Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gadren 05-23-05, 10:18 PM	Sorry if this is the wrong spot for this thread. If you think you know of a better location, please advise. I need some advice ASAP. My paladin is trying to redeem a Drow, but he only has a very short time to get through to her. As you probably know, Drow have been raised to know fear and believe that only the strong survive and that it is the right of the strong to crush the weak, as when they were young this is all society taught them. So my question is, what could my Paladin say (coupled with a very high diplomacy roll) to make her question this ideal. What are some good points for proving that the strong should protect the weak, not dominate them? Honestly, I don't even know why I feel the strong should protect the weak in real life or in character, its just I feel its the right thing to do, so I'm asking you guys for help in how to put it into words. I also believe Drizzt wrote some essays about this, but I can't remember where exactly. If you could point me to them that would be great.
caeruleus 05-23-05, 10:33 PM	If there was an answer that could be given by your paladin, who "only has a very short time to get through" to the drow, then all of our world's problems would have already been solved by now. It takes time to reach someone in that way.
Thorak 05-24-05, 01:25 AM	These are the kinds of questions that you simply cannot change a person's mind on. You can talk about how, through kindness, there is a new kind of strength that arises, as everyone bonds together. And the Drow will sneer at what he sees as you relying on the strength of others to overcome your own weaknesses. And not even taking the time to ensure their support will be there, but just hoping they'll decide to for no reason besides some moral ethic. It's an absolutely fundamental moral difference. Imagine how easy it would be for the Drow to, in the same amount of time, convince the Paladin that what he should be doing is torturing people to get what he wants. It's just as unlikely to work, and for the same reasons.
Make The Prince 05-24-05, 01:39 AM	Wait, You said the Drow is a female and that your Paladin is a male ???? You know that females dominate males in the drow culture, right ???? If your party has a female member, She should be the one speaking to the drow, but then again You could be an example of male-hood .... ;) Anyway; Drow are competitive and You can always use that. Challenge the Drow; If You win it will prove that You were right, if not, well .... You weren't. It's likely that She'll apcept the challenge and in the case that She lose (With You insisting on the fact that it was because of your ways) She would probably consider your opinion more seriously.
BladeDrinker 05-24-05, 02:00 AM	It depends on the setting you are playing in. But since I am guessing you are talking about Forgotten Realms drow, you should mention these points: 1) After thousands of years of using this policy in their society, the drow are no closer to dominating the underdark than they were when they retreated underground. Why? Is it possible that infighting and backstabbing have actually hindered their progress? 2) "Good" ideals are not weak. Compassion and generosity breed loyalty to those who bestow them on others. Soldiers will willingly give their lives to try to save their comrades, but have occasionally murdered their commanders who have thrown away the lives of their troops carelessly. 3) It is more pleasurable to be loved than feared.
CycloneRanger 05-24-05, 02:00 AM	Chances are that you captured the Drow as a group, and not as an individual. Use this to your advantage. "Only the strong survive" is flawed when it is applied only to individuals. Two weak individuals can, by working together, accomplish what a strong individual could not. That, after all, is how you captured her in the first place. Weak individuals can form strong societies. However, a society that accepts that "only the strong should survive" will likely be a weak society, and will destroy itself anyway. The whole philosophy is contradictory when viewed from a societal level, as it creates the very thing it seeks to avoid. Look at real-world history for a minute. Compare the societies based around the survival of the strong only to those wherein the weak contributed as well. You will soon realize that there are no societies in which that philosophy is followed, because it leads to inherently weak societies. The drow civilization holds together by virtue of their magical might alone. Imagine how great they could be if they worked together. In short, try to look at things from a larger perspective. Failing that, get your party bard to sing "Why Can't we be Friends" while you dance through a meadow together or something.
guru7892 05-24-05, 02:12 AM	strength in numbers this is like a brain boggler for a drow 100 goblins vrs 10 drow who wins? - oh try the pyramid annoalogy... err buliding.. whatever if you build a house out of stones that smash one another you eventually dont have a house. if stones work togather you have a house. thus you should be like stone... becuase i have to make a wall and your within arms reach.... - Gourit the goblin mason...
The Man from Uncle 05-24-05, 03:59 AM	There are some good answers on this. In fact not a single one is utter bollox....thats good for a moral question on these boards, the OP doesn't know how lucky he is. The 2 pennies worth I can add, without going into a rather long monologe that proves why the drow is wrong (though not necessarily why the paladin is right), is that maybe you should appeal to what the drow believes......but macro it up a bit. It is survival of the fittest, but not on an individual level, on a civilization level. Strong civilizations will, either by competition or conflict, wipe out or absorb weaker civilizations. So if you want to be on the winning team you have to make sure that team is the best. You can use a casuistic example of how the drow society, for all it's strength, is still shunned from the rest of the world and how the human civilization knows few bounds. But explaining that a team that works together will always beat a group of individuals that fight each other as much as anyone else, might make the drow realise that her personal philosophy has just been realised on the wrong level. Having said that I am not sure in the paladin could swallow that version of the truth. But still, its a thought.
Yaeri 05-24-05, 04:37 AM	Sure if the strong kill the weak all the time, then the race will get stronger. But everyone will be afraid to get killed. No one is loved. No one is happy. So you get a very strong race that doesn't have any purpose for living as they won't enjoy life. Sure the other races are weaker. They let the weak live. They help each other; they love each other. They are happy. They enjoy life. What is the purpose of creating a very strong race that doesn't enjoy life?
Saihtam 05-24-05, 06:42 AM	If the strong must rule or destroy the weak, why are the drow still forced to live in the deep, dark caverns of the underdark while there are other races that are believed to be weaker than the drow roaming all over the world spreading their civilisation. Being strong is relative to your point of view (as is almost everything). Everything can be achieved in different ways : melee combat, magic, trickery, diplomay, whining, ... It's not because someone doesn't use the drow-way that he's not to be considered strong. So you have two options - give up the ancient dogma's of the drow - or go back to the underdark and show off to each other about how great and strong you are. (in your perspective)
Thorak 05-24-05, 07:12 AM	Just to play devil's (or, in this case, drow's) advocate (and written as if the Drow were speaking); It depends on the setting you are playing in. But since I am guessing you are talking about Forgotten Realms drow, you should mention these points: 1) After thousands of years of using this policy in their society, the drow are no closer to dominating the underdark than they were when they retreated underground. Why? Is it possible that infighting and backstabbing have actually hindered their progress? Or maybe the magical energies of the Underdark have infused the native creatures as much as they have the Drow, meaning that while we are inherently superior to you surface-dwellers, that is due entirely to our learning to survive in a harsher, more demanding environment. Where you have bears, we have illithids. Guess which one's a bigger challenge. 2) "Good" ideals are not weak. Compassion and generosity breed loyalty to those who bestow them on others. Soldiers will willingly give their lives to try to save their comrades, but have occasionally murdered their commanders who have thrown away the lives of their troops carelessly. Which only shows the weakness of those commanders, in not cowing their troops sufficiently from the beginning. If you are strong enough, you don't need to hope that someone will decide to save your life at the cost of their own, which even for a surfacer seems like an idiotic trade. 3) It is more pleasurable to be loved than feared. Says you. Have you ever been feared? If not, then frankly, you have no way to claim this is true. if you build a house out of stones that smash one another you eventually dont have a house. if stones work togather you have a house. thus you should be like stone... becuase i have to make a wall and your within arms reach.... - Gourit the goblin mason... Which is stronger, the wall that stands together, or the single stones launched against it by a catapult? And, for that matter, you insist on making your walls out of any stone that comes along, no matter how crumbly or soft. Is it wrong to want a wall made entirely of tough granite, and forsaking softer stones to thereby strengthen the wall?
MrkGrismer 05-24-05, 07:58 AM	Find an anthill.
Sinon 05-24-05, 09:48 AM	Some of these arguments are good, but give the girl a little credit. 100 goblins versus 10 drow: “Any ten of our number who allow themselves to be surrounded and defeated by goblins deserve to die; they are weak and stupid and the whole will be better for their deaths. Besides, show me a hundred goblins, and I’ll show you one strong leader and 99 subordinates. Strength in numbers is still strength, and this hardly refutes the natural law that the strong should rule.” The other races are happier: “Ha! The other races are afraid. Anyone who says that the weak deserve to live and be protected does so out of the realization that there is someone stronger out there. You treat others with kindness only because you wish kindness. You are compassionate only because you want mercy. You think killing the weak is bad only because you’re weak. Realizing this, you construct a “moral” system that denies the natural order because you are scared. I find it hard to believe that any group who has gone to such efforts to protect themselves is happy. You “good” are the same as we, you’re just less honest. Admit it! We’ll be happy when we are secure.” You’re still trapped in the Underdark and no closer to dominating it: “We dominate the Underdark, and we tighten our grasp daily. When we were exiled to the dark by the strength of others, was that good? If so, why are we evil for attempting to use our strength to return to our rightful place? You are hypocrites. When strength serves your agenda, you call it nobility and a virtue. When it opposes you, it is evil. At least be honest paladin. The fact is that we grow stronger and you grow weaker; it is only a matter of time.”
BeyondFated 05-24-05, 11:44 AM	strength in numbers this is like a brain boggler for a drow 100 goblins vrs 10 drow who wins? Depends, if it's 100 lvl 1 wizard-goblins that have exhausted all their spells, verses 10 lvl 20 Drow barbarians/frenzied bezerkers, they the goblins are pretty freaking screwed. :D
Sulaco 05-24-05, 12:34 PM	Could you convert her in a short time? Unlikely. Could you get her to start questioning things? Possibly. If the paladin, a paragon of good, is able to demonstrate to the drow that good can also be tremnedously powerful then perhasp you can chink the armor and then work on getting a wedge in. On a related note, the biggest flaw I have found in the drow philosophy is the fundamental dichotomy between "we must be a utterly chaotic as possible" and "we have a rigid social structure".
Maraxus 05-24-05, 12:53 PM	Well, if it wasn't a paladin but a rogue, he could try these: 1. One get's strong through challenges. If you protect the weaker - take their challenges - you will get stronger faster, while he stays weak. Therefor you should protect weaker ones. Credits to Kreia from KotoR2 2. The strongest of all creatures, Gold Dragons, Titans and Solars are all of good alignment - don't you want to be on the winning side. ...This should turn even the meanest drow ... neutral.
Thorak 05-24-05, 01:07 PM	On a related note, the biggest flaw I have found in the drow philosophy is the fundamental dichotomy between "we must be a utterly chaotic as possible" and "we have a rigid social structure". Also known as "Rigidly enforced social structure from above, but within which anyone and everyone will cheat the moment they think they can get away with it". It's not a dichotomy, the rigid social structure doesn't actually, in fact, exist. It merely guides the chaos to keep it from overwhelming the society completely. It's like Calvinball. The rules can change constantly, but there are rules. Sort of. And you'll be yelled at for cheating. Well, if it wasn't a paladin but a rogue, he could try these: 1. One get's strong through challenges. If you protect the weaker - take their challenges - you will get stronger faster, while he stays weak. Therefor you should protect weaker ones. Credits to Kreia from KotoR2 "Pah. I protect the weaker when I can get something for it. Otherwise, my time is spent fighting challenges I do profit from. If those weaker can't handle it, that is their own fault. Unless you're actually encouraging me to use others for personal gain at any given chance? I thought that was one of the things you didn't agree with..." 2. The strongest of all creatures, Gold Dragons, Titans and Solars are all of good alignment - don't you want to be on the winning side. "Hah. They have not won yet. Besides, there are greater powers that balance the cosmos. Doesn't it suggest anything to you that those powers have decided that the champions of Good must be stronger, individually, because their very moral code weakens them?" ...This should turn even the meanest drow ... neutral.
Vyvyan Basterd 05-24-05, 01:23 PM	Who is more likely to go to war, the weak and cowardly or the strong and brave? The strong and brave. Those involved in war are more likely to die than those too cowardly to fight, correct? True. So your strong and brave go to fight and die for their society, while the weak and cowardly stay behind to continue breeding further weak cowards. The weak members of your society begin to outnumber the strong.
Gedrin 05-24-05, 01:26 PM	There's a lot of basic learning that the drow lack toward the idea "the strong should protect the weak". Some of the fundamental deficits are... Inalienable Right to Life: Drow don't believe all sentient beings have an inalienable right to live. In fact, the drow believe that only they, as an individual, not a people, have a right to live. It is likely they don't consider this right to be inate, but rather a privilidge earned by being strong. Power Should Be Used to Good Ends: The drow don't believe this either. They believe that power should be used to benefit themselves as individuals, without any regard to others. Responsibility to Others: Drow don't feel responsibility to others beyond the ability of others to punish them for non-compliance...which is, of course, not responsibility, but fear. So...if only the strong have the privlidge to live, and there's no resposibility for anything or to anyone...there's no reason to protect the weaker members of society. In fact, the moment that the weaker members of society become a greater burden than they are a benefit, they should be eliminated. If I were going to attack this belief, I would attack it by challenging the individual drow's own right to live. I suspect the drow has a desire to live, and would likely go along with the idea that she should stay alive. The challenge comes in divorcing the idea of having a right to live from the idea of being strong/useful. She stays alive not because she is strong or useful (she's likely a burden and a danger), but because she, as a sentient being, has an inate right to live. Mind you, while the drow would likely agree with whatever their captors say, they are predisposed to move from physical strength to mental strength/guile in such situations. She would likely think of herself as strong to be able to manipulate the paladin into keeping her alive. After all, she's exploiting his weak philosophy. Unfortunately, for all involved, as long as the drow can think of herself as "strong", she will also, internally, believe herself worthy of the privilidge of life according to her system of beliefs. She may go along, being guilefully strong, and agree with what is said, but that doesn't get us any closer to a moral realization. I think that once the drow is convinced that she is "not strong", and that she still wants to live, you're a lot closer to getting through to her. It would then become desireable to her to have a society where the "not strong" are protected, or at least preserved, in some way. Once it becomes desirable, you're much closer to getting her to recognise it as a moral good. After all, people tend to lean in the direction of calling what they desire, or what they think is good for them, morally good. Most people don't grow beyond this sort of compliance/punishment/desire sort of morality...drow or not. So, if you can shift the perspective on the worthiness of sentient beings to live, it's a minor miracle already. This sort of thing is not a short process.
tarkin 05-24-05, 01:52 PM	Here are the philosophical flaws: 1) Sum of the parts. While yes it is true that in one on one combat, the stronger survies and the weaker dies, this is patently false in group combat. In group combat, there is no longer a single entity, but instead 4 different entities: A) Fighting members B) Planning Members C) Support Members (supplying weapons, food, etc.) D) Recruitment/reproductive A group can have the strongest Fighting members, but if the race reproduces 1/100 years, that group LOSES. A group can have the have the strongest reproducing members, but if they can not feed their members they die, etc. etc. In one on one combat, a similar issue applies, but you can't subdivide the single man out keeping his intellect, but using someone' elses muscles. In Group Combat, you CAN do that. For that reason, if Drow were say better fighters, but mindflayers were better planners, then the best group would consist of mindflayers leading drow. By insisting that an entire population be judged as a whole instead of allowing them to all compete/work with each other, you are PREVENTING the creation of the best group. In truth, the most effective group would by definition can NOT be a single race, and NOT be a monocultural, only good at say planning, or only good at one thing. The most powerfull group would have to have some members that are good fighters, others that are bad fighters but good planners, etc. etc. Variety = Power. 2) Development. Children are weaker than adults, but will develop later and become stronger. This same processes continues on with adults of all ages - they are constantly growing/reducing their power. As such, the adults will eventually grow weak. They therefore have two choices: A) KILL ALL THE CHILDREN before they grow to powerfull and you grow to weak to defend yourself from them. B) Agree to Protect the Children - helping them to survive until they are at their peak, where they will then turn about and help protect you in your old age instead of killing them. 3) Strength as a whole. A society that is not poor does not need to kill off it's weaker folk. While yes, a poor, almost broke one can not afford to support the weak who only give a slight increase in power, a RICH society can afford to support the weak, and glady take the smaller increase in power that they give. I.E. If you can only feed 1000 warriors, but have 5,000 then clearly you should kill off the 4,000 weak ones. But 1,000 strong soldiers can NOT beat 1,000 strong soldiers + 4,000 weak ones as backup. Therefore, a truly succesfull society should do it's best to KEEP the 4,000 weak ones and use them as support troops, or even cannon fodder in a truly bad situation. No matter how weak they are, the society should keep them around just in case they can be usefull.
Thorak 05-24-05, 02:23 PM	Who is more likely to go to war, the weak and cowardly or the strong and brave? The strong and brave. Those involved in war are more likely to die than those too cowardly to fight, correct? True. So your strong and brave go to fight and die for their society, while the weak and cowardly stay behind to continue breeding further weak cowards. The weak members of your society begin to outnumber the strong. "Which is why our system is best; we kill all the weak cowards, so they cannot taint the bloodline." There's a lot of basic learning that the drow lack toward the idea "the strong should protect the weak". Some of the fundamental deficits are... Inalienable Right to Life: Drow don't believe all sentient beings have an inalienable right to live. In fact, the drow believe that only they, as an individual, not a people, have a right to live. It is likely they don't consider this right to be inate, but rather a privilidge earned by being strong. "Every sentient creature has a right to live? How then can you justify killing in self defense; the creature attacking you has just as much right to live as you do. Or is it that actions can negate this right? In that case, we're discussing differences on what voids the right, since we agree it can. You say self-defense, I say self-improvement. It's a small step." Power Should Be Used to Good Ends: The drow don't believe this either. They believe that power should be used to benefit themselves as individuals, without any regard to others. "Well, duh. Why would I waste power on something that doesn't benefit me? Do you throw gold away just because? No, because you're not an idiot. I fail to see the difference." Responsibility to Others: Drow don't feel responsibility to others beyond the ability of others to punish them for non-compliance...which is, of course, not responsibility, but fear. "Of course. If they cannot punish me for my actions, then they cannot control my actions. That is a fact of life. Why you desire to give up your own freedoms for questionable morals is a mystery to me." So...if only the strong have the privlidge to live, and there's no resposibility for anything or to anyone...there's no reason to protect the weaker members of society. In fact, the moment that the weaker members of society become a greater burden than they are a benefit, they should be eliminated. "Exactly, thereby strengthening society as a whole, by removing the weakest links, rather than hoping they don't break." If I were going to attack this belief, I would attack it by challenging the individual drow's own right to live. I suspect the drow has a desire to live, and would likely go along with the idea that she should stay alive. The challenge comes in divorcing the idea of having a right to live from the idea of being strong/useful. She stays alive not because she is strong or useful (she's likely a burden and a danger), but because she, as a sentient being, has an inate right to live. "If I cannot protect myself, then no, I do not have any 'right' to life. If I were a burden on my family, I would expect them to terminate me, and be thankful of it. Why do you believe that useless life is better than dying to cease being a drain on society? Here are the philosophical flaws: 1) Sum of the parts. While yes it is true that in one on one combat, the stronger survies and the weaker dies, this is patently false in group combat. In group combat, there is no longer a single entity, but instead 4 different entities: A) Fighting members B) Planning Members C) Support Members (supplying weapons, food, etc.) D) Recruitment/reproductive A group can have the strongest Fighting members, but if the race reproduces 1/100 years, that group LOSES. A group can have the have the strongest reproducing members, but if they can not feed their members they die, etc. etc. In one on one combat, a similar issue applies, but you can't subdivide the single man out keeping his intellect, but using someone' elses muscles. In Group Combat, you CAN do that. For that reason, if Drow were say better fighters, but mindflayers were better planners, then the best group would consist of mindflayers leading drow. By insisting that an entire population be judged as a whole instead of allowing them to all compete/work with each other, you are PREVENTING the creation of the best group. "Not true, at all. The fighters use their muscle, the planners their brain, the reproducers their sexuality, and the support members the products of their labour to prove their value. It is those who are of lesser value who are destroyed; we are not so simple as to only choose based on physical strength." 2) Development. Children are weaker than adults, but will develop later and become stronger. This same processes continues on with adults of all ages - they are constantly growing/reducing their power. As such, the adults will eventually grow weak. They therefore have two choices: A) KILL ALL THE CHILDREN before they grow to powerfull and you grow to weak to defend yourself from them. B) Agree to Protect the Children - helping them to survive until they are at their peak, where they will then turn about and help protect you in your old age instead of killing them. "Or C) Set the children free into the ocean of society, and those who are strong enough to swim will survive. And there is nothing about desiring strength that prevents one from protecting a prize child, knowing that they will grow to be stronger than one's self, and molding them to have the same kinds of goals as one's self. They will then feel indebted for the protection, and repay it in spades. You are confusing our society with a mindless anarchy. It is not." 3) Strength as a whole. A society that is not poor does not need to kill off it's weaker folk. While yes, a poor, almost broke one can not afford to support the weak who only give a slight increase in power, a RICH society can afford to support the weak, and glady take the smaller increase in power that they give. I.E. If you can only feed 1000 warriors, but have 5,000 then clearly you should kill off the 4,000 weak ones. But 1,000 strong soldiers can NOT beat 1,000 strong soldiers + 4,000 weak ones as backup. Therefore, a truly succesfull society should do it's best to KEEP the 4,000 weak ones and use them as support troops, or even cannon fodder in a truly bad situation. No matter how weak they are, the society should keep them around just in case they can be usefull. "However, if society only needs 1,000 soldiers, there's little reason to keep the weaker ones. And killing them means they won't breed, and sire weak children. While the 1,000 will sire stronger children. Repeat this cycle over hundreds or thousands of years, and the people grow steadily stronger as a result. Especially if our 1,000 troops, then, are equipped with arms that are worth 5 times any of your individual troops' are, and each stronger than any of your own. If any one troop of ours is a match for 5 of yours, we win. Not in a given battle, but because we are only feeding 1,000 troops, whereas you are feeding 5,000. Given equal societies, the harsher one is the more efficient."
Venom of the Yuan Ti 05-24-05, 02:38 PM	Point one, by taking your argument to its logical extream you should kill all who are weaker than you and allow those stronger thatn you to kill you. Also children should be killed on sight as they are weak. BUT everone must start weak, so were are the stong to come from? Point two, how does one measure strength? Whos is stronger, me, you or an elderly man in faded robes who spends his life sweeping a distant monsastry (Discworlders will know THAT answer :rofl: ) how are you to tell? Point three, it is the Natural order of things for the small to create powerfull groups, anthills, packs of animals and (depending on your level of sicace) molecules. Point four, if your way makes you more powerfull, why do you still have enamies? Why do you need other races at all? (note slaves) Point five, is it not the case that if the high preistess is attacked she will expect others (eg her bodygurad) to meet the assailants first? Surley this is the wrong way round? Try and relate all arguments to her sociaty. Point out members of her race that dont follow her phillosophy and survive (nay thrive) (if there are any)
DaveReaves 05-24-05, 02:45 PM	Is it truely important that the Drow change her mind? Perhaps, the drow could be detained, and a party member possing as the Drow could say what needs to be said to achive the goal at hand. If however the goal is something more along the lines of getting the Drow into human society, well thats a little tougher. I would suggest using children. Perhaps motherly instinct carry to even the most evil of the Underdark's inhabitance. Show her children who, despite having some form of defect, are adapting and living normal lives, and keeping up with the stronger children. If that seems to work, move on to adults that have disablities but still provide for their families and the community. If the community has repelled Drow attacks in the past, ask her to explain how these strong, well equiped wariors were able to be killed by farmers and a town guard. Try to get it into her head that if the commnuity helps each member to be stronger, then each member of the community is strong. Of course, if you happen to have access to such a thing, just tie her down and drop a Helm of Opposit Alignment on her. Before you start anything, Charm Person her. If she thinks your a friend, she will be more likely to listen.
Gedrin 05-24-05, 02:54 PM	Before you start anything, Charm Person her. If she thinks your a friend, she will be more likely to listen Somehow, I find the idea of using magic brainwashing in preperation for a moral argument to be a bad idea. Might I suggest the alternative of Eagle's Splendor or the like.
Gadren 05-24-05, 03:03 PM	Wow, I could not have hoped for better responses. Thanx alot guys. Especially BladeDrinker.
Gedrin 05-24-05, 03:09 PM	Every sentient creature has a right to live? How then can you justify killing in self defense; the creature attacking you has just as much right to live as you do. Or is it that actions can negate this right? In that case, we're discussing differences on what voids the right, since we agree it can. You say self-defense, I say self-improvement. It's a small step. It is an argument about the place where one forfeits their right to live. Most drow both place their own right to live above that of others, regardless of the situations or actions, and believe their own desires supercede another's right to live. I'm not saying you can't argue it. You could argue just about anything. I'm just saying that this is a fundamental assumption that differs, and because this fundamental assumption differs, you can't make much headway until you find a way around it. You likely wind up arguing that all sentients have and equal right to live until something is done to forfeit that right. This isn't something the drow believe. Of course, you're not likely to win with a logical argument regarding the inate value of life and equality of sentients. Drow are notoriously emotional beings, which is why I argue that you won't be able to get anywhere until she feels the loss of her "strongness". At the least, if you were strong in a place where she wasn't, she might listen based on the idea that you were strong and perhaps worth learning from in that situation.
Edymnion 05-24-05, 03:54 PM	Point out to here places in her own society (if you know anything about it) where the weak are respected for what they can do. I know, first responce is that there aren't any, but think about it. Show her your sword, solid steel, razor sharp, it is strong. It is the weapon of a warrior. Who made your sword? Was it forged by the greatest fighter the land has ever known? No, it was made by a swordsmith, a master crafter. In a fight, who would win? The smith that forges the blade, or the warrior that wields it? So the smith is weak. But if the smith had a sword, and the warrior was weaponless and armorless, who would win? Now the smith is strong, and the warrior is weak. What changed? The smith had weapons and armor, which he made. The warrior did not. Weapons and armor make one strong. And the smith is the one that forges the weapons. The warrior is one man, and can only fight for so long. The smith gives swords to armies. Which one of these men is truely the most powerful? The one that would win the fight, and live to see another day, or the one that made it possible for them to win in the first place?
ToxicWiz 05-24-05, 03:55 PM	1. One get's strong through challenges. If you protect the weaker - take their challenges - you will get stronger faster, while he stays weak. Therefor you should protect weaker ones. [SIZE=1]Credits to Kreia from KotoR2 well my twist on the situation, anyone every considered The paladins wrong? :rolleyes: thorak and everyone else that defended the drows view, good going! but Seeing that your trying to convert the drow, this above quote would make me question myself if I was a drow. if you can find similar statements, or make your own, they may help. Personally i think it would be hard to pull off with alot of time, so you have your work cut out for you (or the paladin in this case). that's my two pence just a sidenote, KOTOR 2 is Awsome... :D
Thorak 05-24-05, 09:07 PM	Point one, by taking your argument to its logical extream you should kill all who are weaker than you and allow those stronger thatn you to kill you. Also children should be killed on sight as they are weak. BUT everone must start weak, so were are the stong to come from? "You're mistaking allowing the weak to die with a psychotic desire to dispatch them. That's a waste of effort. That's what otyughs are for; cleaning up the offal. There's no need to protect children, as they will grow up the stronger fending for themselves, but there's no need to hunt them all down, either. That's ridiculous. You don't spend all day swatting every fly you can track down, while ignoring the real threats, do you?" Point two, how does one measure strength? Whos is stronger, me, you or an elderly man in faded robes who spends his life sweeping a distant monsastry (Discworlders will know THAT answer :rofl: ) how are you to tell? "If I live, and they die, then I was the stronger. If vice versa, then they were. No measurement beyond a relative measure is necessary." Point three, it is the Natural order of things for the small to create powerfull groups, anthills, packs of animals and (depending on your level of sicace) molecules. "Yes, but it is your soul which commands and orders all the particles of your body. One particle, stronger than the rest. As for ants and animals, I find it surprising you attempt to use those to support your argument, since ants and pack animals are known to turn on any wounded members of the group and destroy them, for the same reason of efficiency I am discussing. No ant is weaker than the rest, and if they are, they are destroyed. Such is life. You are the one who is contradicting the natural order, not I." Point four, if your way makes you more powerfull, why do you still have enamies? Why do you need other races at all? (note slaves) "We do not need other races, but it amuses us to use them, and allows us to focus our efforts on self-improvement. As for enemies, we still have enemies because they are as ruthless as we, and the battle goes on. If you speak of the surface world, your kind haven't amounted to a serious threat to our fastnesses in the Underdark in, well, ever. A surfacer army wouldn't survive the trek to our walls." Point five, is it not the case that if the high preistess is attacked she will expect others (eg her bodygurad) to meet the assailants first? Surley this is the wrong way round? "Of course not. She is the stronger, so she uses that strength to force the weaker ones to deal with enemies too insignificant for her to bother with. Again, liken it to a fly. She does not wish to waste her time swatting them, so makes her minions do so. If the enemy can defeat her bodyguards, then clearly it is a challenge worthy of her notice. If they cannot, she does not wish to be bothered by their useless strivings."
pawsplay 05-24-05, 11:31 PM	As you probably know, Drow have been raised to know fear and believe that only the strong survive and that it is the right of the strong to crush the weak, as when they were young this is all society taught them. "If the only the strong survive, who will serve Lolth's glory? Strength is the strength to endure. Only someone who doubts their strength believes it must be tested constantly. I am not afraid to be compassionate. You are afraid of being betrayed. I am confident. You doubt your very worth. "Goodness and compassion has not made me too weak to defeat you, and all your wickedness will not give you the power to overcome me, or the truth. "If only the strongest deserves to live, then the righteous state of the world would be one victor over a mountain of corpses. Our glorious victor must then cook his own meals, keep his own house, provide his own amusement, and create progeny through his solitary powers, for he has slain everyone lesser than himself."
Thorak 05-25-05, 12:23 AM	"If the only the strong survive, who will serve Lolth's glory? Strength is the strength to endure. Only someone who doubts their strength believes it must be tested constantly. I am not afraid to be compassionate. You are afraid of being betrayed. I am confident. You doubt your very worth. "He who does not fear being betrayed is he who will be most injured when the betrayal inevitably comes. I at least, will be prepared for the day I am betrayed. Your confidence will doom you." "Goodness and compassion has not made me too weak to defeat you, and all your wickedness will not give you the power to overcome me, or the truth. "Which proves what, that you're stronger than I? I admit it. I am weaker, and thus await destruction. Our individual strengths, however, have very little to do directly with our moral guidelines. Perhaps you are among the strongest of your kind, while I am but a mewling pup among my own." "If only the strongest deserves to live, then the righteous state of the world would be one victor over a mountain of corpses. Our glorious victor must then cook his own meals, keep his own house, provide his own amusement, and create progeny through his solitary powers, for he has slain everyone lesser than himself." "No one but you is talking about the survival of only the one strongest. Those not strong enough will be killed. Those who are strong enough to survive make up society. You err in assuming we are insane because our morality is different than your own. Perhaps you should examine your own judgmental and condescending heart before you judge so quickly."
Gilean 05-25-05, 07:47 AM	Point out to here places in her own society (if you know anything about it) where the weak are respected for what they can do. I know, first responce is that there aren't any, but think about it. Show her your sword, solid steel, razor sharp, it is strong. It is the weapon of a warrior. Who made your sword? Was it forged by the greatest fighter the land has ever known? No, it was made by a swordsmith, a master crafter. In a fight, who would win? The smith that forges the blade, or the warrior that wields it? So the smith is weak. But if the smith had a sword, and the warrior was weaponless and armorless, who would win? Now the smith is strong, and the warrior is weak. What changed? The smith had weapons and armor, which he made. The warrior did not. Weapons and armor make one strong. And the smith is the one that forges the weapons. The warrior is one man, and can only fight for so long. The smith gives swords to armies. Which one of these men is truely the most powerful? The one that would win the fight, and live to see another day, or the one that made it possible for them to win in the first place?The smith clearly isn't weak. One can be useful with others, not just alone. A skilled smith is not a weak smith. Being useful is being strong. (And, in D&D, the master smith is great warrior, in one way or another.) Thorak, keep it up.
Thorak 05-25-05, 09:41 AM	Thorak, keep it up. :D I'm enjoying myself. And nobody take offense to me ripping apart every single argument posted. I'm playing Drow's advocate, and acting as her voice. This doesn't mean your arguments aren't good and perhaps even better than the ones I'm posting, I'm merely trying to give an example of the reaction you'd get from someone whose morality is so thoroughly different from your own. There are fundamental differences that are nearly impossible to get at which make these debates almost impossible to resolve; I'm not trying to say the Drow is "right", just that it's likely impossible to win her over simply through debate. Nor do I actually believe what I'm spouting. If it's in quotations, it's the Drow speaking, not me. As for the smith/warrior bit; "Smiths are, obviously, useful and strong. When I speak of 'only the strongest will survive', I am not speaking of physical strength alone, but of the ability to survive, whether by strength of arm, strength of wit, or strength of magic. A smith, even if a poor warrior, would see to it that warriors respect and need his ability with a hammer to equip themselves, using his wits to solidify his position."
Kldran Achran 05-26-05, 03:48 AM	The fundamental problem I see here, is that the Drow believes strength to be the most important thing in life, and the test of strength to be survival. In light of this, the only way I see to convince a drow to do good is to convince them that in the end, it is those who do good that will survive. Trying to change their fundamental belief that survival is all that matters, is like trying to convince a devout christian that there is no God. (Appologies to any who might be offended by that) Faith and belief is rarely founded on logic, either you believe, or you don't. Any logic used must work within their beliefs or they will simply discount it as not being logical (not making sense, too unbelievable, impossible, etc...). So I say, all you can do is try, and hope the Drow doesn't have much faith in their people's teachings. If their faith is strong, no argument will have any hope of success. If their faith is weak, they might already be having difficulty believing what they've been taught.
KismetRose 05-26-05, 04:59 AM	A few thoughts spurred by the arguments here: Drow, on the whole, are not merely raised to know fear. They are also raised to associate pleasure with domination of various sorts. Winning a fight brings pleasure. Making others bend to your will brings pleasure. Taking the lives of others who prove unworthy to live brings pleasure. This pleasure comes from the feeling of power, and drow are definitely taught to prize power. They have been raised so that it is more pleasurable to be feared than loved; it is their ideal to have the power to make others fear them. This brings us to a different definition of power than what has been commonly used here. It seems that there is an assumption that the drow are only taught to value physical strength, but the adage does not say "the physically strong deserve to crush the weak" - there is no distinction, and that is important to recognize with the drow. There is more than one type of strength, and the drow are generally taught to be strong in as many ways as they can. Physical strength is only the beginning, and is not enough to live by on its own. Some are found to be weak not because they are not strong, but because their strength does not encompass enough. There is always, however, a pecking order to society. There are the top dogs, the bigger fish, and then there are those below. The drow know this. The drow do not believe that all drow must be the ultimate in strength; the drow do believe that they must not fall below a certain standard. If they do, then they will be disposed of. What's more, the drow have not necessarily been taught to kill all weaker beings outright. We must not forget that the drow race is also by and large a slave-keeping race. This is to be distinguished from merely slave-trading; it seems that they actually trade slaves very little, preferring instead to find and keep slaves for themselves. A lot of the arguments here have assumed that the rule of the "strong crushing the weak" means killing the weak, but that is not the only way the rule can be carried out. The drow may choose to kill weaker beings they come across, but they also let beings live to serve them and crush them in the bonds of slavery. In fact, keeping the weaker beings around might be considered preferable, since slave labor is a major part of many drow cities and their maintenance. The drow do not believe that slavery deprives them of power in any respect, but rather that slavery is proof of their power over others. And in having that power, they are pleased. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the drow believe something like: "only the strong live in power over others," or "only the strong live as their own masters", or "only the strong live in comfort" (ie the kind of comfort that wealth, slaves can bring). Only the strong survive just doesn't cut it.
KismetRose 05-26-05, 05:28 AM	My previous post being said, I will try to give some suggestion to the original poster. Appealing to the drow in a broad sense might not be the best idea. As has been evidenced here, even good arguments will simply be countered by arguments from the drow's perspective. You cannot change a person's world view overnight, and it may not be possible to get them to question their world view overnight, either. Even with an awesome Diplomacy roll. It is possible to get people to take stock of their situation, however, and their immediate future. It is possible to make someone understand that if they want to continue to survive, they will not be able to live as they have before. It is also possible to use the most basic teaching method to great effect. I am speaking of course of rewards and punishments. Even the most basic things like food, drink, sex, and a comfortable place to sleep can be powerful motivators to change behavior. One does not have to starve anyone as punishment, either; being given just enough to live is bad enough for a lot of folks. Most gods, even lawful good ones, operate with a reward and punishment system of some sort. Churches do as well. Changing behavior is not in itself an evil act, especially if you are trying to change behavior so that others are spared grievous harm. It is up to your DM if your paladin can use the system in this way, and how far your paladin can go with it. I do think that your paladin might have trouble using magic to soften the drow up; I imagine a lot of good gods would look on that as underhanded and false. Ingrained philosophy might not be able to be overwritten, but behavior can be changed more easily. The more that the drow can be around others on the surface, the more that they have the chance to see differences and start to question their ways. I would aim lower, and probably approach the drow on a more personal level, to get results. I would also not focus on the strong protecting the weak. It is enough to show the reprocussions for killing/maiming/abusing others, and to get the drow to respect those consequences. It is entirely too much to ask that they buy into the notion of the strong protecting the weak; that will take time and reason.
KismetRose 05-26-05, 05:50 AM	If however the goal is something more along the lines of getting the Drow into human society, well thats a little tougher. I would suggest using children. Perhaps motherly instinct carry to even the most evil of the Underdark's inhabitance. Show her children who, despite having some form of defect, are adapting and living normal lives, and keeping up with the stronger children. If that seems to work, move on to adults that have disablities but still provide for their families and the community. What exactly is motherly instinct? If it is the "natural urge" to love all children, then there are plenty of women among the "goodly" races who do not possess this "instinct." A basic, evil, Lolthian drow is even less likely to have this "instinct," the form and function of which is utterly debatable. What the drow is likely to have is the desire to find weaknesses in her enemies, and children are essentially weak in their abilities to defend themselves. Giving a drow access to children could end up being disastrous, especially if the drow is able to turn it to their own advantage. It is not merely that the children could be harmed/killed, but that they could be used in other ways; the drow could act as though they were befriending a child, only to use them for information or tasks aimed at escape. And showing a drow handicapped children would likely only elicit the deepest disgust, whether or not they were keeping up with other children. If the community has repelled Drow attacks in the past, ask her to explain how these strong, well equiped wariors were able to be killed by farmers and a town guard. Try to get it into her head that if the commnuity helps each member to be stronger, then each member of the community is strong. The drow do work together at least to some extent, and it is necessary for their survival; if they did not, they would not have cities, let alone in the Underdark. The drow do understand the strength of numbers and use it all the time, although they tend to use slaves to swell their numbers considerably, so that the slaves take the brunt of any onslaught. In any case, just because a group of people together are stronger than they are alone does not mean that they are each strong - just because they are a member of a group. It simply means that they are weaker apart, and need to hold together to accomplish something. The drow would probably still feel that knifing someone in the back was all right, provided that it didn't considerably weaken the group and that it allowed the killer to gain thereby.
Andrew_980 05-26-05, 02:19 PM	the only drow these arguments have any chance on is one who is bottom of the barrel weak, non-magic and less than brilliant. used to being kicked around he may be happy to be part of a group that lends him strength. to a "real drow" good is weak, evil is fun
Deckeon 05-26-05, 03:38 PM	This thread evoked memories of some of my favorite Nietzsche: "My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on-- from The Will to Power, s.636, Walter Kaufmann trans." Dark elves have no concept of "union" outside temporary arrangements made within their nobility structure. Thus they are forever limited in this manner, unless I suppose they could conquer everyone and everything.
Gadren 05-26-05, 04:32 PM	from The Will to Power, s.636, Walter Kaufmann trans. "My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on--" huh? :confused:
Kldran Achran 05-27-05, 03:31 AM	One simple argument about the value of friendship and trust: If you need guards to protect you from your allies, you will have fewer to protect yourself from enemies. If you can trust your allies completely, you can be stronger than if you can't.
Thorak 05-27-05, 07:13 AM	One simple argument about the value of friendship and trust: If you need guards to protect you from your allies, you will have fewer to protect yourself from enemies. If you can trust your allies completely, you can be stronger than if you can't. "If you need guards to protect you from allies, then they are not allies. "However, to look at it another way, people are sentient. Sentient creatures are inconstant. If you trust your 'allies' completely, then there will come a time when one or more of them will betray you, either under threat or for their own gain. Your worldview assumes that everyone places others before themselves, which simply is not true, has never been true, and never will be true, even in your world. "We simply acknowledge this fundamental truth, rather than being constantly surprised when trust fails."
Vanigo 05-27-05, 09:39 PM	Which is stronger, the wall that stands together, or the single stones launched against it by a catapult?But those single stones, though separated by time, are still working together. It's still a collective, just a more subtle one. And, for that matter, you insist on making your walls out of any stone that comes along, no matter how crumbly or soft. Is it wrong to want a wall made entirely of tough granite, and forsaking softer stones to thereby strengthen the wall? If in doing so you make your wall one tenth the thickness, then yes, it is very wrong. A good engineer will tell you that any stone, no matter how weak, can find a useful purpose somewhere in the construction. The difference between strong and weak, outside of a very few remarkable individuals, is not as great as you might think. You admit that you need others, or at least greatly benifit from them, correct? But you must constantly guard against them? Trust, if not misplaced, is a powerful weapon, because it obviates that need. Perhaps you will be betrayed, but if you choose your allies well, that need never happen. The very morals you so disdain serve a very valuable function: They allow you to be trusted, and, in others, they tell you who to trust. True, they limit you at times, but having allies who will stand with you through thick and thin - and not stab you in the back the moment it seems profitable - more than makes up for it. They can be counterfeited, of course, but in the long term that's nearly impossible to maintain - small betrayals are discovered, plans for larger ones unearthed, secrets from the past are revealed, and in the end, your deception comes crashing down. It's a risk, but what in life isn't? If you trust others, you gamble that they will not betray you, but if you do not, you gamble that you can make it on your own.
Thorak 05-28-05, 12:31 AM	But those single stones, though separated by time, are still working together. It's still a collective, just a more subtle one. "So which would you rather be, the stone wall being battered by stones, hoping to hold up, the stones being cast against the wall, smashing it apart, or the catapulter, who is flinging the stones for his own ends? That is the position of the drow. We are not the thralls being cast against our enemy's wall, we are the masterminds, the controlling force." If in doing so you make your wall one tenth the thickness, then yes, it is very wrong. A good engineer will tell you that any stone, no matter how weak, can find a useful purpose somewhere in the construction. The difference between strong and weak, outside of a very few remarkable individuals, is not as great as you might think. "Yes, the weak have uses. Fodder, slave minions, such low uses. The same kinds you would use crumbly poor stone in a wall, it would be filler or reduced to sand or some such. Use the stone for what it is best used for, rather than insisting each stone is somehow equal to each other. You admit that you need others, or at least greatly benifit from them, correct? But you must constantly guard against them? Trust, if not misplaced, is a powerful weapon, because it obviates that need. Perhaps you will be betrayed, but if you choose your allies well, that need never happen. The very morals you so disdain serve a very valuable function: They allow you to be trusted, and, in others, they tell you who to trust. True, they limit you at times, but having allies who will stand with you through thick and thin - and not stab you in the back the moment it seems profitable - more than makes up for it. They can be counterfeited, of course, but in the long term that's nearly impossible to maintain - small betrayals are discovered, plans for larger ones unearthed, secrets from the past are revealed, and in the end, your deception comes crashing down. It's a risk, but what in life isn't? If you trust others, you gamble that they will not betray you, but if you do not, you gamble that you can make it on your own. "You are a fool if you think your trust will never be betrayed. The more people you trust, the greater the chance you misplace that trust. If you trust rarely, then I fail to see how you differ much from my own view. And there are many more reasons for allies to cooperate than some fuzzy good feeling they get inside. Money, power, and fear are all very convincing ways to encourage participation, and are often more secure than mere 'trust'."
Disme 05-28-05, 01:27 AM	You can make yourself stronger, hopeing to overpower your foe. However, the time you spend working on only yourself, the same time your foe can grow in strength, and others may apear. However, if you instead work on strengthening others as well as yourself, you can defeat a greater foe with less risk. But this will only succed if there is no fear of betrayel. This is the essance of friendship. Not destroying the weak, or letting them die, but makeing the weak strong. For even the weakest being is better than you at something. Even if it is simply looking pathetic. Only by being civil and friendly can we maintain the element of surprise when we ultimately wipe our enemies from the face of the earth. :schemes:
Vanigo 05-28-05, 01:39 AM	"So which would you rather be, the stone wall being battered by stones, hoping to hold up, the stones being cast against the wall, smashing it apart, or the catapulter, who is flinging the stones for his own ends? That is the position of the drow. We are not the thralls being cast against our enemy's wall, we are the masterminds, the controlling force."Oh? Then who are the stones? Besides, even the catapulter works with others - a catapult takes many men to operate, and catapults are far more effective in groups. Nor are catapulters safe - they make enormous targets of themselves as they try to batter the walls down. "Yes, the weak have uses. Fodder, slave minions, such low uses. The same kinds you would use crumbly poor stone in a wall, it would be filler or reduced to sand or some such. Use the stone for what it is best used for, rather than insisting each stone is somehow equal to each other.And who said they were? Not everyone can be the best - that's just a mathematical certainty. But the contributions of the less-than-spectacular are nothing to scorn, nor are the people themselves. "You are a fool if you think your trust will never be betrayed. The more people you trust, the greater the chance you misplace that trust. If you trust rarely, then I fail to see how you differ much from my own view.Of course it will, sometimes. But when it happens, I will have many other trusted friends to aid me. It's likely that not all will be available, of course, but enough. A greater fool is the man who betrays often, for he will soon find himself alone and surrounded by enemies. I tend to assume people are not fools, unless proven otherwise. And there are many more reasons for allies to cooperate than some fuzzy good feeling they get inside. Money, power, and fear are all very convincing ways to encourage participation, and are often more secure than mere 'trust'."Ha! Money, power, and fear can always be trumped by more of the same. Trust, on the other hand, runs deeper - and if my trusted friend trusts someone else more than he trusts me, that's a pretty good sign I should trust him, too. Furthermore, the very morals that make my friends trustworthy in the first place also bestow resistance to manipulation by money, power, and fear.
Gilean 05-28-05, 01:19 PM	Oh? Then who are the stones? Besides, even the catapulter works with others - a catapult takes many men to operate, and catapults are far more effective in groups. Nor are catapulters safe - they make enormous targets of themselves as they try to batter the walls down.The strong group is the one using catapults. The weak indeed have a job: they are worthless as anything but tools, or rocks to be smashed against the wall. But, as the wall is made of similar matter, it will collapse. And who said they were? Not everyone can be the best - that's just a mathematical certainty. But the contributions of the less-than-spectacular are nothing to scorn, nor are the people themselves.Of course they are. The best have inalienable right to do whatever they want with the weak. And crush them utterly when they are no longer useful or fun.Of course it will, sometimes. But when it happens, I will have many other trusted friends to aid me. It's likely that not all will be available, of course, but enough. A greater fool is the man who betrays often, for he will soon find himself alone and surrounded by enemies. I tend to assume people are not fools, unless proven otherwise.I tend to assume people are fools, unless proven otherwise. Being proven otherwise is quite rare.Ha! Money, power, and fear can always be trumped by more of the same. Trust, on the other hand, runs deeper - and if my trusted friend trusts someone else more than he trusts me, that's a pretty good sign I should trust him, too. Furthermore, the very morals that make my friends trustworthy in the first place also bestow resistance to manipulation by money, power, and fear.So, the friend whose trust I bought makes you also trust me? Fool, if there ever was one. Vanigo, don't take this as personal. It is not. Just to stay in line with Thorak's style.
Thorak 05-28-05, 03:57 PM	Gilean jumped on the bandwagon, so I'll just toss a couple more in rather than repeat his comments; Of course it will, sometimes. But when it happens, I will have many other trusted friends to aid me. It's likely that not all will be available, of course, but enough. A greater fool is the man who betrays often, for he will soon find himself alone and surrounded by enemies. I tend to assume people are not fools, unless proven otherwise. "Of course you don't betray others often. If you do, you are indeed a fool, because no one will ally with you again, and they may band together against such a traitorous incompetent. "The point is that, when you can gain a great deal through the betrayal, and it outweighs that backlash, why would you not choose to betray them? You are forsaking yourself for the ridiculous purpose of not forsaking another. What made everyone else more valuable to you than yourself? Is your self esteem that low?" Ha! Money, power, and fear can always be trumped by more of the same. Trust, on the other hand, runs deeper - and if my trusted friend trusts someone else more than he trusts me, that's a pretty good sign I should trust him, too. Furthermore, the very morals that make my friends trustworthy in the first place also bestow resistance to manipulation by money, power, and fear. "This assumes that your friend has good judgment. And that you do as well, of course. Otherwise, it is easy for your friend's trust to be misplaced, which will result in your trust being misplaced. "I would rather trust no one, and prepare for the inevitable betrayals, so that when my money, power, or fear is trumped, I am not caught with my pants down. Trust, however, is taking your pants down on purpose, in the hopes that everyone else will pull theirs down as well. Which, in the end, only means that everyone gets screwed when someone comes along to take advantage of all these people with their pants around their ankles." Mmm, abusing a metaphor until it hurts. Gotta love it.
Vanigo 05-28-05, 10:29 PM	The strong group is the one using catapults.But they are still a group, which, as you may recall, was the point to begin with. The weak indeed have a job: they are worthless as anything but tools, or rocks to be smashed against the wall. But, as the wall is made of similar matter, it will collapse.And the defenders on the wall? Do they sit idly in the weeks that this takes? Of course they are. The best have inalienable right to do whatever they want with the weak. And crush them utterly when they are no longer useful or fun.See, I find this as foreign as you find the concept of an inalienable right to life. You'll have to do better than that. Regardless, that's a short-sighted view to take. Scorning the weak and scorning their work are much the same, and you would be a fool to scorn the contributions of all who are weaker than you. I tend to assume people are fools, unless proven otherwise. Being proven otherwise is quite rare.That's an enormously dangerous assumption to make. One wonders how you've survived this long. Few things are more dangerous than an underestimated enemy. So, the friend whose trust I bought makes you also trust me? Fool, if there ever was one.Two points: First, I try to choose friends whose trust will not be bought. Secondly, I did not say that I would automatically trust someone trusted by my friend, only that I am more likely to do so. "Of course you don't betray others often. If you do, you are indeed a fool, because no one will ally with you again, and they may band together against such a traitorous incompetent. "The point is that, when you can gain a great deal through the betrayal, and it outweighs that backlash, why would you not choose to betray them? You are forsaking yourself for the ridiculous purpose of not forsaking another. What made everyone else more valuable to you than yourself? Is your self esteem that low?"But how are you to judge the backlash? That depends largely on whether your former friends survive your betrayal and become bitter enemies, and you can never predict that with certainty. The backlash ranges from serious to crippling, and even the lightest backlash leaves you severely weakened. "This assumes that your friend has good judgment. And that you do as well, of course. Otherwise, it is easy for your friend's trust to be misplaced, which will result in your trust being misplaced.[quote]Possibly. But you assume I always trust my friend's judgment. I don't; my friend's judgement is merely one consideration. [quote]"I would rather trust no one, and prepare for the inevitable betrayals, so that when my money, power, or fear is trumped, I am not caught with my pants down. Trust, however, is taking your pants down on purpose, in the hopes that everyone else will pull theirs down as well. Which, in the end, only means that everyone gets screwed when someone comes along to take advantage of all these people with their pants around their ankles."But you assume trusting one person is the same as trusting everyone. My pants may be down, as you put it, among those I trust, but I'm only slightly less wary of strangers than you. If the betrayer is someone I trust, then I may well notice that his pants are up. Even if I don't, twenty people with their pants down can typically overcome one fully clothed person.
Thorak 05-29-05, 12:53 AM	But how are you to judge the backlash? That depends largely on whether your former friends survive your betrayal and become bitter enemies, and you can never predict that with certainty. The backlash ranges from serious to crippling, and even the lightest backlash leaves you severely weakened. "Which is why, if you're going to betray your allies, you take the time to neutralize any threat they could make. Killing them works wonders. Awful hard to give you any backlash from beyond the grave." Possibly. But you assume I always trust my friend's judgment. I don't; my friend's judgement is merely one consideration. But you assume trusting one person is the same as trusting everyone. My pants may be down, as you put it, among those I trust, but I'm only slightly less wary of strangers than you. If the betrayer is someone I trust, then I may well notice that his pants are up. Even if I don't, twenty people with their pants down can typically overcome one fully clothed person. "Twenty, perhaps. But five? Or two? And if you're smart enough to separate them from the herd, you're down to 1. Even animal predators are at least that intelligent. Kindly don't make the mistake of assuming that, because I disagree with you, I must be less intelligent than a dog.
Gilean 05-29-05, 02:20 AM	But they are still a group, which, as you may recall, was the point to begin with.The equally strong do form groups, for that may benefit all of them, especially against common enemies.And the defenders on the wall? Do they sit idly in the weeks that this takes?As they are weak people, they will spend time on all sorts of conferences and votes on what to do. And, as the ruler is not the strong one, they will likely take the dangerous (to them) way.See, I find this as foreign as you find the concept of an inalienable right to life. You'll have to do better than that.If nobody casn stop me from doing something, why would I not do it?Regardless, that's a short-sighted view to take. Scorning the weak and scorning their work are much the same, and you would be a fool to scorn the contributions of all who are weaker than you.As has been said before, tolls to use. Nothing more, nothing less. You have no great respect of the inalienable right to exist of your hammer. I care not about the slave. Where's the difference?That's an enormously dangerous assumption to make. One wonders how you've survived this long. Few things are more dangerous than an underestimated enemy.Erratic opponent is the most dangerous one. What experts do, one can guess. What the fool does, no one can know. While, you spend your time guessing if every pathetic goblin is a significant threat.Two points: First, I try to choose friends whose trust will not be bought. Secondly, I did not say that I would automatically trust someone trusted by my friend, only that I am more likely to do so.Good luck. You will need it.
Kldran Achran 05-29-05, 05:27 AM	It seems to me, that if you are going to convert a Drow, you will have to show them, by example, that being good does not make you weak. Random thought: If good people strengthen the weak, then aren't the weak who successfully convince people to be good, actually stronger than they seem?
twad 05-29-05, 06:12 PM	Gilean jumped on the bandwagon, so I'll just toss a couple more in rather than repeat his comments; "Of course you don't betray others often. If you do, you are indeed a fool, because no one will ally with you again, and they may band together against such a traitorous incompetent. "The point is that, when you can gain a great deal through the betrayal, and it outweighs that backlash, why would you not choose to betray them? You are forsaking yourself for the ridiculous purpose of not forsaking another. What made everyone else more valuable to you than yourself? Is your self esteem that low?" "This assumes that your friend has good judgment. And that you do as well, of course. Otherwise, it is easy for your friend's trust to be misplaced, which will result in your trust being misplaced. "I would rather trust no one, and prepare for the inevitable betrayals, so that when my money, power, or fear is trumped, I am not caught with my pants down. Trust, however, is taking your pants down on purpose, in the hopes that everyone else will pull theirs down as well. Which, in the end, only means that everyone gets screwed when someone comes along to take advantage of all these people with their pants around their ankles." Mmm, abusing a metaphor until it hurts. Gotta love it. LOL!!! Awesome! You do a great drow's advocate job, "her" position is flawless, for the simple reason that Drows are not idiots.. far from it.
Vanigo 05-29-05, 07:50 PM	"Which is why, if you're going to betray your allies, you take the time to neutralize any threat they could make. Killing them works wonders. Awful hard to give you any backlash from beyond the grave."Which brings me to another excellent point: My friends are able and willing to bring me back from the dead. They've done it before and they'll undoubtedly do it again. Can you say the same of your allies of convenience? Or will they squabble over your corpse and conveniently 'forget' to raise you? "Twenty, perhaps. But five? Or two? And if you're smart enough to separate them from the herd, you're down to 1. Even animal predators are at least that intelligent. Kindly don't make the mistake of assuming that, because I disagree with you, I must be less intelligent than a dog.But unlike deer, people can remember those who betrayed them or killed their friends and plan revenge. The equally strong do form groups, for that may benefit all of them, especially against common enemies.What's your point? As they are weak people, they will spend time on all sorts of conferences and votes on what to do. And, as the ruler is not the strong one, they will likely take the dangerous (to them) way.Are they? Who's to say that all defenders are weak? If nobody casn stop me from doing something, why would I not do it?Because it's not a good idea? As has been said before, tolls to use. Nothing more, nothing less. You have no great respect of the inalienable right to exist of your hammer. I care not about the slave. Where's the difference?My hammer doesn't care if it breaks. A slave does. A slave also has the capacity to run or rebel. A peasant uprising strikes fear into the heart of the mightiest ruler, because even if he crushes the peasants (and he very likely will), who will then grow his grain? Erratic opponent is the most dangerous one. What experts do, one can guess. What the fool does, no one can know. While, you spend your time guessing if every pathetic goblin is a significant threat.And on the occasion that he is, I'm very glad I did. Most of the time, threat assesment of your typical pathetic goblin doesn't take more than a few seconds - he's on patrol or something with a dozen other goblins, all poorly-equipped: insignificant. On the other hand, a moderately wealthy merchant with unknown resources and cunning should not be dismissed as insignificant until more information is available. Good luck. You will need it.And you will need luck to stand alone against the world. I believe you will find that you need more.
Scipion Emilien 05-29-05, 08:25 PM	If we imagine a kindgdom where there is only people like me (paladins) and an another one that borders it where there is people like you drow. You will see what will happen. When you will be constantly fighting between yourself to get the top, we will be trusting each others and building powerful army simply because we have faith in us as hard as you have in Lloth. You could arg that our fated is misplaced, but the result will be here, we will be able to construct a great army when yours will be fighting among themselves. Not only will you be reducing the strenght of your army, but you will surely in your own selfisness give us reason to attack you. You will make it easy to our agents to distrups you since we will only have to help one of you against the others to keep you in a fight. From your side you will see that our armies will be training herself while you while simply not able to get your armie out of his battle. Your agents will have a hard time to distrups us because their wickedeness will not work, bribe will fail because our barons will not see the point of increasing their might at the expense of his allies, menace and fear will fail because our barons know his allies will come to his helps. I know, you will say that this kind of world doesn't exist and that only people like you live because this is the natural order. But me and my fellow are over and not under the nature, we are able to trust each others and even if betray could give me much, i will not do it simply because i don t see the point of getting more than what I already have. While when you betray, you could say that you could kill your opponents, but chances are that your opponent his as wicked as you and that it will not be easy kill him, and you have great chance that he will come back, continue the war and using your valuable resource against him. You had say that when the betray will come, i will be more surprised than you, but you forget that even if my moral is so alien to you, i m like you, not stupid and able to choice those that are like me. And even if i let someone like you slip in the filter, you will probably be the only one. And when you will hurt me, i will have allie that will come to my help. You are true, it will hurt me more than when betray hurt you, but this is a price IM AM WILLING TO PAY to have more trusting allie. You drow seem to forget that you cannot always be the stronger one, that they will always be someone stronger by strenght, cleaverness or simply more dangereously lucky than you. When that will happen, i will survive and you will die. So perhaps I am selfish and hypocrit, but the hypocrisie of love and goodness will let me survive while you will be dead because of your nature morality. I strongly suggest that you don't underestimated intelligenc e and cleverness of good people, they could be as strong and perhaps more dangerous than you because they had and will have the opportunity to survive they mistake and learn of it, what is not your case. (Keep while reading thisargument to a drow that my paladin know that for a drow, love and goodness are alien concept and he will try to put the first stake in the drow egoistical carapace by making him thinking about what will happen to himself if all the people (and himself) around him where good)
Thorak 05-29-05, 10:24 PM	If we imagine a kindgdom where there is only people like me (paladins) and an another one that borders it where there is people like you drow. You will see what will happen. When you will be constantly fighting between yourself to get the top, we will be trusting each others and building powerful army simply because we have faith in us as hard as you have in Lloth. You could arg that our fated is misplaced, but the result will be here, we will be able to construct a great army when yours will be fighting among themselves. Not only will you be reducing the strenght of your army, but you will surely in your own selfisness give us reason to attack you. You will make it easy to our agents to distrups you since we will only have to help one of you against the others to keep you in a fight. From your side you will see that our armies will be training herself while you while simply not able to get your armie out of his battle. Your agents will have a hard time to distrups us because their wickedeness will not work, bribe will fail because our barons will not see the point of increasing their might at the expense of his allies, menace and fear will fail because our barons know his allies will come to his helps. I know, you will say that this kind of world doesn't exist and that only people like you live because this is the natural order. But me and my fellow are over and not under the nature, we are able to trust each others and even if betray could give me much, i will not do it simply because i don t see the point of getting more than what I already have. While when you betray, you could say that you could kill your opponents, but chances are that your opponent his as wicked as you and that it will not be easy kill him, and you have great chance that he will come back, continue the war and using your valuable resource against him. You had say that when the betray will come, i will be more surprised than you, but you forget that even if my moral is so alien to you, i m like you, not stupid and able to choice those that are like me. And even if i let someone like you slip in the filter, you will probably be the only one. And when you will hurt me, i will have allie that will come to my help. You are true, it will hurt me more than when betray hurt you, but this is a price IM AM WILLING TO PAY to have more trusting allie. You drow seem to forget that you cannot always be the stronger one, that they will always be someone stronger by strenght, cleaverness or simply more dangereously lucky than you. When that will happen, i will survive and you will die. So perhaps I am selfish and hypocrit, but the hypocrisie of love and goodness will let me survive while you will be dead because of your nature morality. I strongly suggest that you don't underestimated intelligenc e and cleverness of good people, they could be as strong and perhaps more dangerous than you because they had and will have the opportunity to survive they mistake and learn of it, what is not your case. "So it is a society of paladins? When, ever, has that been the case, ever, in any society, ever, anywhere? Whereas our society is indeed one that exists, works, and has lasted far longer than most societies on the surface which espouse these ideals." You are putting a hypothetical ideal given every possible advantage against reality. Of course you can gain some advantages there. But it is the equivalent of me saying 'Yes, but if all creatures recognize our superiority and willingly serve us as slaves, we could be even stronger than you paladins.' That is a hypothetical ideal, and is irrelevant to discussing the real world.
TheGnomishWizard 05-29-05, 11:04 PM	You could always try telling her some like, "Do you value your life?" I would assume she would say yes. Then say, "And would you think that those creatures your call 'weak' value their lives aswell?" assuming she agrees with this statement you could talk to her about how the strong protect the weak not neccassarily support how they live (the how they live part being why they are weak from the drows point of view) but you protect them simply because they strive to live just like every other creature in the world.
Gadren 05-30-05, 01:48 AM	Unfortunately, my "more pragmatic" party members decided to just kill the drow cleric instead of going my route (which I suppose was probably the wisest thigns to do, though my paladin is still upset). I had her tied helpless so she could not harm us, and she started ranting about how she was going to have all our skins flayed, blah blah blah, and the fighter just coup de graced her right in front of me in the middle of her rant. :weep: Don't let that stop you guys from this discussion though.
Amalric 05-30-05, 02:03 AM	Enlightened self-interest. The best way to improve your own lot is generally to work together with others. If this is done only on a very contingent basis, as is usually the case with the drow, energy and focus is wasted on double- and triple-crosses that could be better directed at the task at hand. In addition, trust-based relationships give rise to pleasant emotions, such as love, that cannot be recreated without genuine trust. Thus, one will be likely to live a more pleasant life if one adopts a trusting attitude towards others. Edit: One might say I can't know that it's better to be loved than feared if I haven't experienced both. But of course I HAVE been feared. Those I face in battle fear me. When I face evil and chaotic creatures I can't trust, I control them through fear, just as the drow do. But I can say firsthand that I prefer trust-based to fear-based relationships. You can't make a matching counter-claim, because you've never experienced a trust-based relationship.
Gilean 05-30-05, 05:48 AM	Which brings me to another excellent point: My friends are able and willing to bring me back from the dead. They've done it before and they'll undoubtedly do it again. Can you say the same of your allies of convenience? Or will they squabble over your corpse and conveniently 'forget' to raise you?They'll forget nothing, if I'm useful and strong enough.But unlike deer, people can remember those who betrayed them or killed their friends and plan revenge.Or forgive them and live happily ever after, or at least hope to do it.Are they? Who's to say that all defenders are weak?Not everyone, but majority, as that is the nature of goodness you so love. To let weak people live is to let weak people be defenders.Because it's not a good idea?Why is it not?My hammer doesn't care if it breaks. A slave does. A slave also has the capacity to run or rebel. A peasant uprising strikes fear into the heart of the mightiest ruler, because even if he crushes the peasants (and he very likely will), who will then grow his grain?Slaves of yours can run or rebel? Your problem, I guess. You treat them too well, or should I say "good"?And on the occasion that he is, I'm very glad I did. Most of the time, threat assesment of your typical pathetic goblin doesn't take more than a few seconds - he's on patrol or something with a dozen other goblins, all poorly-equipped: insignificant. On the other hand, a moderately wealthy merchant with unknown resources and cunning should not be dismissed as insignificant until more information is available.Exactly. If someone has unknown resources or cunning, that someone has succeeded in keeping them secret, and, thus, is significant. Always prepare for the worst, in friends and enemies. That way surprises will be more tolerable.
runestar 05-30-05, 09:50 AM	It funny that I should see this thread right after watching Runouni Kenshin - the very same debate came up in the battle between Kenshin and Soujiro. One problem that will arise is when he asks you what it is about your own beliefs that make them right and those of the drow wrong. The drow was brought up in an environment where "survival of the fittest" was essentially a way of life. It was probably this very notion that allowed said captive to survive to that very day to start with. If you ask her to suddenly abandon this train of thinking that has kept her alive all this while, do you think she will take to it readily? The paladin has never had to deal with the situation the drow was in. Were their roles reversed, would the paladin still have the same outlook on life? The paladin might be the one having to kill to simply stay alive. Obviously, there can be no one "right" way of living, else, everyone would be living that one lifestyle and the world would be in perfect peace and harmony. Can your own paladin answer these questions first? Only then can he attempt to convert other people. I think this is something where actions will have to speak louder than words. Clearly, more will have to be done than just rolling a natural 20 on your diplomacy check. And the actions of your party members have inadvertably proved the drow right. Maybe they should the next few targets you should think of converting. Should the drow have been alive, one possible, albeit naive way would be to let the drow tag along and witness the party perform good deeds. Let the drow form her own opinions. But I agree - the enemy you know is better than the ally you cannot trust. Oh, but the roleplaying opportunities......
Thorak 05-30-05, 09:52 AM	Enlightened self-interest. The best way to improve your own lot is generally to work together with others. If this is done only on a very contingent basis, as is usually the case with the drow, energy and focus is wasted on double- and triple-crosses that could be better directed at the task at hand. "This is silly. The only reason to double-cross someone is because you will improve your own lot. You are assuming we are stupid enough to engage in such behaviour for no reason." In addition, trust-based relationships give rise to pleasant emotions, such as love, that cannot be recreated without genuine trust. Thus, one will be likely to live a more pleasant life if one adopts a trusting attitude towards others. "If you haven't experienced the almost erotic pleasure of flaying the skin from a living, sentient being, then you have no way to claim your morality is more pleasurable than ours. Power is a drug, and one only uses drugs because they are pleasurable. "One is more likely to live a peaceful life in a society based on trust. However, all this does is encourage the weak to breed and believe they should have a say in how the society is run. Thereby, obviously, weakening society as a whole. "Take horse breeding. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Does one take the weakest, stupidest horse and put them to stud? Of course not. It's obvious that this will only weaken the breed. You breed the strongest and smartest horses, thereby making the breed better. That is all we are doing with society. We do not share this ridiculous assumption that sentience somehow gives a creature an inherent right to life, no matter how stupid, weak, or vile it may be."
angryman 05-30-05, 12:39 PM	Tell her that is was your strength that overpowered hers, thus you are ethically superior to her. Since you are superior to her, then obviously your methods and philosophy are also superior- it was your mental attitude and training that defeated her in the first place. If she wants to be truly strong, then she should follow your lead- physically, intellectually and philsophically. Tell her there are many types of strength, and that while her Drow ideas are strong, this does not exclude other, possibly superior ideologies. Or you could keep talking this way until the DM gives up...
Vanigo 05-30-05, 08:26 PM	They'll forget nothing, if I'm useful and strong enough.If you're useful and strong enough to be worth resurrecting, then you're useful and strong enough to be a threat in the future. They don't trust you, so why risk it unless they have an immediate need for you? You can be replaced, after all. Or forgive them and live happily ever after, or at least hope to do it.Don't assume those who trust are eager to forgive anything. Some are, but many are not. Not everyone, but majority, as that is the nature of goodness you so love. To let weak people live is to let weak people be defenders.Or, to let weak people live is to let weak people be the stones in the wall supporting the strong defenders. Let's keep this metaphor straight, shall we? Why is it not?See the rest of my arguments. Slaves of yours can run or rebel? Your problem, I guess. You treat them too well, or should I say "good"?There's always the possibilty unless you use powerful magic to control their minds, which is seldom worth the effort - just use magic to do the job, if you've got that much power to spare. If nothing else, they can simply refuse to work, at which point you, being you, kill them, and then you have no more slaves. Exactly. If someone has unknown resources or cunning, that someone has succeeded in keeping them secret, and, thus, is significant. Always prepare for the worst, in friends and enemies. That way surprises will be more tolerable.I never said it was wise to trust everyone, just that trust has its place.