't get me started on this again, between you and Chris my head is going to explode trying to explain why this doesn't work.
Well, when you take into adccount that Human Rationality and Logic is in itself flawed (in the theological sense), it would be rather difficult. But as I said, this isn't really the time nor the place to discuss this topic :P
Catch is, the reason she values the forest is AS a resource to be used/sacrificed for her well-beyond-modest desires, and THAT makes her evil. To be good you need to recognise the forest as having inherent, intrinsic, worth, in itself, unconditionally, rather than value-in-so-far-as-it-is-useful.
I'ts truth she's evil, bad to the bone. But SK aren't beyond good and evil. It's better to say that they are beyond human morality and ethics. They simply don't care about people, or the enviroment. They saw hundreds of hundreds of generations and because of this none of them will care about single human. For them humanity is like rain. They see constant rainfall, but who takes care about single raindrop? After so many years of life they all lost (or should) their sanity and feelings. There is no morality, or good-evil things for them. There are only means of survival and achieving they goals. I think that SK realize that they lost everything that make them human. And that there's no turning back. I almost feel sorry for them.
Well, when you take into adccount that Human Rationality and Logic is in itself flawed (in the theological sense), it would be rather difficult. But as I said, this isn't really the time nor the place to discuss this topic :P
Eh, it's all good. I've been meaning to blog about this again anyways. Hopefully I can get something up soon.
As far as D&D is concerned, I do agree with xlorep that the current alignment system is way too simplistic and the alleigance system from the various d20 Modern/Grim Tales/etc. sources is far better and plan on using it if and when I run again.
While I am not a die-hard moral relativist ("every thing is relative and we can't make moral judgements about anything") I am far from a moral absolutist, defining things in strict terms of either "good" or "evil."
I think that is another aspect of Athas that I find really attractive. I think that in such a harsh, hard world, a lot of times your choices are limited to "really really bad," and "outright evil." That's not to say that players can't work towards genuinely "good" goals, but Athas is so devoid of goodness, that many times they will be put in situations where they'll find themselves conflicted.
It would be so much fun to have a player with Xplore's mindset in my campaign. I would absolutely love to throw a player like that into a morally ambiguous situation (I dunno, like helping a strong but not-so-nice faction in Raam fend off a Dregoth invasion) and watch the chaos ensue!
I think that as DM's we should make our games stimulating and engaging no matter what our personal stance on morality is. I think that moral complexity makes the game more intriguing. Simply saying that "SM's are bad" and leaving it at that seems like a huge let down.
Being "bad" or "evil" doesn't mean that everyone in that same catagory has the same values and behaviors across the board. The game is much more interesting with characters who are simutaneously repulsive / charismatic / dispicable / esteemed / etc. Pennarin's description of Hammanu makes him into a much more interesting character, instead of just describing him as "evil."
Some of the best senarios I have run involved lots of moral ambiguity. For instance, when the players realize they are actually working for the "wrong side" and the people that they have been struggling against actually have more desireable goals in mind. These situations create the role-playing opportunities that we should try to create as DM's.
I think that we have an obligation as DM's to make our Dark Sun worlds as rich and complex as possible. Giving a multi-faceted, complicated, perspective on the actions of various personalities is not an attempt to condone or justify their "evil" actions -rather it is an attempt to keep our gaming world interesting.
itf
I'ts truth she's evil, bad to the bone. But SK aren't beyond good and evil. It's better to say that they are beyond human morality and ethics. They simply don't care about people, or the environment. They saw hundreds of hundreds of generations and because of this none of them will care about single human.
That’s a pretty good description of Evil. They don’t give a squat about anyone else; the rest of the world is either a threat or a resource-for-ascension to them. Lawful Evil, through and through.
After so many years of life they all lost (or should) their sanity and feelings. There is no morality, or good-evil things for them. There are only means of survival and achieving they goals. I think that SK realize that they lost everything that make them human. And that there's no turning back. I almost feel sorry for them.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power absolutely so. Great men are invariably bad men” (Lord Acton, whose quote applies just as much to Athas.
)SK are evil that has climbed the ranks of LE, but that does not mean they are no longer LE. It means they are the peak of LE because they continue with the “the world is a resource to my greatness” attitude.
Now there is truthfully no evil or good in my opinion, just how individuals react to any given situation and how seperated they are and how strong their social ties are along with the main culture. Just as vodoo is considered to be the stuff of evil, it was once an accepted religion that wasn't seen as evil back in africa...you just have to look at different aspects of the society which you look at.
Next point: you don't need to be good to be a preserver. You could be the king of 'evil' and still be a preserver simply because you have a long term aspect of looking at it. I think lalali-puy would be an excellent candidate for this simply because she is concerned with the life long aspect of making the forest survive as it gives her people sustenance and a home...
Anyhow, just some thoughts on both teh abstract concept of good and evil along with why i think lalali puy would make a good preserver...just some thoughts however
Next point: you don't need to be good to be a preserver. You could be the king of 'evil' and still be a preserver simply because you have a long term aspect of looking at it. I think lalali-puy would be an excellent candidate for this simply because she is concerned with the life long aspect of making the forest survive as it gives her people sustenance and a home...
Anyhow, just some thoughts on both teh abstract concept of good and evil along with why i think lalali puy would make a good preserver...just some thoughts however
True, you don't need to be good to be a Preserver. You definitely do need to not be a Dragon. Lalai-Puy is a Dragon, make no mistake. That's one of the most powerful and offensive of the Defilers. Why would she turn her back to the power presented to her as a Dragon? From the one account we have of anyone who has ever turned around from a Dragon, you'd need to be able to realize that the ends do not justify the means -- and begin to "repent" for your previous actions, you'd need to painstakingly and unswervingly (sp?) leave Defiling, purge yourself of it, and make yourself substantially weaker than you currently are as a Dragon -- a process that still is kind of unclear... does it take Druids to help in the process (Oronis had the help of a Druid... a Pyreen if I remember correctly)? What all does it entail exactly -- it apparently took Oronis something like 500 years just to make himself a Preserver, and I bet he has to live with the temptation of defiling every second of every day -- I'd even rule that just one act of Defiling would completely reverse any progress he's made as a Preserver and force him to start over on the path of redemption.
I just don't see Lalai-Puy willingly making herself weaker. She's evil through-and-through, she's hardly repentant of her actions, and seems very determined ti increase her personal power, not obliterate it. I mean, she has a considerable amount of power as a Dragon -- physical, magical, and psionic. Why would she cut herself off from all of that to become a Preserver? Esp. considering that in the lore, apparently the Avangion process isn't something that is very well known (it's even more secret than the Dragon process) -- and I'd tend to think she'd not even know that there is a path to redemption, or even that she'd remotely desire such a thing.
As to Oronis's temptation, I would imagine it has been lifted from him since he underwent the 1st stage of the avangion metamorphosis. I can't see an avangion even being capable of defiling anymore.
Though that does conjure up interesting imagery: A dark avangion with a arua of fear and negative energy!!
While one might be an evil preserver, IMO they couldn't be evil and be an avangion. I don't buy good dragons, or evil avangions, I don't even really like the idea of neutral avangions very much, but they are plausible if neutral in the same way as a druid. Or neutral dragons for that matter, though I could see them becoming neutral over the ages. I see Hammanu as right on the edge of neutrality, a sort of LN with evil tendencies.
Ahh, see, that's one of the reasons I like Allegiances. The order which the Alleigances are listed determines importance to the individual. I have Hamanu as "Law, Evil", which means he is only evil as long as it is within the Law -- this is different than "Evil, Law" which would mean that he'd only follow the laws as long as it was Evil to do so. Actually, since Allegiances allow for three aspects to them, I'd probably have him being "Urik, Law, Evil" -- he'd be Evil unless it conflicted with the Law, and he'd work lawfully as long as it didn't conflict with his guardianship of Urik.
As to Oronis's temptation, I would imagine it has been lifted from him since he underwent the 1st stage of the avangion metamorphosis. I can't see an avangion even being capable of defiling anymore.
I'd say that a Stage-10 Avangion no longer has that worry. But Stage 1 -> 9 they could still concievably Defile, and if they Defile, they cannot progress as an Avangion, lose all the Avangion advantages they've gained (but retain the physical weakness from being an Avangion, for instance) and would need to redeem themselves to be able to progress. My reasoning on this is that the internal power Avangions can rely upon for their spells isn't perfected until Stage-10. Plus, it shows just how fragile this state of being is -- and how easy it is for a prospective Avangion to slip.
Though that does conjure up interesting imagery: A dark avangion with a arua of fear and negative energy!!
I personally have no problems with Avangions of any moral or ethical allegiances (read: Alignment). I have problems with Good Dragons -- as I believe that the very nature of Dragons is corruptive to an individual and their moral allegiance (Good-Evil Axis) would slip quickly into Evil. But for Avangions, I don't think that by virtue of being an Avangion, that would preclude you to become "good". It just means you are an Avangion -- a power of Preserving magic, and there is nothing about PReserving magic that has ever meant the Preserver was "good". If you check the 2E materials, Preservers could be any Alignment, while Defilers could not be good.
1. They look like angels and turn gold in color.
2. The radiate light and create/nuture life (positive energy anyone?)
3. They radiate a protection from evil aura by the 8th stage. (kind of hard to do if your evil ;) ), which also dispels all magical darkness.
4. They radiate an arua of enfeeblement that only effects evil creatures by the 9th stage.
5. In the Role-playing an Avangion section it say:
"The avangion is the first of its kind in recorded history, a focus of change toward good, the most powerful good character that a player can have."
6. They gain the spell-like abilities (permenently active) Know Alignment, ESP, and Detect Lies spell typically found on the list of spell like abilities for celestials, but not demons/devils.
Defilers and Preservers adds these lines:
"The metamorphosis often calls for periods of peace, isolation, and reflection"
"As a focus of change and goodness avangions are rare and unique beings"
This one is from the Advanced being kit in that book:
"Those on the path toward becoming an avangion also see themselves as a force for stability and unification, but their visions are slightly different. Whereas the dragons seek to rule, avangions seek to guide. Those preservers who have heard tales of avangions hope they will one day become the focal point for changes to better life for all. They want to become the ultimate expression of good on the planet. Often they see themselves as battling the sorcerer kings and freeing athas from their tyrrany."
I am quite aware that preservers can be evil. No problems with that here. I just don't think that an evil preserver should be able to become an avangion.
Defiler 100%!!!!!
Sorry, Lalai-Puy is a Dragon, plain and simple. She's no Preserver, even with her charade. She's an evil and defiling monster who masquerades as something else -- always a much more devious and dangerous foe.
I think that we shouldn't make SK simple evil and single minded. For me it kills a bit of DS climate, where nothing is black-and-white. SK are lawful and, I think, sometimes it should make them do something good. It alwasy adds a bit confiusion in PC's ;)
On second thought, there was Ceasar Kaligula or Commodus and they were monsters indeed.
The sorcerer kings are monsters, in every sense of the word, but they do not lack things like love, compasion, gratitude, or even mercy. These qualities are either twisted to evil, or are overshaowed by it, in the vast majority of situations.
Ahh, see, that's one of the reasons I like Allegiances. The order which the Alleigances are listed determines importance to the individual. I have Hamanu as "Law, Evil", which means he is only evil as long as it is within the Law -- this is different than "Evil, Law" which would mean that he'd only follow the laws as long as it was Evil to do so. Actually, since Allegiances allow for three aspects to them, I'd probably have him being "Urik, Law, Evil" -- he'd be Evil unless it conflicted with the Law, and he'd work lawfully as long as it didn't conflict with his guardianship of Urik.
Hamanu is the law. He made every single law he willingly follows. He views, not without reason, that Urik, and everything/everyone with in it, is his, and he does not like anything screwing with his property. If they did not serve him he would change them. Hamanu is no less evil than dregoth or any of the other former champions.
I never liked the idea of alignments being seen as the casue rather than the effect. being devoted to evil, only fanatical nut job priests of obscure gods,or other lunatics like them, are going to go around and proclaim themseves devoties evil. None of the SKs give a damn about perpetuating "evil", they care about doing what is good for themselves, only the opinion on what is good/best differs.
1. They look like angels and turn gold in color.
2. The radiate light and create/nuture life (positive energy anyone?)
3. They radiate a protection from evil aura by the 8th stage. (kind of hard to do if your evil ), which also dispels all magical darkness.
4. They radiate an arua of enfeeblement that only effects evil creatures by the 9th stage.
5. In the Role-playing an Avangion section it say:
"The avangion is the first of its kind in recorded history, a focus of change toward good, the most powerful good character that a player can have."
6. They gain the spell-like abilities (permenently active) Know Alignment, ESP, and Detect Lies spell typically found on the list of spell like abilities for celestials, but not demons/devils.
SInce your talking about "Dragon Kigs" a 2E sourcebook, I'll make soem comments on 2E.
1. Looks are rather superfical, by definition. Erinyes, at least in 2E look like beautiful women, with the exception of large feathered wings. They could easily be mistaken for celestials. Many uinique baatezu nobles, and tanar'ri lords also have forms that are not sterotypically "fiendish".
2. Positive/negative energy do not have an alignment in of themselves. Most living things good or evil are healed by positive, and harmed by negative. The evil ancient dead (mummies) are sustained by positive energy.
3. In 2E there was nothing stoping evil being sfrom using protection from evil, infact it was often a lot smarter than protection from good. Good beings tend to be more merciful, and fighting other evil was atleast, if not far more, common, for evil beings.
5. Thats true and all avangions that have existed in canon material have been firmly in the good alignment.
6. Many fiends have know alignment, almost as many have ESP, and several have detect lies. None of these abilites are any less useful to "evil" than to "good".
Aangions were intended to be Athas' paragons of good, but the simple form and powers they posses are no wher near the best evidence of that.
Hamanu...does not like anything screwing with his property.
Ah-ha! Hamanu is a libertarian! I knew he was evil, but that just confirms it!
Hi,
I think that we shouldn't make SK simple evil and single minded. For me it kills a bit of DS climate, where nothing is black-and-white. SK are lawful and, I think, sometimes it should make them do something good. It alwasy adds a bit confiusion in PC's ;)
On second thought, there was Ceasar Kaligula or Commodus and they were monsters indeed.
You misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't saying that she was simple, as in easy to figure out, single-minded, etc. She has a rather complex and elaborite structure of manipulation, deceit, and lies that she's developed over the past 2000 years or more. Hardly a "simple" person. But, she is evil, and there is no getting around that.
LE is no less "evil" than CE, just more organized. "Evil" is not simple, and the vast majority of beings are not actively persuing, or even aware of their, alignment(its gamespeak). They do what they do, and their actions dictate their alignment, not the otherway around.
The sorcerer kings are monsters, in every sense of the word, but they do not lack things like love, compasion, gratitude, or even mercy. These qualities are either twisted to evil, or are overshaowed by it, in the vast majority of situations.
Exactly.
Hamanu is the law. He made every single law he willingly follows. He views, not without reason, that Urik, and everything/everyone with in it, is his, and he does not like anything screwing with his property. If they did not serve him he would change them. Hamanu is no less evil than dregoth or any of the other former champions.
I was never implying otherwise. It's just that with Hamanu, his focus tends to be more to the Law (and the ethical) rather than Evil (moral). He structures everything according to his passion for this. He's no less evil than the others -- he's just more focused on the Law. Lalai-Puy is no less evil as well -- she just masquerades as something else. If anything she's probably a hell of a lot more deceitful. For allegiances, I see Lalai-Puy as having "Lalai-Puy, Evil, Law" -- that is, she's lawful as long as it's evil to be so, and she's evil (and lawful) as long as it's within her own best interests to be so. Such a character would be totally untrustworthy.
I never liked the idea of alignments being seen as the casue rather than the effect. being devoted to evil, only fanatical nut job priests of obscure gods,or other lunatics like them, are going to go around and proclaim themseves devoties evil. None of the SKs give a damn about perpetuating "evil", they care about doing what is good for themselves, only the opinion on what is good/best differs.
Agreed, I always prefer using the Allegiances as effect rather than cause -- if someone has been playing their character a certain way, then I assign them a certain Allegiance (or take away one if they are frequently playing contrary to it).
Ah-ha! Hamanu is a libertarian! I knew he was evil, but that just confirms it!
Those damn Libertarians and their silly "state's rights".
For allegiances, I see Lalai-Puy as having "Lalai-Puy, Evil, Law" -- that is, she's lawful as long as it's evil to be so, and she's evil (and lawful) as long as it's within her own best interests to be so.
Hmmm although people who are good are not good because it is their own best interests, they are good because it is in others best interests. Of course it IS in their best interests too, its just that you dont get to be good by being motivated by that but by realising that all deserve benefit not just "me and mine"......the evil part comes in because folks who are not good are inherently spreading misery - so the "look out for number 1" and "spread evil" are not really seperatable in the way you've put them. They both go together equally
As far as D&D is concerned, I do agree with xlorep that the current alignment system is way too simplistic and the alleigance system from the various d20 Modern/Grim Tales/etc. sources is far better and plan on using it if and when I run again.
I don't use alignment as anything other than a role-playing aid in my campaign (and for various spells, items and so on) - the D&D alignments are way too constrictive and black/white. I don't like black/white. Grrr.
If you see it as too "black and white", I think you're using it wrong. It's a spectrum, not a set of ruts.
Alignment is supposed to be a guide, not a crutch, or a straight jacket. It's jsut there to let people get a rough description without having to delve into minutae.
If you see it as too "black and white", I think you're using it wrong. It's a spectrum, not a set of ruts.
If that was aimed at my post, I do think the entire "evil, neutral, good, chaos, lawful" spectrum still is too narrow - as I said, I use them as a role-playing aid for the players to help them define their characters. If they later remove themselves from this alignment, so be it, no penalties from me (although I do make the players keep track of their alignment).
Please don't think that my view of alignment means I don't include moral ambiguities, surprises or choices for the players - I find these kind of situations among the most interesting in all roleplaying games.
If that was aimed at my post, I do think the entire "evil, neutral, good, chaos, lawful" spectrum still is too narrow - as I said, I use them as a role-playing aid for the players to help them define their characters. If they later remove themselves from this alignment, so be it, no penalties from me (although I do make the players keep track of their alignment).
Yet another reason why you should use the alleigance system, it's no where near as narrow and you can keep track of it easier. Plus you can gain and remove allegiances as you play the game, as long as you obtain a level before getting a new one (if I remember correctly), where losing one is based on what happens in game and not whether you level or not.
Does the allegiance system allow for concepts like modesty, gentleness, valuing something intrinsically rather than for what it can do for you, liberty etc?
My first inclination would be to say "yes", but that is really a xlorepdarkhelm question (or others who are just familiar with the system) who is a heck of a lot more intimate with the system than I and has actually played using it.
Does the allegiance system allow for concepts like modesty, gentleness, valuing something intrinsically rather than for what it can do for you, liberty etc?
Well, here's from the d20 Modern SRD :
This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a.
ALLEGIANCES
The allegiances system is optional.
A character may have up to three allegiances, listed in order from most important to least important. These allegiances are indications of what the character values in life, and may encompass people, organizations, or ideals. A character may have no allegiances (being either a free spirit or a lone wolf) or may change allegiances as he or she goes through life. Also, just because the character fits into a certain category of people doesn’t mean the character has to have that category as an allegiance.
If the character acts in a way that is detrimental to his or her allegiance, the GM may choose to strip the character of that allegiance (and all its benefits) and assign an allegiance more suitable to those actions.
Pledging Allegiance
A hero’s allegiance can take the form of loyalty to a person, to an organization, to a belief system, to a nation, or to an ethical or moral philosophy. In general, a character can discard an allegiance at any time, but may only gain a new allegiance after attaining a new level.
Having an allegiance implies having sufficient intelligence and wisdom to make a moral or ethical choice. As a result, a character must have Intelligence and Wisdom scores of 3 or higher in order to select allegiances.
Allegiances include, but are not limited to, the following examples.
Person or Group: This includes a leader or superior, a family, a group of linked individuals (such as a band of adventurers or a cell of secret agents), or a discrete unit within a larger organization (such as members of the character’s squad or platoon, or individuals whose safety the character is responsible for).
Organization: This may be a company or corporation, a gathering of like-minded individuals, a fraternal brotherhood, a secret society, a branch of the armed forces, a local, state, or national government, a university, an employer, or an otherwise established authority.
Nation: This may or may not be the nation that the hero currently resides in. It may be where the individual was born, or where the hero resides after emigrating to a new home.
Belief System: This is usually a particular faith or religion, but can also be a specific philosophy or school of thought. Belief systems could also include political beliefs or philosophical outlooks.
Ethical Philosophy: This describes how one feels about order, as represented by law and chaos. An individual with a lawful outlook tends to tell the truth, keep his or her word, respect authority, and honor tradition, and he or she expects others to do likewise. An individual with a chaotic outlook tends to follow his or her instincts and whims, favor new ideas and experiences, and behave in a subjective and open manner in dealings with others.
Moral Philosophy: This describes one’s attitude toward others, as represented by good and evil. An individual with a good allegiance tends to protect innocent life. This belief implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of other creatures. An evil allegiance shows a willingness to hurt, oppress, and kill others, and to debase or destroy innocent life.
Allegiances and Influence
An allegiance can create an empathic bond with others of the same allegiance. With the GM’s permission, the character gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Charisma-based skill checks when dealing with someone of the same allegiance—as long as the character has had some interaction with the other character to discover the connections and bring the bonus into play.
So the answer is yes. Allegiances are very free-form.
So the answer is yes. Allegiances are very free-form.
Great system - never looked back.
Any NPCs I've created as DM, and any PCs I've played as player have had at least a small description of what they value and why they value these things. Alignment was just a guide on how these values were realised, not values themselves.
Almost any value can be distiled through any alignment.