Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    the Sielwode
    Posts
    42
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    There is a name to applying one's own contemporary set of values on people from different eras: Anachronism. Being accused of anachronism is one of the worst things that could happen to any serious historian.

    I think a similar thing can be said of Cerilia. A place where the two gods of war are considered Good (Haelyn and Cuiraecen) cannot consider war to be evil.

    As for divestiture and ethnic cleansing being evil, if that is so, then ALL human ancestors (of practically all cultures) can and should be considered evil. They took Cerilia from the Elves by no other means than divestiture and ethinc cleansing.

    As for time, not everything that humans consider a long period of time might seem so to members of other races: while 100 years would seem long to a 50 year old human, they might seem a shorter period of time for a 200 year old dwarf, and even shorter for a 1000 year old elf.

    And as for settlers in occupied territories that were regained, I don't see any reason why throwing them back to wherever it is they came from should seem evil. If a country doesn't allow immigration in the first place (and is not considered evil for not allowing it) there is no reason why it should tolerate a coerced immigration, that would have inevitably disenfrenchized the original population of their lands and possessions.

  2. #52
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    There is a name to applying one's own contemporary set of values on people from different eras: Anachronism. Being accused of anachronism is one of the worst things that could happen to any serious historian.

    Good thing none of us are serious historian then. In truth though, it is almost impossible for someone from our modern age to look back and truely understand how events in the past happened without using our own sets of values. Much of history is, after all, guess work.


    I think a similar thing can be said of Cerilia. A place where the two gods of war are considered Good (Haelyn and Cuiraecen) cannot consider war to be evil.

    And Cerilia is primarily seen through the eyes of its human inhabitants. To the humans of Cerilia Haelyn and Cuiraecen are good, so a lot of people hanging around Anuire and the other region probably do consider war to be good for the right reasons.

    If you were an orog or goblin in Cerilia though, you would consider Karthathok or Torazan to be good deities and Haelyn and Cuiraecen to be evil (although that might be stretching thing a little, as goblin and orog religions are most likely based on fear, fear of what their god will do to them if they aren't good little orogs or goblins and capture lots of human sacrifices).

    There is a 3rd god of war also, Belinik, and he most definitely is not considered to be good.


    [QUOTE]As for divestiture and ethnic cleansing being evil, if that is so, then ALL human ancestors (of practically all cultures) can and should be considered evil. They took Cerilia from the Elves by no other means than divestiture and ethinc cleansing.[/QUOTE}


    Pretty much, humans thoughout the history of Cerilia have done some pretty bloody evil deeds, but remember history is written by the survivors. Roele has been mentioned a couple of times, this is the guy who conquered almost all of Cerilia by force of arms and imposed his own law. To those he conquered he was an evil tyrant who deprived them of their liberty, but to the Anuireans he was the greatest hero who ever lived (perhaps with the exception of Haelyn, who became a god), and unequalled force for all that was good and right about the empire.

    The thing to focus on, is that the men and woman who shaped Cerilia are only evil in the eyes of their victims. To their followers they are heros and their victories were glorious triumphs.


    And as for settlers in occupied territories that were regained, I don't see any reason why throwing them back to wherever it is they came from should seem evil. If a country doesn't allow immigration in the first place (and is not considered evil for not allowing it) there is no reason why it should tolerate a coerced immigration, that would have inevitably disenfrenchized the original population of their lands and possessions.

    As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, it would depend on the length of time that has passed. If you look at the example of Lluabraight, in the eyes of the majority of Cerilians, they would be justified in kicking out the humanoids in the northern Giantdowns provinces and retaking those lands. Now look at Rhuobhe, he considers himself justified in killing humans and trying to take their lands because those lands were elven over a thousand years ago. In the eyes of the majority of Cerilians (even some of his own people) he is not justified in his crusade against all humanity and he is a evil monster. If his followers do eventually succeed in wiping out humanity and retaking Cerilia for the elves, however, Rhuobhe will be the greatest elven hero who ever lived.

    So, there is a lot of difference between what is truely evil and what is considered evil, and a lot of it depends on which side you are on. The "good" races, humans, dwarves, elves, etc, are not going to be too upset about a whole heap of dead or deported goblins, in fact, they will probably welcome it. If they themselves suddenly found themselves kicked out of their homes and forced into another province it would be a thousand times worse. To an observer who feel no attachment to either race, then both events are equal, both equally evil.

    As for the DM, the final judge in the whole matter, then evil should be judged based on the society the character/regent came from. If the regents are Anuirean, and the enemy goblins, then war is justified because goblins are evil and should be put down. Where things get tricky is when "good" characters start doing things that are obviously evil for gold or territory and trying to get away with it by claiming that their enemy is evil. An example here, would be an alliance of Roesone, Medoere, Aerenwe, etc, attacking Ghoere because Gavin Tael is obviously an evil tyrant and then dividing up Ghoere amonst themselves afterwards. That is an example of a war fought for their own greed, not for a good causes and the regents involved (if they were good) would have gone against their alignments.

    Anyway, all arguments aside, it is almost impossible to exist in this world or any other without doing something that someone in the world is one day going to consider evil...


    Hmmm, anyone know why the quote thingy didn't work on this post? Always has before.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  3. #53
    QUOTE (tcharazazel @ Jun 3 2004, 09:06 AM)
    Agamemnon killed his daughter before going to Troy as ritual sacrifice, generally considered to be done inorder to show his commitment.


    Sorry to be so tiresome and knitpicking, but that's just the way I am.
    Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigeneia because Artemis demanded it. A short while before, Agamemnon killed a pair of deer calves (is that the right term?). Artemis, as protectress of all young animals, demanded retribution in the form of the sacrifice of Agamemnon's eldest daughter. As long as Iphigeneia went on unsacrificed no wind would blow on the Isle of Euboea, and thus the Greek fleets could not set sail to Troy.
    Heheh, aye, the part about the showing his commitment was from a modern viewpoint by several historians, sorry for not making that bit clear.

    Good to see you go all the way with the detail though and its fawn for baby deer.



    Anyway, all arguments aside, it is almost impossible to exist in this world or any other without doing something that someone in the world is one day going to consider evil...
    Excactly! So we must embrace our nature, realize that evil is good, and go on sinning. Besides, who really cares what people centuries later think of us? Heh, its not likely any will even remmeber us anyway.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  4. #54
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    I`m still holding on to the view that good and evil should be absolute moral values, not just based on cultural background, at least as an ideal and esspecially with regard to paladins and clerics.



    Otherwise you can throw the whole alignment system out of the window or replace it with a point-based system of allegiances. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does raise some rules related questions, like for instance what to do with the detect good/evil/law/chaos spells and abilities. Do they simply not exist if good and evil are solely based on the view of the beholder? or do they work differently? If so, how?



    That said, however I do not believe that good characters have to throw away their weapons or necessarily make weak rulers. Violence in itself is not necessarily evil, at least in the context of D&D, but good characters must use care when resorting to violence. This is straight out of the Book of Exalted deeds which devotes several pages for explaining what constitutes good in D&D. To fight against an enemy is acceptable and even required when dealing with the doctrines of Haelyn or Cuiraecen, to slaughter defenseless goblin children is not.



    With regard to good rulers going to war, there`s still enough room left for even a paladin to wage war on his or her neighbours. Wars of defense are of course okay as are wars to assist an ally or vassall. In other regards, war should constitute the last means to achieve a goal when other actions have failed. For example, a neighbouring realm blocks a trade route or tries to take over a holding. A good character should at first try to use diplomacy to protect his interests, but if this attempt fails he could go to war without infringing his alignment. The war would not be good war, because it is fought for selfish reasons, i.e. money, but good characters can protect their interests.



    BTW, as far as I remember, the romans could only fight just wars according to their laws and for religious reasons. And every single one of their wars was a just war, at least so they said. Nevertheless they managed to acquire the greatest empire of their time. So do as the romans did, fight just wars and rule the world ;-)
    "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."
    - The Three Kingdoms, attributed to Luo Guanzhong, c.1330-c.1400

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    irdeggman schrieb:



    >This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...=ST&f=2&t=2666

    >

    > irdeggman wrote:

    >

    ...



    > 3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name)

    >...

    > 5) If a temple regent does an act that is considered good by his/her diety, it will likely be considered good by the temple followers.

    >

    Diety?

    Can the temple followers really consider it good that a temple regents

    meals are sentient enough to judge the morality of his actions?

    Cannibalism I say. ;-)

    bye

    Michael

  6. #56
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Raesene,

    Not wanting to quote your entire post, I just wanted to say: well put, man! You've broken down and exposed the truth behind alignment in D&D: the myth of objective alignments is just that, a myth.

    The fact is, good and evil (far more than law and chaos) are extremely subjective, and the standard alignments of D&D are very definitely grounded in Western heroic ideals. In fact, I'd wager you could get more clues to D&D alignments from Mallory's Morte d'Artur and Tolkien than anywhere else, at least for the formative inspirations for what defines good and evil in D&D. And since Cerilia, and Anuire in particular, are so heavily based on these same cultural frameworks, it works pretty well for our purposes here.

    One thing I'd say, is that the evil races/worshippers probably don't call themselves evil, but neither would they claim to be good. I think the hallmark of the 'evil' races in D&D is that they consider things like morality to be signs of weakness. What matters is strength, skill, cunning, and success.

    Over time, as I've sat around trying to get a handle on what evil is in D&D and in BR, the best answer I've come up with is this:

    1. Evil is Selfish. While everyone has selfish tendencies, and there is always the temptation to give into these for any person, the evil character indulges in these urges.
    2. To Indulge Without Restraint: This branches into a whole larger set of indulgences in appetites, the particulars of which vary from one person and culture to another. The seven deadly sins work as a good basic set of vices an evil person might indulge in or pursue, especially when this pursuit is at the expense of others: greed, lust, gluttony, vanity, envy, anger, and sloth. Now these of course can be changed or modified to fit a less Augustinian world, but the idea is there: there are basic human appetites that cause a lot of suffering to others when they are indulged in, especially in excess.
    3. Evil is equated with Hobbes' Natural Law: humans at their most basic level are evil: selfish, cruel, and willing to do anything for the sake of survival. If you read through the PHB alignment descriptions, you'll find that this matches up pretty well with every evil alignment, the only differences are how structured the evil person is (Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic). But the morality is pretty much the same through all of them: "whatever it takes to get what I want."

    Osprey

  7. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    the Sielwode
    Posts
    42
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Beruin@Jun 3 2004, 05:50 PM
    I`m still holding on to the view that good and evil should be absolute moral values, not just based on cultural background, at least as an ideal and esspecially with regard to paladins and clerics.
    Indeed.
    There is a pretty lengthy philosophical debate as to whether moral is absolute or relative. Notwithstanding my opinions on the matter in real life, there is little doubt that standard D&D and Birthright as a result of that have selected to view their fantasyland as having absolute moral. The entire alignment system depends on it. Baatezu are evil, and are well aware of it, Aasimons (or angels or whatever WotC chooses to call them these days) are good. As a result monsters in the Monster Manual have an "Alignment" stat in their description, and the frequency estimate of that alignment. As far as D&D is concerned, this is not a matter of Point of View.

  8. #58
    Beruin
    good/evil/law/chaos spells and abilities. Do they simply not exist if good and evil are solely based on the view of the beholder? or do they work differently? If so, how?
    Well, for Evil and Good, if you look at the Detect Evil spell description its apparent that what is the strong influence of the spell is negative energy for evil. This is because the aura of a cleric who channels evil energy soon reaches overwhelming when compared to just an evil character. So, it's logical to believe that good would be positive energy.

    As for Chaos and Law... heh, well they thankfully gave us some names for that also. Anarchic energy for chaos and Axiomatic for law.


    Diety?
    Can the temple followers really consider it good that a temple regents
    meals are sentient enough to judge the morality of his actions?
    Cannibalism I say. ;-)
    Bloody woodworks...

    Osprey
    Not wanting to quote your entire post, I just wanted to say: well put, man! You've broken down and exposed the truth behind alignment in D&D: the myth of objective alignments is just that, a myth.

    The fact is, good and evil (far more than law and chaos) are extremely subjective, and the standard alignments of D&D are very definitely grounded in Western heroic ideals.
    Indeed, pity there are no more heros, heheh.


    1. Evil is Selfish. While everyone has selfish tendencies, and there is always the temptation to give into these for any person, the evil character indulges in these urges.
    I like what you came up with to describe evil, and of the two it is generally easier to describe.

    Though, I would say that All people do things for selfish reasons, whether it is personal gain at the expense of others (evil), or for the pleasure they get from helping others (good). So, its not really tendencies or temptation because all people follow their desires, the diference is in the purpose/goal/motivation for the selfish interest.

    True in D&D they put it as good isnt selfish, however, they really are just their desires generally help more than themsleves.

    Here's a little evidence to help support Osprey's arguments:

    Heheh, just read over the PHB descriptions of the alignments again... that's always good for a laugh. Yeah, its fairly obvious what each type means when you read over them. Examples LG = Crusader, and CE = Destroyer. Very cookie cutter, however, it does help clarify the ideas behind them... and show how idealistic they are.

    Under the descriptions pg, 88: "'Good' impies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good Characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

    "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."


    Here's one to support Raesene's argument for subjectivity:

    The PHB pg 89 describes the first 6 alignments of LG to CN as being, "the standard for PCs. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains"... heheh, If thats not subjective and cookie cutter, I dont know what is.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  9. #59
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 04:12 AM 6/3/2004 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:



    > Gary, I like your alignment by points idea, very cool. And I totally

    > agree alignments are a very blunt tool to use. However, you seem to be

    > arguing for an alignment change and not an alignment infringement, which

    > is a different thing. As an alignment change would be the character

    > choosing courses of action that reflect a different alignment over a long

    > period of time. An alignment infringement would be like those 1 time

    > examples that you gave.



    That`s true. I was looking more back to the original poster`s question

    about whether or not a domain that entered into a war with a nearby domain

    could still be considered "good" on the whole rather than the RP penalty

    alignment infringement of the BRCS. As an infraction I think you`re right

    it could be considered one. On the whole, however, since most realms by

    definition are stuck in a sort of moral compromise, most realms probably

    aren`t so far away from neutrality as to warrant an alignment infringement

    if the action on the whole can be considered "neutral" or not a negative

    effect one what would be their point valued alignment.



    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.