Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

    It seems the debate on the alignment of the GS is missing the middle ground
    between good and evil built right into the alignment system: neutrality.

    At 04:48 AM 10/13/98 -0500, James Ray wrote:
    >
    >Is the Elven Hunt Good or Evil? As long as THAT is the starting point for
    >this string, then there are two possible answers:
    >
    >1) GOOD, because it prevents any further encroachment on the part of the
    >Humans against the Elven Forests (or what remains of them)
    >
    >2) EVIL, because its members measure their success by the number of human
    >corpses they produce per patrol.

    James has defined the two poles pretty well. However, they can be
    complicated. If the GS is "good", then it is clearly good only for elves,
    never for non-elves. However by the very act of ignoring the harm done to
    others, such a position neglects the needs of others. The hunt is not life
    promoting. It promotes elven lives at the expence of others.

    If the GS is "evil", and there is plenty of ammunition to support this
    argument, how do we deal with the ultimate fact that the hunt is a last
    effort at survival? Aren't the elves like a cornered animal?

    Certainly the Gheallie Sidhe would attract evil elves, whose main purpose is
    revenge. However as the threat to an elven land became more dangerous,
    neutrals, who could stomach a certain a little killing for the greater good,
    would join the hunt. Good elves would keep out of the GS, and stick to
    defending their realm in honorable war.

    The fact that elven lands are unsafe to even enter is testament to the fact
    that elven vigilence is based in evil. Who you are, or what your intentions
    are is immaterial. Enter some elven domains and die. However, the evil
    seems to be limited in its power. Without the kinds of claims which attract
    the neutral elves, the killing is limited to tresspassers. Only when the
    neutrals can be brought under the banner of the Gheallie Sidhe does the hunt
    leave elven lands.

    So the hunt, IMO, is neutral with evil tendencies, and at its heart, and
    evil core. Without the evil elves to keep it alive, it would become a
    forgotten custom.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

  2. #2
    James Ray
    Guest

    Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

    - ----------
    > From: Kenneth Gauck
    > It seems the debate on the alignment of the GS is missing the middle
    ground between good and evil built right into the alignment system:
    neutrality.

    FANTASTIC stuff...thanks for your contribution, Keith :)
    >
    > James has defined the two poles pretty well. However, they can be
    complicated. If the GS is "good", then it is clearly good only for elves,
    never for non-elves. However by the very act of ignoring the harm done to
    others, such a position neglects the needs of others. The hunt is not life
    promoting. It promotes elven lives at the expence of others.>

    A DM can play the Hunt as good - Elves are "Chaotic", so they may adhere to
    a "ends justify the means" philosophy.

    >
    > If the GS is "evil", and there is plenty of ammunition to support this
    argument, how do we deal with the ultimate fact that the hunt is a last
    effort at survival? Aren't the elves like a cornered animal?>

    Certainly. They have NO other recourse than the Hunt, so there is plenty
    of leeway for the DM to say the Hunt is Evil *OR* Good.

    > Certainly the Gheallie Sidhe would attract evil elves, whose main purpose
    is revenge. However as the threat to an elven land became more dangerous,
    neutrals, who could stomach a certain a little killing for the greater
    good, would join the hunt. Good elves would keep out of the GS, and stick
    to defending their realm in honorable war.>

    I disagree. The Elves ALREADY tried "honorable" war. Cerilian Humans are
    AFRAID of Elves, because so few explorers return from forays into Elven
    Lands, AND because the Elf-Human wars ended with pretty much the same
    geography as presented in the printed material. Each side had thrown every
    thing it had at the other, and neither could really wipe the other off of
    the map.

    > The fact that elven lands are unsafe to even enter is testament to the
    fact that elven vigilence is based in evil. Who you are, or what your
    intentions are is immaterial. Enter some elven domains and die.>

    SOME Elven lands... the Elves are insular, without a doubt, but they are
    NOT, necesarily, xenophobic. Tuarhieval has very close relations with
    Dhoesone, according to the material *I* have. Cerilian Elves have to make
    a decision.... do they stay hidden in their forests (conducting the Hunt at
    the leisure and risking unified Human wrath AND fighting the Awnshieghlen
    whenever the Abominations feel like it) OR, do they reach out to the Humans
    who now rule Cerilia? All things being equal, a DM can easily rule that
    all the Hunt does is *harass* Humans, no killing or rapine necessary.
    Tuarhieval has recently (at least to a long-lived Elf) lost provinces to
    the Gorgon...what Elven King has lost ground to ordinary Humans? "Is the
    Elven Hunt Evil.." - it CAN be.... it depends on what kind of campaign the
    DM wants to run



    >However, the evil seems to be limited in its power. Without the kinds of
    claims which attract the neutral elves, the killing is limited to
    tresspassers.>

    What do Humans do to Elves found in Human lands? LOL Every side to a
    conflict makes "claims". Today, we call it "spin"; fifty yrs ago,
    Goebbels called it "propaganda".

    > Only when the neutrals can be brought under the banner of the Gheallie
    Sidhe does the hunt leave elven lands.>

    Its YOUR campaign's Elven Hunt, but... I would prefer that the
    participation of Neutrals and Goods is what KEEPS it within Elven borders.
    If the Hunt is composed entirely of Chaotic Evils, why DONT they sack and
    pillage every Human settlement they can find?

    > So the hunt, IMO, is neutral with evil tendencies, and at its heart, and
    evil core. Without the evil elves to keep it alive, it would become a
    forgotten custom.>

    I see the Hunt as Neutral :) On certain instances (not sure if
    "occaisions" is spelled right :), the Hunt MAY commit Evil acts. Elves are
    Chaotic Neutral, however, and should take a dim view of such indulgences.

    James
    >
    > Kenneth Gauck
    > c558382@earthlink.net
    >
    >> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    line
    > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

  3. #3
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

    James Ray wrote:

    > > If the GS is "evil", and there is plenty of ammunition to support this
    > argument, how do we deal with the ultimate fact that the hunt is a last
    > effort at survival? Aren't the elves like a cornered animal?>
    >
    > Certainly. They have NO other recourse than the Hunt, so there is plenty
    > of leeway for the DM to say the Hunt is Evil *OR* Good.

    The GS is not a "last effort at survival" at all. It NEVER was. It wasn't
    when it was first began, it still isn't centuries later when it continues.
    There are thousands and thousands of elves in Cerilia. Do you honestly think
    elves are that less secure in their lands than humans are? Portraying the GS
    as good aligned NPCs who are defending their homeland against the vile
    depredation of humans is a gross misinterpretation of both the elves and the
    humans. "Last efforts at survival" don't last over a thousand years, even to
    the elven perspective.

    In addition, I think describing the GS as defenders of elven lands is a
    misrepresentation at best. The elves of the GS are mostly civilian
    isolationists. The Hunt of the Elves is not a defensive organization. Hunters
    aren't defenders, folks. It's that simple. Elven defensive forces are
    soldiers who patrol and defend their borders just like soldiers in human lands.

    > >However, the evil seems to be limited in its power. Without the kinds of
    > claims which attract the neutral elves, the killing is limited to
    > tresspassers.>
    >
    > What do Humans do to Elves found in Human lands? LOL Every side to a
    > conflict makes "claims". Today, we call it "spin"; fifty yrs ago,
    > Goebbels called it "propaganda".

    I haven't heard of anything in the rulebooks describing a human hunt of elves.
    In fact, the only elf I've seen people readily line up against in the game is
    Rhoubhe. Isn't that pretty good evidence that the actions of the elves are
    racist and evil?

    > > Only when the neutrals can be brought under the banner of the Gheallie
    > Sidhe does the hunt leave elven lands.>
    >
    > Its YOUR campaign's Elven Hunt, but... I would prefer that the
    > participation of Neutrals and Goods is what KEEPS it within Elven borders.
    > If the Hunt is composed entirely of Chaotic Evils, why DONT they sack and
    > pillage every Human settlement they can find?

    I think the answer to this is threefold. First, because the majority of elves
    are not evil, unlike the GS who are..... Other elves would recognize such
    actions as evil, and the GS would lose their support within elven lands.
    Second, the GS are not stupid. They would have to recognize that slaughtering
    human civilians would bring down the wrath of human nations and that would end
    up in a war that would result in greater elven losses.

    The third point is rather a longer one. There is a really weird interpretation
    of "evil" by most people out there. I think a lot of people confuse evil with
    psychotic. Evil creatures are described as drooling sociopaths chomping at the
    bit and killing out of some sort of sadistic pleasure. Frankly, it just
    doesn't work like that. Sure, drooling psychos are evil, but evil is not
    defined by those people any more than good is defined by saints. It's the
    people who live their lives much closer to the center who define what is good
    and evil. Saints and psychos are far too busy being good or evil to spend any
    time defining what it is that they do. It's the people who struggle with moral
    decisions on a daily basis that do more to define good and evil than the
    crusaders.

    There is also a misinterpretation of evil characters as being self-destructive,
    that they will sacrifice themselves for the cause of evil with some sort of
    religious fervor. Most people, good or evil, are not self-destructive. Many
    good people are self-destructive. In fact, I would guess more than evil
    ones.... Good and evil have been described before as selflessness and
    selfishness, respectively. At what point is self-destructive and selfishness
    combined?

    There are all kinds of examples of evil in the real world. The slaughter of
    civilians in Kosovo right now is a pretty good example. To be totally honest,
    I think those acts are defended with arguments amazingly similar to the ones
    used on this message board to defend the GS. In fact, at the risk of offending
    everyone with access to a keyboard out there, I think the arguments themselves
    are... well, let's just call them misguided, shall we?

    The point is that evil acts need not be quite as extreme as they are often
    portrayed for them to be evil acts. Is brutally slaughtering children evil?
    Certainly. Is brutally slaughtering adult civilians? Yes. Killing children
    is more evil than killing adults, but splitting hairs in defining them one way
    or the other is a waste of time. Let's imagine good and evil on a line, shall
    we?

    Good ! Neutral ! Evil

    10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1!5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5!1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    If killing innocent people for racist reasons based upon feelings of
    superiority and a misguided philosophical belief in one's own superiority is a
    9 on the evil scale (I reserve 10's for talk show hosts and movie studio execs)
    then killing the same innocent people who happen to be trespassing is still at
    least an 8.5.

    Gary

  4. #4
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

    Kariu wrote:

    > I tend to disagree here. I have been playing in BR-PBEM's since 1995 when
    > the system was introduced, and in every game I have been in if a elven
    > domain attempts to expand, the human domains in the area rise up as a
    > united force to stop the elven domains. I played the Sielwode for 29
    > domain turns, and have watched others as well. I simply do beleive that
    > the elves have little recourse....they are few in number, and when they do
    > expand, humans unite to repel them.something they would not do to such a
    > great extent if the foes were human.

    That's interesting. Anuireans, of course, are just as likely to be racist as any other
    creatures, but having them all line up against the expansion of the elves seems rather
    unusual.

    I usually play the elves as being content to stay within their own borders and fierce
    about defending them in most cases. Tuarhievel is pretty cosmopolitan, but elves from
    Sielwode are much less likely to even speak with non-elves.

    In the pen & paper game I DM (which takes place mostly in and around Aerenwe) the
    characters have actually tried to encourage elves to settle and expand in the Erebannien.
    Elves have made a small "comeback" due to these and other efforts. Due to their
    relatively slow breeding, however, such a comeback is naturally a very slow process.

    The point I was trying to make was that the description of the GS actions as a "last
    effort at survival" is incorrect. Last ditch efforts don't generally go on for millennia,
    even elven ones. Even the description of the GS as "the Hunt of the Elves" defies the
    concept that it is a defensive effort. It even makes it a different effort from
    reclaiming lands from humans. The GS is just about killing humans because they hate
    them. Reclaiming the lands of dead settlers is a nice ancillary bonus, but secondary to
    the GS's desire to kill all humans.

    Gary

  5. #5
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

    > I haven't heard of anything in the rulebooks describing a human hunt of
    elves.
    > In fact, the only elf I've seen people readily line up against in the game is
    > Rhoubhe. Isn't that pretty good evidence that the actions of the elves are
    > racist and evil?

    True, but the Atlas was written by a human, from a human perspective, with
    humans spin/propaganda/insight.

    I hope to change this in the near future. I have started writing something, at
    the very least it will be novella length, called "The War of Shadow" and my
    intent is to write it from Raesene's point of view, and in there I hope to
    explain why Raesene and Rhuobhe are still such bitter enemeis.

    In my own histories, I placed the Black Prince as having garnered the support
    of a group of very "talented" murderers to go deep into elven lands to perform
    "reprisals" against the acts of Rhuobhe's Ghallie Sidhe. This is before either
    had been seduced by Azrai and were still fighting for their homelands.

    Tim Nutting

  6. #6
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Gheallie Sidhe and Alignment

    At 04:48 AM 10/14/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
    >There is a really weird interpretation of "evil" by most people out there.
    >
    I agree with Gary's points on evil here. That "evil" is missunderstood
    strikes me as odd because in several places the books offer complemantary
    pieces on alignment.

    In general I would argue that doing good for the sake of good, irregardless
    of how it impacts you, is required for an act to be good.

    When the ends are allowed to justify the means, we are talking about
    neutrality.

    When the means no longer need justification, when only the ends matter, we
    arrive at evil, irregardless of harm. Because the willingness to do harm if
    required to achive the ends was always present. Evil requires nothing more
    than a total disregard for doing harm. If one does not care who they hurt
    or why, they are evil.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Gheallie sidhe
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-19-2008, 11:43 PM
  2. Prestige Class: Gheallie Sidhe
    By Raesene Andu in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-04-2005, 08:05 AM
  3. Gheallie Sidhe Units
    By Vallariel in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-27-2003, 09:32 AM
  4. Gheallie Sidhe Units
    By Vallariel in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2003, 05:53 PM

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.