Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DragoonDarkfire 08-11-07, 11:01 PM	Since this kinda fits in with Eberron, I think I'll talk about this. EVIL IS STILL EVIL IN EBERRON Yes. While there are no evil "gods" per se' (unless you count Raja's) there are still evil outsiders and other creatures that embody and evil principal. Succubi embody lust, Balors embody fire's destructive power and the demons of Savarrath embody battle. Yet these forces are still evil, forces like the Dreaming Dark or the Lords of Dust are evil incarnate and should still be fought without inclination as to any consequences of taking that particular creatures life. What Eberron does make a distinction is that there's a difference between AMORALITY and evil. So what are these two different personalities? Amorality is, simply put, not caring or a lack of passion. A greedy merchant who sells off slaves to crime lords isn't a worshiper of Khyber and isn't much of a threat to anyone other than the weak slaves that he ships off. He doesn't sell these slaves because he gains some form of pleasure to see these people mistreated and striped of their freedom. He does it because he gets money and THAT'S what gives him pleasure. There is nothing inherently wrong with the accumulation of wealth and since it is THIS that he gains pleasure from he is not evil as a Rakshasa or insane cultist is. He is simply a man with neutral goals and goes to evil ends to get them. In this way he is "evil" but only evil in the simplest sense of the word. Amorality is the belief of "ends justify means" essentially. EVIL is an actual force in the world. A rakshasa is the purest form of evil, as is the cleric who worships the daelkyr or Khyber. Why? Because these forces goals aren't to accumulate wealth for themselves, create a powerful weapon to assist in defense of a nation (or to attack another nation) or any neutral or even good goal. A rakshasa's "goal" is to cause as much pain and suffering to humans as possible (don't even bothering pointing out the Raja's. If they DO get released then that's still the almost complete destruction of all human kind. Still the same goal). The rakshasa's methods aren't the only evil he undertakes but his goal is inherently evil as well. In this way a rakshasa is actually EVIL as in it's existence is to be evil and to perform acts of evil. The rakshasa doesn't simply lack compassion, it downright hates EVERYTHING and will go to any extent to see that everything that it views as inferior to it (and that's a lot mind you) will be killed/tortured/humiliated as horribly as it's twisted mind can imagine. PC's should have no moral decision when killing such a being. What does this mean about Eberron? Well the problem is that the Paladin's Detect Evil ability reads both amorality AND evil as being "evil". So while the greedy merchant isn't anywhere near as bad as the rakshasa, they're both seen on an equal level to the Paladin's Detect Evil (ignoring the aura level differential that is associated with outsiders) so the problem lies in determining if it is OK to kill the amoral person. After all, he's just a man with simple needs who's willing to do much to gain those needs. But then there's the clincher. If the greedy merchant were to make a pact with a rakshasa so he could gain the power to control people and as such gain a greater number of slaves. Then he's not simply doing evil acts for a neutral or good goal. He has willingly begun to tap into the power of evil. Evil is an actual force in Eberron (and in all D&D) whether it's khyber, Raja's, daelkyr, or the il-lavishtar, drawing upon power from these sources is an act that inherently corrupts the soul. Now the greedy merchant is an actual tool OF evil and because of that he has become much more dangerous than if he were just a normal slave trader. In this instance it would be much more practical and less morally conflicting for the paladin to smite the merchant. So what does this mean? Essentially that while traditional D&D does not make a distinction between amorality and evil, Eberron does and THIS is the big distinction.
Charles Phipps 08-11-07, 11:34 PM	I disagree, actually. Eberron is about Noir Crime Dramas and Pulps. What few people may be surprised about is the fact that not only is the later based upon the principles of Good vs. Evil very strongly (The Shadow and Doc Savage being the prototypes for superheros like Superman that would come soon afterwards) but Noir is also very strongly about morality. The Maltese Falcon is the greatest example of Noir and Detective fiction that exists. It created the genre. Sam Spade is having an affair with his dead ex-partner's wife. He's a man whose interested in getting paid for involving himself in the whole affair of the Maltese Falcon theft to begin with. He's also extremely tempted by the first of the femme fatales in Brigid O'Shaughnessy. The cops are thoroughly useless in this environment and don't like Sam Spade to begin with. An important note is to be made that Sam Spade is NOT evil. Brigid O'Shaughnessy and Casper Gutman most certainly ARE evil. They willingly kill and destroy lives to get what they want. Sam Spade is only trying to survive in the environment. In the more contemporary Sin City, its' clear the monstrous conditions of Basin City have corrupted many citizens to becoming monsters. However, there's a distinct difference between those people who do monstrous things to protect others and those who do so to gain pleasure or power from it. A distinct moral line is drawn between the two even if its a murky atmosphere, there IS a difference. Another Pulp example that might be equally on the nose is the fact there's no real difference between the insane and murderous cultists that Conan the Barbarian kills along with the alien horrors that they face. They're both threats to the existence of our protagonist and thoroughly monstrous. Indeed, in Pulps, creatures like the Rakashasa might actually be MORE morally pure than evil human beings because they're simply ALIEN as opposed to actively villainous. Slave Traders, Assassins, and Gangsters are still evil in Eberron. Indeed, the setting encourages that when you face down the Emerald Claw's jack booted thugs that you should feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever when you gun them down with a wand of magic missles. They're creatures that you're perfectly able to get away with as describing as grotesque in their personalities. Caricatures of people are very viable in the setting with Ian Flemming's Bond villains (physically and mentally abberant) as a good resource. Ironically, in Eberron, it's probably a good thing to make your villains MORE of a cartoon. In Middle Earth, you can get away with saying he serves Sauron. In Eberron, the Parliament speaker might be a cannibal with a midget albino changeling that performs his assassinations.
DragoonDarkfire 08-11-07, 11:47 PM	I disagree, actually. Eberron is about Noir Crime Dramas and Pulps. What few people may be surprised about is the fact that not only is the later based upon the principles of Good vs. Evil very strongly (The Shadow and Doc Savage being the prototypes for superheros like Superman that would come soon afterwards) but Noir is also very strongly about morality. OK. The Maltese Falcon is the greatest example of Noir and Detective fiction that exists. It created the genre. Sam Spade is having an affair with his dead ex-partner's wife. He's a man whose interested in getting paid for involving himself in the whole affair of the Maltese Falcon theft to begin with. He's also extremely tempted by the first of the femme fatales in Brigid O'Shaughnessy. The cops are thoroughly useless in this environment and don't like Sam Spade to begin with. An important note is to be made that Sam Spade is NOT evil. Brigid O'Shaughnessy and Casper Gutman most certainly ARE evil. They willingly kill and destroy lives to get what they want. Sam Spade is only trying to survive in the environment. In the more contemporary Sin City, its' clear the monstrous conditions of Basin City have corrupted many citizens to becoming monsters. However, there's a distinct difference between those people who do monstrous things to protect others and those who do so to gain pleasure or power from it. A distinct moral line is drawn between the two even if its a murky atmosphere, there IS a difference. I don't remember bringing pulp/noir genera's into this discussion much if not at all. Slave Traders, Assassins, and Gangsters are still evil in Eberron. Indeed, the setting encourages that when you face down the Emerald Claw's jack booted thugs that you should feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever when you gun them down with a wand of magic missles. They're creatures that you're perfectly able to get away with as describing as grotesque in their personalities. Caricatures of people are very viable in the setting with Ian Flemming's Bond villains (physically and mentally abberant) as a good resource. Of course, such moral distinctions are perfectly appropriate for your campaign if you wanna run it that way. This was more for the fact that people might wanna run a more morally ambiguous villains.
Charles Phipps 08-12-07, 12:06 AM	Of course, such moral distinctions are perfectly appropriate for your campaign if you wanna run it that way. This was more for the fact that people might wanna run a more morally ambiguous villains. Let me rephrase my argument. I'm not sure it's a very satisfying campaign that automatically suggests that people in Eberron who are not tied to supernatural evil are somehow less morally repulsive than those whom are tied to it. You're making a moral difference, I think between the Kingpin and Mesphito. The Kingpin is a man who wants money, wealth, and power above all things. Mesphito wants to corrupt souls and destroy people. That's perfectly fine. Am I right? Is this what you were going for? I think there's something also to be said with the difference between the Ruthless and Scum. I can easily imagine in Eberron that player characters may be called to deal with a monstrous Tony the Tiger in a Fez that trades in human souls and lives in a palace covered in flesh drawn tapestries. ....And have to deliver him an object of power in order to save the lives of ten thousand human beings on the battlefield. We're dealing with a setting that has it perfectly appropriate to have a LG Bone Knight who animates the dead for waging war another LG Paladin in charge of a bunch of religious fanatics. For me, I think its important to establish Bob the Slave Trader is serving the same cause as George the Cultist. He just doesn't know it
DragoonDarkfire 08-12-07, 12:08 AM	Let me rephrase my argument. I'm not sure it's a very satisfying campaign that automatically suggests that people in Eberron who are not tied to supernatural evil are somehow less morally repulsive than those whom are tied to it. You're making a moral difference, I think between the Kingpin and Mesphito. The Kingpin is a man who wants money, wealth, and power above all things. Mesphito wants to corrupt souls and destroy people. That's perfectly fine. Am I right? Is this what you were going for? I think there's something also to be said with the difference between the Ruthless and Scum. I can easily imagine in Eberron that player characters may be called to deal with a monstrous Tony the Tiger in a Fez that trades in human souls and lives in a palace covered in flesh drawn tapestries. ....And have to deliver him an object of power in order to save the lives of ten thousand human beings on the battlefield. We're dealing with a setting that has it perfectly appropriate to have a LG Bone Knight who animates the dead for waging war another LG Paladin in charge of a bunch of religious fanatics. For me, I think its important to establish Bob the Slave Trader is serving the same cause as George the Cultist. He just doesn't know it Ah well that's a fine distinction as well. I was just making a statement about the people who say that "JUST CAUSE HE'S EVIL DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T MAKE FRIENDS WITH HIM!"
Rekko 08-12-07, 02:15 PM	Your discussion has raised another question from my part: Somewhere in ECS it says alignments aren't as they seem. You can encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. So basically, we have good or evil dragons and good or evil undeads. Why not also have usually evil outsiders or other types of creature be good and the other way around? Like good fiends, evil angels, etc. Imagine a good rakshasa, or succubi. Any thoughts? Rekko
Charles Phipps 08-12-07, 02:30 PM	Like good fiends, evil angels, etc. Imagine a good rakshasa, or succubi. Any thoughts? Rekko Well, we already have Evil Angels in the Radiant Idols. They're not misguided angels, they're just people obsessed with power and the worship fostered on them. However, while people rarely have a problem with evil Angels, they seem to have more of a problem with Good Demons. It seems to dilute their concept in a way that angels doesn't. I might allow Good Alu-Fiends and Cambions but I doubt under any circumstances would I allow good demons of other types. Basically, it's a theoretically possible thing but not in my campaign.
DragoonDarkfire 08-12-07, 02:32 PM	Your discussion has raised another question from my part: Somewhere in ECS it says alignments aren't as they seem. You can encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. So basically, we have good or evil dragons and good or evil undeads. Why not also have usually evil outsiders or other types of creature be good and the other way around? Like good fiends, evil angels, etc. Imagine a good rakshasa, or succubi. Any thoughts? Rekko Well there's a problem here. For one thing a Dragon isn't like an outsider in the fact that a dragon's home is the material plane, it lives for a good long while but it still dies of old age and leaves remains behind (whereas an outsider simply disappears as far as I know) and it can still breed among it's kind. A rakashasa on the other hand EMBODIES human evil. Like angels embody good. Look at radiant idols. Those are angels that have "fallen" and become evil. There's no such thing as a good Radiant idol, because that's an angel. If a rakshasa WERE to become good it wouldn't be a rakshasa anymore. To an outsider it's alignment is more than just an outlook it develops over it's years of existence. It's what it IS.
Kaizer_Ryu 08-12-07, 03:16 PM	To an outsider it's alignment is more than just an outlook it develops over it's years of existence. It's what it IS.Which is why I don't agree that Bob Slavetrader or George Cultist are better than Tony Rakshasa. Tony EMBODIES evil. If he wasn't evil, he wouldn't BE Tony Rakshasa. He'd be Tony the Tiger and sell cereal. Now Bob and George? They've made a conscious decision to involve themselves in some horrible evil. George may be more directly involved, but Bob knows full well the pain and suffereing he's causing to his victims. He just doesn't care. While Goerge may be Evil, and Bob may be Amoral, I never-the-less find them both repulsive. I find it easier to really hate someone when they do such horrible things because they WANT to, not because that's what they are. The distinction between Evil and Amoral is entirely valid, but there's also the distinction you hinted at between Evil and EVIL. EVIL is demonstrated by Outsiders and such that are powered by it as a force of the world. The do it because they are a living extension of it. Evil is reserved for mortals. They have no real innate alignment, and thus have free choice as to what they do and don't do. Freely choosing to further the cause of EVIL is, IMO, far more contemptable.
DragoonDarkfire 08-12-07, 03:33 PM	Which is why I don't agree that Bob Slavetrader or George Cultist are better than Tony Rakshasa. Tony EMBODIES evil. If he wasn't evil, he wouldn't BE Tony Rakshasa. He'd be Tony the Tiger and sell cereal. Now Bob and George? They've made a conscious decision to involve themselves in some horrible evil. George may be more directly involved, but Bob knows full well the pain and suffereing he's causing to his victims. He just doesn't care. While Goerge may be Evil, and Bob may be Amoral, I never-the-less find them both repulsive. I find it easier to really hate someone when they do such horrible things because they WANT to, not because that's what they are. The distinction between Evil and Amoral is entirely valid, but there's also the distinction you hinted at between Evil and EVIL. EVIL is demonstrated by Outsiders and such that are powered by it as a force of the world. The do it because they are a living extension of it. Evil is reserved for mortals. They have no real innate alignment, and thus have free choice as to what they do and don't do. Freely choosing to further the cause of EVIL is, IMO, far more contemptable. Which, problematically can be traced to several different sources. Bob the slave trader DID make a conscious decision to be a slave trader but how was that decision INFLUENCED? He might have grown up under bad conditions, perhaps he himself was a slave when he was a child and as such treats other people the same way to vent his own anger and frustration. Yes Tony Raskhasa is simply evil, but what makes Bob the merchent more human is that he is a FLAWED evil. Tony is evil for evil, whereas Bob is evil because he was influenced into being that evil. Ergo it's actually possible to show Bob the error of his ways and have him learn from his lesson to understand what he's become. Tony Rakshasa on the other hand is about as much a lost cause as you can get. In fact it's quite possible that Tony TAUGHT Bob about being a slave trader to fuel his own plans and fan Bob's flames.
Nived 08-12-07, 03:47 PM	Again going back and agreeing with Charles on the thematic elements that are said to embody Eberron. In Pulp and Noir stories you do often have moral ambiguity. If you look at things like Doc Savage, the Shadow, The Maltese Falcon, Indiana Jones, The Mummy and what not... you have people whose side you're not sure they're on, people who seem to be good and helpful turn on a dime and heroes who do questionable things. The thing is once the villain is revealed, once someone is shown to be a traitor... they're thoroughly evil. Sure, Imhotep (probably spelled that wrong, but I don't care) might be a sympathetic villain in The Mummy, but you know what he's willing to kill the girl to bring back his, he's willing to tear out people's eyes and tongue he's evil. Sure Indy tried to save crazy Nazi Blond in Last Crusade, but you know what she was crazy evil. If you inject too much moral ambiguity into the game you're going to hamstring your PCs, if every thief, terrorist, murderer, henchmen and monster has a sob story and a 'good reason', while every philanthropist, priest, watchman, public official is hiding an evil dark plot... you end up in a very different genre. If that's what you're going for sure go ahead. But sometimes a cop is just a cop doing his job, and it is the right thing. The thief is an amoral bastard that'll slit a kids throat rather than go to jail, the kindly old priest is exactly what he appears to be, the murderer is despicable, the politician actually is trying to do some good. It annoys me, it really gets to me, when people talk about moral ambiguity and shades of grey alignment that suddenly 'evil' organizations are full of good people and good organizations are full of bad people. Evil organizations are still full of evil people, some of them may be good.... but you know what? Most of the Emerald Claw are heartless bastards that need a sword shoved through them. That's what they were created to be, they're the 'Nazi mooks' you can gun down with impunity. Making every Red Dragon good, or every outsider contrary to what it was created and intended to be isn't moral ambiguity or shades of grey... its a negative image. Eberron isn't a negative image, but too often I see people automatically swing in that direction. Where the Silver Flame is full of murderous zealots and the Blood of Vol is just misunderstood. That isn't moral relativity that's moral inversion.
Charles Phipps 08-12-07, 03:52 PM	Which is why I don't agree that Bob Slavetrader or George Cultist are better than Tony Rakshasa. Tony EMBODIES evil. If he wasn't evil, he wouldn't BE Tony Rakshasa. He'd be Tony the Tiger and sell cereal. H.P. Lovecraft was a man who disdained the usage of the word evil but freely believed that there was much to be gained from the word "unnatural." Robert Howard freely made use of the Cthulhu Mythos inside his Fantasy works (just as H.P. lifted a few things vice versa). One thing that was important about the alien horrors were they were disgusting to the point of inducing fear (the old fashioned meaning of horror). In the setting of Eberron, its perfectly appropriate to label everything that a Great Old One/Rajah embodies to be evil. The same with Daelkyr. They are anti-ethical to everything that exists in the Prime Material Plane. The world they wish to bring about is so far removed from human consciousness that it really can't even be associated on any real level with the physical we know now. I think that it might be interesting to speculate whether they really concern themselves with evil as mortals imagine it. Moral relativism doesn't exist in Eberron but certainly the acknowledgement that "so far from your values that talking about them is really pointless" might well be noteworthy. In this case, a Shoggoth like Demon exists to consume everything living that it can while performing unnatural acts on sapients. Now some would argue it's the greater threat than the Priest who tosses it virgins in Xen'drick. Others might argue the opposite.
Kaizer_Ryu 08-12-07, 04:19 PM	Now some would argue it's the greater threat than the Priest who tosses it virgins in Xen'drick. Others might argue the opposite.I'm not saying that the Rakshasa or other embodiments of evil as a force don't need to be cut down with all haste and with as few pangs of conscience as possible. Not doing so when you can is just stupid. It's those people who are evil merely because they feel like it that I revile most. As DragoonDarkfire said, there's always the hope that they could be shown the error of their ways, or that they're being manipulated. This gives some PCs (Paladins especially) an incredibly hard time when trying to decide what is right. Do you run Bob Slavetrader through just because he traffics in lives? What if you turn him in and the government he lives under won't prosecute him and he winds up doing the same thing in days? What if he refuses to change, regardless of time or effort spent to show him his errors? Maybe he knows the whereabouts of someone you're looking for because he's the one who sold them. Do you leave him alive because he gave you information? Do you kill him anyway because he will continue to traffic slaves when you're gone? These quandries and more can come up when killing anything not embodying Evil as a force. Some PCs (mostly Neutral ones) won't care and will do what they see as best for them. But Good PCs will have a significantly harder time justifying their actions. They may have to make rushed decisions at times, and the guilt of killing someone who just might have made a better person of themselves given the inspiration can linger. That, IMO, is why I hate non-embodiments of evil more. The consequence of the kill/don't kill decision is far reaching and usually permanent if wrong. It's more than just Evil. It's insidious.
Charles Phipps 08-12-07, 04:20 PM	agreed Also, we have the fact that we already do have good and evil demons in the Quori. The Quori are said to be servants of the Dreaming Dark, which according to Hellcow, is pretty much anthromorphization of the human concepts of evil in the world. Whenever you have a bad thought, someone beats someone, or tortures a puppy then the Dreaming Dark gurgles a bit. It's the difference between The Rajahs whom were singing the songs that ended stars before the oceans were cooling and the Dark Side of the Force. The Quori are innately evil by their nature because the nature of the Dreamlands is so thoroughly :censored: up. However, some reason has resulted in some of the Quori becoming good and beginning the Kalashtar. Rajahs don't care about whether you keep slavegirls or not. They may not even be aware humans exist except in the way you and I are aware of fungus. Quori certainly are. They're all about the horrific corruption they want to spread amongst us. Because the collective unconscious or whatever has screwed up the universe they live in. It's interesting to note that Demons, Rajahs, and Quori are all immortal in Eberron. You can kill Orkus in Eberron by going down to Khyber and the Cavern Marked Thanatos but if you do, he'll be back in a week. He'll have lost all of his nifty levels, plenty of power, some memories, and have to start over but it'll still be Orkus. Orkus might well in fact be :censored: at your PCs too for killing him. To me, this makes Evil a Force of Nature more than it does an actual human construct. Now you can blame the Storm for destroying your house, your kids, and so on but its an anthromorphization of a storm. It's like blaming a Fire Elemental for burning people and enjoying it. You can blame Bob Slave Trader.
Alex_ 08-12-07, 04:28 PM	The Greedy slave trader and the merciless Rakshasa are both Evil. Just like the kindly commoner and the Assimar are both Good. However, if you used a detect Evil spell, you'd see that the Rakshasa's Evil aura is much stronger than the greedy slave trader's. The Rakshasa is going to be more selfish, more sadistic, and less compassionate a far greater percentage of the time, and on a greater level. Likewise, the Assimar are both Good, but the Outsider's aura is much stronger than the commoner's, and the Assimar's behaviors will generally be more extreme than the Commoner's. But slaver/Rakshasa are still Evil, and commoner/Assimar are still Good. In D&D, where Evil is a measurable/detectable force, the problem doesn't become, "is this Evil or not?", it becomes, "Is this Evil dangerous enough for me to bother wasting my time on? Could this Evil individuals actions be beneficial to me or others some way? What is the most effective way of dealing with this Evil in proportion to what it has actually done?"
Alex_ 08-12-07, 04:51 PM	Amorality is the belief of "ends justify means" essentially. In D&D, it's more complicated than that. If your means/rationale involve the suffering and possible destruction of others for your personal benefit or happiness, it's generally Evil. If your means/rationale involve the suffering or destruction of yourself for the benefit or happines of others, it's generally Good. If your means/rationale involve the suffering or potential destruction of others for the benefit or happiness of others, or the suffering or destruction of yourself for the benefit or happiness of yourself, then it's generally Neutral. All alignments can be taken to an extreme logical conclusion that is "bad". The most Evil of Evils would forsake the world to save themselves. The most Good of Good will sacrifice themselves to save the world. The most Neutral of Neutrals will destroy the world to save it, or destroy themselves to save themselves. All of those are radical means that justify the ends. Likewise, all can be made "socially acceptable". The Selfish guy is a jerk, the Good guy is nice, and the Neutral guy keeps to himself.
Papermonday 08-13-07, 01:24 PM	I dunno if I'm simple or something, but I usually defines aligments like this: Evil is the guy prepared to abuse others for his own gain. Neutral is the guy who do not care if somebody abuses others. Good is the guy who will care if somebody abuses others. It's what you do that defines what you are (or what you are prepared to do).
Charles Phipps 08-13-07, 05:53 PM	I'm a great believer that alignment, especially in Eberron, should represent Cinematic Evil. By cinematic evil, it's less to represent the complex moral interactions that people deal with and more to represent the case that the person has become a threat to society and those around them. Now, this isn't justification for killing them in cold blood unless you're the Punisher. However, I tend to think that non-violent evil should represent the Mister Potters, Monty Burns, and Ebenezer Scrooges of the world. They're pretty nasty pieces of work even if they don't break any laws. Which brings us to the issue of Anti-Heroes. Riddick, Marv, and the Punisher whom are routinely sighted as examples of 'Evil' Men that are useful as protagionists. Also the issue of Doctor Doom, Magneto, and King Kaius who I tend to term Honorable Evil. Both of these should be carefully differentiated in my opinion. Finally, there will be the issue of Likeable Evil. In general, I tend to believe the majority of Anti-Heroes are better represented by Neutrality rather than evil. I make a simple litmus test for your anti-hero. Does your hero make an effort to not harm the innocent or people that have done nothing to him or does he just not care if they're hurt in the way. It's one of the interesting oddities of the storyline. Doctor Doom and Magneto make efforts to not let their wars become indiscriminate but when it boils down to it, Doctor Doom will totally sacrifice Franklin Richards in an evil ritual to Mephisto while Magneto will plop movie Rogue into his Mutant Making MachineTM. Riddick and Marv seem perfectly of the mind that they're ruthless killing machines that do abominable things to people yet end up not really hurting anyone who didn't have it coming (abeit, Marv hurts those who had it coming VERY VERY badly) Likeable evil for me represents something akin to Vampire: The Masquerade where the lives of the individual are devalued for the 'greater purpose' of the character's continued existence. For example, Lestat or Hannibal Lector hurt plenty of people who are innocent on and off camera but the story doesn't make much of it.
DragoonDarkfire 08-13-07, 11:26 PM	Interesting Charels... I'd assume you're a fan of flavor presented in Complete Scoundrel for Eberron then? Keep in mind this is just bleak assumption but from what I've read of CS it matches a bit of what you say. When it comes to protagonists anyway.
Charles Phipps 08-14-07, 12:07 AM	Interesting Charels... I'd assume you're a fan of flavor presented in Complete Scoundrel for Eberron then? Keep in mind this is just bleak assumption but from what I've read of CS it matches a bit of what you say. When it comes to protagonists anyway. Take note that I'm indicating the Complete Scoundrel is an incredibly appropriate choice for Eberron. It's a very good book because Eberron is one of the few books with the post-Renaissance economy that truly favors organized crime and the importance of coin (because there's much more to buy). However, this doesn't make the prevalence of actual heroes less valid. I've always felt that Paladins in Eberron were a more rewarding experience than many people might think because instead of the shining knights of glory, you can deal instead with The End of Chivalry that is an important part of the land. Want to blame a Post-Satsuma Rebellion style game where there's lots of warriors that feel their lives have lost meaning? Eberron is the setting for that (unless you actually want to play in Japan during the 19th century). Obi Wan Kenobi is the perfect Eberron character because by this point, no one takes him seriously or his hokey religion. The soot makes heroes all the more brighter.
Rauric 08-14-07, 06:36 PM	I just started a campaign where a player is a human crusader from Karnnath that is patterned after Marv/Dwight from Sin City. He seeks to do justice, but he is going to use any method he can to make sure justice is carried out. He told me it like some tv show he watches where the lead is a serial killer who kills criminals or something like that. He won't hurt innocents, just bad folk. Funny thing is the adventuring group he is with has a minotaur, goblin, kobold, and imp in it.
EarthDragon 08-15-07, 06:29 PM	Good vs Evil discussions are pointless. Depending on your cultural background your definition of good and evil will differ. If a Rakshasa is thought that humans are nice snacks and should bring some home to share it with f(r)iends then he is an Good friendly Raja Tiger Demon. According to his fellow demons. To humans he would be the slayer of men and eater of souls. If humans eat nice furry rabbits and rabbits have feelings are we not all Evil in the eyes of rabbits? What if a Rakshasa eats a rabbit, is he good or evil? What if a Rakshasa eats a human, is he good or evil? Is the alien in the movie Alien evil? Or just part of his ecosystem? If human rights exist; do Rakshasa rights exist to eat souls and sustain themselves. The problem is that we project human emotions and motivations on alien fantasised creatures. I disagree with amorality. Amorality does not exist; being a slaver is an active choice not passive. The merchant could also try to sell tableware or shoes instead of humans. But being a slaver is not Evil if you lived in ancient Rome, Greece, China, Africa or Middle East. Even sacrificing humans was a religious duty in many believes. I am happy that nowadays these real live religions are less powerful but it illustrates the shift in what is considered Good and Evil. Do not try to use modern definitions on fantasy role playing game. It is a game: nothing more nothing less.
Charles Phipps 08-15-07, 06:48 PM	I am happy that nowadays these real live religions are less powerful but it illustrates the shift in what is considered Good and Evil. Actually, I'd probably say they're about the same but that's not a discussion for this series. I think good and evil has largely shifted to something independent of nationalism. What seems to bug people about Dungeons and Dragons is that it rejects RELATIVISM. All people are held to the same Out of Universe standard.
DragoonDarkfire 08-15-07, 07:13 PM	Good vs Evil discussions are pointless. I agree, but not in this instance. Depending on your cultural background your definition of good and evil will differ. Agreed but typical ideals of "good" are based around simple emotions. It doesn't matter which culture you're from, when a person you're close to is murdered it's still heart breaking and very emotional. Of course things get complicated when specifics and gray areas are touched on but overall the concept of good and evil is actually very similar for most people around the world. If a Rakshasa is thought that humans are nice snacks and should bring some home to share it with f(r)iends then he is an Good friendly Raja Tiger Demon. According to his fellow demons. Yes but Rakshasa's are kinda known for treachery even among their OWN kind and as such they aren't really friendly or good to ANYONE. To humans he would be the slayer of men and eater of souls. Yes. Because he IS. If you referred to a neutral animal or magical beast that preyed on humans who wandered into his territory than I would agree with you but that's not the case. If humans eat nice furry rabbits and rabbits have feelings are we not all Evil in the eyes of rabbits? Depends. In this instance jackals, lions and ALL predators would be considered evil by the Rabbit. As such murder for sake of yourself or the people around you is most likely a neutral act. Now if that man were to TORTURE rabbits and take simple death to an extreme then I would say he was evil because he was taking the evil aspect of murder and death to an extreme. What if a Rakshasa eats a rabbit, is he good or evil? What if a Rakshasa eats a human, is he good or evil? Again, a Rakshasa wouldn't eat a human because it doesn't EAT. A Rakshasa kills because it gains pleasure from the pain and suffering it inflicts upon lesser creatures. If that's not evil then I don't know what is. Is the alien in the movie Alien evil? Or just part of his ecosystem? Ecosystem? Let's think about that. In this instance the most likely thing to call the alien would be an aberration and it fits the description well. It is a creature that has no natural enemies (aside from Predators but that's more of a cultural thing than a biological niche) and essentially kills the humans for it to reproduce and grow. I don't see anything here that's inherently EVIL with it's actions and frankly I think the aliens would be more along the lines of superbly adept life forms that's manner of thinking isn't acquit to our own. I'd say it's amoral. If human rights exist; do Rakshasa rights exist to eat souls and sustain themselves. Rakshasa's NEED souls to sustain themselves? Since when? And how do you GIVE Rakshasa's rights? They're chaotic evil by nature. If they have no quarrels with killing everything, including each other, then why should humans care whether or not they kill them? There's nothing lost with a Rakshasa's death and it's doubtful it'd be missed at all by anyone or anything. While I admit that in this instance KILLING it is not "good" the lives you'd be saving with that things death would be considered "good" as such you have a good act. The problem is that we project human emotions and motivations on alien fantasised creatures. Because outsiders REPRESENT those emotions and motivations. Demons represent out sins, greed, jealously and lust. That's what a demon IS! I disagree with amorality. Amorality does not exist; being a slaver is an active choice not passive. Yes. As such you're evil but you're not EVIL. The merchant could also try to sell tableware or shoes instead of humans. And make considerably less money. But being a slaver is not Evil if you lived in ancient Rome, Greece, China, Africa or Middle East. No you're evil, or most likely neutral, it's just that people tend to turn a blind eye to the suffering you've caused. Even sacrificing humans was a religious duty in many believes. And many of those humans were sacrificed for good reasons. To bring rain to a parched field, to save a life and such. It's definitely not GOOD but the basic concept of "We must sacrifice for the betterment of us all" is generally a neutral view point. I am happy that nowadays these real live religions are less powerful but it illustrates the shift in what is considered Good and Evil. I don't really see what you're talking about. Hell I'm atheist and even I believe to the idea of morality. Do not try to use modern definitions on fantasy role playing game. It is a game: nothing more nothing less. Well excuse me for trying to bring some realism for people to identify with.
Charles Phipps 08-15-07, 08:06 PM	Yes. As such you're evil but you're not EVIL. On that end, I'm not so sure. It's a bit like saying Emperor Palpatine vs. Grand Moff Tarkin. Emperor Palpatine is the Anti-Christ of Star Wars. He's SOOooooo bad, that God (The Force) sends a Champion down to destroy him. OTOH, Grand Moff Tarkin is the guy who blows up Alderaan the planet of Pacifists. Yes, there's a difference between those Rajah Cultists who want to DESTROY THE WORLDTM but if a Lord of Dust is running a slave market, what's the difference between those who actively work with a demon and those who don't that sell their wares there? No you're evil, or most likely neutral, it's just that people tend to turn a blind eye to the suffering you've caused. There's also a difference between cultural slavery and chattel slavery. In South America, the Spainards worked the natives to death. In certain cultural traditions, slaves were allowed the option of being set free after X-period and not expected to be abused out of hand (of course, how much is the fact that slaves are EXPENSIVE in many parts of the world and you have to be the type of guy who wreck a new car to kill your own slave) I think it's important to identify what the Alien HorrorsTM of Xoriat are evil for and the Lords of Dust Satanic TemptersTM are all about. In the former case, the Xoriat creatures cannot even be rationally understand. In the latter case, Slaver Bob doesn't have to be EVIL because being a slaver is exactly what the Lords of Dust wants from him. Tony the Rakashasa's slavers are not any more evil than others (except maybe occasionally feeding one to Tony every month) because he exists to propagate human institutions of evil for their own sake. Slaver Bob is still doing the same job as before, just with a little extra help.
DragoonDarkfire 08-15-07, 08:14 PM	Yes. As such you're evil but you're not EVIL. On that end, I'm not so sure. It's a bit like saying Emperor Palpatine vs. Grand Moff Tarkin. Emperor Palpatine is the Anti-Christ of Star Wars. He's SOOooooo bad, that God (The Force) sends a Champion down to destroy him. OTOH, Grand Moff Tarkin is the guy who blows up Alderaan the planet of Pacifists. Yes, there's a difference between those Rajah Cultists who want to DESTROY THE WORLDTM but if a Lord of Dust is running a slave market, what's the difference between those who actively work with a demon and those who don't that sell their wares there? Because the Rakshasa's will have both action AND intention against them. They're both ruining lives and doing it for the SAKE of ruining lives. The merchant is just doing it to get money and there's nothing inherently evil about that. I think it's important to identify what the Alien HorrorsTM of Xoriat are evil for and the Lords of Dust Satanic TemptersTM are all about. In the former case, the Xoriat creatures cannot even be rationally understand. No you could not understand Xoriat or the daelkyr. But the mere FACT that they're destroying worlds and turning people into monsters and giving almost no good reason behind it other than "We are the daelkyr resistance is futile" lends us to the realization of their nature. In the latter case, Slaver Bob doesn't have to be EVIL because being a slaver is exactly what the Lords of Dust wants from him. Tony the Rakashasa's slavers are not any more evil than others (except maybe occasionally feeding one to Tony every month) because he exists to propagate human institutions of evil for their own sake. Slaver Bob is still doing the same job as before, just with a little extra help. I believe I covered this.
Charles Phipps 08-15-07, 08:39 PM	Because the Rakshasa's will have both action AND intention against them. They're both ruining lives and doing it for the SAKE of ruining lives. The merchant is just doing it to get money and there's nothing inherently evil about that. Actually, it depends if the Rakashasas get any physical benefit from feeding off the pain and suffering from their victims. If they need it as food then they're exactly as evil as the slavers. I believe I covered this. To the opposite of my conclusion.
DragoonDarkfire 08-15-07, 08:57 PM	Actually, it depends if the Rakashasas get any physical benefit from feeding off the pain and suffering from their victims. If they need it as food then they're exactly as evil as the slavers. This, in my opinion, detracts from what an evil outsider REALLY is. It is a being who's existence is defined by that single property of him and the ideal that he lives up to. To say that a Rakshasa feeds off of pain and suffering and that's why he does it casts him more of an animal trying to survive than an opponent who needs to be killed at all costs. But that's me.
Charles Phipps 08-15-07, 10:28 PM	This, in my opinion, detracts from what an evil outsider REALLY is. It is a being who's existence is defined by that single property of him and the ideal that he lives up to. To say that a Rakshasa feeds off of pain and suffering and that's why he does it casts him more of an animal trying to survive than an opponent who needs to be killed at all costs. But that's me. I'm not so sure. It depends on what you mean from the "Embodiment of Evil." If Rakashasas need to feed on various human vices and self-destructive/outward destructive habits then they're still the enemy of mankind and everything that they stand for. In fact, I dare say they are Pure evil. In the same way as this, a Vampire can be Pure Evil though because it feeds on human blood. Rakashasas, in this model, become like Vampires in that they reveal in their monstrous natures. I'm thinking of Demons from Buffy in some respect for this. They're evil by nature but the worst are those who make an artform of their vicious, cruel, and vile natures.
Alex_ 08-15-07, 11:50 PM	Because the Rakshasa's will have both action AND intention against them. They're both ruining lives and doing it for the SAKE of ruining lives. The merchant is just doing it to get money and there's nothing inherently evil about that. The merchant is making money off the pain and suffering of others. Like the assassin makes money for killing just about anyone for personal profit. Now if he feels bad about it, and wishes he could find a way to make money that doesn't rely on the pain suffering of others, but does so because he sees it as his only realistic option, he'd probably be Neutral. This, in my opinion, detracts from what an evil outsider REALLY is. It is a being who's existence is defined by that single property of him and the ideal that he lives up to. To say that a Rakshasa feeds off of pain and suffering and that's why he does it... That's how it works. casts him more of an animal trying to survive than an opponent who needs to be killed at all costs. Not quite. An animal is Neutral, not only because it's bound by a certain type of behavior/outlook, and cannot deviate from it, but because that general outlook or behavior is neither overly altruistic or overly selfish, and because they don't exist through use animating rituals involving Evil or Good, they are Neutral. Skeletons and Zombies are the same way, only the means used to animate them are Evil (not the Negative energy, but other things) and as a result, are Evil. Demons and Devils have some free will to resist their nature, but far less than a mortal being, because they have much stronger instincts, drives, and desires to see others suffer for their personal pleasure/success. Evil is so strong inside of them that if you used Detect Evil on them compared to a mortal being, they would show up like a beacon. Evil is a much geater part of what they are, and to deny that part is denying much more of their "Demonity" or "Devilness", just like a Human who's too Good or too Evil ceases to be very Human-like and seems like an unreal caricature (only moreso). The same general principle applies to creatures like Angels and Coutals, only in regards to Good instead of Evil.
DragoonDarkfire 08-16-07, 11:46 AM	The merchant is making money off the pain and suffering of others. Like the assassin makes money for killing just about anyone for personal profit. Now if he feels bad about it, and wishes he could find a way to make money that doesn't rely on the pain suffering of others, but does so because he sees it as his only realistic option, he'd probably be Neutral. Exactly. That's why they're both considered evil but aren't EVIL as a demon or mass murdering psychopath is evil.
Charles Phipps 08-16-07, 03:00 PM	Exactly. That's why they're both considered evil but aren't EVIL as a demon or mass murdering psychopath is evil. That depends, is the Demon doing the exact same thing as the Slave Trader for food. Like I said, do Vampires qualify as EVIL in your opinion?
Alex_ 08-16-07, 03:15 PM	That depends, is the Demon doing the exact same thing as the Slave Trader for food. No. He's doing it because he is made of Evil. Different people and different situations, but both are still letting the Evil into them, whether by design, circumstance, general nature, choice or any variety of reasons. It's still all Evil. D&D cosmology isn't fair in those regards. Like I said, do Vampires qualify as EVIL in your opinion? I know you aren't asking me, but yes, Vampires in general are Evil as it's in their general design and nature to be Evil. Although it can be overcome with some effort and work, it can be done. It'll be harder and less probable than it would be for a mortal creature, but easier and more probable than an Outsider with an alignment subtype.
DragoonDarkfire 08-16-07, 03:16 PM	That depends, is the Demon doing the exact same thing as the Slave Trader for food. Like I said, do Vampires qualify as EVIL in your opinion? Hmmm well... I suppose it depends on a few things. 1.) Did the Vampire enter into Vampire hood willingly, knowing it would become an undead monster that feeds off of human blood? If not then I'd think it's more of a victim. 2.) To me, becoming a vampire (or spawn) is like becoming a werewolf or evil lycanthrope. There is a possibility for you to fight it off for a while but the longer you are a vampire the more your instincts of blood take over. Once you murder someone (which is probably inevitable) you start to sink away into the evil and apathetic nature of vampire. A creature who has lost his humanity to become a monster who feeds off others. 3.) Overall I'd say vampires are more evil because of their disposition than any inherent evil they possess.