Alignment (Again?!) [Archive]

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 05:47 AM

At 12:23 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Samuel Weiss wrote:
>Galwylin wrote,
>
>>No, that's not my point. My point is that evil done in the gheallie Sidhe
>will probably not be recognized as evil until history is written.<
>
>Stuff and nonsense. Next you will be claiming, or rather denying, that this
>also means until there has been a trial and a guilty verdict, no crime has
>been comitted.

Hello? Do you even read what you respond to?? See that word up there that
starts with an 'r'? That's r-e-c-o-g-n-z-e-d. One of the meanings is to
admit a knowledge of.

>>Its a war between cultures and cultures rarely have alignments so
>completely good or evil that they are clear to see.<
>
>Actually, it can be quite easy to judge a culture Good or Evil, and much
>harder to judge an individual.

Can you name one culture that is completely good? I've seen you name some
that were evil so if its so simple, name the other side.

>Similarly, if a culture ordains genocide, how will it be able to deny an
>individual their "right" to commit mass murder on any sort of moral grounds?

You're talking logic and logic is not something that is normally associated
with human (or human like) cultures. It doesn't matter if the culture
condones genocide if they say killing is wrong on an individual scale.
Look at the history of the church that preached killing is a sin then
sanctified the Crusades. If killing is condemned on an individual level
then that should be true on the cultural one as well according to you. But
human groups don't operate like that. And I'm not ready to admit that
every institution that has existed is evil because it didn't follow your
logic.

>>If it saves the elves from extinction, then elven history will probably
>record it as good. Good because of what it accomplished on a cultural
>view.<
>
>Not in the least. It means it was beneficial to the Elves. It would be Evil
>when it was done, it would be Evil after it was finished.

It doesn't matter what it is. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was evil but the United States aren't because they did it. Some believe it
was good because it saved more lives that might have been lost had the war
continued. So in that sense, yes, the elves could see the gheallie Sidhe
as good because it saves their culture from extinction.

>Once again, so if i head on out and commit genocide, because it helps my
>people in the long run, it was really Good all along?

Are we talking about genocide here? Is the gheallie Sidhe genocide or a
movement to push humans out of Cerilia. Do the elves have plans to rid the
planet of humans?

>Kariu wrote,
>
>>It's war.....an elf can't afford to be nice...because to an immortal
>elf...that 15 years it takes for a new born to pick up an axe...is just a
>few minutes or hours...to you and me......<
>
>See that part where you say, "can't afford to be nice"? I guess that means
>they are Evil huh?

No. It means they recognize that necessary evils are needed sometimes.
Its evil to kill others but its also evil to allow your culture to die
because won't defend it. When you're surrounded by evil, all you can do is
evil.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 11:55 AM

At 02:56 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Samuel Weiss wrote:
>
>Yes it does. It is called "hypocrisy". "It is OK for us to do this to them,
>or we leaders to tell you do something, but none of you can make such
>decisions on your own."

Exactly! Something human history is full of. Has always been and
apparently always will.

>Well seeing as you wish to absolve everyone of guilt forever because you
>feel unfit to pass judgement on them, I will also allow you not to pass
>judgemnet on me and completely ignore this violation you have commited of
>your sacred precepts. Feel free not to feel guilty for judging me when you
>can not condemn mass murderers.

This is where you're wrong. I have no sacred precepts. I didn't enter
this debate believing my view was right as you have.

>If someone finds me to be a pompous moralistic ass, I consider that a
>compliment in comparison to what you are showing yourself to be.
>I repeat, you can pass judgement on me, but not on murderers. Wow.

No one's passing judgement on you. Why you wish to take on this role of a
victim, I don't know. Because I don't believe its the absolute example of
evil for an individual, group, or culture to fight against extinction any
way they have to is a far assumption that murderers can't be judged.
That's why our courts believe that self-defense is a proper excuse for
murder. Someone is still dead, and someone still did it but the
circumstances surrounding it makes it not absolute evil. You absolute view
would condemn one of the poor victims of Ted Bundy had they actually killed
him trying to escape. My view of the gheallie Sidhe is exactly the same as
that of a court looking at someone on trial for killing in self-defense.
So far, you've not shown me that is not true. In fact, you have tried to
impose a view that is unchanging to what this discussion is about. That
being the examination of the gheallie Sidhe and if its good or evil. My
views are not absolute and are subject to change as the subject recieves
more discussion. Since I've been in 'discussions' with you before,
moralistic isn't a term I'd use to describe you but the rest fits rather
well. Until you decide you want a discussion and not a soapbox, I'll
address you no longer on this.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 12:07 PM

At 03:30 AM 10/8/98 EDT, Shadewulf@aol.com wrote:
>
> This does not mean we cannot discuss these things,
>just that perspective must be maintained, for "reality" (for lack of a better
>word) is perceived differently by each and every person. That is what
makes us
>individuals.
> This is my input for now, and I hope no one takes
this
>wrong, as I am a novice to all this sort of thing.

I certainly don't take it wrong. Don't let being a novice deter you from
adding to it. I would certainly like more views on it. The discussion on
Haelyn allowing evil priests into his clergy and the gheallie Sidhe shows
that Birthright is and can be a very adult setting where answers aren't so
easily found. Some very complex concepts can enter into it. When I think
of maturity in a setting, this is my idea of it. Not something superficial
like demons.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 03:09 PM

At 10:04 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> Within the structure of the game, we do have an absolute scale of good
>and evil. The alignment system is set up this way on purpose. If we let
>everyone say that what they believed was correct, then there would be no
>evil on that chart at all!

I think this is why someone earlier said they have a problem with the
alignment system. The alignment system tries to describes both actions and
internal motivation. Those don't necessarily agree. That's why some think
a ranger can kill all members of his species enemy and retain his alignment
even though he is also killing those that aren't a threat to him. Even
further, in Birthright, members of the same alignment may be forced into
battle with each other at the desires of their regents. The alignment
system as an absolute scale isn't designed to handle all of this and give
an complete answer. Doesn't mean its not useful.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 08:20 PM

At 10:56 AM 10/8/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:

>>A lot of good points. More than I think I'm allowed to quote since this
is a response to all of it (except the CA proposition)

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 10:53 PM

At 01:20 PM 10/8/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>Actually, a more accurate comparison of the GS might be (and I could get
>slammed for this, but what the heck?) the KKK after the Civil War. There are
>certainly many differences between these two, but I think the ethical
authority
>of either of them to kill civilians is based upon the same horrifically
flawed
>moral argument.

Actually, while watching television, I was reminded of the KKK and there is
more in common between the KKK and the gheallie Sidhe than I like.

>They attack civvies. That's a no-no
>in warfare even in medieval times. Oh, war has always been brutal on
>civilians, but making the slaughter of civilians the object of your efforts
>rather than incidental to it (what has now been euphemistically called
>"collateral damage") is immoral.

That's true up until modern warfare in which civilians did become targets
(WWI, I believe). We have no problems bombing cities now, knowing that
civilian causalties may occur (actually, there doesn't even have to be a
war declared for that to happen). TSR settings are all a
pseudo-combination of medieval times with modern morality. Also, in
ancient times, there was never a problem with a warlord invading a nation
and destroying whole cities and towns and everyone in them. Morality
really was subjective then. The enemy always became a 'they' that had
nothing in common with the attackers. By today's standards, the gheallie
Sidhe is evil. Is today's standards what we are meant to use? Probably.

The only solution I see for the elves of Cerilia to maintain their culture
(assuming humans will eventually destroy their homes) and not be labeled
evil is to either gather themselves in a few corners (as in Greyhawk) or
leave the continent (as in Forgotten Realms). Since there are no drow
(that I know of), I wonder if the designers had envisioned the gheallie
Sidhe as a replacement.

Of all the aspects of Birthright I like, the fact that elves actually
fought and hated humans for what was done to them was my favorite.
Finally, elves that didn't wimper off into a corner. Now, that I think
about it, it seems they have. Or must bow down before the 'goodness' of
humanity and embrace evil.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 10:58 PM

At 05:27 PM 10/8/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> What you just described is guerilla warfare against an occupying army.
>There is no occupying army of humans on elven land, the lands the humans
>have now have been lived on by humans for over a thousand years, again, long
>enough for the elves to take notice that the humans aren't being especially
>expansionistic for the past MILLENIA!

Elves do have one real worry. If the empire unites, it will expand. 1000
years may seem long to humans, but to elves? Certainly 500 years hasn't
been forgotten by them. I still think you have to look at humans as elves,
not humans. Time is much different for them and century year old wounds
are still fresh.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-08-1997, 11:20 PM

At 02:43 PM 10/8/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>Well, I don't think that is really the Gheallie Sidhie's argument. The
>destruction of forests is bad, but not their major objection the the
>encroachment of humans.

Just to point out something. You said the destruction of forests is bad.
Not evil. From what I've been able to read so far, it is evil according to
elves. Not just the gheallie Sihde. Just an attempt to show that maybe
the view of elves aren't recieving the attention deserved ;)

>If I recall correctly, elves lived on the plains of
>Cerilia before humans arrived, didn't they? There were more forests back
then,
>but I'm pretty sure the elven attitude towards forests is more of a
reaction to
>the fact that they are better able to defend themselves in them rather than
>some sort of sacred belief in trees.

The latest thing I've read is the Book of Magecraft and it gives the
impression that any destruction of the forest is evil. They could have
plains then moved to the forests (I don't remember) but home is home.

>I hadn't
>really noticed that humans kill all humanoids encountered.

I don't think they do (though I've had players believe that was acceptable.
After all, they are just monsters ;)

>I would view a human character who ruthless slaughtered goblins as being at
>best of neutral alignment.

Okay, I was following you well till now. Goblins are sentient. I don't
see why the ruthless slaughter of them gets a neutral alignment but elves
who slaughter humans gets an evil one. I can almost imagine goblins
saying, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" ;D

>One last point. Just because the original humans who violated elven lands
>might have committed evil acts and may very well have been evil themselves,
>that does not mean that an elven response that includes the slaughter of
>civilians would not be evil. Just because the pot calls the kettle black
>doesn't mean he spends any less time over the fire. (OK, lousy analogy, but
>what the heck?) An evil act with rationale is still an evil act.

Understandable. It just that there are circumstances not being considered.
Humans killing the parents of an elf will probably be hated as well as
elves killing a human's parents. Humans killing an elf a week ago will
translate the same. Elves have a much longer perception of time. The
equalavant could be a year, ten years, or a hundred years. For all we
know, the gheallie Sidhe could be made up of the elves directly affected by
the last human excursions into their lands. Remember what the rule book
said about the elven heart? Burning rage with only the slighest cause.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-09-1997, 01:16 PM

At 07:40 PM 10/8/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>You're right. Civilian casualties are much more prevalent than I
portrayed in my
>post. As you say, in ancient times when the distinction between civilian and
>soldier was much more ill-defined, so killing one over the other was not as
>distinctly defined. In the 20th century when front lines became very
broad and
>deep, including everything within the range of air power.

There was a period where war was given some strange rules. Soldiers lined
up, aimed their rifles, and fired into the enemy line. People would bring
lawn chairs and have picnics while they watched the 'battle'. War became
civilized. Then back to uncivilized. I don't know what our 'push botton'
wars of today would be.

>As for which moral system to use... well, I'd say use them all. What I
mean by
>that is that much of the morality that we use today is based on morality
developed
>thousands of years ago. Honestly, I don't see people having a higher moral
>standard now than they did in the time of Socrates.

Maybe not a higher moral but life isn't viewed the same way. Some cultures
would make ammends to someone they offended by offering the life of a slave
or even a child. I do hope that our standard are higher that the time of
Socrates. I'm certain that women were still property then and slaves were
owned. Neither had a right to participate in the Athenian democracy. And
we get much of our morality from the Bible that once taught people to stone
their children until the New Testament brought a religion based on
pacifism. Then that would be corrupted by when a pope sanctioned war for
the first time when turn the other cheek had always been so prevalent
through the Christian religion. Not meaning to offend anyone but morality
has always been in constant change that who can guess what the future view
of our own time will be.

At 09:31 PM 10/8/98 -0700, swords wrote:
>
>I think this still needs to be looked at from the elves point of view.

Agreed.

>For a better point of view look at Bosnia and Serbia the
>people of that area have been fighting each other for several years now and
>the origin of that war is several hundred years old.

Even though that is does show humans have long memories, I still find that
hard to understand.

>In my last one I think I did talk myself in circles but I don't think the GS
>are evil just the ones that are most noted such as Rhoube.

An interesting comparison could be made of the NRA. Three children died
recently because of them yet I'm positive the group isn't made up of
totally evil people. The gheallie Sidhe is just as complex. We may never
understand it but it would be a mistake to write it off as completely evil.
Remember the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
When do those good intentions become evil?

At 02:45 AM 10/9/98 EDT, Shadewulf@aol.com wrote:
>
>Which is good, in my eyes, because we can view things in a different light,
>and perhaps learn from the experience. I do not believe anyone is fully (note
>that, please) capable of going outside oneself and trying to place oneself in
>another's situation and say they are them, in the individual or plural
sense.

I'd agree with that. We can come away with an idea of why they feel and
act as they do. But you can't completely abosrb a thought process. But
it's not impossible to understand enough that you are able to convey some
of that to an audience. Acting is based on that and I'm sure we've all
seen example of bad acting where there is no idea of motivation of a
character. But then, gaming isn't acting, is it?

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-09-1997, 04:58 PM

Daniel caught a mistype of mine in a post made earlier. I had typed NRA
when it should have been the IRA when talking about a recent event in Ireland.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-09-1997, 10:53 PM

At 06:36 AM 10/9/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>I think what you are describing is definitely a shift in behavior, but I
don't
>think that's any change in morality.

Sorry, Gary, but I have to disagree. Behavior is ruled by morality. A
person that lived 1000 years ago would be shocked at today's morals. And
most likely, we'd be shocked at some of theirs. I think you're looking at
alignments correctly though. They are absolute. Good today was good
yesterday. What's changed is the interpretation which is morality. The
debate about the gheallie Sidhe (both sides making excellent points, I
think) shows that morality is not absolute even to people living in the
same society during the same times. Someone from a different society will
probably see a different view of what is moral.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

Galwylin

10-09-1997, 11:55 PM

At 05:52 PM 10/9/98 EDT, DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:
>
>Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still "elven". So why not
humans?

Aren't the awnshegh a result of humans and their gods?

>As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
>already assembled army, and the other is a _potential_ army. Get real. The
>GS will fight the battles it can win.

I think the only way to prove the gheallie Sidhe is not evil is to prove
its at least noble in the eyes of the elves. I can understand the view of
a potential threat but couldn't accept that an attack on a village is noble
because its a fight they can win. There should be battles fought that they
can't win.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

The Olesens

10-06-1998, 07:38 PM

I was brainstroming a charachter for the new gheallie Sidhe PBeM when I came across our
good old friend alignment. Now don't think-just answer the question, are the elves of the
gheallie Sidhe evil?

You said yes, right? Before you think about it.

Yes they do do evil things but for a 'good' cause. After all, the humans devastated
several large tracts of woodlands, tore up the land with thier wars, and betrayed the
elves after thier assistance in the anti-goblinoid wars. So then humanity as a whole is
evil, right? But who defines good and evil? There are such things as just and unjust
causes but even they can depend on PoV (Point of View). In WWII were the Japanese bad
(evil)? They started a war to enlarge thier power and killed many with thier greedy
desires. Or did they seek to bring Japanese prosperity and technology to the rest of the
Pacific? But the Americans fought back thier evil desires. Or did the US kill millions
of Japanese by using nuclear weapons because they were too weak to fight a civilized war
(I know they weren't weak). I know I may be wrong in some little things here but my point
is, good and evil; bad and good; are quite often based on your PoV. Just my 2 ep.

- -Andrew

Galwylin

10-06-1998, 09:04 PM

At 03:38 PM 10/6/98 -0400, The Olesens wrote:
>
>I know I may be wrong in some little things here but my point
>is, good and evil; bad and good; are quite often based on your PoV. Just
my 2 ep.

This is a quote I picked up off the Mystara list made by Frank Mentzer. I
thought some might find it interesting on the subject.

David Sean Brown

10-06-1998, 09:13 PM

einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n

10-06-1998, 10:19 PM

>I was brainstroming a charachter for the new gheallie Sidhe PBeM when I
came across our
>good old friend alignment. Now don't think-just answer the question, are
the elves of the
>gheallie Sidhe evil?
>
>You said yes, right? Before you think about it.
>
>Yes they do do evil things but for a 'good' cause. After all, the humans
devastated
>several large tracts of woodlands, tore up the land with thier wars, and
betrayed the
>elves after thier assistance in the anti-goblinoid wars. So then humanity
as a whole is
>evil, right? But who defines good and evil? There are such things as
just and unjust
>causes but even they can depend on PoV (Point of View). In WWII were the
Japanese bad
>(evil)? They started a war to enlarge thier power and killed many with
thier greedy
>desires. Or did they seek to bring Japanese prosperity and technology to
the rest of the
>Pacific? But the Americans fought back thier evil desires. Or did the US
kill millions
>of Japanese by using nuclear weapons because they were too weak to fight a
civilized war
>(I know they weren't weak). I know I may be wrong in some little things
here but my point
>is, good and evil; bad and good; are quite often based on your PoV. Just
my 2 ep.
>
>-Andrew

Not to mention the priests helping hands during the imperialism LOL
Hey, the King of Belgium cut off hands in Congo with the priests
blessings. Yet, priests were still viewed upon as 'good'.

Siebharrin

BenandAmy

10-07-1998, 12:49 AM

- -----Original Message-----
From: The Olesens
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 3:18 PM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Alignment (Again?!)

>I was brainstroming a charachter for the new gheallie Sidhe PBeM when I
came across our
>good old friend alignment. Now don't think-just answer the question, are
the elves of the
>gheallie Sidhe evil?
>
>You said yes, right? Before you think about it.
>
>Yes they do do evil things but for a 'good' cause. After all, the humans
devastated
>several large tracts of woodlands, tore up the land with thier wars, and
betrayed the
>elves after thier assistance in the anti-goblinoid wars. So then humanity
as a whole is
>evil, right? But who defines good and evil? There are such things as just
and unjust
>causes but even they can depend on PoV (Point of View). In WWII were the
Japanese bad
>(evil)? They started a war to enlarge thier power and killed many with
thier greedy
>desires. Or did they seek to bring Japanese prosperity and technology to
the rest of the
>Pacific? But the Americans fought back thier evil desires. Or did the US
kill millions
>of Japanese by using nuclear weapons because they were too weak to fight a
civilized war
>(I know they weren't weak). I know I may be wrong in some little things
here but my point
>is, good and evil; bad and good; are quite often based on your PoV. Just
my 2 ep.
>
>
Through the last few discussions here, I have come to the conclusion
that I'll keep alignment and politics apart. I think the elves could very
well have a good alignment and view their acts as "righteous
judgement"--much the same way as a paladin of Haelyn might feel about
exterminating a gnoll war camp. Go ahead and make them good or neutral.
I think aligning oneself with a political group (like the Gheallie Sidhe
or a nation, etc.) does not preclude any particular alignment. It all
depends on what the character's perspective and experience in life is.

Hope this helps!

Ben

Samuel Weiss

10-07-1998, 04:07 AM

The Olesons (Andrew) wrote,

>Now don't think-just answer the question, are the elves of the
gheallie Sidhe evil?

You said yes, right? Before you think about it.

Yes they do do evil things but for a 'good' cause. After all, the humans
devastated
several large tracts of woodlands, tore up the land with thier wars, and
betrayed the
elves after thier assistance in the anti-goblinoid wars. So then humanity
as a whole is
evil, right? But who defines good and evil? There are such things as just
and unjust
causes but even they can depend on PoV (Point of View). In WWII were the
Japanese bad (evil)? They started a war to enlarge thier power and killed
many with thier greedy
desires. Or did they seek to bring Japanese prosperity and technology to
the rest of the Pacific? But the Americans fought back thier evil desires.
Or did the US kill millions of Japanese by using nuclear weapons because
they were too weak to fight a civilized war (I know they weren't weak). I
know I may be wrong in some little things here but my point is, good and
evil; bad and good; are quite often based on your PoV.<

OK, first, the Japanese had no intention of sharing their technology and
prosperity with anyone. They wanted more slaves to fuel their domestic
prosperity and cared very little for what it cost any other peoples in
wealth or lives. Was every single Japanese person completely corrupt because
of this? No. But there was a breakdown in the morality of the people in
charge of their nation, and as such, their government ordered very many Evil
acts, and the people who carried those acts out were Evil.
Start there, and get any ideas of a benevolent expansion out the way to
start.
Second, addressing this issue of human betrayal and such. Let us say that
someone here had relatives who suffered at the hands of the Japanese during
WWII. Let us say that person takes issue with what you wrote. Since you are
"obviously" Evil to even think of writing about Japan's intentions in a good
light, obviously that person is perfectly justified in heading on over and
raping your wife and cutting your children into little pieces. In fact,
while they are having such a good time, they can head on over to your
brother's house and do the same with his family. And your sister's. And all
your neighbor's, because hey, if they weren't as bad (Evil) as you, they
wouldn't live next to you right?
If you now understand why the Gheallie Sidhe is mostly Evil, and why POV has
nothing to with Good and Evil then you understand. If not, I suggest
counseling quickly before you begin acting on such beliefs.
I will also repeat for those who don't get it, that good and bad are ALWAYS
dependant upon POV. Those two are completely different from Good and Evil
however. Someone can want something that is bad for me without being Evil.
Someone can want something good for me without being Good.
Now note, as I mentioned above, the Gheallie Sidhe is MOSTLY Evil. No doubt
some members act to stop human encroachments without commiting atrocities of
one stripe or another in the process. There has to be at least one anyway.
But for me to walk outside tomorrow and murder a person of German descent
because I am Jewish and Hitler was German and from my POV... is wrong
morally and therefore Evil.
Indeed, thinking about it further, what you have is a breakdown in logic.
You are assuming:
Human A = Evil.
Human A = All Humans.
All Humans = Evil.
The second is a false assumption leading to a false conclusion. And, "But
that's what I believe" is not an excuse, or an explanation. At best it is a
mental disorder. (Sociopath or psychopath.) It is still Evil even then.

Samwise
(Oh, and if anyone feels offended about my making the example direct and
personal, too bad. Justifying Evil because it is someone's "POV" is
extremely offensive to me, and should be to any normal person. Yes, it is
"just" a game. But it becomes continually obvious that many people project
these beliefs onto the real world, they simply haven't acted upon them yet.
I say again, if you believe it is all POV, get help now. it's not.)

Daniel McSorley

10-07-1998, 05:58 AM

From: The Olesens
>I was brainstroming a charachter for the new gheallie Sidhe PBeM when I
came across our
>good old friend alignment. Now don't think-just answer the question, are
the elves of the
>gheallie Sidhe evil?
>
>You said yes, right? Before you think about it.
>
I said yes, before, during, and after thinking about it, thanks (Since
you specified).

>Yes they do do evil things but for a 'good' cause. After all, the humans
devastated
>several large tracts of woodlands, tore up the land with thier wars, and
betrayed the
>elves after thier assistance in the anti-goblinoid wars. So then humanity
as a whole is
>evil, right?
You could make a case for those specific humans that killed helpless
elflings and betrayed alliances as being evil. That is not generalizable to
humanity as a whole, this is a blatant use of induction (generalizing to a
whole from some specific instances), which led to prejudice, bigotry, and
then attempted genocide on the part of the GS, and is not logically
supportable by any proof. This is historically the cause of much bigotry in
real life, and is just as illogical no matter whether used in a fantasy
setting or against some group of people in real life, I'll let you fill in
your own examples.

>But who defines good and evil?
Good and evil are absolute, they don't need to be defined, just like lying
vs telling the truth, the truth is not relative, neither is Good and Evil.

>There are such things as just and unjust
>causes but even they can depend on PoV (Point of View). In WWII were the
Japanese bad
>(evil)? They started a war to enlarge thier power and killed many with
thier greedy
>desires.
This is what they did....

> Or did they seek to bring Japanese prosperity and technology to the rest
of the
>Pacific?
That is the spin they tried to put on it. The reasons they tried to explain
it with don't matter, the actions speak for themselves.

>I know I may be wrong in some little things here but my point
>is, good and evil; bad and good; are quite often based on your PoV.
No, they are not. Someone may perceive something Evil as a "good"
thing, but that doesn't make it good, that makes them, at least disturbed,
if not downright Evil themselves. The same goes for a society. Every
society probably would like to see itself as "good", but on an absolute
scale, there have been some downright despicable, Evil groups of people
floating around.
On the GS in specific: they might not have started off as overtly Evil.
Defense of your people is not evil by any measure, so when they were
fighting and slaying invading human warriors, they were firmly in the right.
When they found that not enough, and started slaughtering those who weren't
a threat to them (like villagers and tradesmen), in an effort to drive
humanity away, they became evil.
So, there might be a good elf or two in the GS. But, they will probably
not remain in it long, because the slaughter of innocent people will be
pretty repulsive to them. The only way I could see a good elf remaining in
it long term was if he was trying to reform it into more of a warrior group
than a ravening pack of bandits.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Samuel Weiss

10-07-1998, 04:00 PM

Galwylin wrote,

>It caught my eye because it reminded me of the actions
of some Native Americans in the United States. I don't know how everything
can be so cut-n-dry because I don't see it that way. A few Native
Americans slaughtered innocences as white men took their lands and
destroyed their tribes. I don't think it was a good act but it was one
born out of desperation and inability to find a way to work with them. In
the end, a greater evil was done to them. I see the Sidhelien situation to
be very similiar and the gheallie Sidhe to be a reaction to the lies,
betrayals, theft of their land, and death they've recieved. Its a war
between humans and elves. Evil touches every side in war.<

Nietzsche wrote,

"When fighting monsters, one beware lesta monster one become. And when
looking in to the Abyss, be careful because the Abyss looks also into you."

Let me understand your point. Because someone did Evil to you and yours, it
is OK for you to do Evil to otherwise univolved people because of some
realtion they have to the people who did Evil to you?
OK, so a person who has been abused as a child grows up to be a child
molestor. Your Uncle's neighbor was abused as a child. Therefore, it is OK
for me to kill you, because a relative of yours lives next to a person, who
suffered the same as this other guy, who became an Evil piece of filth.
Wow, cool. Hey, By those standards, I could go out and kill just about
anyone and still be a Good and righteous person.
Have I yet made it clear that this is ridiculous and wrong?
Perhaps this will help,
NEWSFLASH!
Bombing of Hirshoima and Nagasaki were Evil!
Destruction of cities by aerial bombing violated treaties and constituted a
War Crime!
The slaughter of millions of Americans by the United States Government was
genocidal and Evil!
The internment of citizens of japanese descent in the United States during
WWII was Evil!
I don't give a flip who rights the freaking history, Evil is still Evil.
Writing such lies is someone else's crime. Believing them would be mine.

Samwise

Trizt

10-07-1998, 06:04 PM

BenandAmy (xanadu@pdq.net) wrote:

- ->> Yes they do do evil things but for a 'good' cause. After all, the
humans
- -> devastated
- ->> several large tracts of woodlands, tore up the land with thier wars, and
- -> betrayed the
- ->> elves after thier assistance in the anti-goblinoid wars. So then
humanity
- -> as a whole is
- ->> evil, right? But who defines good and evil? There are such things as
just
- -> and unjust
- ->> causes but even they can depend on PoV (Point of View).
- -> Through the last few discussions here, I have come to the conclusion
- -> that I'll keep alignment and politics apart. I think the elves could very
- -> well have a good alignment and view their acts as "righteous
- -> judgement"--much the same way as a paladin of Haelyn might feel about
- -> exterminating a gnoll war camp.

One solution about the alignment could be to divide it into subgroups as eg.
"they-alignment", "we-alignment" and "I-alignment". So the "elves" could be
they-alignment: NE, we-alignment: LG. But as every change to rules does this
demand alot of chnges on other stuff as Magical items/spells which changes
alignemnts (which alignment will they affect and how).

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

--------------------
E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL1: http://home.bip.net/trizt/
ICQ# : 13696780 URL2: http://www.ukko.dyn.ml.org/~trizt/
Nick : Trizt IRC: lib.hel.fi Channel:
#Opers
MUD: callandor.imaginary.com 5317
--------------------
OS : AmigaOS 3.1 / openBSD 2.3 CPU: PPC603e/160Mhz & MC68040/25Mhz
--------------------

Gary V. Foss

10-07-1998, 09:21 PM

Samuel Weiss wrote:

> (Oh, and if anyone feels offended about my making the example direct and
> personal, too bad. Justifying Evil because it is someone's "POV" is
> extremely offensive to me, and should be to any normal person. Yes, it is
> "just" a game. But it becomes continually obvious that many people project
> these beliefs onto the real world, they simply haven't acted upon them yet.
> I say again, if you believe it is all POV, get help now. it's not.)

Is it just me or does anybody else out there think this kind of casual disregard
for other people's opinions is EVIL!?! :)

Gary

BenandAmy

10-08-1998, 12:14 AM

You keep trying to bring this down to an individual level and its
not. Its a war between cultures and cultures rarely have alignments so
completely good or evil that they are clear to see. Alignments in AD&D are
based on actions. The gheallie Sidhe is an action that hasn't been
completed yet. Taken on an individual basis, the gheallie Sidhe is evil.
If it saves the elves from extinction, then elven history will probably
record it as good. Good because of what it accomplished on a cultural view.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

>>>>>>>>This is what I meant by the difference between "individual"
alignment and "political" alignment.
Thanx Galwylin.

Samuel Weiss

10-08-1998, 04:23 AM

Galwylin wrote,

>No, that's not my point. My point is that evil done in the gheallie Sidhe
will probably not be recognized as evil until history is written.<

Stuff and nonsense. Next you will be claiming, or rather denying, that this
also means until there has been a trial and a guilty verdict, no crime has
been comitted.

>Its a war between cultures and cultures rarely have alignments so
completely good or evil that they are clear to see.<

Actually, it can be quite easy to judge a culture Good or Evil, and much
harder to judge an individual. If on person hates all of group X because one
member of group X once attacjed them it is somewhat understandable. If all
members of culture Y hate all members of group X because some jackoff with a
silly mustache tells them it is OK to, then you have a severe disfunction
that goes well beyond the individual, and is one serious clue that a society
is totally out of whack.
Further, if your point is valid, it should apply onboth the small scale as
well as the large. If it is wrong for an individual to take savage,
sickening personal revenge on all and sundry based on warped logic, and
personal slights, it is of course all right for his culture to do so.
Similarly, if a culture ordains genocide, how will it be able to deny an
individual their "right" to commit mass murder on any sort of moral grounds?
No, it is still a question of whether you think it OK for any person or
group to decide inidividually or en masse to commit acts of murder and other
atrocities and then justify their actions some third party annoyed them
first.

>If it saves the elves from extinction, then elven history will probably
record it as good. Good because of what it accomplished on a cultural
view.<

Not in the least. It means it was beneficial to the Elves. It would be Evil
when it was done, it would be Evil after it was finished.
Once again, so if i head on out and commit genocide, because it helps my
people in the long run, it was really Good all along? Guess what, that was
Pol Pot's argument for slaughtering his own people. And Mao Tse Tung's.
And while Pol Pot was overthrown and histroy now records the Killing Fields
as Evil, the Chinese Government refuses to accept Mao's part in the Cultural
Revolution to this day. So other psychopaths and dictators think you
are/were a great guy. Some recommendation.

Kariu wrote,

>It's war.....an elf can't afford to be nice...because to an immortal
elf...that 15 years it takes for a new born to pick up an axe...is just a
few minutes or hours...to you and me......<

See that part where you say, "can't afford to be nice"? I guess that means
they are Evil huh?

Samwise

Samuel Weiss

10-08-1998, 06:56 AM

>Samuel Weiss wrote:
>Galwylin wrote,
>
>>No, that's not my point. My point is that evil done in the gheallie Sidhe
>will probably not be recognized as evil until history is written.<
>
>Stuff and nonsense. Next you will be claiming, or rather denying, that this
>also means until there has been a trial and a guilty verdict, no crime has
>been comitted.

Hello? Do you even read what you respond to?? See that word up there that
starts with an 'r'? That's r-e-c-o-g-n-z-e-d. One of the meanings is to
admit a knowledge of.<

Hello, do you even think about what you are writing before you write it?
Obviously you give very little thought to some of the things you put down
otherwise you wouldn't. You see, admiting a knowledge of also implies
admitting to oneself that something is wrong. But since this philosphy of
nothing ever being wrong because one person thinks it might be right is what
keeps being pushed to deny that anything might be Evil, I guess that concept
is beyond you.

>Can you name one culture that is completely good? I've seen you name some
that were evil so if its so simple, name the other side.<

Another generally simple concept that seems to have eluded you is that while
Evil is easy for humans to achieve, Good is not. And perhaps humanity has
never achieved such a state. I am only familiar enough with European
cultures to know if any have achieved a state of Good, and none come to
mind. At best, they manage to be lawful Neutral (or the equivalent).

>It doesn't matter if the culture condones genocide if they say killing is
wrong on an individual scale.<

Yes it does. It is called "hypocrisy". "It is OK for us to do this to them,
or we leaders to tell you do something, but none of you can make such
decisions on your own."

>Look at the history of the church that preached killing is a sin then
sanctified the Crusades.<

And the Church at that ti me was quite venal, and more than a little Evil.

> If killing is condemned on an individual level then that should be true
on the cultural one as well according to you.<

And according to that church mentioned above. But hey, let's ignore that
right now so no facts will interfere.

>But human groups don't operate like that.<

Yes, but we aspire to. And that is what we call Good.

>And I'm not ready to admit that every institution that has existed is evil
because it didn't follow your logic.<

Well seeing as you wish to absolve everyone of guilt forever because you
feel unfit to pass judgement on them, I will also allow you not to pass
judgemnet on me and completely ignore this violation you have commited of
your sacred precepts. Feel free not to feel guilty for judging me when you
can not condemn mass murderers.
I always find it very interesting that those who can not bring themselves to
call anything Evil always find it so easy to tell me I must be wrong. Very
baffling.

>When you're surrounded by evil, all you can do is evil.<

But earlier you denied this,

>>Let me understand your point. Because someone did Evil to you and yours,
it
>is OK for you to do Evil to otherwise univolved people because of some
>realtion they have to the people who did Evil to you?

No, that's not my point. <

But that is what you have just said yet again. maybe you don't believe this,
but it is what you keep writing. So either start reading what you write and
considering the implications first, or deal with being taken at face value.
If someone finds me to be a pompous moralistic ass, I consider that a
compliment in comparison to what you are showing yourself to be.
I repeat, you can pass judgement on me, but not on murderers. Wow.

Samwise

Shadewulf@aol.co

10-08-1998, 07:30 AM

Greetings to All,
I have been following the various discussions for some
days now. The alignment debate is interesting, if not somewhat tense at times.
I admit ot being puzzled, though, by some of the various points of view.
It seems to me there are differing definitions of evil
and culture here, and an assumption by some that seems, to me, be in error.
This is creating conflict in the current debate, perhaps unnecessarily so. At
this point, I would like to point out that I am not trying to offend or insult
anyone. This is an open forum, and I am throwing in my half-pence's worth.
The assumption that I am referring to is that one can
judge any and all cultures by her/his own standards. This, to me, is
incorrect. Diversity is present here, whether in real life or fantasy like BR,
and there is no universal truth, no omnipotent reality that supercedes all. We
are insiders who are trying to be on the outside speaking about those who are
inside. People may believe otherwise, but there are others who will believe
differently, whether it be philosophy, religion, science, or whatever else
there may be. That is the nature of humanity, and in fantasy, I believe that
also applies, esp. because of the sheer number of races involved.
This does not mean we cannot discuss these things,
just that perspective must be maintained, for "reality" (for lack of a better
word) is perceived differently by each and every person. That is what makes us
individuals.
This is my input for now, and I hope no one takes this
wrong, as I am a novice to all this sort of thing.
Til later, all enjoy what you can.
Shadewu
lf

Daniel McSorley

10-08-1998, 01:53 PM

From: Galwylin
>Are we talking about genocide here? Is the gheallie Sidhe genocide or a
>movement to push humans out of Cerilia. Do the elves have plans to rid the
>planet of humans?
>
The ghealliea sidhe kills humans because they are human. They might take
a special pleasure in killing armed humans roaming their territory, but they
also roam far and wide, inside their kingdoms and out, killing innocent
people. They aren't trying to push the humans anywhere, they just want to
kill them off.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Daniel McSorley

10-08-1998, 02:04 PM

From: Shadewulf@aol.com
>The assumption that I am referring to is that one can
>judge any and all cultures by her/his own standards. This, to me, is
>incorrect. Diversity is present here, whether in real life or fantasy like
BR,
>and there is no universal truth, no omnipotent reality that supercedes all.
I have to disagree with this. This is POV/ diversity nonsense. Start
with the assumption that some action is evil. If a culture accepts this
action, does that make it good? No, that makes the _culture_ incorrect, in
this regard at least, since we have already assumed that this action is
evil!

>we
>are insiders who are trying to be on the outside speaking about those who
are
>inside. People may believe otherwise, but there are others who will believe
>differently, whether it be philosophy, religion, science, or whatever else
>there may be. That is the nature of humanity, and in fantasy, I believe
that
>also applies, esp. because of the sheer number of races involved.
> This does not mean we cannot discuss these things,
>just that perspective must be maintained, for "reality" (for lack of a
better
>word) is perceived differently by each and every person. That is what makes
us
>individuals.
An individual can certainly believe anything he likes. However, he can
also be completely wrong about morality, and therefore evil.
Within the structure of the game, we do have an absolute scale of good
and evil. The alignment system is set up this way on purpose. If we let
everyone say that what they believed was correct, then there would be no
evil on that chart at all! But, it measures on an absolute scale, because
otherwise it is worse that useless ("You cast detect alignment on that
villain right there? He's lawful good, he follows his own internal rules
and logic when killing people, and only kills people that are in the way of
his goals (and their families, to avoid retribution), he's really not that
bad a guy.")

> This is my input for now, and I hope no one takes
this
>wrong, as I am a novice to all this sort of thing.
Dammit! Don't be so apologetic! I hate that! You never have to
apologize for taking part in the discussion!

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Pieter A de Jong

10-08-1998, 03:43 PM

I am not going to get involved in this debate, however, I will ask that
all participants retain their cool. Please be a little bit less
pugnacious about your posts Mr. Weiss. I have seen this kind of thing
happen on other mailing lists and it invariably results in large scale
flamewars. Which are both disruptive to the list function, and
extremely bothersome for the people who are not involved.

- --

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Samuel Weiss

10-08-1998, 04:07 PM

Galwylin wrote,

>No one's passing judgement on you. Why you wish to take on this role of a
victim, I don't know.<

Actually, you are. And I am not taking on the role of the victim, I am
apologizing to the rest of the group for losing my patience with some of the
things you are writing.
Such as,

>You absolute view would condemn one of the poor victims of Ted Bundy had
they actually killed him trying to escape. My view of the gheallie Sidhe is
exactly the same as that of a court looking at someone on trial for killing
in self-defense.<

How on earth you equate someone killing someone who is trying to murder tham
with someone killing another person who happens to belong to the same group
as a person who at one point did you wrong, even tried to kill you is beyond
me. You denied that what you are saying equates to a person wandering into
your neighborhood and killing your children because the guy down the block
belongs a church that he doesn't like. Well sorry to tell you, but that is
exactly what you are legitimizing with your statement equating the Gheallie
Sidhe with personal self defense.
And say it all you want, no matter how noble the cause, if you act like
scum, you are scum. You seem to want to take on the role of the victim here,
blaming everyone else for your crimes. (Or at least trying to convince
others to blame the victims for the crimes of the perpetrators.)
Further, you seem to continually confuse the difference between motivation
and method. Fighting to preserve your people is reasonable and intelligent.
Comitting genocide or "just" random murder is Evil, no matter how you slice
it.
Similarly, Shadewulf confuses the things with this,

>The assumption that I am referring to is that one can judge any and all
cultures by her/his own standards. <

Aside from the fact that you can indeed judge other cultures by your own
standards, I am not doing so. I am judging a culture by its own standards.
Any would have to agree that the Elves of Cerilia think it is wrong for
humans to destroy their living spaces and murder their people wantonly. Yet
oddly you wish to argue that is fine and dandy for the Elves to do the same
to humans because of POV or somesuch nonsense.
How utterly awful of me to hold any to their own high standards. The actions
of the Chruch during the Crusades or Inquisition come to mind. Likewise
various actions of the Allied governments during WWII. This is also the
excuse the Left used to convince others that Pol Pot was just doing his own
cultural thing and should not be judged by Western standards. Tell that to a
survivor of the Killing Fields and see if he agrees with you.
And do not start confusing concepts like I believe stopping Hitler was
wrong. Though you must, because we can not judge his culture by our moral
standards, what I find wanting are some of the methods, not the goal. Rather
as I judge the Gheallie Sidhe to be Evil.
As for Peter Hodge and this comment,

>For example, in the harshness of the Dark Sun
setting, many acts which could possibly be considered "evil" or morally
"wrong" in another setting (FR or BR, for example), could go unremarked. I
think that Lawful Good in Dark Sun is alot different than Lawful Good in
FR.<

Incorrect. What it means is that you are highly unlikely to find anyone of
Lawful Good alignment running around on Athas. Lowering your standards
because of a situation is venal. But of course, given the constant movement
of Western culture in the direction of "everyone must be equal always", it
is becoming rather prevalent.
I personally may never live up to the highest standards I set for myself and
others, but just because I do not cut it, does not mean I will go lowering
those standards. I am not now, nor have I ever been, "equal" to a Jeffrey
Dahmer or Josef Stalin. It is unfortunate if any of you feel that you are.

Samwise
>Please be a little bit less pugnacious about your posts Mr. Weiss.<
This came in right before I sent this one off. So by request, this is my
last post on the topic as I know I will not be able to control myself given
what I keep reading. My final word will be, read what you are writing and
consider the implications. Do you really wish to justify any act just
because someone, somewhere thinks that it is OK? Consider the ramifications
when such an attitude comes home to your neighborhood.

Gary V. Foss

10-08-1998, 05:56 PM

Galwylin wrote:

> At 10:04 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
> >
> > Within the structure of the game, we do have an absolute scale of good
> >and evil. The alignment system is set up this way on purpose. If we let
> >everyone say that what they believed was correct, then there would be no
> >evil on that chart at all!
>
> I think this is why someone earlier said they have a problem with the
> alignment system. The alignment system tries to describes both actions and
> internal motivation. Those don't necessarily agree. That's why some think
> a ranger can kill all members of his species enemy and retain his alignment
> even though he is also killing those that aren't a threat to him. Even
> further, in Birthright, members of the same alignment may be forced into
> battle with each other at the desires of their regents. The alignment
> system as an absolute scale isn't designed to handle all of this and give
> an complete answer. Doesn't mean its not useful.

I think that was me.... :-)

Anyway, I'm glad I made that comment since it has sparked so much lively
debate. I'm a devout Conversationalist, which means I think the greatest of
all moral laws is the First Amendment and the only true evil is censorship....

I would like to point out, however, that I think the original debate has
changed from a discussion of the alignment system into a debate regarding the
existence of absolute versus situational morality with a few hints of
sociological ethics tossed in, which seems to be the au currant thing to do
since the 1960's.

I have to admit, I fall down on Samual's side of this particular debate. I
think there certainly is an absolute morality, and that holding up the POV of
an individual or the mores of a culture/society are poorly contrived excuses
for immoral behavior disguised as a higher moral standard of empathy and
individual rights. This is a fundamental perversion of the moral standard of
context determining right and wrong. That is, because of the moral standard
that makes an exception to the immorality of killing when it is done in
self-defense or when defending the lives of others, many people commit the
fallacy of extending that moral exception to less clearly defined
circumstances, such as cultural conflict or long-term survival issues.

I'm a logically inclined guy, so here's the logical argument/fallacy:

Murder is immoral. Self-defense is not murder. Therefore, self-defense is not
immoral.

Defending one's culture by killing is self-defense. Self-defense is not
murder. Therefore, defending one's culture by killing is not immoral.

See how the first statement of the second argument is flawed? Defending one's
culture by killing is not self-defense. Self-defense is an immediate
action/response. Defending one's culture is a premeditated act. Not at all
the same thing. There are parallels between the two, however, and I believe
that is the problem. An act of self-defense can be interpreted as defending
one's culture when the source of the attack is racial or cultural, but that is
not really the same thing. Race and culture are incidental to self-defense.
In fact, they are opposing forces. You cannot apply self-defense to a culture
because the word "self" is right there in the word! "Self" opposes culture by
definition.

Now, at this point, I think I should give a nod to good ole' Thomas Aquinas and
his definition of "just war" etc. Personally, I think Tommy equates
self-defense and defending one's culture a bit too much, thus justifying a lot
of the wars since the 13th century, but you can't really blame him. The wars
would have happened anyway. It's just that their justification would not have
been quite so easy, and rulers would have had less trouble wriggling out of
their moral responsibility.

The point in all this is that the moral basis of the argument that the Ghallie
Sidhie are using to justify their actions is fundamentally flawed, as are the
moral arguments made regarding whether the GS can still be construed as "good"
when they do their thing. The actions of the elves are definitively evil.
They combine both killing people without moral justification and racism, both
of which are immoral.

There is also an argument that because these actions are responses to moral
wrongs in the past, they are justified, but that really doesn't hold water. It
parallels the current moral argument regarding Native American rights that is
going on here in the U.S. right now.

(Out here in California we have Proposition 5 coming up that actually has
equated Indian Gaming with the slaughter of natives. One early ad quoted a
newspaper that said that Governor's Wilson's veto of a similar bill a year or
two ago was as bad as "anything the U.S. Cavalry did last century." Can you
imagine? Not allowing Bingo on reservations is as morally reprehensible as the
Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee? Personally, I could care less about Indian
gaming, but I have to vote against this thing now if for no other reason than
personal aesthetics....)

The problem with this argument (the "response to previous wrongs" argument, not
the Indian gaming one) is that it equates self-defense with pre-emptive
actions, and commits the good old Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right Fallacy.
Self-defense is by definition immediate. The response to previous aggression
argument not only is not immediate, but is predicated upon a continuation of
past aggression, which is not logically supportable.

My last point about this situational vs. absolute morality is that whether you
believe in absolute morality or not, it does exist in the game. That's what
alignment is. Unfortunately, the designers of the game presented alignment
without really defining it, leading to this kind of debate. Not only that, but
they have made alignment far too significant in the game. Absolute morality
exists, but in my view it is far less intrusive than most people seem to
think. Do you really need to believe in absolute morality to know that
slaughtering civilians is an evil act?

There is a vast and vague gray area that exists between the poles of good and
evil on the absolute morality scale in which most of us operate 99.9% of the
time. Often people who believe in absolute morality confuse their beliefs
within the gray area with their absolute ones, leading them to describe things
as evil or immoral which are not absolutely so. This also ends up in a
reversal of that situation where people see the confusion of the gray area and
equate it to the absolutes at the edge.

OK, so I'm stepping off my soapbox now.

Gary

BenandAmy

10-08-1998, 06:39 PM

Thank you, Gary, for that last post.

>>>You cannot apply self-defense to a culture
because the word "self" is right there in the word! "Self" opposes culture
by
definition.

The alignment rules in D&D simply can't apply correctly to groups of
individuals, nations, political parties, or any other entity that consists
of more than one sentient being with free will.
Maybe we can say that a person's alignment is represented by a "point"
on the scale between good and evil, (or C&L), and a group's alignment can be
represented by a shaded area along the bar between the opposites.
More than one EXACT alignment can fit pretty well within the group, but
some are outside the "acceptable region".

Ryan Freire

10-08-1998, 07:34 PM

The ghealliea sidhe kills humans because they are human. They might
take
>a special pleasure in killing armed humans roaming their territory, but
they
>also roam far and wide, inside their kingdoms and out, killing innocent
>people. They aren't trying to push the humans anywhere, they just want
to
>kill them off.
>
>Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Your wrong there, the purpose of the Gheallie Sidhe is to take back
their lands, they dont rightly care WHERE the humans go, as long as
they're off cerilia and off their lands. As for the absolutes of good
and evil, its a long running war and the Gheallie Sidhe is the elves
army, basically when the elves realized that they werent going to be
able to muscle the humans off they decided to fight guerilla warfare and
scare them off. I find it hard to condemn people as "evil" just because
their fighting a war the only way they can.

Would you be able to condemn say america as evil if somehow say, the
russians came back and took it over, also lets say that they began
burning churches and destroying homes. So, the americans decide to fight
back the only way they are able, sneak in and kill the russians, and
allow no russian to survive entering the few lands america has left.
Basically the humans (in the eyes of the elves) have no right whatsoever
to be there, and they came in, siezed lands belonging to others, and
began destroying things that the native peoples found sacred. (a
somewhat evil act wouldnt you say) The elves had been nothing but
friendly to the humans when they first met them.

__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Gary V. Foss

10-08-1998, 08:20 PM

Ryan Freire wrote:

> Your wrong there, the purpose of the Gheallie Sidhe is to take back
> their lands, they dont rightly care WHERE the humans go, as long as
> they're off cerilia and off their lands. As for the absolutes of good
> and evil, its a long running war and the Gheallie Sidhe is the elves
> army, basically when the elves realized that they werent going to be
> able to muscle the humans off they decided to fight guerilla warfare and
> scare them off. I find it hard to condemn people as "evil" just because
> their fighting a war the only way they can.
>
> Would you be able to condemn say america as evil if somehow say, the
> russians came back and took it over, also lets say that they began
> burning churches and destroying homes. So, the americans decide to fight
> back the only way they are able, sneak in and kill the russians, and
> allow no russian to survive entering the few lands america has left.
> Basically the humans (in the eyes of the elves) have no right whatsoever
> to be there, and they came in, siezed lands belonging to others, and
> began destroying things that the native peoples found sacred. (a
> somewhat evil act wouldnt you say) The elves had been nothing but
> friendly to the humans when they first met them.

Hmmm. I think there are many differences between the GS and the scenario that
you describe above. First, the GS aren't really at war. War is a
legal/national term predicated upon lawful rulers and states. The GS are the
elven equivalent of civilians acting on their own.. They are more like
terrorists than soldiers, which makes their actions evil rather than morally
justified. They have a significant power base in their nations, but are
generally not supported by the government on an official basis. They might be
state sponsored terrorists in some cases, but that doesn't make their actions
any less reprehensible.

Actually, a more accurate comparison of the GS might be (and I could get
slammed for this, but what the heck?) the KKK after the Civil War. There are
certainly many differences between these two, but I think the ethical authority
of either of them to kill civilians is based upon the same horrifically flawed
moral argument.

Lastly, I don't know that you could really describe what the GS do as a
guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is really a tactical methodology. It's a
means of fighting a small scale war with limited troops. The GS sometimes use
it, sometimes not. The problem isn't their use of guerilla warfare (or any
other type) it's their application of it. They attack civvies. That's a no-no
in warfare even in medieval times. Oh, war has always been brutal on
civilians, but making the slaughter of civilians the object of your efforts
rather than incidental to it (what has now been euphemistically called
"collateral damage") is immoral.

Gary

Daniel McSorley

10-08-1998, 09:27 PM

From: Ryan Freire
>Your wrong there, the purpose of the Gheallie Sidhe is to take back
>their lands, they dont rightly care WHERE the humans go, as long as
>they're off cerilia and off their lands. As for the absolutes of good
>and evil, its a long running war and the Gheallie Sidhe is the elves
>army, basically when the elves realized that they werent going to be
>able to muscle the humans off they decided to fight guerilla warfare and
>scare them off. I find it hard to condemn people as "evil" just because
>their fighting a war the only way they can.
>
They're not fighting a war. The GS isn't practicing guerilla tactics,
they're more like terrorists. And, there haven't been any real invasions of
elven territory by men since well before the Empire fell, 500 years back.
Even an arrogent elf might start to notice a pattern like that after 500
years. They can't be guerillas, because there is no invading/ occupying
army for them to guerilla (Is that a verb? Aw, heck.)! They mainly
slaughter civilians, merchants and poor farmers. The human armies don't go
in the elven woods, they might try to intercept a war party before it hit a
village, but they wouldn't pursue it back into the elven home territory.
People fear elves, and the GS is the reason why.

>Would you be able to condemn say america as evil if somehow say, the
>russians came back and took it over, also lets say that they began
>burning churches and destroying homes. So, the americans decide to fight
>back the only way they are able, sneak in and kill the russians, and
>allow no russian to survive entering the few lands america has left.
What you just described is guerilla warfare against an occupying army.
There is no occupying army of humans on elven land, the lands the humans
have now have been lived on by humans for over a thousand years, again, long
enough for the elves to take notice that the humans aren't being especially
expansionistic for the past MILLENIA!

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Gary V. Foss

10-08-1998, 09:43 PM

Galwylin wrote:

> At 10:56 AM 10/8/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> >>A lot of good points. More than I think I'm allowed to quote since this
> is a response to all of it (except the CA proposition)
> I agree with much of what you wrote and only have a few points to make in
> response. To use your example format:
>
> The gheallie Sidhe is elves killing all humans encountered.
> The gheallie Sidhe is humans killing all humanoids encountered.
>
> I think most are likely to say the first sentence is evil but opinions will
> vary on the second. We don't think of humanoids as anything but evil
> (well, at least that's what alignment they're given). Destroying evil is
> not evil.
>
> Another:
> Destroying forests is evil.
> Humans destroy forests.
> Humans are evil.
>
> This is exactly where I see the gheallie Sidhe coming from (not only this
> but one example will work). We've used lots of references to other
> cultures but I guess there just isn't one that truly fits. Just as humans
> see humanoids as evil, elves see humans as evil. The alignment system is
> geared toward a human view so that anything that does harm to humans is
> evil on it. Elves are not humans. At the most, they are an alien species
> but the system doesn't allow enough distinction for them to have a
> different view of what lawful good is as opposed to the human view. There
> is an absolute scale in the system but its not favorable to elves. So,
> mages may release fireballs within forests without that having an effect on
> their alignment.

Well, I don't think that is really the Gheallie Sidhie's argument. The
destruction of forests is bad, but not their major objection the the
encroachment of humans. If I recall correctly, elves lived on the plains of
Cerilia before humans arrived, didn't they? There were more forests back then,
but I'm pretty sure the elven attitude towards forests is more of a reaction to
the fact that they are better able to defend themselves in them rather than
some sort of sacred belief in trees.

As for the "humans are to elves what humanoids are to humans" part of your
response, I quite agree. I see that relationship as being based more upon
long-standing antipathy than active hatred and warfare, however. I hadn't
really noticed that humans kill all humanoids encountered. At least, that's
not what they do in my campaigns.... My players don't kill the females and
children among humanoids unless they are attacked by them, nor do they launch
raids into humanoid held lands unless it is in response to raids. Thurazor is
sort of the goblin equivalent of a secular nation, isn't it? They trade with
humans from time to time and everything. I would consider an unprovoked attack
upon Thurazor an evil act in a campaign I was DMing.

I would view a human character who ruthless slaughtered goblins as being at
best of neutral alignment. To put some guidelines on this, I would say that a
good character will not kill non-combatants, prisoners of war or
helpless/unarmed opponents. They will not initiate a war, and they will
respond to an act of war in a timely manner. None of this Hundred Years War
crap, thank you very much. All of this is regardless of race.

Now, there are certainly exceptions to the above guidelines. In fact, the
exceptions are far too many to list, so I won't even bother giving examples.

One last point. Just because the original humans who violated elven lands
might have committed evil acts and may very well have been evil themselves,
that does not mean that an elven response that includes the slaughter of
civilians would not be evil. Just because the pot calls the kettle black
doesn't mean he spends any less time over the fire. (OK, lousy analogy, but
what the heck?) An evil act with rationale is still an evil act.

Gary

Spyderz

10-09-1998, 12:51 AM

>Would you be able to condemn say america as evil if somehow say, the
>russians came back and took it over, also lets say that they began
>burning churches and destroying homes. So, the americans decide to fight
>back the only way they are able, sneak in and kill the russians, and
>allow no russian to survive entering the few lands america has left.
>Basically the humans (in the eyes of the elves) have no right whatsoever
>to be there, and they came in, siezed lands belonging to others, and
>began destroying things that the native peoples found sacred. (a
>somewhat evil act wouldnt you say) The elves had been nothing but
>friendly to the humans when they first met them.
I'm going to assume from this...that you wouldn't find anything wrong with
the indians commiting acts of terrorism against everyone...just because
hundreds of years ago...all this was their's....I'm not condoning the method
by which the land was taken from the Indians...but I think at this point
more than a hundred years later...that I would consider the Indians
commiting terrorism to be evil...so for the Elves to do the same some
several hundred years after humans came to Cerilia seems kind of evil to me
also...

The Olesens

10-09-1998, 01:22 AM

Spyderz wrote:

> >Would you be able to condemn say america as evil if somehow say, the
> >russians came back and took it over, also lets say that they began
> >burning churches and destroying homes. So, the americans decide to fight
> >back the only way they are able, sneak in and kill the russians, and
> >allow no russian to survive entering the few lands america has left.
> >Basically the humans (in the eyes of the elves) have no right whatsoever
> >to be there, and they came in, siezed lands belonging to others, and
> >began destroying things that the native peoples found sacred. (a
> >somewhat evil act wouldnt you say) The elves had been nothing but
> >friendly to the humans when they first met them.
> I'm going to assume from this...that you wouldn't find anything wrong with
> the indians commiting acts of terrorism against everyone...just because
> hundreds of years ago...all this was their's....I'm not condoning the method
> by which the land was taken from the Indians...but I think at this point
> more than a hundred years later...that I would consider the Indians
> commiting terrorism to be evil...so for the Elves to do the same some
> several hundred years after humans came to Cerilia seems kind of evil to me
> also...

Several hundred years is only a long time to you mortals. A mere three elven generations
have passed since humans first arrived in Cerillia, if I remember correctly. Would you
blame the Indians for evil terrorism if someone took all thier land within three
generations? Geez, there are still a few elves who were alive during the times before
Diesmaar.

- -Andrew

Gary V. Foss

10-09-1998, 02:40 AM

Galwylin wrote:

> That's true up until modern warfare in which civilians did become targets
> (WWI, I believe). We have no problems bombing cities now, knowing that
> civilian causalties may occur (actually, there doesn't even have to be a
> war declared for that to happen). TSR settings are all a
> pseudo-combination of medieval times with modern morality. Also, in
> ancient times, there was never a problem with a warlord invading a nation
> and destroying whole cities and towns and everyone in them. Morality
> really was subjective then. The enemy always became a 'they' that had
> nothing in common with the attackers. By today's standards, the gheallie
> Sidhe is evil. Is today's standards what we are meant to use? Probably.

You're right. Civilian casualties are much more prevalent than I portrayed in my
post. As you say, in ancient times when the distinction between civilian and
soldier was much more ill-defined, so killing one over the other was not as
distinctly defined. In the 20th century when front lines became very broad and
deep, including everything within the range of air power.

As for which moral system to use... well, I'd say use them all. What I mean by
that is that much of the morality that we use today is based on morality developed
thousands of years ago. Honestly, I don't see people having a higher moral
standard now than they did in the time of Socrates.

swords

10-09-1998, 04:31 AM

At 05:51 PM 10/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>Would you be able to condemn say america as evil if somehow say, the
>>russians came back and took it over, also lets say that they began
>>burning churches and destroying homes. So, the americans decide to fight
>>back the only way they are able, sneak in and kill the russians, and
>>allow no russian to survive entering the few lands america has left.
>>Basically the humans (in the eyes of the elves) have no right whatsoever
>>to be there, and they came in, siezed lands belonging to others, and
>>began destroying things that the native peoples found sacred. (a
>>somewhat evil act wouldnt you say) The elves had been nothing but
>>friendly to the humans when they first met them.
>I'm going to assume from this...that you wouldn't find anything wrong with
>the indians commiting acts of terrorism against everyone...just because
>hundreds of years ago...all this was their's....I'm not condoning the method
>by which the land was taken from the Indians...but I think at this point
>more than a hundred years later...that I would consider the Indians
>commiting terrorism to be evil...so for the Elves to do the same some
>several hundred years after humans came to Cerilia seems kind of evil to me
>also...

I think this still needs to be looked at from the elves point of view. The
elves fighting may very well be members of the generation that this started
with. If they aren't then odds are they are the sons and daughters of the
elves that fought the humans originally. So while we look at it as many
human generations only 2 or 3 elven generations have gone by since the
fighting started. For a better point of view look at Bosnia and Serbia the
people of that area have been fighting each other for several years now and
the origin of that war is several hundred years old. And from what is said
on the news the Bosnians the Serbians and Croatas as well as the half dozen
other ethnic groups in that area are fighting with the same methods the
Gheallie Sidhie are. Mind you I'm not endorsing this but this type of war
is not uncommon, and the people on each side call the others evil because of
the way they fight but it is a sound tactic remove the way a group provides
new soldiers and you limit the number of people they can attack you with.

Mike

Daniel McSorley

10-09-1998, 04:40 AM

From: The Olesens
>Several hundred years is only a long time to you mortals. A mere three
elven generations
>have passed since humans first arrived in Cerillia, if I remember
correctly. Would you
>blame the Indians for evil terrorism if someone took all thier land within
three
>generations? Geez, there are still a few elves who were alive during the
times before
>Diesmaar.
>
Yeah, exactly, the big one that supports the GS, and was around back
then, Rhuobhe, is EVIL!

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Daniel McSorley

10-09-1998, 05:09 AM

From: swords
>I think this still needs to be looked at from the elves point of view. The
>elves fighting may very well be members of the generation that this started
>with. If they aren't then odds are they are the sons and daughters of the
>elves that fought the humans originally. So while we look at it as many
>human generations only 2 or 3 elven generations have gone by since the
>fighting started. For a better point of view look at Bosnia and Serbia the
>people of that area have been fighting each other for several years now and
>the origin of that war is several hundred years old. And from what is said
>on the news the Bosnians the Serbians and Croatas as well as the half dozen
>other ethnic groups in that area are fighting with the same methods the
>Gheallie Sidhie are. Mind you I'm not endorsing this but this type of war
>is not uncommon, and the people on each side call the others evil because
of
>the way they fight but it is a sound tactic remove the way a group provides
>new soldiers and you limit the number of people they can attack you with.
>
Just because it is common does not make it GOOD! So, even if this is the
elven point of view, they are still evil for doing it! As a matter of fact,
I'm not even sure if this is the argument you are trying to make (that
argument being, "If this (above) is the case, the elves are good."). If
you aren't making this argument to try to prove the elves good, though, I'm
not sure why you posted it...
Now I just talked myself in a circle, I'm going to bed.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

swords

10-09-1998, 06:43 AM

> Just because it is common does not make it GOOD! So, even if this is the
>elven point of view, they are still evil for doing it! As a matter of fact,
>I'm not even sure if this is the argument you are trying to make (that
>argument being, "If this (above) is the case, the elves are good."). If
>you aren't making this argument to try to prove the elves good, though, I'm
>not sure why you posted it...
> Now I just talked myself in a circle, I'm going to bed.

What I meant by my post is that most people are looking at what the elves do
as incredablly out of date ie problems that happened hundreds of years ago.
To the elves they weren't that long ago. And what I meant was that even
humans continue fights that are hundreds of years out of date. Also the
elves that do blatant acts of brutality are evil, the torture that Rhoube
seems to thrive off of. But the rest of them are fighting what they see as
a war for their homes. And they are doing it in a way that definately makes
them not good but I would say more neutral and hard rather than simply evil.

In my last one I think I did talk myself in circles but I don't think the GS
are evil just the ones that are most noted such as Rhoube. I also might
point out that Aelwynn the commander of Lluabraight's GS is CN and not evil
though he has part of the most Xenophobic elven kingdom.

Its very late and I don't know if I did anything other than talk in circles
again.

Mike

Shadewulf@aol.co

10-09-1998, 06:45 AM

Let's see if I can do this correctly. I am not sure how everyone does
this, but I am going to give it try.

I am unsure of what has gone on before, as I have only been on the BR email
network for about a week. I happened to notice a discussion about alignment,
then some examples about the quandaries of alignment. At first, there were
some comments in the game sense of alignment, then the comments expanded to
include real-life, including personal beliefs. This is what I was responding
to, the premise of alignment in the game world but with real-life beliefs.

I do not believe my supposition is incorrect. When we roleplay, whether it be
in a rpg or a mixed rpg/wargame (or whatever else there may be), we are
ourselves in a different situation. We can try to be otherwise, but we cannot
shut ourselves off that way. This is true of the gm as well as the players.
Which is good, in my eyes, because we can view things in a different light,
and perhaps learn from the experience. I do not believe anyone is fully (note
that, please) capable of going outside oneself and trying to place oneself in
another's situation and say they are them, in the individual or plural sense.

My one email to the BR network expressed my opinion. That is all. I did not
write such to confuse nor to become personal in any way. I thought this was an
open forum for discussion, where reasonable discourse is expected and
encouraged. If there are some who disagree with this, that's fine. I, however,
would like to avoid the the apparently strong personal comments that I have
seen. That is my preference. I would also like to note that perhaps before
people comment (and yes, this includes me), perhaps we should remember that we
are all real people with our own styles and viewpoints, and act accordingly.
Basic courtesy and respect should be observed, if you see what I mean. Just a
thought.

There are several emails I would like to respond to, but I do not believe I
will. I want to get more of a knowledge of how this network operates and a
feel for people's styles. And I most definitely do not want to rile anyone.
That would be counterproductive at the least.

Well, that wraps up my lengthy, ponderous missive. Til later, enjoy what you
can.

Shadewulf

Tim Nutting

10-09-1998, 10:07 AM

I had a response to this line formatted well, and then destroyed it by thinking
about it... This whole issue is a massive conundrum. At its root it cannot be
answered with fact of with science, mathmatics cannot conclusively prove what
is right and what is wrong. The only answer can be found in faith and beleif,
and as those are metaphysics, not physics, there is not colcusive evidence.
Keep that in mind as you read through the rest. Incedentally, that is the
furst conundrum as it disagrees with moral Atheism. This post is going to be
very long, but to make my statements about BR and make it valid for the list, I
need to set up some ground rules, please bear with me.

This debate has some key roots and issues that go far beyond the game and into
the real world. It stretches to what we as gamers and people, citizens of
Earth, feel is good and evil, and as much as I hate to agree with those
elements of my Faith that would choose to label me evil, this is where RPGs can
do the most damage, and the most good.

What defines good and evil?

As I have observed and debated with people in my life, what I see as the engine
of morals and thus the preserver of views of good and evil is religion. Now,
religion alone cannot define good and evil, for religion to be valid, truly
valid, it must speak the truth. Therefore the key to a religion is that it is
supported by a supreme being that gives validity to its views of good and evil.

For right and wrong, thus good and evil, to be universal truths, there must be
a definer that makes these truths universal. I would ask the members of the
list to look at themselves and the world around them. Think for a while, and I
do mean a while, and if you answer realize that at heart, somewhere, what you
answer with, you somehow believe. Looking at the world around you, what
religions and faiths have survived through their infancy and still exist as
practiced faiths?

To answer from my experience: Christianity (Protestant & Catholic), Judaism,
Islam, Wicca (the extent of old Pagan beleifs in Europe), the religions of the
Native Americans (I don't know the technical name), Hinduism. There are
others, but the breadth of my knowledge is somewhat lacking (in particular my
knowledge of the African continent is lacking). Now there are counterculture
to each of these, and most of them oppose each other on the surface, but of all
of these each of them has a few basic tenants that are universal.

In some way, all acknowledge the existance of a supreme being(s). These beings
are reasonably perfect representations of morals and beleifs. All of them tend
to be humanocentric. They favor peace and good living over the destruction of
fellow man. They do not favor human sacrifice, or the overall suffering of
humans, though each of them acknoledges that the world will inflict suffering
and pain regardless. None of them, to my knowledge, advocate murder, theft,
rape, disrespect. All of them favor a strong family and honor of the family
structure, commitments to spouses as ordained by their chosen being(s). All of
them tend to agree, then, what is good and what is evil.

This would tend to support the contention that it is religion that defines good
and evil. As far as the above being disparate and suffering disagreement with
one another, I personally believe that each of them touches on the truth of a
supreme entity, and in truth they all worship the same source, be it God, the
Great Spirit, the Goddess, the Universal Mind, or whatever. I do not beleive
that any one of them has the whole factual truth, but the important part is
that the central morals imparted are the same.

These statements, despite my own personal views, are still metaphysics, and I
cannot offer you concrete evidence that the backing for any of them, the
validation that I deem to be necessary, exists. The conundrum is presented:
Did God create man or did man create God? That answer I cannot present you.

Moral Atheism, which I cited earlier, draws its roots from the morals and
thoughts of these religions, but does not acknowledge the existence of a god or
supreme being.

The morals presented to players in RPGs draw many roots from Moral Atheism.
There is an assumed code of morals, of right and wrong that pervade the games,
and the games, save a very small minority, do not acknowledge the religions of
the given worlds as being the sources of definitions of good and evil. Like
Moral Atheism, the game assumes that good and evil are truths that exist and
that any sane and rational person sees. In a way they do not acknowledge the
gods as the creators of the worlds or the wellsprings of ideas of good and
evil, and this is especially the case for D&D. Alignment illustrates the point
perfectly. To read alignment, one gets and idea of what the text considers
good and evil. These elements are immutable, and the truths are fixed, but
they are entirely independant of any religion.

In its most basic and barren principals, good and evil can be broken to two
basic principals: Selflessness versus Selfishness. Moral Atheism and religion
agree on this, as does the text of D&D, that concern for oneself above others
tends toward Evil, while concern for others before oneself tends to be good.
Absolutism destroys this delicate balancing act. And what a balancing act it
is. One cannot be entirely selfish, but must be somewhat selfish. You have to
have some concern for yourself and well being, or you would be dead in very
short order. At the same time, if you are the only being that matters, and you
destroy that which opposes you, then you invite risk upon youself, endangering
the only thing in this world that matters. It is a difficult answer to a
difficult question, at best.

Birthright draws on the same roots of the game as I have outlined above.
Alignment defines a code of ethics, to a degree. But there is a great
confusion because the game does not agree with itself, just like real life.
Either morals and ethics are independant of the gods, or they aren't. So, the
question is, did the gods create Aebyrnis? If they did, then the elves are the
children of the gods every bit as much as the humans are, and thus ethics
descend from them. If they did not, then the elves are godless and
independant. However, the latter does not assume that ethics are universal
truths. You see, if that is the case, then all the priests in the game are
living a lie when they say that it is important to follow a god's dictates,
because that god is not the source of those ethics. Or are they?

Well, whatever the case may be, the end result in Birthright tends to be the
same. There is a defined code of ethics, what is right and what is wrong.
Alignment.

I think that people may be looking at this little point in the wrong light.
Alignment is not the definition of what a character is, it is the definition of
what he or she desires to be, and attempts to attain. It impossible for a
mortal (or in the case of the elves, immortal) being to be perfect, that is
reserved to the status of divine beings. In essence, the gods of the five
tribes represent a basic goodness. Whether they impart their morals to their
people or not is probably not as important as whether those morals and ethics
are present.

Is the Ghallie Sidhe evil? That question is impossible to answer, as it asks
far to many questions for a simple answer to suffice. Yes works, as does no,
and so does maybe. Perhaps better is, are the goals of the Ghallie Sidhe, as
intended by Queen Tuar evil? The answer to that is no. The knighthood was
founded to establish amongst the elves an order of soldiers that would be able
to keep their people safe. The intention was good, to a degree. It was
selfless in that the attendants of the Order would give their lives to protect
their people, yet like any military order it was also evil because it advocated
the death of any being that would harm the elven people.

The application of the order turned out to be far different from the ideal.
This is actually quite perfect, to be honest. Look at the Knights Templar.
When founded by Hughes de Payen, the order was officially the Poor Knights of
the Temple of Solomon. Theirs was devoted to protecting those who would seek
to visit the Holy Land. What they eventually became was far different, at
least according to the Church that sought to eventually destroy them. Politics
became intertwined too deeply with religion and ethics, and thus the order was
destroyed. The greatest general to serve under Tuar with the Ghallie Sidhe was
a young elf named Rhuobhe. I have assumed that during the battle at Deismaar,
the two fought to the death, and that is why Tuar's body was never found.

The end result is that those genocidal elves who would see humankind destroyed
came to control the Ghallie Sidhe. Because their aims were evil (motivated by
hate not by the survival of their people) the order was perverted to an
ultra-violent version of the Klu Klux Klan. But does anyone think that the
elves were the only aggressors here? Human history will not record the
countless raids that were issued by arrogant rulers whose pride had been
harmed, who felt a personal need to avenge the deaths of their peole that they
had sent into the elven lands to begin with.

Evil was repaid with evil, which in turn was "avenge" by even more evil deeds.

So, are humans and elves all evil? No. But then again, none of them are good
either. At best everyone is somewhere on the neutral ground aspiring to one
extreme or the other, but never achieving it.

I guess the answer to all of this is that there is no answer. The whole is
made of far to many minute sums to be addressed truthfully in simple terms.

I spoke in my introduction that there was potential for harm in RPGs, and it is
this: Simplistic assumptions. The game assumes that all goblins are evil, and
since they are naught but ravening annimals, there is no moral penalty for
killing the evil creatures. None. This can be addressed to the real world,
and it has. Ever heard the phrase "Kill a Moor for Jesus" issued? Probably
not in your life, but in the insanity of the Crusades, that was a phrase used
by the troops when faced with the Saracens. God approved the destruction
according to the church, but how can that have been, when within the 10
commandments there exists: Thou shalt not kill. The fools were deluded by
their superiors who desired property and wealth into beleiving that ALL
Saracens were evil, neverminding that Saladin who held Jerusalem permitted
Christians to visit the city and practice their religion.

If all goblins are evil, then there will never be a good goblin, thus even
goblin babies are evil, and they are just animals, better to put them out of
our misery right now than to have to kill them later. Is that evil? If you
cannot find the answer within you to say "Yes, that is Evil", then you are
every bit as deluded as those Crusaders who slaughtered as many Christians in
Jerusalem as they did Heathens, because of a simplistic answer.

May you all find the answers you are looking for, may you all enjoy your games.
Realize that the game is far more than "just a game", it is an expression of
youself, and enjoy, for we are part of the greatest game of all! The game of
immagination!

Tim Nutting
Zero@wiredweb.com

"Honesty does not require effort, the Truth does not require and explanation."

Tim Nutting

10-09-1998, 11:19 AM

| From: Galwylin
| >Are we talking about genocide here? Is the gheallie Sidhe genocide or a
| >movement to push humans out of Cerilia. Do the elves have plans to rid the
| >planet of humans?
| >
| The ghealliea sidhe kills humans because they are human. They might take
| a special pleasure in killing armed humans roaming their territory, but they
| also roam far and wide, inside their kingdoms and out, killing innocent
| people. They aren't trying to push the humans anywhere, they just want to
| kill them off.

Who says? Humans say. Thus it must be true.

All the GS are identical right? Every one of them is a clone of the next,
right? None of them are individuals with their own hurts and wrongs done,
right?

And they are all evil ravening monsters, every last one of them.

Also, all those humans who responded to the evil brutality of the GS were all
saints, every last one of them that went forth to butcher elven babies and burn
down elven homes. They were perfect and sinless. Pure as the driven snow.

Sorry, this is wrong. The GS is a military order with its own history and
woes. It is a political organization made of several hundred different
individuals with their own interpretations of events and histories, ideals and
ethics. They were founded with the noblest of intentions, but were perverted
by the vileness of hate, fanaticism, and absolutism.

Everyone keeps on saying they delight in chopping little babies to bits and
such, so they are evil, but then, it's perfectly ok for the dwarves to go chop
little goblin babies to bits and such, and bee good. Where does the book say
that the GS goes to do this? Every GS thing I read indicates that they usually
stop just outside their own borders. I would be particularly interested in
hearing when Alamie or Stjordvik was harassed by the GS, how about Osoerde or
Ghoere?

They attack Cariele ruthlessly, but that is because Cariele has been ruthlessly
RAPED by the humans. To the elves, the land itself is a living being, and the
humans have raped her. Are the Good in murdering humans? No. Do they feel
justified? Yes.

Evil is done again and again because the simple minded see no logical recourse.
In some cases there is no good way in dealing with a monster. Do any of you
think that it would have been possible to sate the Imperialistic desires of
Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan peacefully?

If so, what would this world look like now? A genocidal government in Europe
bent of creating the Perfect Race, and a nation across the world that sees all
peoples as equal. There is an ideology difference there that would not last
long until it came to blows. Were the aims of the Nazi's good? Anyone who can
say "welll.. not necesarily, but I don't want to judge" needs to get off their
liberal soap box and open their eyes!

So was it Good for the US to send young boys into the meatgrinders of France
and Germany?

So then, the good thing to do would be to lay down arms and turn to the Gorgon
and say "gee, we forgive you, we are peace loving people" and then get
slaughtered by his armies. Yes it is evil to kill those men under his control
as they come and come again (what, any of you thought his armies were ALL
humanoids, thus ALL evil?), but the simple fact is that unless the people who
wish for a good society will stand and fight against that evil, then they will
be washed aside by it, even though they themselves will be perverted by their
own deeds.

Doesn't life suck without religion and absolution?

The Holy Order of Haelyn's Aegis stands between the Gorgon and the Heartlands.
They fight to protect those south of them from the power lust of a single
insane creature whose will is so very great that he can pervert and entire
kingdom. And yet, they themselves perform evil by destroying the men and
goblins seeking to attack them. Without the absolution of Haelyn and his
priests telling them that despite their sins they are forgiven, because they do
the just thing.

The point is that evil exists. By and large people are evil, because it is far
easier to give into one's base desires than to enforce a personal code of
ethics that means you must delay your own gratification.

A nation is made of countless individuals performing their own deeds on a
personal scale, thus creating the whole. For a nation to do an evil deed means
that countless individuals have done countless evil deeds.

The Ghallie Sidhe has an evil reputation because evil people came to power and
practiced their own agenda of hatred and genocide, and attracted others who
beleived the same. But they are not all the same. The GS exists in
Tuarhievel, but it is safe for humans to roam the Giantdowns, even though they
are in the very eaves of the Aelvinwode. They have been warned, "do not enter
here, this land is not yours" and when they cross that line in the sand, they
are punished. If the GS did not exist, then the woodsmans armies in Cariele
would enter Tuarhievel and level it, too. Evil or not, sometimes you have to
make a stand.

There ARE absolutes.
Absolutely there is good.
Absolutely there is evil.
No Human is Absolutely good, just as no Human is Absolutely evil.

Good luck in sorting out your lives.
Tim Nutting

DKEvermore@aol.co

10-09-1998, 01:17 PM

In a message dated 10-08-1998 4:38:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
mcsorley.1@osu.edu writes:

> They're not fighting a war. The GS isn't practicing guerilla tactics,
> they're more like terrorists. And, there haven't been any real invasions
of
> elven territory by men since well before the Empire fell, 500 years back.
> Even an arrogent elf might start to notice a pattern like that after 500
> years. They can't be guerillas, because there is no invading/ occupying
> army for them to guerilla (Is that a verb? Aw, heck.)! They mainly
> slaughter civilians, merchants and poor farmers. The human armies don't go
> in the elven woods, they might try to intercept a war party before it hit a
> village, but they wouldn't pursue it back into the elven home territory.
> People fear elves, and the GS is the reason why.
>
No invasion of elven territory for the last 500 years? Heh, not in my world.
Look at published information on Lluabraight and Cwmbhein. Both of these have
lost 2 ENTIRE PROVINCES in very recent times. I believe there are other
recent noted losses published as well. But hey, it's your campaign, man.
Now, it's true that these losses were incurred by awnshegh (White Witch,
Ghuralli, and the Raven), but do you really think the elves will distinguish
between an awnshegh-lead rampaging horde of humans (White Witch & Raven) and a
normal regent-lead rampaging horde of humans? Unlikely.

Lastly, I doubt the elves of Cerilia will ever forget the loss of their lost
colony, Tuar Anwn. This country has suffered a fate worse than death because
a rampaging horde of Vos tried to drive their entire nation into the sea. And
they would've, too, but the elven wizards got desparate..... Now Tuar Anwn is
feared by elf and human alike, and none ever return from its darkened
depths... If fear of something like this happening to an elven nation isn't
motivation, I don't know what is. And remember that elves perceive time
differently. It could have happened 500 years ago. It could have happened a
moment ago. It's just as clear to them, and just as painful.

To the Gheallie Sidhe, the war has never ended. Not in 1951 years. Maybe
they're evil, maybe they're not, but you can't say they don't believe
themselves to be fighting for their lives. And recent times support this
position.

- -DKE

DKEvermore@aol.co

10-09-1998, 01:29 PM

In a message dated 10-08-1998 6:05:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
galwylin@airnet.net writes:

> >They attack civvies. That's a no-no
> >in warfare even in medieval times. Oh, war has always been brutal on
> >civilians, but making the slaughter of civilians the object of your
efforts
> >rather than incidental to it (what has now been euphemistically called
> >"collateral damage") is immoral.
>
> That's true up until modern warfare in which civilians did become targets
> (WWI, I believe).

Boy you guys are idealistic. Not a bad thing, though. But I'm sure you'll
recall accounts (or at least wild claims) that as early as the Dark Ages this
stuff was going on. Vikings loved to raid villages, pillage them, kill
everyone who didn't get out of the way, rape the women --and steal them--,
take all the livestock, etc.

Later (although it wasn't part of noble ideals of later knighthoods) this kind
of thing was still done as Lord fought Lord and mercilessly put down "peasant
rebellions". I believe there may have even been instances in the 100 Years
War in France where the English were pretty brutal to the populace as well,
but I'm not an expert there.

Of course, I don't think I'd want to put all this reality-nastiness into my
fantasy campaign (which is about as idealistic as you guys are). But I just
had to point out some things if analogies to the Real World (tm) were going to
be used.

- -Dustin (doesn't know who tm-ed the Real World) Evermore

Gary V. Foss

10-09-1998, 01:36 PM

Galwylin wrote:

> Maybe not a higher moral but life isn't viewed the same way. Some cultures
> would make ammends to someone they offended by offering the life of a slave
> or even a child. I do hope that our standard are higher that the time of
> Socrates. I'm certain that women were still property then and slaves were
> owned. Neither had a right to participate in the Athenian democracy. And
> we get much of our morality from the Bible that once taught people to stone
> their children until the New Testament brought a religion based on
> pacifism. Then that would be corrupted by when a pope sanctioned war for
> the first time when turn the other cheek had always been so prevalent
> through the Christian religion. Not meaning to offend anyone but morality
> has always been in constant change that who can guess what the future view
> of our own time will be.

I think what you are describing is definitely a shift in behavior, but I don't
think that's any change in morality. People might be behaving more morally
nowadays (highly debatable, but let's skip that for now) but the point is that the
moral standards (read: universal morality) have remained largely the same since
they were first penned thousands of years ago. What I was trying to get across
was that the moral standards of today aren't much different from those written a
long time ago. That is why moral standards in the form of alignments can exist in
the game.

Gary

Daniel McSorley

10-09-1998, 01:56 PM

From: DKEvermore@aol.com
>No invasion of elven territory for the last 500 years? Heh, not in my
world.
>Look at published information on Lluabraight and Cwmbhein. Both of these
have
>lost 2 ENTIRE PROVINCES in very recent times. I believe there are other
>recent noted losses published as well.
Yes, Tuarhievel lost a province to the Gorgon, I don't know how recently
though. I think they would be able to tell the difference between an
awnshegh and a human. Awnshegh is an elven term, after all, so they must
understand that those guys are a little different than your garden variety
peasant, but hey, the peasants are so much easier to kill, right?
The elves _can_ distinguish between awnshegh and man, if they choose not
to, that is no excuse.

>Lastly, I doubt the elves of Cerilia will ever forget the loss of their
lost
>colony, Tuar Anwn. This country has suffered a fate worse than death
because
>a rampaging horde of Vos tried to drive their entire nation into the sea.
And
>they would've, too, but the elven wizards got desparate..... Now Tuar Anwn
is
>feared by elf and human alike, and none ever return from its darkened
>depths... If fear of something like this happening to an elven nation
isn't
>motivation, I don't know what is. And remember that elves perceive time
>differently. It could have happened 500 years ago. It could have happened
a
>moment ago. It's just as clear to them, and just as painful.
>
Hmm, brings up an interesting point: do the elves distinguish between
different types of men? Vos/ Anuirean/ etc that is. All the elven nations
are just _elven_, do they think of all the men as just _men_?

>To the Gheallie Sidhe, the war has never ended. Not in 1951 years. Maybe
>they're evil, maybe they're not, but you can't say they don't believe
>themselves to be fighting for their lives. And recent times support this
>position.
>
If the elves want to take a few examples of awnsheghlien invading, and
generalize that hatred and fear to all humanity, which hasn't done anything
to them recently, then they can try to justify that in their own minds, but
logically it just doesn't follow. And don't try to tell me they can't tell
between an army and a village of helpless sleeping people. The GS is just
viscious, evil elves who, being afraid to go after their real enemies the
awnsheghlien, say "These awnshegh were human once, lets go kill some humans
in retribution!" It's still no excuse, and they're not fighting for their
lives.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Ryan Freire

10-09-1998, 03:57 PM

>I'm going to assume from this...that you wouldn't find anything wrong
with
>the indians commiting acts of terrorism against everyone...just because
>hundreds of years ago...all this was their's....I'm not condoning the
method
>by which the land was taken from the Indians...but I think at this
point
>more than a hundred years later...that I would consider the Indians
>commiting terrorism to be evil...so for the Elves to do the same some
>several hundred years after humans came to Cerilia seems kind of evil
to me
>also...
The difference is...that for the Indians, as many generations have
passed as have for the "invaders" however, MAYBE one generation has
passed for the elves and most likely a great deal of the adult elves
were children or teenagers DURING the elf-human wars, there is probably
a great deal of bitterness there still, it would take several elven
generations for them to actually cool down

__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

BenandAmy

10-09-1998, 04:04 PM

We're usually much more civil than this, Shade. Stick around a while.

Ben

Ryan Freire

10-09-1998, 04:18 PM

> Yes, Tuarhievel lost a province to the Gorgon, I don't know how
recently
>though. I think they would be able to tell the difference between an
>awnshegh and a human. Awnshegh is an elven term, after all, so they
must
>understand that those guys are a little different than your garden
variety
>peasant, but hey, the peasants are so much easier to kill, right?
> The elves _can_ distinguish between awnshegh and man, if they choose
not
>to, that is no excuse.
>
The point he's trying to make, i think, is that a great deal of the
awnshegh, raven and white witch in particular, use human troops. Thus
the hatred of humans
> Hmm, brings up an interesting point: do the elves distinguish
between
>different types of men? Vos/ Anuirean/ etc that is. All the elven
nations
>are just _elven_, do they think of all the men as just _men_?
>
I'd be pretty sure that thats how they think of them, just think of
today when HUMANS cant tell or refuse to try to tell the difference
between races, example that is really prevailent in the states today is
asians.
>>
> If the elves want to take a few examples of awnsheghlien invading,
and
>generalize that hatred and fear to all humanity, which hasn't done
anything
>to them recently, then they can try to justify that in their own minds,
but
>logically it just doesn't follow. And don't try to tell me they can't
tell
>between an army and a village of helpless sleeping people. The GS is
just
>viscious, evil elves who, being afraid to go after their real enemies
the
>awnsheghlien, say "These awnshegh were human once, lets go kill some
humans
>in retribution!" It's still no excuse, and they're not fighting for
their
>lives.
Again, humanity HAS done things to them recently, humans were in the
armies of the awnshegh. There is a great deal of prejudice outside of
the elven lands. It's flat out dangerous for an elf to leave the borders
of his nation in places like vosgaard, large sections of anuire and a
great deal of rjurik territory.

__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Daniel McSorley

10-09-1998, 05:26 PM

From: Ryan Freire
>The point he's trying to make, i think, is that a great deal of the
>awnshegh, raven and white witch in particular, use human troops. Thus >the
hatred of humans
That's no excuse! If they want to hate those specific humans, the ones
that work for the awnshegh and invade their lands, then that's their
business. When they generalize that hatred to all of humanity, they are
guilty of prejudice, bigotry, and pretty much attempted genocide, therefore
the GS is evil!

>Again, humanity HAS done things to them recently, humans were in the
>armies of the awnshegh. There is a great deal of prejudice outside of
>the elven lands. It's flat out dangerous for an elf to leave the borders
>of his nation in places like vosgaard, large sections of anuire and a
>great deal of rjurik territory.
>
The humans in the armies of the awnshegh are not "humanity". And, part
of the reason it's dangerous for an elf to go into human lands is because of
the GS, which is a huge cause and effect argument that we _don't_ want to go
into.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Ryan Freire

10-09-1998, 07:06 PM

A large problem i see is with people saying is that the elves are trying
to commit genocide, they aren't, what the elves are trying to do is
drive the humans from cerilia by any means possible, they arent planning
on marching to aduria and wiping out all humans there either, they
simply want their ancestral lands back.

Off to another point someone made a few posts back with referring to the
elves living on plains and whatnot and so not necessarily defending the
forests alone. A great deal of plainsland and hills in areas like
anuire and vosgaard WAS forest before the humans came. Five hundred
years of clearcutting and farming pretty much would decimate all the
tree life there.

A major argument for the GS not being evil is in the fact that they dont
persecute people like dwarves and halflings. They pretty much keep
their emnity for the "enemy", humans. I guess the biggest flaw in the
whole alignment argument is that its entirely possible for an elf to
behave in a chaotic evil fashion to humanity and its works, yet behave
and think in a completely chaotic good manner with other races (ie:
elves dwarves, halflings). Is a being who would slaughter and kill
innocent people for whatever reason completely good? on the other hand
is someone who would lay down their life to ensure that the children of
their race will have a place to call home and a decent life completely
evil?

At any rate this will be my last post on the subject because the more i
debate it the more i realize that theres no easy answer for one side or
the other.

__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

The Olesens

10-09-1998, 07:33 PM

I'd like to emphasize on a point that has been stated several times but some haven't
noticed it:
Very few elven generations have passed between Diesmaar and 551 MR.

IMO-Elven time is the same in terms of minutes, seconds, etc. Even days are the same.
But to elves, a human year is (as far as memories, physical growth, etc. go) more like a
month or even a week. So going with a week, humans managed to take most of the elven
lands in 500 elven weeks or about 10 elven years. In ten years (elven years that is) the
elven population in Cerillia dropped from (my guess) the high millions to the high
thousands. Then about 31 years later humans write the date 551 MR on thier calenders. So
to the elves, humans kept encroacing on them until about 25 years ago. These figures may
seem odd so I am also open to the idea that 1 human year=2 elven weeks which would double
all figures.

DKEvermore@aol.co

10-09-1998, 09:52 PM

In a message dated 10-09-1998 9:15:47 AM Central Daylight Time,
mcsorley.1@osu.edu writes:

> If the elves want to take a few examples of awnsheghlien invading, and
> generalize that hatred and fear to all humanity, which hasn't done anything
> to them recently, then they can try to justify that in their own minds, but
> logically it just doesn't follow. And don't try to tell me they can't tell
> between an army and a village of helpless sleeping people. The GS is just
> viscious, evil elves who, being afraid to go after their real enemies the
> awnsheghlien, say "These awnshegh were human once, lets go kill some humans
> in retribution!" It's still no excuse, and they're not fighting for their
> lives.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>

Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still "elven". So why not humans?

Point 2) Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
kill humans?

Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves as just
elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?

Point 4) The Tuar Annwn example still stands. Those humans were NOT awnshegh
controlled.

Point 5) More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!

Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans aren't
and neither are elves.

As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
already assembled army, and the other is a _potential_ army. Get real. The
GS will fight the battles it can win.

- -Dustin "thinks the elves are pretty much toast anyway" Evermore

Gary V. Foss

10-09-1998, 11:33 PM

Galwylin wrote:

> At 06:36 AM 10/9/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >
> >I think what you are describing is definitely a shift in behavior, but I
> don't
> >think that's any change in morality.
>
> Sorry, Gary, but I have to disagree. Behavior is ruled by morality. A
> person that lived 1000 years ago would be shocked at today's morals. And
> most likely, we'd be shocked at some of theirs. I think you're looking at
> alignments correctly though. They are absolute. Good today was good
> yesterday. What's changed is the interpretation which is morality. The
> debate about the gheallie Sidhe (both sides making excellent points, I
> think) shows that morality is not absolute even to people living in the
> same society during the same times. Someone from a different society will
> probably see a different view of what is moral.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this point. I'd like to think
behavior is ruled by morality. My observation of such things, however, leads
me to suspect that behavior and morality have only a casual relationship. Most
people consult their dentists more often than they consult their morals. But,
hey, we can't really complain about the immorality of so many people in our
society. After all, we elected them.... :)

Gary

Gary V. Foss

10-10-1998, 12:51 AM

I'm going to combine a few of these posts and try to cut down a bit on the total
number of messages being sent out. :)

DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:

> Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still "elven". So why not humans?
>
> Point 2) Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
> kill humans?

I think these are good points. The elves might very well associate the evil
awnsheghlien with humanity in way that they do not with their own people. There
is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that humans become
awnsheghlien more often than do elves. How many elven awnsheghlien are there?
Just a few, isn't it? There are many more awnsheghlien that sprang from humans.

This is, however, something of a racist argument. I don't have any sort of
population statistics, but the number of awnsheghlien running around can't be much
more than a few hundred. That's in the 0.01% or so of the population. Even if
humans do become awnsheghlien more frequently than elves they'd still have to go
to the far right column of the abacus to do that calculation.

DK, is also right in that the awnsheghlien do use human troops very often. The
gorgon, however, does also use dwarven and goblin troops. Shouldn't that earn the
dwarves a little bit of enmity from the elves?

> Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves as just
> elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?

They might very well see all human nationalities as the same. Again, I think this
is a racist kind of argument, though isn't it? Shouldn't they know better? The
elves fought on the side of the Vos against all the other races of humanity at the
beginning of D-Day and then switched to the human side. Even the elves that
stayed on Azrai's side (those who would probably be more likely to be in the
Gheallie Sidhe) would notice that some humans are different from other humans,
wouldn't they?

> Point 4) The Tuar Annwn example still stands. Those humans were NOT awnshegh
> controlled.
>
> Point 5) More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
> attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
> other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!
>
> Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans aren't
> and neither are elves.
>
> As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
> already assembled army, and the other is a _potential_ army. Get real. The
> GS will fight the battles it can win.

I think part of the differences between the people making arguments about the
alignment of elves here is the different interpretation of their motivations.
That is, some folks think that the motives of the elves offset the evil of their
actions, while others think their motives don't matter a lick. I'm of the latter
group. I think Gheallie Sidhe can have all kinds of arguments that justify their
behavior, but that doesn't vitiate the evil of their actions.

The Olesens wrote:

> I'd like to emphasize on a point that has been stated several times but some
> haven't
> noticed it:
> Very few elven generations have passed between Diesmaar and 551 MR.
>
> IMO-Elven time is the same in terms of minutes, seconds, etc. Even days are the
> same.
> But to elves, a human year is (as far as memories, physical growth, etc. go)
> more like a
> month or even a week. So going with a week, humans managed to take most of the
> elven
> lands in 500 elven weeks or about 10 elven years. In ten years (elven years
> that is) the
> elven population in Cerillia dropped from (my guess) the high millions to the
> high
> thousands. Then about 31 years later humans write the date 551 MR on thier
> calenders. So
> to the elves, humans kept encroacing on them until about 25 years ago. These
> figures may
> seem odd so I am also open to the idea that 1 human year=2 elven weeks which
> would double all figures.

I think it would be better to put this in terms of generations rather than years.

How often do elves reproduce? They are mature around 100-130 aren't they?
(PHB/33.) That would make an elven "generation" be about every 150-200 years.
Let's call it 250. That's ten times the standard human generation. Since
Deismaar, that's six generations. Granted, elves live indefinitely, but how long
are even immortals going to live before they get killed fighting, or just fall out
of the a tree or slip in the bathtub, for that matter?

We're about seven or eight generations out of the civil war. To continue the KKK
analogy I made the other day, wouldn't that be pretty similar?

Binagran wrote:

> If you can refer to a John Wayne film, the least I can do is refer to a comic.
>
> I would recommend for all those who have been reading these postings to do with
> alignment/morality etc. to read the very excellent graphic novel "Watchmen" by
> Allan
> Moore and Dave Gibbons.
> This debate reignited my interest in it, and rereading it, it seems that almost
> every
> argument posted here is present in "Watchmen" in some form or another.
> Depending on
> your POV (there's that word again), the character of Rohrsharc (sp?), could
> either be
> seen as a LG character (forgive the use of alignments) or a NE character.
> "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon"
> Admittedly, he was slightly around the bend, but his heart was in the right
> place (or
> was it?)
>
> Anyone got any comments to make about it?

The Watchmen rocked! Anyway, I think Rorschach was Lawful Neutral. He was
totally dedicated to the truth even if it meant global war, he persecuted law
breakers relentlessly, and never gave any thought to the difference between good
or evil.

Ryan Freire wrote:

> A large problem i see is with people saying is that the elves are trying
> to commit genocide, they aren't, what the elves are trying to do is
> drive the humans from cerilia by any means possible, they arent planning
> on marching to aduria and wiping out all humans there either, they
> simply want their ancestral lands back.

Well, I don't know that that is true. Given the number of humans on Cerilia, the
difference between genocide and the type of pogrom required to get their ancestral
lands back is pretty slim isn't it? Besides, to me it doesn't matter if there is
a difference between an out and out genocide and the kind of "retaking of
ancestral lands" that you describe. Both amount to the same kind of behavior. I
mean, the elves pretty much controlled all of Cerilia before humans came (except
for those lands controlled by dwarves or humanoids) so that means they are going
to have to wipe out the lot in order to get those lands back. Population
estimates of Cerilia have ranged from five to ten million humans....

> Off to another point someone made a few posts back with referring to the
> elves living on plains and whatnot and so not necessarily defending the
> forests alone. A great deal of plainsland and hills in areas like
> anuire and vosgaard WAS forest before the humans came. Five hundred
> years of clearcutting and farming pretty much would decimate all the
> tree life there.

This is true. There were substantially more forests, though we don't really know
how much more for sure. There are several hints, but I don't think we have a
pre-human map or anything.

> A major argument for the GS not being evil is in the fact that they dont
> persecute people like dwarves and halflings. They pretty much keep
> their emnity for the "enemy", humans. I guess the biggest flaw in the
> whole alignment argument is that its entirely possible for an elf to
> behave in a chaotic evil fashion to humanity and its works, yet behave
> and think in a completely chaotic good manner with other races (ie:
> elves dwarves, halflings). Is a being who would slaughter and kill
> innocent people for whatever reason completely good? on the other hand
> is someone who would lay down their life to ensure that the children of
> their race will have a place to call home and a decent life completely
> evil?

I really don't see the that elves don't persecute dwarves and halflings as being a
big argument in their favor. A neutral attitude towards one race doesn't make
evil actions against another less evil....

Gary

Tim Nutting

10-11-1998, 06:31 PM

| people consult their dentists more often than they consult their morals.
But,
| hey, we can't really complain about the immorality of so many people in our
| society.

Why can't we complain about it? If an act is wrong, must we accept it? Even
though all among us have done wrong, can we not still say what is right and
what is wrong? Must we be perfect to cast judgement?

| After all, we elected them.... :)

Did we? This nation is pathetic. For the sake of God, we live in one of the
only nations in the world where we can choose our leaders and our laws, and no
one cares enough to go do it. No wonder the elitists think we can't live our
own lives, no one cares enough to.

Tim Nutting

DKEvermore@aol.co

10-12-1998, 01:08 AM

In a message dated 10/9/98 7:04:41 PM, galwylin@airnet.net writes:

>I think the only way to prove the gheallie Sidhe is not evil is to prove
>
>its at least noble in the eyes of the elves. I can understand the view
>of
>
>a potential threat but couldn't accept that an attack on a village is noble
>
>because its a fight they can win. There should be battles fought that
>they
>
>can't win.
>
>
>
>This has been a Galwylin® Production

Actually, I wasn't trying to prove any kind of morality of the GS. I was just
stating what I thought likely based on their past behavior. After all, War IS
evil (i.e. running about attempting to kill your neighbors and what not).

- -DKE

DKEvermore@aol.co

10-12-1998, 01:16 AM

In a message dated 10/9/98 8:07:53 PM, GeeMan@linkline.com writes:

>> Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves
>as just
>> elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?
>
>They might very well see all human nationalities as the same. Again, I
>think this
>is a racist kind of argument, though isn't it? Shouldn't they know better?
> The
>

The elves are racist, of course. Just look at their history. How many years
did they keep entire Cerilian races enslaved? 1000 years is the answer. It
took 200 years of war for the unfortunate Kobolds and Goblins to escape their
masters. And what's that on page seven of the BR RB? "Unfortunately, elves
are to mindful of their superiority and treat outsiders with coldness or
condescension." They are *supposed* to be racist.

I'm not making a statement about a "racial alignment" here. Don't use
alignment in my game. But take it as you will.

Dustin "the elves are toast, but gosh they is kewl" Evermore

Gary V. Foss

10-12-1998, 08:37 AM

Tim Nutting wrote:

> | people consult their dentists more often than they consult their morals. But,
> | hey, we can't really complain about the immorality of so many people in our
> | society.
>
> Why can't we complain about it? If an act is wrong, must we accept it? Even
> though all among us have done wrong, can we not still say what is right and
> what is wrong? Must we be perfect to cast judgement?
>
> | After all, we elected them.... :)
>
> Did we? This nation is pathetic. For the sake of God, we live in one of the
> only nations in the world where we can choose our leaders and our laws, and no
> one cares enough to go do it. No wonder the elitists think we can't live our
> own lives, no one cares enough to.
>
> Tim Nutting

That was a joke, my friend. Sorry, I couldn't include a rimshot along with the
message, but we are somewhat limited by the text....

> | I think you are making sense, but I think you are being more sympathetic to
> the
> | elven point of view or overcompensating against the human one.... If you are
> | going to use a moral standard of the kind I was talking about, I don't think
> there
> | is a double standard. A human who kills non-combatants is evil. An elf who
> does
> | so is too. So is a goblin. It really doesn't matter if those non-combatants
> are
> | elves, humans or goblins.
>
> I, however, do have a problem with this statement. Killing is evil, be the
> victim a combatant or a non-combatant, the act of taking the life of a sentient
> being is evil. Let us not apply situational ethics to any situation, as that
> is the same as having no ethics at all. To be bluntly honest, there is no such
> thing as an extenuating circumstance.

I know many people who share this sentiment. (I went to a college founded by
Quakers, after all....) However, I have to disagree. I don't think situational
ethics inevitably lead to no ethics. There are many different extenuating
circumstances that I think justify killing. Self-defense is a perfectly good
one. To defend the lives of civilians is another reason, which is why police
officers can carry guns. Killing on the battlefield in a just war is one too. (A
just war is hard to find, but I could list some examples that I think most people
would agree with.) In fact, I think killing on the battlefield in a morally
questionable war does not stain the individual soldier's soul nearly as much as
his leaders. I don't believe the execution of a lawfully condemned prisoner who
has committed horrific crimes damns the executioner's soul either. (I'm against
the death penalty, but my objection is a functional rather than philosophical
one. That is, because of the way I see it applied in the U.S. rather than a moral
objection to life being taken by the state.)

> Any being that ruthlessly slaughters another being is evil, at that moment. If
> it depended on the circumstances, then consider this fictional series of
> events:

Actually, in the context of the scenario you describe, I do not see the vigilante
husband as being evil. Oh, I find it difficult to believe that such an avenger
would be properly described as "gleefully" going about his work, but that is not
really the problem. The scene of "ultraviolence" portrayed in Clockwork Orange
that you borrowed was permitted by the absence of the rule of law, and the "evils"
that resulted. (That's the theme of the movie, in fact, stated nicely by the bum
early in the film who delivers a speech beginning "It's a stinkin' world because
there's no law and order any more!" etc.) In my view, the inexistence of proper
authorities does justify a certain amount of individual action, even action as
unpleasant as you describe.

Now, the person in your scenario commits morally questionable acts in that he
plants an explosive which might injure innocent bystanders, and slits the gang
member's throats rather than a more humane method of execution, but a civilian has
limited access to the tools of the Justice trade, (like arrest warrants and lethal
injections) so you could make a case (and I would) for him being one man seeking
justice against the odds and that justifies his methods.

It is important to stress, however, that the SITUATIONAL context of your example
that I think makes it morally OK is the absence of the rule of law. Should a
person do what you describe when he could just as easily (more easily, really) go
to the police and court system for justice, then he would be committing an immoral
act by taking the law into his own hands.

> This, I see, as a demonstrably damagin situation with RPGs, especially AD&D.
> This statement indicates that a society has absolutely nothing to do with the
> final outcome of a citizen. Even if there were a genetic predisposition for a
> goblin to be a self-serving coniving, back-stabbing bastard, that does not
> excuse the senseless slaughter of the species. Further, if alignment were
> subject to genetic predisposition would mean that a character can never change
> his alignment, because it is not subject to change, his genetic code will not
> allow it.

I don't think anybody is really advocating the senseless slaughter of any
species.... In fact, I think the argument has been leading towards the opposite.
That is, no one can senselessly slaughter anyone and be morally justified.

As for alignment and genetic destiny... I think that's a bit of an overstatement
of what goes on in AD&D and in the original example. The statement I made was
that "...races tend to follow various alignments much more prevalently than is
reflected in real life. In AD&D terms, it isn't racist to say goblins are evil.
With very rare exceptions, they ARE evil! Elves tend towards neutrality and
chaos. Dwarves tend towards law and good. Etc, etc, etc." That very clearly
notes that racial alignments are merely "tendencies" rather than genetic coding.
Can a goblin change? Sure. Can an elf? Sure. Can a human? Sure.

In the game, however, good and evil exist more clearly than they do in real life.
Goblins are short hand for evil, thematically speaking. While I don't want my
characters to think it is OK for them to kill goblin non-combatants, I also don't
want them stopping to question every goblin soldier to discover if he is good or
evil. That would bog down play, and I'm much rather let goblins be stereotypical
goblins, I'm afraid. If that makes me a racist, small minded, anti-goblinite...
well, I suppose I'll just have to turn me in to the CCLU. (Cerilian Civil
Liberties Union.)

> I am sorry, but I will never, ever, condone the killing of any sentient being,
> and label the act "good" in any way, shape, or form. That killing is sometimes
> necessary is a fact. War happens because of the base natures of sentients.
> The actions of the United States in World War II were not in any way good, but
> they were necessary. It was inevitable that conflict would occur for several
> reasons.

Despite the fact that I disagree with you, I'd like to say I have a lot of respect
for the opinions you express. Pacifism can be a particularly difficult philosophy
to live, and some of the bravest folks I have met in my life have been pacifists.
I find myself on the other side of the fence from them on many occasions, but that
doesn't lessen my appreciation for the importance of their opinions.

> Morality, by definition, is not circumstantial, it is absolute. If it were
> circumstantial, then personal choice and view is allowed to enter the
> situation. Morality is a code of ethical behavior that defines right and
> wrong. A person's view on it does not change it one bit.

Well, I think there is an absolute morality AND I think there is a situational
one. I don't really think these are mutually exclusive possibilities either. In
fact, I think they both must exist for either of them to exist. You cannot have
the poles of good/evil without the area in between them, what I described before
as the "vast and vague gray area."

Gary

Daniel McSorley

10-12-1998, 12:55 PM

From: DKEvermore@aol.com
>Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
>kill humans?
>
Because that's generalization, and not logically supportable.

>More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
>attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
>other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!
>
That's not a valid argument, because there are more human nations than
all the other demi-human or humanoid nations combined. You just described
scale.

>Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans
aren't
>and neither are elves.
>
What's that have to do with whether the GS are evil or not?

>As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
>already assembled army, and the other is a _potential_ army. Get real.
The
>GS will fight the battles it can win.
>
Sure they will, but they are still evil for doing it. I'm not saying
that their actions are totally unrealistic, or even unjustified, but the
original question, way back when, was "is the GS evil?" Yes!

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

James Ray

10-13-1998, 09:48 AM

- ----------
> From: Daniel McSorley
> >Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans
aren't and neither are elves.
> >
> What's that have to do with whether the GS are evil or not?

Is the Elven Hunt Good or Evil? As long as THAT is the starting point for
this string, then there are two possible answers:

1) GOOD, because it prevents any further encroachment on the part of the
Humans against the Elven Forests (or what remains of them)

2) EVIL, because its members measure their success by the number of human
corpses they produce per patrol.

Keep in mind, Elves are (by nature) Chaotic. EACH Elf, then, is able to
follow his/her own conscience in their pursuit of "the Hunt". From its
name alone, one gets the impression that the Elven Hunt seeks to keep
Humans OUT of what remains of the Elven lands.

James

Tim Nutting

10-13-1998, 10:59 PM

> That was a joke, my friend. Sorry, I couldn't include a rimshot along with
the
> message, but we are somewhat limited by the text....

Sorry for the over-reaction on my part, Gary. It's just a rather sore subject
and I guess I let it get to far.

> I know many people who share this sentiment. (I went to a college founded by
> Quakers, after all....) However, I have to disagree. I don't think
situational
> ethics inevitably lead to no ethics. There are many different extenuating
> circumstances that I think justify killing. Self-defense is a perfectly good
> one. To defend the lives of civilians is another reason, which is why police
> officers can carry guns. Killing on the battlefield in a just war is one
too. (A
> just war is hard to find, but I could list some examples that I think most
people
> would agree with.) In fact, I think killing on the battlefield in a morally
> questionable war does not stain the individual soldier's soul nearly as much
as
> his leaders. I don't believe the execution of a lawfully condemned prisoner
who
> has committed horrific crimes damns the executioner's soul either. (I'm
against
> the death penalty, but my objection is a functional rather than philosophical
> one. That is, because of the way I see it applied in the U.S. rather than a
moral
> objection to life being taken by the state.)

I understand the concept here, and believe it or not, I mostly agree with you.
But in any of the cases you mentioned, is the act Good. At best (and I mean
the very best) these actions are Neutral. The executioner was carrying out a
function of man that has been ordained by the law of the land or church
involved. The soldier is another case.

Is a soldier responsible for the morality of his actions? I would say that
yes, he is. If he is not, then the excuse at Nuremberg (sp) "I was just
following my orders" should excuse every Nazi concentration camp functionary.
Especially in the United States, if we as citizens believe that our government
has become a tyranny, then it is our moral obligation to rebel (Declaration of
Independence). The same can be extended to a soldier in the field. Following
orders and blaming it on the authority above you is the easy way out of
personal responsibility and personal morality.

> It is important to stress, however, that the SITUATIONAL context of your
example
> that I think makes it morally OK is the absence of the rule of law. Should a
> person do what you describe when he could just as easily (more easily,
really) go
> to the police and court system for justice, then he would be committing an
immoral
> act by taking the law into his own hands.

Alright, here I can understand where you are coming from. In point of fact, as
I wrote the fictional situation, I found that I could not condemn my
protagonist to death, however a stay in an institution until he was ready to
rejoin society would have been in order. Understand, however, that Law and
Morality are not always on the same side, especially in a society where Law
favors criminals, as it does in the US.

In my example, my protagonist did some very evil things, I would still say that
they were wrong. However, to him, they were necessary. In the absence of the
rule of law, as I set up, the criminals would have raped and killed again.
Necessity often dictates that we cannot do the good thing, but must take
actions that are morally and ethically reprehensible, and hope that somewhere,
someone will forgive us.

> I don't think anybody is really advocating the senseless slaughter of any
> species.... In fact, I think the argument has been leading towards the
opposite.
> That is, no one can senselessly slaughter anyone and be morally justified.

This was responding to the sentiment that the dwarf engage in senseless
slaughter of halflings.

> ...chaos. Dwarves tend towards law and good. Etc, etc, etc." That very
clearly
> notes that racial alignments are merely "tendencies" rather than genetic
coding.
> Can a goblin change? Sure. Can an elf? Sure. Can a human? Sure.

Oh, I was not saying that Alignment was genetically coded. I used that point
out the fallacy in the concept that ALL goblins are evil, etc. etc.

> In the game, however, good and evil exist more clearly than they do in real
life.
> Goblins are short hand for evil, thematically speaking. While I don't want
my
> characters to think it is OK for them to kill goblin non-combatants, I also
don't
> want them stopping to question every goblin soldier to discover if he is good
or
> evil. That would bog down play, and I'm much rather let goblins be
stereotypical
> goblins, I'm afraid. If that makes me a racist, small minded,
anti-goblinite...
> well, I suppose I'll just have to turn me in to the CCLU. (Cerilian Civil
> Liberties Union.)

Again, the difference between Good and Necessary. Is it Good for people to go
and hunt down goblins?

Let me put it this way. Goblins, Orogs, Gnolls, etc. represent a VERY real
threat to life and limb in Cerilia. The societies that they come from are
replete with Evil. Deities that glorify slaughter and domination through
might, etc. To suggest that peaceful relations is possible between Goblins and
their human neighbors is ludicrous. These nations WILL seek to expand their
dominance of the world by might, which means the slaughter of people in the
surrounding lands. Warriors in those lands must, then, choose to go forth and
defend the lands against the goblins. Otherwise, they do evil by doing
nothing, thereby allowing evil to happen when they could stop it. (Kind of
like giving that genocidal lunatic in Bosnia 2 weeks to "clean it up")

> Despite the fact that I disagree with you, I'd like to say I have a lot of
respect
> for the opinions you express. Pacifism can be a particularly difficult
philosophy
> to live, and some of the bravest folks I have met in my life have been
pacifists.
> I find myself on the other side of the fence from them on many occasions, but
that
> doesn't lessen my appreciation for the importance of their opinions.

I am not a pacifist. Thank you though, for the compliment. However, I
personally feel that peace is really just a dream that will only be found after
death. Hienlein was right in stating that naked force has solved more issues
in history than any other means. We resort to war readily. That absolute
peace is unachievable does not mean it is not a worthwhile goal, merely a
futile one, and I am nothing if not a sucker for a lost cause.

> > Morality, by definition, is not circumstantial, it is absolute. If it were
> > circumstantial, then personal choice and view is allowed to enter the
> > situation. Morality is a code of ethical behavior that defines right and
> > wrong. A person's view on it does not change it one bit.
>
> Well, I think there is an absolute morality AND I think there is a
situational
> one. I don't really think these are mutually exclusive possibilities either.
In
> fact, I think they both must exist for either of them to exist. You cannot
have
> the poles of good/evil without the area in between them, what I described
before
> as the "vast and vague gray area."

Situational Ethics does not mesh with absolute morality. I do not accept the
"shading" concept at all. An act is either Evil or it is Good. That we
contradict ourselves from moment to moment does not change the nature of our
deeds. Yes, there are times when the situation surrounding an event can
justify it, as the law makes provisions for, but that does not change the
morality of the deed one whit. Killing is still evil, even if done in self
defense, but that killing was necessitated. The defender had no choice if he
were to consider his own life important in the least, and he would not have
been forced to perform the killing if his assailant had not attacked him. But
he still took another human's life.

Tim Nutting

Gary V. Foss

10-14-1998, 12:22 PM

Tim Nutting wrote:

> Sorry for the over-reaction on my part, Gary. It's just a rather sore subject
> and I guess I let it get to far.

Hey, no prob. This is kind of a heavy topic and some emotions have run high from
time to time.... (I've probably deleted as many messages as I've sent on this
topic for the sake of not flaming anybody or getting too wrapped up in my own
opinions.) It's hard to convey irony in text too, so sometimes these things get
confusing.

> Is a soldier responsible for the morality of his actions? I would say that
> yes, he is. If he is not, then the excuse at Nuremberg (sp) "I was just
> following my orders" should excuse every Nazi concentration camp functionary.
> Especially in the United States, if we as citizens believe that our government
> has become a tyranny, then it is our moral obligation to rebel (Declaration of
> Independence). The same can be extended to a soldier in the field. Following
> orders and blaming it on the authority above you is the easy way out of
> personal responsibility and personal morality.

I'm with you on this one for the most part. The situational context of soldiers
fighting in an unjust war that I would say mitigates some of their responsibility
is that a soldier who disobeys orders, even immoral ones, is often subject to court
martial. In many cases, this can be of the seldom talked about in the O-club
"summary judgment" kind that results in a bullet in the head on the battlefield to
make an example out of the soldier with a crisis of conscious.

In fact, the "following orders" argument did work for many people who fought in
WWII. The majority of convictions for war crimes at Nuremburg involved leaders of
military units and those enlisted personnel who performed their "duties" with more
zeal than the phrase "just following orders" could justify.

There is an exception to the immorality of murder when one's own life is
threatened. The classic example of which is if someone puts a gun to your head and
tells you to kill the person standing in front of you or you'll be killed
yourself. It's not an immoral act to kill when under such immediate duress. In
effect, the person holding the gun to your head is committing the murders.
Soldiers face a similar situation when confronting their officers/leaders on the
battlefield.

> Again, the difference between Good and Necessary. Is it Good for people to go
> and hunt down goblins?
>
> Let me put it this way. Goblins, Orogs, Gnolls, etc. represent a VERY real
> threat to life and limb in Cerilia. The societies that they come from are
> replete with Evil. Deities that glorify slaughter and domination through
> might, etc. To suggest that peaceful relations is possible between Goblins and
> their human neighbors is ludicrous. These nations WILL seek to expand their
> dominance of the world by might, which means the slaughter of people in the
> surrounding lands. Warriors in those lands must, then, choose to go forth and
> defend the lands against the goblins. Otherwise, they do evil by doing
> nothing, thereby allowing evil to happen when they could stop it. (Kind of
> like giving that genocidal lunatic in Bosnia 2 weeks to "clean it up")

I think what would the behavior of a good aligned nation in the above scenario
would have to be respond/react at least initially before they could launch a
pre-emptive assault on such a nation. That is, there would have to be an offensive
by one nation before a good aligned nation could justify invading.

In the context of Cerilia, however, a history has already been written for the
players. They don't necessarily have to wait for a goblin invasion before
launching at attack upon the Five Peaks, for instance. They can recognize that
such attacks are inevitable and seek to limit them by attacking before attacking
them. Similarly, the baron of Ghoere might make it clear that he intends to attack
his neighbors and justify them attacking him, or Diemed might announce that it was
no longer recognizing the sovereignty of Medoere and begin building up for an
invasion.

I think pre-emptive actions in cases like that are dicey morally, one has to be
pretty positive one is going to be invaded before one can launch such an attack,
but probably not definatevily evil.

> Situational Ethics does not mesh with absolute morality. I do not accept the
> "shading" concept at all. An act is either Evil or it is Good. That we
> contradict ourselves from moment to moment does not change the nature of our
> deeds. Yes, there are times when the situation surrounding an event can
> justify it, as the law makes provisions for, but that does not change the
> morality of the deed one whit. Killing is still evil, even if done in self
> defense, but that killing was necessitated. The defender had no choice if he
> were to consider his own life important in the least, and he would not have
> been forced to perform the killing if his assailant had not attacked him. But
> he still took another human's life.

The combination of situational and absolute works pretty good for me! Zen again,
who knows? :)

Gary