Alignment (Again?!)

[Gary V. Foss]

Galwylin wrote:

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

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

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

[swords]

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

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

Mike

[Daniel McSorley]

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

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

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

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[swords]

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

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

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

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

Mike

[Shadewulf@aol.co]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shadewulf

[Tim Nutting]

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

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

What defines good and evil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Nutting
Zero@wiredweb.com

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

[Tim Nutting]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't life suck without religion and absolution?

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck in sorting out your lives.
Tim Nutting

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

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

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

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

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

- -DKE

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

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

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

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

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

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

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