| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1jrblasingameJan 07, 2004 15:31:00 | Ok, I have been wondering that since the gods of Neutrality fight to keep the balance between good and evil. what would happen if everybody desided good was the answer, or if evil was the way to go? Since the gods of Neutrality granted free will to the masses, wouldn't their hands be tied? What could they do? I know it will never happen, but I have been wondering this because whenever either good or evil gets to powerful Nuetrality always steps in, but in these situations good or evil has tried to "press" there views of good/evil on others (evil always does, and the KingPriest is guilty of this too). So could Gilian actaully do anything since everyone chose to be good/evil? |
| #2zombiegleemaxJan 07, 2004 15:37:58 | ... That's not a good hypothetical question. Sorry. Your question is ocmpletely impossible. Its not cause the gods of evil would push it. Its not cause the gods of Twilight will stop it. Millions of individuals all over Krynn cannot possibley ever come to choosing one alignment. Can you ever see that happening? No, its impossible. Completely imposible. Its like saying, "what if every human on earth decided to hug bunnies and say screw war?" Its just not possible! |
| #3zombiegleemaxJan 07, 2004 16:01:49 | The gods of Neutrality hold free choice above any other virtue. It would be of no concern to them whether the entire world was good or evil as long as people chose such and all people reaminined free to change their minds again later. That being said, in the philosphy of Dragonlance such a thing could never occur. Good exists only in oppisition to evil. Light has no meaning without darkness to contrast it. Whenever the balance in the world of Krynn swings too heavily to one side an equalilizing event occurs to restore it. |
| #4baron_the_curseJan 07, 2004 16:22:03 | Originally posted by SageofKaolyn That’s a very annoying thing about Dragonlance. Since an event will always occur to restore the Balance, the Gods of Darkness and Light should realize this, and never scheme to take over Krynn since it’s impossible! Only mortals, like the Kingpriest, would pursue the folly of taking over the world with one worldview. So I guess Takhisis is dumber than a gully dwarf and Sargas is no better since he dreams conquest for the Minotaur Empire. At least the Gods of Light understand how the world works and don’t try to convert everyone to the Light. So what makes the evil gods so blind that they can't see this? Ambition? I don't think so. So how is this explain storywise? |
| #5carteegJan 07, 2004 16:42:13 | True. But there is a difference between something fixed in the center and the pendulum swinging from side to side... to side. Plus, I believe it is the goal of a number of gods to have the balance broken. Hence why a number of evil gods are trying to push their side forward. My guess is that if out of free-will Krynn turned to all good or all evil, Gilean would probably 'officially' have no issues with it, but 'unofficially' he may be pulling strings in the background to bring everything back to center. But on the whole, I see the situation as being unlikely for a good long time. After all, Gilean supposedly tries not to affect the world, yet he is the tie-breaker vote in the arguments made between Paladine and Takhisis (or at least he was). In my mind, that means he is probably the God that has the GREATEST impact on the world even if he is not the one to reach his hand forth into Krynn. But to continue why derailed train of thought... The one thing I'm wondering now in Krynn is that since Neutrality has a dominance in the pantheon, will this result in the 'so-called pendulum' damping to the center (resulting in less swing)? This in and of itself is a breaking of the balance in a way. Imagine if the majority of the population became neutral due to the stronger Neutrally Divine presence in the world? Supporters of free-will or not, their very existance influences events on Krynn. The amount of Good and Evil diminishes as Neutrality strengthens, and the 'average' good and or evil person slides more to Neutrality. Suddenly light and dark begin to merge into one in the world, and yet again you end up in time with something with no counterpart to help define that which exists. Thoughts? Comments? Panda bears dancing on poles with balls on their snouts while using hoola-hoops? |
| #6brimstoneJan 07, 2004 16:45:41 | Originally posted by SageofKaolyn That is an incorrect statement. It very much concerns them when the entire world is one way or the other. Which is why they've sided with one side or the other over history to make sure the balance is maintained. The Cataclysm is a good example of this. The Gods of Neutrality hold Balance in the highest regards specifically...they just believe that free will is the best way to reach a true balance. But it is the balance that they revere not free will. |
| #7brimstoneJan 07, 2004 16:48:35 | Originally posted by Baron the Curse Arrogance, most likely, I would think. Takhisis thought that if she planned perfectly, she could beat the system, I think. |
| #8zombiegleemaxJan 07, 2004 17:07:46 | Originally posted by Brimstone The Cataclysm was an imbalance not because of free will but because of the might and power of the Kingpriest. He did not convert evil, he anniliated it. Then turned toward neutrality and started trying to wipe it out. This is imbalance in the extreme. If Krynnish society gradually drifted towards a singual unified vision of life either good or evil what would neutrality do? Would Gilean raise up legions to strikedown the peaceful unified people of Krynn? Would he force people to be different? Would the gods of neutrality bring strife and suffering to the world simply because it had become too peaceful? If evil or good totally died out, not in a crusade or massive battle but over years simply out of disinterest and apathy. Would the gods of neutrality bring either back to the world. Would they become good or evil simply to restore the balance? |
| #9zombiegleemaxJan 07, 2004 17:53:40 | Originally posted by Brimstone And she nearly did. Except for Tas. |
| #10brimstoneJan 07, 2004 18:14:08 | Originally posted by SageofKaolyn But it was an imbalance, none-the-less. And it greatly concerned Gilean. That's all I was pointing out, if the Balance is destroyed (either by war or gradual movement) the Gods of Neutrality are greatly concerned...and your comment stated otherwise. That was the only point I tried to make. But really, I think the Grey Gods would make their move to restore the balance long before good or evil was completely gone. Because once one completely disappears, what happens to the other? As was stated before, one is nothing more than the opposite or the absence of the other. If one ceases to exist, than the other will disappear as well...then what happens? Stagnation? Zero entropy? Does the opposite occur? Chaos...anarchy? Or is it a paradox of the two? And how would we know? It's a massive philosphical question, which luckily, I think is impossible to test...cause, this situation could never happen, either in the real world, or (thanks to the workings of the Grey Gods) in Dragonlance. But...that's just my rambling thoughts on it. |
| #11IllithidbixJan 07, 2004 19:45:55 | Originally posted by carteeg Umm, I actually started a thread on this very idea (and a bit more) fairly recently, "Beyond Good and Evil, Dragonlance style"Beyond Good and Evil, Dragonlance style |
| #12jrblasingameJan 07, 2004 20:24:20 | Originally posted by Primus, the One and Prime I agree (since it would pretty much doom the frachise) which is why I stated it wouldn't happen. the point was to get some discussion going. anyways.... I'm not sure I agree with the "if evil disappears, then good will too" idea. I mean, just because the last "evil" person converts to "good" doesn't mean ppl start acting indifferent. It just means that "good" has nothing to say is "evil". The ppl can still act the same, treat ppl the same, and act in "good" ways. Mercy, peace, love, charity, ect. don't become non-existant because "evil" is no longer in the world. There would just be no tyrrany, needless suffering, and other things that were termed "evil". |
| #13drachasorJan 08, 2004 12:13:37 | Originally posted by JRBlasingame Just so. People tend to forget that the term "good" only loses meaning when the term "evil" has no meaning. The concepts can't exist if their opposite doesn't at least implictely exist (IMHO, maybe the situation is more complicated than that). However, that doesn't mean that you can have a world *of* good and no evil. What the world is composed of is quite different from what one's thoughts of it might be. For instance, matter and anti-matter do no exist in equal quantities, nor do they need to. You can have a world of all good, and it can remain all good quite easily so long as the concept of what good and evil is exist in some form....if they cease to exist, then the guideline by which people judge their actions ceases to be...and evil can return. Naturally, in this case the importants of the concepts existing lies within each individual and the community as a whole. So, in short, try not to confuse concepts that require each other (good and evil, hungry and not-hungry, etc) with the actual state of the world itself. For example, you can have a world where no one is hungry, but that doesn't mean that the concept of hunger doesn't exist (just wait 12 hours and don't feed people). -Drachasor |
| #14jrblasingameJan 08, 2004 12:37:08 | Originally posted by Drachasor True, and I agree....Ishould have added that when I posted my response, but didnt think of it until after I had posted it and since I'm at work didn't really have the time to edit and post coherently. thanks. |
| #15sweetmeatsJan 09, 2004 6:58:00 | It seems to me that Krynn goes through epochs of good and evil being dominant. Good was dominant pre-cataclysm, but the age of despair was evil's turn to be dominant. Following the war of the lance good was back in charge but had to give it up to evil due to the Chaos War. I don't think you would see an era of neutrality because its highly improbable and because (as stated) the gods of neutrality view free will above all else. |
| #16cam_banksJan 09, 2004 8:24:19 | Originally posted by SweetMeats I would be careful about statements like this. Although Gilean's gift to mortals was free will, his motives behind this were fairly clear. He wanted mortals to be able to make a conscious moral choice, rather than be dominated by Takhisis' evil or sublimated by Paladine's good. By the moral standards of the Gods of Balance, an individual should not be forced, coerced, or prevented from choosing their chosen moral path, even if that choice leads them to ruin. This preserves the balance, allowing the pendulum to swing freely between the moral alignments without hindering Good or Evil in the process. It's interesting to note that many fantasy settings do not have a neutral pantheon accorded as equal a role as Krynn's. The Gods of Balance get short-changed a lot of the time because many people assume they're just the undecided fence-sitters of Dragonlance. In truth, moral concerns (whether one does something for good or evil) are largely irrelevant to them, and what is most important is the nature of that which is affected by morality. Thus, Reorx is most concerned with the hammer, not the hand which weilds it, and Shinare is most concerned with the coin, not the hands which spend it. Gilean, of course, doesn't care what you do with the knowledge of the world, so long as you support and maintain it... and so on. Cheers, Cam |
| #17sweetmeatsJan 09, 2004 8:35:20 | But the nature of neutrality is balance. Neutrality does not strive to be dominant like good and evil does. It simply works to maintaining an equality between all things. Some may view that as "fence-sitting" but I see it as working just as hard to maintain that as good & evil work to be dominant. |
| #18cam_banksJan 09, 2004 9:11:40 | Originally posted by SweetMeats But then you have to look into why they think balance is important. Why not just have good and evil duke it out, ensuring the balance that way? The reason Neutrality doesn't strive to be dominant is because moral concerns are not their concerns. They literally do not care whether somebody is good or evil, so long as good and evil do not subvert that which is being fought over (mortal souls, knowledge, industry, nature, etc). Thus, in order to maintain those things both material and immaterial, Neutrality works to oppose either good or evil ascending into a position of power. If the Gods of Balance secretly wanted everyone to be Good and behave, they wouldn't be neutral. It's for this reason that I believe the High God can't be Lawful Good, else he'd have not handed over the Tobril to Gilean and allowed the triple pantheon model to come about as it did. Clearly, the High God, too, is above moral and ethical concerns, and relies on Gilean to safeguard the key to what the gods' cosmic conflict is all about, which is the Progression of Souls. Cheers, Cam |