Ethics and Rulership

[Rowan]

As far as the elves are concerned, the humans ARE truly beings without worth or right to live, so by your own syllogism the slaughter is not evil.

You might have missed that I'm referring to an absolute morality. I'm not some silly relativist in real life nor in my fantasy games, for fantasy is traditionally a genre acknowledging the absolute existence of Truth, Good, and Evil, and I'll not betray that which is the very heritage and provence of fantasy as the Myth, Legend, and moral story of our day. Fantasy is so successful as a genre because it appeals to and does not shy away from our instinctive roots in and knowledge of Truth, Good, and Evil.


As for how extensive human hatred is in the canon, it seems pretty clear to me from the core sources that while there is a streak of Rhuobhe sympathizers in every elven culture, most elves have shunned him. Instead, Tuarhievel allows human guilders and makes friends with humans--not just the current Prince Fhileraene, but his father as well, and both reigns had more than a majority of support it would seem. Further, the Sielwode is not as anti-human as here suggested. Isaelie may have fits of rage, but it is said that she holds no ill will towards humans, and her lieutenant is a bit friendlier than that. Then we've got elves serving in Tuornen and living among humans in the Erebannien. No, I think elves are in the process of getting over humans, just as people and cultures who lose wars and loved ones gradually deal with their grief and anger and move on--or turn it to destruction (like the relatively fewer elves who join with Rhuobhe).

[kgauck]

You might have missed that I'm referring to an absolute morality. I'm not some silly relativist in real life nor in my fantasy games, for fantasy is traditionally a genre acknowledging the absolute existence of Truth, Good, and Evil, and I'll not betray that which is the very heritage and provence of fantasy as the Myth, Legend, and moral story of our day. Fantasy is so successful as a genre because it appeals to and does not shy away from our instinctive roots in and knowledge of Truth, Good, and Evil.

Here's a good couple of posts to give you the Cliff's Notes on Ryan and Alignment.


One of the things I very much like about Birthright`s focus on the world of politics is that it greatly increases moral ambiguity: the game of thrones is not for the faint of heart or lily-livered goody-two-shoes. [ed: For musical theater references, click the link.] In my personal opinion, there is no ruler anywhere in Cerilia who qualifies as particularly "good" in a simple-minded alignment sense, especially the ones who are actually good (in the sense of competent at their job) rulers! In my Cerilia, the principle that a good prince is a person who sacrifices his own personal innocence to protect his people by any means necessary is widely regarded as obviously true.


Kenneth correctly identifies me as one who reads Machiavelli very appreciatively. Part of the issue with morality is how much of it is really a smokescreen, a set of comforting lies we tell each other and ourselves to hide our darker motives and desires. [...] My primary principle of Cerilian statecraft, which is perhaps best described as "good rulers do good things to good people, and bad things to bad people." A big part of the way I look at it is a "circles of kinship" kind of thing: the rules about interactions within one`s community differ from the rules about interactions with outsiders.

There is more, its a good thread, so I encourage you to read the whole thing, and John Machin is all over it too, which is always a pleasure.

[Rowan]

Interesting. What was that thread you were quoting? I may get into it if I have the time; it sounds like it would be a long one to read through.

I think there are real standards by which rulers can be considered good and just (these standards certainly exist and are debated in our own world). Haelyn seems to represent the simple fact that Anuireans hold up ideals of rulership that involve standards of goodness, virtue (not in the Machiavellian sense, but more in the Christian sense), and justice.

[kgauck]

I think that would make the god of rulership a god of bad rulership. I don't think Haelyn is the champion of Henry III, I think he's the champion of Edward I.

[Rowan]

Just and virtuous rulership is bad rulership? Howso?

[ConjurerDragon]

> Rowan wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> As far as the elves are concerned, the humans ARE truly beings without worth or right to live, so by your own syllogism the slaughter is not evil.
> -----------------------------
>
> You might have missed that I`m referring to an absolute morality. I`m not some silly relativist in real life nor in my fantasy games, for fantasy is traditionally a genre acknowledging the absolute existence of Truth, Good, and Evil,

Mmm? No. D&D tries to explain it that way but other systems don?t. And why do you think there is an idiom "the way to hell is paved with good intentions"? Read Machiavelli.

> and I`ll not betray that which is the very heritage and provence of fantasy as the Myth, Legend, and moral story of our day. Fantasy is so successful as a genre because it appeals to and does not shy away from our instinctive roots in and knowledge of Truth, Good, and Evil.
>

Defending oneself against attack? would seem not evil. Killing those who want you dead and what is yours turned to a desert? would not seem evil. Fighting unfair against those that outnumber you hundredfold and swarm you and your family like a plague of rats and turn the land into a barren place where you and your family will die?Remember: There have not been a single human on Cerilia before the tribes fled Aduria. The human tribes first played nice and fought the goblins together with the sidhelien (who welcomed their doom with them!) and then the humans clear-cut the forests and spread like the black plague acroos the whole continent pushing the former owners back into what looks like indian reservates on the map. And different than in real history those living in the reservates are not the grandchildren of those who suffered, but the same sidhelien that survived the human genocide against all that is sidhlien south of Tuarhievel (a safe haven established by Queen Tuar) those same sidhelien are still alive and well aware what lying, stealing and murderous beasts those monsters that call themselves human are. Probably some of them have made an idiom for being tricked and mutilated by someone like "He did elcome him like the humans!" (= He was backstabbbed after some friendly words).

> As for how extensive human hatred is in the canon, it seems pretty clear to me from the core sources that while there is a streak of Rhuobhe sympathizers in every elven culture, most elves have shunned him.

Is it? Or do they have to bow to Diplomacy and can?t have open relations with Rhuobhe unless they want to invite their bloodthirsty neighbours to invade them?

> Instead, Tuarhievel allows human guilders and makes friends with humans--not just the current Prince Fhileraene, but his father as well, and both reigns had more than a majority of support it would seem. Was Rhuobhe Fhilereane's grandfather or was he a more distant relative?

> Further, the Sielwode is not as anti-human as here suggested. Isaelie may have fits of rage, but it is said that she holds no ill will towards humans, and her lieutenant is a bit friendlier than that. Then we`ve got elves serving in Tuornen and living among humans in the Erebannien.

Do they have a choice? I don?t want to live in the Erebannien with humans - then die or leave.

> No, I think elves are in the process of getting over humans, just as people and cultures who lose wars and loved ones gradually deal with their grief and anger and move on--or turn it to destruction (like the relatively fewer elves who join with Rhuobhe).
>

People and cultures gradually deal with that stuff over the course of generations. Sidhelien culture is still in the same generation living.

[ConjurerDragon]

> Rowan wrote:
> Just and virtuous rulership is bad rulership? Howso?
>

Because if you restrict your own actions, wanting to be personally just and virtuous, your country may suffer from it.

"I am Michael the noble Knight - I never break my word!" - virtuous isn?t it? But if breaking your word to your ally and making a seperate peace with the invading army twice the size of yours is the only choice then staying personally virtuous will spell disaster for your realm and the population.

A sneaky ruler who changes allegiances (treason is a question of time) as he sees fit might be seen as personally the opposite of a noble ruler - but if his realm prospers and his people live safe and happy then he is a good ruler.

[kgauck]

Just and virtuous rulership is bad rulership? Howso?

The ruler who is more concerned about his own conscience will produce for his realm civil disorders, invasions, and every kind of mischief. This is the hallmark of a bad ruler. The ruler who leaves his people contented, in peace, in public order under good laws has done so by doing what was neccessary to achieve these ends, even when it means doing bad things to mad men before they have a chance to unleash their ills into the domain.

The best rulers obey the laws and promote justice as much as they are able, but when obediance to the law will produce civil disorders, they best rulers do not obey the law, but protect their people from disorders, violence, and bloodshed.

Since there are bad forces in the world attempting to cause such mischief, the ruler cannot play by the rules as if everyone else was going to play by them as well. To attempt to do so is to by conscious choice inflict harm on a great many citizens. Saint Augustine encapsulated this problem when he instrcuted civil rulers to consider which was the greater evil the act or the inaction. Then enjoined them to do the thing which produced the least harm in the long run.

So the good ruler who spots the discontented official, noble, or courtier who will soon become a Great Captain, arrests him and prevents the conflict that would eventually follow such an event. Its better to visit injustice on the few and prevent civil disorders, than it is to comitt no injustices and see terrible events follow as a consequence of inaction.

[Sejanus]

This debate is higly interesting, so I'll timidly chip my five cents worth in the cup. Sorry if I'm departing from the original intent of the chain... History is my aphrodisiac!

Haelyn is the god of Justice, law and order. Duty, valor, honour, compassion, mercy - you name the good chivalric virtue; it's there!

When Kgauck says "Haelyn is more a god for Edward I than Henry III", I would think he's omitting the Eloelan ruler before Henry III... John Lackland.

You might say the worship of Haelyn is in the eye of the Beholder. Henry III followed what a lot would claim to be a most selfish and dictatorial king. John I Lackland, Prince John - brother to Richard the Lion Hearted.

Thus Henry III had a comparison of a warlike Cuiraecenite Lionheart - who had little regard for anything else than war - and John - your Eloelan usurping thief and gold-loving merchant (consider how all Englands crown jewelry and a lot of gold was lost in some river as John tried to run away with it).

Henry III in comparison, to make him something special in comparison to his ímmediate forebears, lifted the banner of moral purity! Being so perfect a christian of his time that he was zealous in singling out the jews. Add to this a reign of peace lasting from his 9-year coronation in 1216 to the scottish invasion in 1244 and I ask you: Is this not a king worthy of Haelyn? Who else would be the standard bearer of peace than the lord of law and order?
The OIT Haelynite would have considered both heresy hounding and peace mongering perfectly acceptable. The NIT & WIT as well and the IHH most certainly the second and the first if it had been against Belinik or Kriesha (I'm not intending to compare the jews with your generic evil DnD god!)

And when scottish invasion and later rebellion by Simon de Montfort saw Henry III imprisoned, his son Edward I Longshanks took on one of only two possible courses. Fight or surrender. He fought - again Haelyn, being the protector of the lawful ruler, would have supported this and every damned last one of his dogmatic churches the same. So both rulers, in each their ways were good examples of Haelynic rulers. One in peace, the other in almost seemingly perpetual war - but then he had a most annoying magna charta to fight. Imagine being the first king with a bunch of nobles who actually have a piece of paper your grandfather signed, limiting your influence...

No, the interesting question is - was Richard the Lionhearted a Haelynic ruler? Was John I Lackland? I would suggest the first was a gay Cuiraecenite, the other a follower of Eloele or Laerme perhaps.

Thus I add my own view on ruler morality to your debate - I hope. My claim is that human beings, based upon their lifespan, will attempt to assume some form of moral (or perhaps amoral) higher ground. Based on that, but not being the same, as that of their father or idol. Richard was the outwardly chivalrous, ever adventure-seeking warrior-king with a mass-murdering streak, John his brother was a back-stabbing, security-seeking little megalomaniac without charisma but with a mass-murdering streak. His son Henry III was a pious, classical Jew-hating "serve everyone as best you can" (quite likely due to the Magna Carta his father had to sign) selfish bugger who had "ruled" since the age of nine and thus had a rather timid world view. And finally his son Edward I Longshanks who kicked everybody's ass (Even William Wallace's!) and thought Prima Nochte should be brought back into use, quite likely because his father had been rather bullied and finally imprisoned by the nobility. He had a score to settle and it wasn't going to happen through no pious approach! Have sex with their wives on the wedding night I say!


Take the Elves in comparison, living 10 times or more than us, will be the slower in changing their views. The question is: Are elven children essentially identical to us? Or are they able to pick up where daddy left off and continue his work EXACTLY as daddy had worked it to this point? Indications are that the story of elves, being written by human beings, is exactly the same as human history - with the marked difference that they change ten times slower than us. Thus the predecessor of Rhuobhe Manslayer will necessarily have a coherent with but different plan than Rhuobhe's.

Consider Tolkien's elves out of Silmarillion. Are they not images of a greater humanity? Driven by anger, hate, love, friendship and greed.

[irdeggman]

The ruler who is more concerned about his own conscience will produce for his realm civil disorders, invasions, and every kind of mischief. This is the hallmark of a bad ruler. The ruler who leaves his people contented, in peace, in public order under good laws has done so by doing what was neccessary to achieve these ends, even when it means doing bad things to mad men before they have a chance to unleash their ills into the domain.

The best rulers obey the laws and promote justice as much as they are able, but when obediance to the law will produce civil disorders, they best rulers do not obey the law, but protect their people from disorders, violence, and bloodshed.

Since there are bad forces in the world attempting to cause such mischief, the ruler cannot play by the rules as if everyone else was going to play by them as well. To attempt to do so is to by conscious choice inflict harm on a great many citizens. Saint Augustine encapsulated this problem when he instrcuted civil rulers to consider which was the greater evil the act or the inaction. Then enjoined them to do the thing which produced the least harm in the long run.

So the good ruler who spots the discontented official, noble, or courtier who will soon become a Great Captain, arrests him and prevents the conflict that would eventually follow such an event. Its better to visit injustice on the few and prevent civil disorders, than it is to comitt no injustices and see terrible events follow as a consequence of inaction.


And that is why the crown weighs heavy on the ruler.

Or to put it another way - a ruler is often placed in positions where his personal beliefs conflict with what he must do for the good of the realm.

That is pretty much the main reason there are so few paladin regents.

[Hrandal]

Interesting to think about what defines a "good" and "noble" leader, isn't it?

I mean if you're looking at myths, King Arthur made more than his share of mistakes, but you can't doubt he would fit the archetype of a Haelynite king. (Lancelot is more of a Cuiraicenite.) In the end it all goes to pot, but Arthur is still a hero.

Queen Elizabeth's reign caused a tremendous drop in the living standards of most English, but she's still hailed as a national hero for her military successes (and you'd be forgiven for calling a good deal of those simple piracy.)

Its ultimately true that the victors tend to decide right and wrong and write history accordingly. Many "great" figures from history were unpleasant on a personal level. Newton was supposed to have been pretty odious, but his genius outweighed his flaws.

Perhaps its just "cometh the hour, cometh the man" - a particular personality is needed at certain times of crisis. Maybe under some circumstances an evil regent (or at least one willing to do evil) can serve the greater good better. For instance, if Gavin Tael became Emperor he'd have the steel to do almost anything to retain power. In a time of peace that could well cause dissent, but if the Gorgon is marauding, well, suddenly it becomes an asset to be totally ruthless. Sometimes a bastard is needed to make the hard decisions.

[irdeggman]

The problem this discussion has is that is by its very nature rooted in the D&D alignment system.

That system is one of the most "contested" and argued over things in all of D&D - so it leads to many esoteric paths.

Supposedly 4th ed is going to "water down" the alignment system.

I'll give a good example of a "problem" that applying the alignment system universally causes.

In Dark Sun things are not so clear cut. Alignment is much more about shades of grey (no reference to The Grey is intended). In the revised box set they talked about alignment in terms of "water" and how someone would "share" such an essential to survival item.

This setting specific deviation from the standard alignment system is the root of of one of my problems with Paizo's treatment of DS 3.5. {They introduced paladins as a base class, I mean paladins in a world with no gods and where good is a relative term - criminy. /end rant}

[ericthecleric]

I can highly recommend the historical novels of Sharon Penman, who’s books cover the Plantaganent period, plus that of Stephen & Matilda. The books are very well written and interesting to read (well, except the one about Thomas Becket!). King Stephen comes across as a bit of a tit, really. While he’s a great military leader, he’s clearly got a lawful good alignment, and perhaps a bit foolish, but when out of battles he tries to do “the right thing” from a moral perspective- which isn’t always good for the realm. Penman’s novel “When Christ and His Saints Slept” covers that era very well.

On Richard I, while his peers think he may have been a good king and John a bad king, from a modern perspective, I think the views should be reversed. Richard was in his kingdom for a very short time, squandered the kingdom’s funds on wars of expansion in France and fighting in the Holy Land, and lumbered the country with a crippling ransom when he was captured. After overextending England militarily and financially and leaving that mess to John, it’s no wonder that John generally receives a bad opinion. John had very little room to maneuver, and so would have had to have devised “cunning plans” that were relatively inexpensive.

[geeman]

At 11:36 AM 2/8/2008, ericthecleric wrote:

>On Richard I, while his peers think he may have been a good king and
>John a bad king, from a modern perspective, I think the views should
>be reversed.

I don`t know that we can necessarily draw a lot of moral or ethical
examples from Richard or John. At least, I`m hesitant to do that
since one can fall on either side of the issue with a lot of plausibility.

That said, I think Richard and John are best suited as examples of
how one might differentiate between the adventure and domain levels
of play. From the standard D&D gaming POV, Richard certainly was the
better PC.... He travels, gets into "adventures" and deals directly
with a sort of heroic quest. From a BR domain level POV, though,
John would probably be more interesting to play. His interaction is
geared towards rulership and the various issues he dealt with could
easily be `ported into a BR system of domain actions, random events
and international diplomacy.

Gary

[kgauck]

The alignment system is based on two overlapping mid-eastern cosmologies made manifest. Originally there was a cosmology of law and chaos, in which chaos was represented by things like Tiamat, who had to be subdued and killed by Marduk before the universe could be formed. In this system law was desirable and chaos fearful and terrible. The founder gods would impose order on the universe and we could live in a world where it rained in spring, the sun rose every day, and elements of chaos, storms, floods, earthquakes, were mostly kept in check by rituals to the gods of order.

As we get into, say the 6th century BC, we start to see ethical reformers, who argue that order is not sufficient and that compassion, mercy, justice, and such things are also desirable. We see philosophers in China, India, Greece, and the Mid-East reforming religion and philosophy as the axis of good and evil become more prominent.

In Zoroastrianism we see law and goodness as a tangible force, represented by Ahura Mazda, and chaos and evil represented by Angra Mainya. This are manifest forces and Ahura Mazda have his people purifying fire so that they could detect good and detect evil, as it were.

The D&D alignment system owes a great deal to this cosmology, where chaos is a tangible force for disorder in the cosmos, law subdues order and allows civilization (because civilized people need agriculture, which requires seasonal order), good represents powerful forces of compassion and evil the forces of darkness.

The original Dieties and Demigods cyclopedia had the Summerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian mythos included, because early Mideastern mythology was so important to the development of D&D's cosmological thinking.

Its also worth noting that you could assign elements to these points on the alignment. Fire came from Ahura Mazda and was good. Tiamat was not only a sea serpent, but represented the great salt sea: water is chaos. And depending on which axis you go to first, law could be air (as in Marduk) or earth. Leaving evil as the remaining element.

So we get the whole D&D cosmology in nutshell from Mid-Eastern ideas about tangible forces, connected to gods who grant power connected to these primordial forces. This makes perfect sense when we stick to magic, and spells concerning law, chaos, good, and evil. If characters are supposed to be lawful and good, it can apply to characters as well, but then chaotic and evil characters are the villains. By AD&D there is a clear attempt to soften chaos as an alignment for characters, without reducing the primordial power of chaos for the cosmology. This creates a problem. Is chaos freedom of individual choice or disorder that makes life in society impossible? Both kind of. Characters who get labeled as chaotic are ones who live apart from society, hermits, elves, fey, barbarians, thieves, and so some partial reconciliation as long as you don't look too closely.

These early religions (and they influence later ones as well in this respect) had a final climactic battle in which the forces of the desired axis (law or good) would confront the undesired axis (evil or chaos) and creation would end, be transformed, or otherwise produce a new cosmos without the other side. Paradise for the followers. So a priest of some force of chaos might hope to bring about, or reinforce, his side so that creation could be undone and we could live without the tyranny of day/night, land/sea, up/down, ruler/ruled, man/woman, hot/cold, or any other structure you could imagine to the nature of things. Things would just be, they would not be ordered in any way. Imagine Azrai imposing the seeming on everything so that there is no order to anything, and you have an idea of a god of chaos.

This is not a useful model for politics, is a cosmological model. Alignment has evolved both cosmologically and for character use, but has never shed its dual nature, which makes chaos particularly troublesome. Is it nihilism or freedom? Depends on whether your a spellcaster or not, really.

[kgauck]

I don`t know that we can necessarily draw a lot of moral or ethical
examples from Richard or John. At least, I`m hesitant to do that since one can fall on either side of the issue with a lot of plausibility.
I think this is because there is a difference between personal and public ethics. What is good in a person is not necessarily good for states. This creates a good built in dilemma for rulers. Richard was a good person, goes on Crusade, does the right thing, leaves his realm in chaos. John tries to bring order, pay his brother's ransom, deal with the alliance of France and the Empire that is a consequence of Richard's conduct.

So John looks like a good king and a bad person, while Richard looks like a good person and a bad king.

There are great ways to build these dilemmas into the game. One common problem faced by rulers was the need to get rid of good ministers when the king's policies become unpopular. Either the king accepts sinking domain loyalty (basically agitating against himself) or he banishes, executes, or imprisons a loyal servant who is just doing what the king wanted in the first place. The policy may yet be a good policy, but circumstances (bad harvests, twists in diplomacy, costs of implementation) make it unpopular.

Good king (kill your friend) or good person (riots in the streets)?

[ThatSeanGuy]

This is a pretty interesting discussion, though it always feels like I'm coming in halfway on these things. Is there, like, a mailing list or something that I haven't been able to find where this stuff starts?

Anyway! Alignment. Whooboy.

I think that a lot of the trouble over alignment comes from the classes that "must" be a certain alignment. This leads some folks to assume that, say, what would cause Johnny Paladin's grace to shake a bit applies to everyone who happens to be lawful and good. Similarly, look at the monk: one of the classic evil martial artist archtypes is the vicious brute who only cares about personal power and perfection at the cost of anyone around him or her. Which is pretty darn Chaotic Evil, no?

I've found that two things tend to make alignment fights much less vicious when I play, and especially when I DM. First, I don't hold material beings to the same standards as spiritual beings: Things that have alignment as a part of their essential makeup, like fiends and archons, are going to adhere much more strictly to the ideals of said alignment than someone who's simply following a philosophy, while conversly, the mortal creatures are almost expected to be, well, only human, and are given a wider berth based on background, culture, personal nurosies, and the thousand other things that makes up a person's personality.

This has several benefits; first and foremost, it encourages my players to have alignment be a summary of the character's morals and ethics, not the rigid way they react to every situation. The Lawful Good Paladin isn't afraid to occasionaly do something for herself, or just have a character flaw, because I won't set her on fire the first time she does something I can spin as 'chaotic' or 'evil'. The Chaotic Good priest won't feel the need to throw a pie in any authority figure's face for fear of losing his god's approval. Players are less afraid to portray weaknesses and honest moments of doubt because there isn't the fourty pound "change your alignment!" hammer above of their heads. Instead, I keep a little journal-if the Chaotic Good priest, for example, starts acting more selfishly or more rules-focused, I'll check my notes to see that, yes, the change in behaviour is consistant, and talk to the guy about it.

Secondly, it helps make spiritual beings strange and alien. The angel of Haelyn /does/ have to strive to be something that a human being just can't be: the perfect reflection of one of nine moralistic generalizations. It helps get the PCs to sell the otherworldliness of things that should be otherworldly, as well as subtly encouraging them to think outside of the alignment box in order to avoid being an inhuman being.

Anyway, what all of this bar bar bar means is: Nine times out of ten, an alignment fight can be solved by taking a step back and going, "Settle down, Beevis."; like, our king example. One incident should very rarely be enough to totally change someone's alignment; if this guy makes a habit of ignoring what someone actually did in order to pacifiy the mob, then sure, send him a step towards moral neutrality. If he makes a habit of letting his people riot in the streets because he can't find a way to calm them down while figuring out what is really what, then edge him towards ethical neutrality.

As to the "bad king" question, well, it all depends on who you are. Some would think that a king who stops a lynch mob is a very good king, while other people don't want to be beaten up because they were just doing a little rioting. Generally, though, I figure Haelyn himself would say that while honesty is all well and good, someone who's responsible for the saftey of a country probably shouldn't make a promise like that in the first place. Course, that's the tricky part about Birthright dieties: they're quiet. They're not going to show up and go, "This temple regent is right, the rest of y'all is wack."-which means that even a Lawful Good diety can have followers who disagree, civily, rudely, or violently, on how to best inteprit said diety's philosophy.

I mean, look at the difference between the Oaken Grove Of Eric and the Emerald Grove, the two big Rjurik temples to Eric: The OGE supports the idea of druids aiding their communities, even if these communities grow into cities; the why can range from "because it's our duty" to "who are we to say that cities aren't the natural state of humanity? Insects build complicated structures. It's just another kind of nature.". The EG, on the other hand, is isolationist, for a similarly broad spectrum of reasons, from the simple, "City bad, nature good.", to something as complex as, "Druids should be seperate from the communities they aid because familiarity breeds contempt; if a druid of Eric is "just another silly priest", Eric himself is insulted, the natural world is not held in reverence, and trouble surely follows."

None of these philosophies couldn't be part of a Neutral character; some lean towards Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or whatever else you want to say, but that's a matter of personal preference: There's breathing room, because the setting needs breathing room in order to have competing temple regents.

[Rowan]

I haven't read all of this yet (too many posts since I saw it last!), but Kgauck (did you move this here to the new thread? I didn't start it...), what you said on the first page when you were describing good rulership and mentioning St. Augustine, that's "just and virtuous" rulership. I don't know why you don't think that's the standard. Of course a just and virtuous ruler is still going to need to be prepared to wage war or execute people. Of course it is just to stop a dangerous and unlawful rebellion. All of these fit the ideal (call it Judeo-Christian, call it Western, call it Lawful Good or Paladin if you like) of a just and virtuous ruler. It's a matter of recognizing that there are realities in the world that must be contended with, sometimes in harsh manner.

The real complexities of conscience are when you consider some of the more difficult cases of justice, and the rare conditions under which a lie is a virtue (lying to protect an innocent from imminent death is very clearly a good, but a very rare case; not the only case for a lie, but just an example).

[Hrandal]

I would say what probably makes sense in a BR setting is this - for each church write down a few basic tenets. Then have players receive temporal flack if they stray from those tenets (or are seen to encourage others away from them). If you annoy the priests of that religion, or their congregation, then you get the big stick of public hatred.

For instance, the OIT might have some pretty unyielding tenets like "Always obey ye yer superiors in station". You can imagine some of the nonsensical jobsworth-ing that would produce, but its quite IC for Diemed.

The NIT, on the other hand, might have a tenet like "Let no evil stand unpunished", resulting in a very different attitude in the commoners of Talinie.

Rather than alignment per se, this gives you more of a general "rules of conduct" for each specific church.

[ThatSeanGuy]

I think that's a good idea, though I wouldn't just have it be tenants. Like, maybe have the NIT be more suspicious of universities than the scholarly priests of the City of Anuire's temple, but having really embraced the whole floral symbolism aspect of Haelyn.

This gives the individual temples a little more flavor, to presumably be used by PC regents in winning over the priests: Like, you wouldn't give the head of the NIT some ancient Anduran documents that need'a translating unless you want her to get the idea that you're implying that she's a rube, to continue the example.

[kgauck]

Kgauck (did you move this here to the new thread? I didn't start it...)
I did move it, based on experience, these kinds of questions can generate a lot of posts, and we could have ended up hijacking Gary's work on the elves.


What you said on the first page when you were describing good rulership and mentioning St. Augustine, that's "just and virtuous" rulership. I don't know why you don't think that's the standard.
I do think its the standard, but I am aware that others don't. Between Augustine and Machiavelli, there is a long tradition of proscriptive political theory, which argues that kings should not make war, should not break treaties, should not lie, should be honest and upright in all things, because if everyone was good, kings would have no reason to be bad themselves. Sure, that's true (and its from this point of view that Machiavelli's descriptive politics is criticized) but "if everyone was good" is quite a qualification. John Adams noted that if we were all angels, we wouldn't need government.

Let's consider the case of Henry VIII and Thomas Moore. If Henry, a vaunted knight, chivalrous, defender of the Church against Heresy, is criticized by Thomas Moore for his wars, constant shifting between alliances with Habsburg then Valois, for his divource, and finally his break with a Pontiff controlled by Spain, is a just and virtous ruler, then what is Thomas Moore? A radical lawful good? What are the authors of political treatises of the middle ages who argued that the best king is a saintly king, and would hold Henry III up as a paragon and condemn a realist who governs well as tainted, compromised, or actually evil just because he knows you can't govern well and be a saint?

The reason I called this thread ethics and rulership and didn't use the word alignment is because we both might call Henry VIII LG, but call Henry a realist and Thomas an idealist.

[kgauck]

Those interested in seeing how temples could have different tenants, I would urge them look at the Northern Imperial Temple in the wiki, because that's exactly what I have done. Specifically look at the Teaching and Doctrine section of NIT, where I took a paragraph of text in the BoP and turned each sentence or two into a paragraph of its own by elaborating in the idea in light of other things in the PS of Talinie, the BoP, or the history of philosophy. Also see Fitzalan and Janna Many-Tongued for further discussions of the teachings of the NIT. Further work will be done and attached to subsequent figures, such as Bhàtair Armara.

I have set up a master list of qualities of temples of Haelyn, and then for each temple considered, remove one or two and emphasize several others. So the NIT is anti-ritual (one removed) and emphasizes humility, grace, and stewardship in its message (three emphasized). This comes from the BoP, local PS's, descriptions in Ruins of Empire or other regional books, and the history of philosophy.

I know it will be sophisticated enough to satisfy the most ardent student of ideas while at the same time, I hope, simple enough to give a little flavor for domains that are not at the core of the campaign playing area.

[geeman]

At 02:45 PM 2/8/2008, ThatSeanGuy wrote:

>This is a pretty interesting discussion, though it always feels like
>I`m coming in halfway on these things. Is there, like, a mailing
>list or something that I haven`t been able to find where this stuff starts?

You could subscribe to the birthright-l mailing list, which gets
emailed posts sent to the BR.net message boards thanks to the
ingenious efforts of the illustrious Arjan. To subscribe go to:

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=birthright-l&A=1

Go ahead and email me directly (geeman@softhome.net) if you have any
questions or problems getting set up.

Gary

[Rowan]

From what I know of Henry VIII, I would call him more LN. Saint Louis was a king of France; there may have been other saintly kings (this one was well loved and known among his people for his piety and generosity and wisdom, though his attempt at crusade was ill-fated, if I remember correctly).

King David of the Bible and the early years of King Solomon seem good examples of imperfect but just and virtuous kings. Richard III as you mentioned was another. I think the idea is that you do the minimum evil possible, and then only when truly necessary to stave off greater evil, and rule always with the best of intentions and to the best of your ability for your people and not yourself. That's the ideal.

So it's not a situation of ends justifying means, but rather a much more limited scenario, with, for instance, war or execution being required when it is the only way left to protect innocents.

[Rowan]

"You might have missed that I`m referring to an absolute morality. I`m not some silly relativist in real life nor in my fantasy games, for fantasy is traditionally a genre acknowledging the absolute existence of Truth, Good, and Evil,"

Mmm? No. D&D tries to explain it that way but other systems don?t. And why do you think there is an idiom "the way to hell is paved with good intentions"? Read Machiavelli.

I wasn't just talking about D&D. I was talking about fantasy in general. Numerous authors, including most of the originals and greats, as well as literature critics, philosophers, theologians, and even psychologists have observed the patterns of Truth and the struggle and definition of Good and Evil in an absolute sense in most of fantasy.


With regard to alignment, I recognize its roots, and thanks for the detailed explanation, Kgauck. That's more than I knew. It makes sense that there is some tension, as the nine alignments also contend with various other senses of good and evil in D&D; for example the Paladin is very simply based off of the ideal of Christian knighthood as in Arthurian legend.

Which brings me to an aside that King Arthur is a legend very much delving into the question of rulership in righteousness, setting up an ideal that must be acknowledged to be ultimately unreachable by imperfect man, but worthy of striving towards anyway. I think we have trouble identifying a historical monarch as our ideal because all naturally were less than the ideal, though they may represent some part of it well.

Personally, I do find alignment useful and I like it. I don't have much of a problem making it work in my games, and I and my players find it a good guide for characters without being a straightjacket. I find it pretty easy to apply to rulers in BR games as well, and it helps to keep the tension and differences among rulers in mind.

[ryancaveney]

You might have missed that I'm referring to an absolute morality.

What interests me is that there are so many different absolute moralities which have been advocated over the years. If I had to pick an absolute standard for Cerilia, it would be this: the elves can do whatever they like to the humans, because elves are better than humans. Naturally, Cerilia's humans will disagree with this particular absolute standard, but I think they're wrong. =)


Fantasy is so successful as a genre because it appeals to and does not shy away from

I disagree completely. I find such moralistic bullheadedness to be the primary obstacle to my enjoyment of fantasy books and games and such. Suspension of disbelief is a vastly more difficult task for me when applied to the idea of rulers who aren't Machiavellian than to a system of biophysics which allows dragons to fly and breathe fire.


our instinctive roots in and knowledge of Truth, Good, and Evil.

Ah, instinctive. Yes, that's always been the problem with any ethical theory. It is not possible to be logical about morality, because the utility function is an input, not an output. That is, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche or whoever says, "Action A is better than action B." The student asks, "Why?" The teacher replies, "Because A leads to X and B leads to Y, and X is better than Y." It is at this point that I ask, "Why?" The only answer I have ever gotten boils down to, "Uh, just because." Therefore, it is clear to me that all talk of having an ethical theory is really just a smokescreen to cover the fact that there is nothing more to morality than "I just like that answer better, and I'll beat you up if you disagree." We can argue logically about what consequences a given set of axioms may have, but we cannot argue logically about what consequences or axioms are better than others, because the very notion of "better" essentially _precedes_ logic. The reason we are still arguing about ethics after thousands of years of recorded history is that "instinctive knowledge of good and evil" has *changed* radically over time, and at any given point in time differs wildly between societies and between individuals within a given society. The real meat of the variation is not so much which things are wrong, but which bad things are worse than others. For example, "is it OK to kill a random stranger" is -- to some (many? most?) people, but not all -- a very different question from "is it OK to kill that particular stranger who is trying to mug you". The exact proportion of people voting "yes" changes constantly as you vary the clause after "who is trying to" over the wide range of options from "steal your favorite coffee mug from your desk" to "torture your spouse and child to death".

On that note, my thought on the elves is that while they find it regrettable to have to engage in genocide of the humans, it is merely self-defense on a time scale which they can appreciate but the humans can't. In particular, since it is human reproduction which is the driving engine of the conflict, "unarmed" women and children are *not* innocent -- they are *weapons*, and any sane policy of reducing the threat posed by the humans must include killing (at least some of) them.

[Rowan]

What interests me is that there are so many different absolute moralities which have been advocated over the years.

Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories about one absolute morality.

I never claimed that all people are attracted to fantasy because of its moral components (though even the atheistic author of the Golden Compass was). I only stated that a huge variety of experts and authors have recognized that these traits exist strongly in fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy's huge growth and mass appeal.

As much as I'd love to get into the debate with you about absolute morality and ethics, this isn't really the forum for it. Suffice it to say that your characterization of moral philosophy seems to me to have suffered from poor teachers, insufficient investigation, or just denial. Even faith for many if not most people stems from a serious and ruthless logical, rational search for truth. Moral philosophy certainly does--heck, utilitarianism explicitly removes the judgment of the "good" of an action until viewing its consequences.

As for the elves, I think you're missing some serious game implications.

I questioned sexual reproduction and family relationships because with spontaneous generation of elves, there are no parent-child, sibling, or wider relationships. There is no evolutionary purpose for sex or the sexes; male/female sexes exist throughout much of nature because they rely on sexual reproduction. The sexes do not exist apart from sexual reproduction in nature--and there are great numbers of species that don't have sexes in nature, so why should the elves have sexes if they don't reproduce sexually? It would be a major departure from their closeness to nature and the "natural order."


Because you need a greater density to make an elf -- perhaps you need a 7 or higher.
If this is so, the implication that follows is that elves have no use for terrain other than forests, mountains, and swamps. If they care about the propagation their species (at least in similar fashion to all natural species), they'd probably try just as much to push dwarves from the mountains for their influence on mebhaigl as push humans out of the forests. Further, they'd have no problem letting the humans have all of the other terrain types, needing only to defend their forests--which as several of us have shown in the Battle Elves thread, they can do quite handily.

It is quite possible for humans to control sources of level 7 or higher, especially if they reduce the province level. Would elves go on crusade against these humans? Would any province of level 7 or higher start spontaneously generating an elven population? If those elves are formed as adults and outside of families or community in these isolated locales, how do they learn anything? Might they end up being "raised" by humans or other sentient creatures, thereby becoming impressioned by their traits and culture?

[kgauck]

Ah, instinctive. Yes, that's always been the problem with any ethical theory. It is not possible to be logical about morality, because the utility function is an input, not an output. That is, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche or whoever says, "Action A is better than action B." The student asks, "Why?" The teacher replies, "Because A leads to X and B leads to Y, and X is better than Y." It is at this point that I ask, "Why?" The only answer I have ever gotten boils down to, "Uh, just because." Therefore, it is clear to me that all talk of having an ethical theory is really just a smokescreen to cover the fact that there is nothing more to morality than "I just like that answer better, and I'll beat you up if you disagree."

There are two schools on this one, the idealists, and the realists. The ideals, indeed say, because it is, and make recourse to things you cannot see, forms, God, souls, quintessence, and so on. From Plato to Descartes, you have the idealists. The ideas of right and wrong are built into who we are, part of our natures, or ideas that precede our other thinking.

The other school are the realists. They say that Action A is better than Action B because after a long period of observing many cases directly through my senses and indirectly through descriptions (history and biography) I have found that A comes to a happy end much more often than B. This is Aristotle, whose ethics and politics are based on his overall method. First we construct a metaphysics (how does the world actually work), then we constructs names and categories of things (our ontology) and finally we can construct an axiology (our ethics and aesthetics). Too many people start with an axiology and go from there. I would argue that idealists do this. Realism goes from Aristotle to Locke, who argued against Descartes that there are no natural ideas inherent in men, but that men form their ideas and ultimately their moral sense by observing the world and reflecting on those observations. And yet, in his politics (just like Aristotle) he constructs a theory of the social contract. He does this because he believes (now unlike Hobbes) that humans are reasonable and rational, and under the right conditions, can cooperate rather the conflict, and can establish societies based on rule of law, parliaments, and commerce, rather than ruled by an almighty leviathan who imposes order from god, or the ruler's personal will.

Machiavelli is a modern interpreter of Aristotle, so much so that much of Machiavelli's analytical method can be found in the Politics of Aristotle.

[Rowan]

Both of the approaches you mention resort to reason.

Early Western Christians recognized pre-existant absolutes/ideals, but also applied an Aristotelian approach to construct and describe reality and morality. They found that each system approached the same problems from different directions, and could meet in harmonious accord at the point of Truth--each validated the other. Witness the concept of Natural Law (C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is an everyman's introduction to natural law).

I tend to use natural law observations of game worlds to describe and pattern right and wrong, and it is by those absolute standards that I say the commonalities of elves and humans are significant enough to demonstrate the moral evil of wanton elven extermination of humans. For many of the justifications elves would use for genocide, they could apply to most other beings, and most other beings could apply to elves. The existence of such contradictions shows that justification of genocide is self-contradictory and is thus only accepted by those who don't or won't recognize the truth or don't care. So while many elves may give justifications for their actions, as well as many humans for theirs, both would be errant. Of course, there's nothing preventing whole nations and cultures from following evil aims while believing themselves justified. That's why I don't say that elves can't believe this way, just that they'd be demonstrably wrong to in context of the game world, and that the setting doesn't seem to indicate that so many are so anti-human. Since I believe that it would be hard to be an intelligent creature that lives so long and not be a philosopher, I tend to think elves are rather better at natural law than humans, and so contravening their conscience is an act of their frequent passions, but is still recognized (with sympathy) as wrong among the elven community.

[kgauck]

I simply don't see the elves as Stoics, the inventers of natural law (and the continuing source of it even to the 18th century). The stoics, and their natural law fits into this, are concerned with avoiding disturbance. Its hardly surprising that stoics opposed war and violence of all kind, let alone genocide. But would the elves invent a universal moral system? I don't see elves fearing disturbance, but rather fomenting disturbance, they are chaotics. I don't see elves universalizing moral systems, but each inventing their own, they are chaotics.

[ryancaveney]

Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories about one absolute morality.

Not in any empirically accessible sense. Different levels of understanding about one absolute truth is definitely the case for physics (in which case the underlying truth is inherently probabilistic anyway) and the other natural sciences, but not for anything involving human society. The problem is fundamentally one of measurement. If we took all the 4873 registered members of our website and tried to arrange them in order of increasing height, it wouldn't matter whether our ruler was marked in feet, meters, cubits, picas, or anything else -- the individual numbers would be different, but in a highly systematic fashion (e.g., there are always 2.54 centimeters to the inch), and the end result would always be the same. Every person would always find themselves taller than the same group of people, and shorter than the same other group of people. This is not true for morality because no large, randomly-chosen group of people will give you consistent answers about which acts are better or worse than which other ones. There will be common themes, and majority agreement on some large differences, but there will be no consistent pattern in the ordering of small details, which is where all interesting ethical decisions lie. In fact, the answers any particular person gives you tells you more about the person than it does about the actions you have asked them to order -- there is no independent calibration for the moral compass. The problem is that you cannot judge which acts are more or less moral than others unless you already have a morality to judge them with! There is no escape from this essential logical circularity; you can assume morality into existence, but you cannot construct it from more basic elements which are not equally unsupported assumptions. You can assert that a particular moral code is your personally preferred one, but there is no objective reason to pick any one of them in favor of any other as the global standard of measurement.


Moral philosophy certainly does--heck, utilitarianism explicitly removes the judgment of the "good" of an action until viewing its consequences.

But I already said you can't judge the relative goodness of the consequences either, unless you already have some preexisting standard of goodness!


(Lack of sexual reproduction) would be a major departure from their closeness to nature and the "natural order."

Eternal youth is already a bigger departure from actual biology. So is the fact that they Pass Without Trace -- tracking them isn't just difficult, it is literally impossible. The spell description says they don't leave scent or footprints; complete physical nontrackability, as explicitly provided by the spell, further requires that they don't bend blades of grass when stepping on them or leave clothing fibers on thorns or even shed hair. Furthermore, "an elf can travel over heavy snow, soft sand, or a treacherous mountainside as easily as a human walks across a smooth wooden floor." Therefore, it is quite clear to me and many others that they are in fact not biological creatures at all, but rather a kind of spirit which feels some responsibility to watch over some of those creatures which are biological, and to appear to be biological in order to better relate to their charges.


Further, they'd have no problem letting the humans have all of the other terrain types, needing only to defend their forests--which as several of us have shown in the Battle Elves thread, they can do quite handily.

Far more of Cerilia was once forested than it is now. What the elves want to do, in my opinion, is reclaim the lands the humans have stolen, and replant the forests which once grew there.


It is quite possible for humans to control sources of level 7 or higher, especially if they reduce the province level. Would elves go on crusade against these humans?

Yes, absolutely.


Would any province of level 7 or higher start spontaneously generating an elven population?

I am presently inclined to think so.


If those elves are formed as adults and outside of families or community in these isolated locales, how do they learn anything? Might they end up being "raised" by humans or other sentient creatures, thereby becoming impressioned by their traits and culture?

I have yet to work out all the implications of the idea I only adopted a few weeks ago as the solution to a host of other difficulties, so this is a very useful line of inquiry. I don't yet know how to answer the first question, except that I know I want it to be such that the answer to the second question is a definite no.

[ConjurerDragon]

Rowan schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4126
> ...
> Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories about one absolute morality.
> ...
>
Which is completely clear and understandable to you but not to those
that have other opinions about morality because all who don?t share your
opinion on morality must lack knowlegde, understanding or only have a
different theory about your view on morality? Are you L. Ron Hubbard or
the Pope? ^^

> I never claimed that all people are attracted to fantasy because of its moral components (though even the atheistic author of the Golden Compass was). I only stated that a huge variety of experts and authors have recognized that these traits exist strongly in fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy`s huge growth and mass appeal.
>
*even* the atheistic author of the golden compass was attracted by it?s
moral component? Is it really something special when someone who, being
atheistic, lacks moral guidelines for example from faith, and finds them
in some kids book instead?

A huge variety of (not named or listed) experts and authors...
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png

Or fantasy actually is only a form of escapism which is from time to
time heard by those that do not share our interest in fantasy and no
guideline to morality whatsoever. Please note that I do like fantasy
literature. But claiming that people in general like a huge genre that
contains very different books because they find the moral components so
great... ;-)


> As much as I`d love to get into the debate with you about absolute morality and ethics, this isn`t really the forum for it. Suffice it to say that your characterization of moral philosophy seems to me to have suffered from poor teachers, insufficient investigation, or just denial.
You?re not only L.Ron Hubbard or the Pope - you must be both. Because
you not only know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics
but you also have visions about the reasons why other can?t see it your
way. Poor teachers? Wow. Did your crystal ball tell you that?
> ...
> If this is so, the implication that follows is that elves have no use for terrain other than forests, mountains, and swamps. If they care about their species, they`d probably try just as much to push dwarves from the mountains for their influence on mebhaigl. Further, they`d have no problem letting the humans have all of the other terrain types, needing only to defend their forests--which as several of us have shown in the Battle Elves thread, they can do quite handily.
>
Their forests once covered most of the continent and what remains of
those forests is much less than before. So yes, the sidhelien would
certainly also be interested in the plains of Anuire, even if currently
those plains are not forests - given time without humans those plains
wil become forests again. Ancient elven forests :-)

[Rowan]

There were many sources of and evolutions of natural law; no, I don't see elves as stoics either. I refer mainly to the fact that their lives of relative leisure leave them able to observe and experience an incredible amount over their long lives, and if they are at all inquisitive, this will lead to philosophical thought--why are we here, how ought we to live, seeking meanings, seeking to understand the natural order, etc. Their perception of natural order can and likely would lead to the formation of some sort of natural law, as they can observe the principle of noncontradiction and also the consistency of nature.

[Rowan]

You can assert that a particular moral code is your personally preferred one, but there is no objective reason to pick any one of them in favor of any other as the global standard of measurement.

Ryan, each philosophy, culture, moral system, whatever have been aimed at discovering and describing an absolute, just like science does but in respect to non-physical questions. Each makes arguments appealing to an absolute, and the reason for choosing any over another is by making a judgment based on the best arguments, just as scientists make judgments about the best theories.


Which is completely clear and understandable to you but not to those
that have other opinions about morality because all who don?t share your
opinion on morality must lack knowlegde, understanding or only have a
different theory about your view on morality? Are you L. Ron Hubbard or
the Pope? ^^

Boy, moral relativists get so upset when you try to suggest any absolute other than their own self-contradictory absolute that there are no absolutes!

Conjurer, I never said that all who don't share my moral views lack knowledge or understanding. I was responding to Ryan's attack on moralism as not being based on logic or reason--I was saying that it seemed to me that he had missed the vast, vast body of deep intellectual and rational thought from incredibly intelligent people throughout history relying on logic and reason to discern moral systems and truths.


*even* the atheistic author of the golden compass was attracted by it?s
moral component? Is it really something special when someone who, being
atheistic, lacks moral guidelines for example from faith, and finds them
in some kids book instead?

A huge variety of (not named or listed) experts and authors...
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20060405bingo.png

Or fantasy actually is only a form of escapism which is from time to
time heard by those that do not share our interest in fantasy and no
guideline to morality whatsoever. Please note that I do like fantasy
literature. But claiming that people in general like a huge genre that
contains very different books because they find the moral components so
great... ;-)

I'm not sure what you're getting at in reference to the Golden Compass. The author used it to make moral points and theological arguments to support his belief that there was no God and religion was evil, and to rail against the strong theistic element in fantasy.

You doubt that there is a huge variety of experts and authors who support my statements about fantasy? Or are you just pointing out my laziness in waiting for someone to dispute the point before bringing it up? In terms of popular authors that each are individually responsible for vastly expanding fantasy's popularity, I can't think of a one who'd disagree. JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, JK Rowling are perhaps the three biggest in that arena; let's add Robert Jordan, Orson Scott Card, Ursula K LeGuin...If you really want me to come up with a list of authors and others, I will; I just figured it was pretty indisputable. Philosophers, literature experts, and anthropologists observe the popularity of ideas not based solely on explicit, conscious acceptance by people, but by its appeal to their other subconscious senses.

Would fantasy be so attractive if it were not so often a struggle between Good and Evil or their various shades?


You?re not only L.Ron Hubbard or the Pope - you must be both. Because
you not only know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics
but you also have visions about the reasons why other can?t see it your
way. Poor teachers? Wow. Did your crystal ball tell you that?

Again, I never claimed to "know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics," just that Ryan's assertion of the essential illogic of moral philosophy was unfounded. It's not very effective to make erroneous assumptions and conclusions about what I've said and then argue against them :) Yes, there was an ad hominem element to my assertion, but it was also an expression of bewilderment about how one could miss the overwhelming dependence on logical thought in moral philosophy.


Their forests once covered most of the continent and what remains of
those forests is much less than before. So yes, the sidhelien would
certainly also be interested in the plains of Anuire, even if currently
those plains are not forests - given time without humans those plains
wil become forests again. Ancient elven forests :-)

Some of Anuire would, yes, but not all. Climate prevents forests from overtaking plains in many places, and many forests removed to support plains may lose conditions necessary to support a resurgence of forest.

[ThatSeanGuy]

There were many sources of and evolutions of natural law; no, I don't see elves as stoics either. I refer mainly to the fact that their lives of relative leisure leave them able to observe and experience an incredible amount over their long lives, and if they are at all inquisitive, this will lead to philosophical thought--why are we here, how ought we to live, seeking meanings, seeking to understand the natural order, etc. Their perception of natural order can and likely would lead to the formation of some sort of natural law, as they can observe the principle of noncontradiction and also the consistency of nature.

Well, it's certainly more interesting than every elf ever being some strange blend of neo-pagan isolationist aristocrat. While, certainly, any demihuman race should have distinct traits that seperate them from humanity, I think that sometimes folks take that way too far, especially when differences within the race itself are proposed.

Remember that elves, especially Cerilian elves, are an arcane magic using race. It's very much their thing. Arcane magic is the magic of experimentation, it has rescearch libraries, it has formal schools, it has laboratories. If the elves were ment to be animistic nature-casters who's powers are more intuitive than practiced, they would have been given druidic-ranger magic as their principle focus.

In other words, just being educated doesn't mean you can't like nature. If anything, I could see that as one of the reasons the elves still have a grudge against humanity: only the most barbarous of their tribes, the Rjurik and the Vos, have a consistant respect for nature, and both groups have a disrespect and fear of the education that is so dear to the elven heart. Certainly, there are elves who honestly think that they can shove humanity off of the continent and make the whole place into a green paradise, but in the source material these guys are consistantly treated as a minority group. Who says elf philosophers can't have ideas beyond 'Laying in sunlit fields being fed grapes.' and 'Kill all humans!'? The whole concept of, "Law is a part of nature." seems very fitting of the character of Cerilian elves to me, especially since they don't have any spiritual source to derive law from.

Giving elves a philosophizing aspect gives some value to all that leisure time, it reinforces the idea of elves as scholars of the arcane, and it opens more possibilities for interesting twists in game time. Like, what if the major villain in your campaign isn't the ol'GS come a calling again, but a group of radical young elves who have noticed how animals "evolve" to succede in the world and, seeing as the elven race is in decline, resolve to do something to make their species more evolutionarily vyable?

[ConjurerDragon]

Rowan schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4139
> ...
> Ryan, each philosophy, culture, moral system, whatever have been aimed at discovering and describing an absolute, just like science does but in respect to non-physical questions. Each makes arguments appealing to an absolute, and the reason for choosing any over another is by making a judgment based on the best arguments, just as scientists make judgments about the best theories.
>
Which is a very general statement that doesn?t say anything about that
only one absolute viewpoint of morality exists which you wrote a few
posts of yours ago.


> ...Boy, moral relativists get so upset when you try to suggest any absolute other than their own self-contradictory absolute that there are no absolutes!
> Conjurer, I never said that all who don`t share my moral views lack knowledge or understanding. I was responding to Ryan`s attack on moralism as not being based on logic or reason--I was saying that it seemed to me that he had missed the vast, vast body of deep intellectual and rational thought from incredibly intelligent people throughout history relying on logic and reason to discern moral systems and truths.
>
You wrote: "Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories
about /one/ absolute morality."
That implies to me that those that do not see the one absolute morality
you see as lacking knowledge or understanding.
> ...
> I`m not sure what you`re getting at in reference to the Golden Compass. The author used it to make moral points and theological arguments to support his belief that there was no God and religion was evil, and to rail against the strong theistic element in fantasy....
>
I replied to your sentence "I never claimed that all people are
attracted to fantasy because of its moral components (though even the
atheistic author of the Golden Compass was)." and questioned the
validity of your conclusion that the moral components in fantasy must be
so appealing because even an atheist was attracted by them.

> You doubt that there is a huge variety of experts and authors who support my statements about fantasy?
Oh, I don?t doubt that fantasy authors see or want to see their works as
something that is bought or has success because of the moral component.
It?s always good to believe that what you do serves some greater good.
However many writers simply make a living writing or/and do it to
entertain those that buy and read their books without wanting to
reinvent the bible in fantasy format.
> Or are you just pointing out my laziness in waiting for someone to dispute the point before bringing it up? In terms of popular authors that each are individually responsible for vastly expanding fantasy`s popularity, I can`t think of a one who`d disagree.
I can?t either. Simply because people tend not to disagree if the
assumption is to their advantage or puts them into a good light.

> JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, JK Rowling are perhaps the three biggest in that arena; let`s add Robert Jordan, Orson Scott Card, Ursula K LeGuin...If you really want me to come up with a list of authors and others, I will; I just figured it was pretty indisputable. Philosophers, literature experts, and anthropologists observe the popularity of ideas not based solely on explicit, conscious acceptance by people, but by its appeal to their other subconscious senses.
>
> Would fantasy be so attractive if it were not so often a struggle between Good and Evil or their various shades?
>
A struggle between Good and Evil is existing everywhere and not in
fantasy literature alone. Even Margret Rutherfords Miss Marple has it?s
share of Good vs. Evil and is not something I would label "fantasy".
And many things are attractive that have no struggle between good and
evil at all - feeding your Tamagochi for example some years ago had some
real mass appeal even here in Germany.
So no, I do not see your point "that moral components exist strongly in
fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy?s huge growth and mass appeal".
...
> Again, I never claimed to "know alone the true and only absolute morality and ethics," just that Ryan`s assertion of the essential illogic of moral philosophy was unfounded. It`s not very effective to make erroneous assumptions and conclusions about what I`ve said and then argue against them :) Yes, there was an ad hominem element to my assertion, but it was also an expression of bewilderment about how one could miss the overwhelming dependence on logical thought in moral philosophy.
>
Your words were: "Suffice it to say that your characterization of moral
philosophy seems to me to have suffered from poor teachers, insufficient
investigation, or just denial."

That implies that Ryan was wrong because he had poor teachers, Ryan was
lazy investigating the matter or worse.
Regardless how bewildered you were and how different your opinion is
from that of someone else stating or implying such does nothing to
further any discussion. And you continue here again "...how one could
miss the overwhelming dependence..." as if everyone not seeing what you
see must be wrong and not only wrong but apparently so.

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Their forests once covered most of the continent and what remains of
> those forests is much less than before. So yes, the sidhelien would
> certainly also be interested in the plains of Anuire, even if currently
> those plains are not forests - given time without humans those plains
> wil become forests again. Ancient elven forests :-)
> -----------------------------
>
> Some of Anuire would, yes, but not all. Climate prevents forests from overtaking plains in many places, and many forests removed to support plains may lose conditions necessary to support a resurgence of forest.
>
In our world perhaps. In the short time of a humans lifespan perhaps.
In the view of Sidhelien society I see them as patient as people
planning to bring vegetation to Mars and see forests grow on it?s surface.

[ryancaveney]

The other school are the realists. They say that Action A is better than Action B because after a long period of observing many cases directly through my senses and indirectly through descriptions (history and biography) I have found that A comes to a happy end much more often than B.

The difficulty upon which I am trying to focus is the nature of the idea "happy end". There are two significant problems here, one with each word.

The lesser problem is with the word "end". We don't know how anything actually turned out in the end, because things haven't ended yet, and some actions which happened in the distant past are still having powerful effects today (other actions have no apparent consequences at all, though this may be a problem more of detectability than unimportance).

The greater problem is with the word "happy". As anyone with a smattering of knowledge of modern psychology can tell you, different people are made happy in different amounts by different things. Therefore, even if things did ever finish coming to an end, or we were able to agree on a particular time horizon to use in defining the happiness caused by an event, happiness is fundamentally unlike height or weight or speed or temperature in that while we can all agree that ice cream scoop A is larger than ice cream scoop B, we will not all agree on which will make us happier if A and B are different flavors. It also assumes a pre-existing notion of what happiness is and what causes it. Where does that come from?

This is why I say there is an inherent measurement problem, which has as its consequence the unfortunate fact that the self-styled realists are in practice much more like the idealists than they wanted to be in theory. I would like ethical realism as you describe it to be possible, but I think the inherent variation in human sensation and valuation of pleasure and pain in themselves and others makes it impossible to achieve. That is the level of "realism" to which empirical psychology has led me.

[ryancaveney]

what if the major villain in your campaign isn't the ol'GS come a calling again

I far prefer the campaign in which the Gheallie Sidhe are the *heroes*, and the *humans* are the recurring villain we all love to hate!

[Rowan]

Which is a very general statement that doesn?t say anything about that
only one absolute viewpoint of morality exists which you wrote a few
posts of yours ago.

When did I say there was "one absolute viewpoint?" There are many viewpoints and ways of approaching and discovering the one absolute truth that exists. No one has discovered all truth or knows it completely. It's very similar to science, in that respect: there are absolutes that moral philosophy tries to discover.

Conjurer, please read my posts more carefully. Most of what you seem to be responding to are things that I have never said. Almost your entire last post is. If I haven't explained my position well enough, I'm sorry, but you seem to be interjecting statements that I've never made, like "one absolute viewpoint."


You wrote: "Different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories
about /one/ absolute morality."
That implies to me that those that do not see the one absolute morality
you see as lacking knowledge or understanding.

No, it means just what I said, that there are different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories of one absolute morality/truth. I never claimed to know it all myself. Like science, it's about trying to discover fact. Just as all scientists lack an extraordinary amount of information/knowledge about what they're studying, so do we all lack knowledge and understanding of truth--which is why we seek to learn and understand more.


...and questioned the
validity of your conclusion that the moral components in fantasy must be
so appealing because even an atheist was attracted by them.


Not appealing necessarily to all, but the point was that this isn't something only theists are attracted to, but an atheist was as well, even though one of his stated reasons for writing was to combat the prevalent moralism and theism in fantasy.


It?s always good to believe that what you do serves some greater good.
However many writers simply make a living writing or/and do it to
entertain those that buy and read their books without wanting to
reinvent the bible in fantasy format.

Again, it's not always a conscious thing. Moral elements and struggle between good and evil are part and parcel to fantasy. I doubt most fantasy authors set out to write specifically to tell moral fables, though some of the best have.


A struggle between Good and Evil is existing everywhere and not in
fantasy literature alone. Even Margret Rutherfords Miss Marple has it?s
share of Good vs. Evil and is not something I would label "fantasy".
And many things are attractive that have no struggle between good and
evil at all - feeding your Tamagochi for example some years ago had some
real mass appeal even here in Germany.
So no, I do not see your point "that moral components exist strongly in
fantasy and are a major reason for fantasy?s huge growth and mass appeal".

I'm saying that the struggle between Good and Evil is the major driver in almost all fantasy. Most other modern literature doesn't seem so direct about it. I didn't say though that this struggle is only existant in fantasy, nor that it is the sole qualifier for being attractive, so I agree with you there. Yet how many forums in our age does the struggle between Good and Evil receive center stage in a dramatic light, and where in times past has it received that focus? In times past it was myth and religion. Those things have been edged out of the public conscious, now, so many (do you need me to start citing?) acknowledge Fantasy as filling this social role that has existed for most of human history. It fills a social need for these tales and for the attention to the struggle between the ideas of absolutes, Good and Evil.


That implies that Ryan was wrong because he had poor teachers, Ryan was
lazy investigating the matter or worse.
Regardless how bewildered you were and how different your opinion is
from that of someone else stating or implying such does nothing to
further any discussion. And you continue here again "...how one could
miss the overwhelming dependence..." as if everyone not seeing what you
see must be wrong and not only wrong but apparently so.

First off, I say "seems" because I don't pretend to know what people think or that I'm understanding them correctly, and so give them the opportunity to correct me. I never claimed that everyone had to see what I see or be wrong. Again, I was pointing to the deep investigation of truth that has gone on through history by many great minds. In my experience, many people do dismiss these people out of hand, usually either out of ignorance of their arguments or out of genuine, monumental arrogance assuming that they are simply better than all of these people who came before. Or people simply make a statement calling moral philosophy illogical and unreasonable, claiming that their reason is better, and then when I point out the disingeniousness of such a statement, they are willing to recognize that yes, they exaggerated and do indeed realize that there is much logic and reason involved in moral philosophy and even faith and theology. So yes, as I admitted, there was an ad hominem element of my statement, but it furthers the argument certainly no less than yours against me.



In our world perhaps. In the short time of a humans lifespan perhaps.
In the view of Sidhelien society I see them as patient as people
planning to bring vegetation to Mars and see forests grow on it?s surface.

So elves are terraformers? They'd need to change the climate drastically to bring sufficient water everywhere for forests, and change the soil structures as well. I very much doubt they'd do this when the sources say they don't like conjuration or evocation because they don't like overt forces changing nature.

[kgauck]

One of the differences that I think is most important between the realists and the idealists is that the realists prefer a descriptive ethics, while the idealists prefer a proscriptive ethics. Realists, such as Machiavelli observe that when a ruler does action x, say executes a Great Captain, then the range of outcomes looks like this, and condition A is the most common outcome for these reasons. The realists also take care to talk a lot about what a happy end is supposed to be. In the case of Machiavelli, the survival and stability of the state is the best end, since he argues that its the collapse and failure of states that causes the most harm.

While Machiavelli offers advice to old Lorenzo, I certainly don't see him universalizing as much as talking about what factors lead to what ends. He always reminds us that YMMV, because some factors will be more important in the next case than they were in the previous one, but he does a pretty good job of explaining the factors and drawing broad conclusions that remain useful.

Aristotle's politics is basically a series of case studies into what those societies looked like, what their constitutions were, and how things worked out, at least to his day, if not earlier. For Aristotle (and for realists generally) ethics are an adaptation to solve particular problems. Consider his discussion of the Carthaginian custom of sacrificing the first born child of the great houses during times of crisis. Aristotle does not discuss the practice as a question of good or evil, but rather what function does this practice serve. His main conclusion is that it is meant to draw all the nobles together by assuring them all that everyone is prepared to sacrifice for the state, because they have already (by the act of infanticide) sacrificed.

We may recoil from this practice, but for a realist, the more important question is without this custom, would the nobles instead turn on one another in civil disorder? Because if they did, many more children (and others) would die.

[ryancaveney]

Ryan, each philosophy, culture, moral system, whatever have been aimed at discovering and describing an absolute, just like science does but in respect to non-physical questions. Each makes arguments appealing to an absolute, and the reason for choosing any over another is by making a judgment based on the best arguments, just as scientists make judgments about the best theories.

"Have been aimed at" is very different from "have achieved". In particular, it doesn't even imply that achievement is possible. What I keep trying to say is that the trouble lies in the very notion of being able to decide what "the best arguments" actually are. In science, you perform experiments which can establish to within an estimated error of measurement the charge of the electron, the speed of light, the mass of the sun, or some other fact of experience. In the last of those three examples, since we are dealing with an extended body rather than a fundamental particle, there is additional error (small, but nonzero) resulting from variation in how exactly you define where the sun stops and space starts. A bigger instance of that error happens with "light-year" -- the primary source of error is not in measuring the properties of light, but rather in defining exactly how long "one year" really is! In ethical philosophy, however, there are no rulers or stopwatches to be had. The best we can do is ask people, "does that make you happy?" They will disagree on even the sign (happy or sad), and trying to get them to label magnitudes (e.g., X makes me 5 times as happy as Y) is a nightmare. Even if there were some objectively best morality, humans are so imprecise as measurement devices that even if we did manage to stumble upon it, we would not realize that we had.


I was responding to Ryan's attack on moralism as not being based on logic or reason--I was saying that it seemed to me that he had missed the vast, vast body of deep intellectual and rational thought from incredibly intelligent people throughout history relying on logic and reason to discern moral systems and truths.

I've read much of that body of thought, and found most of it deeply flawed. The only thing I really learned from reading Kant or Augustine or anybody else is not about general principles of the world, but specific aspects of that individual's personality -- I especially learned that I'm usually very glad I never had to share an office with them. My own sympathies lie most closely with Wittgenstein -- I think most of philosophy has always been just playing language games. I would like to associate myself with the mathematical tradition in philosophy, which attempts to use abstract logical principles to construct theorems from axioms. The trouble, though, has always been with the axioms. If you construct your definitions in such a way that you can prove theorems from them (e.g., "when I use the word justice, I use it to mean this and only this..."), nobody else agrees with them, so they needn't even bother to read your conclusions. If you let everyday usage determine your definitions (e.g., "when I use the word justice, I use it to mean whatever most people usually mean when they say justice"), then the axioms start out containing internal contradictions, so there's no point in trying to prove anything from them except that you can't make any progress that way either. As I see it, the main benefit of thousands of years of recorded arguing about ethics is that it has created a large body of standard questions we can ask each other and ourselves to better determine what it is that we actually think. What it is that we *ought* to think is something I feel strongly will always be confined to the realm of pure imagination.

That is what I mean by what you describe as my "assertion of the essential illogic of moral philosophy" -- it's not that moral philosophy violates the principles of logic, it's that it exists entirely outside the realm of logic. It's more alogical or prelogical than illogical. You cannot use logic to determine what your axioms ought to be; you can only use logic once you have axioms. Morality has always been at root an argument about what axioms should be, so logic is simply not available as a tool. Only by playing upon the emotions of the audience -- whether hope or fear, pride or shame, anger or satisfaction -- has any change in moral axioms ever been successfully advocated. The history of moral philosophy contains a great deal of attempted logic, which I certainly have not missed; it just happens not to be very relevant because said logic was never really applicable to the discussion in the first place. Yes, you can certainly use logic to say which consequences result from a set of axioms, but you cannot use logic to say which consequences are *better* than others. There is ample scope for logic in how one uses the rankings, but not in how they are made.

[ryancaveney]

Would fantasy be so attractive if it were not so often a struggle between Good and Evil or their various shades?

It would be a great deal more attractive if it never mentioned the ideas of good and evil ever again.

[ryancaveney]

Just and virtuous rulership is bad rulership? Howso?

"I pride myself on my honor, but I do not deceive myself into thinking personal honor and the honor of a regent are the same thing. A regent does what she must to keep her realm secure -- to do less would be dishonorable and dangerous. As a result, a regent may resort to what seem like dishonorable or questionable actions in order to preserve the integrity of her realm." -- Marlae Roesone, Book of Regency, page 53.

That's a canon good guy who knows Machiavelli was right!

[AndrewTall]

It would be a great deal more attractive if it never mentioned the ideas of good and evil ever again.

Except of course that one of the common arguments used against some of the detractors is precisely that roleplaying does (or more accurately can be used to) teach about good vs evil - generally good being used to mean opposing greed, cruelty, wanton destruction, and supporting teamplay.

Hmmm, I need to revise the alignments of some PC's in games I've dm'd...

Some systems of thought do look for fairly broad-brush ideals that appear common in all societies, generally these are not good and evil in the classical sense but come down (in terms of good morals for the general population to have rather than specific individuals) to 'honesty is good as long term lying is counter productive', 'reciprocity is good as it encourages trust and mutual support' and the like however drawing up such a system would probably exclude much of what is commonly terms as good and often sacrifice 'ideals' for 'practicality'.

Much morality is of course relative rather than absolute, many people today think that individualism and choosing ones destiny is good - many other cultures would decry such morality as chaos or selfishness. Similarly tolerance is seen as good to some cultures (generally stronger cultures) and abhorrent to others (generally weaker cultures fearing dilution/absorption). Almost all cultures see themselves as good by some ideals with the possible exception of those cultures which are actively ruled by terror.

I'd suggest to people wanting to use good and evil in their campaigns that they draw up some 'obvious truths' that mark a person as good (i.e. killing any who insult your honour, scorning inferiors and absolute obedience to superiors are good; granting mercy to surrendering foes and accepting religious free will are evil) and then asking players to pick alignments based thereon.

My own tuppence on fantasy filling the good vs evil void left by the absence of religion (an exaggeration of the quote admittedly) is that the only difference nowadays is that the author doesn't claim divine truth supports their work... My main trouble with religious morality tends to be that the logic chain (in the rare cases that it is present) tend to be connected to unsubstantiated supporting 'facts' and as such the logic of the chain of sequential thought is therefore irrelevant.

[Rowan]

Ryan, do you dismiss the concept of "self-evident truths?"


It would be a great deal more attractive if it never mentioned the ideas of good and evil ever again.

I recognize that you and others might like it this way; I have merely asserted that most people wouldn't agree. Were those elements to be removed from fantasy, I doubt it would survive long in the mainstream. I can't think of anything widely acclaimed as "good" or "popular fantasy" that doesn't deal primarily with the struggle between good and evil.


That's a canon good guy who knows Machiavelli was right!

Well, Machiavelli made the state the highest good AND made individual persons all but irrelevant in the context of the state's good. I don't know that that was what Marlae was going on about. Personal honor usually involves recognizing the worth and dignity of others. I agree that "good" rulers may commit some evil, but the idealistic test (what Augustinian was getting at) is that they seek to do the least evil possible and only to prevent greater evil. In that case, the least evil, as necessary, becomes a sort of good. Perhaps not intrinsically good, but intentionally good.

[ryancaveney]

generally good being used to mean opposing greed, cruelty, wanton destruction, and supporting teamplay. Hmmm, I need to revise the alignments of some PC's in games I've dm'd...

As I read the alignment descriptions in the PHB, the standard dungeon crawl adventuring party, paladins included, is obviously Chaotic Evil -- they invade people's homes, kill them and take their stuff, because they seek personal power and glory. "But orcs are evil!" is just a rationalization for the selfsame acts of theft and murder which they claim to be preventing or avenging.

[ryancaveney]

Ryan, do you dismiss the concept of "self-evident truths?"

Ah, truth. What constitutes truth for me is "confirmed to within expected statistical error by the great majority of well-conducted experiments." As such, it pretty much applies only to science, and inherently contains the idea that improved experimental technique in the future could prove wrong everything we thought we knew for sure. As far as people and the morality of actions are concerned, the closest we can approach to this is to ask them what they think is bad and why, and measure whether their actions accord with their stated beliefs. By this standard, the only evident truths about murder is that some people do in fact commit it, and most people would rather it not happen to them. Everything beyond that -- is state-sanctioned killing in war permissible? what about the death penalty for those who commit murder? how does one reconcile "thou shalt not kill" with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? is abortion murder or not? how about euthanasia? is it allowed to kill a burglar in your home? -- is evidently a matter of great disagreement, and always has been. We can measure -- that is, learn the truth about -- what moral systems currently exist, but we can never measure -- that is, learn the truth about -- which hypothetical ones "ought" to exist, or which current one is "better" than the others.

If you look up my user profile on the web site, you will see that I am a physicist who currently resides in Manassas, Virginia. As a physicist, trained in quantum mechanics and general relativity, it is painfully clear to me that what seems most self-evidently true is often utterly false, and the real truth is often too strange to be self-evident to anyone. As a resident of a town in Jefferson's home state which is famous only for a pair of battles fought here during the U.S. Civil War, it is equally clear that the reason for that war and basically all politics before or since is deep disagreement over which ideas are considered truths, and which so-called truths deserve to be considered more self-evident than others.

In Birthright, given the requirement to have a bloodline to collect the RP necessary for most domain actions, one would think that the divine right of kings was even more self-evidently true in Cerilia than it used to be thought to be in Europe. Yet there are still many discussions to be found in the archives over how to represent republics and other non-monarchical governments with BR domain rules, and I can have a perfectly fine, purely monarchist BR game without believing there were ever gods to bestow divine right on anything.


the idealistic test (what Augustinian was getting at) is that they seek to do the least evil possible and only to prevent greater evil.

Except that as I have been saying, there is little general agreement on how to go about doing the least evil. Politicians and pundits who demonize each other's ideas are really just disagreeing about what evil is in their opinion the lesser one.

[kgauck]

A realist approach to game design is to look at how the game world works (by looking at the core mechanics, such as bloodline, domains, setting history, and then the gods/temples and their ideologies) and construct an ethics based on the setting.

Its a role playing game. I don't role play to just re-enact my real life (and its values) in a cloak and borealis. Constructing a game ethics apart from my own is part of the role playing enterprise. So my birthright ethics (and there are presumably many) may be abhorrent to my real life.

For example, honor and chivalry, fighting over perceived slights to honor, the whole noble warrior's code, is nothing I want for my own life. I don't want to fight my rivals in a physical contest to demonstrate my courage and prowess. I'm a middle class person, I want to avoid conflicts and settle disputes with words or just suck things up. The gentlemen's code which killed Alexander Hamilton strikes me as very cool for role playing, but a terrible code by which to live a life.

There are things I want to be like the world I know. Basically anything that isn't determined by the setting's metaphysics (bloodlines, for example) should be like the real world, because its hard enough to invent new things for the things that are new (like explaining how elf or goblin domains work). I want a familiar politics, because accounting for Haelyn, Roele, and the rest is hard enough.

[irdeggman]

Ah, truth. What constitutes truth for me is "confirmed to within expected statistical error by the great majority of well-conducted experiments."

Wait isn't that better "classified" as "fact" and not "truth"?

The two are not necessarily the same thing.

The data involving the use of lie-detectors (I just love Myth Busters) proves (at least as well as can be done with a limited laboratoy data set) that it is possible to tell "the truth" without it being "factual".:D

One of my favorite comparisons is when talking about the Bible.

"Everything in there is the truth, and some of it actually happened."

Focusing on the difference between "truth" and "fact".

[kgauck]

Truth refers to things that are true. For Aristotle, poetry was a better guide to truth than history, because history was filled with contravening evidence. A psychopath who murders his family and has no remorse is a fact, but it doesn't invalidate the truth that people hold their families as their greatest loyalty. A psychopath by definition has no remorse for his bad acts. But examining facts in history (or real life) to establish truths (universals) requires that you explain all of the exceptions. In poetry (by which Aristotle means what we would call literature), the author has stripped away evidence that undermines his main theme.

Another way of putting it is that truth is not concerned with the single fact, but with the accumulation of all facts. Math people would refer to these exceptions as outliers.

[irdeggman]

Another way of putting it is that truth is not concerned with the single fact, but with the accumulation of all facts. Math people would refer to these exceptions as outliers.

So the spell Discern Lies will only determine conscious deviations from accumulations of facts?

[ryancaveney]

So the spell Discern Lies will only determine conscious deviations from accumulations of facts?

No, it determines conscious deviation from what the *speaker* thinks is fact, not the *global* preponderance of evidence. If the speaker's perceptions do not accord with reality, lying and telling the truth cease to be opposites. The classic example is eyewitness testimony in court. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, which is the reason for the increasing popularity of scientific evidence a la CSI. If the eyewitness thinks he saw person A from the lineup pull the trigger, but DNA evidence proves it was person B, then for the witness to say he saw A do it is not a lie, because it is a truthful report of the witness's own perceptual data, but it is not "the truth" either, because it is objectively false. In such a case, telling the truth about the situation and telling the truth about the perception are incompatible, because the perception is wrong.

[ryancaveney]

Wait isn't that better "classified" as "fact" and not "truth"? The two are not necessarily the same thing.

They are the same thing, as far as I am concerned.


The data involving the use of lie-detectors (I just love Myth Busters)

You love Myth Busters and you think the polygraph actually detects lies? =)


One of my favorite comparisons is when talking about the Bible. "Everything in there is the truth, and some of it actually happened."

Nothing in any book is true unless it actually happened. It may truthfully report what the authors wished had happened, but that is not the same thing as reporting what actually did. Even if something did happen but we cannot confirm experimentally (in this case, with archaeology) that it did, we should regard it as best hypothetical, not in any sense true.


Focusing on the difference between "truth" and "fact".

I don't see one.


For Aristotle, poetry was a better guide to truth than history, because history was filled with contravening evidence.

Poetry is an excellent guide to the truth about what poets would like the world to be like. It is a terrible guide to the truth about what the world is actually like.


A psychopath who murders his family and has no remorse is a fact, but it doesn't invalidate the truth that people hold their families as their greatest loyalty.

It does prove that "all people always hold their families as their greatest loyalty" is not true, as long as "loyalty" includes not murdering them -- some notions of loyalty and honor would note this as a positive example, not a negative one. It doesn't prove that "most people usually hold their families as their greatest loyalty" is not true. That's why my definition of truth included limitations such as "within expected statistical error", "great majority" and "well-conducted".


But examining facts in history (or real life) to establish truths (universals) requires that you explain all of the exceptions. In poetry (by which Aristotle means what we would call literature), the author has stripped away evidence that undermines his main theme.

"A psychopath by definition has no remorse for his bad acts" is precisely an explanation for the example exception. The nice thing about using "most" rather than "all" and "usually" rather than "always" is that it allows statements which are easier to prove true. Actual "universals" are pretty much only found in physics, and there even the "laws" of thermodynamics are full of exceptions because they are only statistical descriptions of usual behavior under normal conditions. I regard stripping away inconvenient evidence as dishonesty of the worst sort.


Another way of putting it is that truth is not concerned with the single fact, but with the accumulation of all facts. Math people would refer to these exceptions as outliers.

As such a math person, I have no trouble stating both "it is true that fact A opposes proposition X" and "it is true that most facts favor proposition X" at the same time.

[Rowan]

The idea of a self-evident truth parallels the idea of a law of nature. If we're talking about math and statistics, then the parallel with those disciplines to moral philosophy is establishing a preponderence of evidence about moral issues. If most of the evidence points to a particular outcome, we can ascertain a generalized theorem. Yes, the definition of rightness and wrongness may be a choice, but it can be a choice based on examining outcomes; it doesn't have to precede the logic. The theories derived, then, will undergo a constant review of the evidence and the theoretical structures until they become better developed or people come to accept them. Moral philosophies and even theologies have undergone this process. It's not that the absolute they are trying to describe changes; it's that the theories and buy-in to those theories change over time in the continuing argument and investigation.

[ConjurerDragon]

Rowan schrieb:
> When did I say there was "one absolute viewpoint?" There are many viewpoints and ways of approaching and discovering the one absolute truth that exists

Here you say it again - the "many viewpoints and ways" but only "one
absolute truth that exists" as if that would be a fact and not an
assumption.

> No one has discovered all truth or knows it completely. It`s very similar to science, in that respect: there are absolutes that moral philosophy tries to discover.

How do you know that there is one absolute truth in moral philosophy if noone yet has discovered all truth or knows it completely? Isn?t that simply an assumption?
And trying to discover something specific (the "absolute truth that exists") would not in itself spoil any attempt to learn more because as in science any experiment can be flawed if you set it up expecting a specific result and not interpreting the results of the experiment after the experiment?

> No, it means just what I said, that there are different levels of knowledge, understanding, or theories of one absolute morality/truth. I never claimed to know it all myself.

But you need to know it all yourself - else you would not know that one absolute morality/truth exists. If you don?t know it then you should not claim "that there are different levels of knowlegdge, understanding or theories of one absoulute morality/truth" but only that there are
diffent levels of knowledge, understanding or theories claiming to explain an absolute morality/truth but without actually achieving it yet..

> Like science, it`s about trying to discover fact. Just as all scientists lack an extraordinary amount of information/knowledge about what they`re studying,

The scientists will be pleased to hear that ;-)

> so do we all lack knowledge and understanding of truth--which is why we seek to learn and understand more.

Or we don?t and simply enjoy fantasy literature and games.

> ...and questioned the validity of your conclusion that the moral components in fantasy must be so appealing because even an atheist was attracted by them.
>
> Not appealing necessarily to all, but the point was that this isn`t something only theists are attracted to, but an atheist was as well, even though one of his stated reasons for writing was to combat the prevalent moralism and theism in fantasy.

You connect the religion or lack of religion again with the interest in fantasy literature when you write that "this isn?t something only
theists are attracted to". I for my part do not read fantasy literature because of the moral components or out of religious interest but for a
good story and several other reasons.

> I`m saying that the struggle between Good and Evil is the major driver in almost all fantasy. Most other modern literature doesn`t seem so direct about it.

Any telenovela has a struggle between good and evil in it ;-)
And the struggle between good and evil is even more evident in any story about horror than in classic fantasy.

> I didn`t say though that this struggle is only existant in fantasy, nor that it is the sole qualifier for being attractive, so I agree with you there. Yet how many forums in our age does the struggle between Good and Evil receive center stage in a dramatic light, and where in times past has it received that focus?

Everywhere?

> In times past it was myth and religion. Those things have been edged out of the public conscious, now,

Really? About which public conscious do you state that here? I for my part did still have read greek, roman and german sagas /myths with great interest. And if religion is something of the past I wonder why we have soldiers in Afghanistan.

> so many (do you need me to start citing?) acknowledge Fantasy as filling this social role that has existed for most of human history. It fills a social need for these tales and for the attention to the struggle between the ideas of absolutes, Good and Evil.

If there is a social need that needs to be fulfilled and fantasy replaces myth and religion in fulfilling that need you do claim that with Tolkien and those that followed him writing fantasy, religion and myth became obsolete? I don?t see that.

[Rowan]

Conjurer, how do scientists know there is something worth discovering through observation or experimentation? How do they know there are physical laws? Do they have to know what those laws are in order to try to discover them? Or even think they exist? The Truth I talk about works the same way.


And trying to discover something specific (the "absolute truth that
exists") would not in itself spoil any attempt to learn more because as
in science any experiment can be flawed if you set it up expecting a
specific result and not interpreting the results of the experiment after
the experiment?
Science tries to discover something specific, Conjurer, does that negate the experiment? Of course honest philosophy and theology don't just come up with justification for a certain result, but analyze the problem and see there it rationally leads, all of which is subject to review and argument, just as in science.



But you need to know it all yourself - else you would not know that one
absolute morality/truth exists. If you don?t know it then you should not
claim "that there are different levels of knowlegdge, understanding or
theories of one absoulute morality/truth" but only that there are
diffent levels of knowledge, understanding or theories claiming to
explain an absolute morality/truth but without actually achieving it yet..
See above. The scientist doesn't need to know what he's trying to discover prior to discovering it. He doesn't need to know all scientific facts about all of nature in order to begin his discovery. Instead, he'll recognize that science throughout history has been about discovering and debating what is known or theorized about those facts. They recognize that they all have different levels of knowledge, understanding, or accuracy in theory. And yes, just as in science, all that knowledge and understanding hasn't been achieved yet--that's what I've been saying all along!


The scientists will be pleased to hear that ;-)
If a scientist (or anyone for that matter) doesn't recognize that there's tons they don't know, that there are more questions than answers overall, then they're massively pompous fools.


> so do we all lack knowledge and understanding of truth--which is why we seek to learn and understand more.
>
Or we don?t and simply enjoy fantasy literature and games.
I was talking about life, not just literature and games. And yes, some people don't care. Most throughout history have cared, as evidenced by philosophies and religions.


You connect the religion or lack of religion again with the interest in
fantasy literature when you write that "this isn?t something only
theists are attracted to".
Sorry, let me be more clear. The Golden Compass was written partially to object to the theistic streak in fantasy. Also, I was trying to point out that one of the reasons fantasy captures our imagination so much is because of the moral component, the struggle between good and evil (without which it would not capture many peoples' interest so strongly), and it's not just theists (people who are typically ascribed as being the ones who might care more about the moral component in stories) who relate to these themes.


Any telenovela has a struggle between good and evil in it ;-)
And the struggle between good and evil is even more evident in any story
about horror than in classic fantasy.
Telenovelas are more about titillation in my limited experience; a focus on hedonism and conflict, not really good and evil as much as popularity and desire. Horror is more about shock and survival in my observation.


Really? About which public conscious do you state that here? I for my
part did still have read greek, roman and german sagas /myths with great
interest. And if religion is something of the past I wonder why we have
soldiers in Afghanistan.
Not many people read myths for more than entertainment; even literature has declined. People don't look for and discuss truths about themselves or society or the world in those media very much anymore. Myths are looked down upon as foolishness. Often, so is religion. Do you have any exposure to modern media? It's highly materialistic and often anti-religion, discouraging even discussion of religion. If you want to talk about truth these days, it's up to you to find an outlet, because there aren't many, and it's not encouraged.


If there is a social need that needs to be fulfilled and fantasy
replaces myth and religion in fulfilling that need you do claim that
with Tolkien and those that followed him writing fantasy, religion and
myth became obsolete? I don?t see that.
It doesn't replace so much as it has become a primary media for those stories in modern culture. Movies are another, though most movies of these types are fantasy in some form or another. Fantasy just tells the stories. Religion and myth more directly explore truths.

[kgauck]

Statistics are a very late arrival in the history of ideas. The earlier methods of generalization achieve much the same effect, can be described in terms of probability and so on, but often offend math/science types because it doesn't have precision.

Aristotle, as the author of Logic, does have that kind of precision, so that his making a simple generalization, such as the family is the first loyalty of men, then gets an analysis which identifies all the exemptions organized by category, and what could be a normal statement turns into a three page qualification of a statement. Aristotle is most precise, but very verbose. Its a fun read through.

[kgauck]

The idea of a self-evident truth parallels the idea of a law of nature. If we're talking about math and statistics, then the parallel with those disciplines to moral philosophy is establishing a preponderence of evidence about moral issues.

In don't think it works this way. As a practitioner of the humanities, we don't do science. We can do logic, but we deal with generalizations in a way that scientists don't. I think the historical method and the literary method are reliable (though not scientifically precise) and will advocate for them anywhere, but science and math do precision a lot better. The strength of the humanities over science is that we do people, not just stuff.

[ryancaveney]

The idea of a self-evident truth parallels the idea of a law of nature.

I dislike the phrase "law of nature" because it implies a dangerously false comparison with the "laws" made by human governments, which are nothing remotely like the "laws" of nature. Natural laws are descriptions, which concern the way things do in fact act. Human laws are prescriptions (instructions to do something) and proscriptions (instructions to not do something), which concern the way people are encouraged to act. The key difference is that natural laws are inherently impossible to disobey -- you can choose to break the human law that says you have to pay taxes, but you can't choose to break the natural law of gravity; you can imagine you're trying, but it won't work, because there simply is no physical way even to try, much less succeed. The only true natural law about murder is "murder sometimes happens." Natural law says nothing at all about what ought to or ought not to happen in some ideal world; it merely reports what actually happens in this one.


If we're talking about math and statistics, then the parallel with those disciplines to moral philosophy is establishing a preponderence of evidence about moral issues. If most of the evidence points to a particular outcome, we can ascertain a generalized theorem. Yes, the definition of rightness and wrongness may be a choice, but it can be a choice based on examining outcomes; it doesn't have to precede the logic.

The difference you still aren't admitting lies in the nature of what counts as evidence. If we are without rulers marked in inches or centimeters, we can still measure people's heights by using our hands. My height measured in terms of my hands and my height measured in terms of your hands are likely to produce different numbers, but my height in my hands divided by your height in my hands is necessarily the same number as my height in your hands divided by your height in your hands, and that number is an objective measurement of which one of us is taller (greater than one if me; less than one if you). The same cannot be said of moral "measurement". Given two acts to make moral judgments about, we will in general not both conclude that action A is the same number of times more good than action B, and we may well differ even in our conclusions of which one is more good than the other. That is why I have been saying that the problem lies in the examination of the outcomes. We can both agree that action A leads to consequence X and action B leads to consequence Y; but if I prefer X to Y and you prefer Y to X, then I will decide A is more moral than B but you will with equally perfect logic decide that B is more moral than A. This is why I say that morality precedes logic: before you can decide which action or consequence is better, you must have some pre-existing notion of "better" to use in order to obtain "evidence". You can then choose to act logically or illogically based on the data you have gathered, but data about morality cannot be gathered unless you already have a morality to use in gathering data about morality. This is the inescapable circularity which restricts the utility of ethical logic. Given a moral code (that is, some measurement scale you can use to decide which consequence is better), you can then use logic to abide by those measurements; but you cannot use logic to construct from nothing what that measurement scale ought to be.


The theories derived, then, will undergo a constant review of the evidence and the theoretical structures until they become better developed or people come to accept them.

It is precisely that process which has convinced me that the problem lies not in the review, but in the evidence being reviewed. All logic can tell us is statements of the form, "if we believe P, then Q must follow." It cannot tell us whether P is a reasonable thing to believe in the first place -- that is the domain of experiment. You are presently arguing that knowing whether Q is good can tell us whether P is therefore good. My response since my first post on the topic is that this is true but completely irrelevant, because we are no more able to logically judge whether Q is good than we were to logically judge whether P was good on its own independent of whether it led to Q. In order to make either the decision "P is better than N" or "Q is better than R, so P is consequently better than N", we must already have a notion of better to use to control our logic. Where is this notion of better to come from? It must be somewhere other than logic. You agree that it ought to come from experiment; the problem, as I have been consistently trying to point out, is that the experimental results of moral measurement are frequently inconclusive. We cannot experimentally determine the true worth of actions; all we can determine is that we do not agree on the worth of actions. We cannot determine who is more right. We can determine who is closer to the average morality, but we cannot determine whether the average is actually good, except by comparing it to our own preferred morality, which we were trying to justify in the first place.


Moral philosophies and even theologies have undergone this process. It's not that the absolute they are trying to describe changes; it's that the theories and buy-in to those theories change over time in the continuing argument and investigation.

Physical theories change because ability to perceive the absolute improves. Ethical theories change because there is no absolute to perceive; there is only what nonexistent absolute it is fashionable to prefer to imagine.

[rugor]

The problem this discussion has is that is by its very nature rooted in the D&D alignment system.

That system is one of the most "contested" and argued over things in all of D&D - so it leads to many esoteric paths.

Supposedly 4th ed is going to "water down" the alignment system.



Perhaps more to the point, what actions are to be considered good or evil, and by whom?

To be Alamie, and not aid Mhoried when it is attacked by the Gorgon's humanoid forces... this may benifit the people of Alamie, but at the expense of those living (or being killed) in Mhoried.

To be the OIT, and add to the number of people worshipping Haelyn, by taking part in the eradication of the newly formed Medoere, the wholesale slaughter of Ruornil faithful, and helping to bring those lands back under the rule of Diemed, and the worship of Haelyn only.

The Crusades... were they good or evil?

[ryancaveney]

Perhaps more to the point, what actions are to be considered good or evil, and by whom?

This is precisely the question that always seems to lead to the present sort of discussion of ethical epistemology. Some of us say "whether the action is considered good depends on who is doing the considering." Others object that their own particular preferred method of consideration, whether derived from their reading of Gygax or some other prophet, is superior to all others and thus is the only consideration which matters.

[rugor]

What interests me is that there are so many different absolute moralities which have been advocated over the years. If I had to pick an absolute standard for Cerilia, it would be this: the elves can do whatever they like to the humans, because elves are better than humans. Naturally, Cerilia's humans will disagree with this particular absolute standard, but I think they're wrong. =)



I disagree completely. I find such moralistic bullheadedness to be the primary obstacle to my enjoyment of fantasy books and games and such. Suspension of disbelief is a vastly more difficult task for me when applied to the idea of rulers who aren't Machiavellian than to a system of biophysics which allows dragons to fly and breathe fire.



Ah, instinctive. Yes, that's always been the problem with any ethical theory. It is not possible to be logical about morality, because the utility function is an input, not an output. That is, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche or whoever says, "Action A is better than action B." The student asks, "Why?" The teacher replies, "Because A leads to X and B leads to Y, and X is better than Y." It is at this point that I ask, "Why?" The only answer I have ever gotten boils down to, "Uh, just because." Therefore, it is clear to me that all talk of having an ethical theory is really just a smokescreen to cover the fact that there is nothing more to morality than "I just like that answer better, and I'll beat you up if you disagree." We can argue logically about what consequences a given set of axioms may have, but we cannot argue logically about what consequences or axioms are better than others, because the very notion of "better" essentially _precedes_ logic. The reason we are still arguing about ethics after thousands of years of recorded history is that "instinctive knowledge of good and evil" has *changed* radically over time, and at any given point in time differs wildly between societies and between individuals within a given society. The real meat of the variation is not so much which things are wrong, but which bad things are worse than others. For example, "is it OK to kill a random stranger" is -- to some (many? most?) people, but not all -- a very different question from "is it OK to kill that particular stranger who is trying to mug you". The exact proportion of people voting "yes" changes constantly as you vary the clause after "who is trying to" over the wide range of options from "steal your favorite coffee mug from your desk" to "torture your spouse and child to death".

On that note, my thought on the elves is that while they find it regrettable to have to engage in genocide of the humans, it is merely self-defense on a time scale which they can appreciate but the humans can't. In particular, since it is human reproduction which is the driving engine of the conflict, "unarmed" women and children are *not* innocent -- they are *weapons*, and any sane policy of reducing the threat posed by the humans must include killing (at least some of) them.


Excellently thought out.

But in Birthright, the gods are real, what they represent then becomes real, which makes ethics and morals far more concrete.

Do these things... and your god will favor you and support you (with spells, protection, levels). Do these things... and your god will abandon you.

The more you represent and reflect your chosen god, in your actions and spoken words, the more that god will favor you (spells and levels).

With Priests and Paladins being a society's Doctors, Lawyers, Police Force and elite forces of the militia/army/defenders... its hard to imagine them not being a powerful force in politics, and for them not to have an even bigger say in society than the RCC did in the early middle ages of the real world.

What seems to be lacking in all of this, is the relationship of the gods to their worshippers, a god’s power is supposedly derived by the number of faithful… the more believers, the more fervent their belief the more powerful those priests and prophets should be, the more that god’s presence should be felt throughout the region.

Medoere came into existence because of the growth of Ruornil worshippers which inhabited that area became the predominant percentage of faithful amongst the population. Their faith was so strong, their god interceded on their behalf, and annihilated an entire army of Diemed forces, many of which were the faithful of Haelyn, who seemingly abandoned his own faithful followers who partook in the effort to reclaim the rebellious provinces and put down the foreign religion.

Too often this force of faith is ignored or belittled because we often reflect our own reality into the Birthright world. However, I would have to think inquisitions and crusades would be far more of a factor in a world where Gods are involved in the health and wellbeing of humanity and society, and where POWER is gained by how many faithful a priest can gather to his god.

[rugor]

.

Remember that elves, especially Cerilian elves, are an arcane magic using race. It's very much their thing. Arcane magic is the magic of experimentation, it has rescearch libraries, it has formal schools, it has laboratories. If the elves were ment to be animistic nature-casters who's powers are more intuitive than practiced, they would have been given druidic-ranger magic as their principle focus.

In other words, just being educated doesn't mean you can't like nature. If anything, I could see that as one of the reasons the elves still have a grudge against humanity: only the most barbarous of their tribes, the Rjurik and the Vos, have a consistant respect for nature, and both groups have a disrespect and fear of the education that is so dear to the elven heart. Certainly, there are elves who honestly think that they can shove humanity off of the continent and make the whole place into a green paradise, but in the source material these guys are consistantly treated as a minority group. Who says elf philosophers can't have ideas beyond 'Laying in sunlit fields being fed grapes.' and 'Kill all humans!'? The whole concept of, "Law is a part of nature." seems very fitting of the character of Cerilian elves to me, especially since they don't have any spiritual source to derive law from.

Giving elves a philosophizing aspect gives some value to all that leisure time, it reinforces the idea of elves as scholars of the arcane, and it opens more possibilities for interesting twists in game time. Like, what if the major villain in your campaign isn't the ol'GS come a calling again, but a group of radical young elves who have noticed how animals "evolve" to succede in the world and, seeing as the elven race is in decline, resolve to do something to make their species more evolutionarily vyable?

I think the Cerilian elves are far closer to the Tolkien elves, than they are the D&D elves created in many oth their other "realities".

I think they are very well described, they are part of the very fabric of magic, connected to it in ways humans cannot be:

The world of Aebrynis teems with magical earthpower. This force, referred to by the elves as mebhaighl (meh-VALE), is the very essence of the living earth. Although many can sense it, few know how to access it.

Cerilian elves are creatures of faerie dust and starlight, gifted with immortality and powers of mind and body beyond those of humankind. They are a force for neither good nor evil

I think they are as unfathomable to most Cerilian humans as aliens landing in a space ship would be to us. I think the elven interaction with humans should be very limited, with the exception of Rhuobe Manslayer who is at war with the entire race, and situated himself right in the heart of their most populace and powerful empire... for that purpose.

Speaking of Manslayer, I think it is very reasonable to attribute the civil war between Alamie and Tuornen to him... reading the PS of Tuornen you can see hints where it is alluded to, that an immortal bent on destroying humanity could have easily devised such a long term plot, to seperate the empire into factions and have them fighting amoungst themselves. Sorry, I digress...

The problem Elves have is they are immortal, that likely gives them no sense of urgency, and a viewpoint that we as humans just can't fathom. Just how would you approach things if you had eternity to get to them?

They also have no gods, because in part, they are gods, in part they are part of the very world they inhabit, tied to it in a way we see humans not tied to it. Humans have souls which go to another plane of existance in the after-life... elves do not.

As far as the Elves "grudge against humanity"... I think a fine example of what happened to them can be seen in American history. What immigrating Europeans did to the Natives of the continent is very similar to what immigrating humans did to the elves of Cerelia.

[ConjurerDragon]

rugor schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4139
> ...
> Excellently thought out.
>
> But in Birthright, the gods are real, what they represent then becomes real, which makes ethics and morals far more concrete.
> Do these things... and your god will favor you and support you (with spells, protection, levels). Do these things... and your god will abandon you.
> The more you represent and reflect your chosen god, in your actions and spoken words, the more that god will favor you (spells and levels).
>
Spells and levels are not only gained by the faithful of a god but also
by the entirely godless in Birthright.
Levels are only a measure of your experience and not your faith. Spells
can be cast by sidhelien wizards or humans that shun the worship of
gods. The faithful of one god can even fight the faithful of the same
god using spells of that god - after all Birthright deities have
followers of a very broad alingment spectrum.

So no, having gods in Birthright does not make ethics and morals any
more concrete as in real life.

> With Priests and Paladins being a society`s Doctors, Lawyers, Police Force and elite forces of the militia/army/defenders... its hard to imagine them not being a powerful force in politics, and for them not to have an even bigger say in society than the RCC did in the early middle ages of the real world.
>
Levelled characters have always been very rare in the Birthright world
since 2E. Not every doctor/lawyer/sheriff etc. is a Cleric or has any
spellcasting levels or even has any PC levels, but most of the
population are simply commoners and experts.

What is the RCC? Real Catholic Church?
If so - again no. When in the middleages of our real world someone
really believed - and most did - that he would burn in hell for 400
years if he did this or that god would strike his house with ligthning
if he would act so then all that is needed is that belief to make the
person act so - not that it actually happens. Remember people gave money
to buy forgiveness from sins which was critiziced by Luther.

[rugor]

Spells and levels are not only gained by the faithful of a god but also by the entirely godless in Birthright.
Levels are only a measure of your experience and not your faith.
Spells can be cast by sidhelien wizards or humans that shun the worship of
gods. The faithful of one god can even fight the faithful of the same
god using spells of that god - after all Birthright deities have
followers of a very broad alingment spectrum.

So no, having gods in Birthright does not make ethics and morals any more concrete as in real life.

Elves can wield magic... blooded can wield powerful magic... the rest of humanity and humanoids cannot, or so the intent of Birthright was meant... no god-blood in your viens (elves aside), you are relegated to being a rather weak, 2nd class citizen of Cerilia where magic is concerned.

But Magic is not Faith, it requires ingredients be blended together, and other restrictions (elven magic aside) that praying to a god does not.

There are indeed varying degrees of faiths, just as there are varying degrees of christians. As in the real world, every faith expects you to follow certian rules, and demands certian participation and donations from its followers.

As in the real world, you can have a King Henry declare himself the supreme representative of god, the highest representative of faith in the realm.

As in the real world, you can have one sect supressing another, as Catholics and Protestants have often done... just as you can have differing faiths crusade/jihad against one another.

However UNLIKE the real world. Preists of Cerilia cast spells that heal and cure, or strike down enemies, or create water or light, etc.

A Priest would gain levels by doing his gods work, by reflecting his god with action and words... now techincally, a Priest can gain levels by running around killing humanoids or undead... but again, following the guidance laid out in Birthright, a game meant to be much more than hack and slash, a Priest would gain levels by increasing his flock, by removing competitive faiths in the region that is his own, by aiding his followers and keeping them healthy and happy, etc.

So in essence, levels represent the closeness of a Priest to his god, and how many followers he has, the more productive he or she is to their faith, the higher in power they should go... Priests should be tied to their flock, and their temple, the way regents are tied to their lands, or wizards are tied to their sources.

Not every doctor/lawyer/sheriff etc. is a Cleric or has any
spellcasting levels or even has any PC levels, but most of the

I don't imagine there would be ANY successful Lawyers or Docters NOT members of a Haelyn Temple in Anuire. Some oddball specialists in the employ of a regent perhaps, thats about it.

Same for Avani dominated cultures. Those Priests would dominate those nitches in their society. And so on...

Really now, if you had a deadly disease or injury... who are you going to run to, a Priest who can call on his god to heal you instantly, or someone who will bleed you and leave you suffering?

[kgauck]

However UNLIKE the real world. Preists of Cerilia cast spells that heal and cure, or strike down enemies, or create water or light, etc.

This is actually similar to the real world, indeed not just the medieval world, but for many people the contemporary world. People today and even more in the medieval world do believe that religious people (ordained and otherwise) do have the power to cure people, prophesize, absolve sin, cast out demons, and do anything else that D&D priests can do.


I don't imagine there would be ANY successful Lawyers or Docters NOT members of a Haelyn Temple in Anuire.

What does it mean to be a member of the temple of Haelyn? Is it like joining the lawyers guild? If it is, then of course everyone belongs, but its no different than the fact that today all lawyers belong to a guild (as do doctors).

A temple holding doesn't just include priests, but followers and temporal members.


Same for Avani dominated cultures. Those Priests would dominate those nitches in their society. And so on...

By priests, do you mean members of a spellcasting class? I don't think they dominate anything but the spellcasting. They don't have enough skill points to tie their own shoes. Classes like expert, noble, or OGL classes will actualy dominate most social niches. Spellcasters are useless for anything but adventuring. An expert with the heal skill can heal people until sleep overtakes him. The spellcaster gets a handful of heal attempts per day.


Really now, if you had a deadly disease or injury... who are you going to run to, a Priest who can call on his god to heal you instantly, or someone who will bleed you and leave you suffering?

What makes you think there is a difference?

[rugor]

This is actually similar to the real world, indeed not just the medieval world, but for many people the contemporary world. People today and even more in the medieval world do believe that religious people (ordained and otherwise) do have the power to cure people, prophesize, absolve sin, cast out demons, and do anything else that D&D priests can do.


That reply smacks of an argument for arguments sake.

There are NO priests healing compound fractures or blindness in this world.

There is nothing to compare to the instant ability to repair a body, or create matter instantly, in the real world, as exists in Birthright.

[kgauck]

It certainly makes sense that given a pantheon of gods, that we could describe various ethical positions as Avanian, Serimite, Nesiriean, and Azric. Or we could speak of Haelynite, Belinikian, Krishonic, and Laeremite. Either way (or both) we would know what the positions meant. One advantage is that "good" would be described as closest to the preferred position of the observer.

Game mechanics could drop alignment and substitute these alternate terms, and alternate meanings.

I think it would enrich the world a little at the expense of steepening the learning curve just a touch.

Plus, it allows an ethical position to exist directly in the game world, rather than being an abstraction. There would not be Lawful Good people, but rather Haelynite or Avanian-Nesirieans. So that people who occupied that place on the ethical chart would either be followers of Haelyn or would have blended some teachings of Avani and Nesirie. Other kinds of LG, certainly possible in D&D, should be vanishingly rare in BR.

[kgauck]

There are NO priests healing compund fractures or blindness in this world.
Two words: Faith Healer

[rugor]

This is precisely the question that always seems to lead to the present sort of discussion of ethical epistemology. Some of us say "whether the action is considered good depends on who is doing the considering." Others object that their own particular preferred method of consideration, whether derived from their reading of Gygax or some other prophet, is superior to all others and thus is the only consideration which matters.

Morality is of course relative, many people today think that individualism and choosing ones destiny is good - many other cultures would decry such morality as chaos or selfishness. In the Birthright setting, it is not hard to imagine that realms such as Talinie and Diemed see the State (Empire, Duchy, Church) as the highest good on earth, the ideology summed up would something along the lines of:

~While earning your place in Haelyn’s afterlife, you must do your best to strengthen and support the state. Individuality is all but irrelevant in the context of the state's wellbeing, the worth and dignity of an individual is directly related to how well they serve the state, and what contributions they offer.~

Similarly tolerance for other religions is seen as good to some cultures and abhorrent to others. Almost all cultures see themselves as good by some ideals, as would be explained in any Psychology textbook, we are a product of our environment/culture and that culture/society creates in us our beliefs of what is right or wrong.

In one culture, cannibalism of ones enemies is a fact of life, in another those of a different race or religion are beneath contempt. What makes such beliefs or acts evil, is the point of reference from which we view it, and the culture and society which produced us.

[rugor]

It certainly makes sense that given a pantheon of gods, that we could describe various ethical positions as Avanian, Serimite, Nesiriean, and Azric. Or we could speak of Haelynite, Belinikian, Krishonic, and Laeremite. Either way (or both) we would know what the positions meant. One advantage is that "good" would be described as closest to the preferred position of the observer.

Game mechanics could drop alignment and substitute these alternate terms, and alternate meanings.

I think it would enrich the world a little at the expense of steepening the learning curve just a touch.

Plus, it allows an ethical position to exist directly in the game world, rather than being an abstraction. There would not be Lawful Good people, but rather Haelynite or Avanian-Nesirieans. So that people who occupied that place on the ethical chart would either be followers of Haelyn or would have blended some teachings of Avani and Nesirie. Other kinds of LG, certainly possible in D&D, should be vanishingly rare in BR.


Now this is something I can agree with, and I think would be much more fitting to the Birthright setting.

Worshipping Ruornil might not be considered an evil act by most, but it would be punishable by death in Diemed, and those who carried out the execution would not be considered evil or wrong in Diemed for doing so.

[irdeggman]

It certainly makes sense that given a pantheon of gods, that we could describe various ethical positions as Avanian, Serimite, Nesiriean, and Azric. Or we could speak of Haelynite, Belinikian, Krishonic, and Laeremite. Either way (or both) we would know what the positions meant. One advantage is that "good" would be described as closest to the preferred position of the observer.

The difficulty here is trying to cover the various "viewpoints" of the different "sects" of each deity worship.

They vary, and at times quite a bit, in their viewpoints.

So which one is right and which one is not becomes one of the major issues. And is indeed one of the building blocks of the setting.

[irdeggman]

Two words: Faith Healer


You are kidding right?

[Thelandrin]

There are people who allegedly perform miraculous healings. The Christian Science Church has a large number of such cases.

[kgauck]

You are kidding right?

Not at all. If people believe that magic is being done today, then you can't make the argument that magic in the game has effects on people that we moderns can't appreciate. Maybe you don't appreciate faith healing, but we can look at those who do and understand their behavioral responce, and draw analogies to a world where mircaculous healing is a feature.

On the other hand, we can discuss how much of modern medicine is an example of the placebo effect.

Statues of Mary that cry, or have healing abilities, or bless viewers, or have any number of other magical qualities are considered real by plenty of people and by the authority of the Catholic Church, which preserves these relics. They also perform excercisms. I know a guy whose mother had her house excercised.

What is role playing, exactly, if it doesn't involve a little bit of "let's pretend" that stuff like this is real. So how do such people behave? Just how seriously do they take their supernatural spectualtions? I think I know how seriously they do, because I know people whose belief is so strong that an epiphany would not increase its strength (and there are people who believe they have seen saints and other supernatural phenomena, such as ghosts). So the "but they have magic" argument doesn't make it any more real.

[irdeggman]

Not at all. If people believe that magic is being done today, then you can't make the argument that magic in the game has effects on people that we moderns can't appreciate. Maybe you don't appreciate faith healing, but we can look at those who do and understand their behavioral responce, and draw analogies to a world where mircaculous healing is a feature.


On the other hand, we can discuss how much of modern medicine is an example of the placebo effect.

Statues of Mary that cry, or have healing abilities, or bless viewers, or have any number of other magical qualities are considered real by plenty of people and by the authority of the Catholic Church, which preserves these relics. They also perform excercisms. I know a guy whose mother had her house excercised.

What is role playing, exactly, if it doesn't involve a little bit of "let's pretend" that stuff like this is real. So how do such people behave? Just how seriously do they take their supernatural spectualtions? I think I know how seriously they do, because I know people whose belief is so strong that an epiphany would not increase its strength (and there are people who believe they have seen saints and other supernatural phenomena, such as ghosts). So the "but they have magic" argument doesn't make it any more real.


Sorry but "believing" and "actually happening" are two completely different things.

Using that as a comparison is similar to saying that using a science fiction book as a basis for a religion is totally sound, oh wait. . . .

Back to the RPG magic and real life belief comparison.

In RPG magic the effects are indisputable to anyone viewing them. Things are created, summoned, moved, etc.

The effect of relief life "belief" is often (if not alwyas) disputed and more often than not associated with an "emotional" relief (or effect) from the "believers".

I will not state that "belief" or "faith" in real life is not a powerful thing but comparing it to RPG magic is sort of lacking in the absolutes, even if the faitful have an emotional and true belief that it does/did happen.

[ryancaveney]

Excellently thought out.

Thank you.


But in Birthright, the gods are real, what they represent then becomes real, which makes ethics and morals far more concrete.

Yes, but they still disagree immensely on what constitutes right action, which is why BR religion is so interesting. =) Here is a cosmology in which there is definitely not one absolute morality -- there are at least eleven competing ones! Although the (silly) D&D alignment system limits priests of both Kriesha and Belinik to "any evil", I don't think that most theologians of those faiths (such as they are) would call their gods' tenets evil -- in fact, in the harsh lands of Vosgaard, any faith less harsh (Laerme or Nesirie, for example) could reasonable be called a far greater evil, because the less fierce people would suffer far more. Even within the constraints of the D&D alignment system, the BR religions are extremely broad. Haelyn is perfectly happy with both Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good priests, in addition to the more stereotypical Lawful Good. Erik and Nesirie allow "any nonevil", Cuiraecen "any nonlawful", Avani "any nonchaotic", Ruornil "any neutral" (which IMO is LN, CN, NG, NE and TN, just like 3e druids) and Sera "any" at all! More than any other religious system I know of, the gods of Cerilia care not about ethics, but about professions. Sera cares not a whit for law, chaos, good or evil -- she only cares about making money and taking chances; *why* you do it is irrelevant to her.


Do these things... and your god will favor you and support you (with spells, protection, levels). Do these things... and your god will abandon you. The more you represent and reflect your chosen god, in your actions and spoken words, the more that god will favor you (spells and levels).

D&D doesn't work this way, and neither does my preferred alternate cosmology (I like to think Cerilia's gods don't really exist after all), but I think this makes for a much better game than standard D&D, and I would definitely use it in any Cerilia in which I did have extant dieties. A recommendation I have made several times before is to use the magic system from Greg Stafford's wonderful Pendragon RPG, in which magic power is determined largely by the character's adherence to the personality traits favored by his or her religion. You might find thread 3796 interesting; my posts 39669 and 39591 detail what I'm alluding to here.


With Priests and Paladins being a society's Doctors, Lawyers, Police Force and elite forces of the militia/army/defenders

You have one glaring omission: the Wizards. They can be atheists, and yet even more powerful spellcasters. In 3e D&D, high-level rogues make terrifying combatants, too.


Too often this force of faith is ignored or belittled because we often reflect our own reality into the Birthright world.

Religion is a supremely powerful social force in our own reality, regardless of whether their beliefs are correct or not! For example, I am neither Hindu nor Muslim, but I wouldn't dream of trying to understand the history of India and Pakistan without making some comparative study of those religions. I am also not Christian, but I similarly acknowledge that it is nearly impossible to understand European political history without a working knowledge of the history of Christianity. That is why, even in my personal version of Cerilia in which the gods don't really exist, most people worship them anyway -- they still believe in religion and observe holy days and make sacrifices and listen to priests for advice in living their lives. I've set up my game cosmology so that they're objectively incorrect to do so, but almost no one knows or cares, so they go right on believing anyway. Religion's social power doesn't come from actually being true -- it comes from people acting as if it were true, meaning they follow the orders of those who tell them how their god (imaginary or not) wants them to behave.


However, I would have to think inquisitions and crusades would be far more of a factor in a world where Gods are involved in the health and wellbeing of humanity and society, and where POWER is gained by how many faithful a priest can gather to his god.

Read the thread I mentioned above. One of the things discussed in it was whether or how the obvious reality of priestly magic in Cerilia changed the nature of religious faith. My own opinion is that faith is actually weakened by it, because the most powerful practitioners of magic are the awnsheghlien and the Sidhelien -- the spawn of the god of evil, and those who refuse to worship any god.


What is the RCC? Real Catholic Church?

Roman Catholic Church.

[rugor]

Yes, but they still disagree immensely on what constitutes right action, which is why BR religion is so interesting. =) Here is a cosmology in which there is definitely not one absolute morality -- there are at least eleven competing ones!


I agree with this totally. In Birthright, what could be considered "good" or "lawful" in one realm, could be considered both "evil" and "unlawful" on the flip side of the continent.


You have one glaring omission: the Wizards. They can be atheists, and yet even more powerful spellcasters. In 3e D&D, high-level rogues make terrifying combatants, too.

Read the thread I mentioned above. One of the things discussed in it was whether or how the obvious reality of priestly magic in Cerilia changed the nature of religious faith. My own opinion is that faith is actually weakened by it, because the most powerful practitioners of magic are the awnsheghlien and the Sidhelien -- the spawn of the god of evil, and those who refuse to worship any god.



Wizards are the opposite of Priests in Birthright.

Where Priests are heavily involved in daily activities with their communities, where they are performing healings and miracles on a daily basis. Where their power as a temple and a faith is directly connected to how many worshipers they have...

In contrast Wizards shun the general population, rarely if ever make public appearances, do little to help the populace (in a visible way), they do not go around healing the people on a daily basis or preaching to them...

Cain, Eyeless One, even the regent of Taeghas abandoned his right to rule over his people, granting that boon to Prince Avan so he could avoid the distraction of dealing with people on a daily basis

As for the the awnsheghlien and the Sidhelien, it is the Priests that do as much to protect the people from them as anything, Priestly magic had as much to do with victory over the elves as anything. Both are considered soul-less creatures and generally mistrusted or hated throughout most of Anuire... the Spider, Manslayer, Gorgon, all are considered terrible monsters that prey on humanity... just that many more reasons to pray to a god for protection.

[rugor]

I don't imagine there would be ANY successful Lawyers or Docters NOT members of a Haelyn Temple in Anuire.

What does it mean to be a member of the temple of Haelyn? Is it like joining the lawyers guild? If it is, then of course everyone belongs, but its no different than the fact that today all lawyers belong to a guild (as do doctors).

A temple holding doesn't just include priests, but followers and temporal members.


Well, relating the Birthright realm to somewhere between the 7th and 14th centuries, and Anuire in particular to European/Western history we would have a society that was completely dependant on the church for all libraries, education, healing and often some or all of the local protection.

The people not dependant upon the local temple for such things would be Nobles and the rare very rich merchants who were not nobles.

The current situation in Anuire often reminds me a bit of Europe as it begins to slowly come out of the dark ages, as far as the rise of merchants and expanding education opportunities go, as well as how the Imperial Temple of Haelyn is fragmenting and losing power, as did the RCC.

Still, when it comes to non-nobles, almost all education (that was not trade/merchant related) and teachings would come from temple/priests, and by extension, those who serve the temple.

The Dark Ages was the Age of Faith, not the Age of Reason. Fear, uncertainty, and awe of the unknown defined Medieval society.

The barbarians who overthrew Rome basically trashed the Roman administrative structure. But the Roman Empire did not fall all at once, the Greek speaking east enduring until mid 15th century, when the Turks took Constantinople.

A similar occurance is going on in Anuire, in some realms, the Haelyn temple is supremely powerful, in others it is not. Some realms are still models of the former Empire, others, like Medoere and Elinie are not.

I would not think it possible for the Empire to ever be restored, but there may be a revival, a quasi-Empire created. But that would rely as much on Religious unity, as it would a powerful Noble ruler.

Even in comparison to our own history, the Roman Empire, after its fall, enjoyed a revival of sorts... when, in 800AD, Charles the Great, King of the Franks was crowned by the Pope as the "Holy Roman Emperor"...

Imagine, for example, that the Boeruine line was wiped out by some means. And there was a reconciliation/unification between the WIT and NIT. In this scenario, if the WIT/NIT gave its support to Prince Avan, it wouldn't take much for him to gain control over everything west of Mhoried and North of Diemed... and re-create a semblance of the former Empire, complete with a revised the Imperial Temple.

Reclaiming anything South of the river would be another matter entirely, only Diemed would seem likely to fall back into the old ways easily. Especially if the new Empire would back them in reclaiming Medoere. An nice little Holy War for the new Emperor to flex his muscles on. Hmmm... wandering.

Anyway, because of the Roman legacy, and the church's continued use of Roman organizational techniques, much was passed down through the centuries. It was the Church, especially the monasteries, that preserved most of the literary works we now have from ancient times. Indeed, it was Charles the Great who, while encouraging literacy in general, commanded that monks in his lands start making copies of old manuscripts in their possession. Most of the ancient works that survive to the present were from these copies. Many of the legal and governing techniques used in Europe in the 14th century, and today, are direct descendents of what the Romans developed and used for centuries.

I see Anuire, and to some extension the Haelyn Temples, at the crossroads, where they can be weakened by infighting and engulfed by enemy forces, such as the Manslayer, the Gorgon and the Lost, or they can have a Charlemagne type revival of the Empire that carries them thru...

The Book of Laws... what the Empire and Anuire society was built upon.

[geeman]

At 08:46 PM 2/15/2008, rugor wrote:

>In Birthright, what could be considered "good" or "lawful" in one
>realm, could be considered both "evil" and "unlawful" on the flip
>side of the continent.

As actual physical forces these things are not so relative. In D&D
there are magical and objective tests for good/evil and
law/chaos. These things are palpable and demonstrable facts. We
live in a world of moral ambiguity, but fantasy settings are often
premised upon a different set of physical laws in which morality is
actually embodied. There are still arguments that can be made for a
certain amount of moral relativism in the definition of those terms,
but it is less ambiguous than it is in the real world. If we had a
scientific way of determining good and evil, a machine that counted
rads of morality like a Geiger counter then we`d have some sort of
comparable way of examining the moral system that exists within the
moral system of the game.

Gary

[AndrewTall]

In contrast Wizards shun the general population, rarely if ever make public appearances, do little to help the populace (in a visible way), they do not go around healing the people on a daily basis or preaching to them...


Not all wizards, amongst the Khinasi and Brecht wizards are very much part of their community. In Anuire a wizard must have a strong link to another regent in order to get the funds they need for their spells meaning that they have to be involved in the community. The wizard would have a very different role to the priest, but sitting in a drafty tower in the middle of nowhere doesn't put meat on the table, fine wines in the cellar, gain one the respect of ones inferiors, etc...

That said I do see priests as generally very anti-wizard - being able to prove to the faithless that ones god is real is the big difference between D&D and RL (the faithful don't need proof - as noted by others the faithful see magic in RL) - wizards muddy the water by suggesting to the faithless that the priest is simply another spellcaster rather than a person with a direct conduit to a higher power.

In terms of the detect spells, I think that any detect truth type spell would depend on the relative perspective of the targeted being - if they really think that they are telling the truth then they 'ping' as truthful. For detect alignment however it should be the perspective of the caster - if the priest of Karesha truly believes that mercy endangers the clan, chivalry is arrogance, self sacrifice is cowardice, etc then that paladin is going to read as evil to her... Which could be interesting if the PC's ever find an ancient magic item with a detect alignment power which operates on a different moral code to their own!

[irdeggman]

Elves can wield magic... blooded can wield powerful magic... the rest of humanity and humanoids cannot, or so the intent of Birthright was meant... no god-blood in your viens (elves aside), you are relegated to being a rather weak, 2nd class citizen of Cerilia where magic is concerned.


Well actually non-blooded humans (and goblins, even in 2nd ed - check the stat cards) could be magicians. While weilding "lesser" magic they could still do fairly impressive things. The Illusion school has always had some pretty "nifty" spells in it, even in 2nd ed.

So, while "2nd class" spellcaster they are still very much higher up than a non-spellcaster. And valued tremendously in certain societies, like the Khinasi.

[irdeggman]

That said I do see priests as generally very anti-wizard - being able to prove to the faithless that ones god is real is the big difference between D&D and RL (the faithful don't need proof - as noted by others the faithful see magic in RL) - wizards muddy the water by suggesting to the faithless that the priest is simply another spellcaster rather than a person with a direct conduit to a higher power.




Except for Rournil and Avani's priests. Although I can see them (especially in the Khinasi lands) as trying to be "enforcers" or those who try to make sure that wizards stay on the "true path" {whatever that is is most likely subject to interpretation}.

[rugor]

At 08:46 PM 2/15/2008, rugor wrote:

>In Birthright, what could be considered "good" or "lawful" in one
>realm, could be considered both "evil" and "unlawful" on the flip
>side of the continent.

As actual physical forces these things are not so relative. In D&D
there are magical and objective tests for good/evil and
law/chaos. These things are palpable and demonstrable facts. We
live in a world of moral ambiguity, but fantasy settings are often
premised upon a different set of physical laws in which morality is
actually embodied. There are still arguments that can be made for a
certain amount of moral relativism in the definition of those terms,
but it is less ambiguous than it is in the real world. If we had a
scientific way of determining good and evil, a machine that counted
rads of morality like a Geiger counter then we`d have some sort of
comparable way of examining the moral system that exists within the
moral system of the game.

Gary


Well, quite honestly, I found a departure to many of the 'normal' D&D rules when it came to Birthright.

That was its GREAT appeal to me, you could do away with the simplistic hack and slash rules, you could concentrate on domain building and diplomacy, war and rebellions.

Birthright attempted to rid itself of powerful outer-planar beings, wizards around every corner, epic magic items, and 10,001 various races. Giantkin had lived, but mostly were extinct, Dragons existed, but no living human had ever seen one, etc. etc.

Now as the game was expanded and others had input into Birthright, you ended up with confusing and off-base modules that came out like the Sword of Roele, someone's obvious attempt to cram a typical D&D adventure into the Birthright existance.

And of course, how any individual chooses to use the Birthright setting is entirely up to them, they can have the entire world swallowed up by Demons and magic if they want to.

But that was never the intent. The intent was to make powerful monsters unique, like the Gorgon, Chimera, Ogre, Spider... they were one of a kind... not run of the mill.

Powerful magic was something that was meant to be reserved for wars, and once in a lifetime events. Not every day occurances seen on city streets.

The Sword of Roele itself was nothing more than a Bastard sword +2 if my memory serves me correctly. Not everyone was running around with a Dagger +4 or a Vorpal Sword +5.

Blooded Nobles were the biggest powers in the setting, set above non-blooded, with many blooded persons not directly involved with ruling a domain, instead entering into a Priestly order. Powerful Wizards were about one a realm, not including the Imperial City, and the majority of them were reclusive.

If you didn't have a Bloodline... you didn't wield great power. The greater your Bloodline the greater the power you could weild.

Regency Points and Bloodline were completely new. To make the system work well, the whole good and evil absolutes need to be scrapped just as much as the Lich or Demon around every corner needs to be.

A Priest of Haelyn, leading a crusade against what he deems to be an immoral (evil) temple of Saramie in his realm/region would not be doing evil, even if he was killing every Priest and devout worshipper of that faith in classic Inquisition style. If he is expanding his faith, he is doing Haelyn's will, and that cannot be evil... atleast, not according to the game mechanics and setting.

[rugor]

Well actually non-blooded humans (and goblins, even in 2nd ed - check the stat cards) could be magicians. While weilding "lesser" magic they could still do fairly impressive things. The Illusion school has always had some pretty "nifty" spells in it, even in 2nd ed.

So, while "2nd class" spellcaster they are still very much higher up than a non-spellcaster. And valued tremendously in certain societies, like the Khinasi.

I think the Birthright setting was fairly obvious in its initial intent.

The feel I always had, was the world would be served well with Humanoids (Goblin-kin, Orogs, rare Ogres) and not much else in the way of racial competition (Mongrel Men, Lizard men, Flinds, VeggyPigmies, Birdmen, and all the rest never need make an appearance on Birthright IMO).

You had your animal type monsters, Winter Wolves, Grizzly Bears, Giant Spiders, etc.

You had your unique Azrai blood-spawned horrors for your real bad-guys, that tended to command and organize the Humanoids into dangerous armies, the Gorgon, Manslayer, Spider, were plenty dangerous enough. And you had your more interactive offshoots like the Chimera and the Sphinx.

And then you had your ultimate "evil" threat to Cerilia's very existance, in the Shadow-world undead, the Cold Rider, the Lost, the former servants of Azrai that had been trapped away somewhere somehow.

As for Demons, Devils, Angels, Space Invaders, and all the rest... they were walled out, unable to get entry into Cerilia by any means, the same collapse/weakening of the Evanescence could be the very cause for such a blockage of any other dimension's inhabitants from ever reaching either of these worlds.

Really, Birthright went out of its way to explain why it was disconnected from the rest of the D&D 'dimensions', it went out of its way to make itself a stand-alone setting.

In that sense, Birthright also tried to say... if you don't have a Bloodline, you really aren't very likely to be running around casting spells or leading armies. Yes 2ed rules state that anyone can do anything, but the Birthright setting implied otherwise.

I feel that even implied restrictions should trump any 2ed, 3ed, 3.5 ed D&D rules. The Birthright set-up with Regency and Bloodline, with Warcards and Domain Turns, is not at all meant to be lorded over by run of the mill 2ed rules. Infact, its just the opposite type of game, meant for non-hack and slashers... :) it's the thinking man's D&D.

[rugor]

In terms of the detect spells, I think that any detect truth type spell would depend on the relative perspective of the targeted being - if they really think that they are telling the truth then they 'ping' as truthful. For detect alignment however it should be the perspective of the caster - if the priest of Karesha truly believes that mercy endangers the clan, chivalry is arrogance, self sacrifice is cowardice, etc then that paladin is going to read as evil to her... Which could be interesting if the PC's ever find an ancient magic item with a detect alignment power which operates on a different moral code to their own!

Well put. I feel the same way, a person could have "evil intent" towards another person or race or religious sect, but not be "evil".

As for the Wizards vs Priests... some cultures (Rjurik) and some Realms (Diemed) have a strong distrust/dislike of Wizards. Others favor them.

I tend to think of Wizards in Birthright as Merlin types, rare and definitely not considered part of the normal fabric of society in Anuire. But then again you have Ilien's regent, and even Lasica Diem is a wizard of growing power...

Still, they are blooded folks, not run of the mill types, and even they have limited/low levels and powers.

[kgauck]

That said I do see priests as generally very anti-wizard - being able to prove to the faithless that ones god is real is the big difference between D&D and RL (the faithful don't need proof - as noted by others the faithful see magic in RL) - wizards muddy the water by suggesting to the faithless that the priest is simply another spellcaster rather than a person with a direct conduit to a higher power.

This is an excellent summary of the issue.

[irdeggman]

I think the Birthright setting was fairly obvious in its initial intent.


In that sense, Birthright also tried to say... if you don't have a Bloodline, you really aren't very likely to be running around casting spells or leading armies. Yes 2ed rules state that anyone can do anything, but the Birthright setting implied otherwise.


I feel that even implied restrictions should trump any 2ed, 3ed, 3.5 ed D&D rules. The Birthright set-up with Regency and Bloodline, with Warcards and Domain Turns, is not at all meant to be lorded over by run of the mill 2ed rules. Infact, its just the opposite type of game, meant for non-hack and slashers... :) it's the thinking man's D&D.

I think you are very mistaken on what could and could not be done in 2nd ed (the rules at the time BR was created).

They never, ever said that anyone could do anything (that was a 3.0 recreation of mechanics).

And thus I think you are basing your "initial intent" on the wrong thing totally here.

There were clearly 3 classes of wizardly spellcasters (note in 2nd ed the terms arcane and divine spellcasters did not exist).

All are from the core rule book and expanded on in the Book of Magecraft (in more detail).

True Wizards - The most powerful wizards, capable of casting True Magic - which required a bloodline. This was the only way to cast Realm Spells (the most powerful spells in the setting). They were also capable of casting greater magic (spells of all schools greater 3rd level and up).

Wizards - Those capable of casting greater magic. It required either a bloodline of elven blood

Magicians - Those capable of casting lesser magic. Illusion and Divination spells of any level , but only 2nd level spells of the all other schools.

Now the "Core rules" had only humans capable of being magicians, but it also had the monster cards that listed goblins as capable of being magicians.

The common belief for this descepancy is that the core rule book only addressed playable races and that goblins were not a playable race.

[rugor]

Thanks for the correction, the initial rules were very reasonable and I like them for the setting they were intended.

I think what I was trying to express, is the rules as set down in the original box set, and initial PS modules, are what I feel was the best description (set of rules) and that there was still much left that could have been defined more clearly... but the intent to marginalize/minimize non-blooded spellcasters seemed to be there.

As you mentioned, the more additions, and adaptions to Birthright there were, the more it seemed to be moving more towards a typical D&D over-magicked over-populated with powerful monsterous enemies type of setting.

Which further minimalized the importance of bloodline and temples.

[irdeggman]

Thanks for the correction, the initial rules were very reasonable and I like them for the setting they were intended.

I think what I was trying to express, is the rules as set down in the original box set, and initial PS modules, are what I feel was the best description (set of rules) and that there was still much left that could have been defined more clearly... but the intent to marginalize/minimize non-blooded spellcasters seemed to be there.

As you mentioned, the more additions, and adaptions to Birthright there were, the more it seemed to be moving more towards a typical D&D over-magicked over-populated with powerful monsterous enemies type of setting.

Which further minimalized the importance of bloodline and temples.

Hmm let's see, as I pointed out goblins being capable of being "magicians" was in the original "boxed set".

I do not feel that any of the subsequent material (like Book of Magecraft or Cites in the Sun) changed at all the original "intent".

There was and even after any subsequent published material still was a clear demarkation in the "level" of power available for scions.

Also none of the "official" products ever removed the advantage that scion had when it came to rulership.

Now if you want to say that the BRCS "strayed" from what you feel the intent was, that is perfectly fine - but none of the TSR published materials did.

[kgauck]

I can see what rugor is saying, and I don't think it had much to do with the things irdeggman is defending (a document near extinction anyway). Later materials, especially the adventures, but some other things as well did tend to drift back towards standard D&D. Standard D&D, rich with magic and high level characters do undermine the power of rulers. Certainly this board has hummed with discussions about high level characters making armies obsolete and high level magic turning every element of rulership on its head. So I'm not sure why a comment such as:

the more additions, and adaptations to Birthright there were, the more it seemed to be moving more towards a typical D&D over-magicked over-populated with powerful monsterous enemies type of setting. Which further minimized the importance of bloodline and temples.

...should even raise eyebrows. On the contrary, should we not all nod sagely?

[irdeggman]

I can see what rugor is saying, and I don't think it had much to do with the things irdeggman is defending (a document near extinction anyway). Later materials, especially the adventures, but some other things as well did tend to drift back towards standard D&D. Standard D&D, rich with magic and high level characters do undermine the power of rulers. Certainly this board has hummed with discussions about high level characters making armies obsolete and high level magic turning every element of rulership on its head. So I'm not sure why a comment such as:


Well I would almost never defend some of the published adventures. Especially, since IMO a lot of them were clearly FR throw-offs (Sword of Roele anyone).

But there were several that were uniquely BR. A lot of the the ones from Legends of the Hero Kings were very BR specific (Blood Hungry was one of my favorites) and then there was King of the Giantdowns, a very BR specific and time passing adventure. There was also one of other personal favorites, Seeking Blood Silver from Dragon Magazine (a very good adventure that tied things to the Shadow World nicely, even though the "item" was IMO far too powerful for the setting, the rest of the adventure was top notch and properly "themed").

Now if the comment is revolving around what some people are doing via their own evolutions of the game - that is something completely different. And unfortunetely, IMO, based on too much of a FR influence.

[kgauck]

Since Sword of Roele was specifically mentioned in a previous post of his, I take that to be the direction of his comment.

[rugor]

I can see what rugor is saying, and I don't think it had much to do with the things irdeggman is defending (a document near extinction anyway). Later materials, especially the adventures, but some other things as well did tend to drift back towards standard D&D. Standard D&D, rich with magic and high level characters do undermine the power of rulers. Certainly this board has hummed with discussions about high level characters making armies obsolete and high level magic turning every element of rulership on its head. So I'm not sure why a comment such as:


the more additions, and adaptations to Birthright there were, the more it seemed to be moving more towards a typical D&D over-magicked over-populated with powerful monsterous enemies type of setting. Which further minimized the importance of bloodline and temples.

...should even raise eyebrows. On the contrary, should we not all nod sagely?


Since Sword of Roele was specifically mentioned in a previous post of his, I take that to be the direction of his comment.

Thank you, that is what I was trying to get across.

Birthright seemed to drift more towards typical adventuring, with typical powerful weapons and monsters. Rather than developing the intricacies of diplomacy, spy networks, etc.... even in later PS Modules like Binsada, if I remember correctly, the NPCs were more powerful characters, magic was more potent, and of course, the Sword of Roele has already been mentioned.

This complicates the current discussion about the use of magic in Cerilia, how frequent it is for commoners to see or be effected by it, how powerful it is.

When the most powerful of wizards in Anuire being Cain, for example, who is 10th level, who has a major bloodline, or even Lasica Diem who has a strong major bloodline yet bounces between 2nd and 5th level (depending on the source of information) then any other spell caster of magic in this region should be significantly more limited. [Note: Obviously Taeghas and Ilien's regents have the potential to match them in power, as do one or two others.]

To me this suggests that in order to even be able to gather the neccessary components, and gain the education needed, you would need the resources and wealth available to only the most powerful nobles/bloodlines.

Even if a non-blooded person had the intelligence and ability needed to cast magic spells of significant power, where will they get the teachings, where will they get the needed components, how will they devote their lives to studying spells without the monetary means available to noble houses?

Many realms could even have laws against non-nobles from dabbling in magic, just as many have laws against worshippers gathering in the name of a foriegn/non-sanctioned religion.

They would have little to offer anyone capable of teaching them... I just think they would be few and far in between.

[kgauck]

Poetry is an excellent guide to the truth about what poets would like the world to be like. It is a terrible guide to the truth about what the world is actually like.
That really depends on the poet. Most writers do project their own wishes into their work, but there are others who attempt to describe the world as they understand it. In this case they are no different from the kind of historian who works in a narrative tradition, and attempts to tell a story. Whether the story is that of the siege of Troy, the success of Cesar Borgia, the fall of Richard II, or the death of Hamlet, we can ask, given a wide knowledge of the histories, biographies, art, monuments, and so on of a culture, does this story strike at core ideas, attitudes, or behaviors of the people in question.

Thucydides wrote in the introduction to his Peloponesian Wars that this book would be for the ages because men could always draw lessons from it, since the character of man would not change over time. He concluded that all wars were caused by interest, fear, and honor.

As such, what kind of guide is Shakespeare for Birthright. What does he tell us about court, the ambition of people, the trials of rulers, the strength or weakness of states, the power of ideas to influence men, and so on as might influence the game. I think he offers us more than one man's opinion.

The humanities is the accumulation of insights about the human condition, it offers us not only knowledge but wisdom. Science, for all its excellence, and I do value science greatly, does not offer us wisdom. Its knowledge has greater precision and reliability: as you say, its laws cannot be violated. Wisdom is about negotiating intangibles, making good choices even though human affairs does not obey strict laws.

If I were trying to construct an ethics (whether a personal ethics or the ethics for a ruler) I would start with history and biography, and seek to know these subjects widely. Then I should like to know some philsophy, and then some of the greatest literature, by the best poets who offer us wisdom about the hearts of people. Of course I want to know some criticism, both historical and literary, so that I can get some insights into the authors and use this to make sense about how the author's world influenced his work. The Iliad makes more sense if we know something about the Greeks, especially the archaic Greeks, than if we just pick it up at random and start reading it.

Aristotle observed that because the poet could deal only with his theme, he could be more clear, more didactic, than the historian could. Was Oedipus brought down by his hubris, or would it have been better to discuss the economic problems of Thebes, the legal policy, its diplomacy with other cities, the problems of the farmers, merchants, and the views of the priests. No doubt it would form a more complete picture and give what conclusions we might draw more confidence, but for many people the overwhelming information would be unmanageable and they could draw no conclusions from the life of Oedipus. More useful then to focus on his hubris as a lesson, and tell other stories to illustrate the other issues. Some might include Oedipus, some may not.

When we consider the ethics of rulers, give me the historians in abundance, give me plenty of poets, but there is little the scientists can tell me, though I'd want to include the evolutionary biologists.

[kgauck]

Perhaps more to the point, what actions are to be considered good or evil, and by whom?

To be the OIT, and add to the number of people worshipping Haelyn, by taking part in the eradication of the newly formed Medoere, the wholesale slaughter of Ruornil faithful, and helping to bring those lands back under the rule of Diemed, and the worship of Haelyn only.


I'd call this evil. But I do so because of certain assumptions I make. Principle among these is that it is not neccesary to be so brutal to restore the dominance of either the OIT or Diemed. Both can be accomplished with much less horror. Machiavelli reminds us often that excess cruelty puts our projects in doubt, because it does two things: first it attaches our cruelty to the project, so that no one could think of our project again without also recalling our brutal acts, and second, our own people will recoil and our enemies will be empowered by excess cruelty.

Suris Enlien must die, and she may have such devoted followers that they will never reconcile themselves to your new order, but any others who will reconcile to a generous and magnanimous ruler in the aftermath of a clear and decisive defeat, they should be forgiven and accepted into the new Diemed and OIT.

There will always be followers of Ruornil here. We have many descriptions of Vorynn comming to Ruornil just before Diesmaar, and it is very likely something that happened in Medoere. Rather than turning these inevitable Ruornilians into perpetual enemies, better to acknowledge the faith as valid, and to insist on no more than Anduiras did as Diesmaar. All may follow their own captains, but the ultimate command is Anduiras' and now his successor's. If OIT controls the holdings, who would complain that the people have a special connection to Ruornil?

[rugor]

It is not neccesary to be so brutal to restore the dominance of either the OIT or Diemed. Both can be accomplished with much less horror. Machiavelli reminds us often that excess cruelty puts our projects in doubt, because it does two things: first it attaches our cruelty to the project, so that no one could think of our project again without also recalling our brutal acts, and second, our own people will recoil and our enemies will be empowered by excess cruelty.

Suris Enlien must die, and she may have such devoted followers that they will never reconcile themselves to your new order, but any others who will reconcile to a generous and magnanimous ruler in the aftermath of a clear and decisive defeat, they should be forgiven and accepted into the new Diemed and OIT.

There will always be followers of Ruornil here. We have many descriptions of Vorynn comming to Ruornil just before Diesmaar, and it is very likely something that happened in Medoere. Rather than turning these inevitable Ruornilians into perpetual enemies, better to acknowledge the faith as valid, and to insist on no more than Anduiras did as Diesmaar. All may follow their own captains, but the ultimate command is Anduiras' and now his successor's. If OIT controls the holdings, who would complain that the people have a special connection to Ruornil?

Excellent points, this is one of my favorite Birthright topics:

The provinces which make up Medoere belong by all laws, both mortal and divine, to House Diem. It is not Ruornil's place to determine who has claim to Imperial lands.

The lands referred to as Medoere were granted to Suris Enlien's father, not to Suris Enlien. Upon his death, seisin of the lands reverted to the feudal overlord (Diem).

The provinces are technically in rebellion, they represent a threat to everything that Anuire is, and the Empire was, and stood for.

The rebel provinces have never been recognized by the House of Diem or the Emperor. Therefore it matters not who may or may not recognize their sovereignty (such as Roesone), they have no right to do so under Imperial Law.

Imperial Authority derives ultimately from Haelyn, to deny the Duke of Diemed seisin of said lands is a crime against Haelyn. As was the rebellion and usurpation of the provinces from the very outset.

Suris Enlien has violated Anuirean Common Law by commiting the tortious acts of conversion, tresspass to land and tresspass to private properties, nor is Suris a sovereign lord or recognized authority, she is a rebel who claimed her position through the murder of the lord designated by the ruling House of Diem.

Lastly, those beholden to the faith of Ruornil should expect little quarter from the Diemed armies should they ever reclaim the rebellious provinces by means of combat, the fact that their god Ruornil spared not one man of over 2,000 who marched to put down the initial rebellion, which remains fresh in the memories of all peoples of Diemed, makes it unlikely that they will be willing to show much mercy or quarter... or be willing to chance them uprising again.

[ThatSeanGuy]

Suris Enlien must die, and she may have such devoted followers that they will never reconcile themselves to your new order, but any others who will reconcile to a generous and magnanimous ruler in the aftermath of a clear and decisive defeat, they should be forgiven and accepted into the new Diemed and OIT.

There will always be followers of Ruornil here. We have many descriptions of Vorynn comming to Ruornil just before Diesmaar, and it is very likely something that happened in Medoere. Rather than turning these inevitable Ruornilians into perpetual enemies, better to acknowledge the faith as valid, and to insist on no more than Anduiras did as Diesmaar. All may follow their own captains, but the ultimate command is Anduiras' and now his successor's. If OIT controls the holdings, who would complain that the people have a special connection to Ruornil?

And that is, in my opinion, the difference between a Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil regent. The Lawful Evil regend is going to be focused on siezing control-while he or she might not be crazy enough to try genocide, chances are hammering down on the Ruornilites will come to mind.

Whereas the novel idea of just making the rogue church part of the state religion...being part of the law and beholden to the law...might not occur to someone more morally charged in either direction.

Then again, the really clever guy would find a way to just get a puppet regent in over RCS, so that you have two temples holding eachother in check and competing with eachother, instead of being able to focus their attentions on your throne.

[kgauck]

Suris Enlien has violated Anuirean Common Law by commiting the tortious acts of conversion, tresspass to land and tresspass to private properties, nor is Suris a sovereign lord or recognized authority, she is a rebel who claimed her position through the murder of the lord designated by the ruling House of Diem.

I agree that Suris, Medoere, and RCS has a taint of rebellion attached to it, but if I were advising Heirl, I would tell him that the chance to treat Suris as an outlaw ended when you treated with her eight years ago. Your cause is legitimate as she holds what is lawfully yours, but you must now regard her as am unjust legal authority, the same you would if you sought to overturn the rulings of one of your lower courts.

On the other hand, I think that Haelyn withdrew his protection over the house of Diem, at least for a time, and prefered this abomination of insurrection rather than defend some terrible criminal who wore a crown. Achillies lost the protection of Zeus when he desecrated a corpse (dragging Hektor's body around Troy behind his chariot). Achilles got one in the heel. The Tarquins lost the protection of Jupiter when one of them raped Lucretia. They were cast out and Rome never had a real king ever again. Mars came to rule with the warrior class established a governing body to rule in place of the king (the Senate). Both Zeus and Jupiter are sky dieties of law and kingship. I think Haelyn would act likewise. A Diem did something that has cause the Mandate of Heaven to depart. It must be rectified and legitimacy restored before Haelyn will again smile on the house of Diem.


Whereas the novel idea of just making the rogue church part of the state religion...being part of the law and beholden to the law...might not occur to someone more morally charged in either direction.
I don't think its novel. These temples (the buildings) didn't spring up in the past eight years, and if Vorynn appeared to Ruornil here, there has been worship there since the day after Diesmaar. I think that the temples and faith of Ruornil have always been here and have always acknowledged the supremacy of Haelyn, until something happened eight years ago.

If the Duke of Diemed broke the laws of war, and the OIT winked at it, Haelyn might have withdrawn favor from both of them (at least as far as Medoere is concerned) and atoning, being punished, acknowledging, and rectifying this crime, perhaps even discovering the crime, all need to be done before things can be restored.


Then again, the really clever guy would find a way to just get a puppet regent in over RCS, so that you have two temples holding eachother in check and competing with eachother, instead of being able to focus their attentions on your throne.

I think this is too clever. Two unreconciled enemies will spend all of their time plotting to bring down the other and your realm will remain divided. Eventually one will convince the Duke that the other is treasonous and he'll have to destroy them anyway. Machiavelli reminds us that when you must perform a hurt, it is better to do it all at once, rather than constantly irritate and provoke so that no one can think of a time when the realm was happy and at peace. I think you try getting two large dogs that dislike one another and live with that for a while, then reconsider this strategy.

[rugor]

I agree that Suris, Medoere, and RCS has a taint of rebellion attached to it, but if I were advising Heirl, I would tell him that the chance to treat Suris as an outlaw ended when you treated with her eight years ago. Your cause is legitimate as she holds what is lawfully yours, but you must now regard her as am unjust legal authority, the same you would if you sought to overturn the rulings of one of your lower courts.




I don't believe I recall reading he ever treated with her, other than the fact that the cursed sword of the Diem's was returned. However, I will go back and revisit the PS of Medeore in the near future to be sure.

But lets be honest, he never had much choice but to stop pressing his position in the matter... when a god comes along and obliterates your entire army, that has a tendency to stall your determination.



On the other hand, I think that Haelyn withdrew his protection over the house of Diem, at least for a time, and prefered this abomination of insurrection rather than defend some terrible criminal who wore a crown. Achillies lost the protection of Zeus when he desecrated a corpse (dragging Hektor's body around Troy behind his chariot). Achilles got one in the heel. The Tarquins lost the protection of Jupiter when one of them raped Lucretia. They were cast out and Rome never had a real king ever again. Mars came to rule with the warrior class established a governing body to rule in place of the king (the Senate). Both Zeus and Jupiter are sky dieties of law and kingship. I think Haelyn would act likewise. A Diem did something that has cause the Mandate of Heaven to depart. It must be rectified and legitimacy restored before Haelyn will again smile on the house of Diem.



Thats one of the most insightful perspectives I've seen on the matter yet.

I myself, never liked the scenario of Ruornil coming down and eradicating an entire army, thought that was a bit much, a bit over the top, and a slap in the face to Haelyn and his followers.

But it certianly makes for an excellent chance for playing the part of a repentant Diem (especially if one injects another heir into the scenario, Lasica being a Wizard kind of makes her doing so improbable) going on a quest(s) to regain his god's (Haelyn) favor and to right the wrongs done by his line's predecessors...

[irdeggman]

Thank you, that is what I was trying to get across.

Hmm using the Sword of Roele adventure as an example of BR "trending" is really a bad idea.

Unless I am mistaken that adventure is almost universally treated with contempt because of the way it was "written" not as a BR-type material but rather more of a FR cast-off.


Birthright seemed to drift more towards typical adventuring, with typical powerful weapons and monsters. Rather than developing the intricacies of diplomacy, spy networks, etc.... even in later PS Modules like Binsada, if I remember correctly, the NPCs were more powerful characters, magic was more potent, and of course, the Sword of Roele has already been mentioned.

This complicates the current discussion about the use of magic in Cerilia, how frequent it is for commoners to see or be effected by it, how powerful it is.


It depends on where you are in Cerilia.

For example in the Khinasi lands wizards are much more common than elsewhere in Cerilia.

Wizardly magic (except for bards) are much more common there. Magicians are common (and welcome) profession in the lands there.

Hence higher level wizard regents are a logical outgrowth of this cultural norm.

In general I didn't notice a great discepancy in the over all levels of the NPCs in the Khinasi PS (or Cities of the Sun), but there are more higher level wizards (again there should be).


When the most powerful of wizards in Anuire being Cain, for example, who is 10th level, who has a major bloodline, or even Lasica Diem who has a strong major bloodline yet bounces between 2nd and 5th level (depending on the source of information) then any other spell caster of magic in this region should be significantly more limited. [Note: Obviously Taeghas and Ilien's regents have the potential to match them in power, as do one or two others.]

To me this suggests that in order to even be able to gather the neccessary components, and gain the education needed, you would need the resources and wealth available to only the most powerful nobles/bloodlines.

In Anuire definitely.



Even if a non-blooded person had the intelligence and ability needed to cast magic spells of significant power, where will they get the teachings, where will they get the needed components, how will they devote their lives to studying spells without the monetary means available to noble houses?

Even though there are 2 wizardly colleges of reknown.

The Imperial College and the one in Moedre.


Many realms could even have laws against non-nobles from dabbling in magic, just as many have laws against worshippers gathering in the name of a foriegn/non-sanctioned religion.

They would have little to offer anyone capable of teaching them... I just think they would be few and far in between.

But not in the Khinasi lands - there is only the 5 Oaths.

[rugor]

Even though there are 2 wizardly colleges of reknown.

The Imperial College and the one in Moedre.


True, but the preference would certianly be to those with Noble backing, who could make monetary donations... the qualifications needed for non-bloodeds to be accepted would likely be extremely high, and then there would likely be expected servitude to the College in return for what they offered.

[kgauck]

I myself, never liked the scenario of Ruornil coming down and eradicating an entire army, thought that was a bit much, a bit over the top, and a slap in the face to Haelyn and his followers.

I don't think Ruornil actually did anything, let alone appeared in Cereilia. I think both sides have cause to attribute the battle and the founding to Ruornil, because for Suris and Medoere, they hope it adds divine legitimacy to what is otherwise outlaw behavior. For Diemed and the Diems, it removes some of the sting of the defeat. Rather than saying we screwed up and lost 2/3rd of our land, say we were gonna get it all back and just as that was about to happen a god intervened to prevent us.

The moon may have been in the sky on the day of the battle, and got the credit for events it had nothing to do with.

[rugor]

I don't think Ruornil actually did anything, let alone appeared in Cereilia. I think both sides have cause to attribute the battle and the founding to Ruornil, because for Suris and Medoere, they hope it adds divine legitimacy to what is otherwise outlaw behavior. For Diemed and the Diems, it removes some of the sting of the defeat. Rather than saying we screwed up and lost 2/3rd of our land, say we were gonna get it all back and just as that was about to happen a god intervened to prevent us.

The moon may have been in the sky on the day of the battle, and got the credit for events it had nothing to do with.


Well it specifically states on page 7 of PS of M that no arrow was fired, or sword clashed, and a beam of moonlight struck Diemed's troops like fire from the sky.

Now, I could see that being adapted to something else, like a wizard reigning down fireballs on them, but for the fact that they were killed to a man... unless there were survivors, but that requires adaptation to what is actually there... which does not seem the intent of the writing.

[kgauck]

If you like gods playing politics, leave it as it is. But the gods are supposed to have a pact not to interfear, and I'd rather not have deus ex machina explanations for politics in Cerilia.

[rugor]

:rolleyes: Fine then, all the more reason for Diem to be confident in going back in there and reclaiming his lands... If there is no real concern for direct godly intervention.

[kgauck]

IMC, Diemed allies with Ghoere to reclaim the South Coast. During a war between Boeruine and Avanil, the Ghoere-Diemed alliance conquires Medoere, Ilien, and Roesone. Diemed has nominal control over his old Duchy. He controls the highest positions in the feudal hierarchy, but many of the lower ranks, the knights and lords are Ghoere's men, rewarded for their service so far. Two provinces Abbatuor and Bellam were never part of Diemed, but Ghoere imposes itself on its parter a bit here. She wants Bellam, which is easy enough, but has no use for Abbatuor. Instead, she wants Fairfield, over which she has contended several times. Diemed can have Abbatuor as compensation.

Also, Diemed must back the Baron of Ghoere's claims to the Iron Throne.

Next, Ghoere turns on Osoerde, installs a friendly duke (from one of his counts or a senior officer, and rewards men with land in Osoerde. Those who have land in Roesone, generally give up their little Roesone estates for more land and better titles in Osoerde, and the Dukes of Diemed can reward their followers with more land in Roesone and some small estates in Osoerde. Ghoere won't be able to vacate all of the estates it took in Roesone, but a little intermeshing of the realms is inevitable in the division of spoils.

After that, continued expansion is bound to result in a general war if it hasn't already. Going further would require some sense of what other realms have done, who is winning other wars, and so on, but that's what Ghoere and Diemed envision for the future IMC.

[Gman]

Gotta put my pennys worth in.

Absolute truth, morality and fact do exist.
Call me a Hyper-modernist if you like.

The problem is discerning and understanding what these are. Our perspective is always to some degree flawed, misinformed or just plain wrong.

Without perfect information and perfect apparatus there is always a margin for error - even "pure" science and mathematics as it approaches its theoretical limits becomes subject to conjecture, disputed theory and "error".

The aim however of most sciences is to get as close to "perfect" fact - through provable, repeatable undisputed empirical evidence and theory that works in every circumstance.

You can place sciences on a line that slowly converges with a vertical line representing "absolute fact" some are much higher and closer to this line that others. "Facts" can be reexamined, revisited and reevaluated and moved further up this line (or down according to the current paradigm).

(Incidently most "scientific though and research" (and philosophy) was due to a belief in a cause or beginning of things and that we can attempt to understand the absolute - and the original reason people had this belief was that because they were religious and believed in a creator.)

The examination of history does not use the same knowledge theories as science - you cannot empirically repeat the experiment. The sources of information are not as readily available and endless resources or not available(gravity is always there - Hitler is not). Literature and each and every other academic area uses different theories and methodology (with crossovers) your writings have to be accepted by your peers in each area.

The fact that you cannot pin things down perfectly does not mean that a common understanding of them does not work and that truth does not exist.

Things can been seen in a relative way from different perspectives but that does not mean that any interpretation of an event is valid - competing theories and ideas can be weighed up and compared logically some of them will be more valid, more provable and some of them can be just plain wrong. The different perspectives of different observers can be assessed and used to clarify the situation. Some things are more difficult to assess than others.

Which brings us to Morality.

I would argue that killing any person is wrong in an absolute sense - no one should have their greatest right removed. However because we live in a complex and difficult world sometimes we are put in a situation where we have to weigh up which is the lessor evil - based on our imperfect understanding, information and perspective. The rights of the slavering psychokiller breaking down our door to kill our loved ones armed with lots of pointed bladed things vs our loved ones is a no brainer (to me). (But what is even nicer is that in our modern society we usually just pay for police and soldiers to remove these little dilemmas from our control and conscience).

Most of us can use our brains and twist and justify a lot of different actions to avoid having much ethical/moral responsiblility in the right (or wrong) circumstances but the measure of - "would I like this done to me" is a pretty good measuring tape. (relativist/utilitarian/humanistic/christian whatever your perspective)

The nice thing about a fantasy world is that if you are the GM you have absolute control over all the variables in it. You can sit down and establish the morality you expect from your players and enforce it with the game system. The different churches ethics and expectations can be spelt out.

Some evil is obvious in a lot of fantasy - orc's, demons, etc some is more insidious (even in LOR saraman/half orcs and denathor). This Doesn't mean that everthing is going to be simple for the players - moral dilemmas and complexity has always added to the roleplaying in every game I've ever played - so enjoy a somewhat more easily quantifiable world!

So the good thing is that you can clarify tour internal game morality - or lack of it and set if up just as you like - no matter what your perspective. Its nice when you can stand on principle and not get shafted for it (or at least have the gods honour you for it later) and a company of Haelyns Paladins turn up just at the battle seems lost but if you don't like heroics - run things the gritty low fantasy way - personally I prefer the escape from dark gritty life.

Just as long as everyone understands your expectations.

[geeman]

At 04:21 PM 2/17/2008, kgauck wrote:

>If you like gods playing politics, leave it as it is. But the gods
>are supposed to have a pact not to interfear, and I`d rather not
>have deus ex machina explanations for politics in Cerilia.

According to the BoP, the pact is only that the gods will never again
battle one another in physical form, which leaves an awful lot of
room for things like divine intervention, avatars walking the earth
and otherwise interfering in human affairs.

Gary

[kgauck]

In classic D&D PC's can eventually rival dieties in power, and displace them, ascend, or whatever, but if the focus is on politics, either gods can overwhelm politics and player activity, or PC's can rival gods and why exactly do they bother doing politics, then the game is not political.