Sidhelien Spirituality

[AndrewTall]

Reincarnation would not necessarily make the elves any less afraid of dying than humans, if the elves reform their body from the natural world about them what happens if the forest is destroyed and the mebhaighl they need destroyed by planting crops and building roads? If they form a body from the seeming of the shadow world (another obvious medium for those who see elves as spirits) then the spirit could be overcome by the chaos of the realm before it could reform a body making all but the strongest willed cautious - and what happens now that Azrai has corrupted the Spirit World? A modern elf might have fear of contamination by the twisted energies of the Shadow Realm making them afraid to die outside of areas equating to the few remaining bright 'spirit world' areas or fear that their spirit could be captured by the Lost.

That said I would expect that aware of how truly empty life is without challenge and joy elves would rather charge into battle and live a day as a lion than endure untold centuries of slavery or privation.

I'd note that in my opinion fear of death requires only awareness of self, and awareness of the ability to die - I don't see an elf as valuing their life more or less than a human would value theirs simply because they expect to have more of it than a human does - from reading accounts by some people wounded/ill/elderly etc it is clear that every day can be deeply precious, indeed that life can be all the more cherished for its expected brevity. Also while elves know that old age and disease won't kill them, a brief look at various timelines indicates that practically elves only live a few centuries - unless their rulers are noted for their short lifespans compared to their peers.

[kgauck]

I think it was David Hume (though it could have been Samuel Johnson) who said that its not death than men fear, but the death blow.

[geeman]

At 09:21 AM 12/26/2007, Rowan wrote:

>While there are certainly other possibilities, geeman, it is pretty
>standard mythological fare for an evil god or being to not
>anticipate selflessness to be his undoing. Even if Azrai could have
>destroyed himself, he certainly would never have done so, as it is
>against his selfish nature.

It`s possible (again.) But my point (in answer to the original
question, which was why the alternate explanation existed in the
document at all) is that such an interpretation doesn`t particularly
inspire any adventure possibilities, nor does it segue/introduce a
document detailing the relationship between life and death for the
purposes of a BR supplement detailing the adventure possibilities of
such background material. Azrai was either enormously powerful and
just as enormously foolish or enormously powerful with a fatal flaw
that was exploited by the other gods. The latter is, IMO, more
interesting, refined and useful. Azrai is still arrogant and unable
to anticipate the selflessness of the other gods in such an
interpretation, but his arrogance and stupidity aren`t painted in
such broad strokes. That is, he`s still arrogant enough to ignore
the possibility that the gods will sacrifice themselves, but the
possibility of that happening is more remote.

It`s like the Death Star. Where I want a little womp rat sized flaw
that one has to get to after much difficulty, the alternative
explanation is more of a giant back door left hanging wide open....

Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Your opinion is not flawed, but your perspective of it seems to me to be so: such a flaw is anything but minute when put against the power of Azrai, much unlike the "womp rat sized" exhaust port of the Death Star; furthermore, the probability of exploiting such a flaw in case the opposing side knows of it and any prepared resistance, all of them are widely different in your two examples: the theory you put down and the Star Wars scenario.

For one thing, I don't believe that Azrai has such a flaw; being foolish and being stupid are two very different things, and arrogance always lays another issue on top. If such a flaw existed, I don't think you would have left it open to exploitation. Finally, what I want to make clear (since you seem to have missed it) is that the above statement of mine (gods go *kaboom!* --> Azrai goes 8p) is more of a counterargument: anyone could hypothesize anything. The thing is, would it ever be so probable that the scholars of Aebrynis would make such a conclusion? I find it highly unlikely, and largely unneeded, even. Your supplement could do even without it, but do as you may.

[kgauck]

I find Gary's explanation much easier to build other background upon than the alternative.

Perhaps Azrai had attempted to lure the other gods into a direct battle several times.

Perhaps Vorynn uncovered the secret of Azrai's vulnerability allowing the gods to pretend to get sucked in at Deismaar.

The alternative is a psychology of dieties, and that isn't something I know much about.

[RaspK_FOG]

I don't know if you don't see what I mean to present, if I am too bad at presenting it, or if you simply refuse to see what I mean...

My earlier example was not a proposition as to what actually happened; it was just an argument, meaning to show that to try and explain the situation lacks two things: accountability and credibility; i.e. you can take it or leave it, but it still remains an assumption in the end. All we know is that all 7 gods did get destroyed in, from, or producing a giant explosion - the rest is history.

Mind you, I would very much like to remake Birthright at some point so as to make it more up to the task of what seems evidently in contradiction with itself, yet I don't mean to do that just now.

[kgauck]

An authoritative account, with accountability and credibility is worth less than an account that lends itself to better stories, adventures, and player hooks.

[Rowan]

I agree, Kgauck, and I think the Wiki, properly used, could be a great way to really develop alternatives that further explain and flesh out the BR setting, either in reconciliation with the canon, or minor departure/revision of the canon.

What I mean is, for all those GMs out there like myself with many ideas but little time, it would be great to have a rich collection of well-developed and well-organized alternatives to harvest for games.

This thread, for instance, has given several possibilities for elven life/afterlife that are very interesting and possible within the canon or with only minor revisions:

1. Elves = elemental spirits, reforming their bodies upon death (this begs a very interesting game mechanic)
2. Reincarnation not under the elf's control
3. Voluntary death and entrance into an Otherworld
4. Death and eventual reunion with the Seelie side before passage to an Otherworld
5. Death of either the Sidhe or the Seelie results in ultimate death, passing on, or eventual reincarnation of the two

What have I missed? Some of those aren't mutually exclusive, but all could use some game mechanics and some description about how this both impacts culture and setting and game play at the PC and Realm level.

[RaspK_FOG]

Again, I am not against such articles; but the above suggestions have been made mostly as proposals of the "truth" they hold behind the setting rather than as a plausible resolution of any number of issues. And, Kenneth, again I did not mean to point out something along the lines of anyone here not being an authority or whatever, just that I am trying to run a discussion that is based more on given fact rather than possibilities. I am very much interested in theories and argumentation, but not when I want to discuss hard facts and how they relate to each other, at least on the first layer of this discussion - as far as I know, we have not even set all of the groundwork, since some of us want to express their opinion on a totally different worldview (e.g. the "gods" never were true deities).

What you might have spent your time a lot more constructively with would be to make an article for the site; note that the wiki is not currently available for such material, as far as I understand - if I am mistaken, please feel free to use it by all means.

[geeman]

At 05:09 PM 12/26/2007, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>Your opinion is not flawed, but your perspective of it seems to me to be so: such a flaw is anything but minute when put against the
power of Azrai, much unlike the "womp rat sized" exhaust port of the Death Star; furthermore, the probability of exploiting such a flaw
in case the opposing side knows of it and any prepared resistance, all of them are widely different in your two examples: the theory you put down and the Star Wars scenario.

Let`s look at it from the writing standpoint for a moment: Let`s start with the assumption that Azrai`s demise at Deismaar is expressed in the broadest possible terms. As the most powerful of the gods, he knew that he had the ability to destroy himself explosively at any moment, and he knows that any god can do the same. Despite that knowledge he ran headlong into a face-to-face conflict with the other gods at Deismaar without taking any measures to prevent them from performing a last strike when it became clear they were going to lose the battle and, presumably, their influence in the setting. Here`s the test: Write a BR supplement that uses that assumption as its basis. What does such a concept inspire? What adventure level ideas are suggested by that version of Azrai`s arrogance and foolishness? If you can come up with BR materials based on such an idea then I`d be happy to see it.

>For one thing, I don`t believe that Azrai has such a flaw; being foolish and being stupid are two very different things, and arrogance always lays another issue on top. If such a flaw existed, I don`t think you would have left it open to exploitation.

Sorry, but I`m not following your logic here. If the explosion at Deismaar were the result of the gods or some force in the SW exploiting a flaw in the also hypothetical power base of Azrai through that plane then he wouldn`t have been stupid or foolish enough to leave such a flaw there in the first place? Isn`t it your position that he was so arrogant that he simply ignored their already existing ability to destroy themselves and him along with them?

>Finally, what I want to make clear (since you seem to have missed it) is that the above statement of mine (gods go *kaboom!* --> Azrai goes 8p) is more of a counterargument: anyone could hypothesize anything. The thing is, would it ever be so probable that the
scholars of Aebrynis would make such a conclusion?

I think they would. It`s a rather odd extrapolation, I grant you, but I made it just sitting around in my house musing on the topic, so I don`t think it`s that weird for someone who might dedicate more of their actual life and personal studies to the subject....

I have a sort of pedantry/academia fetish. I like the idea (and see it has highly probable) that in a setting like Cerilia the nature of good/evil as embodied in the gods and the planes themselves, the way that bloodline "scientifically" functions, the philosophical basis of the afterlife and the connections between them all would be matters of scholarly investigation, debate and even experimentation. Not in an entirely modern sense of experimentation, but in a way that would be parallel to the transition between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, which several of the BR cultures are at. There should be BR equivalents of the Venerable Bede, Alcuin and Bonaventure. This is certainly an oft ignored aspect of many D&D settings, and I find that lack... well, lacking. Such characters are, in the long run, better motivation for adventures and gaming than rescuing the princess from the tower or otherwise slaying the dragon. At least, they provide rationales for a broader range of adventure and campaign ideas.

But they aren`t everyone`s cup of tea, I suppose.... More`s the pity.

>I find it highly unlikely, and largely unneeded, even. Your >supplement could do even without it, but do as you may.

It`s colour commentary, and as such should be taken as speculative and easily ignored, so you needn`t bother with it at all if you don`t
want. I think the supplement is better with it for the reasons I`ve described, but it shouldn`t be taken as anything more than a segue into the meat of the text, so in all honesty I think you`re reading more into it than it merits. It`s not meant to be a rewrite of the existing materials, and even if it were it doesn`t contradict anything directly other than itself in a couple places.

Gary