Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

[Trizt]

Kenneth Gauck (c558382@earthlink.net) wrote:

- -> At 04:48 AM 10/14/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
- ->> There is a really weird interpretation of "evil" by most people out
there.
- -> I agree with Gary's points on evil here. That "evil" is missunderstood
- -> strikes me as odd because in several places the books offer complemantary
- -> pieces on alignment.
- -> In general I would argue that doing good for the sake of good,
irregardless
- -> of how it impacts you, is required for an act to be good.
- -> When the ends are allowed to justify the means, we are talking about
- -> neutrality.
- -> When the means no longer need justification, when only the ends matter,
we
- -> arrive at evil, irregardless of harm. Because the willingness to do harm
if
- -> required to achive the ends was always present. Evil requires nothing
more
- -> than a total disregard for doing harm. If one does not care who they
hurt
- -> or why, they are evil.

I must say this was the best description of goodevil that have ever
written and should be included in future editions of PHB and DMG.

I guess that most of you would say that killing a defencless Orc would be
evil act, but you should look it from the Orc's point of view. Let say that
the PC's has hit a Orc so bad that he fall uncouncens (spl?), they bind him
with rope and gag him in case he would wake up before they are finished so
that he can't call for help.

Let say that the enough many Orc survive the PC's attack:
In the evil society, the Orc would not be treated well as he was to week, he
prolly would be the next offer for the gods. Even if he wouldn't be put to
death he would be treated as shit.

Let say no other Orc did survive:
The Orc would sarve to death if no other monster would find him first and
eat him.

In both thise cases it had been better to end the Orc's life, but I guess
most of you would scream out, "THAT'S AN EVIL ACT!!!"

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Gary V. Foss]

einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:

> Picture humans almost eradicated from the world.
> Then you want to fight back with whatever means neccessary right?
> No matter the cost, just to hurt your opponent the most....
> Are you good or evil?
>
> I'd say good, but its just a matter of Point of View...
> The ones killing humans would undoubtledly portray you
> as evil. But who has the correct answer?

I don't think that's really what is going on in Cerilia. There are what?
Eight? Ten elven nations? There are thousands and thousands of elves on
Cerilia. People keep talking about the elves as if they had only a couple of
years left on the continent, as if they were being actively hunted by humans,
when in fact the opposite is true. Humans are usually too busy fighting each
other to dedicate all their time to fighting elves. From what I can tell there
is no reason why elves should not continue pretty much indefinitely.

I can find no evidence to indicate to me that elves are the persecuted race
that they make themselves out to be. (Or that they are made out to be on this
message board.) Oh, humans have a tendency to cut down trees, but how does
that kill elves? They might find it aesthetically displeasing to have ancient
sources ruined, but I don't see how that is some sort of genocidal movement on
the part of humanity. Elves are not destroyed by deforestation, they just have
fewer things from which to hang their hammocks. Boo hoo for the elves.

And the elven response to humans cutting down trees? Kill them! Kill them
all!

We don't really have to analyze that to describe it as evil, do we? It seems
obviously so to me. In fact, I think the burden of proof should be on the side
of someone trying to convince people that the GS is NOT evil, rather than the
other way around.

> I'd actually urge TSR/WoSC to remove all Alignment from AD&D.
> Alignment was meant as way to easilly define a characters view on life,
> right? I'd say its only a hindrance, just look at the discussion here and
> real through my first paragraph.
> Use the "NPCs (Personality)" page 114 in the DMG!!
> It would make much more sense, and it can easilly be improved.

I'd rather they described alignment better than got rid of it altogether. I
grant you that many games get along just fine without an alignment system, or
by stipulating "motivations" rather than good and evil, but I'm starting to
think alignment is one of the AD&D characteristics that makes the game what it
is. To lose the alignment system would be to lose a lot of the game as a
system, and would require quite a lot of redesigning of the game. What would
happen to paladins? How would the Outer Planes exist? There are many spells
that rely upon good/evil to exist.

I think alignment should be fundamental, but essentially background information
for characters. It should dictate their behavior only in the broadest sense.
Minor moral issues can be solved quite easily without dealing with alignment.

Gary

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

Picture humans almost eradicated from the world.
Then you want to fight back with whatever means neccessary right?
No matter the cost, just to hurt your opponent the most....
Are you good or evil?

I'd say good, but its just a matter of Point of View...
The ones killing humans would undoubtledly portray you
as evil. But who has the correct answer?

I'd actually urge TSR/WoSC to remove all Alignment from AD&D.
Alignment was meant as way to easilly define a characters view on life,
right? I'd say its only a hindrance, just look at the discussion here and
real through my first paragraph.
Use the "NPCs (Personality)" page 114 in the DMG!!
It would make much more sense, and it can easilly be improved.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Galwylin]

At 07:29 AM 10/15/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>I can find no evidence to indicate to me that elves are the persecuted race
>that they make themselves out to be. (Or that they are made out to be on
this
>message board.) Oh, humans have a tendency to cut down trees, but how does
>that kill elves? They might find it aesthetically displeasing to have
ancient
>sources ruined, but I don't see how that is some sort of genocidal
movement on
>the part of humanity. Elves are not destroyed by deforestation, they just
have
>fewer things from which to hang their hammocks. Boo hoo for the elves.

I think you're overlooking the information given about elves and humans in
the Atlas and the start of the gheallie Sidhe. In fact, the point of view
you've given could be used to show that the Shadow War was evil and the
Cerilians should have bow down before Aduria and Azrai. They weren't going
to kill them, just subjugate them. On page 6, "The elves fiercely resisted
conquest... When we began to force the elves from their ancestral homes,
the elven leaders devised the gheallie Sidhe." I think you give a
wonderful view point of humans toward elves though. But would that same
view be held if elves were routinely destroying homes and cities of humans?
So what, they have to sleep without roofs over their heads. Boo hoo for
the humans. ;>

After rereading some of the main books for Birthright, I noticed more than
a few references to ancient elven ruins within the lands of Anuire.
Doesn't that indicate that elves were forced from their homes? And if
humans are so quick to war with each other, was that force peaceful? There
enough bloodshed to go around on both sides and painting one more evil than
the other seems to be ignoring history.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>> Picture humans almost eradicated from the world.
>> Then you want to fight back with whatever means neccessary right?
>> No matter the cost, just to hurt your opponent the most....
>> Are you good or evil?
>>
>> I'd say good, but its just a matter of Point of View...
>> The ones killing humans would undoubtledly portray you
>> as evil. But who has the correct answer?
>
>I don't think that's really what is going on in Cerilia. There are what?
>Eight? Ten elven nations? There are thousands and thousands of elves on
>Cerilia. People keep talking about the elves as if they had only a couple of
>years left on the continent, as if they were being actively hunted by humans,
>when in fact the opposite is true. Humans are usually too busy fighting each
>other to dedicate all their time to fighting elves. From what I can tell
there
>is no reason why elves should not continue pretty much indefinitely.

Nothing lasts forever. And the humans chaotic nature (selfishness) makes
sure of it. The Gheallie Sidhe is just a natural reaction on
loosing all their territory. Hmm... What if US got invaded and you were
only left with one of the original states? Wouldn't you use any option
available to regain US territory?

>I can find no evidence to indicate to me that elves are the persecuted race
>that they make themselves out to be. (Or that they are made out to be on
this
>message board.) Oh, humans have a tendency to cut down trees, but how does
>that kill elves? They might find it aesthetically displeasing to have
ancient
>sources ruined, but I don't see how that is some sort of genocidal
movement on
>the part of humanity. Elves are not destroyed by deforestation, they just
have
>fewer things from which to hang their hammocks. Boo hoo for the elves.
>And the elven response to humans cutting down trees? Kill them! Kill them
>all!

Hmm... you forget that elves are children of the elements. They have based
their life on the forrest. Taking away that forrest causes them much mental
harm, according to the BoM. Seems to me you don't think
Imperialism is evil? Conquering other nations?

>We don't really have to analyze that to describe it as evil, do we? It seems
>obviously so to me. In fact, I think the burden of proof should be on the
side
>of someone trying to convince people that the GS is NOT evil, rather than the
>other way around.

What is so obvious about GS? As I see it, there are at least thousands of
different views on it. You represent one view, I represent one. Do not
claim you speak for all.

I'd rather brand the humans as selfish than GS evil.
The first we know is true, GS is but a way to defend their land and
culture. The Hunt is not *only* against the humans, its against
*anyone* who trespasses elven lands. Goblins, orogs, trolls, gnolls and so
on... Everybody..
There are two versions of elven lands:
1) Realms where the elves thrive.
2) Realms where the elves *once* thrived, but they were derpived of.
I stick with the first, but number two is not wrong. Its still defence of
your ancestral grounds.
What would you have thought about it, if elves were a subrace of humans,
and were a minority group?
To give an example coming from your history (please comment if totally
wrong): Englishmen, French and Spanish colonized America.
How many indians died? Why? How did they die? Did they try to defend at any
cost at any time? Are they evil?
In the beginning they lived side by side, but as humans are selfish by
nature, they wanted to expand. And they took the way with the smallest
resistance. Think about what consequenses of england trying to invade
france because of the land. (they did wage war, but not because of
landgrabs). And they viewed indians as easy targets, then waged war,
assimilated, used diplomacy and deception in order to gain the land.
Who is evil? the war-waging, land-hungry, fat europeans? or the indians,
who were waging war against themselves, and generally just survived?
Indian culture is as good as gone, and the same situation is in cerilia.

>> I'd actually urge TSR/WoSC to remove all Alignment from AD&D.
>> Alignment was meant as way to easilly define a characters view on life,
>> right? I'd say its only a hindrance, just look at the discussion here and
>> real through my first paragraph.
>> Use the "NPCs (Personality)" page 114 in the DMG!!
>> It would make much more sense, and it can easilly be improved.

>To lose the alignment system would be to lose a lot of the game as a
>system, and would require quite a lot of redesigning of the game. What would
>happen to paladins? How would the Outer Planes exist? There are many spells
>that rely upon good/evil to exist.

Paladins would have moral codes, and they would try to live by them.
Outer Planes? They can keep their alignment, because its so generalized
that its not important.

>I think alignment should be fundamental, but essentially background
information
>for characters. It should dictate their behavior only in the broadest sense.
>Minor moral issues can be solved quite easily without dealing with alignment.

::nods::

Siebharrin the Lich

[Galwylin]

At 04:21 PM 10/15/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> The indians who behaved similarly to the GS, that is, killing settlers,
>traders, anyone who came near them, were definitely evil, on the alignment
>scale. Fighting armies is one thing, killing innocent people is something
>else entirely.

Apparently, Native Americans weren't evil enough. They've been reduced to
a fraction of their former population and they're culture has almost died
out except as a museum piece.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Ryan Freire]

>I think you are associating Cerilian elves with real world Native
>Americans in a way that just doesn't apply. First, I haven't read
>anywhere that said elves existed in the millions before humans >arrived
in Cerilia. In fact, I haven't read anywhere that elves had >even
settled all of Cerilia before humans arrived. Second, Europeans
>launched an overtly militant pogrom against Native Americans. The
>humans who came to Cerilia did no such thing. They cut down some
>trees and the elves started killing them for it. Third, Native
>Americans were subjected to the actions of colonialism. That's
>different morally from the actions of people fleeing corruption and
>the Shadow as the humans who came to Cerilia are described. Native
>peoples were enslaved by Europeans and when that didn't take they >were
killed. Where does it say that anything even remotely similar >happened
when humans came to Cerilia?

Oh? What about the Puritans and Pilgrims, they did the EXACT same thing.
When they fled europe from persecution and the corruption of the church
they landed, at first peacefully with the natives then..as more arrived
they began to expand, pushing natives further inward and into the
territories of other neighbors when the natives wouldnt voluntarily
move...they killed them and TOOK the land. And the elves warned and
asked the humans to not chop down the trees, the humans basically
laughed it off and continued. The elves may have not settled ALL of
cerilia, but they had almost all of anuire where the aelvinwode USED to
be. Greatheart is a good book to read to find out this POV as well as
the entry under rhoube in the blood enemies sourcebook

>Again, I think this is an association with Native Americans that
>doesn't really make sense. Diseases and plagues? I've never even
>heard someone bring up elves being brought down by disease before.
>Poor nations? How's that related to elves? Elven nations aren't
>poor. It's also hard for me to accept the concept that elves would >be
starved by having forests turned into much more productive >farmland.

I wasnt referring to elves getting diseases...mainly humans. The short
lifespan they have coupled with the fact of disease would probably give
the humans a urge to have as much as they can before their time is up
that would confuse the elves. As well as explaining the greed the
humans would have for the land. The poor HUMANS (ie: serfs and
peasants) in an effort to better their lot..would have expanded into the
territories of the elves. Which is also why the GS is attacking the
civilians...its not the ARMIES marching into the elvish territories..
its the peasants who want to make more money, the woodcutters, farmers,
and herdsmen. With it in that light its far less evil than if they WERE
attacking the armies. The members of the army havent done anything to
them, its the peasantry.

>Where is all this coming from? I think you're statement about
>misapplication of MODERN morality is actually correct, but I don't
>think I'm the guy applying modern standards. There's a very thick
>undercurrent of political correctness in this whole POV morality that
>people are advocating that is the real source of this confusion.
>Gary

The statement that ALL killing of intelligent life is evil IS modern
morality. In that time period, people were killed for all manner of
things and it was not considered evil.


Ryan

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

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 03:30 PM 10/15/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>Picture humans almost eradicated from the world.
>Then you want to fight back with whatever means neccessary right?
>No matter the cost, just to hurt your opponent the most....
>Are you good or evil?
>
>I'd say good, but its just a matter of Point of View...
>The ones killing humans would undoubtledly portray you
>as evil. But who has the correct answer?
>

Acts of desperation are hardly acts of virtue. Self restraint is a
requirement for goodness. Self interest is a dangerous road which easily
corrupts.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Galwylin
>Well, I think the history is important in understanding any people.
Understanding, sure, but even if they have a "reason", killing innocent
people is evil, which was the original question.

>Now,
>I'm not saying this is correct but I don't think most humans have to worry
>about the gheallie Sidhe. It takes place mainly in elven lands (or near
>them).
And Hitler only killed the people he could catch, right? That sounds
like a slam, but I don't mean to be cruel, but the fallacy in saying that it
only takes place in a limited area, so it isn't so bad, is absurd.

>And we've barely even mentioned that the gheallie Sidhe isn't a
>cohesive organization. Rhuobhe's, the Sielwode's, and Tuarhievel's aren't
>all the same. Some are based on hatred, some on distrust, some of
>protection.
But all of them kill innocent people. Look at Tuarhievel, the most open
of the elven lands, even the Prince of the land doesn't support it, but
whole caravans disappear. These nutcases are killing the humans that
actually like them enough to try and trade with them! And this is the open
elven land?

>Elves may even have a stake in the reformation of the Anuirean
>Empire knowing that once humans are united, their next foe will be the
>elves. It's still a more complex situation than just labeling the gheallie
>Sidhe as evil. If they elves were to form a large army that could stand
>against the human kingdoms and invade, driving them from their lost lands,
>would that be evil? If soldiers in a war aren't evil for killing the
>enemy, what would it mean if the elves see humanity as the enemy and the
>current situation as a ongoing war, are they still evil?
I never said soldiers that killed the "enemy" weren't evil. I said
fighting armies is different from killing innocent people. There is a
difference there, but it's subtle. Soldiers in battle are justified in
killing the enemy _troops_. Any group might be declared to be the "enemy",
but to kill them just because they are declared "enemy" is nothing like
fighting someone who is also shooting back at you, because that's what you
were both ordered to do. "Humanity" is not trying to kill elves. Some
individual humans might be, but not "humanity" in general. There is
therefore no comparison between war, and the actions of the GS.

>If the elves have
>formed the gheallie Sidhe to keep humans out of their lands, why have
>humans continued to ignore that and enter to become vicitims of it? Or
>built their homes near elven lands?
>
The traders enter the elven lands to trade with the elves: the GS doesn't
even like this, so they kill merchants. The peasants have no recourse but
to try to make money and survive, these people are dirt poor, and the best
method for this is often chopping lumber and selling it. The elves kill
them for it. How's that?

>How long is elven grief?
Doesn't matter. It's no excuse to kill people who had nothing to do with
the cause of their grief.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Galwylin]

At 08:16 PM 10/15/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> I never said soldiers that killed the "enemy" weren't evil. I said
>fighting armies is different from killing innocent people. There is a
>difference there, but it's subtle. Soldiers in battle are justified in
>killing the enemy _troops_. Any group might be declared to be the "enemy",
>but to kill them just because they are declared "enemy" is nothing like
>fighting someone who is also shooting back at you, because that's what you
>were both ordered to do. "Humanity" is not trying to kill elves. Some
>individual humans might be, but not "humanity" in general. There is
>therefore no comparison between war, and the actions of the GS.

I've not decided fully on if the gheallie Sidhe is evil or not. But if
humans aren't killing the elves then why are the elves in decline? We have
elven ruins through out the lands that humans dwell in yet it wasn't the
humans that did this? I'm inclined to agree with the post before that
armies aren't the true enemy to the elves so much as its the common people.

> The traders enter the elven lands to trade with the elves: the GS doesn't
>even like this, so they kill merchants. The peasants have no recourse but
>to try to make money and survive, these people are dirt poor, and the best
>method for this is often chopping lumber and selling it. The elves kill
>them for it. How's that?

Yes, its cruel. But there's only one resource to divide between humans and
elves, the forests. There isn't the abundance that there once were. Do we
give it to the humans because they are victims of their own society or do
we give it the elves? I say give because the ones we label evil also
inherit being the ones non-deserving of the forests. I haven't had the
chance to read up on how elves treat the Rjurik. They have a more
nature-loving society. How are they treated by the elves and the gheallie
Sidhe?

> Doesn't matter. It's no excuse to kill people who had nothing to do with
>the cause of their grief.

I agree its no excuse but I'm not trying to excuse the gheallie Sidhe. I'm
only trying to understand it. I don't think you can understand it without
understanding elves and, in that case, elven grief is important. I've said
before that I think Birthright is a mature setting and that things aren't
so black and white is one reason.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Shadewulf@aol.co]

Well, this has been an interesting, if not lengthy, debate. From what I
remember, this was an alignment discussion originally, and it has been
expanded upon since then. I will say some things, as I find this discussion
fascinating.

Since this whole debate has blossomed into a wide topic now, I would like to
address the issue of history, specifically the coming of the humans to Cerilia
when the elves were more populous and in control of more land. My impression
from all the BR material is that the elves lived in most of the lands (not
all), and they were not limited to the woodlands. Specifically, this seems to
be true of the Anuirean lands.

With the coming of the humans, the elves found that they were in competition
for what they saw as their lands. Naturally, the humans saw otherwise. As a
result of this, there was conflict between the two races. Over a long span of
time, and for various reasons, the elves lost out in this competition (this is
a word used by me, and not meant to downplay the intense struggle between the
two races). They were pushed back great distances, both physically and
culturally, IMHO.

For all of this, the humans, overall, were doing what they, and many other
races, see as right and proper, which is might makes right (bluntly put). They
were determined to get what they wanted, and the elves were also. The elves
lost, and are still losing. This is the way it seems have been, and the way it
will be. To me, this means there was a war of conquest going on over a period
of time (very long for humans, not as long for elves). I believe that the
elves see humans as one because, in effect for them, they are. Whereas the
humans, with their versatile numbers and innate differences, come at the elves
in all directions but still see the elves as one also. Both races fail to see
that their vision is too narrow, for varying reasons.

As I see it, the elves view the current situation as a war, for their very
survival. Because they are indeed losing, and it looks grim indeed. The humans
do not, for they are not as in much danger as the elves, and there are
different factions, none of them coordinated, but most having a negative
impact upon the remaining elves.. I am not discounting the threat of the
Gorgon here, please note. I simply believe that the elves are surrounded on
all sides (not just by humans, but they are the greatest threat IMO), and,
over the course of time, have lost so much, perhaps too much to recover from.

All this means, to me, is that the elves are fighting to survive, whereas the
humans are fighting to expand. It looks like neither side is appreciative of
the other, and a fair case could be made the humans do not even realize that
the elves are seeing this as a matter of survival. Especially since the humans
are not united, but fractured., and coming at the elves in so many
directions., unintentionally perhaps.

I do believe this has relevance to the wide topic of the Gheallie Sidhe
alignment and human issue. I am not referring to the narrowly defined good-
evil argument (which I am not sure is valid in and of itself), but the broad
multi-cultural debate.

This brings me to another point, related IMO. I do believe that those who do
not think the "point of view" is a valid outlook miss the point. Those of us
who think that the multi-POV is true do not consider our beliefs "nonsense,"
nor others for that matter. We all have different POV, some may be similar,
and some may be polar. There is no one POV. That, for me, is preferable,
Otherwise, we would not be discussing this, it seems to me. Alright, end of
rant.

So, I will sum up all this rambling, in a semi-concise manner even! The
history of the elves and the humans does have direct relevance upon the
current situation, esp. the GS-human interactions. To disregard this is a
mistake in my opinion, since there is a belief by some that the humans have
done no, or little, wrongs to the elves. I think both have done wrong to each
other, with the elves losing out so far, and probably failing altogether in
the long term. There has been a supposition that the humans have not warred
upon the elves. This belief is in error. BR history, even brief as it is,
shows that there have been such wars. . Again, this is my belief.

I see this as one long cultural conquest, the humans over the elves. With the
humans slowly but surely beating the elves. Military war is not the only way
to conquer. Just as the GS are deplorable elves, I believe the same is true of
the humans. They are just not as well known. Not yet anyway.

Lastly, when all is said and done, all this comes down to personal belief,
perception, and outlook. Which is fine with me, as this is indicative of all
the diversity that all our minds can bring forth.

Na Ja. I am finally done now. On to the next person. Take care and enjoy what
you can.

Shadewulf

[Jim Cooper]

Daniel McSorley wrote:
> "Humanity" is not trying to kill elves.

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Galwylin
>At 08:16 PM 10/15/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>>"Humanity" is not trying to kill elves. Some
>>individual humans might be, but not "humanity" in general. There is
>>therefore no comparison between war, and the actions of the GS.
>
>I've not decided fully on if the gheallie Sidhe is evil or not.
THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION!!!!!! heh. Sorry, if you're not
discussing that, I was, so we're gonna completely miss each other.

>But if
>humans aren't killing the elves then why are the elves in decline?
I left the appropriate chunk of my post up there. Nowhere does it say
that humans aren't killing elves. The GS hates _humanity_ as a whole, but
_humanity_ isn't killing elves, individual humans are, and for the GS to
generalize that to all humans is completely evil.

>Yes, its cruel. But there's only one resource to divide between humans and
>elves, the forests. There isn't the abundance that there once were. Do we
>give it to the humans because they are victims of their own society or do
>we give it the elves?
That is an issue of competition, however: in the discussion of the
alignment of the GS, the peasants being competitors for resources is
insufficient reason for the GS to kill them and remain good.

>I say give because the ones we label evil also
>inherit being the ones non-deserving of the forests.
Huh?

>I haven't had the
>chance to read up on how elves treat the Rjurik. They have a more
>nature-loving society. How are they treated by the elves and the >gheallie
Sidhe?
>
I'm inclined to say the GS kills them anyway, and the rest of the elves
have more individual reactions: you don't join the GS unless you want to
kill humans. However, I don't recall any concrete evidence one way or the
other because the only elven land in Rjurik, Lluabraight, doesn't border any
human nations (My Rjurik book is at home not here at school, so I might have
forgotten something), and I would say that the GS doesn't have very much
interaction with regular rjurik, and has to content itself with slaughtering
the minions of the white witch, goblins, and whatever lives in the
Giantdowns.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Gary V. Foss]

Ryan Freire wrote:

> Oh? What about the Puritans and Pilgrims, they did the EXACT same thing.
> When they fled europe from persecution and the corruption of the church
> they landed, at first peacefully with the natives then..as more arrived
> they began to expand, pushing natives further inward and into the
> territories of other neighbors when the natives wouldnt voluntarily
> move...they killed them and TOOK the land. And the elves warned and
> asked the humans to not chop down the trees, the humans basically
> laughed it off and continued. The elves may have not settled ALL of
> cerilia, but they had almost all of anuire where the aelvinwode USED to
> be.

Again with the really weird Elves=Native Americans argument.... I just don't
get this, but maybe it's just me. I see this as a vastly different situation.
There are certain superficial similarities, however, mostly having to do with
both cultures being in decline and attitudes towards nature (though I think
this evidence is largely anecdotal on the part of the Native Americans whose
cultural beliefs have been through an amazing process of invention in the past
thirty years) so I guess I can understand the basis of the comparison, it just
seems fundamentally wrong to me.

Regarding the pilgrims: I don't know that you can realistically use them as an
example of historical conflict of the type we are describing. There was a
grand total of 102 passengers on the Mayflower when they landed in the Americas
in 1620. It took ten years for the population of the colony to reach 300.
That's not exactly a whirlwind "invasion" even on elven timelines. Aside from
that, the Pilgrims came to America a century after Cortes conquered the Aztecs
in 1521.

> I wasnt referring to elves getting diseases...mainly humans. The short
> lifespan they have coupled with the fact of disease would probably give
> the humans a urge to have as much as they can before their time is up
> that would confuse the elves. As well as explaining the greed the
> humans would have for the land. The poor HUMANS (ie: serfs and
> peasants) in an effort to better their lot..would have expanded into the
> territories of the elves. Which is also why the GS is attacking the
> civilians...its not the ARMIES marching into the elvish territories..
> its the peasants who want to make more money, the woodcutters, farmers,
> and herdsmen. With it in that light its far less evil than if they WERE
> attacking the armies. The members of the army havent done anything to
> them, its the peasantry.

Oh, I see. Sorry I misunderstood your point about diseases. I thought you
meant Andu peoples were distributing blankets infected with small pox to elves
or something, which seemed rather odd.

As for the GS attacking civilians and not armies. I think that is the crux of
the matter. If the GS attacked military units then I would be much more likely
to see that as a moral fight. But they don't. They kill innocent civilians.
In fact, they revel in it. That's clearly evil. In fact, I see the GS as
being evil bastards who only use their cultural defense argument as a cover for
their racism and hatred.

I've compared the GS to the KKK, and I really think that is an apt comparison.
The Klan argued (and still does) that they are trying to defend their culture
and race from corrupting influences. Exactly how a lynching constitutes
"defense" is where I see this argument breaking down. If the KKK held bake
sales and raised money for cultural events like... Oh, I don't know... Banjo
concerts or long distance spitting contests or determining the exact genetic
effects of when cousins marry, then I'd say they weren't evil. But they
don't. They burn down churches.

The arguments I hear defending the GS sound amazingly like the arguments I hear
coming out of the KKK. They incorrectly argue that their culture is
threatened, that they are on the verge of destruction, that there is a vast,
conspiratorial social mechanism working against them, and that violence is the
only solution to the situation. Now, I believe that on some level people do go
to war in order to defend their way of life, but calling what the KKK or GS do
a war is again a perversion of that term. War involves nations as a whole and
defined opponents. It requires government endorsement, national funding,
conscripted or voluntary soldiers under designated military command.

At first, there were aspects of this in the formation of the GS. "Elven
knights were commissioned" the Atlas of Cerilia says. But government
endorsement is not the only requirement for a war. The KKK was a political
force for decades in America, for instance. The rest of the sentence in the
Atlas says, "...to roam the lands held by elves, slaying whatever humans they
found..." That's not what soldiers are supposed to do. That makes them much
more like the state sponsored death squads of South America than soldiers.

> >Where is all this coming from? I think you're statement about
> >misapplication of MODERN morality is actually correct, but I don't
> >think I'm the guy applying modern standards. There's a very thick
> >undercurrent of political correctness in this whole POV morality that
> >people are advocating that is the real source of this confusion.
>
> The statement that ALL killing of intelligent life is evil IS modern
> morality. In that time period, people were killed for all manner of
> things and it was not considered evil.

Oh, I'm going to have to argue that point. Not killing people is one the
oldest moral statements in existence. It's Old Testament stuff.

Besides, I don't think the argument has been that the GS are evil because they
kill. The argument is that the GS are evil because they kill
indiscriminately. Even when humans came to Cerilia and committed the horrific
crime of cutting down trees for which they earned an elven death sentence, they
did not cut down trees indiscriminately. Humans did not gather together in
bands and say, "Tonight let's go out and cut us down some trees! Yeeehaaa!
Get them lousy leaf producin' photosynthesizin' good for nothin' bark colored,
woody plants! Get 'em!" No, the humans cut down trees for things like
building materials and fuel. It's the humans who were dealing with basic
survival issues, not the elves.

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Galwylin wrote:

> I've not decided fully on if the gheallie Sidhe is evil or not. But if
> humans aren't killing the elves then why are the elves in decline? We have
> elven ruins through out the lands that humans dwell in yet it wasn't the
> humans that did this?

There was a lot of time before humans arrived on Cerilia. It says that
"civilization all but stagnated during this time. The elves built their slender
towers and the dwarves constructed their stonewrought wonders, but all these
marvels eventually fell to one marauding tribe or another."

So here's a possibility that I don't think anyone has addressed. Maybe the
elves' decline is inevitable. They simply don't produce enough in the face of
more successful species. Let's take an example from the Baruk Azhik sourcebook
in which Graybeard finds himself leading a race who are fighting what he believes
to be a losing battle against the Orogs. Humans have little or nothing to do
with this decline. They become involved only rarely in dwarven issues. In fact,
the dwarves separated themselves from the rest of Cerilia for centuries. Yet the
dwarves still decline. This is because dwarves reproduce so slowly in the face
of their military losses against the Orogs.

I think there is a similar situation going on with the elves. Elves reproduce
even more slowly than dwarves do. They fought the humanoids to a standstill for
centuries before humans came. Their strongholds were built and destroyed over
and over again. If an elf generation is 200 years (which I think is a pretty
good estimate of their birthing cycle) that's ten times the human cycle. If
there is a even a 10% population growth per generation that means humans are
going to create nearly 5.2 children in the same time that elves would create 2.2.

The difference between elves and dwarves in this scenario is that elves are more
directly in competition with humans. I still think this competition is much more
oblique than is presented by many people on this message board. The elven love
for trees, for instance, is only related to their survival in an indirect way
from what I can see. But the elven "decline" may or may not be directly related
to humanity's presence. It could be more directly related to their own slow
reproduction combined with their need to fight both humans and humanoids putting
them in harm's way in a way their birth cycle can't support.

If this is true, then the elven racism against humans is even more displaced.
It's a reaction to their own racial decline in the face of competition from
humans or humanoids. I am starting to think elves realize their own weakness,
but instead of dealing with it on a self-preservation level (there are plenty of
things they could do to insure the continuation of their species under these
circumstances) many of them have turned the situation into yet more conflict with
more successful species.

What do you guys think of this line of reasoning?

Gary

[Siebharrin / Arathorn]

>>enough bloodshed to go around on both sides and painting one more evil than
>>the other seems to be ignoring history.
>>
> The history doesn't matter! The question was, and remains, is the GS
>evil! Right now, they are not being slaughtered, they are not being forced
>from their homes by "humanity". There may be some individual humans who
>slaughter elves, fine, kill them. But the GS does not descriminate! It
>doesn't matter if they were forced from their homes 1000 years ago! If they
>kill innocent people RIGHT NOW, they are evil!

I'd say they still defend their homelands. Whoever trespasses within elven
realms (who supports GS) has broken the laws, and sentenced according to
elven laws.
If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it yours?

Siebharrin the Lich

[Siebharrin / Arathorn]

>>I'd rather brand the humans as selfish than GS evil.
>>The first we know is true, GS is but a way to defend their land and
>>culture. The Hunt is not *only* against the humans, its against
>>*anyone* who trespasses elven lands. Goblins, orogs, trolls, gnolls and so
>>on... Everybody..
> Those two are _not_ mutually exclusive like you make it sound. The
>reason the GS exists is ostensibly to "defend their land and culture",
>however, the way in which they carry this out marks them as evil.

Hmm... there is no other way.
Trying to convince humans to leave cerilia, because the elves settled it
first?
It is the *only* way. Or else they will be assimilated by the humans, and then
the humans would have won (as there are so many more humans than elves).

Ohh.. and may I remind you... all awsheghliens are there because of humans.
If humans had never come, then deismaar would never have come. And then
Azrais blood would not have been shared with the 'mortals'.
And I do think that quite a number of elves remember this incident, and
so they have yet another reason to drive out the 'evil' (elves pov) humans.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Gary V. Foss]

einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:

> Nothing lasts forever. And the humans chaotic nature (selfishness) makes
> sure of it. The Gheallie Sidhe is just a natural reaction on
> loosing all their territory. Hmm... What if US got invaded and you were
> only left with one of the original states? Wouldn't you use any option
> available to regain US territory?

I thought chaotic nature was an elven trait not a human one....

Again, however, I really think these arguments in favor of the GS keep putting
their actions in a context that isn't supported by the material at hand. You're
comparing the GS to an invasion of the United States?

> >I can find no evidence to indicate to me that elves are the persecuted race
> >that they make themselves out to be. (Or that they are made out to be on
> this
> >message board.) Oh, humans have a tendency to cut down trees, but how does
> >that kill elves? They might find it aesthetically displeasing to have
> ancient
> >sources ruined, but I don't see how that is some sort of genocidal
> movement on
> >the part of humanity. Elves are not destroyed by deforestation, they just
> have
> >fewer things from which to hang their hammocks. Boo hoo for the elves.
> >And the elven response to humans cutting down trees? Kill them! Kill them
> >all!
>
> Hmm... you forget that elves are children of the elements. They have based
> their life on the forrest. Taking away that forrest causes them much mental
> harm, according to the BoM. Seems to me you don't think
> Imperialism is evil? Conquering other nations?

Let me see if I got this straight. Humans farming techniques pushing elves out of
the forests is imperialism, but elves trying to boot all humans out of Cerilia is
not?

As a matter of fact, I don't think Imperialism is evil. I think you're confusing
imperialism with colonialism

> >We don't really have to analyze that to describe it as evil, do we? It seems
> >obviously so to me. In fact, I think the burden of proof should be on the
> side
> >of someone trying to convince people that the GS is NOT evil, rather than the
> >other way around.
>
> What is so obvious about GS? As I see it, there are at least thousands of
> different views on it. You represent one view, I represent one. Do not
> claim you speak for all.

I don't think I claim to speak for everyone. I am going to claim to speak from a
moral standpoint, however. If you see that as offensive in some way then maybe
you should apply some of the same POV arguments that you have used to defend the
GS to my arguments and accept them as coming from someone of a culture that cannot
condone racial violence. I don't see that as a POV debate, but if you are going
to use that standard, shouldn't I be able to use it too?

This whole debate does, however, beg the question that if the GS is NOT evil, then
what is? If racial murder isn't evil then that makes actual evil a pretty rare
item, doesn't it? I believe there is a pretty blurry line between good and evil,
the "vast and vague gray area" I have called it, but I think you would be
hard-pressed to argue that the GS activities fall into that category, let alone
pass it into the "good" side of the gray area.

I've made arguments that I thought pretty clearly spelled out that the cultural
defense rationale that the GS use to support their actions doesn't hold up. So
far I haven't seen anybody come up with what I could call a logical and
supportable argument to contradict that. You can't just restate the original,
refuted argument as a response to the proof that shows it is an invalid one and
expect that to be accepted as a rebuttal. Defending one's culture is not
self-defense, which is a justification for killing and, therefore, not murder. If
you are going to justify the actions of the GS, you have to explain how they are
not murder.

> I'd rather brand the humans as selfish than GS evil.
> The first we know is true, GS is but a way to defend their land and
> culture. The Hunt is not *only* against the humans, its against
> *anyone* who trespasses elven lands. Goblins, orogs, trolls, gnolls and so
> on... Everybody..

I've never once heard someone say that the GS was against anything other than
humans. From what I can tell, elves already have an established military that
would defend their lands against such invasions.

> There are two versions of elven lands:

> 1) Realms where the elves thrive.
> 2) Realms where the elves *once* thrived, but they were derpived of.
> I stick with the first, but number two is not wrong. Its still defence of
> your ancestral grounds.
> What would you have thought about it, if elves were a subrace of humans,
> and were a minority group?

I would make no different argument at all if the GS were a human minority group.
In fact, I've used examples of human minority groups in my arguments that the GS
are evil.

> To give an example coming from your history (please comment if totally
> wrong): Englishmen, French and Spanish colonized America.
> How many indians died? Why? How did they die? Did they try to defend at any
> cost at any time? Are they evil?

I'm going to need someone to make a more convincing case than the Native American
one, which I really don't see as an adequate parallel. The differences between
the Native Americans and Cerilian elves are just too drastic to support the
comparison.

Even if it is an adequate comparison, I could very easily argue that Native
Americans have no higher moral grounds than any other people to begin slaughtering
civilians.

> In the beginning they lived side by side, but as humans are selfish by
> nature, they wanted to expand. And they took the way with the smallest
> resistance. Think about what consequenses of england trying to invade
> france because of the land. (they did wage war, but not because of
> landgrabs). And they viewed indians as easy targets, then waged war,
> assimilated, used diplomacy and deception in order to gain the land.
> Who is evil? the war-waging, land-hungry, fat europeans? or the indians,
> who were waging war against themselves, and generally just survived?
> Indian culture is as good as gone, and the same situation is in cerilia.

What is the primary elven complaint about humans? They cut down trees. Cutting
down trees is just as valid survival issue for humans as it is for elves. In
fact, I'd argue that it was even more of one. Elves, being creatures more attuned
to nature, are able to live in forests without the kind of shelter requirements
that humans have. It's fine for an elf to tell humans that they think cutting
down trees is wrong, but from what I can tell they didn't come up with much of a
solution to the implied question, "How do I keep from freezing to death without a
fireplace?"

Elves have a solution to that question. Magic. According to the description of
elves in the Rulebook "Cerilian elves are creatures of faerie dust and starlight,
gifted with immortality and powers of mind and body beyond those of humankind."
Even after Deismaar, elves have much more access to magics that would allow them
to create homes out of trees and live in them without having to do the kinds of
things humans have to do to survive.

The Native Americans that people seem to find such a good comparison to elves,
cooperated with Europeans in exactly the way the elves did not. The elves
"thought they could all live in mutual enjoyment of the forest, with humans
respecting elven lands and the ELVES CAREFULLY AVOIDING HUMANS." Emphasis added.
Elves NEVER wanted to associate with humans.

The point in this is that elves can't just say "Don't cut down trees" without
running into an unavoidable conflict with humans. Humans HAVE to cut down trees
to survive, especially in medieval times when there is much less access to things
like power plants and heating oils. Humans don't cut down trees because they like
stumps. They cut down trees because they are a vital natural resource.

Gary

[Siebharrin / Arathorn]

>> >Where is all this coming from? I think you're statement about
>> >misapplication of MODERN morality is actually correct, but I don't
>> >think I'm the guy applying modern standards. There's a very thick
>> >undercurrent of political correctness in this whole POV morality that
>> >people are advocating that is the real source of this confusion.
>>
>> The statement that ALL killing of intelligent life is evil IS modern
>> morality. In that time period, people were killed for all manner of
>> things and it was not considered evil.
>
>Oh, I'm going to have to argue that point. Not killing people is one the
>oldest moral statements in existence. It's Old Testament stuff.
>
>Besides, I don't think the argument has been that the GS are evil because
they
>kill. The argument is that the GS are evil because they kill
>indiscriminately. Even when humans came to Cerilia and committed the
horrific
>crime of cutting down trees for which they earned an elven death sentence,
they
>did not cut down trees indiscriminately. Humans did not gather together in
>bands and say, "Tonight let's go out and cut us down some trees! Yeeehaaa!
>Get them lousy leaf producin' photosynthesizin' good for nothin' bark
colored,
>woody plants! Get 'em!" No, the humans cut down trees for things like
>building materials and fuel. It's the humans who were dealing with basic
>survival issues, not the elves.

Forget Fuel.
I don't remember what book it was, but the one where
Gannd and Brand the Blade was featured.
In that book it was written that humans had never learned the elven way of
making fire.
The Straws or whatever on the plains.
Much easier and in much greater abundance in central anuire, than trees.
Seems to me humans 'preferred' trees, and didn't care about their elven
neighbours.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Siebharrin / Arathorn]

>> I've not decided fully on if the gheallie Sidhe is evil or not. But if
>> humans aren't killing the elves then why are the elves in decline? We have
>> elven ruins through out the lands that humans dwell in yet it wasn't the
>> humans that did this?
>
>There was a lot of time before humans arrived on Cerilia. It says that
>"civilization all but stagnated during this time. The elves built their
slender
>towers and the dwarves constructed their stonewrought wonders, but all these
>marvels eventually fell to one marauding tribe or another."
>
>So here's a possibility that I don't think anyone has addressed. Maybe the
>elves' decline is inevitable. They simply don't produce enough in the
face of
>more successful species. Let's take an example from the Baruk Azhik
sourcebook
>in which Graybeard finds himself leading a race who are fighting what he
believes
>to be a losing battle against the Orogs. Humans have little or nothing to do
>with this decline. They become involved only rarely in dwarven issues.
In fact,
>the dwarves separated themselves from the rest of Cerilia for centuries.
Yet the
>dwarves still decline. This is because dwarves reproduce so slowly in the
face
>of their military losses against the Orogs.
>
>I think there is a similar situation going on with the elves. Elves
reproduce
>even more slowly than dwarves do. They fought the humanoids to a
standstill for
>centuries before humans came. Their strongholds were built and destroyed
over
>and over again. If an elf generation is 200 years (which I think is a pretty
>good estimate of their birthing cycle) that's ten times the human cycle. If
>there is a even a 10% population growth per generation that means humans are
>going to create nearly 5.2 children in the same time that elves would
create 2.2.
>
>The difference between elves and dwarves in this scenario is that elves
are more
>directly in competition with humans. I still think this competition is
much more
>oblique than is presented by many people on this message board. The elven
love
>for trees, for instance, is only related to their survival in an indirect way
>from what I can see. But the elven "decline" may or may not be directly
related
>to humanity's presence. It could be more directly related to their own slow
>reproduction combined with their need to fight both humans and humanoids
putting
>them in harm's way in a way their birth cycle can't support.
>
>If this is true, then the elven racism against humans is even more displaced.
>It's a reaction to their own racial decline in the face of competition from
>humans or humanoids. I am starting to think elves realize their own
weakness,
>but instead of dealing with it on a self-preservation level (there are
plenty of
>things they could do to insure the continuation of their species under these
>circumstances) many of them have turned the situation into yet more
conflict with
>more successful species.
>
>What do you guys think of this line of reasoning?

I think its good..
BUT...

How would elves ever preserve themselves? I mean, if they wanted to
preserve themselves
they'd have to give up on their home and culture.
There is *NO* way humans are going to stop chopping down trees.
And if the elves tried to hide behind eternal 'warding' or anything like that,
there would surely come a human mage dispelling it, because the price of
lumber goes through
the roof.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Gary V. Foss]

Kai Beste wrote:

> Ok, killing defenceless (I won't say innocent) civilians is basically
> evil. This far I agree. But I don't think the gheallie sidhe were
> originally racists, but they may have become racists over time.

Well, from what I've read there is nothing to lead me to believe that the GS were
ever anything but racist.

> The way I imagine the humans spread was that increasing population
> pressure and high taxes forced many poor peasants to look for new
> land elsewhere. A couple of them gathered together, packed their
> waggons and settled someplace in the "wild lands" or no man's land.
> Of course a lot of them got killed by some nasties, such as goblins,
> orogs, Azrai's followers and, of course, by the elves who had become
> frustrated by the fact that the humans didn't uphold their end of the
> treaties and chopped down their trees. The farmers called out for
> help, and the army was sent in to protect them. From there on, the
> whole thing escalated, you all know the story.
> Now, if you are an elf, what would you do? Kill the people who do the
> real harm, i.e. the farmers (that's why they are not innocent!), or
> wait until the army moves in and fight it honorably but in vain?

I'm of the radical opinion that farming and cutting down trees is not evil,
especially on a medieval level. You might make such an argument for the slash and
burn farming going on in South America, but I really don't buy it for Cerilia.

It's not like farming is the high profit, low risk activity that I think it has
been presented on this message board. Farmers don't rake in the money like I think
people are making it sound. Farming is the way humans subsist. If you are gong to
cast the elves as people trying to defend their culture by killing humans for
farming, why not use the same standard for humans? Humans farm to live. Keeping
forested land unfarmed could potentially starve humans all over Cerilia.

> I know it is an oversimplification, but if there are no farmers to
> protect there's no need for an army. I won't say the farmers had much
> choice in the matter, but so do the elves. They tried to live
> together in peace when the humans first came to Cerilia, but it did
> not work out. They tried to fight them on the field of battle, and
> lost. There are not many options left to them. Elves have long
> memories, and they won't trust the humans as easily as they once did.

I don't see any information that they ever trusted humans. The most they hoped for
was that they could keep away from them. That's not the same thing at all. Elves
were also perfectly happy to let humans fight off the humanoids without getting
involved. It wasn't until humans started farming that elves got involved, and for
the GS that involvement immediately went from "Hey, don't cut down those trees" to
"Kill all humans!"

> But they also know they can't fight them, because humans are just
> too numerable.
> There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
> winner (except maybe the war industry :). Both sides will commit
> atrocities. To the gheallie sidhe, the war is not over until they
> have driven the humans from their ancestral lands. They see this as
> defense of their homeland, and don't see themselves as evil.
> On the other hand, the humans have "won" the war. From their point of
> view the gheallie sidhe murders defenseless humans without remorse.
> To the humans, this is evil. There is a saying in German (I don't
> know if there is an English equivalent) that says history is written
> by the winner. So in a few hundred years elves will probably regarded
> as evil.

I still don't see this conflict as being a war. War is entirely different from the
type of racial terrorism engaged in by the GS.

> I can agree on most of this. The gheallie sidhe are evil because they
> kill indiscriminately. But does this make the humans any better?

It would make them no different from humans who killed indescriminately. Show me
humans that do that and I'd say they are evil.

> The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
> out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.

I think the most basic human motivation is survival. My argument against the GS is
that their motivation is not really based upon elven survival. The activities of
the GS are actually one of the things that might hasten the demise of the elves,
because they can't afford a military stalemate with humans. Humans reproduce so
much more quickly that they will inevitably lose such a standoff.

Gary

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D8yvind_]

I think that you can draw a comparison to the Elves forming the
Gheallie Sidhe to that the Native Americans (not all of them,
though) raided on the colonizers settlements.
I think the process is very much the same too (except that I do
not think any human government in Birthright has outright gone
to the extent of driving elves away with the army).
So this is basicly humans colonizing Cerilia.

I think that if the Native Americans made a terrorist group that
had as goal to to drive away all persons of the European and African
stock (pardon the expression), we would see that as an Evil group.

So the Ghaellie Sidhe is generally Evil, but the cause is against an
injustice done a very long time ago.


Oyvind Gronnesby

[Kai Beste]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> As for the GS attacking civilians and not armies. I think that is
> the crux of the matter. If the GS attacked military units then I
> would be much more likely to see that as a moral fight. But they
> don't. They kill innocent civilians.
> In fact, they revel in it. That's clearly evil. In fact, I see the GS as
> being evil bastards who only use their cultural defense argument as a cover f
> or their racism and hatred.

Ok, killing defenceless (I won't say innocent) civilians is basically
evil. This far I agree. But I don't think the gheallie sidhe were
originally racists, but they may have become racists over time.
The way I imagine the humans spread was that increasing population
pressure and high taxes forced many poor peasants to look for new
land elsewhere. A couple of them gathered together, packed their
waggons and settled someplace in the "wild lands" or no man's land.
Of course a lot of them got killed by some nasties, such as goblins,
orogs, Azrai's followers and, of course, by the elves who had become
frustrated by the fact that the humans didn't uphold their end of the
treaties and chopped down their trees. The farmers called out for
help, and the army was sent in to protect them. From there on, the
whole thing escalated, you all know the story.
Now, if you are an elf, what would you do? Kill the people who do the
real harm, i.e. the farmers (that's why they are not innocent!), or
wait until the army moves in and fight it honorably but in vain? I
know it is an oversimplification, but if there are no farmers to
protect there's no need for an army. I won't say the farmers had much
choice in the matter, but so do the elves. They tried to live
together in peace when the humans first came to Cerilia, but it did
not work out. They tried to fight them on the field of battle, and
lost. There are not many options left to them. Elves have long
memories, and they won't trust the humans as easily as they once did.
But they also know they can't fight them, because humans are just
too numerable.
There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
winner (except maybe the war industry :). Both sides will commit
atrocities. To the gheallie sidhe, the war is not over until they
have driven the humans from their ancestral lands. They see this as
defense of their homeland, and don't see themselves as evil.
On the other hand, the humans have "won" the war. From their point of
view the gheallie sidhe murders defenseless humans without remorse.
To the humans, this is evil. There is a saying in German (I don't
know if there is an English equivalent) that says history is written
by the winner. So in a few hundred years elves will probably regarded
as evil.

> Oh, I'm going to have to argue that point. Not killing people is one the
> oldest moral statements in existence. It's Old Testament stuff.

Yes, it is. But there is also stuff like "an eye for an eye".

> Besides, I don't think the argument has been that the GS are evil
> because they kill. The argument is that the GS are evil because
> they kill indiscriminately. Even when humans came to Cerilia and
> committed the horrific crime of cutting down trees for which they
> earned an elven death sentence, they did not cut down trees
> indiscriminately. Humans did not gather together in bands and say,
> "Tonight let's go out and cut us down some trees! Yeeehaaa!
> Get them lousy leaf producin' photosynthesizin' good for nothin'
> bark colored, woody plants! Get 'em!" No, the humans cut down
> trees for things like building materials and fuel. It's the humans
> who were dealing with basic survival issues, not the elves.

I can agree on most of this. The gheallie sidhe are evil because they
kill indiscriminately. But does this make the humans any better?
It surely does not make the martyrs. I've tried to point out on
possible motivation for the elves to kill peasants and lumberjacks.
The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.

just MO

Kai

[Gary V. Foss]

einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:

> Hmm.. I seem to recall that the elves tried to befriend the humans coming..
> In fact, Rhoube Manslayer were the humans best friend at first.
> Farming/logging. They are totally different.
> Logging takes place in the forrests. farming is much better off on the plains.

I think that comes from the in character description of the situation in the Blood
Enemies entry for Rhoubhe himself. As such, I think it is a bit questionable as a
source. He also describes humans has "bringing back the humanoids" if I am not
mistaken.

> Its a cultural war, where one part has been forced to take up arms because
> the other part is so numerous.

> And might I resume the sub-topic of this discussion:
> Is GS evil?
>
> GS is a form of last defence. Defence is normally not considered evil.

Arrgh! How is the GS even remotely a "last defence?" It's been going on for
thousands of years. It started shortly after humans arrived on Cerilia. I would
think that a last defence would have to occur in a much shorter timespan than that
even from the elven standpoint.

> There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
> Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.
>
> Its quite simple:
> Humans attacked elves (though not always physically),
> now elves defend.

Well, again, I don't see how you can describe what the GS do as "defence". They
kill humans indescrimanately. Defenders don't go after non-combatants. Defenders
oppose attacks, which is not really what the GS are doing. They are hunting
humans. Big difference.

Gary

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>I'm of the radical opinion that farming and cutting down trees is not evil,
>especially on a medieval level. You might make such an argument for the
slash and
>burn farming going on in South America, but I really don't buy it for
Cerilia.

Err... Trees is a natural part of the elven culture.
And when humans go to elven lands to hunt and log, its a crime.

>It's not like farming is the high profit, low risk activity that I think
it has
>been presented on this message board. Farmers don't rake in the money
like I think
>people are making it sound. Farming is the way humans subsist. If you
are gong to
>cast the elves as people trying to defend their culture by killing humans for
>farming, why not use the same standard for humans? Humans farm to live.
Keeping
>forested land unfarmed could potentially starve humans all over Cerilia.

Nono.. Humans took (and will take) elven lands to farm. Not vice-versa.

>> I know it is an oversimplification, but if there are no farmers to
>> protect there's no need for an army. I won't say the farmers had much
>> choice in the matter, but so do the elves. They tried to live
>> together in peace when the humans first came to Cerilia, but it did
>> not work out. They tried to fight them on the field of battle, and
>> lost. There are not many options left to them. Elves have long
>> memories, and they won't trust the humans as easily as they once did.
>
>I don't see any information that they ever trusted humans. The most they
hoped for
>was that they could keep away from them. That's not the same thing at
all. Elves
>were also perfectly happy to let humans fight off the humanoids without
getting
>involved. It wasn't until humans started farming that elves got involved,
and for
>the GS that involvement immediately went from "Hey, don't cut down those
trees" to
>"Kill all humans!"

Hmm.. I seem to recall that the elves tried to befriend the humans coming..
In fact, Rhoube Manslayer were the humans best friend at first.
Farming/logging. They are totally different.
Logging takes place in the forrests. farming is much better off on the plains.

>> But they also know they can't fight them, because humans are just
>> too numerable.
>> There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
>> winner (except maybe the war industry :). Both sides will commit
>> atrocities. To the gheallie sidhe, the war is not over until they
>> have driven the humans from their ancestral lands. They see this as
>> defense of their homeland, and don't see themselves as evil.
>> On the other hand, the humans have "won" the war. From their point of
>> view the gheallie sidhe murders defenseless humans without remorse.
>> To the humans, this is evil. There is a saying in German (I don't
>> know if there is an English equivalent) that says history is written
>> by the winner. So in a few hundred years elves will probably regarded
>> as evil.
>
>I still don't see this conflict as being a war. War is entirely different
from the
>type of racial terrorism engaged in by the GS.

Its a cultural war, where one part has been forced to take up arms because
the other part is so numerous.

>> I can agree on most of this. The gheallie sidhe are evil because they
>> kill indiscriminately. But does this make the humans any better?
>
>It would make them no different from humans who killed indescriminately.
Show me
>humans that do that and I'd say they are evil.
>
>> The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
>> out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.
>
>I think the most basic human motivation is survival. My argument against
the GS is
>that their motivation is not really based upon elven survival. The
activities of
>the GS are actually one of the things that might hasten the demise of the
elves,
>because they can't afford a military stalemate with humans. Humans
reproduce so
>much more quickly that they will inevitably lose such a standoff.

Off course Elves will perish! The game is made like that.
The only thing that may change that is a bright leader.
And might I resume the sub-topic of this discussion:
Is GS evil?

GS is a form of last defence. Defence is normally not considered evil.
There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.

Its quite simple:
Humans attacked elves (though not always physically),
now elves defend.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Galwylin]

At 01:09 AM 10/16/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
>>I've not decided fully on if the gheallie Sidhe is evil or not.
> THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION!!!!!! heh. Sorry, if you're not
>discussing that, I was, so we're gonna completely miss each other.

No, we are discussing it. I've just not made up my mind if its good or
evil. One day it seems so clearly evil but another side of it shows and
its not quite as evil as I think.

> I left the appropriate chunk of my post up there. Nowhere does it say
>that humans aren't killing elves. The GS hates _humanity_ as a whole, but
>_humanity_ isn't killing elves, individual humans are, and for the GS to
>generalize that to all humans is completely evil.

Again, I don't distingish the difference between humans and humanity. We
all should carry ourselves as if our personal actions relect on humanity.
The gheallie Sidhe should do the same because Cerilians do form a basis of
assumptions on elves because of the actions of a few.

>>I say give because the ones we label evil also
>>inherit being the ones non-deserving of the forests.
> Huh?

By this I meant that if we say elves are acting evil then their claim to
the forests should be cast aside. They are undeserving. Evil is
undeserving of freedom, happiness, and life (in my opinion).

> I'm inclined to say the GS kills them anyway, and the rest of the elves
>have more individual reactions: you don't join the GS unless you want to
>kill humans. However, I don't recall any concrete evidence one way or the
>other because the only elven land in Rjurik, Lluabraight, doesn't border any
>human nations (My Rjurik book is at home not here at school, so I might have
>forgotten something), and I would say that the GS doesn't have very much
>interaction with regular rjurik, and has to content itself with slaughtering
>the minions of the white witch, goblins, and whatever lives in the
>Giantdowns.

I'm going to have to get this one soon. It would be interesting to see
their reaction to a human culture that is more aligned to their way of
thinking.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Galwylin]

At 01:16 AM 10/16/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>So here's a possibility that I don't think anyone has addressed. Maybe the
>elves' decline is inevitable. They simply don't produce enough in the
face of
>more successful species. Let's take an example from the Baruk Azhik
sourcebook
>in which Graybeard finds himself leading a race who are fighting what he
believes
>to be a losing battle against the Orogs. Humans have little or nothing to do
>with this decline. They become involved only rarely in dwarven issues.
In fact,
>the dwarves separated themselves from the rest of Cerilia for centuries.
Yet the
>dwarves still decline. This is because dwarves reproduce so slowly in the
face
>of their military losses against the Orogs.

Well, I do see similiarities. Dwarf=elf, orog=human :) I think elven
decline is inevitable with a stronger race present. Goblins weren't able
to decimate their lands as well as humans have. We don't really know if
elves will decline in the presence of humans or without them. But if elves
*think* humans are a direct reason why their race has declined, the call to
for gheallie Sidhes is much more reasonable to them. Don't you think? But
now your point is swaying me to the side that the gheallie Sidhe is a noble
fight as the dwarves is. Both side are fighting against something they
can't hope to win but that doesn't stop them from trying.

>If this is true, then the elven racism against humans is even more displaced.

I think you've made an argument for the gheallie Sidhe. Many of our heroes
are those that stood against hopeless odds and didn't necessarily survive.
It was the struggle. It is a racist view that humans are better than elves
and they hate them for that. But if all these people that see UFOs are
right and a new alien race comes to Earth that is better than we and wants
our resources, will we act any differently? Fear, hopelessness,
determination for survival are very powerful motivations.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Galwylin]

At 12:07 PM 10/16/98, Siebharrin / Arathorn wrote:
>
>I'd say they still defend their homelands. Whoever trespasses within elven
>realms (who supports GS) has broken the laws, and sentenced according to
>elven laws.
>If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it yours?

This is interesting because I had just saw a news item on the conflict of
Israel and Palastinians yesterday. In it, a Palastine woman whos father's
house had been taken from him 50 years ago, refuses to accept that her
father's house belongs to Israelies (sp?). She obviously didn't own the
house yet it was taken from her family. But the new owners didn't take it
from her family, their government did. Whose claim is right and how do you
sort that out without being unfair to the other?

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Galwylin]

At 03:29 AM 10/16/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>As a matter of fact, I don't think Imperialism is evil. I think you're
confusing
>imperialism with colonialism

It seems evil at times, other times good. I think its just one of those
things that just are. Ggood and evil can't be applied to it in a nice
package. Not unlike our subject, it seems :)

>I am going to claim to speak from a
>moral standpoint, however.

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! I'd be wary of thinking I speak for
morality. I still see the pros and cons on abortion and that issue has
been around much longer for me to debate than the gheallie Sidhe and still
no easy answers are found.

>This whole debate does, however, beg the question that if the GS is NOT
evil, then
>what is?

I'm beginning to think its what ever each of us decides it is. I think it
would be a great morality test to throw against an elven character but I'm
hesitant to do that because it really shows flaws of the alignment system.

>Defending one's culture is not
>self-defense, which is a justification for killing and, therefore, not
murder.

Well, I'm not unsure of that. We haven't ever had our culture attacked
(except from within) but I dare say there are more than a few nations we
could ask that have gone through that. Didn't the occupation of Indian by
Britian bring out the Kali cult of Thuggies?

>I'm going to need someone to make a more convincing case than the Native
American
>one, which I really don't see as an adequate parallel. The differences
between
>the Native Americans and Cerilian elves are just too drastic to support the
>comparison.

I've used the comparison (which I think fits well) in that one people
greeted newcomers to their lands. Helped them, befriended them. Then the
newcomers began taking from the other causing a backlash of enimity between
them. It seems the ones that showed virtues to the other suffered for
their goodness. The elves did befriend humans when they came to Cerilia
and now humans control more of the land than the elves. I'm doubtful the
parallels are accidental.

>Even if it is an adequate comparison, I could very easily argue that Native
>Americans have no higher moral grounds than any other people to begin
slaughtering
>civilians.

Ah, the good ole missionaries that come to save the hethren from their evil
ways :)

>The Native Americans that people seem to find such a good comparison to
elves,
>cooperated with Europeans in exactly the way the elves did not. The elves
>"thought they could all live in mutual enjoyment of the forest, with humans
>respecting elven lands and the ELVES CAREFULLY AVOIDING HUMANS." Emphasis
added.
>Elves NEVER wanted to associate with humans.

I got a totally different reading. Elves did associate with humans. The
Atlas even acknowledges that humans betrayed the elves. In most cases
where the gheallie Sidhe is talked about in the campaign set its not
condemnation. Its rather matter-of-factly. It almost seems that its
written with the idea that the formation of the gheallie Sidhe resides on
the shoulders of both human and elf. Of course, recognizing that humans
helped bring it about doesn't mean that they will submit to it. Or even
accept the consequences of it.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Galwylin]

At 04:01 PM 10/16/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>
>Hmm.. I seem to recall that the elves tried to befriend the humans coming..
>In fact, Rhoube Manslayer were the humans best friend at first.

This is my memory of it also. The betrayal of elven trust is a direct
cause of the gheallie Sidhe. And blunts the evilness of it, to me.

>There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
>Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.

I think you're right. If humans stopped pushing against the elves, most
would probably be content to remain in the homes they have left and the
gheallie Sidhe would be left to those that have hatred as their only
motivation. The more humans push the elves, the more the gheallie Sidhe
will recruit. The catalyst is controlled by the humans. A regent that
pushes the elves further is evil because his action kills his people.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>> Hmm.. I seem to recall that the elves tried to befriend the humans coming..
>> In fact, Rhoube Manslayer were the humans best friend at first.
>> Farming/logging. They are totally different.
>> Logging takes place in the forrests. farming is much better off on the
plains.
>
>I think that comes from the in character description of the situation in
the Blood
>Enemies entry for Rhoubhe himself. As such, I think it is a bit
questionable as a
>source. He also describes humans has "bringing back the humanoids" if I
am not
>mistaken.

Thats because there were a stalemate. And as humans pushed the
elves too, the elves coudn't resist them both.

>> Its a cultural war, where one part has been forced to take up arms because
>> the other part is so numerous.
>
>> And might I resume the sub-topic of this discussion:
>> Is GS evil?
>>
>> GS is a form of last defence. Defence is normally not considered evil.
>
>Arrgh! How is the GS even remotely a "last defence?" It's been going on for
>thousands of years. It started shortly after humans arrived on Cerilia.
I would
>think that a last defence would have to occur in a much shorter timespan
than that
>even from the elven standpoint.

Hmm.. ok.. I see your point.. not last defence.
Defense/border police.

>> There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
>> Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.
>>
>> Its quite simple:
>> Humans attacked elves (though not always physically),
>> now elves defend.
>
>Well, again, I don't see how you can describe what the GS do as "defence".
They
>kill humans indescrimanately. Defenders don't go after non-combatants.
Defenders
>oppose attacks, which is not really what the GS are doing. They are hunting
>humans. Big difference.

Well.. Lets see.. how much of GS happens outside elven realms (not
including Dhoesone, as its split between elven and human pop with no
borders). Very little. Only the ones in Rhoubhe (there are exceptions).

The problem is: Humans continue to trespass on elven lands, no matter
what elves do. And so one can call GS as a border-patrol, with 007
tendencies (license to kill). They try to defend their forrest from others.

And GS does not hunt for humans. They hunt for trespassers.
The trespassers may be humans (normally), goblins (normally), dwarves
(seldom) and halfings (seldom).

Do you think elves would been allowed to keep their culture/forrest for
1000 years if they had had open borders all along?

Siebharrin the Lich

[Galwylin]

At 07:54 AM 10/16/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>Well, again, I don't see how you can describe what the GS do as "defence".

It seems more of an offensive movement than defensive. Apparently, it
wasn't effective as a defensive (which it seems to have been at first)
though it could be if humans will leave the elven lands alone. Of course,
its possible that it can't ever return to a defensive movement. Trade with
humans may be happening because they don't have the resources they once did.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Pieter A de Jong]

Dammit Gary, I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. But now
you've gone and pushed by ON button.

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>
> There was a lot of time before humans arrived on Cerilia. It says that
> "civilization all but stagnated during this time. The elves built their slender
> towers and the dwarves constructed their stonewrought wonders, but all these
> marvels eventually fell to one marauding tribe or another."
>
> So here's a possibility that I don't think anyone has addressed. Maybe the
> elves' decline is inevitable. They simply don't produce enough in the face of
> more successful species. Let's take an example from the Baruk Azhik sourcebook
> in which Graybeard finds himself leading a race who are fighting what he believes
> to be a losing battle against the Orogs. Humans have little or nothing to do
> with this decline. They become involved only rarely in dwarven issues. In fact,
> the dwarves separated themselves from the rest of Cerilia for centuries. Yet the
> dwarves still decline. This is because dwarves reproduce so slowly in the face
> of their military losses against the Orogs.
>
> I think there is a similar situation going on with the elves. Elves reproduce
> even more slowly than dwarves do. They fought the humanoids to a standstill for
> centuries before humans came. Their strongholds were built and destroyed over
> and over again. If an elf generation is 200 years (which I think is a pretty
> good estimate of their birthing cycle) that's ten times the human cycle. If
> there is a even a 10% population growth per generation that means humans are
> going to create nearly 5.2 children in the same time that elves would create 2.2.
>
> The difference between elves and dwarves in this scenario is that elves are more
> directly in competition with humans. I still think this competition is much more
> oblique than is presented by many people on this message board. The elven love
> for trees, for instance, is only related to their survival in an indirect way
> from what I can see. But the elven "decline" may or may not be directly related
> to humanity's presence. It could be more directly related to their own slow
> reproduction combined with their need to fight both humans and humanoids putting
> them in harm's way in a way their birth cycle can't support.
>
> If this is true, then the elven racism against humans is even more displaced.
> It's a reaction to their own racial decline in the face of competition from
> humans or humanoids. I am starting to think elves realize their own weakness,
> but instead of dealing with it on a self-preservation level (there are plenty of
> things they could do to insure the continuation of their species under these
> circumstances) many of them have turned the situation into yet more conflict with
> more successful species.
>
> What do you guys think of this line of reasoning?
>
I hate to say this, but I think there is a problem what with the basic
premises. The assumption is that the humans are a superior species as
compared to everyone else. If it is inevitable that the humans will
conquer on numbers alone, why were the elves able to take and enslave
the goblin races (until the elves started fighting among themselves)
before the humans got to Cerilia. Let's get serious. The goblins have
an even faster birthrate than humans, and on average are *better*
fighters (try a great goblin vs. your average 0 level human soldier).
Also, the goblins had some spellcasters, shamans, and I believe that
goblin magicians have been proposed on this list, as well as in the
generic resource The Complete Book of Humanoids. Hell, Birthright
goblins should be exterminating the humans, not serving as fodder for
awnsheglien armies. Conclusion, it wasn't a superior human birthrate
and combat capabilities that lost the elves their previous wars against
humans.
All right, now we reach the kicker. Gods. Humans have clerics, elves
don't. There are people on this list who have argued fervently that the
humans clerics beat the elven wizards. I have great difficulty
believing this given that I find it extremely unlikely that spell
casting human clerics outnumber the elven wizards, who come from the
following people :"Cerilian elves are creatures of faerie dust and
starlight,gifted with immortality and powers of mind and body beyond
those of humankind.". Not to mention that the average elven wizard,
having lived 10 times as long as the average human cleric is probably
going to have at a minimum 2X (probably closer to 5X) as many experience
points and therefore will be significantly higher level than the human
cleric. This says one thing to me. Direct divine intervention. I
suspect that since Deismaar the elves have lost very little land to the
humans. However the elves are still in a recovery phase because of
their slower birthrate. In another 500+ years, the humans may discover
that elven population pressure is going to be a problem, but not yet.
This is my own personal view, but it puts a big whole in the Gheallie
Sidhe as a shock reaction to imminent elven extermination.


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

[Pieter A de Jong]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> What is the primary elven complaint about humans? They cut down trees. Cutting
> down trees is just as valid survival issue for humans as it is for elves.

Wrong Gary, plenty of human cultures have survived without large scale
deforestation.
Simple examples : Eskimos (no trees *to* cut down), Indians in North
America (great
plains and otherwise), Mongol horsemen, assorted arabic nomad
cultures in the Middle
East. I'm sure that there are other examples. The only reason human
cultures cut trees
is be because they are convenient. If they aren't available, we will
use something else
to keep ourselves warm.

> In fact, I'd argue that it was even more of one. Elves, being creatures more attuned
> to nature, are able to live in forests without the kind of shelter requirements
> that humans have. It's fine for an elf to tell humans that they think cutting
> down trees is wrong, but from what I can tell they didn't come up with much of a
> solution to the implied question, "How do I keep from freezing to death without a
> fireplace?"
>
> Elves have a solution to that question. Magic. According to the description of
> elves in the Rulebook "Cerilian elves are creatures of faerie dust and starlight,
> gifted with immortality and powers of mind and body beyond those of humankind."
> Even after Deismaar, elves have much more access to magics that would allow them
> to create homes out of trees and live in them without having to do the kinds of
> things humans have to do to survive.
>
> The Native Americans that people seem to find such a good comparison to elves,
> cooperated with Europeans in exactly the way the elves did not. The elves
> "thought they could all live in mutual enjoyment of the forest, with humans
> respecting elven lands and the ELVES CAREFULLY AVOIDING HUMANS." Emphasis added.
> Elves NEVER wanted to associate with humans.

Fair enough, I don't think that the native american comparisons are
very valid either.
However, that still doesn't give the humans leave to take elf-claimed
lands (as they
most surely did), because of their own, internally controllable
population pressures.
In other words, it would be possible for the humans and the elves to
live side by side,
provided that the humans were actually willing to abide by the
agreements that they
made with the elves to respect the Elven lands. Unfortunately, the
elves found out
1st-hand that the humans would break those agreements time and time
again. In effect,
chronically lying and cheating, in such a fashion as to cost many
elven lies. Who's
evil know? Both sides perhaps. You may have noticed not all humans
broke those
agreements, and not all elves are members of the Gheallie Sidhe.

- --

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

[Daniel McSorley]

From: einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no
>Err... Trees is a natural part of the elven culture.
>And when humans go to elven lands to hunt and log, its a crime.
>
Trees are not part of a culture! They are trees! There are a lot of
them. They sit around, photosynthesising, little squirrels play in their
branches. There is nothing evil about cutting one down! There is nothing
evil about cutting a bunch down! They are a resource, that is all. If the
elves want to kill people for doing something that does _not_ harm the elves
physically, then they are psychotic!

>And might I resume the sub-topic of this discussion:
>Is GS evil?
>GS is a form of last defence. Defence is normally not considered evil.
>There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
>Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.
>
It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
"slaughtering". Entirely different.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Kai Beste
>Ok, killing defenceless (I won't say innocent) civilians is basically
>evil. This far I agree. But I don't think the gheallie sidhe were
>originally racists, but they may have become racists over time.
>The way I imagine the humans spread was that increasing population
>pressure and high taxes forced many poor peasants to look for new
>land elsewhere. A couple of them gathered together, packed their
>waggons and settled someplace in the "wild lands" or no man's land.
Did we read the same backstory for Cerilia? The tribes came to Cerilia
fleeing the Shadow, who basically said to them, follow me, or my other
followers will kill you. The ran, and when they reached safety, they needed
some homes, obviously, cut down some trees, plowed some land, and were
suddenly attacked by the elves!

>Now, if you are an elf, what would you do? Kill the people who do the
>real harm, i.e. the farmers (that's why they are not innocent!), or
>wait until the army moves in and fight it honorably but in vain? I
>know it is an oversimplification, but if there are no farmers to
>protect there's no need for an army. I won't say the farmers had much
>choice in the matter, but so do the elves. They tried to live
>together in peace when the humans first came to Cerilia, but it did
>not work out. They tried to fight them on the field of battle, and
>lost. There are not many options left to them. Elves have long
>memories, and they won't trust the humans as easily as they once did.
>But they also know they can't fight them, because humans are just
>too numerable.
So, being sneaky, racist cowards, they ride in and kill defenseless
peasants in their sleep. Good point.

>There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
>winner (except maybe the war industry :).
There is plenty of honor in war. Honor is found in the proper fulfilling
of your obligations. Warriors, especially those in the employ of the lawful
government, ie soldiers, have an obligation to defend those weaker and less
able to defend themselves. To do so, they risk life and health, but they
accept this. And in doing so, they are behaving honorably.
There is also glory to be found in war, that is, you can win praise,
renown, and distinction by performing well in war, it happens quite often.
Most of war isn't glorious, it is harsh and brutal, but people can win glory
in war.
There are also winners, at least in most wars. Sometimes there is
stalemate. But one side usually wins: defeats the enemy, drives back his
troops, and forces them to admit defeat, and pay the penalty for losing.

>Both sides will commit
>atrocities. To the gheallie sidhe, the war is not over until they
>have driven the humans from their ancestral lands. They see this as
>defense of their homeland, and don't see themselves as evil.
>On the other hand, the humans have "won" the war. From their point of
>view the gheallie sidhe murders defenseless humans without remorse.
>To the humans, this is evil. There is a saying in German (I don't
>know if there is an English equivalent) that says history is written
>by the winner.
(Didn't you just say that there is no winner?)

>So in a few hundred years elves will probably regarded
>as evil.
>
No, they're evil right now. The humans know this, the other elves know
this, and unless the GS is really delusional, they know this, but they don't
care, they enjoy being evil, it makes them feel strong to kill weak sleeping
humans.

>> Oh, I'm going to have to argue that point. Not killing people is one the
>> oldest moral statements in existence. It's Old Testament stuff.
>
>Yes, it is. But there is also stuff like "an eye for an eye".
>
Yes, this is in the sense of lawfully carrying out a just punishement on
a criminal, not forming a vigilante group and hunting people down. The
state has a responsibility to defend its citizens from harm; this may
include carrying out a sentence of death if the state decides this is
neccessary.

>> Besides, I don't think the argument has been that the GS are evil
>> because they kill. The argument is that the GS are evil because
>> they kill indiscriminately. Even when humans came to Cerilia and
>> committed the horrific crime of cutting down trees for which they
>> earned an elven death sentence, they did not cut down trees
>> indiscriminately. Humans did not gather together in bands and say,
>> "Tonight let's go out and cut us down some trees! Yeeehaaa!
>> Get them lousy leaf producin' photosynthesizin' good for nothin'
>> bark colored, woody plants! Get 'em!"
(That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!)

>I can agree on most of this. The gheallie sidhe are evil because they
>kill indiscriminately. But does this make the humans any better?
You cannot generalize all humans this way! The ones that slaughter
innocent elves are definitely evil, this has never been argued! The GS
commits the logical fallacy of generalizing this to _all_ humans, so yes,
the innocent humans are better than the GS!

>It surely does not make them martyrs.
It sure does!
_Martyr_
: A person who sacrifices something of great value and esp. life for the
sake of principle;
: VICTIM; esp : a great or constant sufferer.
The innocent VICTIMs of the GS, who risk, and lose, their lives because
they need to earn to survive, are martyrs.

> I've tried to point out on
>possible motivation for the elves to kill peasants and lumberjacks.
Fine, they have a motivation. It is a logically indefensible one,
completely immoral, but they have a motivation.

>The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
>out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.
>
The original humans to come to Cerilia were motivated by survival, that
of themselves, and that of their families. I am a die-hard cynic, but greed
is not the "most basic human motivation". Survival is, it's genetic, if you
aren't programmed to survive, you don't live long enough to pass on that
trait.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 03:38 PM 10/16/98 CET, Kai Beste wrote:
>The way I imagine the humans spread was that increasing population
>pressure and high taxes forced many poor peasants to look for new
>land elsewhere. [...] The farmers called out for help, and the army was
>sent in to protect them.

Sounds like typical humans. Complain about the taxes and then demand the
services the taxes support anyway.

>There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
>winner (except maybe the war industry :). Both sides will commit
>atrocities.

Keep in mind that glory and honor, like beauty is where you find it.
Looking at texts from eras that paid the most attention to glory and honor,
we find that the participants were very satisfied with their conduct for the
most part.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Siebharrin / Arathorn
>If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it
yours?
>
Bad example. I'll only live to be 100 tops, figure. So, I'm 19 now, in
a couple of years I buy a house. 5 years later, evil Canuckians invade, and
throw me out. Some of their soldiers live in my house. 25 years later, I
wander back through. Yes, it is still my house, however, I find a Canuckian
family living there, none of them have ever been in the Canuckian Red
Brigade, I've never met them before. If I break in and kill them, I am like
the GS. However, being a generally nice guy, I wouldn't do that, I'd say,
"oh, darn", and buy the house next door, which is what the _non_
racist-psycho-murderer elves have done in BR.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Galwylin
>Again, I don't distingish the difference between humans and humanity. We
>all should carry ourselves as if our personal actions relect on humanity.
>The gheallie Sidhe should do the same because Cerilians do form a basis of
>assumptions on elves because of the actions of a few.
>
I agree we _should_ however, most people don't, and if you assume that
the acts of one person _do_ refect completely on humanity, that's a logical
fallacy, you can't generalize in that fashion.

>By this I meant that if we say elves are acting evil then their claim to
>the forests should be cast aside. They are undeserving. Evil is
>undeserving of freedom, happiness, and life (in my opinion).
>
That's just like the GS. They kill humans because some humans were bad.
If we ran off all the elves because some of them were bad, we would be just
as wrong as the GS is. We can't blame all the elves for the actions of the
GS, just like they can't blame all the humans for the actions of a few bad
ones. I'm not saying all the elves are evil, I'm saying the GS is.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Galwylin
>Many of our heroes
>are those that stood against hopeless odds and didn't necessarily survive.
>It was the struggle.
Agreed, however, our heroes are the ones who fought their enemies in the
face of hopeless odds. The peasants/merchants/lumberjacks/berry-pickers are
not the enemies of the elves, until the GS kill a few and make them so.

>It is a racist view that humans are better than elves
>and they hate them for that. But if all these people that see UFOs are
>right and a new alien race comes to Earth that is better than we and wants
>our resources, will we act any differently? Fear, hopelessness,
>determination for survival are very powerful motivations.
>
If invading aliens came and attacked us, we should kill them if we could.
If we then went to Mars and nuked their hometowns, we would be as bad as
they were. Same as if we killed the invaders, but they later sent in
diplomats and business-aliens to open relations. If we killed those guys,
too, we would be morally in the wrong.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

From: einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no
>>Well, again, I don't see how you can describe what the GS do as "defence".
> They
>>kill humans indescrimanately. Defenders don't go after non-combatants.
>Defenders
>>oppose attacks, which is not really what the GS are doing. They are
hunting
>>humans. Big difference.
>
>Well.. Lets see.. how much of GS happens outside elven realms (not
>including Dhoesone, as its split between elven and human pop with no
>borders). Very little. Only the ones in Rhoubhe (there are exceptions).
>
>The problem is: Humans continue to trespass on elven lands, no matter
>what elves do. And so one can call GS as a border-patrol, with 007
>tendencies (license to kill). They try to defend their forrest from others.
>
But they are not a legal unit fighting in a war, they are terrorists who
have taken the matter into their own hands. They weren't given that
license, they just decided they had it. And, they kill people who come in
peacefully, instead of invaders! They kill guilders and merchants, who
_want_ to trade with the elves.

>Do you think elves would been allowed to keep their culture/forrest for
>1000 years if they had had open borders all along?
>
Actually, they probably would, because then instead of being
fearful/hateful of them all the time, the Empire would have made trade
relations, met them, gotten to know them, and as long as the relationship
stayed good, they would have been secure, you don't normally attack your
trading partners.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Galwylin]

At 08:20 PM 10/16/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>
>What if a trespasser destroyed all your prize-rewarded rosebushes.

They could destroy the rosebushes. But touch the dice, they're plantfood ;>

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Pieter A de Jong]

Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> From: Siebharrin / Arathorn
> >If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it
> yours?
> >
> Bad example. I'll only live to be 100 tops, figure. So, I'm 19 now, in
> a couple of years I buy a house. 5 years later, evil Canuckians invade, and
> throw me out. Some of their soldiers live in my house. 25 years later, I
> wander back through. Yes, it is still my house, however, I find a Canuckian
> family living there, none of them have ever been in the Canuckian Red
> Brigade, I've never met them before. If I break in and kill them, I am like
> the GS. However, being a generally nice guy, I wouldn't do that, I'd say,
> "oh, darn", and buy the house next door, which is what the _non_
> racist-psycho-murderer elves have done in BR.
>
Dan, I'm confused, what house next door is their for the elves to buy in
Birthright?
So lets revise this example somewhat. 1) Your 21, you & your new bride
inherit a house
that has been in your family for 10 generations. You then have 2 kids.
2) 10 years
later, the evil Canuckians invade (Wahaha, evil Canuckian chuckle), they
kill you, your
bride and one of your kids, and run the other one off. 3) 15 years
later, your
remaining kid comes back and discovers 1) The evil canuckians have
desecrated the
graveyard behind the house, digging up your ancestors for a turnip
garden, and have
chopped down his favorite trees. 2) There are no other houses available
in the neighbourhood
(or even in the county), only because your son's an Amerikanski 3) the
locals are shooting at
your son with shotguns as he drives by because your son's corvette is
an Amerikanski car.
4) Does your son shoot back with his all-amerikanski winchester, (note
that the Gheallie Sidhe
are civilians as well, just better equipped because they are immortals).
Or does he ignore
these hostile twits descrating his past (and his possible future) and
drive up to the local
army base to start a fight with the rifle battalion there.
- --

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

[The Olesens]

Oh my god! Look what I've done! A "simple" question about the gheallie Sidhe and look
what I got going!

- -Andrew

[Pieter A de Jong]

Daniel McSorley wrote:
> But they are not a legal unit fighting in a war, they are terrorists who
> have taken the matter into their own hands. They weren't given that
> license, they just decided they had it. And, they kill people who come in
> peacefully, instead of invaders! They kill guilders and merchants, who
> _want_ to trade with the elves.

Given that the elves did not evolve a merchant class on their own, lets
revise this description. They kill guilders and merchants who are here
to cheat them of their wealth, and despoil the land they live in with
deforestation and open pit mining.
>
> >Do you think elves would been allowed to keep their culture/forrest for
> >1000 years if they had had open borders all along?
> >
> Actually, they probably would, because then instead of being
> fearful/hateful of them all the time, the Empire would have made trade
> relations, met them, gotten to know them, and as long as the relationship
> stayed good, they would have been secure, you don't normally attack your
> trading partners.
>
Isn't the 20th century nice. It gets a lot messier back in medieval
times. Not to mention the fact that elves don't qualify as human, in
other words, xenophobia. Look what the serbs, croats, and muslims get
up to. They have been living together and trading for centuries you'll
note that even in our present highly civilized era it hasn't stopped
them from killing each other.


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

[Trizt]

Daniel McSorley (mcsorley.1@osu.edu) wrote:

- -> From: einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no
- ->> I'd rather brand the humans as selfish than GS evil.
- ->> The first we know is true, GS is but a way to defend their land and
- ->> culture. The Hunt is not *only* against the humans, its against
- ->> *anyone* who trespasses elven lands. Goblins, orogs, trolls, gnolls and
so
- ->> on... Everybody..
- -> Those two are _not_ mutually exclusive like you make it sound. The
- -> reason the GS exists is ostensibly to "defend their land and culture",
- -> however, the way in which they carry this out marks them as evil.

Do you think the humans where friendly when they first took the land, do you
really think they went to the elven family who lived there and asked how
much gold they wanted for the land. Those elves who are in the GS was around
when the humans come an murdered their friends, parantes relatives and so on
and with this in their memory they prolly still consider those humans who
now lives in their old homeland as the same persons who took it.


- -> The indians who behaved similarly to the GS, that is, killing settlers,
- -> traders, anyone who came near them, were definitely evil, on the
alignment
- -> scale. Fighting armies is one thing, killing innocent people is
something
- -> else entirely.
So those settlers who happened to take scalps where a friendly loot. The
indians didn't have this habbit to take scalps, but took it up as a way of
revenge against the "white man". The indians had a reason why kill, while
the "white man" didn't have anything else than greed as a reason.

//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
--------------------

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>Err... Trees is a natural part of the elven culture.
>>And when humans go to elven lands to hunt and log, its a crime.
>>
> Trees are not part of a culture! They are trees! There are a lot of
>them. They sit around, photosynthesising, little squirrels play in their
>branches. There is nothing evil about cutting one down! There is nothing
>evil about cutting a bunch down! They are a resource, that is all. If the
>elves want to kill people for doing something that does _not_ harm the elves
>physically, then they are psychotic!

Hmm.. I think of Hot Dogs and pizzas as a part of the american culture (and
fat, but I won't mention it out loud ;()
And may I add:
Mental harm can be just as devestating as physical harm.

>>And might I resume the sub-topic of this discussion:
>>Is GS evil?
>>GS is a form of last defence. Defence is normally not considered evil.
>>There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
>>Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.
>>
> It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
>"slaughtering". Entirely different.

Helpless? Since when were woodcutters and such 'helpless'.
I'll be damned if kids were found wandering within the forrests alone.
No 'sane' human goes into the forrests unprotected.
But then again, humans are not sane (at least I'm not ;()
Stupidity kills, and thats what happens within the forrests.
By entering the forrests, they know they are trespassing, and if
the penalty is death, they should be prepared to take it.

Aren't lawbreakers prosecuted in the US?
I'm not talking about what kind of laws, but if one commits a crime,
does the police try to capture them, and bring them to justice?

I don't really know, but is it illegal to trespass on private properties?
What if a trespasser destroyed all your prize-rewarded rosebushes.
Wouldn't you be mad?
And elves love trees even better than most 'nature-loving' humans today.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Daniel McSorley]

From: einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no
>> If invading aliens came and attacked us, we should kill them if we
could.
>>If we then went to Mars and nuked their hometowns, we would be as bad as
>>they were. Same as if we killed the invaders, but they later sent in
>>diplomats and business-aliens to open relations. If we killed those guys,
>>too, we would be morally in the wrong.
>
>Nope.. its called selfdefence. And even Buddhists (who are pasefistic or
>whatever)
>are allowed to defend themselves.
>
It's not self-defense if this guy, right here, the one I'm about to kill,
isn't trying to kill me!

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Trizt]

Øyvind Grønnesby (gronnesb@nvg.ntnu.no) wrote:

- -> I think that if the Native Americans made a terrorist group that
- -> had as goal to to drive away all persons of the European and African
- -> stock (pardon the expression), we would see that as an Evil group.
Nah, I don't think ARM is an evil organisation.

- -> So the Ghaellie Sidhe is generally Evil, but the cause is against an
- -> injustice done a very long time ago.
From the human view of point it was a very long time ago, while for the
elves it's like it had happened not more than a few months ago. Don't forget
that the elves wha are mebers of GS, it's those children and wifes,
relatives and friends who was murdered by *#EVIL#* humans.

//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
--------------------

[Galwylin]

At 02:38 PM 10/16/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> Agreed, however, our heroes are the ones who fought their enemies in the
>face of hopeless odds. The peasants/merchants/lumberjacks/berry-pickers are
>not the enemies of the elves, until the GS kill a few and make them so.

Daniel,

But those are the enemies of the elves. I know its not the same as if they
were wearing armor and came through in troops but they're the first wave of
the inhabitation of elven lands. If the elves allow them to remain, the
next thing they'll want is to build a village, then a city and then they'll
need to go further into elven lands for the ones that can't afford to live
in the city. The elves have chosen to stop it at the start before it
becomes something so great they can't stop it.

> If invading aliens came and attacked us, we should kill them if we could.

This is really all I'm saying. The invading aliens to the elves are the
humans. The elves have been placed in a no win situation by the designers.
If they had stopped the tribes from settling in Cerilia, they would have
been evil for not giving aid. Now that their in the last few kingdoms
left, they are evil for not allowing humans access to their lands. How can
they win? Will the humans leave them in peace or will they forever be
forced to destroy those that are innocently looking for a better life?
Elves shouldn't be in a position to chose between their own culture or the
existance of villagers but humanity has forced it on them. As long as
their way of life is in danger, the gheallie Sidhe isn't going to go away.
And it wouldn't exist without humans forcing their hand. This is all in my
opinion that the gheallie Sidhe doesn't exist for only one reason.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Daniel McSorley]

From: einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no
>> It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
>>"slaughtering". Entirely different.
>
>Helpless? Since when were woodcutters and such 'helpless'.
>I'll be damned if kids were found wandering within the forrests alone.
>No 'sane' human goes into the forrests unprotected.
>But then again, humans are not sane (at least I'm not ;()
>Stupidity kills, and thats what happens within the forrests.
>By entering the forrests, they know they are trespassing, and if
>the penalty is death, they should be prepared to take it.
>
Civilians, compared to trained warriors who like to ambush them, are
helpless.

>Aren't lawbreakers prosecuted in the US?
>I'm not talking about what kind of laws, but if one commits a crime,
>does the police try to capture them, and bring them to justice?
>
>I don't really know, but is it illegal to trespass on private properties?
>What if a trespasser destroyed all your prize-rewarded rosebushes.
>Wouldn't you be mad?
>And elves love trees even better than most 'nature-loving' humans today.
>
The key for law, prosecution, etc, to be moral, is that the punishment
must fit the crime. You don't kill people for stepping on your rosebushes.
Any person is of infinite value compared to a tree, no matter how highly you
value the tree compared to other _things_, so you are overstepping the
bounds of justice, when killing someone for cutting a tree.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Galwylin]

At 02:34 PM 10/16/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> I agree we _should_ however, most people don't, and if you assume that
>the acts of one person _do_ refect completely on humanity, that's a logical
>fallacy, you can't generalize in that fashion.

Well, that is just me but I do believe that every injustice performed by
one on another debases us all. That's why we can't allow injustice to
continue (though it seems like it happens no matter what we decide).

> That's just like the GS. They kill humans because some humans were bad.
>If we ran off all the elves because some of them were bad, we would be just
>as wrong as the GS is. We can't blame all the elves for the actions of the
>GS, just like they can't blame all the humans for the actions of a few bad
>ones. I'm not saying all the elves are evil, I'm saying the GS is.

I'm trying to understand the gheallie Sidhe within the context of the game.
Its relation to our world really doesn't matter. I think in Cerilia, the
gheallie Sidhe does reflect on the total elven population. I think humans
would blame all elves for the gheallie Sidhe and elves blame all humans for
the lost kingdoms. Its the reason goblins can be hated no matter if a
specific goblin wasn't the cause of the hatred.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>Ok, killing defenceless (I won't say innocent) civilians is basically
>>evil. This far I agree. But I don't think the gheallie sidhe were
>>originally racists, but they may have become racists over time.
>>The way I imagine the humans spread was that increasing population
>>pressure and high taxes forced many poor peasants to look for new
>>land elsewhere. A couple of them gathered together, packed their
>>waggons and settled someplace in the "wild lands" or no man's land.
> Did we read the same backstory for Cerilia? The tribes came to Cerilia
>fleeing the Shadow, who basically said to them, follow me, or my other
>followers will kill you. The ran, and when they reached safety, they needed
>some homes, obviously, cut down some trees, plowed some land, and were
>suddenly attacked by the elves!

Hmm.. they were not *suddently* attacked...
Rhoube Manslayer warned them, and I'm sure many others did so too.

>>Now, if you are an elf, what would you do? Kill the people who do the
>>real harm, i.e. the farmers (that's why they are not innocent!), or
>>wait until the army moves in and fight it honorably but in vain? I
>>know it is an oversimplification, but if there are no farmers to
>>protect there's no need for an army. I won't say the farmers had much
>>choice in the matter, but so do the elves. They tried to live
>>together in peace when the humans first came to Cerilia, but it did
>>not work out. They tried to fight them on the field of battle, and
>>lost. There are not many options left to them. Elves have long
>>memories, and they won't trust the humans as easily as they once did.
>>But they also know they can't fight them, because humans are just
>>too numerable.
>
> So, being sneaky, racist cowards, they ride in and kill defenseless
>peasants in their sleep. Good point.

Rascist? Hmm... Don't GS kill Goblins and Orogs too?
Hey, if someone removed your home and made a baseball court there wouldn't
you be mad at that person? Would you easilly forget it?
And 1 year for a human, is not more than a minute for an elf.

>>There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
>>winner (except maybe the war industry :).
> There is plenty of honor in war. Honor is found in the proper fulfilling
>of your obligations. Warriors, especially those in the employ of the lawful
>government, ie soldiers, have an obligation to defend those weaker and less
>able to defend themselves. To do so, they risk life and health, but they
>accept this. And in doing so, they are behaving honorably.

War is for chickens without volcabularies.
I can see the honor in duels, but in war?

> There is also glory to be found in war, that is, you can win praise,
>renown, and distinction by performing well in war, it happens quite often.
>Most of war isn't glorious, it is harsh and brutal, but people can win glory
>in war.
> There are also winners, at least in most wars. Sometimes there is
>stalemate. But one side usually wins: defeats the enemy, drives back his
>troops, and forces them to admit defeat, and pay the penalty for losing.

LOL.. yeah =) War brings enemies too.
Glory? It might just as well be a term invented by rulers so that soldiers
wouldn't object as much to fighting.

>>Both sides will commit
>>atrocities. To the gheallie sidhe, the war is not over until they
>>have driven the humans from their ancestral lands. They see this as
>>defense of their homeland, and don't see themselves as evil.
>>On the other hand, the humans have "won" the war. From their point of
>>view the gheallie sidhe murders defenseless humans without remorse.
>>To the humans, this is evil. There is a saying in German (I don't
>>know if there is an English equivalent) that says history is written
>>by the winner.
> (Didn't you just say that there is no winner?)

Yeah.. but he didn't say "the story is written by the winner", he said a
german guy did.

>>So in a few hundred years elves will probably regarded
>>as evil.
>>
> No, they're evil right now. The humans know this, the other elves know
>this, and unless the GS is really delusional, they know this, but they don't
>care, they enjoy being evil, it makes them feel strong to kill weak sleeping
>humans.

Hmm... sometimes you seem to follow darwins teachings:
Survival of the fittest.
So killing weaker enemies on the battlefield is more 'honorable' than
killing the weakest of the enemies? You should be glad, so that those
stupid ones didn't
reproduce and bring those bad genes further down the lines =) (just another
way of viewing it)

>>> Oh, I'm going to have to argue that point. Not killing people is one the
>>> oldest moral statements in existence. It's Old Testament stuff.
>>
>>Yes, it is. But there is also stuff like "an eye for an eye".
>>
> Yes, this is in the sense of lawfully carrying out a just punishement on
>a criminal, not forming a vigilante group and hunting people down. The
>state has a responsibility to defend its citizens from harm; this may
>include carrying out a sentence of death if the state decides this is
>neccessary.

Ohhh... Hmm.. Constabulary ring a bell?
Iron Guards of Ghoere? (just to pick an even worse human counterpart).
The trespassers are not citizens of the elven lands, they are despoilers of
the forrests.


>>> Besides, I don't think the argument has been that the GS are evil
>>> because they kill. The argument is that the GS are evil because
>>> they kill indiscriminately. Even when humans came to Cerilia and
>>> committed the horrific crime of cutting down trees for which they
>>> earned an elven death sentence, they did not cut down trees
>>> indiscriminately. Humans did not gather together in bands and say,
>>> "Tonight let's go out and cut us down some trees! Yeeehaaa!
>>> Get them lousy leaf producin' photosynthesizin' good for nothin'
>>> bark colored, woody plants! Get 'em!"
> (That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!)
>
>>I can agree on most of this. The gheallie sidhe are evil because they
>>kill indiscriminately. But does this make the humans any better?
> You cannot generalize all humans this way! The ones that slaughter
>innocent elves are definitely evil, this has never been argued! The GS
>commits the logical fallacy of generalizing this to _all_ humans, so yes,
>the innocent humans are better than the GS!

99% of the 'innocents' killed (not counting Rhoubhes men, as they are
fanatics.)
are killed within elven lands. They are lawbreakers, are they not?

>>It surely does not make them martyrs.
> It sure does!
>_Martyr_
>: A person who sacrifices something of great value and esp. life for the
>sake of principle;

All of the GS are martyrs then... =)

>: VICTIM; esp : a great or constant sufferer.

Elves has been suffering for 1000 years =)

> The innocent VICTIMs of the GS, who risk, and lose, their lives because
>they need to earn to survive, are martyrs.

There are victims of both sides.
There are lots of unhabitated plains in central anuire.
Hey! There are lots of open spots in khinasi lands.
Why don't go there? (J/K)

>> I've tried to point out on
>>possible motivation for the elves to kill peasants and lumberjacks.
> Fine, they have a motivation. It is a logically indefensible one,
>completely immoral, but they have a motivation.

Ok... Indefensible? Humans removes the homes of elves, the elves kills all
humans trying to take even more. And then the elves are evil (well.. some
are.. =)

>>The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
>>out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.
>>
> The original humans to come to Cerilia were motivated by survival, that
>of themselves, and that of their families. I am a die-hard cynic, but greed
>is not the "most basic human motivation". Survival is, it's genetic, if you
>aren't programmed to survive, you don't live long enough to pass on that
>trait.

Hmmm... what happened to honor in war?
And I must agree, the number one trait is "survival"
But if the survival means having to kill someone..
is it evil? or is it natural (neutral?)?

Siebharrin the Lich

[Galwylin]

At 02:42 PM 10/16/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> Actually, they probably would, because then instead of being
>fearful/hateful of them all the time, the Empire would have made trade
>relations, met them, gotten to know them, and as long as the relationship
>stayed good, they would have been secure, you don't normally attack your
>trading partners.

You're still overlooking that humans have acknowledged that they did betray
the trust of the elves. If the elves had started attacking without cause,
then you'd be right. They may have had better relations but humans
betrayed them so we don't have to wonder if that would have worked or not.
We know it didn't.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it
>yours?
>>
> Bad example. I'll only live to be 100 tops, figure.

Lol.. ok.. You're quite like me then =)

>So, I'm 19 now, in
>a couple of years I buy a house. 5 years later, evil Canuckians invade, and
>throw me out. Some of their soldiers live in my house. 25 years later, I
>wander back through. Yes, it is still my house, however, I find a Canuckian
>family living there, none of them have ever been in the Canuckian Red
>Brigade, I've never met them before. If I break in and kill them, I am like
>the GS. However, being a generally nice guy, I wouldn't do that, I'd say,
>"oh, darn", and buy the house next door, which is what the _non_
>racist-psycho-murderer elves have done in BR.

Hmm.. "oh, darn"?
You don't speak out, and maybe act against it?
Calling the police for example?

And Ouch.. the elves don't have that option... (to move next door that is)
They are completely surrounded remember?
*no* elven lands border the sea, so they can't take refuge on another
island and drive back the local population. If they did, would it be evil?

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>Again, I don't distingish the difference between humans and humanity. We
>>all should carry ourselves as if our personal actions relect on humanity.
>>The gheallie Sidhe should do the same because Cerilians do form a basis of
>>assumptions on elves because of the actions of a few.
>>
> I agree we _should_ however, most people don't, and if you assume that
>the acts of one person _do_ refect completely on humanity, that's a logical
>fallacy, you can't generalize in that fashion.
>
>>By this I meant that if we say elves are acting evil then their claim to
>>the forests should be cast aside. They are undeserving. Evil is
>>undeserving of freedom, happiness, and life (in my opinion).
>>
> That's just like the GS. They kill humans because some humans were bad.
>If we ran off all the elves because some of them were bad, we would be just
>as wrong as the GS is. We can't blame all the elves for the actions of the
>GS, just like they can't blame all the humans for the actions of a few bad
>ones. I'm not saying all the elves are evil, I'm saying the GS is.

I do not say GS is 'good', because goodguys don't kill people (except in
the movies).
But I'd refrain from calling them evil. I think the gheallie Sidhe would
follow:
CG with lawfull tendencies (to defend other elves against humans).

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>Many of our heroes
>>are those that stood against hopeless odds and didn't necessarily survive.
>>It was the struggle.
> Agreed, however, our heroes are the ones who fought their enemies in the
>face of hopeless odds. The peasants/merchants/lumberjacks/berry-pickers are
>not the enemies of the elves, until the GS kill a few and make them so.
>
>>It is a racist view that humans are better than elves
>>and they hate them for that. But if all these people that see UFOs are
>>right and a new alien race comes to Earth that is better than we and wants
>>our resources, will we act any differently? Fear, hopelessness,
>>determination for survival are very powerful motivations.
>>
> If invading aliens came and attacked us, we should kill them if we could.
>If we then went to Mars and nuked their hometowns, we would be as bad as
>they were. Same as if we killed the invaders, but they later sent in
>diplomats and business-aliens to open relations. If we killed those guys,
>too, we would be morally in the wrong.

Nope.. its called selfdefence. And even Buddhists (who are pasefistic or
whatever)
are allowed to defend themselves.

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>>Well, again, I don't see how you can describe what the GS do as "defence".
>> They
>>>kill humans indescrimanately. Defenders don't go after non-combatants.
>>Defenders
>>>oppose attacks, which is not really what the GS are doing. They are
>hunting
>>>humans. Big difference.
>>
>>Well.. Lets see.. how much of GS happens outside elven realms (not
>>including Dhoesone, as its split between elven and human pop with no
>>borders). Very little. Only the ones in Rhoubhe (there are exceptions).
>>
>>The problem is: Humans continue to trespass on elven lands, no matter
>>what elves do. And so one can call GS as a border-patrol, with 007
>>tendencies (license to kill). They try to defend their forrest from others.
>>
> But they are not a legal unit fighting in a war, they are terrorists who
>have taken the matter into their own hands. They weren't given that
>license, they just decided they had it. And, they kill people who come in
>peacefully, instead of invaders! They kill guilders and merchants, who
>_want_ to trade with the elves.

Nono.. Trespassers break the 'laws'. Trespassers despoil nature.
Trespassers are Evil.

Evil is just an abstract word for: The other ones, whose provess/property
we covet.

>>Do you think elves would been allowed to keep their culture/forrest for
>>1000 years if they had had open borders all along?
>>
> Actually, they probably would, because then instead of being
>fearful/hateful of them all the time, the Empire would have made trade
>relations, met them, gotten to know them, and as long as the relationship
>stayed good, they would have been secure, you don't normally attack your
>trading partners.

Nono.. The Empire would have demanded vasselage. They did not spare other
humans, what makes you think they would spare the elves?

Siebharrin the Lich

[Spyderz]

>Isn't the 20th century nice. It gets a lot messier back in medieval
>times. Not to mention the fact that elves don't qualify as human, in
>other words, xenophobia. Look what the serbs, croats, and muslims get
>up to. They have been living together and trading for centuries you'll
>note that even in our present highly civilized era it hasn't stopped
>them from killing each other.


Ok...from this example...would you call the Serbs, Croats, or the Muslims
EVIL?...I wouldn't...I would just say that their beliefs differ and are
mutually exclusive...although some of the methods they use (such as
terrorism...which is exactly what the GS do) are evil....

[Spyderz]

>So those settlers who happened to take scalps where a friendly loot. The
>indians didn't have this habbit to take scalps, but took it up as a way of
>revenge against the "white man". The indians had a reason why kill, while
>the "white man" didn't have anything else than greed as a reason.

Actually the indians took up scalping because of war...and the fact that the
nice people from England were paying the indians to kill...and demanded
scalps as proof...

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Pieter A de Jong
>Daniel McSorley wrote:
>>
>> From: Siebharrin / Arathorn
>> >If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it
>> yours?
>> >
>> Bad example. I'll only live to be 100 tops, figure. So, I'm 19 now,
in
>> a couple of years I buy a house. 5 years later, evil Canuckians invade,
and
>> throw me out. Some of their soldiers live in my house. 25 years later,
I
>> wander back through. Yes, it is still my house, however, I find a
Canuckian
>> family living there, none of them have ever been in the Canuckian Red
>> Brigade, I've never met them before. If I break in and kill them, I am
like
>> the GS. However, being a generally nice guy, I wouldn't do that, I'd
say,
>> "oh, darn", and buy the house next door, which is what the _non_
>> racist-psycho-murderer elves have done in BR.
>>
>Dan, I'm confused, what house next door is their for the elves to buy in
>Birthright?
There's a big house next door, named Tuarhievel! And Coullabhie, and the
Sielwode, and all the other places the elves live right now.
Maybe my house example was a bad one, maybe I should have said the CRB
took over my town, whatever :)

>(note that the Gheallie Sidhe
>are civilians as well, just better equipped because they are immortals).
The GS was a military unit by training, way back when, and you guys keep
throwing in my face that these are the same elves that founded it way back
then, who are killing and leading it right now.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Ryan Freire]

again i think you should read Greatheart, it does an excellent job of
explaining the elven culture on cerilia, as well as explaining how the
elves view trees. NOT as just aesthetically pleasing, they believe that
some trees contain the spirits of dead elves, sort of a reincarnation
thing. The GS DOES have government endorsement in quite a few elven
nations llulabreight (pardon the spelling) being one of them. War does
NOT have to be between two armies...it can simply be between two
peoples, all a war is is an ongoing brawl between a lot of people. As
for the Old testament, isnt that the book that also advocates the
destruction of the heathens, the slaughter of an entire army by a
"benevolent" god who sends plagues and death to those who oppose him? i
really dont think thats a great place to be getting morality from. The
pilgrims may have not arrived much at first, but within 50 years their
population had become almost a hundred thousand people. and twenty
after that it was two hundred and fifty thousand.
probably (in my view) the same way the humans first arrived on cerilia

ryan


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

[Daniel McSorley]

From: einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no
>Hey, if someone removed your home and made a baseball court there wouldn't
>you be mad at that person? Would you easilly forget it?
>And 1 year for a human, is not more than a minute for an elf.
>
Bull. They have a different understanding of time, but they still
recognize that time passes, especially since they have long been aware of
other races that have shorter lifespans.
And the problem with the basketball court thing is that the people I
would be taking my "revenge" on had nothing to do with the crime.

>>>There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
>>>winner (except maybe the war industry :).
>> There is plenty of honor in war. Honor is found in the proper
fulfilling
>>of your obligations. Warriors, especially those in the employ of the
lawful
>>government, ie soldiers, have an obligation to defend those weaker and
less
>>able to defend themselves. To do so, they risk life and health, but they
>>accept this. And in doing so, they are behaving honorably.
>
>War is for chickens without volcabularies.
Pardon? I don't follow.

>I can see the honor in duels, but in war?
>
This is a misconception. Honor is based on fulfillment of obligations.
You rarely have an obligation to kill someone in personal combat. Duels
were more often fought over issues of face, that is, one person was
embarassed and decided he needed to kill the other for it, so he would no
longer be embarrassed. Stupid, no?

>Glory? It might just as well be a term invented by rulers so that soldiers
>wouldn't object as much to fighting.
>
Well, then by your definition, there is glory in war :)

>99% of the 'innocents' killed (not counting Rhoubhes men, as they are
>fanatics.)
>are killed within elven lands. They are lawbreakers, are they not?
>
But not ones worthy of death, by any just measure. A lot of them are the
merchants who want to trade with the elves, as I keep saying, the lawful
government doesn't even consider them trespassers, so the GS is making up
their own rules to declare these people worthy of death.

>Ok... Indefensible? Humans removes the homes of elves, the elves kills all
>humans trying to take even more. And then the elves are evil (well.. some
>are.. =)
>
The humans aren't trying to take more. Some harvest trees, which are a
renewable resource might I add. The elves should have less problem with
trees being cut down than the Sierra Club, because they can recall when the
trees were young, they probably planted some, and they know that they'll see
the young trees now be tall "soon".

>>>The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
>>>out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.
>>>
>> The original humans to come to Cerilia were motivated by survival, that
>>of themselves, and that of their families. I am a die-hard cynic, but
greed
>>is not the "most basic human motivation". Survival is, it's genetic, if
you
>>aren't programmed to survive, you don't live long enough to pass on that
>>trait.
>
>Hmmm... what happened to honor in war?
I don't follow your question as it relates to the above paragraph...

>And I must agree, the number one trait is "survival"
>But if the survival means having to kill someone..
>is it evil? or is it natural (neutral?)?
>
Their (the GS/ elves in general) survival doesn't depend on killing
these people. These peasants are _not_ wading into the woods with swords to
get some nice elf ears to hang on their belts. There is a huge difference
between cutting some trees, a very renewable resource, and actually
threatening the life of another being.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>Oh my god! Look what I've done! A "simple" question about the gheallie
Sidhe and look
>what I got going!
>
>-Andrew

And we thank you =)
Gheallie Sidhe is a topic worth discussing...
I'm tired of all the plain questions.

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>> If invading aliens came and attacked us, we should kill them if we
>could.
>>>If we then went to Mars and nuked their hometowns, we would be as bad as
>>>they were. Same as if we killed the invaders, but they later sent in
>>>diplomats and business-aliens to open relations. If we killed those guys,
>>>too, we would be morally in the wrong.
>>
>>Nope.. its called selfdefence. And even Buddhists (who are pasefistic or
>>whatever)
>>are allowed to defend themselves.
>>
> It's not self-defense if this guy, right here, the one I'm about to kill,
>isn't trying to kill me!

Nope.. but he is trying to kill your next of kin.

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>> It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
>>>"slaughtering". Entirely different.
>>
>>Helpless? Since when were woodcutters and such 'helpless'.
>>I'll be damned if kids were found wandering within the forrests alone.
>>No 'sane' human goes into the forrests unprotected.
>>But then again, humans are not sane (at least I'm not ;()
>>Stupidity kills, and thats what happens within the forrests.
>>By entering the forrests, they know they are trespassing, and if
>>the penalty is death, they should be prepared to take it.
>>
> Civilians, compared to trained warriors who like to ambush them, are
>helpless.

Oups.. Only because they've got a couple of hundred years of practice, so
they cuold revenge their parents and kin =)

>>Aren't lawbreakers prosecuted in the US?
>>I'm not talking about what kind of laws, but if one commits a crime,
>>does the police try to capture them, and bring them to justice?
>>
>>I don't really know, but is it illegal to trespass on private properties?
>>What if a trespasser destroyed all your prize-rewarded rosebushes.
>>Wouldn't you be mad?
>>And elves love trees even better than most 'nature-loving' humans today.
>>
> The key for law, prosecution, etc, to be moral, is that the punishment
>must fit the crime. You don't kill people for stepping on your rosebushes.

Sure.. but elves don't have the same moral standards as modern civilizations.
Not that humans in BR have the same.

>Any person is of infinite value compared to a tree, no matter how highly you
>value the tree compared to other _things_, so you are overstepping the
>bounds of justice, when killing someone for cutting a tree.

Not to elves. I think many elves (especially GS) value trees over human lives.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Ryan Freire]

> Trees are not part of a culture! They are trees! There are a >lot
of them. They sit around, photosynthesising, little squirrels >play in
their branches. There is nothing evil about cutting one down! >There is
nothing evil about cutting a bunch down! They are a >resource, that is
all. If the elves want to kill people for doing >something that does
_not_ harm the elves physically, then they are >psychotic!

I suggest reading "The Complete Elves Handbook" before making claims
that trees are not part of the elves culture. Especially when you
consider that the cerilian elves, are even more in tune with nature than
the elves in that handbook.


> It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
>"slaughtering". Entirely different.

It's the "defense" of their lands, THEIR trees and whatnot. And as far
as ive read, the GS doesn't ride deep into the human lands and slaughter
villiage after villiage of helpless humans. They patrol their borders
and when tresspassers (mostly humans entering their woods to chop trees
illegally or poach) they do one of two things 1:they kill them or 2:
they turn them back to the borders, often without whatever nasty
implements of destruction they had on them.
the turning back happens JUST as often as the killing in most of the
elven lands.


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

[Ryan Freire]

> But they are not a legal unit fighting in a war, they are terrorists
who have taken the matter into their own hands. They weren't given that
license, they just decided they had it. And, they kill people who come
in peacefully, instead of invaders! They kill >guilders and merchants,
who _want_ to trade with the elves.

Actually the GS are a legal fighting unit in most elven nations. They
WERE sanctioned to do such...just because it happened a thousand years
ago doesnt mean it doesnt apply today. Look at documents like the Magna
Carta. The elves have made it clear they dont _WANT_ humans
tresspassing on their lands they dont _WANT_ trade with human nations.
that makes a merchant seem like a tresspasser to me.

> Actually, they probably would, because then instead of being
fearful/hateful of them all the time, the Empire would have made trade
relations, met them, gotten to know them, and as long as the
relationship stayed good, they would have been secure, you don't
>normally attack your trading partners.

Take a look at the empire map under Michael Roele. They conquered
places like Baruk Azhuk (the dwarves that adhere to a friendly
neutrality) all the way to the khinasi lands and back again. i really
doubt they wouldnt have tried to either make them vassals or conquer
them outright eventually.

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

[Spyderz]

>> It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
>>"slaughtering". Entirely different.
>
>It's the "defense" of their lands, THEIR trees and whatnot. And as far
>as ive read, the GS doesn't ride deep into the human lands and slaughter
>villiage after villiage of helpless humans. They patrol their borders
>and when tresspassers (mostly humans entering their woods to chop trees
>illegally or poach) they do one of two things 1:they kill them or 2:
>they turn them back to the borders, often without whatever nasty
>implements of destruction they had on them.
>the turning back happens JUST as often as the killing in most of the
>elven lands.
Ok...I don't think the GS ever turn them back at the borders...given an
opportunity they kill...and if they didn't think that the elves as a whole
would be wiped out...they would almost surely ride into human lands and
slaughter village after village of helpless humans...or at least that's the
impression I get from all the BR supplements that have info on them...

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Ryan Freire
>I suggest reading "The Complete Elves Handbook" before making claims
>that trees are not part of the elves culture. Especially when you
>consider that the cerilian elves, are even more in tune with nature than
>the elves in that handbook.
>
OK, fine, for the sake of argument I will concede that a tree is a
culturally important thing for an elf. But cutting one, or a lot, down does
not justify killing the person doing the cutting.

>> It is not "defense" to kill helpless people. This is known as
>>"slaughtering". Entirely different.
>
>It's the "defense" of their lands, THEIR trees and whatnot.
You do not kill over trees, dammit! Defense of yourself, not defense of
yourstuff!

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Ryan Freire
>Actually the GS are a legal fighting unit in most elven nations. They
>WERE sanctioned to do such...just because it happened a thousand years
>ago doesnt mean it doesnt apply today. Look at documents like the Magna
>Carta. The elves have made it clear they dont _WANT_ humans
>tresspassing on their lands they dont _WANT_ trade with human nations.
>that makes a merchant seem like a tresspasser to me.
>
No, they want trade. Prince Fhileraene has outlawed the GS, and set up
trade with his neigbors, especially Dhoesone. The GS takes it upon
themselves to say the traders are tresspassers, and then they kill them.
Their sanction is gone, they are now brigands. They even go into Dhoesone,
a human land, though forested in places, and kill people they find in the
woods.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>Hey, if someone removed your home and made a baseball court there wouldn't
>>you be mad at that person? Would you easilly forget it?
>>And 1 year for a human, is not more than a minute for an elf.
>>
> Bull. They have a different understanding of time, but they still
>recognize that time passes, especially since they have long been aware of
>other races that have shorter lifespans.
> And the problem with the basketball court thing is that the people I
>would be taking my "revenge" on had nothing to do with the crime.

LOL.. you got the point.. (?)

>>>>There is no glory in war, and no honor, and, above all, no real
>>>>winner (except maybe the war industry :).
>>> There is plenty of honor in war. Honor is found in the proper
>fulfilling
>>>of your obligations. Warriors, especially those in the employ of the
>lawful
>>>government, ie soldiers, have an obligation to defend those weaker and
>less
>>>able to defend themselves. To do so, they risk life and health, but they
>>>accept this. And in doing so, they are behaving honorably.
>>
>>War is for chickens without volcabularies.
> Pardon? I don't follow.

The Pen/mouth is mightier than the sword.
I'm referring to Diplomacy.

>>I can see the honor in duels, but in war?
>>
> This is a misconception. Honor is based on fulfillment of obligations.
>You rarely have an obligation to kill someone in personal combat. Duels
>were more often fought over issues of face, that is, one person was
>embarassed and decided he needed to kill the other for it, so he would no
>longer be embarrassed. Stupid, no?

Stupid.. but more honorfull.. At least the duelists send thousands to their
deaths because of their internal struggle.

>>Glory? It might just as well be a term invented by rulers so that soldiers
>>wouldn't object as much to fighting.
>>
> Well, then by your definition, there is glory in war :)

Nope.. Actually.. I've got sorta a double-morale (I'm young).
I'd like to become a special-force dude. Because of the training.
But I'm a pacifist.. I've even been put in the hospital because I refused
to strike back at a guy.

>>99% of the 'innocents' killed (not counting Rhoubhes men, as they are
>>fanatics.)
>>are killed within elven lands. They are lawbreakers, are they not?
>>
> But not ones worthy of death, by any just measure. A lot of them are the
>merchants who want to trade with the elves, as I keep saying, the lawful
>government doesn't even consider them trespassers, so the GS is making up
>their own rules to declare these people worthy of death.

The elves don't want to trade with the humans...
If humans can't accept that, then they are foolish.

>>Ok... Indefensible? Humans removes the homes of elves, the elves kills all
>>humans trying to take even more. And then the elves are evil (well.. some
>>are.. =)
>>
> The humans aren't trying to take more. Some harvest trees, which are a
>renewable resource might I add. The elves should have less problem with
>trees being cut down than the Sierra Club, because they can recall when the
>trees were young, they probably planted some, and they know that they'll see
>the young trees now be tall "soon".

Humans are also a renewable source. Though they don't burn as easilly
as wood...

>>>>The elves tried to live in peace with the humans, but it did not work
>>>>out. And why? Because of the most basic human motivation: greed.
>>>>
>>> The original humans to come to Cerilia were motivated by survival, that
>>>of themselves, and that of their families. I am a die-hard cynic, but
>greed
>>>is not the "most basic human motivation". Survival is, it's genetic, if
>you
>>>aren't programmed to survive, you don't live long enough to pass on that
>>>trait.
>>
>>Hmmm... what happened to honor in war?
> I don't follow your question as it relates to the above paragraph...
>
>>And I must agree, the number one trait is "survival"
>>But if the survival means having to kill someone..
>>is it evil? or is it natural (neutral?)?
>>
> Their (the GS/ elves in general) survival doesn't depend on killing
>these people. These peasants are _not_ wading into the woods with swords to
>get some nice elf ears to hang on their belts. There is a huge difference
>between cutting some trees, a very renewable resource, and actually
>threatening the life of another being.

Hmm... Cutting down one tree? And let it grow up again?
I don't think so... They would remove *lots* of trees, and make another
farm to be able to feed all the youngsters.

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>> >If I occupied your house for 1000 years... Would you still consider it
>>> yours?
>>> >
>>> Bad example. I'll only live to be 100 tops, figure. So, I'm 19 now,
>in
>>> a couple of years I buy a house. 5 years later, evil Canuckians invade,
>and
>>> throw me out. Some of their soldiers live in my house. 25 years later,
>I
>>> wander back through. Yes, it is still my house, however, I find a
>Canuckian
>>> family living there, none of them have ever been in the Canuckian Red
>>> Brigade, I've never met them before. If I break in and kill them, I am
>like
>>> the GS. However, being a generally nice guy, I wouldn't do that, I'd
>say,
>>> "oh, darn", and buy the house next door, which is what the _non_
>>> racist-psycho-murderer elves have done in BR.
>>>
>>Dan, I'm confused, what house next door is their for the elves to buy in
>>Birthright?
> There's a big house next door, named Tuarhievel! And Coullabhie, and the
>Sielwode, and all the other places the elves live right now.
> Maybe my house example was a bad one, maybe I should have said the CRB
>took over my town, whatever :)

Hmmm..... Why did the frenchmen object to german rule during the WW2 like
they did. Because it was their homeland. They could just as well have moved
to england or spain!
And it was my bad house example!!! ;)

>>(note that the Gheallie Sidhe
>>are civilians as well, just better equipped because they are immortals).
> The GS was a military unit by training, way back when, and you guys keep
>throwing in my face that these are the same elves that founded it way back
>then, who are killing and leading it right now.

Well.. Half of them are... (maybe, rhoubhe)
And I don't have the energy to open up my BR book and read up on it =)

And I generally think we have used most arguments available...
So this discussion is about as dead as it gets =)
(Unless someone dears to throw some more fuel on this fire)

Siebharrin the Lich

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 06:35 AM 10/16/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>I'm of the radical opinion that farming and cutting down trees is not evil,
>especially on a medieval level. You might make such an argument for the
slash >and burn farming going on in South America, but I really don't buy it
for >Cerilia.
>
Consider this. Over the long term, intensive agriculture (plow farming) has
advanced against all other forms of subsistance: horticulture (hoe farming),
pastoralism, and hunter-gatherer. This happened on earth because intensive
agriculture supports a much larger population than all the others, and large
populations devolope more complex societies. This seems to have happened in
Cerilia.

>It's not like farming is the high profit, low risk activity that I think
>it has been presented on this message board. Farmers don't rake in the
>money like I think people are making it sound. Farming is the way humans
>subsist. If you are gong to cast the elves as people trying to defend
their >culture by killing humans for farming, why not use the same standard
for >humans? Humans farm to live. Keeping forested land unfarmed could
>potentially starve humans all over Cerilia.
>
I have not seen posts that suggest farming is a great source of coin, only
that it supports the ever growing population of humans. But also, as I
suggest below, human settlement does displace eleven settlement.

At 04:01 PM 10/16/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>Logging takes place in the forrests. farming is much better off on the plains.

As a native son of Illinois I am here to tell you that forests can be
converted into farmland. When Illinois became a state in 1818 it was almost
completly forested. Now there are very few trees.

At 04:01 PM 10/16/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>GS is a form of last defence. Defence is normally not considered evil.
>There is a good way to get rid of GS: "Don't venture close to elven lands".
>Then the GS wouldn't be able to recruit as many as they have done before.

Since when is defence allowed to use every last effort without moral
censure? Defence follows the same rules as offence, with one advantage --
the right to defend is presumed.

At 06:12 PM 10/15/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
> ...And the humans chaotic nature (selfishness) makes sure of it.
[and]
>I'd rather brand the humans as selfish than GS evil.

Selfishness is not "chaotic", its "evil". The Good-Evil polarism is one
between altruism and selfishness. The Lawful-Chaotic polarity is between
order and disorder. Lawful people will take other people's stuff with
arduously argued claims justifying their actions (before a court, one's
peers &c.) while chaotics won't bother to take account of the "approved"
methods of taking other people's stuff.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 10:30 AM 10/16/98 -0600, Pieter A de Jong wrote:
>I hate to say this, but I think there is a problem what with the basic
>premises. The assumption is that the humans are a superior species as
>compared to everyone else. If it is inevitable that the humans will
>conquer on numbers alone, why were the elves able to take and enslave
>the goblin races (until the elves started fighting among themselves)
>before the humans got to Cerilia. Let's get serious. The goblins have
>an even faster birthrate than humans, and on average are *better*
>fighters (try a great goblin vs. your average 0 level human soldier).

Pieter, since common goblins (1-1 HD) are 50% of the population, and elite
goblins (1+1 HD) are another 30%, they are the proper comparison to the
common human soldier. Also, high birthrate implies high death rate, not
neccesarily population growth. Given goblin medicine and technology, I
think this certainly the case.

>Also, the goblins had some spellcasters, shamans, and I believe that
>goblin magicians have been proposed on this list, as well as in the
>generic resource The Complete Book of Humanoids. Hell, Birthright
>goblins should be exterminating the humans, not serving as fodder for
>awnsheglien armies.

This assesment is at complete variance with the treatment of The Complete
Book of Humanoids.

>All right, now we reach the kicker. Gods. Humans have clerics, elves
>don't. ... Not to mention that the average elven wizard,
>having lived 10 times as long as the average human cleric is probably
>going to have at a minimum 2X (probably closer to 5X) as many experience
>points and therefore will be significantly higher level than the human
>cleric.

This does not follow. IMO, eleves do not have the ambition to climb in
levels that humans do, and prefer to frolic in the woodlands. I think for
various reasons the level advancement for all races turns out to be equal in
by the death of invividuals. Elves spend to much time singing and dancing,
dwarves pay too much attention to details to have the rate of advancement
that humans do. Looking at the NPC's offered in game materials, elves and
dwarves (or any long lived species) do not have any marked advantage over
humans.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 10:46 AM 10/16/98 -0600, Pieter A de Jong wrote:
>Wrong Gary, plenty of human cultures have survived without large scale
>deforestation. Simple examples : Eskimos (no trees *to* cut down),
>Indians in North America (great plains and otherwise), Mongol horsemen,
>assorted arabic nomad cultures in the Middle East. I'm sure that there
>are other examples. The only reason human cultures cut trees is be
>because they are convenient. If they aren't available, we will
>use something else to keep ourselves warm.

This is quite a list of cultures reknown for their highly advanced
societies. Would you deny that access to greater and more varied resources
is a cause of a society's developent? Could Anuire have reached its high
level of civilization burning cow dung for warmth?

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

>CG with lawfull tendencies

Is this like up with down tendencies, empty with full tendencies, black with
with tendencies, tall with short tendencies, heavy with light tendencies?

> I do not say GS is 'good' ... But I'd refrain from calling them evil.

Doesn't this cry out for neutral? In the case of the elves, chaotic neutral.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 08:50 PM 10/16/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>... its called selfdefence. And even Buddhists (who are pasefistic or
>whatever) are allowed to defend themselves.

No, pacifists do night defend themselves. You might allow it, but they do
not allow it of themselves. "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer
your other cheek as well. If anyone grabs your coat, let him have your
shirt as well. Give to anyone who asks, and if someone takes away your
belongings, do not ask to have them back."

At 08:53 PM 10/16/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>Evil is just an abstract word for: The other ones, whose provess/property
>we covet.

You have not encountered evil. You *have* noticed that the term evil is
often applied to those who we oppose, but Siebharrin, that does not make
them evil. Evil causes harm, pain, and ruin. I have observed that people
like to make the opposite assumption, and define good based on what they
want to do. Hardly. Let's admit we're not candiadates for sainthood, and
stop using ourselves for the definition of "good" and what we oppose as
definitions for "evil". Irregardless of how the real world works, AD&D is
charged with evil and good as external forces in addition to the subtleties
mentioned in previous posts.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Galwylin]

Just wanted to give a few points on the gheallie Sidhe in different elven
kingdoms in Anuirean lands. Seemed to be the actions of radicals within
the elven kingdoms but it looks like this is coming from elven governments.
I think an intersting aspect is that half-elves are welcomed into their
culture. Not a usual response from people that hate humans so throughly as
the gheallie Sidhe would suggest. I get the feeling that hatred isn't the
reasons for it except in one example.

**
From the Atlas:
Elven knights were commissioned to roam the lands held by the elves,
slaying whatever humans they found tresspassing in their borders.
**

Clearly the gheallie Sidhe was a measure to keep humans out of elven lands
after other attempts had failed. It didn't take into account why they were
there. It assumed the worst. If police have you surrounded and you don't
stop when they tell you to, you'll probably be shot. Doesn't matter if you
only wanted to explain what you were doing. They don't take the chance
that you have any motive other than harm. I can tell you the same thing.
Enter my house and I will shoot you. Choice is to enter or not. You
enter, you're shot. Don't care if you were just wanting to borrow a cup of
sugar. Very clear cut choices on the part of the tresspassers. I don't
think this is evil. Its not good but after you've been through the same
thing over and over, it seems necessary.

**
Tuarhievel from Ruins of Empire:
Though the prince has stated his official displeasure with those involved
(the gheallie Sidhe), the Hunt continues to take place during the darkest
nights.
**

Clearly the actions of those that don't believe the original purpose of the
gheallie Sidhe is over. Small bands of elves that want to recapture the
past? Can be avoided. Don't enter Tuarhievel at night. Not actually
sanctioned by the Tuarhievel government but does give you the feeling
that's just a formality.

**
The Sielwode from Ruins of Empire:
She (Isaelie) knows that, despite the dangers hidden within her lands, the
humans will eventually turn their gazes toward the Seilwode. The Sielwode
is no place for humans.
**

A clear perception of threat from someone that doesn't hate humans (she has
several half-elven children). Performs raids in retaliation and are
initiated by Isaelie herself. Not labeled gheallie Sidhe though.

**
Rhuobhe from Ruins of Empire:
War parties occasionally steal out to raid human lands.
**

Of course this is sanctioned by Rhuobhe. Even heavily encouraged. The
most aggressive of all the gheallie Sidhes.

**
Rhuobhe himself from Blood Enemies:
Rhuobhe went to his friends and pleaded with them to cease their damaging
ways, but to no avail.
The cages are occupied by the skeletons of traitorous elves who betray
Rhuobhe and humans who foolishly attempt to destroy the Manslayer and his kin.
**

We do see that he tried to convince his friends (humans) but they wouldn't
listen. And that humans aren't the only victims of his holy war. I like
this type villian. He's been so throughly changed by his hatred, that what
he fights for he is also destroying.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>CG with lawfull tendencies
>
>Is this like up with down tendencies, empty with full tendencies, black with
>with tendencies, tall with short tendencies, heavy with light tendencies?

Elves live in this paradox =)
Elves are chaotic by nature, but the GS is, according to themselves, a
defence against outsiders. And to value the culture above the individual is
lawful right?
Frankly I don't remember =)

>> I do not say GS is 'good' ... But I'd refrain from calling them evil.
>
>Doesn't this cry out for neutral? In the case of the elves, chaotic neutral.

=) Exactly

Siebharrin the Lich

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>>... its called selfdefence. And even Buddhists (who are pasefistic or
>>whatever) are allowed to defend themselves.
>
>No, pacifists do night defend themselves. You might allow it, but they do
>not allow it of themselves. "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you,
>pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer
>your other cheek as well. If anyone grabs your coat, let him have your
>shirt as well. Give to anyone who asks, and if someone takes away your
>belongings, do not ask to have them back."

Hmm.. I think Mahayana (Tibet Buddhism) allows selfdefence.
And they are still considered pasifists.
They may not want to kill, but I think all except Buddhas would want to
defend their lives.

>>Evil is just an abstract word for: The other ones, whose provess/property
>>we covet.
>
>You have not encountered evil. You *have* noticed that the term evil is
>often applied to those who we oppose, but Siebharrin, that does not make
>them evil. Evil causes harm, pain, and ruin. I have observed that people
>like to make the opposite assumption, and define good based on what they
>want to do. Hardly. Let's admit we're not candiadates for sainthood, and
>stop using ourselves for the definition of "good" and what we oppose as
>definitions for "evil". Irregardless of how the real world works, AD&D is
>charged with evil and good as external forces in addition to the subtleties
>mentioned in previous posts.

Hey.. Saints? I hope we're not talking about christian saints LOL.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Kenneth Gauck]

At 01:18 AM 10/17/98 +0100, einarh@fagerborg.vgs.no wrote:
>Elves are chaotic by nature, but the GS is, according to themselves, a
>defence against outsiders. And to value the culture above the individual is
>lawful right?
>Frankly I don't remember =)

I think this is a subtle misreading of alignment. Lawfulness suggests
valuing the whole over the individual not just as a matter of personal
philosophy, but implies an obligation. If the Gheallie Sidhe was based on a
kind of draft or conscription, that would certainly be a lawful
characteristic. But it seems that its a self-selecting group based on
convictions. Chaotics make sacrifices, but they do that when they are
commited. Lawfuls accept sacrifice irregardless of whether they accept this
particular situation. The lawful needs only to give his support to the
society that demanded his sacrifice.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Trizt]

Daniel McSorley (mcsorley.1@osu.edu) wrote:

- -> From: Ryan Freire
- ->> I suggest reading "The Complete Elves Handbook" before making claims
- ->> that trees are not part of the elves culture. Especially when you
- ->> consider that the cerilian elves, are even more in tune with nature than
- ->> the elves in that handbook.
- -> OK, fine, for the sake of argument I will concede that a tree is a
- -> culturally important thing for an elf. But cutting one, or a lot, down
does
- -> not justify killing the person doing the cutting.

Let us assume that things where the other way, it was the elves who was the
invaders while the humans would be the defenders. So you would say that if
the elves burned down the humans houses it wouldn't be a reason to fight
back?

//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
--------------------

[Trizt]

Daniel McSorley (mcsorley.1@osu.edu) wrote:

- -> From: Ryan Freire
- ->> Actually the GS are a legal fighting unit in most elven nations. They
- ->> WERE sanctioned to do such...just because it happened a thousand years
- ->> ago doesnt mean it doesnt apply today. Look at documents like the Magna
- ->> Carta. The elves have made it clear they dont _WANT_ humans
- ->> tresspassing on their lands they dont _WANT_ trade with human nations.
- ->> that makes a merchant seem like a tresspasser to me.
- -> No, they want trade. Prince Fhileraene has outlawed the GS, and set up
- -> trade with his neigbors, especially Dhoesone. The GS takes it upon
- -> themselves to say the traders are tresspassers, and then they kill them.
- -> Their sanction is gone, they are now brigands. They even go into
Dhoesone,
- -> a human land, though forested in places, and kill people they find in the
- -> woods.

You have forgot a small thing, Dhoesone is a satelitestate of Tuarhievel,
it's the elven troops who controll important points as the Red Army did in
the eastern states. Even if Dhoesone and Tuarhievel are "allies", humans
aren't allowed to wander around in the elven forest as they would like. But
still the Tuarhievel-elves are more "friendly" towar humans than
Lluabraight-elves.
Don't forget that Lluabraight is surrounded by enemies on all sides, there
aren't any with whom you can make trade, so everyone who crosses the boarder
either are an enemy or (quite unlikely) a merchant, so why not take a quite
secure attitude and kill all none elves.

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Trizt]

Tim Nutting (zero@wiredweb.com) wrote:

- -> Trizt, you would rather then say that an Orc is evil through and through,
just
- -> because he's an orc? If that is the case, then you presupose genetic
- -> predisposition in alignment, i.e. "you're born evil, there's nothing you
can do
- -> about it". Well - if thats the case, why can humans change their
alignments?

Nope, I have only said it would be less sufferings for the orc if he would
be put out of life of the adnveturers than starve to deat or be sacrificed
to Gruumsh. I think you can agree to that Orcish culture isn't the forgiving
type.

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Shadewulf@aol.co]

Greetings to All
Tim Nutting wrote:
> I'm not trying to be insulted, here, but if it comes off pompous and
arrogant, flame me and forgive me, please. <

That was my statement you are referring to. Now that you have mentioned
something about it, I can see where it could be misinterpreted. My apologies
to the people here then. It was a general statement, in reference to a couple
of people saying such about multi-POV. I was not pointing out one person in
particular,.

Also, I do not think what you say comes across as arrogant or pompous. For me,
no one has been that way since I have been on this list, brief as it may be.
I am interested in people's opinions and beliefs, and there have been many
here on the BR list. I would say well done to all in that regard.

Tim Nutting wrote:
>There's been allot of folks getting emotional about this debate, debate can't
be emotional...<

Now this statement I truly agree with. Perhaps some of us have been this way
(including me). Valid point. I will remember this in the future. I do see
this as an open forum of discussion, which can include debate. Reasonable
discourse in nature with regards to the various discussions is my preference,
as emotions can quickly become too intense.

This brings me to something else. Someone (or two maybe) said that the GS
debate has gone on too long and they are tired of it. Their thought was that
this whole discussion should be dropped because of that.. Sorry, but I do not
remember who that was, and I think that was the gist of the e-mail. Now before
anyone gets any ruffled feathers, I am just stating my opinion here, and I
would like to know if I am way off-base here. I am not trying to offend
anyone.

I do not understand this at all. We are in an open forum, and we can talk
about what we wish, with known boundaries and accepted limitations. The people
involved in an ongoing discussion should be able to say what they want to,
with the aforementioned boundaries/limitations kept in mind. So long as no one
is getting attacked or being personal (and so on), I see no reason why such a
discussion cannot continue. If someone (or more) is tired of this, and does
not wish to see any more, check the title of the email or the content briefly,
then use the delete option. This makes sense to me. Now, if there is more of a
reason then being tired of a discussion, then that is a different story. For
me, however, such a reason is not valid if the participants are willing to
keep the topic going.

Again, for those who see this email, I am expressing my opinion here. I am not
trying to offend, insult, or attack anyone. I believe my opinion has merit,
but I am new to all this BR list, and perhaps there is something I am unaware
of. If so, I am sorry for the email.

As a last note, part of this stems from the fact that I believe all this stuff
does have validity on the BR list, even the very personal views. I am a GM,
and my preference is for serious, character-driven, political campaigns. Humor
is good, but I am not into slap-happy or stooge laughs (in a campaign anyway).
My players happen to like my style, which is fortunate. The views expressed on
the BR list keep me "honest," and I like the diverse outlooks. Which is why I
plan on staying.

Til Later, and enjoy what you can.

Shadewulf

[Shadewulf@aol.co]

Hello All

Crossfell wrote:
>But back to fantasy. Why not have races that are inherently evil or
good?Humans are a maleable race that can be turned to good or evil. If
everyone is to have free choice should we then question devils and angels both
before assigning them given alignments?

Most will conform to the racial norm, a few will be nonconformists, VERY FEW.
<

I can see where you are coming from on this issue. I have thought about this
as well. Having standard races, where alignment is a given, makes sense from
the game designers POV, and to many players/gms. This helps speed up plots and
game ideas.

My problem with this is that since humans are indeed malleable, why should not
the other races be as well? I do not see this as being an insurmountable. I
have been gaming for over twenty years, and my ideas are very well defined
these days.

One of my dislikes for the standard alignment setup is that it perpetuates
broad stereotypes, especially with regards to humanoids, who seem to be
forever trapped in savage barbarism. I become aware of this when several
youngsters brought to my attention that they thought this was racism. That got
me to think. In a way, they are right, game or no game. Note, this is my view,
and I do not expect others to agree or even take me seriously. So, I decided
to change that, and have all races like the humans, in theory anyway. This
works out better for me as well, as I am a "shifty" gm, as my players like to
call me, because I do not follow standards normally - I like to keep them off-
balance and continually wondering (not overly so, though).

As a btw, I do not know if your devil-angel example is valid, as they are
overtly supernatural and their was no free will involved intially in my eyes.
I can see the point, however, and it is valid for me. Just my opinion.

In essence then, my thinking is that multi-alignments for a race is
preferable, and I have found that it enhances my gaming, and my players
enjoyment (we discuss such things all the time). I do not like standards,
especially known ones, where players can take advantage of them, even
unknowingly so. This was quite a topic for us some time ago.

Til later and enjoy what you can.

Shadewulf

[Tim Nutting]

> Nope, I have only said it would be less sufferings for the orc if he would
> be put out of life of the adnveturers than starve to deat or be sacrificed
> to Gruumsh. I think you can agree to that Orcish culture isn't the forgiving
> type.
>
> //Trizt of Ward^RITE

Perhaps. I agree that Goblinoid culture (no orcs in Cerilia guys) is evil, and
thus most member in the society must be to survive. Unfortunately, forgiveness
doesn't seem to be present in certain aspects of elvin and human societies
either...

One last thing to respond to other statements: Alignment does not define
actions, Alignment is the result and codification of actions. It changes
because a character begins doing something different, and stick to it.

Tim Nutting

[Pieter A de Jong]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> At 10:46 AM 10/16/98 -0600, Pieter A de Jong wrote:
> >Wrong Gary, plenty of human cultures have survived without large scale
> >deforestation. Simple examples : Eskimos (no trees *to* cut down),
> >Indians in North America (great plains and otherwise), Mongol horsemen,
> >assorted arabic nomad cultures in the Middle East. I'm sure that there
> >are other examples. The only reason human cultures cut trees is be
> >because they are convenient. If they aren't available, we will
> >use something else to keep ourselves warm.
>
> This is quite a list of cultures reknown for their highly advanced
> societies. Would you deny that access to greater and more varied resources
> is a cause of a society's developent? Could Anuire have reached its high
> level of civilization burning cow dung for warmth?
>
Fair enough, but that is not the point. Gary's argument was that
cutting down
trees was intrinsic to human survival. I simply point out that this is
not the
case.
- --

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

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter A de Jong wrote:

> Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> >
> > At 10:46 AM 10/16/98 -0600, Pieter A de Jong wrote:
> > >Wrong Gary, plenty of human cultures have survived without large scale
> > >deforestation. Simple examples : Eskimos (no trees *to* cut down),
> > >Indians in North America (great plains and otherwise), Mongol horsemen,
> > >assorted arabic nomad cultures in the Middle East. I'm sure that there
> > >are other examples. The only reason human cultures cut trees is be
> > >because they are convenient. If they aren't available, we will
> > >use something else to keep ourselves warm.
> >
> > This is quite a list of cultures reknown for their highly advanced
> > societies. Would you deny that access to greater and more varied resources
> > is a cause of a society's developent? Could Anuire have reached its high
> > level of civilization burning cow dung for warmth?
> >
> Fair enough, but that is not the point. Gary's argument was that cutting down
> trees was intrinsic to human survival. I simply point out that this is not the
> case.

I kind of swore off this debate for the sake of not typing my little fingers to
the bone, but I'd also like to add that as recently as last decade a United
Nations study said that wood was the most important fuel source for humans
throughout the planet. Without using wood as fuel millions of people would
freeze, starve to death or die as the result disease brought on by eating
improperly prepared food. I don't remember the exact year that the study came
out. It's one of those miscellaneous facts that seems trapped in my brain like
Capt. Kirk's middle name or the German for "Where is the traveler's information
office, please?"

The cultures that you describe using alternate fuel sources also have pretty
small population densities as well as relatively little access to trees. Eskimos
and Mongols live in fairly frigid climes. Arabs generally lived in deserts. I
hadn't heard that Native Americans didn't burn wood.... I'm sure there are
examples of what you are talking about, but I find it hard to believe these
cultures burned alternate fuels for any reason approaching the elven reasons for
avoiding it. Rather, they had little choice. I have very little doubt that if
Anuireans were to suddenly give up wood as a fuel source they would die off in
droves.

Gary

[Pieter A de Jong]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> >The goblins have
> >an even faster birthrate than humans, and on average are *better*
> >fighters (try a great goblin vs. your average 0 level human soldier).
>
> Pieter, since common goblins (1-1 HD) are 50% of the population, and elite
> goblins (1+1 HD) are another 30%, they are the proper comparison to the
> common human soldier.

That is still 20% of the population that is superior to human
soldiers, by a large amount. Note that most human societies do not
field more
than 10% of their male population as soldiers. It is not unlikely that
an
organized goblin realm might field an army of entirely great goblins.

> Also, high birthrate implies high death rate, not
> neccesarily population growth. Given goblin medicine and technology, I
> think this certainly the case.
>
True in and of itself. However, goblin population growth and
catastrophe recovery
rates are invariably given as much greater than that of humans. If the
death rate
actually entered into it as much as you suggest, the total elven
population growth
might actually be greater than that of humans ( Elves don't die of
disease and old
age, and do not seem to die of famine very often; in fact, they
apparently don't
eat, size level 6 provinces without farms being bullshit unless the
biology is
extremely non-human).


> >Also, the goblins had some spellcasters, shamans, and I believe that
> >goblin magicians have been proposed on this list, as well as in the
> >generic resource The Complete Book of Humanoids. Hell, Birthright
> >goblins should be exterminating the humans, not serving as fodder for
> >awnsheglien armies.
>
> This assesment is at complete variance with the treatment of The Complete
> Book of Humanoids.
>
Are you attempting to say that the complete book of humanoids says that
there
are no goblin witchdoctors and shamans. I have the aforementioned
resource and
assure you that such beings do exist.


> >All right, now we reach the kicker. Gods. Humans have clerics, elves
> >don't. ... Not to mention that the average elven wizard,
> >having lived 10 times as long as the average human cleric is probably
> >going to have at a minimum 2X (probably closer to 5X) as many experience
> >points and therefore will be significantly higher level than the human
> >cleric.
>
> This does not follow. IMO, eleves do not have the ambition to climb in
> levels that humans do, and prefer to frolic in the woodlands. I think for
> various reasons the level advancement for all races turns out to be equal in
> by the death of invividuals. Elves spend to much time singing and dancing,
> dwarves pay too much attention to details to have the rate of advancement
> that humans do. Looking at the NPC's offered in game materials, elves and
> dwarves (or any long lived species) do not have any marked advantage over
> humans.
>

Yes indeed, that is your opinion. It is of course obvious that elves are
all
useless gits who cannot focus on anything beyond merriment. I find this
hard to
believe in the face of literary examples such as Rhuobe the Manslayer (
a
frolicking in the woods type if I ever saw one:) ), Queen Tuar (founder
of
Tuarhievel, the person who caused the elven nations to defy Azrai at
Diesmaar),
not to mention Feanor and company from Tolkien, Drizz't Do'Urden
(forgotten realms),
and other cerilian type elves. In other words, not pansies dancing
naked in the
woods, rather, beings of starlight and moondust, with powers beyond
those of mortal
men.
Or in yet another way of saying it. Of course humans are a superior
species to
everyone else, were human aren't we.


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

[Kenneth Gauck]

On Monday, Oct 19, 1998 12:55 PM, Pieter A de Jong
wrote:

>If the death rate actually entered into it as much as you suggest, the
total elven
>population growth might actually be greater than that of humans ( Elves
don't die
>of disease and old age, and do not seem to die of famine very often; in
fact, they
>apparently don't eat, size level 6 provinces without farms being bullshit
unless the
>biology is extremely non-human).


Immortality: Perhaps the long life span makes appear that way to both
paries, perhaps the elves have a belief (like Egyptians, Amerindians, and
reincarnationists) that the soul lives on, or again, or what have you. To
the argument that the elves might live an indefinate amount of time, I say
yeah, whatever.

IMO, elves practice horiculture. Its low labor, substantially restores the
soil when combined with a slash-burn and move style of fallow, as well as a
good way to manage the forests, removing older trees that have begun to die
and still block the light from saplings. Plus it is so at odds with plow
agriculture, that agriculturalists often don't consider it husbandry.
Consider the conflict between the American settlers of the 17th century and
the Amerindians over the concept of land ownership. The Amerindians were
horticulturalists.

>Are you attempting to say that the complete book of humanoids says that
>there are no goblin witchdoctors and shamans. [?]


No, the source routinely refers to their cowardice, their inferiority, their
low ability of advancement, their disorganization, their poor ability to
sustain an effort, and other disabling traits with which your earlier
analysis is comepletly at odds.

>Yes indeed, that is your opinion. It is of course obvious that elves are
>all useless gits who cannot focus on anything beyond merriment
>Or in yet another way of saying it. Of course humans are a superior
>species to everyone else, were human aren't we.


Boy, did you misread me. Who said elves are useless? Who said humans are
superior. I sure wish I could spend all my time gaming or in other forms of
recreation (lets call all that frolicking). Everyone I knows wishes they
had more time to do the things they really want to do. To think that if we
lived many hundreds or thousands of years all we would do is more of what we
do when we're in our twenties is not only condradicted by actual human life
tradjectories, but is a real assertion that the human way is best.

What makes my argument so compelling, besides the differing perspectives on
time is page 5 of the BR rule book, which limits elves to 12th level as
Fighters, Rangers, and Thieves, and 9th level as Bards. Is it because of
elven inferiority as Rangers and Bards, Fighters and Thieves? Or is it
because elves make time for other things? I cannot believe that elves are
relentless pursuers of magic, but not of song and tale.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Pieter A de Jong]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> On Monday, Oct 19, 1998 12:55 PM, Pieter A de Jong
> wrote:
>
> >If the death rate actually entered into it as much as you suggest, the
> total elven
> >population growth might actually be greater than that of humans ( Elves
> don't die
> >of disease and old age, and do not seem to die of famine very often; in
> fact, they
> >apparently don't eat, size level 6 provinces without farms being bullshit
> unless the
> >biology is extremely non-human).
>
> Immortality: Perhaps the long life span makes appear that way to both
> paries, perhaps the elves have a belief (like Egyptians, Amerindians, and
> reincarnationists) that the soul lives on, or again, or what have you. To
> the argument that the elves might live an indefinate amount of time, I say
> yeah, whatever.
>
So you say "Yeah, whatever". I can say "Yeah, whatever" to the elven
level
limits (and in fact, know of several people who have said just that, in
their
campaigns), that suggest to you that elves are more interested in
frolicking
than learning. I would suggest limiting ourselves to the published
material
that most of us have access to.
>
> IMO, elves practice horiculture. Its low labor, substantially restores the
> soil when combined with a slash-burn and move style of fallow, as well as a
> good way to manage the forests, removing older trees that have begun to die
> and still block the light from saplings. Plus it is so at odds with plow
> agriculture, that agriculturalists often don't consider it husbandry.
> Consider the conflict between the American settlers of the 17th century and
> the Amerindians over the concept of land ownership. The Amerindians were
> horticulturalists.
>
This doesn't explain those size level 6 provinces that exist in every
elven
domain. The horticulturalist amerindians were never able to support
such
population densities. The amerindian cultures that reached those levels
of
population density were agricultural societies (eg. mayan, aztec, other
south-
central american societies.
Secondly are you seriously suggesting that the elves practice the kind
of slash
and burn farming that has been devastating jungles in indonesia, brazil,
etc.
Slash and burn farming practices result in large-scale deforestation
because
removing the forest cover results in large scale erosion. There is not
that much
high fertility soil under a forest. Once it erodes, the fertility of
the land
drops radically.

> >Are you attempting to say that the complete book of humanoids says that
> >there are no goblin witchdoctors and shamans. [?]
>
> No, the source routinely refers to their cowardice, their inferiority, their
> low ability of advancement, their disorganization, their poor ability to
> sustain an effort, and other disabling traits with which your earlier
> analysis is comepletly at odds.
>
Indeed, this might be true in other settings. However, in Birthright,
the
non-human races are no longer presented as caricatures, trapped into
futility
against the human presence. In no other presently published AD&D world
is there
an organized kingdom of goblins (Thurazor) that is generally at piece
with it's
neighbours. Indeed, in Birthright, goblins have been presented as
cunning, capable,
living, breathing creatures, not pitiful caricatures of the worst of
humankind.

> >Yes indeed, that is your opinion. It is of course obvious that elves are
> >all useless gits who cannot focus on anything beyond merriment
> >Or in yet another way of saying it. Of course humans are a superior
> >species to everyone else, were human aren't we.
>
> Boy, did you misread me. Who said elves are useless? Who said humans are
> superior. I sure wish I could spend all my time gaming or in other forms of
> recreation (lets call all that frolicking). Everyone I knows wishes they
> had more time to do the things they really want to do. To think that if we
> lived many hundreds or thousands of years all we would do is more of what we
> do when we're in our twenties is not only condradicted by actual human life
> tradjectories, but is a real assertion that the human way is best.
>
Interesting argument, so you say that it is not possible for an elf to
focus on a
subject as effectively as an adult human. It rather strikes me as
suggesting that
the elven personality is childlike from a human perspective, unable to
focus on a
single subject (other than their own gratification) for any length of
time, even
if it is desirable. Again, published literature for the Birthright
setting does not
agree with your analysis. If they were so limited in focus, how did a
certain elven
smith learn to forge Tighmaevril weapons, how did they enslave the
goblin races?

However, your secondary comment does suggest something else that has
been proposed
for the Sidhelien : Dual Classing. At present the AD&D rules only allow
humans to
dual class, while other races multiclass. The comment "To think that if
we lived
many hundreds or thousands of years all we would do is more of what we
do when we're
in our twenties is not only condradicted by actual human life
tradjectories" suggest
that you would favor such a proposal. What do you think.


> What makes my argument so compelling, besides the differing perspectives on
> time is page 5 of the BR rule book, which limits elves to 12th level as
> Fighters, Rangers, and Thieves, and 9th level as Bards. Is it because of
> elven inferiority as Rangers and Bards, Fighters and Thieves? Or is it
> because elves make time for other things? I cannot believe that elves are
> relentless pursuers of magic, but not of song and tale.
>
I have noticed that you missed one level limit there :) ! Elven mages
: Unlimited
level advancement. This would indeed seem to suggest that they are far
more
devoted to the pursuit of magic than any other field. Including that of
merriment,
elven bards being limited to 9th level, the lowest limit of any field
that they may
pursue, which actually suggests that they are not quite so devoted to
frolicking as
you might think.


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

[Pieter Sleijpen]

>Kenneth Gauck wrote:


>This doesn't explain those size level 6 provinces that exist in every
>elven domain. The horticulturalist amerindians were never able to
> support such population densities. The amerindian cultures that
> reached those levels of population density were agricultural
> societies (eg. mayan, aztec, other south-central american societies.
>Secondly are you seriously suggesting that the elves practice the
> kind of slash and burn farming that has been devastating jungles in >
indonesia, brazil, etc.
> Slash and burn farming practices result in large-scale deforestation
> because removing the forest cover results in large scale erosion.
> There is not that much high fertility soil under a forest. Once it
> erodes, the fertility of the land drops radically.

Let me start this message with pointing out that slash-and-burning
agriculture methode in itself has got no adverse effect on the jungle.
In fact this method has been in use by primitive people for ages and it
only hightens the diversity of the jungle. There are three limitations
to it:
1) The area should not be to big (the erosion problem)
2) Large trees should stay in place (again the erosion problem)
3) The area needs 10 to 15 years to restore before it can be used savely
again.

Off coarse these limitations make it impossible to use this method
savely as a support for dense populations. But who is to say that elves
use the same farming methods humans use? The books only state that elven
density has got no adverse effect on the magic of the land because of
their closeness to it. Reasoning from this point actually suggests that
humans would not recognise elven farmland.
"Hmmm, there are a lot of mushrooms in this beautiful cave..."
"Look a few wild apple trees..."
Their farming methods would also be a lot more efficient than human
farming methods. A large reduction in the production of farmland in the
past (ans still is) was because of plagues and diseases. If elves
understand nature so much better then humans, they would also know how
to fight these better. Not to mention that they never have disturbed the
balance and would be less effected by plagues.

In my eyes this is a rather theoretical question though. Would the elves
ever reach that density? (Yes, in a time of peace for several centeries
they might, but that is highly unlikely in Cerilia.) Would they want to
reach such high densities? Again no, they are rather individualistic and
I see them more as family people then city people.

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

[Pieter A de Jong]

Pieter Sleijpen wrote:
>
> >Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
(note, this is incorrectly ascribed. I (Pieter de Jong) wrote was is
below in response to one of Mr. Gauck messages)
> >This doesn't explain those size level 6 provinces that exist in every
> >elven domain. The horticulturalist amerindians were never able to
> > support such population densities. The amerindian cultures that
> > reached those levels of population density were agricultural
> > societies (eg. mayan, aztec, other south-central american societies.
> >Secondly are you seriously suggesting that the elves practice the
> > kind of slash and burn farming that has been devastating jungles in >
> indonesia, brazil, etc.
> > Slash and burn farming practices result in large-scale deforestation
> > because removing the forest cover results in large scale erosion.
> > There is not that much high fertility soil under a forest. Once it
> > erodes, the fertility of the land drops radically.
>
> Let me start this message with pointing out that slash-and-burning
> agriculture methode in itself has got no adverse effect on the jungle.
> In fact this method has been in use by primitive people for ages and it
> only hightens the diversity of the jungle. There are three limitations
> to it:
> 1) The area should not be to big (the erosion problem)
> 2) Large trees should stay in place (again the erosion problem)
> 3) The area needs 10 to 15 years to restore before it can be used savely
> again.
>
> Off coarse these limitations make it impossible to use this method
> savely as a support for dense populations. But who is to say that elves
> use the same farming methods humans use? The books only state that elven
> density has got no adverse effect on the magic of the land because of
> their closeness to it. Reasoning from this point actually suggests that
> humans would not recognise elven farmland.
> "Hmmm, there are a lot of mushrooms in this beautiful cave..."
> "Look a few wild apple trees..."
What you are effectively proposing is an extremely efficient
hunter-gatherer
society. No ecosystem could support the presented elven populations
without
large scale magical intervention, as the elves are an ever-growing
burden on
the ecosystem, given that they are immortal.
> Their farming methods would also be a lot more efficient than human
> farming methods.
Are they going to be more efficient than modern agriculture, complete
with
pesticides and mechanized farming equipment? I think not, given the
fragility of ecological balances in the real world.
> A large reduction in the production of farmland in the
> past (ans still is) was because of plagues and diseases. If elves
> understand nature so much better then humans, they would also know how
> to fight these better. Not to mention that they never have disturbed the
> balance and would be less effected by plagues.
>
>
> In my eyes this is a rather theoretical question though. Would the elves
> ever reach that density? (Yes, in a time of peace for several centeries
> they might, but that is highly unlikely in Cerilia.) Would they want to
> reach such high densities? Again no, they are rather individualistic and
> I see them more as family people then city people.
>
The population densities proposed are born out by the various sources
which
detail elven domains (Ruins of Empire, Cities of the Sun, PS of
Tuarhievel),
the majority of the elven domains are centered on 1 or 2 size level 6
provinces.


- --

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

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter Sleijpen wrote:

> Their farming methods would also be a lot more efficient than human
> farming methods. A large reduction in the production of farmland in the
> past (ans still is) was because of plagues and diseases. If elves
> understand nature so much better then humans, they would also know how
> to fight these better. Not to mention that they never have disturbed the
> balance and would be less effected by plagues.

There is also the possibility that elves, like Cerilian dwarves, have a
drastically different diet than we often assume. Dwarves can live on rocks and
dirt. Elves might be able to live on pine cones or even pine needles, tree
bark, daisies, grass, whatever. Elves might not have to farm at all unless
they have certain crops that are delicacies or have some medicinal/special
purpose.

One of the elven objections to humans could very well be the concept of farming
itself. Humans rip up plants, till the earth and then plant the same kinds of
plants in hideous, regular rows.... What else could be more repugnant to a
chaotic, freedom and nature loving elf?

Gary

[Trizt]

Pieter Sleijpen (madfox11@hotmail.com) wrote:

- -> Let me start this message with pointing out that slash-and-burning
- -> agriculture methode in itself has got no adverse effect on the jungle.
- -> In fact this method has been in use by primitive people for ages and it
- -> only hightens the diversity of the jungle. There are three limitations
- -> to it:
- -> 1) The area should not be to big (the erosion problem)
- -> 2) Large trees should stay in place (again the erosion problem)
- -> 3) The area needs 10 to 15 years to restore before it can be used savely
- -> again.

As the vegitation in the elven lands aren't the same as in the jungle, but
more like northen/central european type of forests. The erosion problem is
quite small, the forest around the s&b-fields protects it from the wind.
Even without the protecting trees it seems that the land don't get usles in
a few years (look at the now human lands).
To be able to use the s&b-fileds to a maximum you don't grow the same things
on it, from europe it's known that a field was used around 3 years and each
year they did grow something else than the previous years. The productivity
from thise field are usually higher than from "normal" fileds.
As elves has a better touch with magic, so it's possible that the elves uses
"growth" spell to increase the harvest to two harvests per year.
Don't forget that after the years of farming on thise fields, they works as
extremely good fields for cattle (I don't think there are any metions about
elves not having household animals).

- -> Off coarse these limitations make it impossible to use this method
- -> savely as a support for dense populations. But who is to say that elves
- -> use the same farming methods humans use? The books only state that elven
- -> density has got no adverse effect on the magic of the land because of
- -> their closeness to it.
I must agree that s&b-farming wouldn't be enough for a level 6 province, but
you could "import" food from the level 1-2 provinces, but still it wouldn't
be enough if not elves didn't eat meat from cattle and wild life and
collected fruites and berries.


- -> In my eyes this is a rather theoretical question though. Would the elves
- -> ever reach that density? (Yes, in a time of peace for several centeries
- -> they might, but that is highly unlikely in Cerilia.) Would they want to
- -> reach such high densities? Again no, they are rather individualistic and
- -> I see them more as family people then city people.

As elves don't die of high age and sometimes people want to do something
else than just sleep, there will be new children now and then... no sickdoms
which kills off the population, this leads to only one thing, there are more
newborn than dead, which means that the population will increase. As there
has been elves for a long long time, there are many of them around (atleast
until the humans came), so to not cut down all the forests it's better to
live close to each other in cities.

//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
--------------------

[Pieter Sleijpen]

>> But who is to say that elves use the same farming methods humans
>> use? The books only state that elven density has got no adverse
>> effect on the magic of the land because of their closeness to it.
>> Reasoning from this point actually suggests that humans would not
>> recognise elven farmland.
>> "Hmmm, there are a lot of mushrooms in this beautiful cave..."
>> "Look a few wild apple trees..."

>What you are effectively proposing is an extremely efficient
>hunter-gatherer society. No ecosystem could support the presented
>elven populations
>without large scale magical intervention, as the elves are an
>ever-growing burden on the ecosystem, given that they are immortal.

Maybe, but a society that tries to induce a higher production in the
available products. If you can still call this a hunter-gatherer society
is something I doubt.

>> Their farming methods would also be a lot more efficient than human
>> farming methods.

>Are they going to be more efficient than modern agriculture, complete
>with pesticides and mechanized farming equipment? I think not,
>given the fragility of ecological balances in the real world.

The current modern agriculture is hardly as efficient as you make it
sound. But discussing that on this mail list with all arguments for one
site or the other is not really on place. Elves are alien to humans and
who is to say that there agricultural methods are simmular to human
methods. As a matter of fact, they might even use magic to get a more
efficient agriculture. Who is to say that that is only limited to
priestly magic? I know that this explanation is maybe simplistic, but it
is enough to run a campaign. After all, AD&D is about adventure and
intrigue and not about farming.

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

[Trizt]

Pieter Sleijpen (madfox11@hotmail.com) wrote:


- ->> What you are effectively proposing is an extremely efficient
- ->> hunter-gatherer society. No ecosystem could support the presented
- ->> elven populations
- ->> without large scale magical intervention, as the elves are an
- ->> ever-growing burden on the ecosystem, given that they are immortal.
- -> Maybe, but a society that tries to induce a higher production in the
- -> available products. If you can still call this a hunter-gatherer society
- -> is something I doubt.

If elves farm (I belive they do), then they will use slash&burn and use
"steel" plows, while the humans uses only plows made of tree (as they did
during the "same" timeperiod in RL). The elves would get around 5-7 times
more per squaremeter than the humans.

//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
--------------------

[Kenneth Gauck]

On Wednesday, October 21, 1998 4:51 PM, Gary V. Foss
wrote:

>
>There is also the possibility that elves, like Cerilian dwarves, have a
drastically
>different diet than we often assume. Dwarves can live on rocks and dirt.

I had a fit when I first read the Baruk-Azhik suplement. The point about
dwarves eating rocks was one of the things that set me off. After writing a
three page polemic against the supliment, I decided to just offer my players
caveat. I told them that the information was not neccesarily reliable, but
was how the dwarves see their own society, and not how it really was. If
anyone wants my specific criticisms of the Dwarven Sup, I'll send it
off-list.

>Elves might be able to live on pine cones or even pine needles, tree
>bark, daisies, grass, whatever.

This is certainly likely as a supliment to diet, but creatures the size of
elves (even with some leeway) would eat enough of this stuff to really harm
the eco-system. pine cones are the seed bearers of trees, as are nuts.
Often the nutrition we take from these sources is direct competition with
the trees. Tree bark is obviously a protection for the tree. Some might be
harvested, but one of the great causes of deforestation in Sub-Saharan
Africa is the elephant which rubs against trees, and stripps the bark off.
Grass has little nutritional value and is hard to digest.

Some of these concerns might seem nit-picky, but when the people in a game
session have trouble suspending their disbelief, the whole game suffers.
The game should be simple, elegant, and capable of suspending disbelief.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Tim Nutting]

TOPIC CHANGE!!!!

Can we try something like "Elven Farming", cause this has jack to do with the
Ghallie Sidhe.

[BenandAmy]

There is an up side to this: now I can spell "Gheallie Sidhe" without
ever having to look it up! he he...

[Maurizio]

I would like to point out something about the Gheallie
Sidhe, in the book they say that it is just another
extremist elven activity; but it does not really say what
are the overall (true) plans of the Gheallie Sidhe: is it
to kill all humans, kill all non-elven beings, show that
their race is superior to all others, or retake what was
theirs before the humans invaded? can someone tell me
please?

==============================================
Maurizio Garzelli
"Godzilla is dead and I do not feel very well"
==============================================