Resistance is futile.

[Gary V. Foss]

Siebharrin / Arathorn wrote:

> 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).

I think you overestimate the evil of human assimilation.... The Basarji aren't
the Borg, after all. Besides, other races live perfectly well on Cerilia without
resorting to the kinds of actions that the elves do, so I really don't think your
assertion that they had no other way holds up.

> 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.

Actually, humans were fleeing the Shadow, not brining it to Cerilia. That the
elves sided with Azrai (and many of them remained on his side even after they
realized his evil) not only is good evidence that they have evil tendancies
themselves, but is probably at least as good evidence that elves are responsible
for the cataclysm at Deismaar as are the humans.

Regarding this whole POV thing. I think your going to have to explain the basis of
this philosophy if you are going to use it as a methodology. Everything relies on
perspective? That pretty quickly leads to there being nothing but perspective
and, therefore, no reality. No good or evil. Nothing but the individual who can
behave in whatever manner he likes and justify it in any way because it is all
based upon his totally unverifyable and completely subjective personal
perspective.

Gary

[Siebharrin / Arathorn]

>> 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).
>
>I think you overestimate the evil of human assimilation.... The Basarji
aren't
>the Borg, after all. Besides, other races live perfectly well on Cerilia
without
>resorting to the kinds of actions that the elves do, so I really don't
think your
>assertion that they had no other way holds up.

Humans don't remove the mountains where the dwarves live..
But they do destroy the homeland of the 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.
>
>Actually, humans were fleeing the Shadow, not brining it to Cerilia. That
the
>elves sided with Azrai (and many of them remained on his side even after they
>realized his evil) not only is good evidence that they have evil tendancies
>themselves, but is probably at least as good evidence that elves are
responsible
>for the cataclysm at Deismaar as are the humans.

So now elves are EVIL? Hmm.. Nope, they joined Azrai in the beginning only
because of
what the humans had done to them during the last hundreds of years.
Some of them just sided with the less evil one (in their opinion).

>Regarding this whole POV thing. I think your going to have to explain the
basis of
>this philosophy if you are going to use it as a methodology. Everything
relies on
>perspective? That pretty quickly leads to there being nothing but
perspective
>and, therefore, no reality. No good or evil. Nothing but the individual
who can
>behave in whatever manner he likes and justify it in any way because it is
all
>based upon his totally unverifyable and completely subjective personal
>perspective.

Keep it simple.
I'm not talking about an individuals POV. I'm talking
about a whole race.
Humans perceive GS as evil. Elves percieve
humans expansionism as evil (they had their war against
goblins, so goblins perceive elves as evil, and elves perceive goblins as
evil and so on).
And elves want their homeland back.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Gary V. Foss]

Siebharrin / Arathorn wrote:

> Humans don't remove the mountains where the dwarves live..
> But they do destroy the homeland of the elves.

Ah, but humans do compete with dwarves in mining and control of many mountain
ranges. Dwarves have a very similar sort of reverence for the mountains that
elves have for trees. Why don't dwarves get all high and might and start
murdering miners? Because they are generally good aligned, that's why. Cerilian
elves are chaotic neutral. The GS are evil.

> >Actually, humans were fleeing the Shadow, not brining it to Cerilia. That
> the
> >elves sided with Azrai (and many of them remained on his side even after they
> >realized his evil) not only is good evidence that they have evil tendancies
> >themselves, but is probably at least as good evidence that elves are
> responsible
> >for the cataclysm at Deismaar as are the humans.
>
> So now elves are EVIL? Hmm.. Nope, they joined Azrai in the beginning only
> because of what the humans had done to them during the last hundreds of years.
> Some of them just sided with the less evil one (in their opinion).

I said they have "evil tendencies" didn't I? I think that is pretty clearly
demonstrated by the way they split in Deismaar and the existence of the GS. The
elves were tricked into joining Azrai, they didn't choose the lesser of two
evils. That's why they switched sides in the middle of Deismaar. Rhoubhe stayed
on Azrai's side and chose evil. So did the rest of the elves that stayed with
him. I think these elves would be the ones most likely to be in the GS both
before and after Deismaar.

> Keep it simple.
> I'm not talking about an individuals POV. I'm talking
> about a whole race.
> Humans perceive GS as evil. Elves percieve
> humans expansionism as evil (they had their war against
> goblins, so goblins perceive elves as evil, and elves perceive goblins as
> evil and so on).
> And elves want their homeland back.

Well, I think I see where you are coming from. It still throws the concept of
alignment or even good and evil out the window. Plus, I don't know that I can
really buy into this culture based system that you suggest. You don't have to be
a Cambodian, for instance, to think Pol Pot was an evil man. Nor do you have to
be a Yankee to think slavery in the Old South was evil. Many Americans view the
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as absolute evils. Many cultures that embrace
violence don't view that violence as "good" in the way I think you mean. Yanomamo
(a South American tribe) warriors, for instance, are supposed to be brutal to
their women, but none of them seems to be saying that such behavior is good. It's
their way of expressing masculinity and physical prowess.

I really think there is an objective standard of good and evil that is not that
difficult to come up with. It need not be based on a religion, but on the ancient
"Do Unto Others" rule that most societies have in one form or another. Even if a
society doesn't explicitly state that rule, however, one of the earliest steps in
the development of an intelligent being is the realization that one's behavior
will effect other people's behavior. This leads pretty directly to the concept
that killing others is a bad thing to do and, thus, morality is born!

This is really the source of my complaint about the GS and the arguments used to
defend them. It's seems like an incredibly obvious moral wrong to me, and I admit
I'm somewhat mystified by the arguments defending their activities. Most of those
arguments seem like really bad attempts to obscure the issue by covering up for
THE most fundamental moral wrong there is.

I'm also vexed because I've already argued that the GS are not really defending
their culture at all. Even if they were defending their culture, however, I
thought I argued pretty convincingly that cultural defense is not a valid excuse
for their actions, but people still keep saying that they are just trying to
defend their culture!

The best argument I've heard defending the elves, however, was Ryan's who said
that

> Its a tad bit more than aesthetically displeasing and anger at the loss
> of sources, the trees are like churches for elves..and a large chunk of
> their spiritualism is linked to them. For elves cutting down trees is
> akin to burning churches. It also destroys their way of life in that
> area, because the game and other plants they use to make their clothing
> and food are destroyed when the humans come in and chop down every thing
> in sight

I think this is a very valid point, and one that would greatly help justify the
actions of the Gheallie Sidhe. Defending a sacred spot, for instance, would
clearly aid one's moral position when it came to fighting.

There are still a couple of problems, however. First, I've never actually heard
the elven perspective put this way except for in Ryan's post, so I'm not quite
convinced that is how the elves feel about trees. There is a gap between the kind
of reverence that I see elves having for trees and the worship that humans do in
temples. I mean, there might be a sacred aspect to trees for elves, but they must
have pragmatic purposes too. Elves make bows and arrows from trees, after all.
They manipulate trees and plants with magic. I can't see cutting down a tree for
elves being as drastic as someone defiling a temple.

Second, if elves felt this way about trees, wouldn't they worship Erik? And just
why don't elves worship Erik? Even if they didn't worship Erik, wouldn't their
religious attitude towards the abstract concept of nature allow them to have
clerics? Wouldn't elves and druids get along great? Yet, they don's seem to and
if the attitude of the elves is really as pro-nature as the worship of nature
would imply, I don't see why not.

Lastly, I still don't see that such an attitude towards trees would give much
moral weight to the Gheallie Sidhe. The GS kill all humans. They kill merchants,
farmers, trappers, woodsmen, women and children that they come across. That's not
quite the same thing as defending the forests. The GS are just as likely to kill
someone for picking berries as for cutting down a tree.

Gary

[einarh@fagerborg.vgs.n]

>I think this is a very valid point, and one that would greatly help
justify the
>actions of the Gheallie Sidhe. Defending a sacred spot, for instance, would
>clearly aid one's moral position when it came to fighting.

Defending their homes? (I do believe that there are still elves who were
born in central anuire living)

>There are still a couple of problems, however. First, I've never actually
heard
>the elven perspective put this way except for in Ryan's post, so I'm not
quite
>convinced that is how the elves feel about trees. There is a gap between
the kind
>of reverence that I see elves having for trees and the worship that humans
do in
>temples. I mean, there might be a sacred aspect to trees for elves, but
they must
>have pragmatic purposes too. Elves make bows and arrows from trees, after
all.
>They manipulate trees and plants with magic. I can't see cutting down a
tree for
>elves being as drastic as someone defiling a temple.

::Ponders why they are called treehuggers::

>Second, if elves felt this way about trees, wouldn't they worship Erik?
And just
>why don't elves worship Erik? Even if they didn't worship Erik, wouldn't
their
>religious attitude towards the abstract concept of nature allow them to have
>clerics? Wouldn't elves and druids get along great? Yet, they don's seem
to and
>if the attitude of the elves is really as pro-nature as the worship of nature
>would imply, I don't see why not.

Elves in general tolerate Rangers and Druids, and priests of vorynn I
think. But they don't love them.
And Elves don't worship gods becuase of two reasons:
they are immortal themselves
and they born by the elements.

>Lastly, I still don't see that such an attitude towards trees would give much
>moral weight to the Gheallie Sidhe. The GS kill all humans. They kill
merchants,
>farmers, trappers, woodsmen, women and children that they come across.
That's not
>quite the same thing as defending the forests. The GS are just as likely
to kill
>someone for picking berries as for cutting down a tree.

GS kills trespassers... Not neccessarily the ones cutting down trees.

Siebharrin the Lich

[Galwylin]

At 07:37 AM 10/16/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>Ah, but humans do compete with dwarves in mining and control of many mountain
>ranges. Dwarves have a very similar sort of reverence for the mountains that
>elves have for trees. Why don't dwarves get all high and might and start
>murdering miners? Because they are generally good aligned, that's why.
Cerilian
>elves are chaotic neutral. The GS are evil.

Not exactly the same. Have humans taking the mines of the dwarves then you
have a more similiar situation.

>I said they have "evil tendencies" didn't I? I think that is pretty clearly
>demonstrated by the way they split in Deismaar and the existence of the
GS. The
>elves were tricked into joining Azrai, they didn't choose the lesser of two
>evils. That's why they switched sides in the middle of Deismaar. Rhoubhe
stayed
>on Azrai's side and chose evil. So did the rest of the elves that stayed
with
>him. I think these elves would be the ones most likely to be in the GS both
>before and after Deismaar.
>Yanomamo
>(a South American tribe) warriors, for instance, are supposed to be brutal to
>their women, but none of them seems to be saying that such behavior is good.

I seriously doubt that you will find a culture that acts that way that
believes its evil for doing so. Good/evil or like/dislike are our first
impressions not neutrality.

>There are still a couple of problems, however. First, I've never actually
heard
>the elven perspective put this way except for in Ryan's post, so I'm not
quite
>convinced that is how the elves feel about trees.

I agree with you but we've also not heard that it isn't. There's too
little information which is why the discussion persists. I've a feeling
the evil of the gheallie Sidhe isn't likely to ever be clearly defined. I
can't point out why exactly the gheallie Sidhe is good and, in my opinion,
I haven't been swayed that its completely evil either. The only thing I do
know is that it has the potiental to bring in some great role-playing :)

>Second, if elves felt this way about trees, wouldn't they worship Erik?

Well, I've heard other religions that seem more fitting to me but its
rather hard to just drop something you've know all your life for something
else that may just speak to a certain place I am in my life at the moment.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

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

[Pieter A de Jong]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, humans were fleeing the Shadow, not brining it to Cerilia. That the
> elves sided with Azrai (and many of them remained on his side even after they
> realized his evil) not only is good evidence that they have evil tendancies
> themselves, but is probably at least as good evidence that elves are responsible
> for the cataclysm at Deismaar as are the humans.
>
Gary, that is beside the point. If the humans hadn't fled to Cerilia
(say instead they fought like real men :) ), the shadow wouldn't have
followed them there. Conclusion : No Deismaar. However, if the Shadow
comes to Cerilia, with no native gods to oppose him, then Diesmaar (or
something worse, with no gods opposing him) is inevitable.




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

[Kenneth Gauck]

Considering Gary's posts on this subject, I should say I disagree with alot
of his arguments, while agreeing with many of his conclusions. One of the
conclusions I disagree with is the idea that the elves are unlike the
Amerindians. I find that the elves are very much, in their own attitudes
and their plight in general, if not in the things done to them specifically,
like the Amerindians and the Celtic responce to the Saxons and later, English.
I will attempt to deal with some of that below

At 07:37 AM 10/16/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>Ah, but humans do compete with dwarves in mining and control of many mountain
>ranges. Dwarves have a very similar sort of reverence for the mountains that
>elves have for trees. Why don't dwarves get all high and might and start
>murdering miners? Because they are generally good aligned, that's why.
>Cerilian elves are chaotic neutral. The GS are evil.
>

Forests can be cut down to make farm land, mountains cannot be leveled to
make famrs. Humans can go to the mountains but as inferior miners, they can
usually not compete where dwarves already exist. And where humans do mine
in mountains the worst they can do is mine sloppily. The forests of much of
Europe and America were turned into farmland. I think Cerilia experienced
a similar fate, in which Anuire and the lands of the Rjurik were completly
forested. That is clearly not the case today.

>There is a gap between the kind of reverence that I see elves having for
trees >and the worship that humans do in temples. I mean, there might be a
sacred >aspect to trees for elves, but they must have pragmatic purposes
too. Elves >make bows and arrows from trees, after all. They manipulate
trees and plants >with magic. I can't see cutting down a tree for elves
being as drastic as >someone defiling a temple.

The difference between a reverence for sacred sites and man-made buildings
is typically a function of how organized or complex the society is. Around
700 BC the Greeks continued to place higher value upon the sacred sites, but
by the end of the Classical period, the temples were the center of relgious
activity. The Celts were another people with great regard for sacred sites.
Likewise the Amerindians.

The Amerindians considered the deer sacred, the hunt a religous cerimony,
and so forth. Its very likely that eleven exploitation of the forests is
ritualistic, governed by sacred thinking, and carefuly preformed. I can
imagine that trees are harvested in the autumn, that seeds are carefuly
collected from a felled tree and spread into the forest according to custom.
That trade in wood is conducted not for what the wood might get but for the
value of wood itself. Humans harvest wood in order to trade it to obtain
gold and purchase other things.

>Second, if elves felt this way about trees, wouldn't they worship Erik?
>And just why don't elves worship Erik? Even if they didn't worship Erik,
>wouldn't their religious attitude towards the abstract concept of nature
>allow them to have clerics? Wouldn't elves and druids get along great?
>Yet, they don's seem to and if the attitude of the elves is really as
>pro-nature as the worship of nature would imply, I don't see why not.

Mohamadeans, Christians, and Jews all worship the same god, are based upon
the texts of the Jews and yet they don't get along at all. Similarity does
not suggest cooperation.

In another note, 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". 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.

Amerindian defenders did. Vienamese defenders did. Today its called
guerilla or unconventional warfare. In a war between peoples, being a
member of the other society makes you an enemy. In a war between states,
only members of the state apparatus (like the army) make you an enemy. In a
war between dynasties, only sworn supporters are enemies. Everyone else are
non-combatants.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net