We have cases like this in the real world, which are allowed and sanctioned, do you think that polluting industries evil because they spew smoke into the air? It's frowned upon and critisized ,but allowed and not a punishable offense. Or people who bring cattle into an area where they aren't needed, causing the area to become a desert. Captain Planetish.
Personally, on a world where life is struggling to take hold again, anything that destroys that without replacing it can be considered evil.
Example. Humanity has cattle farms. Cattle are not a struggling species, and wiping out a cattle farm does not mean that that particular farm becomes barren for years to come. Those cattle are slaughtered as food to feed the masses. Depending on whether you are a Vegetarian, believe in the killing and eating of animals, ehatnot, these actions can be seen as evil by some, but ultimately it does not drain the resources of the world to do so.
You have a garden. You use it to defile for your spells. When you cast a spell, a 5ftxSpell level radius turns to ash and becomes barren. You cannot use that area again for further spells, so you need to find another, and another. Yeah, you may be casting beneficial spells for people, but you are draining the resources of the world to do so.
Tree of Life.. . . Okay, it does not kill it, but Trees are living creatures. And you are slowly sucking the life out, knowing that it is is powerful that it will survive.. so "no harm done." I could see your point if the tree volunteered up this life for your spells, but you are taking it.
Consider the difference between a Red Cross facility that asks for volunteers to donate up a pint of blood every 3 months. You can choose not to. Now, what would you think of them if they grabbed you off the street, locked you in a room and took a pint a month from you without your consent? I mean, you would replace it, so it wouldn't be killing you.. per se.
Ultimately it comes down to the game, the players, and the DM. I am running a game where the players had to cross a bit of the Silt Sea. They were on a skimmer and they were attacked by a pirate raiding skimmer equipped with a Mage. Well, thier skimmer had a wizard, and he needed some spells to defend the skimmer. So, in front of everyone, he defiled to power a fireball sent at the attacking ship. He did so, because he had to. Not because he wanted to, and he didn't try justifying anything. He felt that if he didn't defend the ship tot he best of his ability, they would likely have died. This was an issue that he had to deal with himself. It is not something he does often, he usually takes the -2 CL penalty for being in the Silt Sea, but this time he needed the extra dice.
The group saw him do this and was like "We have a defiler on the skimmer? Man I wish I would have known.. we should do something you know.. but he did help save the skimmer too.. but he defiled... yeah, but maybe he had to. . ." stuff like that. Defiling should never be glossed over by a group, unless they are all evil PCs and don't give a damn about whether the world survives past their own purposes for it.
Example. Humanity has cattle farms. Cattle are not a struggling species, and wiping out a cattle farm does not mean that that particular farm becomes barren for years to come. Those cattle are slaughtered as food to feed the masses. Depending on whether you are a Vegetarian, believe in the killing and eating of animals, ehatnot, these actions can be seen as evil by some, but ultimately it does not drain the resources of the world to do so.
Sure it does. Cattle require 20 times as much land to raise as most grains, fruits, and vegetables, in comparison to how much food they provide. This also demands a large amount of water be used draining the natural aquifers. Watertable around the world are falling to the point where shortages while soon develop starting territory wars over the precious liquid. Starvation already exists around the world, and although we do have enough food to feed everyone in the world now (not that they actually get the food), with the combined waste of land that is cattle and the falling water tables food will become very scarce.
Cattle are actually particularly wasteful in terms of land reasources as most food animals only require 10 times as much land/energy to raise oer food value as grains, fruits, and vegetables.
To add to the problem the Beef industry in the USA is heavily subsidised leading to artificially low beef costs that belial the actually cost of raise cattle, in fact American imported beef is cheaper then locally raised beef in many countries of the world. So many people who could not afford to eat beef if they had to pay the real cost do, and most people eat far more beef then they would if they had to pay the true cost. Meanwhile the american people do pay for this added expense in the form of taxes, which everyone including vegetarians and vegans are forced to pay.
Sorry, but thats a bad example.
If you want to take things further I can explain how the raising of cattle is directly destorying the Rain Forest in South America.
Defiling should never be glossed over by a group, unless they are all evil PCs and don't give a damn about whether the world survives past their own purposes for it.
"Personal survival over all" is not evil, but non-good agenda. Just every society on Athas is non-good indeed. And such a grade of social stigma against defilers, that exist in city-states (large oases with intensive agriculture), cannot be found in elven or slave desert tribes, where the local defiler is a champion and a key figure in the common survival.
Moreover, the most people hate wizards, not defilers, for they do not know (and have neither chance nor reason to know) the difference between different paths of arcane spellcasting.
An Ecological issue basically Would any of you think that perhaps defiling wouldn't be evil in some cases, such as a defiler who only used trees of life and didn't drain enough to kill them, or basically if they were your own plants, that you grew and made for that purpose.
We have cases like this in the real world, which are allowed and sanctioned, do you think that polluting industries evil because they spew smoke into the air? It's frowned upon and critisized ,but allowed and not a punishable offense. Or people who bring cattle into an area where they aren't needed, causing the area to become a desert. Captain Planetish.
I don't see the environmental issue being the problem. I see the mass destruction at a whim, for whatever your personal purpose or desire is, the fact you place selfish needs over the survivability of the world, as making the act of defiling a corruptive influence on an individual, making them head down the path towards evil.
If you want to take things further I can explain how the raising of cattle is directly destorying the Rain Forest in South America.
That's why everyone should have switched to emu a long time ago...
That's why everyone should have switched to emu a long time ago...
I've heard once that the most efficient way of producing protein is through insect farms. Try to make people accept that, making them eat ground up insect powder. I do believe, though, that one day we will see this happening in the occidental countries on a small scale, signalling that a time will have come when such unpleasant sources of food can become commercially feasible ventures, i.e. we'll be in trouble.
I've heard once that the most efficient way of producing protein is through insect farms. Try to make people accept that, making them eat ground up insect powder. I do believe, though, that one day we will see this happening in the occidental countries on a small scale, signalling that a time will have come when such unpleasant sources of food can become commercially feasible ventures, i.e. we'll be in trouble.
I can believe it, they're a good source of calcium too ;) .
I've heard once that the most efficient way of producing protein is through insect farms.
Not exactly. There are more efficient protein-producing species - Fungi, particulary Candidae (sorry for Latin, for I do not know their English names). What do you think all these biotechnological startups are searching for?
And insects will be delicacies. Like lobsters now.:evillaugh
Defiling is selfish no matter how you look at it, just like trying to enslave nature to work for our "needs". Is it evil to want to survive under the growing pressures of the world, be you the lumberjack who earns barely enough to eat, cutting down the rainforest for the interests of some major far-off company or the guy who throws away paper down the bowl after wiping his rear with it, thinking about how he's going to make his next payment on his electricity bill? Could be... if you understand the implications and you're sure you don't want to change anything about it. [Now, if I only knew how the three seashells worked. :P ]
Defiling is a bit more than trying to simply survive or provide for your needs. In a sense, it is like an addict seeking the drug of his or her choice, in another sense it is far more damaging than strip-mining for resources could ever have been, or poaching a species to extinction. Defiling results in the sterilization of the land, in such a way that it cannot provide anything to sustain life for centuries (of not longer). Sure, people can attempt to recultivate the land, but that shaves off years, maybe a decade or two off of that number. Defiling, at the very least, is reckless abandon - it is placing your immedate concerns or "needs" and either negligently disregarding the damage that has been done, rationalizing that the damage is worth the results, or being naive enough to not be aware of what damage was done. But despite that, the damage was done. The damage could have been avoided, either by preserving or not using arcane magic at all, but the spellcaster defiled the land, ruining the place, and makes sigificant, immedate repercussions that ripple through the surrounding area for a very lengthy period of time.
That kind of destruction -- intentional or not -- with that kind of repercussions, and with the problems caused for those who want to fix it, all wound together is a very corruptive influence. Defiling is of an order that in the real world, I don't think we have anything that can sterilize/destroy land in that manner, for that long. Defiling is an evil-tanted action. Even in 2E, this was pointed out, as there were no "good" defilers. Even more, it was suggested that the reason defilers remain defilers is some sort of addictive quality that the act of defiling seems to have. Defiling isn't about "controlling" the environment to suit your needs, it's about laying everything to waste to suit your whims.
That kind of destruction -- intentional or not -- with that kind of repercussions, and with the problems caused for those who want to fix it, all wound together is a very corruptive influence. Defiling is of an order that in the real world, I don't think we have anything that can sterilize/destroy land in that manner, for that long. Defiling is an evil-tanted action. Even in 2E, this was pointed out, as there were no "good" defilers. Even more, it was suggested that the reason defilers remain defilers is some sort of addictive quality that the act of defiling seems to have. Defiling isn't about "controlling" the environment to suit your needs, it's about laying everything to waste to suit your whims.
Agreed.
Nature isn't in danger by the way, only it's current incarnation, though that's relative as well as climate change is continuously changing. You might think that global warming is simply a by product of man but it isn't, from 1300-1800 the world was in a mini-Ice age. If it wasn't for the potato, it's hard to say how large the population would be today.
If you want to consider factors in climatology, the Sun makes 99% of the climate map, and has less than a century of tracking it's habits, i.e. Sunspots. The model used to hold that it had an 11 yr. cycle, though a few years back the spot pattern broke the mold and was super active in it's quite period.
To call progress evil is really absurd. Every species does what it can to survive, and that is usually at the expense of another specie or habitat. Adapt or DIE, the cycle of life. Humans just happen to be at the top the Terran scale.
Any this is a useless debate, no one is going to change their mind on this, not you, not me. We are just going to have to agree to disagree before it devolves into flames.
On topic, I think that using alignment is irrelevent in DS. DS just doesn't exist in black and white. You can judge stuff as evil or good, but necessities of survival usually supercede right and wrong, and breakdown into choices and how you live with them. Sadira is typically viewed as being good, but she's tainted or at least has a hard time not defiling before the tower.
I prefer to take the morally ambiguous route. :D
I probably should've avoid comment on the evils of progress, but after seeing a posts on that line kind of hit a nerve. Unfortunately, that kind of subject cannot really be debated as neither side will budge on their moral high-ground. My main point is that I was trying to get across without taking any shots at someone is that life is cyclicle in nature, and that man is no exception.
I don't want to get into it as it's a bag of worms that doesn't taste good and isn't filling to anyone.
Anywho, the Hoover Dam is just a big beaver dam... ;)
Sorry.
PB
My suggestion is to stay away from this particular subject since it seems to be the one, on this board in particular, that brings out the emotions that cause problems.
Also, putting the D&D books down and reading more about the subject might help as well. ;)
Now if I can only follow my own advice...
That's why everyone should have switched to emu a long time ago...
Nah, Emu are just another form of chicken.. albeit a bigger form.. hehehe.
And birds of any sort can usually run at a good clip. Another problem with Emu. Their beaks are at about eye-level, so if one ever catches you unaware, you might as well start calling yourself one-eyed Jack or something.
Defiling is selfish no matter how you look at it.
But is being selfish evil?
It depends on the degree of selfishness. Eating all the cookies, no. Gathering all the wealth of the world to the suffering of all others, yes.
I think that this is true to defiling- while the act of actually killing the land may not be evil, the ones who are most attracted to this method of spellcasting are.
I've always looked at it like this: the difference between a preserver defiling and a defiler defiling is easy. The Preserver did it for an important reason and usually feels bad afterwards, because they scorched the land. A defiler probably did it because someone said something about his mother, and laughs as he kicks the useless ash on the corpse. Most of the time, i've always felt those (characters) that are "evil" persay are the ones that dont feel any sort of remorse for theyre actions. Those that have a shred of good in them, are the ones that feel bad that they destroyed something, but they did it to save something else, more important. I could be wrong, but that's my 2 bits.
Understand, that for most preservers (notably those in the Veiled Alliance), a preserver defiling even once, is considered a defiler. Generally speaking, there never is a "right time" or "good reason" to defile. Those who rationalize such things start going down the fast-track to constant defiling, usually.
...at least, that's how I run it. But then again, I use a blending of Noonian's defiling rules presented in Dragon (?), however eliminating the T'liz from the mix, and adding in a variation of the Book of Vile Darkness addiction rules. In my campaigns, defilers deal with serious withdrawl (depending on how much defiling the individual has been doing, it can be life-threatening withdrawl) if that person stops. A preserver who slips and defiles, finds it somewhat addictive, and has a very mild withdrawl effect.
Gotcha, I agree as well, the veiled alliance cant afford to have a potential defiler amongst them, so they are booted out, and subsequently killed. I'm not debating that, all I'm saying is that the act of defiling shouldnt be labeled as "evil" until the specific circumstance has been taken into consideration. :D
It is ecil though, as it is an unecessary act, fueled by greed and personal gratification. Defiling utterly destroys all life in the soil hastening the death of the planet. It's kind of like the equivilent of dumping radioactive waste when you cast a spell. Would you think me evil, if I dumped radioactive waste in your backyard just so I could get rich?
The person may not be evil, because of their circumstances and the reasons for defiling, but the act certainly is evil.
If a wizard defilied and killed one hundred million people then he would be evil, but if the wizard saved the lived of the same number of people by defiling then he would not be evil. The act of defiling is a tool and by their nature tools cannot be good or evil- they just are. It is always the person behind the act who is either good or evil based upon intent, social interpretation, values, moral considerations, ect...but the act cannot be good or evil.
That is not to say that a person could intend to go good by defiling but then the outcome is bad- the act is still not responsible for the good or evil of the outcome, but the person who should bear the goodness or evilness of the outcome of thier actions.
I hope that this makes sense.
It is ecil though, as it is an unecessary act, fueled by greed and personal gratification. Defiling utterly destroys all life in the soil hastening the death of the planet. It's kind of like the equivilent of dumping radioactive waste when you cast a spell. Would you think me evil, if I dumped radioactive waste in your backyard just so I could get rich?
The person may not be evil, because of their circumstances and the reasons for defiling, but the act certainly is evil.
My thoughts exactly.
I have a problem labeling an act evil- an act it a thing not a person. It is like saying that a hammer is evil or water is evil (aside from the fantacy aspects of intelligent hammers and cursed water :D ).
If a wizard defilied and killed one hundred million people then he would be evil, but if the wizard saved the lived of the same number of people by defiling then he would not be evil. The act of defiling is a tool and by their nature tools cannot be good or evil- they just are. It is always the person behind the act who is either good or evil based upon intent, social interpretation, values, moral considerations, ect...but the act cannot be good or evil.
That is not to say that a person could intend to go good by defiling but then the outcome is bad- the act is still not responsible for the good or evil of the outcome, but the person who should bear the goodness or evilness of the outcome of thier actions.
I hope that this makes sense.
Actually, your analogy is flawed. You are comparing tools with actions. A hammer may not be evil, but murdering someone is. The hammer is not at fault, the act of murder (which is to say, "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought", as per the mirriam-webster dictionary definition) is evil.
Your analogy for a tool, would be equivalent to the wizard's spellbook, spell components, or even potentially the spell itself could not be defined very easily as "evil" (unless the spell has the [Evil] descriptor of course). Defiling is an evil action -- it is the deliberate destruction of an area, for some sort of immediate results. We're not talking about something as simple as destroying the area with something akin to arson. We're talking about totally stripping all life-giving properties from that area, rendering it sterile for centuries. That is an extremely abusive use of power, and even with the best intentions on the part of the spellcaster in question, it still ends up with the exact same results. Attempting to put a spin on the spell results, showing that it was somehow benefitial, ends up with a very machiavellian (ends justify the means) view of the situation.
So, to reiterate my take on it: the wizard may not be evil, the wizard's intentions may not be evil, the spell may not be evil, the components may not be evil, the (intended) results from the spell, but the act of defiling to achieve the goal, that is evil, as it leaves a barren, lifeless environment incapable of sustaining life (especially on a world where there tends to be a shortage of life-sustaining land that is ever-shrinking).
[snip] and adding in a variation of the Book of Vile Darkness addition rules.
Cool, I thought no one else was using these. It's just great when a PC just defiled one time too often and you tell him "Now you have to calculate all you boni by yourself. No calculator, no paper. That's the price a defiler pays! Muhahahahahah!!!!!"
PS: Sorry xlorep. The inner Pikachu made me say this.
Cool, I thought no one else was using these. It's just great when a PC just defiled one time too often and you tell him "Now you have to calculate all you boni by yourself. No calculator, no paper. That's the price a defiler pays! Muhahahahahah!!!!!"
PS: Sorry xlorep. The inner Pikachu made me say this.
The Blue Line in my sig answers all.
I mean, let's face it, DS is a world that promotes anti-heroism, which is something I tend to dig the most about the campaign setting. It's ok to be evil, selfish, greedy, etc., just as long as you don't get in the way of some of the higher ups. Being good is a bad thing, you have a much better chance of surviving if you are just neutral or evil, if you were to stick to the D&D alignment system, which is the dyametric opposite of what every other campaign setting that has been put out for the D&D system, with the exception of Ravenloft and even then I would contend that the rewards it gives to evil is outweighed by the fact that you lose your character to the DM/GM if it becomes too evil, where in DS that doesn't happen unless you have a strict DM/GM running that doesn't allow evil or something.
DS has two core races that see other races as nothing but food, with one even becoming cannabalistic if it has to at the expense of getting kicked out of its society and the other only excercising restraint if it considers it a member of its clutch.
Then there is the tolitarian governments that hide history from the general public and pretty much uses them as they see fit. Slavery is also allowed very freely, along with a class that takes no qualms about further destroying the ecosystem with only a fear check put in place to keep them in line, yes it's a fear check that works very well, but it's only a fear check. Stay out of the way of the populace and the higher ups and you will be fine, or join the higher ups and tread lightly.
When it comes to defiling, the culture of the world is at odds with the D&D alignment system. If you are going to flat out consider it an evil act, then you have to make some changes in doing so. One of which is changing Sadira's alignment to evil. As far as I'm concerned she was a defiler, even up till the point when she became a sun wizard, it was just no longer convenient for her to defile, she had something more powerful at her disposal, not to mention that I am pretty sure she defiled even when she was a sun wizard during one of the many nights she had to fight without her sun powers. Never mind the woman's selfish, power hungry personality in general. She was willing to do whatever it took to get her to the status she is today, and I would say what she did to become a sun wizard (basically selling her soul to the devil himself) helps that theory right along.
So to me it's a bit deeper than whether it's evil or not. If you consider the act itself evil, then you also have to consider when someone becomes evil for repeating said act. Is it just once? Twice? Three times the lady? The addiction rules in BoVD that Xlorep as well as myself are going to use handles this pretty beautifully IMO. It at least gives you a scale to use.
Regardless, I think the issue in and of itself is a bit deeper than what most of the posts in this thread make it, and that goes for most of the time it's been rehashed, heh.
DS has two core races that see other races as nothing but food, with one even becoming cannabalistic if it has to at the expense of getting kicked out of its society and the other only excercising restraint if it considers it a member of its clutch.
The entire thing was well done, and I agree, but i had to point out this here. It's one thing if your species views another species as food, that's the food chain, (which I imagine is f*d up on Athas) but when you go into "i'm gonna torture you, cut off your toes, and eat you alive" that's just wrong, and that goes into evil. I read in one of the campaign books that there are some halfling chiefs that eat theyre "gifts" alive, I do not feel that would be considered "normal" I dont even think I could eat any of the normal animals that we eat today, alive. But then again, Athas is a whole nother story...
DS has two core races that see other races as nothing but food, with one even becoming cannabalistic if it has to at the expense of getting kicked out of its society and the other only excercising restraint if it considers it a member of its clutch.
My problem with this is.. Halflings are not cannibals. They do not eat other halflings. Most of what you find anywhere seems to confirm that among halflings, eating other halflings is a very big no-no. So Halflings cannot be called cannibalistic. And Thri-Kreen.. at least civilized ones, generally tend to not eat sentient species. Halflings do try to understand the culture of other creatures they meet, and sometimes they befriend other creatures and those creatures are stricken (at least temporarily) from the menu.... I would think it similar to befriending a pig.. That pig could be your best friend, domesticated, friendly like a dog.. but eventually food may become scarce, and well.. it may be your friend, but it's also bacon.
When it comes to defiling, the culture of the world is at odds with the D&D alignment system. If you are going to flat out consider it an evil act, then you have to make some changes in doing so. One of which is changing Sadira's alignment to evil. As far as I'm concerned she was a defiler, even up till the point when she became a sun wizard, it was just no longer convenient for her to defile, she had something more powerful at her disposal, not to mention that I am pretty sure she defiled even when she was a sun wizard during one of the many nights she had to fight without her sun powers. Never mind the woman's selfish, power hungry personality in general. She was willing to do whatever it took to get her to the status she is today, and I would say what she did to become a sun wizard (basically selling her soul to the devil himself) helps that theory right along.
So to me it's a bit deeper than whether it's evil or not. If you consider the act itself evil, then you also have to consider when someone becomes evil for repeating said act. Is it just once? Twice? Three times the lady? The addiction rules in BoVD that Xlorep as well as myself are going to use handles this pretty beautifully IMO. It at least gives you a scale to use.
Regardless, I think the issue in and of itself is a bit deeper than what most of the posts in this thread make it, and that goes for most of the time it's been rehashed, heh.
As for Sadira, I agree, she was a Defiler.. but not by the rules of the system. I think, in game mechanics, she was a tainted preserver who was just slipping further and further beyind the edge. I would consider her Nuetral at best, in no way was she Good, but I am not sure that she was evil. She committed evil acts by defiling, but she herself was not evil in nature. Selfish yes, but for the most part she was looking for other's best interest. There were a few scenes in the books however, where she would have been slipping towards evil if she had been a character in a game.
The entire thing was well done, and I agree, but i had to point out this here. It's one thing if your species views another species as food, that's the food chain, (which I imagine is f*d up on Athas) but when you go into "i'm gonna torture you, cut off your toes, and eat you alive" that's just wrong, and that goes into evil. I read in one of the campaign books that there are some halfling chiefs that eat theyre "gifts" alive, I do not feel that would be considered "normal" I dont even think I could eat any of the normal animals that we eat today, alive. But then again, Athas is a whole nother story...
You may not be able to eat some of our food alive, but it is done quite often in todays society (especially in different cultures). There are places where they bring out platefuls of live shrimp and you have to grab it as it is running away and start munching. But thats a shrimp and these are humans you might say. . to Halflings, food is food. So what if the food can walk, talk, communicate, it's food. Yeah, to the humans and elves that may end up as food it sucks pretty bad, but I bet that if there was a way to tap into the thouhgts of our food, fish and chicken etc would probably think that it sucks that they are ending up as food too.
I think the act of picking a lobster, having them throw it into boiling water and then eating it is rather barbaric.. but then again, it's a lobster, just a large cousin of the cockroach, not a half elf, or Elf... Different mentality, but similar situations from the viewpoint of a Halfling.
One of which is changing Sadira's alignment to evil. As far as I'm concerned she was a defiler, even up till the point when she became a sun wizard, it was just no longer convenient for her to defile, she had something more powerful at her disposal, not to mention that I am pretty sure she defiled even when she was a sun wizard during one of the many nights she had to fight without her sun powers. Never mind the woman's selfish, power hungry personality in general. She was willing to do whatever it took to get her to the status she is today, and I would say what she did to become a sun wizard (basically selling her soul to the devil himself) helps that theory right along.
I agree totally with you on Sadira's character.
I do not know the allegiance system, but I just dropped alignments completely from my Dark Sun game. Pretty simple; no alignment for anyone.
My problem with this is.. Halflings are not cannibals. They do not eat other halflings. Most of what you find anywhere seems to confirm that among halflings, eating other halflings is a very big no-no. So Halflings cannot be called cannibalistic.
You need to re-read what I wrote about halflings. That is not at all what I said.
I said they could become cannibalistic, but at a price, for the most part they aren't by the literal definition of cannibalism
And Thri-Kreen.. at least civilized ones, generally tend to not eat sentient species. Halflings do try to understand the culture of other creatures they meet, and sometimes they befriend other creatures and those creatures are stricken (at least temporarily) from the menu.... I would think it similar to befriending a pig.. That pig could be your best friend, domesticated, friendly like a dog.. but eventually food may become scarce, and well.. it may be your friend, but it's also bacon.
Sure, I'm not saying it's automatic, that every halfling is going to eat the first human he sees, or that every kreen is going to go on a rampage to eat elves because they are a delicacy.
What I am saying is that DS has two core races that see other sentient races as food. No other campaign setting has this that I know of, at least within the TSR/WotC line. This pretty much adds to the anti-heroism of the setting and the fact that morality is very gray, very neutral, sometimes downright evil. That's why being good is not always the best choice and it's much harder to be an actual hero because of this.
I agree totally with you on Sadira's character.
I do not know the allegiance system, but I just dropped alignments completely from my Dark Sun game. Pretty simple; no alignment for anyone.
Do a google search for MSRD and take a look at it. It's worth using IMO, especially if you are going to drop alignments alltogether.
The entire thing was well done, and I agree, but i had to point out this here. It's one thing if your species views another species as food, that's the food chain, (which I imagine is f*d up on Athas) but when you go into "i'm gonna torture you, cut off your toes, and eat you alive" that's just wrong, and that goes into evil. I read in one of the campaign books that there are some halfling chiefs that eat theyre "gifts" alive, I do not feel that would be considered "normal" I dont even think I could eat any of the normal animals that we eat today, alive. But then again, Athas is a whole nother story...
So your argument against this is one of degree. What Nytcrawlr (and I, I might add) said about evil, and defining his view about what could constitute evil, wasn't evil enough for you. I'm sorry, but when one sentient being comes up and kills another sentient being for food, that just sits in the category of "evil" for me -- especially from the view of the victim (and anyone else who is up on the dinner menu). Nytcrawlr was defining that it can be a matter of perspective. Halflings & Kreen could easily be seen as "evil" by many societies on Athas, while within their own society, they don't see it as wrong in any way, and could easily see it as being either just a matter of life/existence, or even good to eat the other races. Dark Sun is full of "blurred lines" between good and evil.
That said, I still hold that defiling is evil; it is corruptive, it is a dangerous influence, and it has lasting consequences that affects a great many more things than just the defiler in question. I'm not saying that "if you defile, your alignment instantly becomes evil and you're just screwed." I'm saying that if you defile, it leaves a mark, a "taint" on you. As you defile more, you slip further down the path of corruption. If I use alignments (which I don't, I use allegiances, which are far more free-form), I'd eventually have a good spellcaster who defiles enough, slip to neutral and then eventually to evil. It's not a speedy process by any means. I'm reminded about the old addage about cooking frogs. You don't just throw the live frog into a pot of boiling water - they will simply leap out before they even touch the water. To cook a frog, you start with water in a comfortable, room-temperature pot of water, and very slowly turn the heat up. By the time the frog knows it's being cooked, it is too late and is dead. Defiling is like turning up the heat ever so slightly -- the more you defile, the more the pot of water's temperature rises. If you keep defiling, you won't know you are in trouble until it is too late.
What is unethical in one culture is not only acceptable, but sometimes even desireable in another. Although there are lots of examples in the real world we could discuss, i have niether the inclination or desire to get into that debate here.
In any case, the key question is: is defiling evil? the answer is related to the culture of the person asking the question and the cultural background of the person who is answering.
I'd say for elves for example, it's not considered evil as they are largley nomadic and thus thier culture doesn't see long-term damage to a specific location as an issue. Dwarves, however, who tend to live in single location for a longer period of time would have a very different perspective on the issue.
Simple examples, but it allows us to begin to think of the question from a cultural perspective. This is of course also layered by individual beliefs (which may be inline, opposed or just different from your cultural upbringing) and attitudes.
Anyway, just my .02c
I agree, If you defile you will probably not immediately switch to Evil.. you get the taint, and using the system you need to make the rolls (whatever it is +1 per time defiled). I would say find out what the highest you can roll and make it, and call half of that an alignment shift a step closer to evil (As in, say you can roll an 18 and still "save," then when you defiler 9 times, you switch an alignment step). You may not be a bonefide defiler yet, but you are on the path there and your alignment is suffering.
If you defile once, you are tainted, and magical perceptions may now register you as a defiler, or evil. Druids will most definitely not have a liking to you, clerics may not have a liking to you. Basically, any type of detection spells that register evil will pick up someone who is defiling... in my games anyway.
Taking the example of someone being head-hunted, of course it is NOT ok for them to be eaten, but that is THIER ethical judgement made through thier cultural lens.
In the case of Athas, i'd safe defiling gets as close as is possible to a universal unethical behaviour. That said there is no such thing as a universal evil .
Now before i get flamed to death - even on something as emotional as murder, there are some cultures that believe - even today - that ritual killings (what we define through our cultural lens as murder) are not only acceptable, but are entirely ethical. Hence the dilema as a DM in defining defiling as evil.
Personally, i could see a defiler PC being good. They could, potentially, use thier powers for good. They could have thier own gardens, raise crops and take efforts to minimize thier impact (much like the SM's with thier own special gardens to fuel thier spells) which in it'self show a good conscience.
But i digress. What is evil is entirely a product of the culture you are raised in, and your interpretations of it. Sure, you have people who are so far out of whach with thier own cultures that they try and define ehtically unacceptable behaviour as somehow moral. They are then punished for breaching societies rules. Using the example of elves, a defiler may run with his tribe who openly know who and what he is, but they tolerate, maybe even admire him... but the same defiler, in Urik is killed for being evil. Ethics are viewed through a prism of culture.
INMHO there are no universal ethicaly 'right' or 'wrong' or inherrently 'evil' or 'good' positions or actions. That said, it's a fantasy world and we can make it what we want!
While it is true that some is culturally based, ethics also fall into a much broader category. Just because someone believes that their actions are right and good, does not necessarily make it so. A culture based around cannabalism, for instance, might think they are OK themselves, but to those who are "headhunted", it is hardly the case. There is a level of social acceptability that is part of ethics, but there also is most definitely parts that are not. Generally speaking, doing things that inflict harm upon others, either directly (like murder), or indirectly (like Alexader the Great's salting of his enemie's lands despoiling them and making the lands incapable of sustaining life for centuries). Defiling falls into the more "indirect harm" way, but it still is "evil", it is destructive, and the defiler who justifies his or her actions is only further showing the evil quality (for otherwise, there wouldn't really be a need to ustify your actions, now would there be).
Now in the case of our real world, there are religions that have the command "thou shalt not kill" or words to that effect.
And yet, we have death penalties, abortions, wars etc - all of which have people violently opposed to, ambivilent towards, very supportive of and every shade between.
Now, presuming that the elements were involved in the creation of athas, that would, INMHO give them unique status to determine what is ethical. I doubt they would take kindly to life energy (formed from all four elements) being leached forever out of the ground. So from the original creators ethical position, defiling is evil.
However, life was given or developed free will on athas. It's new inhabitants can, and do, re-interpret what is right and wrong in general and in specific instances all the time.
That doesn't however, stop the creators from marking your soul as you cross thier ethical lines... in effect, marking you as 'evil' in game terms :D
Another thing about defiling. This is a world where there are spirits and elementals. Magic is a deciding factor. So what if someone, somewhere, doesn't see defiling as evil. I think most of the spirits of the land, and elementals say otherwise. So sure, culturally someone may not have a problem with it, but there are other, external opinions that also have to be taken into consideration. Defiling is not just killing life in the area, it is ruining the land for decades, if not centuries afterwards, and you have to take into consideration thew way magic and spirits/elementals will play in how that person is perceived from then on.
I agree, If you defile you will probably not immediately switch to Evil.. you get the taint, and using the system you need to make the rolls (whatever it is +1 per time defiled). I would say find out what the highest you can roll and make it, and call half of that an alignment shift a step closer to evil (As in, say you can roll an 18 and still "save," then when you defiler 9 times, you switch an alignment step). You may not be a bonefide defiler yet, but you are on the path there and your alignment is suffering.
If you defile once, you are tainted, and magical perceptions may now register you as a defiler, or evil. Druids will most definitely not have a liking to you, clerics may not have a liking to you. Basically, any type of detection spells that register evil will pick up someone who is defiling... in my games anyway.
Now in the case of our real world, there are religions that have the command "thou shalt not kill" or words to that effect.
And yet, we have death penalties, abortions, wars etc - all of which have people violently opposed to, ambivilent towards, very supportive of and every shade between.
It's actual, closest translation is "You shall not murder" -- it was translated to "thou shalt not kill" back when kill meant what murder means now. However, kill has become more generalized and non-specific, while murder has filled into the place kill once did. Executions, mortal woundings -- those are not, by definition, murder. They are all somewhat synonymous to kill, but not completely equivalent to murder. Abortions are actually by definition murder, for it is killing someone for personal gain (and the counter argument I usually hear is that "it's not a person yet, it's just part of the mother's body"). Honestly, this isn't the place to drag in such political discussions. I don't want to get into them. I personally believe that there is a universal evil in the world. I believe that there are cultures, entire cultures that have become sadly confused and mixed-up as to what's good and evil. There also are a great many people who think that good & evil are solely the province of the culture you are in. I would love to show how that is wrong, but honestly it is a fruitless and relatively pointless discussion -- because people tend to be rather set in their ways and proving someone wrong would be perceived as attampting to force them to change their minds -- which historically people reject being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
That said, I do play off of the notion that there is some things that are universally evil, in Dark Sun (to get bck to the topic at hand, and away from the political/religious argument this thread seems to really want to be moved down). I strongly believe, and have it in my campaigns, that Defiling is a corruptive evil influence on people. I take that from the way it was treated in the 2E materials and novels. No, I'm not saying that every defiler is by definition evil. Howev er in 2E, there was no such thing as a good defiler. Dragons are even moreso, for they effectively up their destructive scale and become mass murderers to boot.
Now, people can keep rehashing the argument that it's not evil "just because", or it's not evil because there's "no such thing as a 'universal evil'. The argument can spiral back to religio-political directions and build up even more flames and heat, or we can leave it at the same place this very agument has been left in the past -- some people think it is evil, some don't. We are very dead-set in our views, and are not likely to move -- because it is a purely philosophical argument, and as Nytcrawlr has mentioned, most of us are not really, personally, up to the task of arguing in a philosphical debate, and are relying on effectively regurgitating what we've been told. Which will make this argument an unending circle with much friction. And like any surface with friction, ithe faster it goes around and around, the hotter it gets. Get this argument spinning fast enough out of control, and we'll have a constant stream of flames from it. Let's not get to that point.
INMHO there are no universal ethicaly 'right' or 'wrong' or inherrently 'evil' or 'good' positions or actions.
You're dangerously getting close to a metaethics debate here, and I'm not sure you want to go there on these boards regardless of whether it should be tolerated or not.
I disagree with you however. I don't agree with Moral Relativism, hell I don't even think it really exists and that it's just used as a buzz word by the current Pope and others to qualify their political agenda.
All I have to say is look to the current radical fundamentaist groups and tell me we can't universally agree that some of the things they do are evil. I'm sorry but people that go around and bomb abortion clinics, become suicide bombers, the same type of terrorists that took down the twin towers here in the U.S. are all evil in my eyes, and just because they don't think they are doesn't mean they are suddenly not evil just because they have a different opinion on the matter.
It's actual, closest translation is "You shall not murder"
Yeah, a lot of people get this wrong, myself included at one time.
Abortions are actually by definition murder, for it is killing someone for personal gain
Only by your own, specific religious beliefs. Not everyone that is a Christian agrees with you, hell not even everyone that are somewhat religious agree with you.
So the jury is still out on this one brother, I'll listen to what the scientists actually have to say for now.
(and the counter argument I usually hear is that "it's not a person yet, it's just part of the mother's body").
Let this be an excellent example of why we shouldn't go where this thread is going. ;)
Personally, i could see a defiler PC being good. They could, potentially, use thier powers for good. They could have thier own gardens, raise crops and take efforts to minimize thier impact (much like the SM's with thier own special gardens to fuel thier spells) which in it'self show a good conscience.
To keep on topic, I just have one more thing to say here. Yes, A Defiler could think he is not being evil by keeping his own garden to power his spells, but this will last once, and then the garden will be barren and our defiler will be out looking for other sources of his power. Soon it will turn into someone elses garden, and eventually it will be "ah, who cares, the plantlife is there only to suit my needs".
Yes, SKs have special gardens, usually populated by Trees of Life (because normal gardens would become barren and unusable for centuries afterwards), but my problem there is that the Trees, are living, I would say near-sentient (in my opinion anyway, and beyond normal plant-life). It goes back up to a Rogue Red-cross agent kidnapping people, strapping them down and forcefully taking a pint of blood every other week. Sure, the person will survive.. a while anyway, but eventually this type of torture will cause it's death - or at least a change in which it is no longer what it originally started out as. (in the case of a human, something withdrawn and mentally no longer there. In the case of a Tree, a withered husk that lives only because it's magic keeps it alive).
So in my games, Defiling will always be evil. I am unwilling to argue philosophy and the mindsets of different real-world cultures, because ultimately the real world has little bearing in how we treat the philosophy of a game world. Sure, in the real world people can argue till their lips turn blue that there is or is not a universal evil, but in a game world, where spells have an [evil] descriptor, and demons and devils have chances of running around, I would have to say that there in, in fact, a universal evil.
Now, you see all the time in movies, books, etc of people willing to commit a "necessary" evil to complete their goal. Groups that have a license to do anything necessary (James Bond; License to kill. Police; Speeding/running red lights if they are on their way to a crime scense or after a criminal) as long as they do it while they are working to complete an assignment. But this is neither here nor there in a game world. Good and evil has a greater bearing on perceptions and intent in a game world where [good] and [evil] exists. If there is no universal evil in a game world, then there is no grounds to have spells with the [good] and [evil] descriptors, but they are there because there is.
Thats it for me, I think.
Yeah, a lot of people get this wrong, myself included at one time.
Only by your own, specific religious beliefs. Not everyone that is a Christian agrees with you, hell not even everyone that are somewhat religious agree with you.
So the jury is still out on this one brother, I'll listen to what the scientists actually have to say for now.
Let this be an excellent example of why we shouldn't go where this thread is going. ;)
Please note I did say we don't want to head down that path.
If you are interested in this stuff - and I’m only suggesting it from the sake of informed debate - read some of Kymlicka's stuff on minority rights (no he's not a right or left wing loony but an exceptional respected academic with 'real world' experience) and you may (or may not) revisit your position.
If you had asked me even two years ago about ethics, I would have answered the same as you. However, living where I live, I’ve learnt (the hard way) that what is considered right and wrong, ethical and unethical, good and evil, are very, very, very much dependant on the cultural lens you are looking through. Sure, differences exist often within cultures - people attitude towards the death penalty is a classic example, but there are broad differences between many of our world’s cultures and how they view certain things as good or evil, desirable or undesirable.
Again, you are coming from a cultural view that there is only one way to determine evil - through your cultural lens. That's pretty clear when you state:
"....just because they don't think they are doesn't mean they are suddenly not evil just because they have a different opinion on the matter "
It's not a matter of not THINKING the act (whatever it is) is evil, it may be that the act is considered GOOD or HONORABLE in their culture. This is what often confounds many people (and did once confound me) is that people can have diametrically opposed positions and both think they are right, and from your standpoint, they are wrong. From their standpoint, YOU are wrong.
That said, I do think there are some values that are nearly (nearly, mind you) universal, but context and interpretation are key in these matters.
Back to Darksun for a moment, an Elf has a very, very different view of love and commitment than say, a dwarf. This is cultural. So from a Dwarf's view, the elf that runs off after getting a human pregnant is unethical and evil. From an elven perspective, it's part of life and they would be confused as to why the dwarf in the party thinks the elf is scum for doing so. Ethics are culturally relative, even issues as emotive as the ones you have raised have this dimension.
Final word on this: just because you are exposed to someone else ethical views doesn't mean you have to 'succumb' to them. I do business in China now on a regular basis (I now live in Singapore). All I’ll say is this:
There are some business practices in China that are totally acceptable to the local population and have proud history dating back thousands of years. But I view these practices as unethical, if not downright disgusting so I choose not to participate or perpetuate them. Does it place me at a disadvantage? Yes, sometimes, but I am being true to my moral compass without preaching to my colleagues that they are wrong.
You're dangerously getting close to a metaethics debate here, and I'm not sure you want to go there on these boards regardless of whether it should be tolerated or not.
I disagree with you however. I don't agree with Moral Relativism, hell I don't even think it really exists and that it's just used as a buzz word by the current Pope and others to qualify their political agenda.
All I have to say is look to the current radical fundamentaist groups and tell me we can't universally agree that some of the things they do are evil. I'm sorry but people that go around and bomb abortion clinics, become suicide bombers, the same type of terrorists that took down the twin towers here in the U.S. are all evil in my eyes, and just because they don't think they are doesn't mean they are suddenly not evil just because they have a different opinion on the matter.
Please note I did say we don't want to head down that path.
Except that you did and then you added that little disclaimer.
Sorry but you just can't make a statement like that about a very controversial subject and then leave it. That's why I made the statemate I did, though I probably should have just left it at the first part of my statement and walked away at that point, that's my bad.
As far as staying on topic. All you really have to do is read the rulebook, it's all there in black and white and if you don't like that answer then don't use that specific rule.
Not sure why people feel the need to turn it into a metaethics debate every 6 months or so.
You are entitled to disagree. The examples you cited are of individuals making decisions. As I said, they are then punished for those if it goes against societal norms (which are a whole other debate about).
I think you are misunderstanding me, especailly as I read through the latter points of your post. I suggest you email me further if you want to get into this...this is not the place and I'm not going to allow myself to get dragged into another metaethics debate on this forum.
I think you are misunderstanding me, especailly as I read through the latter points of your post. I suggest you email me further if you want to get into this...this is not the place and I'm not going to allow myself to get dragged into another metaethics debate on this forum.
Except that you did and then you added that little disclaimer.
Sorry but you just can't make a statement like that about a very controversial subject and then leave it. That's why I made the statemate I did, though I probably should have just left it at the first part of my statement and walked away at that point, that's my bad.
I wasn't attacking, I was just asking for a summary dropping of the topuic, peacably. I know I made a statement then immediately said I didn't want to get into it. I fully expected people to respond, I was simply letting you know that I really don't want to delve any more into the topic, because it is a very hot subject, and has little to no relevence to Dark Sun.
As far as staying on topic. All you really have to do is read the rulebook, it's all there in black and white and if you don't like that answer then don't use that specific rule.
Not sure why people feel the need to turn it into a metaethics debate every 6 months or so.
Because talking about Dragons & Avangions the rest of the time gets tiresome :P
I wasn't attacking, I was just asking for a summary dropping of the topuic, peacably. I know I made a statement then immediately said I didn't want to get into it. I fully expected people to respond, I was simply letting you know that I really don't want to delve any more into the topic, because it is a very hot subject, and has little to no relevence to Dark Sun.
Ok, understandable. I had the same issue when I was responding to what you said, I didn't really want to get into it, never mind the fact that you already know my feelings on that particular issue.
I just didn't like the fact that you made a blanket statement about such a controversial issue and then said don't get into it anymore. I know you know better, and I certainly know better, especially since it's gotten us into trouble in the past. Things slip sometimes I guess, just didn't want to see a flame nuke go off.
Because talking about Dragons & Avangions the rest of the time gets tiresome :P
no fracking lie.(Yes I've been watching too much BSG.)
(Yes I've been watching too much BSG.)
You know, before 2 years ago, or however long it has been, I would have said that there was too much BSG. Now, Not enough BSG. I just got caught up (Have a buddy that records them for me), and I am wanting more, and it sucks to have to wait so long for more.
On a positive note though, here in Vegas SciFi is picking up the first season of the new Dr. Who series. I have already seen it, but I am looking forward to seeing them again. And hopefully, if all goes well they will pick up the next seaon (which started in December I think)
You know, before 2 years ago, or however long it has been, I would have said that there was too much BSG. Now, Not enough BSG. I just got caught up (Have a buddy that records them for me), and I am wanting more, and it sucks to have to wait so long for more.
I feel your pain, when I lost my last job cable was one of the few things to go till I get to the point where I am back on my feet again. Until then I've been doing the Netflix thing. Funny thing is I almost caught up to waht they have out already since they only have the first half of the second season out on DVD at this point, which means I only have 4 more discis of episodes to watch before I have to wait till the second part of season 2 is released. Going to be a tough wait that's for sure.
On a positive note though, here in Vegas SciFi is picking up the first season of the new Dr. Who series. I have already seen it, but I am looking forward to seeing them again. And hopefully, if all goes well they will pick up the next seaon (which started in December I think)
I need to catch that, never was a big fan of the original, course I didn't try real hard to be one either. I'm hoping the new one will catch my interest though, always liked the concept of the show.
I need to catch that, never was a big fan of the original, course I didn't try real hard to be one either. I'm hoping the new one will catch my interest though, always liked the concept of the show.
My wife was a big fan of the original, but she's a few years older than me, and they actually ran it where she grew up, and I had no exposure to it. The new series is well done, this from a prior non-Doctor fan. I definitely enjoyed it. and so did the wife.
Anyway.... As if this thread doesn't have enough jumping, I will try to behave now.. heheheh