Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 09-18-07, 03:05 AM	I'm curious about how you would interpret Eberron's shades of gray on alignment and morality. In particular, do you interpret it as meaning that morality and alignment are still important, but you can't infer as many certainties from, say, "Bob is lawful good?" For instance, it could be that Bob is lawful good and cares a lot about doing the right thing, but despises the Church of the Silver Flame and regards it as the worst thing in Khorvaire. Or, alternatively, do you interpret it as meaning that morality just isn't important to many people in Eberron. For a Blood of Vol member, whether someone is good or evil is a lot less important than whether they've been useful and friendly to the Blood of Vol or hostile and uncooperative, for an Aundairan patriot serving Queen and country is the important thing, not helping the forces of good and vanquishing the forces of evil, etc. In other words, people generally don't care all that much about moral issues. For instance, take the "morality of elemental binding" issue: One approach would be to say that most members of mainstream Khorvese society of all alignments accept elemental binding, but there are a minority of people of varying alignments who object to elemental binding on moral grounds, ranging from NG peaceful pamphleteers to CE "elemental liberation" terrorists. This would be the first approach -- morality matters, but good and evil aren't all lined up as "teams" or anything, and sometimes the real answer isn't clear. The other approach would be to say that no one cares about elemental binding from a moral perspective -- it's practical and it works. There might be people who oppose elemental binding because it opposes their interests: for instance, an Orien type might dislike the competition that House Lyrander's elemental airships provide in terms of transportation, on the grounds that House Orien could make more money by teleporting people if House Lyrander weren't providing airship rides as an alternative. However, morality just isn't important. The forces of good in Eberron, such as they are (such as the Church of the Silver Flame), are dedicated to protecting the whole of society from threats from beyond society, such as the Lords of Dust, the Daelkyr, etc, not dedicated toward promoting any particular perspective within society. I'm wondering which approach you favor, or neither, or a combination of the two. Is it that morality and alignment in Eberron is less important than in classical D&D, or is that morality and alignment are expanded beyond clean-cut good and evil conflicts, to include moral conflict where who is right is ambiguous? I think I'd go with about 70% first approach (increased diversity), 30% second approach (reduced importance).
Shady314 09-18-07, 05:01 AM	I'd say it just means Eberron is more like the real world and such things can not be quantified. It's some of column A and some of column B with varying degrees and intensity from person to person.
Kid SixXx 09-18-07, 08:38 AM	Well, I think that morality and goodness are very important in the setting. The problem is the metagame assumption that just because there are forces of "good," that those forces are also friendly towards one another. I don't understand the assumption that just because people are of good aligngment that they absolutely have to be chummy. People of varying good alignments are just as likely to be divided on the best way to combat evil as people of varying evil alignments are varied in the best way to crush good. (ie. The Blood War between demons & devils is probably the best example of the falling out of evil factions.) Alignment is only one facet of the PC, not the driving impetus & in a place like post-war Khorvaire I'd think that nationalism would be just as important. I think it's very possible for "Bob" to be a lawful good citizen of Breland and still have his doubts about just how "benevolent" the ruling theocracy of Thrane actually is, despite the mechanical fact that we as players and DM's are "aware" that most of the Silver Flame clergy tend to be of good alignment with the exception of a few bad apples. I think that the morality of elemental binding is also a meta-issue. You don't see that kind of moral outrage when someone saddles a horse in-game, but when people note that the INT score of an elemental is around the level of sentience then binding becomes tantamount to slavery.
Demon_Paladin 09-18-07, 05:05 PM	I just had a random thought. P.E.T.E. People for the ethical treatment of elementals.
Charles Phipps 09-18-07, 05:18 PM	I think Eberron, basically, boils down to a setting where good and evil are irrelevant to what's better. Queen Aurala is Neutral Good and one of the nicest people in the world but she's the girl whose happily building a Nuclear Bomb in her basement to drop on Karrnath because it's for the "Greater Good." King Kaius drinks the blood of babies and laughs manically over the hordes of impaled criminals in his back yard yet he's the guy who wants to avoid another war at all costs. Good and evil in Eberron are irrelevant to what's "right" and this results in a Utilitarianism focused setting that nevertheless has Kantian ethics as a basis. When you blow a man's head away in Eberron, it's STILL the wrong thing to do but it might just make the world a better place in the long run. Weirdly, I'd say Eberron is the only place in the world where the standard Alignment system works better than a lack of an alignment system. In this case, Eberron is filled with people that the system says are absolutely no good whatever but you may end up having to ally with them or support them because it accomplishes Objective B. You don't even get to delude yourself they're not so bad.
taski 09-18-07, 08:28 PM	In my Eberron game, we don't use alignment, so I suppose I can't answer half of your question. For morality, I prefer to let players define their character's moral outlook, and even how important morality is to them. The same goes for NPCs. They won't be deciding anything based on their alignment (since they don't have one), but on their own values, code, impulses, social pressures, or just following whoever shouts loudest. Some people will object to elemental binding on moral grounds, some will on political ones, some will just because it's a popular idea in their crowd, and some will claim they do to get support from gullible sympathizers. There are myriad groups that want to change society to fit their moral standards, and there are groups that don't care. There are people within groups who have their own moral compass and don't always agree with the majority of their group, and there are people within groups who loudly claim to be the majority but aren't, and there are people who could be convinced the world is actually a blueberry pancake with maple syrup on top. Morality, in my Eberron, is a sticky subject.
Just_some_Evil_Wizard 09-19-07, 02:22 PM	The Last War is a very recent memory to the people of Khorvaire. I'd say it matters a person's nationality matters much, much more to them than their moral views. An evil army officer might be more willing to use "evil" weapons on the enemy (necromancy, poison, diseases etc.) or attacking civilian targets. But hell, at least he kills the "bad guys" (or their little kids, but hey, they'll be the enemy in ten years). A paladin might be the kindest guy in the world, but if he's from Thrane, and if you are a soldier of Karnath... well... he's going to try to kill you, so personally, I wouldn't care all that much about his alignment in this situation. The war is over now, but a war lasting for a hundred years will leave lasting scars in the morality and view of pretty much everybody. Additionally, allegiances to nations, power groups, conspiracies, freakish cults, dragonmarked houses and so on are still there. These are more important, I'd say, than alignment, race, class and so on. I'd compare it to "militant wings" and "political wings" of real world organizations. One might use more radical (=ruthless) methods, while the other tries to accomplish their goals in a more peaceful way. There might be serious fighting in the group, but against their enemies, they typically still stand united. However, as members of different alignments spend time together without bashing their heads in, talk about alignment and questions of morality has much more room in Eberron. In our campaign, we have an interesting mixture of alignments and allegiances, and there have been several heated discussions about the party's responsibility to Khorvaire / their employer / the human race that would never have occured in a group of run-of-the-mill neutral good adventurers. Interestingly, the evil guys have taken the more responsible and humanitarian stand point several times. Opportunitys for some fun role-playing, I'd say.
Alex_ 09-19-07, 04:27 PM	I see the shade of gray in Eberron as Evil is still Evil and Good is still Good, but Good isn't necessarily right and Evil isn't necessarily wrong. They're opposed forces and philosophies and ideals, but each has their uses. Like Fire and Water. People in Eberron, just like the players, know that sometimes the Good choice will get you and everyone killed and the sometimes the Evil choice will ultimately be the most beneficial. It's nice and peachy to help the poor, risk your life, etc at times, but there are times when you do have to do bad, ugly, and selfish things or consort with powerful, but dark beings and powers. Yes Good is usually more positive and highly regarded than Evil. That's because Good usually involves building things up, or helping others, while Evil generally involves destroying things and hurting people. However,everybody knows that you can't be a goody-two-shoes all the time. There is still objective Evil and Good. There's also still creatures that are pretty much always Evil/Good- usually extraplanar beings and things born of magic. I reference it a lot, but if you've ever played Knights of the Old Republic or Jade Empire games, that's what I think of Eberron alignment (well alignment in general). Changing the terms used would probably go a long way to heping. Dark Side and Light Side or Open Palm and Closed Fist are terms less likely to polarize people or conjure pre-supposed ideals.
Charles Phipps 09-19-07, 04:47 PM	I reference it a lot, but if you've ever played Knights of the Old Republic or Jade Empire games, that's what I think of Eberron alignment (well alignment in general). Changing the terms used would probably go a long way to heping. Dark Side and Light Side or Open Palm and Closed Fist are terms less likely to polarize people or conjure pre-supposed ideals. Except, I think its important you keep those moral absolutes. The idea is far less powerful if it's "This is something that you absolutely should not be doing because its WRONG" as opposed to Edgy.
Alex_ 09-19-07, 05:37 PM	Except, I think its important you keep those moral absolutes. The idea is far less powerful if it's "This is something that you absolutely should not be doing because its WRONG" as opposed to Edgy. I never removed "absolutes" in alignment. For instance, an Evil human is nothing like an Undead or a Demon. They take Evil to whole other levels. A Good Dwarf is nothing compared to the selflessness and compassion you'd see expressed by a Paladin, which pales in comparison to an Angel. In KOTOR, you had dark side companions, but nobody as extreme as Darth Malak, or creatures roaming the Sith homeworld.
Charles Phipps 09-19-07, 05:51 PM	I never removed "absolutes" in alignment, and there are still "levels". For instance, an Evil human is nothing like an Undead or a Demon. They take Evil to whole other levels. A Good Dwarf is nothing compared to the selflessness and compassion you'd see expressed by a Paladin, which pales in comparison to an Angel. Except, King Kaius is no more evil than most other Lawful Evils out there. There are Radiant Idols whom are Angels just like any other, they just fell. There are also "good" Quori. You can be a Lawful Good Necromancer with hordes of undead behind you. I'm fairly sure the old rules of "Demon=Pure evil" no longer apply because Free will is absolute in Eberron. I love the idea of a Paladin killing a Angel because he's more righteous than the Angel's Cause.
Alex_ 09-19-07, 09:35 PM	Except, King Kaius is no more evil than most other Lawful Evils out there. I'd disagree there. King Kaius could very well be more or less empathetic, compassionate, and altrusitic than another Evil person. I mean Kaius may be Evil, but he does try to fight for Karrnath. There are some people out there who kill, torture, rape, and do everything under the sun simply because they enjoy seeing people suffer. He actually fights against his blood lust. He apparently cared for his former wife. Kaius may be a cold and heartless in general, but he's no psychopathic sadist. And Kaius's aspirations and list of sins compares nothing to the Lords of Dust, Daelkyr Lords, or even Vol. The first wants to destroy the world, the second have done it plenty of times for the thrill, and the third willingly and knowingly undertook an Evil ritual to transform themself into a generally Evil aligned creature so that they could manipulate and sacrifice others for their personal vendettas which involve lots more death and destruction. Again, Kaius isn't a great guy, but the above are even worse. Likewise, I'm sure there are people who are Evil, but more cowardly than Kaius and generally haven't done anything in particular that would repulse common folk the way Kaius has. There are those who could be talked into Neutral or Good aligned lifestyles or philosophies more easily than Kaius. Some people are just further gone than others. There are Radiant Idols whom are Angels just like any other, they just fell. Sharn:CoT also says, "none are so thoroughly corrupt as the fiends of the lower planes", suggesting that not even the Evil ones amongst them are as Evil as other creatures. There does seem to be some kind of metagame heirarchy of Evil- independent of the Flame's idea. There are also "good" Quori. All Quori have the Evil subtype though. Even if you're a Good aligned Quori (which goes against the very substance you're made of) you still have the Evil subtype, and as such still show up like a beacon on Detect Evil, can get nailed by Smite Evil, and all other spells that only effect Evil things. While not as Evil as other Quori, they're not as Good as a Good aligned Archon. You can be a Lawful Good Necromancer with hordes of undead behind you. Casting any spell with an Evil descriptor, like create Undead, is considered an Evil act, and the ECS does suggest an alignment shift for individuals who regularly use a spell of a particular alignment description. Either way, the Necromancer isn't going to be "as Good" as the Paladin who hasn't done an Evil deed in the past decade, and has a bright aura of Good, and basically is elemental Good in mortal form, and that Paladin won't be as Good as the Angel that's literally made of Good. They can all turn Neutral or Evil, but you could probably talk the Necromancer into it before the Paladin, and talk the Paladin into it before the Angel. I'm fairly sure the old rules of "Demon=Pure evil" no longer apply because Free will is absolute in Eberron. Absolutely, however, this doesn't imply that an Outsider operating outside of their general alignment is as common as a mortal creature. All it takes is 1 Good aligned Demon out of 900 billion to say that Demons can be Good aligned, but that doesn't make it very common or likely. It doesn't even mean that Demon has to exist, as long as there's a possibility. Looking at the Eberron books so far, aligned outsiders are pretty much follow their alignments. Those that don't either suffer some significant consequences (Radiant Idols), or are the result of special circumstances, like the N aligned Demon Captain in the Explorer's Handbook who seems to be acting as a slave to someone else. Even pretty much all Undead so far have been Evil in alignment. They're not as free to change alignment as a Gnome or Elf and you don't see comparable alignment demographics. I love the idea of a Paladin killing a Angel because he's more righteous than the Angel's Cause. You could do that even with the "classic" D&D alignment system. ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ...... I basically use the Silver Flame's hierarchy of Evil, and also a hierarchy of Good in reverse. The Areas in between are where Neutral things exist.
Kid SixXx 09-19-07, 10:38 PM	I kinda like the notion of Kaius being a tragic figure exemplifying that the ends may be used to reason away the means, but the costs of the means is sometimes heavy. I see Kaius as a hardened but somewhat compassionate guy that came to the conclusion that extending his reign would be the best for Karnnath without realizing the dire toll the curse of vampirism would take on him. Even now, I picture Kaius as either somewhat oblivious to just how much of a monster he's become due to his vampirism, or that he's dealt with being a vampire for so long in the course of sheppherding Karnnath that he no longer cares about it.
bhasu 09-20-07, 09:05 PM	In one of my campaigns I play a Bone Knight who is utterly behind Karrnath, and was behind the Blood of Vol when he saw it from the angle that the common folk did. The angle that Kaius originally saw it from. As it goes, when you dig further into what you believe, sometimes you see things. Kaius saw what Vol was doing in Karrnath when he broke from the religion and wrested back his will. He saw Vol as a means to save his people, not thinking about what the further consequences would be. I guess, more than anything else, I see Kaius as a tragic hero/villain. And then there is my Bone Knight. It is interesting that most of the common people worshippin in the Tradition of Blood have no idea of the truth behind it. And whats more, if you are a Karrn, you could still see it in the light of something that saved your country. Thats how Malthus sees it. He is LN. He sees the utility behind his raising up the dead to fight. To him, the good/evil argument about undeath holds less weight. What does disturb him though is the things he is beginning to see in the higher levels of the church (When the party fought a graverobbing renegade priest of Vol), and it got his wheels spinning. Sometimes, it is just what you know that colors your views.
Charles Phipps 09-20-07, 09:09 PM	Me, I always played King Kaius as an extraordinarilly bad man. I mean, Kaius is EVIL. The Code of Kaius is the whole "impale people and raise their corpses while charging the family for the spell" type of bad. Torture, murder, and a police state all rolled into one. And the fun part was, I always said that the Karrnath people were pretty much okay with him. He was very effective at steering the country through all the relentless crap that it had been put through from famines to social unrest. In fact, what always unnerved the PCs was that Kaius' most unpopular decision was that he was too soft on the other nations in the Treaty of Thronehold. If he ever gets staked, he'll probably be viewed with the same mixed feelings as Pinochet. Edit: Hey, you think we can get Hellcow here for Kaius morality talk?
bhasu 09-20-07, 09:29 PM	That would be preferrable, since he has his Character Sheet at his house somewhere. I still vote for the Tragic Neitzschean Hero/Villain.
Charles Phipps 09-20-07, 09:49 PM	That would be preferrable, since he has his Character Sheet at his house somewhere. I still vote for the Tragic Neitzschean Hero/Villain. I think Kaius is tragic, but I don't think that there's anything remotely sympathetic about him either. He's a bit like Strahd Von Zharovich in the fact that he has understandable motivations but does truly horrific things that void most sense of heroism. The man ravaged his country, converted it to Vol worship, converted it back, and turned it into an army of the dead. He enforces a Draconian Legal Code, clearly wanted the Crown of Galifar for no reason other than ambition, and keeps his grandson locked up in a Hellish prison because he thinks he can do a better job. One thing to recall is that moral dilemnas shouldn't just be inverted either. There's no point in just saying "Kaius is actually just this misunderstood vampire" because that just makes him the hero of the peace. A dilemna requires there to be pros and cons for both sides, in my opinion. In my example; Kaius is for peace and if he dies, then almost certainly the Next War will break out. However, he's also an evil dictator that keeps his lands in the toils of oppression. So what do the PCs do? If they kill Kaius, they make a decision for the people of Karrnath. If they protect him, they make a decision for the other nations at their expense.
bhasu 09-20-07, 10:25 PM	I liked Strahd too. I haven't met Kaius yet, so I still hold out hope for the spark of humanity in him.
Kid SixXx 09-21-07, 07:00 AM	One thing to recall is that moral dilemnas shouldn't just be inverted either. There's no point in just saying "Kaius is actually just this misunderstood vampire" because that just makes him the hero of the peace. A dilemna requires there to be pros and cons for both sides, in my opinion. Well, I hardly think that Kaius is a vampire of the Ricean sort. He definitely believes that whatever atrocity he needs to commit will be justified by the order of rule he preserves. The splatbooks never really go into Kaius' grandson's psyche so it's reasonable to conjecture that perhaps Kaius took on the mantle of vampirism and usurped his grandson's throne because he honestly felt that his grandson coming to power would be a genuinely disasterous path. I'm not suggesting that Kaius is a "woe is me" kind of vampire, but I do suggest that he's perfectly willing to do all the wrong things in order to nudge along the right outcome (ie. the preservation of Karnnath.). Kaius is guilty of a great many sins, but I don't think that very many are born of pure selfishness with the possible exception of Kaius taking his grandson's place as ruler of Karnnath. And even then, his grandson is imprisoned, alive, and mortal as opposed to dead or undead. Small a detail as that may be, it still speaks volumes to me.
Charles Phipps 09-21-07, 01:32 PM	Maybe, let's not forget Kaius is one of the only people whose genuinely responsible for the original Last War as well. Now you can say he utterly thought that his sister was unfit to be Empress of Galifar and he'd make a better ruler but that's the same motivation that Lex Luthor/Doctor Doom have for taking over the planet (they're right too). Sometimes, I think the ambiguity of the characters hurts the setting because both of us are right because it's up to the DMs.