Something has recently occured to me. If the powers have stats (a la Deities and Demigods), that must mean that they're just ultra-powerful cutters. You know, just like the Athar said.
On the other hand, even their stats say that they are deities.
On the other hand, even their stats say that they are deities.
Actually, their stats say that they have "divine rank" which could simply be a measure of how much ability they have at tapping in to the great unknown.
The Athar's problem is that they assume that there HAS to be some meaning to the multiverse and that the gods aren't the tip top of the heirarchy of the universe.
Many cultures have less expectations of their deities
-The DM?
-The rules system itself?
-Gary Gygax?
-A 20-sided die?
I think that applies to the deities, as well as many things about Planescape in general.
What is a god?
What makes a god a god?
Depending on your answers to these questions, the athar are right or they are wrong or they are half-accurate. If a god is simply the object of worship, then they are wrong. If something is only a divinity if it can be ascribed features of an infinite, omnipotent, omniscent, etc. God conceptualized by modern monotheisms, then they are right.
It ultimately boils down to perception in this case -- to the athar, there are no gods because what they see as divinity is not fulfilled by the Powers. Others, who define divinity in a different fasion, would say that there are gods. And thus, it argument continues.
In D&D or AD&D the gods have always been defined in terms of stats, killable or not. And ability score above 20 in 1e and 2e was generally considered godlike anyway. Because they are measureable does not mean that they don't qualify as gods. They are more like the humanized gods of Greek and Norse mythology than any Western monotheistic god (omniscient, omnipotent, transcendant, yet personal).
The folly the Athar make is that they are applying modern logic from our world (where, if a god exists, it is believed to be vastly different from the D&D gods and not subject to empirical understanding) in a setting where it has no place. If D&D gods are defined the way the manuals present them, the Athar's views are pointless. Their only purpose might be opposing the gods instead of denying them instead.
To put this into perspective, it would make about as much sense for there to be an anti-elf faction which states that true elves should be like those depicted in Tolkien--truly immortal and superhuman and not the batardized PC race we have now, which they might hold to be nothing more than magically altered humans. How ridiculous would that be?
It goes on. It gets worse too. What about an anti-magic faction which states that true magic doesn't exist and all that mages study and perform is a complex science of manipulation and optical illusion that can be explained through physics? And what if they were able to duplicate mage spells anyway, without the need to study spellbooks (sorcerers aside, I don't speak the language of 3e)? Would that not be a rape of the wizard class, the way the Planescape setting ra**** the cleric class by allowing such oxymorons as Athar clerics and priests of unknown, inanimate, nonsentient concepts?
The problem is, the existence of gods, elves, and magic has always been a given for D&D anyway.
This all reflects the post-modern feel of Planescape to begin with, which is probably the only problem I have with it. It somewhat contradicts with the foundation of the D&D game. D&D has always believed in absolute truths. While Planescape can teach us that we can gain conviction from our beliefs, regardless of their ultimate truths, and that our convictions might actually become true through our actions, it is wrong in denying absolute truth. The D&D game does not believe in moral relativism, for instance, which is why we have an alignment system. Like it or not, some factions must be ultimately wrong.
The Athar just believe that the gods are middle-men, whereas worshippers believe them to be founts of power. This is an important difference - the defiers are saying that, far from being unknowable entities as removed from humanity as humans are from bacteria, the gods are merely powerful mortals. It can work, honestly.
Priests believe their deities to be absolute and unreachable. The Athar say that there is something beyond them, and the deities fool mortals into thinking they are the ultimate reality when we have as much right to the divine power of the Great Unknown as any god.
Anyone here played Kult?
In D&D or AD&D the gods have always been defined in terms of stats, killable or not. And ability score above 20 in 1e and 2e was generally considered godlike anyway. Because they are measureable does not mean that they don't qualify as gods. They are more like the humanized gods of Greek and Norse mythology than any Western monotheistic god (omniscient, omnipotent, transcendant, yet personal).
It is about perception, which you can't define with a rule book, no matter what it is. For example, on Athas, the world of Dark Sun, there are no 'gods' in the classic sense. However, there are the Sorcerer Kings, powerful psionicist/defilers(a type of wizard).
-The Sorcerer Kings (Dragons, but not in the classic sense here -- Dragons are ascendant defilers. Ascendant preservers (the other type of wizard) become Avangions) grant spells to their followers
-The Sorcerer Kings are the biggest, badest guys on the block, and have ruled for quite some time, with only recent upheaval challanging them or leading to any of their deaths. The only being more powerful than them (Raajat, who discovered magic in Dark Sun) was recently freed and re-imprisoned, and some incredibly powerful heroes also toasted a few. Most gods follow a similar pattern, where they rule since time out of mind but every so often get a credible challenge that upsets the established order.
-Many Sorcerer Kings are worshipped as gods in may of the city states they rule.
Ignore the rules classifications. Ignore the definitions. At this point, what really seperates the 'true' gods from the Sorcerer Kings?
Or, for another example, replace "Demon Prince" and "Arch Devil" with "god" and vice-versa. In this situation, would you worship the 'gods' or the 'demon prices' and 'arch devils'.
Then take the point of view of the Athar. They don't deny that the Powers exist, only that they aren't worthy of mortal worship and reverence. They deny mortal creatures owe them anything at all, or consider them anything else than ultra-powerful beings, no different mortals than an Archdevil or a Demon Prince or a Dragon or a Solars or Epic Heroes or some other hideously power being in this regaurd. Most people don't offer prayer or devotion to Archdevils, Demon Princes, Dragons, Solars, Epic Heroes, or any other hidiously powerful beings, no matter how good or evil they may be (though some inevitably do), so why should you offer prayer or devotion to these so-called 'gods'?
Planescape challenges the D&D mindset -the ideas that LG is always right,and that monsters only exist to be killed,for example. Admittedly it sometimes fails - you can't really have a truly post-modern setting in a multiverse that by its very nature conforms to moral dualism - but at least it tries to buck the trend.
Only the scope of the cynical post-modernism of PS is LG wrong. This is reflected in the subtly subservient writing to be found in the rulebooks--especially in regards to priests, paladins, Mount Celestia, and the Harmonium. PS assumes that Lawful Good means "Lawful Stupid" and equate it with narrow-mindedness and rigidity when it is in fact the most courageous and least hypocritical of all alignments.
Now some people view LG as stubborn and ridgid etc. and no better than anything else. Granted it could be, but this is false. What this fails to differentiate is the fallible individual from his infallible ideals. Lawful Good is probably the hardest alignment to live by--what makes people dislike it is their own selfishness and refusal to accept moral absolutes--which is usually out of intellectual dishonesty because these are less attractive than the moral relativism of chaotic and evil alignments.
There is a subtle but profound truth to the fact that in the original AD&D game, good is stronger than evil. It isn't obvious at first, but if you look at the monster manual, you will notice that the forces of evil are many and weak and the forces of good are few and strong. The most powerful genie, dragon, giant, lycanthrope, naga, and sphinx are all of good alignment. Likewise, the most powerful celestial could easily waste the most powerful fiend. The Paladin maintains his strength because he is good, which is why anti-paladins and paladins of other alignments are impossible. If truth is belief in action, than the AD&D game assumes, without being directly judgemental, that LG (not just any) is belief in an absolute truth.
This is obviously offensive to the Planescape setting; where the fact that beliefs affect reality makes every belief simultaneously right and wrong (in truth it would make them all valid given their conviction, but not all equally true, as they are not the same thing), and anyone who claims to know the truth of the multiverse is seen as a bigoted fool. To that I would say without belief in objective truth, right or wrong, you have nowhere to go, and that is something you can speak but not live. Truth is a dangerous thing.
Now where PS is right is in it's assertion of understanding and considering all motives--and that all conflicts cannot be solved through violence. It is good that the PS setting emphasizes this intelligently, but it is not reflective of abandoning the truth of the LG alignment or even in presuming a black and white view of morality.
Alignment does work if we can see that there is a gap between the ideals and the people who hold them, and give them plausible motives for having these views, right or wrong. Morals--in short good and evil--are black and white absolutes, but people are not. This is something that was unspokenly assumed in 1e (which was politically incorrect and too smart for it's own good), known in 2e but tactfully explored (which was politically correct about the names of fiends and gods), and completely misunderstood in 3e (which is politically incorrect about gods and fiends, but politically correct about everything else).
The old Complete Book of Villians was one of the most wonderfully in-depth books dealing with the subject of evil as it is relevant to the D&D game. It knew that characters could be of any alignment to have misgivings, and focused primarily on fleshing out your villian so that he/she/it would have a past, present, future, netowrk, beliefs, goals, and motives. It was about building plots to engage the players and developing characters. More importantly, it encouraged creativity.
The Book of Vile Darkness, on the other hand, is a contemptable amalgam of filler bells and whistles, cynically assuming that players have no interest in exploring the issues it presents beyond primitive sensationalism. It believes itself to be 'mature' by presenting it's subject matter without actually dealing with it, and that the players are content to do the same. It was about making your villians as replusive as possible to manipulate your players into killing them by dwelling on their actions (the Villain's handbook had only a single table in the back for vile deeds) and not in creating real characters the players could react to. The title is accurate, at least the first word. Philosophically inept, morally repugnant, and thuroughly condescending.
As the book of Villians proves, the D&D game is capable of exploring these truths without reducing everything to hack n' slash. The trouble is, the glimmering gossamer of 3e makes that hard to tell these days.
Priests believe their deities to be absolute and unreachable. The Athar say that there is something beyond them, and the deities fool mortals into thinking they are the ultimate reality when we have as much right to the divine power of the Great Unknown as any god.
Then take the point of view of the Athar. They don't deny that the Powers exist, only that they aren't worthy of mortal worship and reverence. They deny mortal creatures owe them anything at all, or consider them anything else than ultra-powerful beings, no different mortals than an Archdevil or a Demon Prince or a Dragon or a Solars or Epic Heroes or some other hideously power being in this regaurd. Most people don't offer prayer or devotion to Archdevils, Demon Princes, Dragons, Solars, Epic Heroes, or any other hidiously powerful beings, no matter how good or evil they may be (though some inevitably do), so why should you offer prayer or devotion to these so-called 'gods'?
This may make sense if the PS setting did not make the egregious alteration of having a deity's powers/existence dependant on mortal worship. This may be an interesting observation about the role and nature of religion in our world, but it does not work in the AD&D game, where mortal activity has little or no direct bearing on the gods, who should naturally be indepedent.
The Great Unknown seems to represent the yearning for a trascendant spiritual truth outside the boundaries of religion--a pedistal erected after the destruction of a previous one. The Protestant reformation had a similar ideal, except they didn't deconstruct Christianity; they only discounted supreme papal authority. That could work in D&D, but not gaining powers from a "Great Unknown", unless that power is a disguised deity.
To reach out to the "Great Unkown" is still calling upon a pedistal of their devising. The powers at least have their own seperate existance from mortals (before PS decided to blur the line and make them products of our beliefs). The arrogance the Athar betray in assuming that they should have rights over or against the gods is akin to the reasoning behind Satan's rebellion in heaven or Adam and Eve's desire to amass the knowledge of their creator when they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. They are not, and could not be equal to God.
The assumption that the gods are no more powerful than insanely advanced mortals and other uber creatures of the D&D one is unfounded. Arch-devils and demon princes are capable of granting spells and sometimes have worshippers, but they are not deities. These other beings--dragons, liches, and heroes, could be nearly as powerful as the avatars of some deities (hopefully these aren't PCs!), but they do not return to their home planes when slain, at least not most of the time. The avatar of a god is just that--it may not be the full extent of their power.
Since they cannot thrive with their beliefs far from Sigil or the Astral plane without fear of divine retribution for long is a powerful testament agains the Athar's philosophy. They assert these views without realizing the clay feet of their mortal limitations, nor have they provided a better alternative. Perhaps the Athar could work if their goal is merely to oppose the gods, but presuming them to be no more than mortals doesn't quite work.
Oh well. Makes me feel like I'm a orator in Sigil's streets, so passionately arguing about various points of little direct importance. I guess I could make that my next character.
Your belief in moral and ethical absolutes is touching, but naive. There is no 'right way', and actions are not intrinsically good. These are merely points of view, and your opinions will differ wildly from those of other people. If your town is threatened by another, and you stand up to protect your burg, you have done both your duty (i.e. the Lawful part) and a good deed - within the context of your society. To the people of the other town, you are an evil destroyer. All moral, and certainly all ethical 'truths' are essentially subjective. Certainly PS exhibits a post-modern attitude, but it shouldn't be discounted just because of its cynicism; sometimes a cynical attitude is required to look at things without ideological filters, outside of the context of our own societies. I think it is good that
To be honest, I think the entire alignment system is flawed. You can't simplify all ethics and morality into nine personality types, and just state that one end is right and the other is wrong! It's ludicrous. Morals are never black and white absolutes; there are always grey areas, between conflicting duties, between opposed groups and between individual happiness and good for all.
Life isn't simple; it doesn't end happily ever after.
However, I take it from the tone of your message that you have strong Christian beliefs, and so regard morality and ethics as coming directly from god and existing separate from humanity. In which case, there is very little use in me arguing with you; we're not looking at the same world.
PS assumes that Lawful Good means "Lawful Stupid" and equate it with narrow-mindedness and rigidity when it is in fact the most courageous and least hypocritical of all alignments.
Now some people view LG as stubborn and ridgid etc. and no better than anything else. Granted it could be, but this is false. What this fails to differentiate is the fallible individual from his infallible ideals. Lawful Good is probably the hardest alignment to live by--what makes people dislike it is their own selfishness and refusal to accept moral absolutes--which is usually out of intellectual dishonesty because these are less attractive than the moral relativism of chaotic and evil alignments.
The Harmonium is only one representative of the ideal of Lawful Goodness and it is composed of fallible individuals. I don't quite see, how you can say, that Planescape as setting assumes something about the absolute nature of an alignment. In fact, it makes a point of not taking ANYTHING for absolute. Exaggerating I would paraphrase your argument as 'I believe, that LG is the absolute ideal and Planescape doesn't, thus it is wrong.' and that can hardly be considered a good point IMO.
... the Planescape setting; where the fact that beliefs affect reality makes every belief simultaneously right and wrong (in truth it would make them all valid given their conviction, but not all equally true, as they are not the same thing), and anyone who claims to know the truth of the multiverse is seen as a bigoted fool. To that I would say without belief in objective truth, right or wrong, you have nowhere to go, and that is something you can speak but not live. Truth is a dangerous thing.
Beliefs just like opinions cannot be right or wrong. And there's nothing wrong with beliefs in difference objective truths. Every faction is convinced to know the truth about the workings of the multiverse, but that doesn't mean, that some are right and some are wrong. Just like the world is different for every observer, the truth may be different depending on the observant. That's the nature of the Planescape multiverse. And just like a nihilist IRL can believe in the pointlessness of everything and still live, a Planescape character can live with the knowledge, that his belief makes its own object become reality.
This may make sense if the PS setting did not make the egregious alteration of having a deity's powers/existence dependant on mortal worship. This may be an interesting observation about the role and nature of religion in our world, but it does not work in the AD&D game, where mortal activity has little or no direct bearing on the gods, who should naturally be indepedent.
My experiences with the earlier incarnations of DnD is admittedly limited, but I was under the impression, that the dependance of deities upon mortal worshippers was canon (at least) since the later days of 2e. Also nothing says, that a setting has to conform with anything outside itself. It has to be consistent and closed in itself.
The assumption that the gods are no more powerful than insanely advanced mortals and other uber creatures of the D&D one is unfounded. Arch-devils and demon princes are capable of granting spells and sometimes have worshippers, but they are not deities. [...] The avatar of a god is just that--it may not be the full extent of their power.
So what, if the gods are more powerful, than other beings (and that assumption is not nearly as obvious as you make it). Does that make them RIGHT? Does that make them truly something Greater (note the capital G) than mortals, or do they simply have the bigger guns due to the innumerable mortals *believing* them to be this powerful?
Since they cannot thrive with their beliefs far from Sigil or the Astral plane without fear of divine retribution for long is a powerful testament agains the Athar's philosophy.
Actually taking this as testament FOR the Athars' beliefs is equally valid - the powers don't want to lose their worshippers due to the Athar exposing the truth about them, so they try to suppress them.
The arrogance the Athar betray in assuming that they should have rights over or against the gods ... They are not, and could not be equal to God.
Nor do they claim to. In fact they believe the very opposite, that there's something (the Great Unknown) beyond the understanding of ANY creature, no matter how powerful it may be. But the 'normal gods', while hard to understand, are not completely beyond the sight of mortals - they have been tricked, out-witted, intimidated and slain (or simply died) just like normal people, so they don't qualify for true godhood, even IF their powers by chance exceed that of some demon prince or archmage.
In short, the Athars' belief is by no means invalid within the system of Planescape or DnD in general.
Oh well. Makes me feel like I'm a orator in Sigil's streets, so passionately arguing about various points of little direct importance. I guess I could make that my next character.
"Philosophers with clubs" is the term, planars use in this context ;). And it certainly makes for a better spending of time than many other things
.This may make sense if the PS setting did not make the egregious alteration of having a deity's powers/existence dependant on mortal worship. This may be an interesting observation about the role and nature of religion in our world, but it does not work in the AD&D game, where mortal activity has little or no direct bearing on the gods, who should naturally be indepedent.
Nice try. Just because the Powers need to eat doesn't mean that they are anything special. There are plenty of creatures who feed off strange things -- hell thought eaters consume psionic energies, and there are probably some demons who feed on innocence lost. Succubi feed off of life itself. The Powers feed on psychic energies offered by their worshippers, etc, like you and I feed on meat and vegtibles. The Powers descend to the depraved deapths of the Mind Flayers. Sure, the Powers leave their victims alive, but they are best sybiotic creatures who fool, trick, or cow mortals into worshipping them before offering any sort of benefit, and parasites at worst, feeding on the emtions and devotions of their worshipers while treating them with disgust, disdain, and outright hostility, murdering and abusing mortals as they see fit, AND they steal way devotion from the true gods, who are beings of great moral rectitude who aren't limited by such petty necessities as sustenance. Even the best of the Powers lie and decieve, exalting themselves up on some pedistal so they can get the fix they need without dealing with the rest of us as equals. If I walked down the street and said to give me your bread, your house, and your coppers because I'm great and powerful and I'll do some nice things for you in the future, you'd give me a one-way ticket to the Mortuary or Gatehouse. Why do the Powers get away with it? It's right there in the name. They have power. They are the biggest bullies in the multiverse. Some basher goes about her/his buisness, and it angers some Power on some plane somewhere with some strange neurotic compulsion, so that basher get's penned in the Dead Book because he doesn't have an army of proxies and enough magic to conjure a castle. There are creatures who don't have problems with this kind of set up, and they are live in the Abyss.
The Great Unknown seems to represent the yearning for a trascendant spiritual truth outside the boundaries of religion--a pedistal erected after the destruction of a previous one. The Protestant reformation had a similar ideal, except they didn't deconstruct Christianity; they only discounted supreme papal authority. That could work in D&D, but not gaining powers from a "Great Unknown", unless that power is a disguised deity.
To reach out to the "Great Unkown" is still calling upon a pedistal of their devising. The powers at least have their own seperate existance from mortals (before PS decided to blur the line and make them products of our beliefs). The arrogance the Athar betray in assuming that they should have rights over or against the gods is akin to the reasoning behind Satan's rebellion in heaven or Adam and Eve's desire to amass the knowledge of their creator when they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. They are not, and could not be equal to God.
Why shouldn't the Athar have rights over or against the Powers anymore than any other creature? If some barmy archdevil or wizard with more power than a Solar comes waltzing down the streets of Sigil blowing things sky high and butchering people, you would say that that person is evil, he/she should be jailed/killed, stopped, etc. Now, some so called "gods", just another group powerful beings on the planes, come around and does just this stuff you were up in arms about over the devil and the wizard, and now you start crying about "divine plans" and "the rule of heaven". I'm sorry, but I'm not washing my neck for anyone, and the claim to power is never the claim to rectitude unless you are some demon. If that's good enough for you, I would be glad to show you a nice portal to the Abyss -- you can see how well they treat visitors.
And what's this crap about creators? The Powers may or may not have created anything, but even if they did, it doesn't give them right to do as they please. If your parents should think that you are barmy and decide you need to Gatehouse, are you just going to stand there and let them toss you in? What if they think you need to be dead?
The assumption that the gods are no different than insanely advanced mortals and other uber creatures of the D&D one is unfounded. Arch-devils and demon princes are capable of granting spells and sometimes have worshippers, but they are not deities. These other beings--dragons, liches, and heroes, could be nearly as powerful as the avatars of some deities (hopefully these aren't PCs!), but they do not return to their home planes when slain, at least not most of the time. The avatar of a god is just that--it may not be the full extent of their power.
You miss the point berk. The Powers are different from archdevils and demon princes, but then again, elves aren't humans, slaadi aren't beholders, and the Dragons on Athas are a world apart from the ones on most Prime worlds. It doesn't make a difference, because just being different isn't a reason for anyone to worship anything. It's the trick of the Powers. I walk upto some basher and say, "I'm human, worship me" or "I'm a troll, worship me" or "I'm an Arcanaloth, worship me", I'm going to get laughed at. What about these so-called "gods" deserves our devotion? But they somehow got the idea planted in our brain boxes that when they say "I'm a Power, worship me" that we should start bowing down. O, and gods are not more powerful than all of these other beings. You ever see a hecatoncheire, berk? One of those things will kill a Power in no time flat. Saw it happen once. Wasn't a preatty sight.
Since they cannot thrive with their beliefs far from Sigil or the Astral plane without fear of divine retribution for long is a powerful testament agains the Athar's philosophy. They assert these views without realizing the clay feet of their mortal limitations, nor have they provided a better alternative. Perhaps the Athar could work if their goal is merely to oppose the gods, but presuming them to be no more than mortals doesn't quite work.
Yes, we get stuck in Sigil and the base the of Spire, berk, but why don't you take a dive into the Abyss -- they love that chant about "might makes right". Your so called beloved gods are supposed to sit on some sort of moral high horse, but they aren't any better than the bashers on the lower planes in alot of ways. If you go along with them, they act all sweet and nice, but if you do something they don't like, they decide the multiverse is better of without you. If they decide that the multiverse is better off some way, they go and change it, nevermind what the harms, hurts, and consequences are.
Oh well. Makes me feel like I'm a orator in Sigil's streets, so passionately arguing about various points of little direct importance. I guess I could make that my next character.
It's a good thing your not, berk. With reasons like that the bashers around here will start thinking your barmy and give you a one-way ticket to the Gatehouse. Clueless sodding Primes.
-------------------------------------------Athar Rant Off-----------------
Only the scope of the cynical post-modernism of PS is LG wrong. This is reflected in the subtly subservient writing to be found in the rulebooks--especially in regards to priests, paladins, Mount Celestia, and the Harmonium. PS assumes that Lawful Good means "Lawful Stupid" and equate it with narrow-mindedness and rigidity when it is in fact the most courageous and least hypocritical of all alignments.
Lawful Good is Lawful "Stupid" because the measure of good and evil in D&D, beyond basic concern for the rights of other, IS stupid. I can walk into some Red Dragon's lair, murder it, and steal its stuff, and this is OK, because Red Dragons are eeevil. Never mind that the Red Dragon may or may not have done anything to harm anyone who didn't try to pull the same stunt, it's sitll ok.
****, pillage, and murder are all good viking traditions. Pillage and murder make it into D&D. However, any modern ethical system does not consdier Pillage and murder to be good.
The BoED and BoVD are abominations. If you want specifics, I will be glad to provide them. D&D ethics are a mess.
Now some people view LG as stubborn and ridgid etc. and no better than anything else. Granted it could be, but this is false. What this fails to differentiate is the fallible individual from his infallible ideals. Lawful Good is probably the hardest alignment to live by--what makes people dislike it is their own selfishness and refusal to accept moral absolutes--which is usually out of intellectual dishonesty because these are less attractive than the moral relativism of chaotic and evil alignments.
That is the flaw of the lawfully good. They tend to be stubborn and rigid. Take Keldorn, for example. He is all nice and good until Viconia get's put into the party, and then he tells her to get out or he will kill her. Why? His magic 8 ball (detect evil) said it was ok. O, and she's a drow.
As for moral absolutes, it wouldn't be so bad if D&D's moral absolutes weren't self contradictory pieces of abhorrent illogic that I can tear to pieces in about 10 minuets of thinking. The worst of these are those so-called "reasons" given for why undead are evil, and deathless in general. They lack any sort of internal logic or consistency. If you want more, deapth, just ask, and I will provide the details.
Moral abosultism has nothing to do with it. 1) These are characters, not people. 2) There is no moral absolutism in the real world, so it's not like RPGs are any escape from it. While there may be natural laws governing what is good and what is evil, there is nothing even approximating scientific data on what these might be. There are religions, but beyond the basics of "Do not do unto others", they disagree, and offer no proof. For all intensive purposes, we exist in a morally subjective world.
There is a subtle but profound truth to the fact that in the original AD&D game, good is stronger than evil. It isn't obvious at first, but if you look at the monster manual, you will notice that the forces of evil are many and weak and the forces of good are few and strong. The most powerful genie, dragon, giant, lycanthrope, naga, and sphinx are all of good alignment. Likewise, the most powerful celestial could easily waste the most powerful fiend. The Paladin maintains his strength because he is good, which is why anti-paladins and paladins of other alignments are impossible. If truth is belief in action, than the AD&D game assumes, without being directly judgemental, that LG (not just any) is belief in an absolute truth.
This is obviously offensive to the Planescape setting; where the fact that beliefs affect reality makes every belief simultaneously right and wrong (in truth it would make them all valid given their conviction, but not all equally true, as they are not the same thing), and anyone who claims to know the truth of the multiverse is seen as a bigoted fool. To that I would say without belief in objective truth, right or wrong, you have nowhere to go, and that is something you can speak but not live. Truth is a dangerous thing.
Actually, I would rather have the devils and demons be stronger than the celestial powers in Planescape. Why? Because it makes the setting's commentary on evil so much better. If the fiends could just put aside their differences, they would own the multiverse. But this will never happen, because it is the nature of evil to engage in strife and hatred for petty reasons.
The point of Planescape is examining beliefs, in a place where belief has power. This is a metaphor for our world, which is functionally a morally subjective world. Belief doesn't have the tangible power that it does in Planescape, but men and women have fought and died for it, and no one has any proof that their way is the better way or the right way. As for the belief in objective truth, Planescape doesn't take a stance on that one way or another. Simply because there is power in belief doesn't mean that it molds the truth at all. And, honestly, do you think that limited, flawed creatures like mortal can ever hope to posess the wisdom of the universe and all things that could accurately be labeled, "The Truth"?
Personally, the Good/Evil axis should measure a person's respect for other creature's natural rights. This is something that can be applied to a broad catagory of philosophies and beliefs, because it isn't inherently tied down to any of them. A creature who believes that might makes right might also go around trying to help others become stronger, and otherwise help them, and thus be good. A creature who believes in truth and justice might have no problems murdering some poor bastards who got in the way for the 'greater good', and thus be evil.
Now where PS is right is in it's assertion of understanding and considering all motives--and that all conflicts cannot be solved through violence. It is good that the PS setting emphasizes this intelligently, but it is not reflective of abandoning the truth of the LG alignment or even in presuming a black and white view of morality.
Which goes back to LG being Lawful "Stupid". Most clueless Primes who've lived their lives under the assumption that they can butcher evil creatures with impunity (as per D&D ethics) find that their outlook on life just doesn't work on the planes.
Alignment does work if we can see that there is a gap between the ideals and the people who hold them, and give them plausible motives for having these views, right or wrong. Morals--in short good and evil--are black and white absolutes, but people are not. This is something that was unspokenly assumed in 1e (which was politically incorrect and too smart for it's own good), known in 2e but tactfully explored (which was politically correct about the names of fiends and gods), and completely misunderstood in 3e (which is politically incorrect about gods and fiends, but politically correct about everything else).
Alignment should be based on actions, and how a character treats other people, not the lense he/she views reality from. You can have two characters with very similar beliefs and philosophies who are on opposite ends of the good/evil scale with this sort of formula because of what those characters consider 'acceptable' losses.
The old Complete Book of Villians was one of the most wonderfully in-depth books dealing with the subject of evil as it is relevant to the D&D game. It knew that characters could be of any alignment to have misgivings, and focused primarily on fleshing out your villian so that he/she/it would have a past, present, future, netowrk, beliefs, goals, and motives. It was about building plots to engage the players and developing characters. More importantly, it encouraged creativity.
The Book of Vile Darkness, on the other hand, is a contemptable amalgam of filler bells and whistles, cynically assuming that players have no interest in exploring the issues it presents beyond primitive sensationalism. It believes itself to be 'mature' by presenting it's subject matter without actually dealing with it, and that the players are content to do the same. It was about making your villians as replusive as possible to manipulate your players into killing them by dwelling on their actions (the Villain's handbook had only a single table in the back for vile deeds) and not in creating real characters the players could react to. The title is accurate, at least the first word. Philosophically inept, morally repugnant, and thuroughly condescending.
As the book of Villians proves, the D&D game is capable of exploring these truths without reducing everything to hack n' slash. The trouble is, the glimmering gossamer of 3e makes that hard to tell these days.
I never read the Bood of Villians, but the Book of Vile Darkness, along with its counter part, the Book of Exalted Deeds, are abominations of illogic and not all that useful.
I shouldn't have left out that rhethorics course the faction offers. And my command of planar common leaves much to be desired, too. Oh well ...
Now some people view LG as stubborn and ridgid etc. and no better than anything else. Granted it could be, but this is false. What this fails to differentiate is the fallible individual from his infallible ideals. Lawful Good is probably the hardest alignment to live by--what makes people dislike it is their own selfishness and refusal to accept moral absolutes--which is usually out of intellectual dishonesty because these are less attractive than the moral relativism of chaotic and evil alignments.
Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to live by because it tries to simultaneously hold two different ideals: lawfulness and goodness. You can accept moral absolutes that are not lawful or good. In the view of a Tanar'ri "might makes right" is an absolute truth and moral stance. They view anyone who disagrees with that statement to either be too weak to benefit under it or too weak to seize the power they deserve.
A real world example of objective moral truth that is not lawful good is espoused in the Wiccan reed of "an' ye harm none, do what ye will." (If forced to put this into D&D terms I'd say it is someplace near Chaotic Good)
Back in the real world this view is just as valid as a morality that is handed down from God. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is equally true. Validity is derived by having a conclusion that follows logically from your premises. If some of the premises are untrue, then a valid conclusion doesn't have to be true either. If there is a supreme being who has acted through humans to lay down certain laws as moral absolutes, then moral absolutism or objectivism is the true argument. Since we don't have any evidence that is widely accepted as credible either for or against this SB, the debate goes on.
Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to live by because it tries to simultaneously hold two different ideals: lawfulness and goodness. You can accept moral absolutes that are not lawful or good. In the view of a Tanar'ri "might makes right" is an absolute truth and moral stance. They view anyone who disagrees with that statement to either be too weak to benefit under it or too weak to seize the power they deserve.
The difficulty of being LG applies to any other extreme alignment. But you can argue that the LG character can accept any philosophy that can be lived in a LG fasion. For example, the Tanar'ri, as you state, live by might makes right. A CG character could live by this as well, but instead of exploiting people with her/his might, he/she would help them. Might making right as he/she saw right to be, as it were.
Lawful Good is Lawful "Stupid" because the measure of good and evil in D&D, beyond basic concern for the rights of other, IS stupid. I can walk into some Red Dragon's lair, murder it, and steal its stuff, and this is OK, because Red Dragons are eeevil. Never mind that the Red Dragon may or may not have done anything to harm anyone who didn't try to pull the same stunt, it's sitll ok.
Ah, my nemesis Objulen! We meet again!
The problem with morality in D&D I don't see as a problem with the system itself but the way people may want to play. D&D is a war game after all, it takes place in a universe where pacifism is a tool for the weak because only through violence does one become stronger. D&D has slightly more moved into the "role" aspect as opposed to role but the idea of D&D essentially being a game of violence and conflict has never truly ended nor would I want it to at my table.
Why kill a Red Dragon? To destroy evil. That is enough reason. The creature is a blot on existence and scars the soul of the cosmos. It hasn't done anything? If it hasn't, it will, and even if it wasn't...the creature has the potential to. D&D 3E has made it clear that it has no intention of ceasing its practice of dividing races into player character races...and MONSTERS.
In a world where the conflict between good and evil is as literal as the war between Heaven and Hell in the most direct Bible Thumping Evangelists brimstone speach, this makes sense. Mercy is a weakness when given to the undeserving.
Planescape, as someone has stated, is different from other settings because its a D&D game not built on combat but interaction. I don't think any other setting can really claim that. It's a post-modern setting whose "default" morality is neutrality. The very placement of Sigil in the center of the Spire is about the statement that there are no good guys or bad guys here.
The Bleak Cabal, The Dustmen, Athar, and Ineps get actually more respect than the Harmonium does and consistantly because the former believe largely that there is no meaning while the Harmonium refuses to accept that the universe isn't meant to be a just and noble place. The Harmonium makes conveinant bad guys in large part because Planescape essentially assumes idealism is a childish belief that has no real purpose.
They could be portrayed as faultless good guys but as always, their goal is to make the world perfect and they by their goal must crush a few heads since the vast majority of planars do not want their help or world.
In Arcadia, the Harmonium probably would be better respected and better loved (I don't much care for the idea of them losing a plane and am glad it was retconned) but in Sigil...a city of outcasts and misfits in many ways...they are the odd man out.
Now to the main question Are the Athar Right?
To the extent that what they define as gods are not, yeah. Planescape's "multiple truths" actually works for once actually. Are the powers frauds? Depends on your definition. The Godsmen don't think so but they become gods.
Planescape, like Spelljammer, exists in its own little reality to some extent and should be treated as such.
Ah, my nemesis Objulen! We meet again!
Rats, the missle missed! >:-> >
Seriously though, nemesis?
The problem with morality in D&D I don't see as a problem with the system itself but the way people may want to play. D&D is a war game after all, it takes place in a universe where pacifism is a tool for the weak because only through violence does one become stronger. D&D has slightly more moved into the "role" aspect as opposed to role but the idea of D&D essentially being a game of violence and conflict has never truly ended nor would I want it to at my table.
The logic is flawed no matter how you look at. But if all you want is to war game, then why are you playing an role playing game? Conflict is necessary for any story, true, but in a role playing game you need suspension of disbelief and good characters with realistic motives. There are also more types of conflict than violence and war. If all you want is fight after fight, why not just pull out Axis and Allies or another board game? Why bother with alignments at all? I have personally found death and mayhem in games to be better left to first person shooters, but this ends up being a matter of taste. If you want to use D&D to explore current issues or adopt a persona in another world that you can explore, then the setting needs some changes.
Why kill a Red Dragon? To destroy evil. That is enough reason. The creature is a blot on existence and scars the soul of the cosmos. It hasn't done anything? If it hasn't, it will, and even if it wasn't...the creature has the potential to. D&D 3E has made it clear that it has no intention of ceasing its practice of dividing races into player character races...and MONSTERS.
Which is the perfect senerio if all you want is to do is kill, kill, kill. But if you want a setting populated by people, not generic monsters, one where you can't just assume how something will react based on its flesh, then D&D, as you present it, just doesn't fit the bill. Why would the dragon go out and start doing evil? Just because? What motivates it? What drives it? Why does it do what it does? These are questions that matter if you want that Dragon to be a 3-dimensional character and not some cardboard cut out to be knocked down time after time.
In a world where the conflict between good and evil is as literal as the war between Heaven and Hell in the most direct Bible Thumping Evangelists brimstone speach, this makes sense. Mercy is a weakness when given to the undeserving.
Except D&D already has demons and devils. If that's the kind of monster you want in your game, what point do orcs, dragons, goblins, and other "monsters" serve? Just make more types of demons and devils.
Planescape, as someone has stated, is different from other settings because its a D&D game not built on combat but interaction. I don't think any other setting can really claim that. It's a post-modern setting whose "default" morality is neutrality. The very placement of Sigil in the center of the Spire is about the statement that there are no good guys or bad guys here.
Or that the good guys and the bad guys aren't alway aprant or what is expected.
The Bleak Cabal, The Dustmen, Athar, and Ineps get actually more respect than the Harmonium does and consistantly because the former believe largely that there is no meaning while the Harmonium refuses to accept that the universe isn't meant to be a just and noble place. The Harmonium makes conveinant bad guys in large part because Planescape essentially assumes idealism is a childish belief that has no real purpose.
The belief that there is no meaning to the multiverse, actually, just the Bleak Cabal. The Dustmen hold that the point if escape; the Athar have no stance on the overall lack of meaning; the Indeps exist to support freedom. The last dont' have a stance on that issue, basically leaving it to the individual. The Harmonium get's a bad rap because they go around trying to tell everyone what to do -- if the Dustmen started killing people, the Athar started killing the average worship, or the Indeps tried to kill anyone who was a part of the system, they would be just as unpopular. It doesn't really have anything to do with the beliefs of the group, but how they go about expressing those beliefs. The Harmonium thinks that they know what's right for everyone and that they have the right to go about it as they please, and it is this brings their noteriety, not idealism. As presented in 2nd ed, the Harmonium had no idealism, just our way is the best way to harmony. No faction was given a specific good/evil requirement or great leaning towards either for a reason in the Planescape campaign setting.
They could be portrayed as faultless good guys but as always, their goal is to make the world perfect and they by their goal must crush a few heads since the vast majority of planars do not want their help or world.
It is one possible way to portray them, but then again faultless good guys are not 3-dimensional characters, they are not presented as a specifically good organization in PS 2nd ed., and since when has forcing your beliefs on others been a good thing?
In Arcadia, the Harmonium probably would be better respected and better loved (I don't much care for the idea of them losing a plane and am glad it was retconned) but in Sigil...a city of outcasts and misfits in many ways...they are the odd man out.
And devils are held in high regaurd in the Nine Hells. Ad populem is not a valid argument. And Sigil has more than just mistfits and outcasts. It is a haven for these types, true, but it's population is far more diverse than that.
Planescape, like Spelljammer, exists in its own little reality to some extent and should be treated as such.
Not anymore than Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms are in their own little reality and should be treated like brainless games where you kill monster X, Y, and Z before spending the loot and moving onto monster A, B, and C. They are different settings with different themes. These themes appeal to some, and not to others.
The difficulty of being LG applies to any other extreme alignment. But you can argue that the LG character can accept any philosophy that can be lived in a LG fasion. For example, the Tanar'ri, as you state, live by might makes right. A CG character could live by this as well, but instead of exploiting people with her/his might, he/she would help them. Might making right as he/she saw right to be, as it were.
Perhaps for Tanar'ri I should have said "might makes right and you should get as much of it as you can to crush all opposition." For the CG character it would go along the lines of "might makes right and you should help out those weaker than you."
The Harmonium get's a bad rap because they go around trying to tell everyone what to do
I think you may be very close to the root of why the harmonium is portrayed as bad guys. I think it has more to do with their willingness to crush the opposition. Saure, for example, is an Athar who doesn't mind dragging the corpses of priests she's killed (or in the process of killing) around. Some of the Revolutionary League cells are extremely violent. Pentar is a sodding barmy destructotron. None of these are portrayed positively, and I'd say that that is the way The Lady would want it. The Kriegstantz is supposed to be a cold war, a war of words and political maneuvering. Those who use clubs more than philosophy tend to be cast in a negative light.
None of this really reflects on whether the Athar are right or not, though.
Rats, the missle missed! >:-> >
Seriously though, nemesis?
Something of a joke, it means that I enjoy bantering my position with you though.
The logic is flawed no matter how you look at. But if all you want is to war game, then why are you playing an role playing game? Conflict is necessary for any story, true, but in a role playing game you need suspension of disbelief and good characters with realistic motives. There are also more types of conflict than violence and war. If all you want is fight after fight, why not just pull out Axis and Allies or another board game? Why bother with alignments at all? I have personally found death and mayhem in games to be better left to first person shooters, but this ends up being a matter of taste. If you want to use D&D to explore current issues or adopt a persona in another world that you can explore, then the setting needs some changes.
Characters even in fantasy tales are not defined by their villains necessarily but by their reaction to the villains. Doctor Doom, Doctor Octopus, and the Joker are bad bad bad bad bad bad bad people. They may have reasons for being bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad people but the fact remains that they will never be any good or better than they are. Their motivations make them somewhat deeper but they exist to be opposed rather than to exist as characters in their own right.
Sauron, strictly in the Lord of the Rings, and Orcs are no less enjoyable characters or effective evils for the fact that there's nothing to them but the damage they can inflict upon the whole of the races of the world. Indeed, many suggest that occasionally evil is diluted as a force by trying to make it tragic or understandable rather than alien. Cthulhu is an example of a creature that has no redeemable value but exists enjoyable in the world of CoC.
Which is the perfect senerio if all you want is to do is kill, kill, kill. But if you want a setting populated by people, not generic monsters, one where you can't just assume how something will react based on its flesh, then D&D, as you present it, just doesn't fit the bill. Why would the dragon go out and start doing evil? Just because? What motivates it? What drives it? Why does it do what it does? These are questions that matter if you want that Dragon to be a 3-dimensional character and not some cardboard cut out to be knocked down time after time.
The villain from "Needful Things" is my rebuttal. Leeland Gaunt destroys people's lives, why? Because he's a demon. Ditto Barlow and Randal Flagg. This reduction of villains to "deus es machina" is not necessarily a bad thing and they can be enjoyable characters in their own right even if their motivation is solely by their nature. Bram Stroker's Dracula, people forget, actually had no motivation for his evil. Of the classic monsters, only Frankenstein was motivated by something of than some essentially villainy in their nature....
Dorian Gray, Hyde, and the Invisible Man I do not count since they are not so much villains as tragic heroes or evil protagionists.
Except D&D already has demons and devils. If that's the kind of monster you want in your game, what point do orcs, dragons, goblins, and other "monsters" serve? Just make more types of demons and devils.
Largely variety actually. Orcs and Dark Elves in my campaign, I make it a general point to say are as irredeemably evil as Demons and Devils. There is just NOTHING good inside them. The benefits are somewhat manifold...
1. The creatures are more frightening
2. There's no lengths they will not stood to
3. Their mindset is pretty much utterly alien to human beings
4. It implies that human beings can fall just as far
5. The stakes are that much greater (communists take over, its humans ruling us...drow take over, all good will perish forever)
Frankly, the flavor of misunderstood villains or tragic ones can be soemwhat tiresome. Doom when utilized properly shouldn't be tragic at all since it makes him somewhat pathetic. The best Doom is unrepetently out to conquer the world because that's within his power and he WANTS power. The old motivations are dying out sadly.
The new Villain wants Cash or is a serial killer or political terrorist. The Old Villain wanted to conquer the planet.
Or that the good guys and the bad guys aren't alway aprant or what is expected.
The old reveral of the cliche so far that it becoems the cliche. I've had my villains who are evil but "right." Cobra Commander who is a murderous dictator but will unite the world in a peaceful and beneficent society despite hsi ruthlessness....
It happened in "Mage the Ascension" and made me sick to my stomach to a certain degree the way the Illuminati...excuse me...Technocratic Union was whitewashed. It used to be a world spanning conspiracy of magicians who hid behind technology for power and greed. It then became a beneficent society of scientists who hid in the shaodws to protect people....with some bad seeds.
As presented in 2nd ed, the Harmonium had no idealism, just our way is the best way to harmony. No faction was given a specific good/evil requirement or great leaning towards either for a reason in the Planescape campaign setting.
Perhaps, I remember the "McDougal Adventure" from City of Doors. The adventure were an Elohonna child is enslaved by a King....the King was lawful good.
It is one possible way to portray them, but then again faultless good guys are not 3-dimensional characters, they are not presented as a specifically good organization in PS 2nd ed., and since when has forcing your beliefs on others been a good thing?
When the alternative is that they debase themselves and their descendents. Star Wars had a adventure called "City of the Undercity" where they described the Mon Calamari's history. The Mon Calamari when confronted with the savage quarren defeated them in every war until they had a million prisoners because the CE race was unwilling to ever stop attacking them.
The Mon Calamari took their children and educated them. The result being that the elders ways were wiped out and the species had a chance of survival.
And devils are held in high regaurd in the Nine Hells. Ad populem is not a valid argument. And Sigil has more than just mistfits and outcasts. It is a haven for these types, true, but it's population is far more diverse than that.
I just kind of see it as the Casablanca of the Planes and think it works personally.
Batman is pretty messed up in the head, but only his affluent background prevented him from turning into a psycho villain like the Joker or the Penguin.
Both Doctor Octopus and Spiderman have been changed irreversibly by technology, and the latter is ever aware that only by remembering that, 'with great power comes great responsibility', (pauses to throw up) can he remain heroic.
Sauron, on the other hand, is only really an effective villain because of his corrupting power - over Saruman and through the Ring. If he were just the commander of the orcish hordes, he'd be nothing special. The same goes for Dracula, in the way he turns innocent young ladies into child-eating monsters of the night. The horror does not reside in the damage these characters can do, but in the knowledge that they are not so far away from us as we might like to believe.
As for Cthulhu... he ain't evil. Sure, he treats humans like twiglets, but this doesn't make him any more evil than a kid stamping on ants. Cthulhu is a highly pious member of his race, the guardian of his people: just because we see him as evil doesn't mean he has no 'reedemable value' - morality is totally subjective.
In the end, a villain that fails to reflect its opponents or show any depth of motivation (i.e. any character that exists solely to destroy) is no sort of villain at all. A monster that destroys whole worlds is not horrific at all - it's just a force of nature. It is impossible to empathise with or understand it, so it isn't a villain.
Scale of destruction does not make a greater villain.
Villains like the Joker don't exist just to be opposed; they act as the shadow or reflection of the hero, figures who make the hero think, 'there but for the grace of god go I.'
Ironically, this is exactly why I value Drow and Orcs. I need villains who are completely beyond redemption in part for the purposes of the game who are effective in large parts as shadows of humanity and elfdom. Dwarfdom gets pretty nerfed I'm afraid but its not been a problem in my games.
But the same applies I suppose to "reign of fires" dragons. The 'monsters' morality is irrelevant to the discussion and even 'Independence day'. The focus is on the destruction they cause and threat.
How you react to it, your loved ones, etc.
Its a point that villains too often take center stage when that belongs to the Hero.
The divide between elves/Drow and humans/Orcs is too clear cut, too black and white for there to be any real threat felt by the heroes that they could suddenly slip into the mindset of their shadow.
They just become first-person-shooter style monsters (as someone else on this thread said): even if they pose a serious threat they're still not good villains, because players regard them as simply walking experience points. It never becomes moving or personal. So they killed your entire family - so what? If you can feel no understanding of or connection to the villains, then they're no better than a force of nature. Sure, it's very saddening, but the emotional response focuses entirely on the bereavement rather than on the baddies - you may be angry and filled with hate towards the dragons/Drow/Orcs, but you don't feel any real sense of horror or shock. The threat posed is far too superficial - 'they kill people, it's what they do'.
Reign of Fire and Independence Day - interesting choices...
Both films are basically just action and explosions with the occasional comic one-liner thrown in for good measure. They're not designed to horrify - they're showcases for explosions, not villains. There's no more sense of evil than in a film like Twister.
A really good villain (no pun intended) should allow the hero more room to examine him, her or itself, simply by being a twisted reflection of said hero, and so only increase the level to which the hero is placed centre stage.
They're not designed to horrify - they're showcases for explosions, not villains. There's no more sense of evil than in a film like Twister.
I disagree. Independence Day had lots of character development as did Reign of Fire. Two humanities struggling on the brink of annihilation. In order to survive as a race, they must as INDIVIDUALS fight and die for the greater good. Ditto for Terminator 1, 2, and 3. The machines exist to destroy humanity and cannot be reasoned with....survival is at stake though and it is their character that they exist to destroy manknd. Or my personal favorite Dawn of the Dead (Original)
Themes that "survival horror" films have almost invariably enemies like this. It wouldn't work the same way with communists or the like. They have to be unapproachable and alien...the other.
hell, even Signs requires this sort of pure evil monster.
If you shrug off the death of your family at the hands of the Machines/Zombies/orcs/Drow then you can leave my table. Hell, even Buffy the Vampire slayer went down this road with vampires til they were neutered and made less interesting by throwing the moral ambiguity of killing them in. It ruined their effectiveness as villains.
Even the basic slasher film doesn't depend on why Michael Myers or Jason Voohees is killing, it depends on how the players react to being hunted.
I'm not saying Hannibal Lector is bad, MULTI-FACETED VILLAINS ARE *FINE* but they are not the be-end-all of RPGing villains.
Something of a joke, it means that I enjoy bantering my position with you though.
Just checking. You can never be sure on forums. >>Looks over shoulder<<
Characters even in fantasy tales are not defined by their villains necessarily but by their reaction to the villains. Doctor Doom, Doctor Octopus, and the Joker are bad bad bad bad bad bad bad people. They may have reasons for being bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad people but the fact remains that they will never be any good or better than they are. Their motivations make them somewhat deeper but they exist to be opposed rather than to exist as characters in their own right.
I beg to disagree here. Characters in any story can be defined by their reaction to villians because that is the primary point of conflict, where they act with the most extremes. There are other ways to define a character, however, such as how the character treats those who have no ability to strike back. Knights of the Old Republic is ABOUT a villian who found her/his way back to redemption (if you go with the Light Side); there are fantasy stories where the villian has the option of redemption or becomes less of a villian and more of an anti-hero. As I understand it, Doom eventually became the ruler of a parallel earth, named it Doom World (or something like that), and then became the benevolvent dictator, more or less, but got bored with the administrative job. After he was "returned" to the "normal" world, he became less of a villian and more of an anti-hero, at least from the last synopsis of the character that I read.
Simple opposition is never enough. I can get opposition in StarCraft, Half-Life mods, Doom 3, etc. What makes RPGs compelling are the characters, including the villian. One of the best part of BG2, IMO, was Jon Irenicus. The first time I played through that game, I skiped everything after ch. 4 just so I could hunt him down and annihilate that smug, arrogant SOB. Table top and LARP sacrifices graphics, but the characters and their interactions can be so much more compelling than computer games; I had a particularly good game of LARP Vampire where my character with high Humanity was forced into a fight with a hunter because the hunter refused to accept that maybe he was wrong about one "monster" (and I failed my social challenge after a rather nice bit of dialog).
Sauron, strictly in the Lord of the Rings, and Orcs are no less enjoyable characters or effective evils for the fact that there's nothing to them but the damage they can inflict upon the whole of the races of the world. Indeed, many suggest that occasionally evil is diluted as a force by trying to make it tragic or understandable rather than alien. Cthulhu is an example of a creature that has no redeemable value but exists enjoyable in the world of CoC.
Sauron doesn't really count as a villian. He is more of a force the way he described, a symbol of evil itself. The same with Cthulhu, in many ways. These types of conflicts are more externalizations of internal struggles than a specific external struggle per se.
The villain from "Needful Things" is my rebuttal. Leeland Gaunt destroys people's lives, why? Because he's a demon. Ditto Barlow and Randal Flagg. This reduction of villains to "deus es machina" is not necessarily a bad thing and they can be enjoyable characters in their own right even if their motivation is solely by their nature. Bram Stroker's Dracula, people forget, actually had no motivation for his evil. Of the classic monsters, only Frankenstein was motivated by something of than some essentially villainy in their nature....
Dorian Gray, Hyde, and the Invisible Man I do not count since they are not so much villains as tragic heroes or evil protagionists.
Unfortunately, I have not read Needful Things. The use of utterly evil characters is not necessarily bad, but it becomes progressive unsatifsying when all you are running into is one irredemable evil after another that can't be reasoned with and you no choice but to kill.
Largely variety actually. Orcs and Dark Elves in my campaign, I make it a general point to say are as irredeemably evil as Demons and Devils. There is just NOTHING good inside them. The benefits are somewhat manifold...
1. The creatures are more frightening
2. There's no lengths they will not stood to
3. Their mindset is pretty much utterly alien to human beings
4. It implies that human beings can fall just as far
5. The stakes are that much greater (communists take over, its humans ruling us...drow take over, all good will perish forever)
Frankly, the flavor of misunderstood villains or tragic ones can be soemwhat tiresome. Doom when utilized properly shouldn't be tragic at all since it makes him somewhat pathetic. The best Doom is unrepetently out to conquer the world because that's within his power and he WANTS power. The old motivations are dying out sadly.
The new Villain wants Cash or is a serial killer or political terrorist. The Old Villain wanted to conquer the planet.
I don't see how that applies any less to demons. Demons take all 1-5 except 4, orcs don't apply (unless you make them) and drow work for elves. Using drow and orcs this way can be done with demons just as easily, and if you need evil humans, well, just use evil humans working for the demons. There should be something different other than just generic evil in a different form with different creatures, or else there isn't much of a point. There are plenty of creatures that work as irredeamable, alien evils: fiends, illithid, beholders, etc. Adding humanity to drow and orcs gives them a purpose IMO.
The old reveral of the cliche so far that it becoems the cliche. I've had my villains who are evil but "right." Cobra Commander who is a murderous dictator but will unite the world in a peaceful and beneficent society despite hsi ruthlessness....
It happened in "Mage the Ascension" and made me sick to my stomach to a certain degree the way the Illuminati...excuse me...Technocratic Union was whitewashed. It used to be a world spanning conspiracy of magicians who hid behind technology for power and greed. It then became a beneficent society of scientists who hid in the shaodws to protect people....with some bad seeds.
I wasn't refering to good and right -- that's a bunch of BS. Cobra Commander might be trying to set up a benevolent dictatorship, but his ideas of "acceptable losses" marks him as evil in my book. What I was refering to was, say a traitor, an about face, a hidden foe, something of that nature. More political intruige, were you don't necessarily know who your friends and enemies are.
In an organization that isn't utterly devoted to nothing but evil ths is usually what happens one way or another -- either they are dedicated to good with some bad seeds or dedicated to evil with some good seeds. I actually find the new technocracy to be a better fit, because they started out trying to help the common man, but then they fell into a more tyrranical mode. They reached the point where they no longer trust humanity, and try to make decisions for them, and it bites them in the butt. The technocracy is more of an exemplar of stasis -- in the Mythic Age, they helped, but too much, as they are presented in the modern world, stifles and chokes the entire world.
Perhaps, I remember the "McDougal Adventure" from City of Doors. The adventure were an Elohonna child is enslaved by a King....the King was lawful good.
That sounds like a type to me. LG and slavery mix like oil and water. Maybe LE or even LN; but as the campaign box depicts the Harmonium, they aren't presented as LG, but just L.
When the alternative is that they debase themselves and their descendents. Star Wars had a adventure called "City of the Undercity" where they described the Mon Calamari's history. The Mon Calamari when confronted with the savage quarren defeated them in every war until they had a million prisoners because the CE race was unwilling to ever stop attacking them.
The Mon Calamari took their children and educated them. The result being that the elders ways were wiped out and the species had a chance of survival.
Not a bad example; I would say that the Mon Calamari were justified in this case. The Harmonium, however, is not threatened by an implaccible foe that refuses anything but violence time after time that assaults their home; it's not like they restrict their activities to the denizens of the lower planes. The Harmonium is the aggressor, not the defender; the cases are different.
I just kind of see it as the Casablanca of the Planes and think it works personally.
That's one possible valid view.
Dawn of the dead isn't horrific for most of the film - the characters enjoy themselves and run around the mall laughing, until members of their group turn into zombies. Again it is the corrupting influence of evil that generates fear, not its destructive potential.
Signs is only horrific because of the violation the aliens represent - entering the home. Violation, after all, is another form of corruption.
I didn't say I would shrug off the death of my family, but that I wouldn't feel any sense of horror at (for example) the Drow, if the Drow caused it. Anger, yes, grief and sorrow, yes, but no more sense of evil than I would feel if my family drowned at sea. A storm is an indefineable, alien force: it is obviously impossible to understand it, so any rage felt is undirected. There's no sense of horror. And Buffy? Buffy was never meant to be horror.
True villains provoke feelings of fear and shock at their mere presence, not just grief and rage at their deeds.
Slasher villains are nasty because they're either the boy who lives down the road, or again they represent violation (of the home, of dreams, etc.). In later films, when the villains are impersonal masked figures unknown to their victims, the horror fails (in particular the later films in the Friday the 13th series).
If you want any form of role-playing, you must have multi-faceted villains, something that can be approached on more levels than just fighting, something that poses a threat beyond the amount of damage it can do in a single round.
2D villains are fine, provided all you want to do is play a combat game. In which case, why are you playing an RPG? Play a wargame instead.
natural rights.
The problem here of course is, who defines natural rights? Locke? Hobbes? Marx? Nozick? Rawls? Plato? Hitler?
RE: Factions.
None of the factions are alignment-oriented. This is in fact very clear, the Harmonium is as open to Baatezu as to Archons, all factions are designed in such a way as to work BOTH for Good and Evil inside it.
But the monsters from Independence Day and Reign of Fire aren't scary - the films aren't horror movies in any way, they're action films.
Nothing wrong with action films. Nor did I say I was restricting myself to horror.
The Terminator films and Romero's Zombie trilogy, on the other hand, are horror. With the Terminators the horror comes with the knowledge that these robots are our own creations, turning on us before we have even built them.
True enough, though not all the horror is from the creation. Part is being hunted down like an animal by an unstoppable force.
Dawn of the dead isn't horrific for most of the film - the characters enjoy themselves and run around the mall laughing, until members of their group turn into zombies. Again it is the corrupting influence of evil that generates fear, not its destructive potential.
The danger of becoming a zombie was insignificant to being killed by them. The point is to respect the creature's danger. They are more effective as former people yes, I'm not totally on this. I am pointing out their mindless malignance is important for the story though.
Signs is only horrific because of the violation the aliens represent - entering the home. Violation, after all, is another form of corruption.
Yes, certainly possible with enemies who are nothing but evil. Plain and simple. Horror and Action both thrive on this.
I didn't say I would shrug off the death of my family, but that I wouldn't feel any sense of horror at (for example) the Drow, if the Drow caused it. Anger, yes, grief and sorrow, yes, but no more sense of evil than I would feel if my family drowned at sea. A storm is an indefineable, alien force: it is obviously impossible to understand it, so any rage felt is undirected. There's no sense of horror. And Buffy? Buffy was never meant to be horror.
Buffy is a comedy-action and that's why it works in that context. I remember an episode of angel also where a daughter of a vampire hunter was raped and turned into a vampire before her father was forced to kill him. He captured the vampire (angel) and made a long philosophical statement on how hard it took him to figure a way to get revenge on him since revenge has to make the creature feel GUILT in some way.
True villains provoke feelings of fear and shock at their mere presence, not just grief and rage at their deeds.
I'd be afraid and shocked by a drow or orc regardless of their deeds. Characters can assign attributes to the drow but their baseness is beyond redemption.
I think I made my point though. We largely agree. I'm defending the use of villains who are irredeemable and largely have only malignance in their hearts for man rather than necessarily understandable or tragic or 'possibly right' motivation/
Slasher villains are nasty because they're either the boy who lives down the road, or again they represent violation (of the home, of dreams, etc.). In later films, when the villains are impersonal masked figures unknown to their victims, the horror fails (in particular the later films in the Friday the 13th series).
To some extent, "From Hell" makes the fear all the more important even as the revelation of the serial killer as someone they know actually reduces the villain's effectiveness.
If you want any form of role-playing, you must have multi-faceted villains, something that can be approached on more levels than just fighting, something that poses a threat beyond the amount of damage it can do in a single round.
I just disagree, sometimes villains as a force of nature work better. Banes from Werewolf are an example. Yes, they are reprensentations of something higher but I'm not objecting to some higher message to them overall, just saying its not ALWAYS needed.
And demons are not always appropriate.
2D villains are fine, provided all you want to do is play a combat game. In which case, why are you playing an RPG? Play a wargame instead.
Because I find the players (heroes) infinitely more interesting than whom theyr'e supposed to kill. Villains to match wits with are certainly a good villain but the Daleks are just as effective as the Master for a reason. Their impersonal, unthinking, unquestioning, unstoppable, malice.
You don't need to be hack'n'slash to destroy evil.
Dragonslayer is the perfect example of my philosophy though here. The dragon's motivations are purely draconic. Get princess, eat princess. Live in cave. Destroy. It might be intelligent, it might be an animal. The drama of the story stems from the non-villains and hero interacting. Their selfishness, their greed, their fear, and their joys. None are the enemy though.
If the villains refuse to offer any oppurtunities for interaction beyond combat, the heroes will reply in kind. Blood begets blood, and everyone gets the nemesis they deserve - boring, one-track villains will be met by equally two-dimensional heroes, whether or not that was how the players initially intended to roleplay their characters.
If the villains refuse to offer any oppurtunities for interaction beyond combat, the heroes will reply in kind. Blood begets blood, and everyone gets the nemesis they deserve - boring, one-track villains will be met by equally two-dimensional heroes.
Not at my table. I'm sorry but I just totally disagree. To give an example of what I'm talking about.
The Zombies of All Flesh Must Be Eaten game with Charles are created essentially by God's final judgement on the world. At least, that's the prevailing theory. Crosses, Stars of David, and so forth work to repel them but the fact remains that they just exist to destroy human beings who if "tainted" are made to join their ranks.
Now before you say that this is going beyond "one track villains" I point out that I never said that Red Dragon ecology was changed, only that they are ALWAYS chaotic evil and never anything else...and that might not be a bad thing.
The game has been going for some time now with essentially characters whom are "normal" people who have to deal with this supernatural occurance and enemies. Yes, I occasionally have broken it up with a lunatic cult leader and rival gangs but the zombies are the ever prevalent threat.
The characters development is essentially they are in a survival situation that is unlikely to ever end. They still need food, companionship, maybe a girl or two on occasion, and have to find meaning in a world disintegrating all about them.
Its a game with alot of monologues and discussions about WHY THE HELL God felt the need to destroy THEIR society, whether he exists, and whether the zombies are actually just aliens or something else. Such speculation is pretty useless but its comforting to them and they know it since at present, all they know is its an endless fest of creatures trying to chow down on them.
We've had many moving moments where the players have seen their lost loved ones or have seen their accomplishments and mankinds destroyed. There was even a scene where a player character on the verge of madness insisted on torturing a zombie that killed his girlfriend.
The other players characters let him but basically mocked the entire point of it til he boke down and cried.
I am very proud of the game.
The characters are
* A video store clerk whose main contribution is he's seen plenty of realistically researched apocolypse movies and is the joker
* A cop who ditched his duties because he knew it was hopeless and feels guilty about leaving his friends to die. The only guy who can really shoot.
* The ex-priest whom has lost hs faith since he never expected God to be so mean.
and occasionally Brenda whom I shall not speak of since she ruins sessions
I didn't say I would shrug off the death of my family, but that I wouldn't feel any sense of horror at (for example) the Drow, if the Drow caused it. Anger, yes, grief and sorrow, yes, but no more sense of evil than I would feel if my family drowned at sea. A storm is an indefineable, alien force: it is obviously impossible to understand it, so any rage felt is undirected. There's no sense of horror. And Buffy? Buffy was never meant to be horror.
I didn't say this.
The way I see it is this: the players have certain expectations of the zombies, based on their appearance (human) and perceived origins (sent by god). They then treat the monsters based on those expectations - by debating why god would want to destroy the world and by the torture incident you described. Problem is, the zombies don't react as the characters might (perhaps unconsciously) expect, and so the PCs are frustrated and faced with the fact that these superficially human monsters are in fact totally alien. Even the most decomposed member of the walking dead has a human face (or at the very least we are aware it had one before the accident with the shotgun/sledgehammer/welding torch), something that we fool ourselves we can relate to.
What do you mean about ecology? As far as I see it dragons, Orcs and anything else of single-minded evil and inhuman appearance make bad villains. Zombies can be your friends. Or rather they used to be your friends, but now they're totally alien killing machines - with a friendly face. The horror hides behind the mundane and the secure.
P.S. Sounds like a good game. What does Brenda do that is so unspeakably terrible?
I didn't say this.
No, I said it. Looks like a minor mix up with the
s.
On that note, your name isn't Objulen the Magnificent, either.
You're probably going to say that I'm clutching at straws, but...
To a certain extent yes. You've done a good job of analyzing stuff but I think you are trying to cling to the idea that making villains more than their role as antagonists is ALWAYS a good thing. Something, I used to believe myself. I find some styles of play though are better facillitated by the urgency and alieness to a certain extent.
I congradulate you for a series of good arguements though that has made me think very hard about my play style.
The way I see it is this: the players have certain expectations of the zombies, based on their appearance (human) and perceived origins (sent by god). They then treat the monsters based on those expectations - by debating why god would want to destroy the world and by the torture incident you described. Problem is, the zombies don't react as the characters might (perhaps unconsciously) expect, and so the PCs are frustrated and faced with the fact that these superficially human monsters are in fact totally alien. Even the most decomposed member of the walking dead has a human face (or at the very least we are aware it had one before the accident with the shotgun/sledgehammer/welding torch), something that we fool ourselves we can relate to.
You are pretty much dead on.
All players and player characters must invariably relate to something in human terms. Cthulhu has the by that he isn't even acknowledging humanity's worship or existence but in Lovecraft the Deep Ones and Mi Go most certainly do but it doesn't change that one is supposed to think them fairly unapproachable and part of what will destroy the world. That doesn't stop players from trying to deal with them or simply giving up and using dynamite even though said won't WORK in the end.
For Zombies, the element of being once human is part of the horror but the inevitability is a major part too which I'll address.
What do you mean about ecology? As far as I see it dragons, Orcs and anything else of single-minded evil and inhuman appearance make bad villains. Zombies can be your friends. Or rather they used to be your friends, but now they're totally alien killing machines - with a friendly face. The horror hides behind the mundane and the secure.
Certainly, the human appearance of the Zombies adds to the horror but I think I might be willing to debate you still on the orcs. I had an Orc campaign called The End of Humanity which was loosely inspired by Battlestar Gallactica and the Mongol Invasion.
The Premise is the Orcs have been united together in the far kingdoms and into one army that pours through the Mountains of Shadow into the Kingdoms of Man. They massacre, enslave, ****, and torture with seemingly no consciousness whatsoever. Their goal does not vary but their methods do.
The premise would have the players in charge of a large group of refugees that they seek to send to the Land across the hills which might have the power to repulse the orcs. The Drama comes from the power struggles within, the hounding of the people by the orcs, and the fact some don't want to leave and stay and fight.
One of the key points would be the Orcs are all sociopaths, don't speak basic, and are instead bound together by genetic code to obey their queens. in effect, much like the creatures of alien...attempts to reason are doomed to failure even as the players must figure out if they'll risk their meager supplies to take on new refugees each week or whether they'll investigate some rumors of a new weapon or finally justs tand and fight.
I'd probably have to think awhile to come up with something beyond survivalism but I am not going to argue that this style is good for EVERYONE and a good villain with depth is bad thing obviously.
Even the Punisher occasionally needs the Kingpin.
P.S. Sounds like a good game. What does Brenda do that is so unspeakably terrible?
She treats the game as a joke and refuses to get into character. It undercuts the drama.
Objulen the Magnificent
But I AM magnificent. >:-> >
Well, I apologize to Charles Phipps if that sounded antagonistic. Mearly trying to point out the error.
if they were wrong where do their generic clerics get their divine spells?
if they were wrong where do their generic clerics get their divine spells?
The same place they would if they were right; belief itself gives their clerics power, whether or not they have some specific external source.
Even the Punisher occasionally needs the Kingpin.
But the Kingpin is hardly a villain without depth is he? (Any villain having hung on for as long as he has is bound to pick up some along the way).
The other problem is that it doesn't sound like any orcs I've ever met. Orcs are a heavily mysognistic Chaotic Evil culture; they're not going to be ruled by anyone very strongly, especially a female. But that's neither here nor there, and seems to have little to do with the Athar. Not that there's anything wrong with a dramatic switch in topic.
But the Kingpin is hardly a villain without depth is he? (Any villain having hung on for as long as he has is bound to pick up some along the way).
You missed the context of what I said.
Many of it's members are in fact lawful good, and they are based on a Lawful Good (sliding towards neutrality although they seem to be halting that) plane.
But the very fact that Meneausis (sp?) slid is exactly the proof that they are not Lawful Good! I see the alignments as sort of subconsciously generate by all living things, even the most despicable fiend has some conception of what "lawful Good" is. Even if they see it as repellent. Things change in *relation* to the alignemts who are sort of static (just like most things with minds seem to have a concept of the self and things that are not the self)
... Certainly, the human appearance of the Zombies adds to the horror but I think I might be willing to debate you still on the orcs. I had an Orc campaign called The End of Humanity which was loosely inspired by Battlestar Gallactica and the Mongol Invasion.
The Premise is the Orcs have been united together in the far kingdoms and into one army that pours through the Mountains of Shadow into the Kingdoms of Man. They massacre, enslave, ****, and torture with seemingly no consciousness whatsoever. Their goal does not vary but their methods do.
The premise would have the players in charge of a large group of refugees that they seek to send to the Land across the hills which might have the power to repulse the orcs. The Drama comes from the power struggles within, the hounding of the people by the orcs, and the fact some don't want to leave and stay and fight.
On its base, sounds good. You can probably get a couple dozen sessions out of a straight war story on this.
Now, let's look at the larger picture, based around your premise: Humanity is doomed. Retreat is going to fail in the end; eventually, the fleeing people will run into the sea, or starve to death, or be encircled and overrun. Possibly, a few humans will survive, in conditions of near-savage slavery.
Here, the only thing that matters is surviving a short while longer, and dying well when you have the chance. The best way to survive is to kill as many orcs as possible, no matter what methods are used. Ambushes? Of course. Using the sick and badly injured to bait a trap? Definitely - you can't save them anyway, and they'll save friends and family that way. Suicide attacks to draw off the enemy advance? Absolutely, if it's necessary - they'll kill you anyway if you don't, and all your comrades with you. And the people who will ultimately come to lead the human resistance will be those best able to organize and convince young men and women to use these very same tactics against the enemy.
Sound familiar? It should. It comes uncomfortably close to the makeup of most modern terrorist organizations. In your campaign world, the invading enemy really is an inhuman, genocidal menace that can only be reasoned with over sword's edge. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make what happens to those resisting the oppression any less dehumanizing or tragic.
You seem to be presenting 'evil' in your campaigns as some sort of vast, impersonal primal force - unable to be redeemed or coexisted with, completely separate from the human condition. Which it isn't. Evil's subtle, pervasive, and able to manifest as strongly in individual mortals as in an entire legion of devils. Even if your campaigns do have some monstrous manifestation of malice and destruction, opposing it isn't necessarily morally good. And a good campaign will address this.
Hope this helps...
Evil's subtle, pervasive, and able to manifest as strongly in individual mortals as in an entire legion of devils. Even if your campaigns do have some monstrous manifestation of malice and destruction, opposing it isn't necessarily morally good. And a good campaign will address this.
Hope this helps...
I'm aware of the tragedy my friend and frankly speaking the assumption it is "Good vs. Evil" is something that is a bit premature on your part. The actual portrayal is somewhat a mix of the Israelites towards Canaan and gureilla warfare ironically inspired by Afghanistan conflicts (The Soviet Union, not USA)
Quite simply the PCs will find that people disagree with them strongly, many want to do atrocities, and others simply want to try...against all odds, to reason with the enemy. In my premise, the idea was that eventually SOMEONE would be found who had the power to fight against the orc menace but that was possibly a fool's hope and the player's knew it.
Note about the Orcs: I use Harn Gargun whom are egg born orcs who are born with a racial memory. While still chauvenistic chieftain, the Queen is the most important part of their society. Ironically, the person in charge of the orc horde is later revealed to be a Half-Orc (meaning he had free will) whom envisioned a society swept clean of all races but his own that he'd build using captured human slaves once he'd annihilated all other races.
Evil is something that people see as uniquely human. I prefer to portray it in my games as something humans have in them but either weaker than most races or unnatural to the human condition. In the former case, human beings are drawn to the extremes of good and evil. They exist in an uncomfortable balance. Orcs in this case are drawn just to evil. In the later case, humans are naturally neutral (or even good) with evil an unnatural part of their condition. It is an infection while it is the LIFEBLOOD of other races.
Joss Wheldon "Humans are drawn to civilization and goodness, demons are drawn to evil and chaos."
In truth, I am not defending so much the benefit of impersonal evil as much as I'm defending the benefits of unchanable confromity in game as a theme.
One of my most interesting campaigns was Bubblegum Crisis 2299.
The campaign was a sequel to our anime based games taking placed two hundred years later. Humanity had finally suceeded in perfecting Super-Boomers aka Robots that were mentally, physically, and morally superior to human kind.
The campaign premise was largely that the enemy was entirely Lawful Good. The fact remained though that by their very nature, they recognized humankind was a threat and they were to be isolated along with eventually phased out to be replaced with their own race....or at the very least altered to become a less aggressive species.
Humanity of course strikes first but the lawful goods always strike back better and the bright shining machines would not rest until humankind is dominated and protected for its own good since they will never leave them alone otherwise.
The premise is the machines will never betray their own kind and will never stop. Many humans have actually sided with them actually.
Now I ask the players....
Do you fight on for your race despite knowing you are the moral inferiors? Everybody said yes because they valued the potential to choose between good and evil along with their freedom over the 'paradise' the machines promised that was essentially uselessness.
evil and good can be subtle, pevasive, but I LIKE monolithic.
Don't get me wrong I've had plenty of subtle and evil villains including a few whom have been redeemed or can be reasoned with. I have a fondness for the "fight the system" of the Matrix though and cyberpunk feel to a certain extent though where the enemy is soulless because its an institution.
Do you fight on for your race despite knowing you are the moral inferiors? Everybody said yes because they valued the potential to choose between good and evil along with their freedom over the 'paradise' the machines promised that was essentially uselessness.
But can it be said that forcing your beliefs and views on others is good? How is this not a violation of these people? I would say that such moral machines would not attempt to alter the genetics or otherwise cage humanity, because it would not be moral.
But can it be said that forcing your beliefs and views on others is good? How is this not a violation of these people? I would say that such moral machines would not attempt to alter the genetics or otherwise cage humanity, because it would not be moral.
To be honest? Yes. Or at least that the assumption of the right of self-determination is not the pen ultimate good of all things according necessarily to all 'good' beings.
The Super Boomers are creations of humanity's conception of good and by their nature they are altruistic and looking out for humanity's best interests. They cannot adopt a "Prime Directive" approach that is repugnant to them that allows humankind to deface its soul, destroy its planet, and engage in never ending cycles that exploit the weak and make the powerful forced to do horrific things.
Their calculations show humans will destroy themselves almost certainly, destroy their planet, and frankly be left in an evolutionary dead end. This doesn't even begin to cover the uncounted future generations who will live in poverty and suffer because the Boomers do not ACT NOW and fix the flaws that humans are forced to engage in because of their failed education system and unnatural bodily instincts (unnatural to Boomers are anything that acts against the greater good for all)
Certainly, the machines considered that it is was perhaps better to let humans fend for themselves but they decided instead that the best position was one of parent to a petulent child. Given the average one is 1,000 times smarter and the best 10,000,000 times this is not at all unfeasible.
and to be blunt, its all stated that in a few generations after the conquest the human race WOULD thank Boomerkind for elevating them. War would end, poverty, people would live forever, and the only conflicts would be when there is no other choice (perhaps against other nasty races)
It's why I tend to view the Harmonium as "good" but with a "by the means necessary to achieve this good." Their goal isn't order but a peaceful order but they accept that it may take cracking a few heads. The question isn't whether their end is good but whether A
they will invariably lose themselves and their goal if they do evil to achive good or B Whether its impossible to achieve a goal of that magnitude without doing some evil.I'm reminded of SLUGGY FREELANCE of all things and the current story arc going on. The people of the Dimension of Lame (ignore the humor for a moment) are all pacifists whom have no conception of war or evil. They are invaded by the Dimension of Pain that promptly enslave, murder, and eat them.
Simply put, even in the face of TOTAL ANNIHILATION none of them develop the skills to fight back violently or the desire to. The only person willing to fight them is Torg who kills the demons with his demonslaying sword. He's viewed as a horrific monster (no better than the demons) for doing it thought save for a few whom love being protected by him.
Eldersphinx mentioned the atrocities that might be committed during the orc invasion and I want to point out one of the best RPGing excercises is the one where I suggest that what is evil might not necessarily be wrong in certain extents.
In the face of total annihilation, is the cost of maintaining moral cleanliness worth the loss of everything?
In my case, I would say yes, but I certainly don't blame those who say no and many of my players would definitely say no and do say no through their characters.
I would go that way if I trusted humanity enough to pull it off without doing something shady, like splicing in arsenic producing genes to increase yields or something. I personally don't care for meat, and don't miss it, the fake turkey reference was a joke at the vegan food industry. Plus something about cloning and lab grown meat just seems wrong. They did make grapefruits that produced animal-type meat instead of fruit-meat. I'll see if I can find the article.
My problems with this is that they slap it on everyone, not because of self-determination. Human beings are determined by more than just genetics, and as such, must be judged as individuals. Perhaps human beings might have a genetic predisposition towards violence and what not, but it is inevitable that some individuals would be altruistic beings who did not deserve such heavy handed tactics.
Simply put, even in the face of TOTAL ANNIHILATION none of them develop the skills to fight back violently or the desire to. The only person willing to fight them is Torg who kills the demons with his demonslaying sword. He's viewed as a horrific monster (no better than the demons) for doing it thought save for a few whom love being protected by him.
Which is foolish, for the foundation of all authority is physical force.
Eldersphinx mentioned the atrocities that might be committed during the orc invasion and I want to point out one of the best RPGing excercises is the one where I suggest that what is evil might not necessarily be wrong in certain extents.
In the face of total annihilation, is the cost of maintaining moral cleanliness worth the loss of everything?
In my case, I would say yes, but I certainly don't blame those who say no and many of my players would definitely say no and do say no through their characters.
Except that the situation mitigates the ethics; when you are facing an attack by a horde of invaders, the situation is far different than if you are a highly advanced, and possibly wielding much greater power in an attempt to enforce your will on others. Wielding greater power means that you have a greater responisibility to wield that power with discretion and care, at least if you want to remain good.
My problems with this is that they slap it on everyone, not because of self-determination. Human beings are determined by more than just genetics, and as such, must be judged as individuals. Perhaps human beings might have a genetic predisposition towards violence and what not, but it is inevitable that some individuals would be altruistic beings who did not deserve such heavy handed tactics.
Regarding the robots: Even your most moral human will still have some tendencies toward greed and selfishness. There is also the extended implication that if you allow some humans to be free, then the rest cannot be enslaved properly since they will hope for freedom and strive toward it, perpetuating the cycle of violence. What is best for the greater good must be done, even if that means harming a few innocents. If too many innocents are harmed, though, then it is not helping the greater good.
Regarding the Harmonium: They don't care about the few individuals. If those individuals were truly perpetuators of harmony, they would join up and help spread the love (and by love I mean order). Their orderliness comes first and their good comes second.
Regarding the robots: Even your most moral human will still have some tendencies toward greed and selfishness. There is also the extended implication that if you allow some humans to be free, then the rest cannot be enslaved properly since they will hope for freedom and strive toward it, perpetuating the cycle of violence. What is best for the greater good must be done, even if that means harming a few innocents. If too many innocents are harmed, though, then it is not helping the greater good.
So construct a system that rewards good behavior with freedom, which wouldn't be that different that the prison system save in scope and scale.
My problems with this is that they slap it on everyone, not because of self-determination. Human beings are determined by more than just genetics, and as such, must be judged as individuals. Perhaps human beings might have a genetic predisposition towards violence and what not, but it is inevitable that some individuals would be altruistic beings who did not deserve such heavy handed tactics.
The question came up early on in the game regarding their Creators actually. Former player characters, the "evil" robots were destroyed by them and allowed their race to flourish. One of them lived long enough to join with his race. A saint really and cyborged intelligence really, he served willingly as did plenty of others to help bring about their new order.
They wondered whether or not modifying them was a good idea or whether that was spitting on essentially the factors that made them. Ultimatly, it was determined that it was more like making people go to the dentist even if they don't want to. Its good for you.
A crippled person can be admired for entering the Olympics, but they should still recieve the perfect legs that science can now produce.
Which is foolish, for the foundation of all authority is physical force.
Essentially what the robots note, humankind needs an "instinct" for moralizing or at least to take the alpha male mentality out of the equation. The Dimension of Lamers are built on compromise and probably impossible good will though.
Except that the situation mitigates the ethics; when you are facing an attack by a horde of invaders, the situation is far different than if you are a highly advanced, and possibly wielding much greater power in an attempt to enforce your will on others. Wielding greater power means that you have a greater responisibility to wield that power with discretion and care, at least if you want to remain good.
So many would believe but others wouldn't. One famous player said that he butchered the orcs to the man because while he himself was probably damned, future generations wouldn't have to deal with it and would go to heaven....a very interesting ethical query.
Re: The Robots
Ultimately the human cause was doomed at the start and it was interesting to note that the Robots if they ever wanted to remove the "kids gloves" would totally destroy humankind without a threat and daily died because they didn't want to compromise their ethics. Thus the human chance was based on their ethics being used against them.
The end came when the last PC let himself be killed rather than use the weapon that would win the war but at the cost of the robots genocide.
A crippled person can be admired for entering the Olympics, but they should still recieve the perfect legs that science can now produce.
If they wish; if the person does not want the best legs science can provide, and can function as a productive member of society, and without commiting crimes, what right does anyone have to force that individual to accept those legs?
Essentially what the robots note, humankind needs an "instinct" for moralizing or at least to take the alpha male mentality out of the equation. The Dimension of Lamers are built on compromise and probably impossible good will though.
Except that this is not an instinct; this is a fact. If you can destroy a thing, you can control a thing. A destroyed object can offer no protection, a dead person can offer no opposition, and words offer no shield against a weapon in the hands of one who is willing to use it.
So many would believe but others wouldn't. One famous player said that he butchered the orcs to the man because while he himself was probably damned, future generations wouldn't have to deal with it and would go to heaven....a very interesting ethical query.
This is probably more based on a particular religious conviction of the character rather than a general ethical consideration, given that the notions of eternal damnation and redemption are more Christian and Muslim than a general ethical question.
Ultimately the human cause was doomed at the start and it was interesting to note that the Robots if they ever wanted to remove the "kids gloves" would totally destroy humankind without a threat and daily died because they didn't want to compromise their ethics. Thus the human chance was based on their ethics being used against them.
The end came when the last PC let himself be killed rather than use the weapon that would win the war but at the cost of the robots genocide.
An interesting conclusion to the quandry of ethics and there application.
Except that this is not an instinct; this is a fact. If you can destroy a thing, you can control a thing. A destroyed object can offer no protection, a dead person can offer no opposition, and words offer no shield against a weapon in the hands of one who is willing to use it.
Precisely since no one in the DoL was willing to use it I suppose. It was an interesting point that might become relevant in a self-contained society some day where perhaps on a space colony, life can become so interdependent that conflict ends.
This is probably more based on a particular religious conviction of the character rather than a general ethical consideration, given that the notions of eternal damnation and redemption are more Christian and Muslim than a general ethical question.
In this respect, the person notes that removing obstacles is the greatest point to keeping a strong morality...though Mark Twain would disagree with "the Devil came to Handleytown."
An interesting conclusion to the quandry of ethics and there application.
I thought so.
Except that this is not an instinct; this is a fact. If you can destroy a thing, you can control a thing. A destroyed object can offer no protection, a dead person can offer no opposition, and words offer no shield against a weapon in the hands of one who is willing to use it.
To destroy a pacifist, you have to destroy the idea of pacifism. A dead person can offer a lot of opposition; martyrs are some of the most valuable things a cause can have. Words may offer no shield against a weapon in willing hands, but it takes some pretty unholy hands to be willing to wield a weapon against an entire nation or people that offer no resistance. There are also non-violent ways to win a war. For example, if you can outbreed your enemy and have superior food gathering skills you can win from non-violent competition.
To destroy a pacifist, you have to destroy the idea of pacifism. A dead person can offer a lot of opposition; martyrs are some of the most valuable things a cause can have. Words may offer no shield against a weapon in willing hands, but it takes some pretty unholy hands to be willing to wield a weapon against an entire nation or people that offer no resistance. There are also non-violent ways to win a war. For example, if you can outbreed your enemy and have superior food gathering skills you can win from non-violent competition.
Unless your opponant kills those who follow the martyrs, slays the population, and burns the enemy's food. Unholy? Probably. But that is not the issue; what is at issue is the source of authority, and those who are willing to dispense death and destruction wield it totally against those who refuse it. Physical force is the penultimate source of authority, thus, from which all of sources of authority derive. No form of peaceful or non-violent opposition will succeed against an enemy that is willing, ready, and able to use violence.
No form of peaceful or non-violent opposition will succeed against an enemy that is willing, ready, and able to use violence.
How can you explain the continued damage to Australia's ecology due to rabbit infestation with this model (I would have used mice, but mice are willing to eat you)? Rabbits don't directly harm any of the indigenous animals or domestic animals that are under control. They eat like mad, they breed like mad, and people will shoot and poison them any chance they get. The extermination of any population is a near impossible goal because there is a huge difference between letting enemies kill you and resisting them with nonviolent means.
The ultimate source of authority is the will of the masses. Physical violence or the threat thereof is just one manifestation of that will.
How can you explain the continued damage to Australia's ecology due to rabbit infestation with this model (I would have used mice, but mice are willing to eat you)? Rabbits don't directly harm any of the indigenous animals or domestic animals that are under control. They eat like mad, they breed like mad, and people will shoot and poison them any chance they get. The extermination of any population is a near impossible goal because there is a huge difference between letting enemies kill you and resisting them with nonviolent means.
Probably because they hide. But tell me, what exactly are the Austrialians doing? Are they organizing a concerted effort to destroy the rabbits, or only sending out a few hunters to stop them.
Rabbits do not count, because rabbits can't wield authority. They eat, they exist. They will simply eat until they can eat no more and start dying off from starvation. Such planning is beyond them; certainly, if they were organizing an attack, they would not eat themselves into starvation. A horde of rabbits is akin to a swarm of locusts or hurricanes. They don't wield authority, they just exist.
Your argument is invalid anyway; the rabbits are being violent, just indirectly. The rabbits are destroying the environment; DESTROYING it. If the rabbits descend upon the country like locusts and consume all available food, i.e., destroying it, then they starve the people (as long as the people don't eat the rabbits). The fact that they can't store food themselves dooms them, but it would be an affective weapon if they had the ability to plan. This is no different than destroying a weapons plant or burning food supplies, except that human invaders probably won't starve themselves.
The ultimate source of authority is the will of the masses. Physical violence or the threat thereof is just one manifestation of that will.
Will is important, because if you don't have the will to inflict harm, then you won't. But it doesn't change the fact that physical force is the ultimate source of authority. Those who are willing and able to use physical force will rule those who are either unwilling or unable to use physical force, either through fear or by killing them.
Will is important, because if you don't have the will to inflict harm, then you won't. But it doesn't change the fact that physical force is the ultimate source of authority. Those who are willing and able to use physical force will rule those who are either unwilling or unable to use physical force, either through fear or by killing them.
You've already said yourself that the rabbits can avoid violence through hiding, that's one means of nonviolent resistance. You've also said that fear is a means of control, what if you can utilize fear that is not backed with physical force? Someone is terrified of snakes (including harmless ones) and you threaten to fill his room with garter snakes. There is no physical force (in the violence sense, not the scientific sense) involved in that display of authority.
You also have two conditions on your use of force as the source of authority. Those wielding it must be willing and able. If you can deprive them of their ability to wield physical force effectively through nonviolent means (perhaps hiding as you've suggested) and can still strike at them psychologically, then you would be the one in control.
You've already said yourself that the rabbits can avoid violence through hiding, that's one means of nonviolent resistance.
But that only works if you can't be found, which not very likely, and it is just like capitulation if they have no way to fight back, except the enemy can't kill you. You still lost your nation and most of your resources.
You've also said that fear is a means of control, what if you can utilize fear that is not backed with physical force? Someone is terrified of snakes (including harmless ones) and you threaten to fill his room with garter snakes. There is no physical force (in the violence sense, not the scientific sense) involved in that display of authority.
Unless that person masters her/his fear long enough to kill the snakes, or simply cuts their heads off. Inflicting death trumps everything.
You also have two conditions on your use of force as the source of authority. Those wielding it must be willing and able. If you can deprive them of their ability to wield physical force effectively through nonviolent means (perhaps hiding as you've suggested) and can still strike at them psychologically, then you would be the one in control.
It would be difficult. How are you going to hide from them in a way that prevents them from using their weapons against you? Especially in the age of weapons of mass destruction, there aren't many places you can hide and stay safe for any length of time. As for striking psychologically, what you are going to do that will, in any meaningful way, shake the morale of your enemy without using some sort of physical force?
Sure, if you have superior physical force you can *destroy* an enemy, however, you cannot force him to submit until he himself yields. You cannot *control* someone without their consent (that is, in a nonmagical setting) all you can do is alter the choices they can make (death or slavery, for example)
I'd strongly disagree: Physical force does not yield authority, what is neccessary for authority to exist is a willingness to submit.
Sure, if you have superior physical force you can *destroy* an enemy, however, you cannot force him to submit until he himself yields. You cannot *control* someone without their consent (that is, in a nonmagical setting) all you can do is alter the choices they can make (death or slavery, for example)
How is inflicting death or destruction, reducing something to a smoldering rubble, not control? Further, removing options from others around you IS control, just not perfect control. Reducing someone to the options of submission or death is rather great control, as most would take the first option in a general situation, given the desire for self-preservation, and if they refuse to submit, you kill them, and they offer no more resistance. Total control? no. Rather good control nonetheless? Yes.
Unless that person masters her/his fear long enough to kill the snakes, or simply cuts their heads off. Inflicting death trumps everything.
How is that situation any different from something hiding so well that it cannot be found trumping physical violence? What you are comparing is unlimited physical force against limited stealth, limited terror, limited breeding, etc. Of course unlimited anything will trump limited anything else.
How is that situation any different from something hiding so well that it cannot be found trumping physical violence? What you are comparing is unlimited physical force against limited stealth, limited terror, limited breeding, etc. Of course unlimited anything will trump limited anything else.
It is quite different. Hiding so well that you can not be found is capitulation. You give up your territory and relocate to a different place that may or may not come under attack at a later date. My comparison is not unlimited physical force against limited anything; phobias can be over come, and those who are afraid of soemthing will very likely destroy that thing if they have no reason not to. Further, what I am talking about is applicable real world situations, not hypotheticals that may or may not be possible. How is it that someone or something can hide so well as to avoid any sort of physical attack? There has not been an instance in the world yet where this has occured, with one side hiding from the other until the other side gave up and went away. Either the side that hides musters forces and uses stealth to aid in the application of force or the ones who do not hide wins against inferior forces that can not hope to stand up against them. A touch and go sort of gurilla war could end up with some sort of treaty being signed, but from what I know either the invaders leave after being bled by surgical strikes for years or the invaders conquer the invaded lands despite such resistance.
My comparison is not unlimited physical force against limited anything; phobias can be over come, and those who are afraid of soemthing will very likely destroy that thing if they have no reason not to. Further, what I am talking about is applicable real world situations, not hypotheticals that may or may not be possible.
Any amount of physical force can be overcome a deep enough terror. Any physical force can be overcome with enough application of psychological horror. You're only argument against this is that you say this is not the case, which doesn't hold any water in a philosophical debate.
I disagree that we aren't talking of hypotheticals. If you are talking about the ultimate source of anything, you're firmly in hypothetical land. However, if you want an applicable real-world situation for how you can hide and instill terror or confusion among ememy troops, consider a guerilla war where the guerillas load the drinking water of their enemy with LSD or other mind-altering substances. Through in a well-run propoganda campaign, and you have soldiers who no longer want to fight. You've taken away their will, and their ability to use physical force no longer applies.
Any amount of physical force can be overcome a deep enough terror. Any physical force can be overcome with enough application of psychological horror. You're only argument against this is that you say this is not the case, which doesn't hold any water in a philosophical debate.
This isn't a philosophical debate. It's a debate on the practice applications of physical force in rulership and government. History has shown that those who have greater ability and greater amounts of physical force rule over any they wish to with that physical force.
I disagree that we aren't talking of hypotheticals. If you are talking about the ultimate source of anything, you're firmly in hypothetical land.
Hardly. We aren't dealing with ethics, which can not be measured or physical objects, which have potentially smaller parts we can not see, but politics and rulership. And these can be studied throughout history, with a great deal of, if not all of, their parts seen, with the smallest piece being that of the individual. One can make a statement about the absolute source of authority because authority is a purely human concept on our world, which has the expression completely between people. It is no more hypothetical than if one were to say that the Sumerians were responsible for modern culture, since you can trace modern culture back through history to Sumer, collect historical evidence, and make your case.
However, if you want an applicable real-world situation for how you can hide and instill terror or confusion among ememy troops, consider a guerilla war where the guerillas load the drinking water of their enemy with LSD or other mind-altering substances.
Except that this is combined with the use of physical force; if all you did was load the LSD or other drug in the water, then you wouldn't accomplish much -- this sort of meanuver would be accompanied with attacks, either in general or a specific ambush. This is an example of wielding physical force with finesse, but softening the opposition.
Through in a well-run propoganda campaign, and you have soldiers who no longer want to fight. You've taken away their will, and their ability to use physical force no longer applies.
The ability of propaganda campaigns to work on enemy soilders is a direct fucntion of the current situation and the expectations of the enemy. If you are an overwhleming force with better technology, like the U.S. against Iraq, then your propaganda will be very effective, because morale is already low; everything is already hopeless, it seems, and surrendering seems like a good option. However, if you have relativly equal forces, propaganda is a far less effective tool; Nazi propaganda on the fields of WWII did not save them. Further, there is also the expectations of the enemy. The U.S. has a relativly good reputation for the treatment of prisoners, which helps our propoganda. China, given its history of human rights violations, would have a harder time convincing others to surrender. But no propaganda campaign will succeed without the backing of physical force; there has never been an instance where leaflets have won the day all by themselves.
This isn't a philosophical debate. It's a debate on the practice applications of physical force in rulership and government. History has shown that those who have greater ability and greater amounts of physical force rule over any they wish to with that physical force.
Simply put, even in the face of TOTAL ANNIHILATION none of them develop the skills to fight back violently or the desire to. The only person willing to fight them is Torg who kills the demons with his demonslaying sword. He's viewed as a horrific monster (no better than the demons) for doing it thought save for a few whom love being protected by him.
Which is foolish, for the foundation of all authority is physical force.
Sure sounds like we're talking about real world examples to me.
If you want a real world example of authority coming from something other than physical force, though, consider the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Yes, they sometimes used physical force (especially on nonbelievers and heretics), but they more often used the threat of excommunication and eternal damnation on laypeople. That is not something backed by a physical force at all.
Two more real world examples would be the civil rights movement and all of Ghandi's work. Since you're so keen on saying that we can't be hypothetical, you do realize that you are restricted from saying that "What if the people who opposed them just decided to kill them?" That is not a concrete argument in the least.
There is also a key word in this bit of what you said.
rule over any they wish to
Wish is the key element there. Superior physical force does not grant authority. The will to defeat the opposition, perhaps through the application of force, is the key. Physical force is only one such manifestation of that will, though.
Hardly. We aren't dealing with ethics, which can not be measured or physical objects, which have potentially smaller parts we can not see, but politics and rulership. And these can be studied throughout history, with a great deal of, if not all of, their parts seen, with the smallest piece being that of the individual. One can make a statement about the absolute source of authority because authority is a purely human concept on our world, which has the expression completely between people. It is no more hypothetical than if one were to say that the Sumerians were responsible for modern culture, since you can trace modern culture back through history to Sumer, collect historical evidence, and make your case.
I beg to differ about history being more concrete than physical science. You're completely ignoring the simple fact that history changes as it is interpretted. You can make a very strong argument for something, such as the modern culture from Sumer example, but you are not going to be making any statements that are devoid of a theoretical framework. That doesn't devalue them, it just means that it is impossible to be completely objective in a historical analysis. You have already made value judgements as soon as you start to observe some parts of history and not others. That is how it is in physical sciences and social sciences both.
Except that this is combined with the use of physical force; if all you did was load the LSD or other drug in the water, then you wouldn't accomplish much -- this sort of meanuver would be accompanied with attacks, either in general or a specific ambush. This is an example of wielding physical force with finesse, but softening the opposition.
The ability of propaganda campaigns to work on enemy soilders is a direct fucntion of the current situation and the expectations of the enemy. If you are an overwhleming force with better technology, like the U.S. against Iraq, then your propaganda will be very effective, because morale is already low; everything is already hopeless, it seems, and surrendering seems like a good option. However, if you have relativly equal forces, propaganda is a far less effective tool; Nazi propaganda on the fields of WWII did not save them. Further, there is also the expectations of the enemy. The U.S. has a relativly good reputation for the treatment of prisoners, which helps our propoganda. China, given its history of human rights violations, would have a harder time convincing others to surrender. But no propaganda campaign will succeed without the backing of physical force; there has never been an instance where leaflets have won the day all by themselves.
What if you load the water with drugs that render folk sterile? Coupled with propoganda that you have done so, and you're going to have a very hestitant fighting force. "Every step you take into our country removes your children from the future." Perhaps estrogen loading would be a good choice since you could both sterilize and somewhat pacify the male soldier population at once. The benefit that you won't probably sterilize them in the first few doses is also a strong incentive for them to get up and go before it is too late.
I never said that propoganda would win on its own. It is strongly tied into what sort of drugging you are doing in this case. You don't have to use physical violence as the backing of your propoganda campaign. Drugs with a side-effect (or primary effect) of inducing paranoia could be combined with a classic "your wife is being unfaithful" propoganda campaign could have very high levels of success.
Sure sounds like we're talking about real world examples to me.
Good fantasy is often a metaphor for real life. Further, you have failed to present a scenerio where the use of force can't solve the problem in a very final way.
If you want a real world example of authority coming from something other than physical force, though, consider the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Yes, they sometimes used physical force (especially on nonbelievers and heretics), but they more often used the threat of excommunication and eternal damnation on laypeople. That is not something backed by a physical force at all.
That is debatable. While we know now that the Catholic Church did not wield that power, at the time it was believed that they did. Plauges, terrible weather, droughts, famine: all were the results of not obeying the Church. Hell was the eventual outcome, but defying God by disobeying the chosen representatives of the divine in the world had, through the eyes of the average pesant in the dark ages, very real results. As people came to realize that the Church did not wield this power, that it was corrupt itself, then this perception fell away, but for centuries people actually believed that the Church was backed by the greatest power of all, whose wrath could not be turned away and who only could be placated. The authority of the Church was built on the threat of physical force.
Two more real world examples would be the civil rights movement and all of Ghandi's work. Since you're so keen on saying that we can't be hypothetical, you do realize that you are restricted from saying that "What if the people who opposed them just decided to kill them?" That is not a concrete argument in the least.
There is also a key word in this bit of what you said.
Hypotheticals are allowed, but ones that are actually plausible from the real world, not nebulous scenerios that may or may not be possible at all. The reason that the civil rights movement and Ghandi succeeded is because those in authority were not willing to use sufficent physical force against them, and as such, did not have a firm foundation for their authority. If you are not willing to use force then it is as nothing; you might as well not have it. If those with authority had desired they could have wiped out the demonstraitors with their force. This is not hypothetical; it was well within the power of America and Britian to crush these demonstraitors.
Wish is the key element there. Superior physical force does not grant authority. The will to defeat the opposition, perhaps through the application of force, is the key. Physical force is only one such manifestation of that will, though.
You have to have the will to use something, certainly, but having the will is not enough. If you have the will to rule, but do not have the physical force, you will fall against one who simply wishes to see you dead for whatever reason and has the physical force to do so. Will is a component, but no greater than the physical componants of the armies and weapons themselves.
I beg to differ about history being more concrete than physical science. You're completely ignoring the simple fact that history changes as it is interpretted.
This is true, but you still know that the event happened; you can filter other people's opinions out of texts if you how, and there is more than one source for important historical events such as wars and battles, especially as one gets closer to the modern era.
You can make a very strong argument for something, such as the modern culture from Sumer example, but you are not going to be making any statements that are devoid of a theoretical framework. That doesn't devalue them, it just means that it is impossible to be completely objective in a historical analysis. You have already made value judgements as soon as you start to observe some parts of history and not others. That is how it is in physical sciences and social sciences both.
This is true, but in physical sciences you are dealing with substances that we may not be able to percieve or measure, and there are some theories that are more "theoretical" than others; the behavior of electricity are theories, but the practicle applications of those theories exist in the world around to such an extent that until something comes along to activley disprove them that they can be considered true. History can measure the smallest parts of civilizations. Are we missing pieces from earlier times, especially of the ancient world? Yes. But wars, governments, and authority have existed from the ancient world to the modern world, so there is plenty of evidence to support such a statement, enough that it would be as well founded as any statment on how electircity flows in a computer.
What if you load the water with drugs that render folk sterile? Coupled with propoganda that you have done so, and you're going to have a very hestitant fighting force. "Every step you take into our country removes your children from the future." Perhaps estrogen loading would be a good choice since you could both sterilize and somewhat pacify the male soldier population at once. The benefit that you won't probably sterilize them in the first few doses is also a strong incentive for them to get up and go before it is too late.
If you load the water with drugs that render folk sterile then you are using a chemical or biological weapon that attacks a part of a person, and thus, your propaganda is based on the use of force.
I never said that propoganda would win on its own. It is strongly tied into what sort of drugging you are doing in this case. You don't have to use physical violence as the backing of your propoganda campaign. Drugs with a side-effect (or primary effect) of inducing paranoia could be combined with a classic "your wife is being unfaithful" propoganda campaign could have very high levels of success.
Physical force does not have to be overt to be physical force. If you are attacking organs in the body, then you are using a weapon that engages in physical force, which is what drugs are. Using a weapon that instills paranoia in its targets and then leaving them to destroy themselves, perhaps with a gentle nudge, is no different than feeding them drugs that make them all go insane and kill each other from a different psycological disorder.
Good fantasy is often a metaphor for real life. Further, you have failed to present a scenerio where the use of force can't solve the problem in a very final way.
You chopped the heads off of my snakes when I did. There are people who are so irrationally afraid of various things that pose no real threat that they will be completely and utterly unable to do such a thing. You completely ignored this. I might as well say that you can't use physical force against Superman as an example of why physical force is not the ultimate authority.
Physical force does not have to be overt to be physical force. If you are attacking organs in the body, then you are using a weapon that engages in physical force, which is what drugs are. Using a weapon that instills paranoia in its targets and then leaving them to destroy themselves, perhaps with a gentle nudge, is no different than feeding them drugs that make them all go insane and kill each other from a different psycological disorder.
The goal of the "wives are being unfaithful" propoganda, though is to make them so suspicious that they are no longer willing to be away from home. I would argue that a drug that causes no physical harm is not "physical force" in the sense that you've been defining it up until now. I'm not trying to get people to kill each other with the drug example; I'm just trying to get them to go home and stay there. That is a far cry from making people harm themselves or others by some drug that induces sociopathic urges. Drugs do induce physical changes in people, but technically running away is a display of physical force, too. Talking to people is physical force (sound waves), printed propganda is physical force (light waves off of paper), etc. If you want to expand your definition of physical force to the scientific definition rather than common usage then physical force is obviously the root of all authority.
You chopped the heads off of my snakes when I did. There are people who are so irrationally afraid of various things that pose no real threat that they will be completely and utterly unable to do such a thing. You completely ignored this. I might as well say that you can't use physical force against Superman as an example of why physical force is not the ultimate authority.
Assuming that the person is so deathly afraid of the snakes that they could, in no feasible way (every heard of a gun? Most severe phobics aren't incapacitated 50 feet away), but this has nothing to do with what I said. I said that physical force is the ultimate source of all authority. When was the last time you saw a one person nation go around and try to conquer the world with a crippling phobia? Such extreme scenerios of individuals who have such weaknesses don't really have a place in a conversation about the basis of authority for nations.
The goal of the "wives are being unfaithful" propoganda, though is to make them so suspicious that they are no longer willing to be away from home. I would argue that a drug that causes no physical harm is not "physical force" in the sense that you've been defining it up until now.
How is using a drug no more using force than using tear gas? Anyway, how do expect this to honestly work? "Gee, there are a bunch of guys trying to invade my country and kill me, but seeing if my wife is faithful is more important." And what about singles? Even if it functions as you describe, then it still wouldn't work, as not all would leave, for one, but two I doubt they would abandon their posts after you shot one of the troops who fled, something along the lines of decimation.
I'm not trying to get people to kill each other with the drug example; I'm just trying to get them to go home and stay there. That is a far cry from making people harm themselves or others by some drug that induces sociopathic urges.
And you expect this to work this way? So, in this mythical scenerio, you are going to give all the soilders in the enemy army a drug that makes them paranoid by putting it in the water, which they are going to assume is just fine and ok, and then tell them that their wives are being unfaithful. What is to prevent a missle bombardment or an airal attack? Tell me, first, how is this more important than survival, and second, what sort of idiots are you expecting here that wouldn't turn that very paranoia against you by telling their troops, who are already paranoid, that this is a rumor spread by the enemy to gain victory? Or that the enemy will **** the soilders' spouses and murder their children if they lose today? If you want to present a scenerio that has some merit in a discussion about real world authority, make it at least plausible.
Drugs do induce physical changes in people, but technically running away is a display of physical force, too.
Physical force, as part of authority, is using that force to impose your will on others. Running away would not accomplish that, I would think.
Talking to people is physical force (sound waves), printed propganda is physical force (light waves off of paper), etc. If you want to expand your definition of physical force to the scientific definition rather than common usage then physical force is obviously the root of all authority.
Present an actual argument that deals with something that could happen in the real world and I will consider it. Physical force, as is inflicting destruction or incapacitation with attacks by weapons, is the root of all authority. All law is built on the government having superior force than criminals, and the only way to respond to truely respond to invasion is with counter attack. If you have a historical event to the contrary, or some plausible scenerio, I would be glad to hear it.
You're arguing that physcial force is how these various governmental bodies have authority. How did they amass their power in the first place? That would be a source of authority beyond that of the physical force wielded by their armies. In some cases it is probably through press gangs, threat of dragging them off to jail, etc, but in many it is an ideology, money, or something else other than violence that gets the army to put their lives in danger. I would wager that you probably end up with a more effective fighting force with a voluntary army rather than a coerced one. I still stand by will as at least equal to violence in the authoritarian hierarchy.
These governments started with like minded people organizing themselves in one way or another. It may start with force, such as a tribe invading and enslaving another until the "lesser" tribe is assimilated. It might be a shared ideology. But this is not relevent. There are many ways to gain authority, such as the use of social or economic force, but the only way to maintain that authority against all odds is the use of force. In such situations, the opposition is not willing to use force or can be placated by the use of something other than physical force, but if you are not able to use physical force then you will fall to the first attacker that can. There has not been one nation, state, or organization that was able to stand up against an attack of physical force without responding with physical force in kind, either directly or indirectly. There is no more total weapon of authority than the ability to inflict death and destruction on others. This is plainly evident; how does any nation stand up to those who defy its laws? Force -- the police forces. If what you say is true, then why do nations keep standing armies? If physical force is not the quintessential element of authority, then why was Sparta able to exist for so long, when its entire population was devoted to the ways of war while enslaved peoples tilled their fields?
There are many ways to gain authority, such as the use of social or economic force, but the only way to maintain that authority against all odds is the use of force.
What about esoteric knowledge? If you have a kept secret that is the basis of your authority, then physical force can prove impotent. Killing you may remove your authority (your words live on, but you have no control over them anymore), but it will definitely not grant your enemies the same authority you had previously. Esoteric knowledge can range from religious secrets (as is the case in many indigenous African cultures) to the juicy scoop about Mr. CEO of the big company and the pictures you have of his "late nights at the office."
Trade skills fall into the same category. If you are a ridiculously skilled craftsman (say you know how to cure cancer or make incredibly intricate watches, for example), you have a bartering chip that physical force can't necessarily take away from you. Yes, you could say that the forceful ones have exerted authority by giving you a "help us or die" option, but alternatively you could say that you've influenced them with "deal on my terms or don't get this skill."
I think these are pretty clear situations that show that physical force is not the only means of controlling another. Even if you are unwilling to get physical, it is possible to have those who are willing to inflict harm in general yield to your desires. If you can make it so socially or fiscally damaging to that person or group that harming you or your cause is no longer a viable option, they will cease with their physical agression. You are not giving them a "convert or perish" option, but you are still exerting control over their range of choices and influencing which of those they choose.
If you define authority as the ability to make someone permanently dead, then violence is obviously the answer. If you define authority as restricting others' options and pushing them towards the choice you desire (control, in other words) then you are going to have multiple ways of control, none of which is always superior.
What about esoteric knowledge? If you have a kept secret that is the basis of your authority, then physical force can prove impotent. Killing you may remove your authority (your words live on, but you have no control over them anymore), but it will definitely not grant your enemies the same authority you had previously. Esoteric knowledge can range from religious secrets (as is the case in many indigenous African cultures) to the juicy scoop about Mr. CEO of the big company and the pictures you have of his "late nights at the office."
Which is all irrelevent. Esoteric knowledge, unless it can be bent to the use of physical force, will not defend against one who attacks with physical force. All the knowledge in the world does not help you if you are dead. The invaders may not have the same authority that you held when you were alive, but they certainly have more authority than you have now (i.e. none).
Trade skills fall into the same category. If you are a ridiculously skilled craftsman (say you know how to cure cancer or make incredibly intricate watches, for example), you have a bartering chip that physical force can't necessarily take away from you. Yes, you could say that the forceful ones have exerted authority by giving you a "help us or die" option, but alternatively you could say that you've influenced them with "deal on my terms or don't get this skill."
This falls to whoever has the resolve to destroy. You only have a bargaining chip as long as those who have otherwise conquered you require your skill; after the applications of physical tortures to yourself and your loved ones, perhaps you still might not cave in. But then again, if the other side is not willing to destroy your skill then you have authority over them because you can destroy that skill yourself. In the end, it still boils down to destruction.
I think these are pretty clear situations that show that physical force is not the only means of controlling another. Even if you are unwilling to get physical, it is possible to have those who are willing to inflict harm in general yield to your desires. If you can make it so socially or fiscally damaging to that person or group that harming you or your cause is no longer a viable option, they will cease with their physical agression. You are not giving them a "convert or perish" option, but you are still exerting control over their range of choices and influencing which of those they choose.
I never said that physical force is the only means of controlling another. There are certainly other options: social, economic. What I said was that physical force is the basis of all authority, because unless you can defend yourself from attack and destruction then social and economic threats become much less meaningful, particularly once you consider the scale of nations. You can threaten social penalties, but that only works if the target cares about society's opinion. You can threaten economics, but that only works if what you have can not be taken from you and the target is not willing to live without it, and transforms into a show of force if anything required for existance is held. Threat of death and destruction can not be ignored unless the target no longer cares about living, and the dead offer no opposition to your plans. At the very least, the living can always attack you physically.
If you define authority as the ability to make someone permanently dead, then violence is obviously the answer. If you define authority as restricting others' options and pushing them towards the choice you desire (control, in other words) then you are going to have multiple ways of control, none of which is always superior.
Nice conclusion, except that it has little to do with what I said. It is true that given a certain situation, physical force will not always be superior; certainly with another option that grants you your goals with fewer costs is available, that option is better. But, as show above, physical force automatically triumphs over all other forms of force except itself; inflicting social and economic injuries matter little when your foe can simply go out and kill you. You have hurt your foe, but such hurts and quite possibly temporary, and in any case your foe will still have life while you will not, and all the social and economic graces in the world matter little if you are dead. To use a cliche, "The one who dies with the most toys... is still dead."
Esoteric knowledge, unless it can be bent to the use of physical force, will not defend against one who attacks with physical force. All the knowledge in the world does not help you if you are dead. The invaders may not have the same authority that you held when you were alive, but they certainly have more authority than you have now (i.e. none).
And physical force cannot defend against someone who attacks with dark secrets. If someone wants you dead, and you tell him about your knowledge of his (insert horrible secret), he will want to kill you more. When you tell him about the contingencies you've set up for the information to be released in case of your death, then his urge to kill will be balanced by fear of social harm (friends, wife, family's opinion dropping) or economic harm (losing his job, monetary fines, having his assets frozen by the government). You may say that ultimately he ends up living and you end up dead, but you may end up destroying his memes while yours live on.
But then again, if the other side is not willing to destroy your skill then you have authority over them because you can destroy that skill yourself. In the end, it still boils down to destruction.
You could destroy that skill yourself, or you could withhold it from them. If it is still boiling down to destruction in the end then it is always obviously the fault of the slain that they died, and they should be held responsible for the violence. Refusal to acquiesce and being destroyed for it is not a display of physical force on the refuser's part.
Threat of death and destruction can not be ignored unless the target no longer cares about living, and the dead offer no opposition to your plans.
That would explain why the Romans were able to wipe out early Christianity, I guess. Oh, wait. You can kill a lot of people, but you can't kill an idea without total extermination. Being dead doesn't automatically result in a loss of authority. You may no longer wield it, but others with similar ideals may now be vested with the same (or more now that they have a martyr) authority that you had. There are people who are willing to die for a cause, and, though the dead offer no opposition, their compatriots do.
Death is not a final arbitter when inflicted on an individual. Inflicting death on everyone who hold a certain idea has proven many times to be ridiculously difficult if not impossible, and this all-encompassing physical force that is able to kill everyone is roughly as unreasonable as the ability of an individual to hide forever or a terror so profound that it freezes an army.
thus, it would seems that you're both right...or wrong. sort of. :P
And physical force cannot defend against someone who attacks with dark secrets. If someone wants you dead, and you tell him about your knowledge of his (insert horrible secret), he will want to kill you more. When you tell him about the contingencies you've set up for the information to be released in case of your death, then his urge to kill will be balanced by fear of social harm (friends, wife, family's opinion dropping) or economic harm (losing his job, monetary fines, having his assets frozen by the government). You may say that ultimately he ends up living and you end up dead, but you may end up destroying his memes while yours live on.
Key words: FEAR OF SOCIAL HARM. First, this is meaningless on a national scale much of the time. Many nations do not really care what other nations think of them. Secondly, soical harm is the end all be all. You kill your victims' reputation and money flow, and he/she kills you. So you lost your reputation, your money, and your life, and your oppoenent loses his/her reupation and money at best. Now, whose better off?
You could destroy that skill yourself, or you could withhold it from them. If it is still boiling down to destruction in the end then it is always obviously the fault of the slain that they died, and they should be held responsible for the violence. Refusal to acquiesce and being destroyed for it is not a display of physical force on the refuser's part.
You misunderstand. If your foe values your skills so highly that he/she refuses to kill you, it gives you power because you can destroy that skill. How does this mean that it is the fault of the slain that they died? It simply means that if someone needs something and you can control the distribution of that thing, then you have power over it. And destruction is greatest control over distribution.
That would explain why the Romans were able to wipe out early Christianity, I guess. Oh, wait. You can kill a lot of people, but you can't kill an idea without total extermination. Being dead doesn't automatically result in a loss of authority. You may no longer wield it, but others with similar ideals may now be vested with the same (or more now that they have a martyr) authority that you had. There are people who are willing to die for a cause, and, though the dead offer no opposition, their compatriots do.
Being dead does result in a loss of authority. Christians did not have any authority until one of the emperors converted, and if that had not occured then Christianity would have died. First, the Romans did not make a hudge organized sweep to kill Christians. They hunted for them, at times mercilessly, but they never really mobalized to destroy members of the religion. Secondly, Christianity was, for a long time, confused with Judaism in the Roman mind, who simply saw Christians as a cult or type of Judaism. In Roman society, the worth of a religion was measured by its age, and conquered nations were allowed to keep their own religion. Thus, as long as the Romans considered Christianity a type of Judaism they did not go after them. Then the Christians were hunted, but not in a fasion that can destroy an underground rebellion, which generally requires some sort of scorched earth policy. But Christianity survived and blossomed not because of martyrs but because of the conversion of the Roman emperor, who had the authority and the physical force.
Death is not a final arbitter when inflicted on an individual. Inflicting death on everyone who hold a certain idea has proven many times to be ridiculously difficult if not impossible, and this all-encompassing physical force that is able to kill everyone is roughly as unreasonable as the ability of an individual to hide forever or a terror so profound that it freezes an army.
True, it is difficult, if not impossible, to stamp out an idea. But then again, ideas don't lend authority, since if you hold an idea and you can not defend yourself then you die against those who attack you. The ability to largely wipe out a populace is nothing ridiculous -- there have been in the course of history many massacres that left town, villages, and cities nearly or utterly depopulated. It is even easier now with the sorts of weapons of mass destruction we have now, instituting a scourched earth policy and erradicating all human life in an era. You might not be able to stamp out an idea, but you can stamp out all those who follow an idea, or at least a great majority of them, leaving them hunted, disperssed, and powerless.
In most cases, such as slavery, destruction of the opposition would not be inline with the goal of the plantation owner, as the fields will be untended.
In this case, the fact that the owner requires the assistance of the slaves means that the slaves have power over the owner. Why do you think that communication between slaves is often banned? Since the slaves ultimately control the source of labor, they can destroy that labor, either from organized refusal, to attack, to suicide, meaning that the plantation owner must find a way to keep them disorganized or else suffer a rebellion, such as Sparticus' slave rebellion.
You misunderstand. If your foe values your skills so highly that he/she refuses to kill you, it gives you power because you can destroy that skill. How does this mean that it is the fault of the slain that they died? It simply means that if someone needs something and you can control the distribution of that thing, then you have power over it. And destruction is greatest control over distribution.
Since the slaves ultimately control the source of labor, they can destroy that labor, either from organized refusal, to attack, to suicide, meaning that the plantation owner must find a way to keep them disorganized or else suffer a rebellion, such as Sparticus' slave rebellion.
You've expanded the definition of physical force to include refusing to serve. That is what I meant by my "it's the slains' fault they died" line. Refusing to use a skill to benefit another, even if this is considered a destruction of that skill, is not an act of physical force. When a demonstrator is run over by a tank, he or she is not engaged in an act of physical force. Similarly refusal to yield does not consitute physical force. Both are acts of defiance, and, even though your acts might be considered destructive of yourself, you are not displaying a physical force. Only the foe who cuts you down is doing that.
Key words: FEAR OF SOCIAL HARM. First, this is meaningless on a national scale much of the time. Many nations do not really care what other nations think of them.
Nations don't care what other nation's think of them, but politicians care what other politicians think of them.
So you lost your reputation, your money, and your life, and your oppoenent loses his/her reupation and money at best.
How did you lose your reputation and your money? You've only lost your life, but your money can still go to those people and causes that you think will use it closest to your wishes and your reputation will outlive you if you are enough of a scounderel or saint. The man who is destroyed while he still lives is the most pitiful of them all.
You've expanded the definition of physical force to include refusing to serve. That is what I meant by my "it's the slains' fault they died" line. Refusing to use a skill to benefit another, even if this is considered a destruction of that skill, is not an act of physical force. When a demonstrator is run over by a tank, he or she is not engaged in an act of physical force. Similarly refusal to yield does not consitute physical force. Both are acts of defiance, and, even though your acts might be considered destructive of yourself, you are not displaying a physical force. Only the foe who cuts you down is doing that.
And you have expanded the scope of the conversation to include individuals. My statement about authority applies to nations and the like, not private citizens. Refusing to serve is not physical force, and it is an option. However, encompassing the destruction of that labor can very well include physical force if you threated to kill ourselves or to strike back at your oppressors, at which point you are exploiting their needs with destruction. Simply refusing to sereve without the intention of using physical force against yourself or your master is nothing more than a high stakes bluffing game, and whoever is willing to actually inflict death is the one who will win.
Nations don't care what other nation's think of them, but politicians care what other politicians think of them.
Politicians don't give a damn about what other politicians think of them, they care about what the public thinks because it gets them votes. While a certain amount of back room dealing goes on in any political system, politicians don't really give a damn about reputations as escaping with their public image. And this one example is of a specific type of person who cares about her/his public image. What about a bum? If the only threat you can offer is social stigma, then one bum can quite easily destroy your entire governmental body. O, the public won't like him, and he doens't have money anyway. Then again, if there are only social and economic penalties, the bum can always steal from others. However, this is, again, outside of the scope of my origional statement, which was about nations, not individuals.
How did you lose your reputation and your money? You've only lost your life, but your money can still go to those people and causes that you think will use it closest to your wishes and your reputation will outlive you if you are enough of a scounderel or saint. The man who is destroyed while he still lives is the most pitiful of them all.
Reputation and money are meaningless to the dead. You money goes to others because you can not use it anymore being dead -- you lost it. Reputation is meaningless to the dead because they don't benefit from it anymore, like the money. You get your name and pictures in some newspapers and books -- wonderful consolation prize, I'm sure. But how is the one who has only her/his life destroyed? You assume that the person places any value on money or the opinions of others. If you care for neither fame nor wealth, then you would suffer little or nothing from such attacks, and one who is alive can rebuild. One who is dead can not.
Which is foolish, for the foundation of all authority is physical force.
That sounds a whole lot like you are talking about only nations
I think you've also greatly overestimated the power of death. Everyone dies, period. It is just a question of when and how. If your ideas die with you, then you have accomplished nothing; if your ideas live on, then you have accomplished something.
Simply refusing to sereve without the intention of using physical force against yourself or your master is nothing more than a high stakes bluffing game, and whoever is willing to actually inflict death is the one who will win.
You may be unwilling to inflict death and you can still have a large bartering chip. If the prize is your labor/skill, the best your master can get from you is a draw unless you consent. Being prepared to accept your death is not the same as inflicting death on yourself.
That sounds a whole lot like you are talking about only nations
I think you've also greatly overestimated the power of death. Everyone dies, period. It is just a question of when and how. If your ideas die with you, then you have accomplished nothing; if your ideas live on, then you have accomplished something.
I also said, "Such extreme scenerios of individuals who have such weaknesses don't really have a place in a conversation about the basis of authority for nations."
And who has authority? Nations, for one. Other large organizations, such as the Catholic Church of the middle ages. The sort of authority I am talking about is that of the order and organization of groups, especially on a larger scale, and not so much for individuals.
I think you've also greatly overestimated the power of death. Everyone dies, period. It is just a question of when and how. If your ideas die with you, then you have accomplished nothing; if your ideas live on, then you have accomplished something.
I am not overestimating the power of death. If someone does not fear death, then they die, and they can no longer resist you. This applies to those who found ideas and those who follow their founder. It is not the fear of death that is important so much as the fact that the dead do not resist; whether or not the founder lives, the ideas will spread, but those who would oppose you will still be crushed.
You may be unwilling to inflict death and you can still have a large bartering chip. If the prize is your labor/skill, the best your master can get from you is a draw unless you consent. Being prepared to accept your death is not the same as inflicting death on yourself.
Which is only good as long as your opponant is unwilling to kill you. As long as your foe is willing to accept the losses of your death, such bargaining chips are useless. The scenerio is only valid in situations where you activly resist or your use out weighs the resolve of your foe to end your life.
I also said, "Such extreme scenerios of individuals who have such weaknesses don't really have a place in a conversation about the basis of authority for nations."
And who has authority? Nations, for one. Other large organizations, such as the Catholic Church of the middle ages. The sort of authority I am talking about is that of the order and organization of groups, especially on a larger scale, and not so much for individuals.
Then we are talking about two fundementally different things. Though I disagree that the ultimate source of authority for a nation or other monolithic institution is physical force (mandate from the masses would be my opinion), I think it would be difficult to argue that definitively from a historical standpoint because people are generally pretty willing to resort to force.
I am not overestimating the power of death. If someone does not fear death, then they die, and they can no longer resist you. This applies to those who found ideas and those who follow their founder. It is not the fear of death that is important so much as the fact that the dead do not resist; whether or not the founder lives, the ideas will spread, but those who would oppose you will still be crushed.
First you attack my argument for the absurdity of "hiding so well you can't be found" and now you're suggesting a total extermination that is so complete that an idea cannot survive. If you kill me, but I've converted 2 people to my way of thinking, and then you kill them, but they each have converted 2 people, and this repeats indefinitely, then your force is worthless. It takes a strong idea to spread in the face of persecution like that, but it is conceivable. If you want to say "enough physical force will stop this idea" then you have to allow the argument of "enough of this idea will stop physical force." Both of those statements are ridiculous.
Which is only good as long as your opponant is unwilling to kill you. As long as your foe is willing to accept the losses of your death, such bargaining chips are useless. The scenerio is only valid in situations where you activly resist or your use out weighs the resolve of your foe to end your life.
It is only valid in those situations, but you are still exercising authority over those who need your skill despite any physical force they bring to bear on the situation.
Then we are talking about two fundementally different things. Though I disagree that the ultimate source of authority for a nation or other monolithic institution is physical force (mandate from the masses would be my opinion), I think it would be difficult to argue that definitively from a historical standpoint because people are generally pretty willing to resort to force.
Your assessment is philosophical. Mine is functional; they are completely different.
First you attack my argument for the absurdity of "hiding so well you can't be found" and now you're suggesting a total extermination that is so complete that an idea cannot survive. If you kill me, but I've converted 2 people to my way of thinking, and then you kill them, but they each have converted 2 people, and this repeats indefinitely, then your force is worthless. It takes a strong idea to spread in the face of persecution like that, but it is conceivable. If you want to say "enough physical force will stop this idea" then you have to allow the argument of "enough of this idea will stop physical force." Both of those statements are ridiculous.
I did not such thing. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to erradicate ideas, especially given that they can arise spontaneously. I also remember saying before, "True, it is difficult, if not impossible, to stamp out an idea." So much for your statment. It would be possible if you killed it when it started, when there were only a very few members. It is, however, quite possible to deal significant damage to the followers of an idea so that those followers are left powerless and disburst, unable to form any sort of nation or gain any sort of authority. As for our final statements, one does not mean another inherently, and yes, both are ridiculous, especially the latter.
It is only valid in those situations, but you are still exercising authority over those who need your skill despite any physical force they bring to bear on the situation.
And what is your point? I never said that there wasn't authority other than physical force, only that without physical force you will not be able to hold any sort of authority, with an emphasis on nations and organizations.
Power is usualy defined as the ability to get "A" to do the wishes of "B" against the interest(s) that "A" holds. Getting "A" to eat chocolate usually isn't projecting power. Getting "A" to eat anchovies usually is.
Force is certainly one way to exercise power, but the problem is unless you're willing to spend time 24/7 to make sure "A" is eating anchovies it becomes limited. Its much easier to use force to keep someone from doing something instead...but as crime rates around the world will show this isn't 100% effective either. Power alone is terribly inefficient for anything other than wiping out rival groups. For a real world example of the limits of force and having to "sit on" the people to use force against consider how quickly Alexanders "Empire" collapsed after his death.
Economics provide tremendous incentives for behavior, and unsurprisingly have nearly as big an impact on history as force of arms. Perhaps bigger in the large scale of things since economic efficiency led to industrialization which led in turn to better instruments of force. Though maybe that just ties back into force...
Softer forms of power also exist such as a compelling religion or ideology. For example though invaded several times China ultimately assimilated its conquers. Ultimately the conqueres changed more than the conquered did. Though the group on top of the social pyramid did change. A compelling ideology can even rob groups of the will to use force. Ultimately Britian and the US found they could not wipe out the movements of Ghandi or King because of without loosing their legitimacy with those they governed.
Its possible a group could have attempted a military take-over of either country to put down the challenge to the status-quo...but not without also sacrificing democracy and the efficient economy that goes with it - weakening them vis-a-via their neighbors and opening them to foreign invasion.
FYI two countries did essentially do something similiar. What would become Iran suppressed stirrups because it tilted the balance of power away from the tiny priest class and into the somewhat larger noble class. Stirups allowed the region to resist the mongols, when they were taken away they were over run. Japan similiarly supressed gunpowder for domestic reasons. Due to geographic isolation they lasted longer, but ultimately their more powerful neighbors forced changes upon them.
All this is a very round about way to say that while force is always a pillar of the state, or any other individual or organization who exerts influence over others, its terribly narrow in scope and incapable of sustaining itself without other components.
-Eric Gorman
All this is a very round about way to say that while force is always a pillar of the state, or any other individual or organization who exerts influence over others, its terribly narrow in scope and incapable of sustaining itself without other components.
All very true. However, my point was that without physical force, economic and social forces become irrelevent in the long run because anyone who wishes to use physical force against you can crush you with ease. Thus, to form a stable state, you must have physical force, and you can have a stable state with only physical force, but it will not be an effective one. You can not form a stable state with only economic and soical forces, because then you will be attacked from outside or some portion of your populace will rise against you and optain power.
The Vatican has existed for a very short time. It's stable. It military force is laughable and ceremonial at best. It hasn't threatened Italy at all during its history. It kept its independence by stubornly denying to become part of Italy.
Monaco has no army. It produces no weapons. Yet it remains independent even when Italy once coveted the principality.
Thousand of men raised the pyramids. The egyptian nobility was really small. The physical power lay in the masses.
Power emanates more from a perception of higher morality than of raw violence.
Take the Pope, for example. During the dark ages, he wouldn't need an army, because excommunication and threats of divine wrath were all he needed (which was excersiesed as necessary, mind you).
I agree with the burried post that "good" is concerned with respecting the welfare of other creatures, but "lawful" doesn't necessarily mean an authoritarian ideal, only a belief in the value of groups. A pacifist could be LG and so could a crusader. They might have the same moral beliefs, but one believes that the best way to accomplish these is to provide a good example while the other wants to correct all wrongs and injustices (interesting note that the original DM's guide stated that two characters could be of the same alignment and disagree about ethics and even be mortal enemies).
It also stated that the DM is justified in changing the alignment of a "good" character who tortures a captive to neutral or evil (the belief that torture is evil is, of course, based on a moral absolute--but not necessarily one that is confined to any specific belief system). Killing is not considered a good act. It can be situationally justifiable, as in defense of one's self, a person, a nation, or a cause, but in that case the act of bravely upholding the cause is considered the good deed--not the violence itself. That's something I think this thread overlooked in regards to the D&D alignment system.
For this reason, I am not inclined to believe that it is a "good" act to hunt down an evil creature and kill it simply because it is evil. As a DM I would penalize a PC paladin for attacking without warning (a chaotic act) an NPC he or she detects to be "evil" before he or she has actually done anything to warrant the attack. The PC might be justified in firmly asking the person to leave, or monitoring him/her, but not in outright attacking (unless they recognise the offender from a previous transgression). Likewise, it would be justified for the paladin to fight an evil dragon that is attacking his town, but not seeking out a dragon to kill in a remote location that has no bearing on the welfare of his/her duties.
I also prefer to think of the weaker mortal playable races (including orcs and dark elves) as effectively "human", in that their evil is more culturally defined and that humans are every bit as capable of the same atrocities (another interesting point to consider: as much as one should respect another culture, that does not mean their morality is right). Otherworldly and highly magical beings, like fiends and undead, are so alien that we could be excused in thinking of them as the pure essences of evil etc. in most games, but that's something I won't get into.
I hope that helps, and wasn't too disruptive. ;)
That's my point. They didn't attacked the Pope because he was "Morally Superior", not because he was more powerful. That caused the Papal States to even get power over France briefly.
Secular authorities did not refrain from attacking the Pope because he was morally superior, but because they feared the wrath of God and banishment to hell. Actual moral superiority had nothing to do with it.