Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 07:06 AM	First of all, I m not questioning the evil of the Blood of Vol as an organization-they are dedicated to furthering the goals of Erandis d' Vol and employ any means necessary to do so- but rather the evil of the Blood of Vol as a church. I have read the Blood of Vol section in Faiths of Eberron a couple of times and just can't see anything in the doctrine that would justify classifying the religion as evil.
grifo 08-12-07, 07:57 AM	I have read the Blood of Vol section in Faiths of Eberron a couple of times and just can't see anything in the doctrine that would justify classifying the religion as evil. I don't have the book on me but I understand what you mean, by it's core BoV is not an evil religion. HOWEVER, while it's not evil in a traditional "destroy the world" kind of way it does promote undeath and necromancy - both of which are evil. As far as I see it, this is probably what gives it it's evil alignment. And dont forget eberron's golden alignment rule: good can do evil, evil can do good.
Nived 08-12-07, 10:30 AM	Because even if your average commoner in the BoV isn't a bad or evil person their religion does exhalt and promote intelligent undead. The leaders of their church are intelligent undead, even if they don't know of Vol herself, all of them know that the undead are 'martyrs to the cause' and do what they can to help, promote, and sustain wrights, vampites, liches, mummies... You can argue all day long about whether 'necromancy' or 'negative energy' is evil or not... but the processes that make intelligent undead like wrights, vampires, liches, mummies, ghasts, ghouls, etc is evil. Even if the person was a good person and a follower of the BoV for the right reasons if they become an intelligent undead they will slowly become evil. Even with Eberron's shades of grey supernatural sources of alignment, outsiders, lycanthrope, and yes undead templates still alter people's alignments. Once this good person is undead, they'll change, they might fight it, but they'll change. They'll become calous, cruel, vicious, ruthless, greedy, brutal. Even if they didn't know about Vol herself or would have resisted her in life... now they'll make an easy and willing pawn in her sceams. This is an ends and means question. The ends of the Blood of Vol on paper may not be evil. But the means and the true ends are utterly evil. Its not about being right, its about doing right. A common man worshipping the Blood of Vol isn't doing anything wrong, but he's not doing what's right.
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 11:08 AM	I won't restart the debate about (the creation of) intelligent undead being inherently evil or not; my view of this is that they shouldn't be but for the sake of present discussion let's assume they are. So, offcially at least, the Blood of Vol is using undead and necromancy (evil) to help and guide the Seekers to find the Divinity Within, and thus achieve a better life (which in my opinion is a good act). so the doctrine would rather tend toward neutrality on the good evil axis.
Nived 08-12-07, 11:21 AM	But that's not the true goal of the religion, that's a cover story fed to the masses by a cabal controling the religion. The true goal of the religion is the reestablishment of the House Vol, The Mark of Death, Revenge against Aerenal and Argonnessen.
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 11:38 AM	But that's not the true goal of the religion, that's a cover story fed to the masses by a cabal controling the religion. The true goal of the religion is the reestablishment of the House Vol, The Mark of Death, Revenge against Aerenal and Argonnessen. What you say is true, but for the masses what is being fed to them is what they consider truth, right?
Nived 08-12-07, 11:51 AM	Believing the Earth is flat doesn't make it flat.
ZappoHisbane 08-12-07, 11:58 AM	But that's not the true goal of the religion, that's a cover story fed to the masses by a cabal controling the religion. The true goal of the religion is the reestablishment of the House Vol, The Mark of Death, Revenge against Aerenal and Argonnessen. One could (and many have) argue that the above is the goal of Lady Vol, but not the religion itself. Vol has corrupted the tenants of an ancient religion to suit her needs. On the other hand, "The Blood of Vol" refers specifically to her version of the religion. As for the use of necromantic/negative energy being inherantly evil...I'm not sure that's the case in Eberron. I've always interpreted the 'shades of grey' alignment structure to allow for the use of 'evil' magic in the name of good. It's not the tool that is evil, but what you do with it. Killing dolgrims with Inflict Light Wounds is probably good. Killing kittens with Inflict Light Wounds is probably bad. :)
Nived 08-12-07, 12:25 PM	However it can't be denied that all undead other than Ghosts in the Core Rules are evil. Now I can understand the arguments over whether zombies or skeletons should not be evil but for the rest. Ghasts and Ghouls hunger for the flesh of their own kind. "the transformation from living thing beings into fell things of the night has warped their minds, making them cunning and feral" Mohrgs are created from the bodies from the worst murders and exist to continue killing. "Tortured by an all consuming hatred of the living" Liches are evil, not only can the template only be applied to the evil "The Process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character." Mummies "Animated through the auspices of dark gods" Spectre "They haunt the places where they died, retaining their sentience but now hating all living things" Vampires, under Vampires as characters, "Vampires are always evil"... which goes further than the alignment line. These vampires aren't meant to be tragic metaphor like Anne Rice vampires these are monster vampires that haunt the night. They can certainly be tragic figures by by and large vampires are monsters. If they're not that rare repentant vamp who wrestles with their dark side doesn't matter, because it seems like that's what they all are these days, none are really that bad... which honestly takes away from any tragedy they had. Let your vampires be monsters... Wights "Undead creatures given a semblance of life through sheer violence and hatred". Wraiths "Incorporeal creatures born of evil and darkness" Like I said, intelligent undead are evil. They don't absolutely have to be, look at ghosts. But most of them are, even under the blurred alignments of Eberron, Wights, Mohrgs, Spectres, Wraiths etc aren't only intended to be evil, they are by the nature of the creatures tied to evil. Just remember, such repentant tragic intelligent undead like Strahd (Ravenloft Vampire), Lord Soth (Dragonlance Death Knight), and King Kaius III are all still evil. While the adherents of the religion aren't evil, nearly all of the church hierarchy is. Thus the aura of the clergy is evil.
Hellcow 08-12-07, 01:16 PM	Why is the Blood of Vol LE? Because that's the nature of the source of power from which its clerics draw their spells, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with the alignment of the worshippers or even their actions. Why is the Path of Light Lawful Neutral when most of its followers seek to do good? Same thing. In Eberron, we don't know if the gods are what people THINK they are. But that doesn't change the fact that clerics draw their power from an outside force, and that this force has an alignment, sets the cleric's aura, sets their postive/negative energy connection, and determines the available domains. You may decide that it is purely the faith of the cleric that allows him to cast divine magic, but even if that's the case, it's because his faith allows him to touch this power source and channel this power. The rituals of the Blood of Vol can ultimately be traced back to the Qabalrin of Xen'drik. They tapped into a source of divine energy. The doctrine of the BoV says that this is the divinity of the blood; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But whatever the truth of the matter, the source of power that you connect to when you perform the rituals of the Blood of Vol has a lawful and evil alignment, negative energy bias, and the Law, Evil, Death, and Necromancy domains. That doesn't mean the worshipper must be evil. It doesn't mean the goals of the faith are necessarily evil. It simply means that that's the nature of the power source and the effect it has on a cleric who channels it. This may ultimately mean that the power ISN'T what the clerics believe it to be, because if it's what they think it is, why is it evil? But the fact of the matter is that it's not evil BECAUSE of what they believe; it's evil because it's evil. As I said, the best counter-example is the Path of Light, which is neutral even though most of its followers are good; with the BoV, you have a power that is evil even though many of its followers are neutral. The faith doesn't create the source of power, whether that power is a true god or something else; it simply taps into it. Of course, a follower of the Path of Light isn't bothered by the fact that his power source isn't "good", because he doesn't believe in a god; he knows that the power source is just that, a source of divine energy that he uses to do good (key point: clerics of the Path of Light don't worship il-Yannah, because il-Yannah doesn't exist; il-Yannah is what WILL exist when il-Lashtavar is defeated). With all that said... how does a good cleric of the Blood of Vol deal with the fact that he has an evil aura? The key issue is that detect alignment spells don't carry the same weight in Eberron as they do elsewhere. Even the Silver Flame doesn't define "evil" as "That which can be detected by detect evil." So depending which variation of the BoV doctrine he follows, I'd expect one of the following responses: If he follows the version mentioned in Sharn - "Evil gods cursed the world with death and suffering, and we must destroy them to bring an end to death for all" - then the answer is obvious; the Priests of BoV have an evil aura because the cruel gods are afraid of them and trying to turn the world against them. Meanwhile, the fact that followers of the Sovereigns get good auras is laughable and proof that the gods are trying to manipulate mortals to do their bidding. If he follows the "There are no gods" version, than the evil aura can be justified by the fear and distrust of the rest of the world. The faith isn't evil, but it is misunderstood and feared by others, and this causes it to be perceived as evil. Anyhow, that's my take on it.
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 01:30 PM	While the adherents of the religion aren't evil, nearly all of the church hierarchy is. Thus the aura of the clergy is evil. I really don't agree to this. Let's assume that Jalela Daran somehow disappears. At least until a new Keeper is chosen, Cardinal Krozen would most likely eb the head of the church hierarchy. Does this mean that the Silver Flame clerics will start radiating an evil aura? Actually, this cleric aura stuff is what bothers me most: in core D&D a cleric radiates an aura corresponding to his deity's alignment due to his strong connection to it. In Eberron, as deities are more akin to philosophical concept rather than actual entities, I assume that the cleric's aura (as the rest of his powers) comes from the strong faith he has in the principles of his religion. Well, even low level clerics of the Blood of Vol radiate evil, yet I do not see the great Evil principle they worship. As for explanation on why undead are evil: Ghasts and ghouls: most predatory animals can be described as 'cunning and feral', they too hunger for the flesh of men and yet they are neutral. And as far as I understand from the ghoul's description in the MM 'it hungers for the flesh of the living', this is more an instinctive need rather than a deliberate act of evil. Mohrgs: I agree here. Liches: Well, the process might be 'unspeakably evil', but what if it is undertaken for a good purpose? Doing one justified evil act does not make you evil, at least not in Eberron. Mummies: Well, there are no 'dark gods' in Eberron, so the creation of a mummy might be slightly different and not necessarely evil. Spectres: I agree here too. Vampires: this subject has been debated countless times and I think it mostly depends upon your vision on vampires if you accept the idea of vampires not being compelled to evil or not. Wraiths and wights: I agree here too.
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 01:33 PM	Well, I assume that Hellcow's post (which I missed while writing my above post) answers to most of the things I had unclear. Thank you.
Hellcow 08-12-07, 02:01 PM	Well, I assume that Hellcow's post answers to most of the things I had unclear. Well, it's my opinion - you're always entitled to your own. ;)
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 02:08 PM	Well, it's my opinion - you're always entitled to your own. ;) Yes, but as the designer of Eberron, your opinions are most likely how you intended things to be, so they (should) carry some weight around here. For me at least they do.
JulesCARV 08-12-07, 03:21 PM	The lawful aspect also seems a bit confusing to me. The Blood of Vol seems to be involved in a lot of secretive conspiracies and deception (such as Erandis, the backing fo the Emerald Claw, etc) and also places a high value on the individual rather than the collective. This isn't to say they're chaotic, but it seems more like neutrality than law to me.
Nived 08-12-07, 03:24 PM	There's a real disconnect when it comes to Eberron's 'mortal' races beinggiven more leeway with alignments, and D&D's take that Evil, Good, etc are measurable forces. Some magic is just evil because its evil you cast it it shows up evil, it just does reguardless of 'intent'. While relitive morality is all well and good, in D&D there has to be some objective alignment for the purposes of spellcasting. We often see people trying to strip material of its alignment components when putting them in Eberron, even for things innately tied to their alignment, and sometimes I get a little overzealous over argueing against it and go too far in the other direction. Liches: Well, the process might be 'unspeakably evil', but what if it is undertaken for a good purpose? Doing one justified evil act does not make you evil, at least not in Eberron. Kauis is a force of peace, but he's still evil. Ends and means. Doing evil things in the name of good might be considered neutral but it'll never be 'good'. Sometimes though there are just no 'good' choices. Mummies: Well, there are no 'dark gods' in Eberron, so the creation of a mummy might be slightly different and not necessarely evil. Respectfully disagree there are plenty of dark gods and evil religious forces. Still Hellcow I do like the "It just is, sometimes there's no accounting for it" explaination. Problem is getting people to accept it.
The White Sorcerer 08-12-07, 03:49 PM	Well, it's my opinion - you're always entitled to your own. ;) Our own opinions can't answer the question "Why did the designers make BoV a lawful evil religion," however. The intent of the designers is a good thing to know.
Alex_ 08-12-07, 04:06 PM	I have read the Blood of Vol section in Faiths of Eberron a couple of times and just can't see anything in the doctrine that would justify classifying the religion as evil. It's not "hahahaha we kill babies and spread destruction everythere" kind of Evil. However, reading the description of the BoV and then the Good and Neutral faiths (rather than just being apologetic), it becomes more evident that the BoV is a faith that greatly encourages self centered and selfish thinking, manipulation of others, and lack of compassion or selfless charity for the weak and suffering. In addition to drawing upon Evil energies, the faith's ego-centric attitude, it has no real rules against murder or the like. On page 80, it's even mentioned that some weaker willed members become sacrifices in some areas. This would be largely unacceptable in the other Good/Neutral faiths, no matter where they're being practiced. Not to say that all members are Evil aligned. However, there is a much smaller bias towards Good and a much larger bias towards Evil than in faiths like the Sovereign Host or Silver Flame. The Blood of Vol's teachings and practices appeal much more to Evil individuals than Good ones. It's not as bad as the Cults of the Dragon Below or Lords of Dust though. The BoV is more socially acceptable, but it's still Evil.
Drag0nUL 08-12-07, 04:30 PM	Respectfully disagree there are plenty of dark gods and evil religious forces. What I meant is that there are no dark gods as entities, such as in Greyhawk and FR. As far as I know there is no account anywhere in the books of an act performed by a god.
Nived 08-12-07, 04:33 PM	What I meant is that there are no dark gods as entities, such as in Greyhawk and FR. As far as I know there is no account anywhere in the books of an act performed by a god. I'll grant you that. I supose in my mind at least, the mummification and burrial rituals that result in a mummy rather than a dried corpse belong to Eberron's 'evil' religions. Such rituals would probably be all dark evil and have the word 'curse' thrown around a lot.
Alex_ 08-12-07, 04:43 PM	What I meant is that there are no dark gods as entities, such as in Greyhawk and FR. As far as I know there is no account anywhere in the books of an act performed by a god. There are no "gods as entities such as Greyhawk or FR" period. The members of the Host/Dark Six are pantheistic powers with various visual representations created by mortals, but no actual form, the Silver Flame is disembodied force, and the Blood of Vol is about blood. You can't travel to any plane and attempt to speak directly to, interact with, or fight these entities. The closest to Greyhawk/FR deities in Eberron would be the Undying Court, Daelkyr, Rajahs, and Quori, beings of unrivaled powers (in Eberron) but lack any divine ranks.
The Fireballed Mage 08-12-07, 05:33 PM	The lawful aspect also seems a bit confusing to me. The Blood of Vol seems to be involved in a lot of secretive conspiracies and deception (such as Erandis, the backing fo the Emerald Claw, etc) and also places a high value on the individual rather than the collective. This isn't to say they're chaotic, but it seems more like neutrality than law to me. For me, Law refers to those who plan, like structure, form, and are able to put off immediate gain for long-term goals. Seekers know they will not defeat the evil gods and triumph over death within their lifetimes. The war against death is a long-term struggle that will take sacrifice and suffering, but they hope their great-great-X- grandkids could live forever. They sacrifice a small amount of their blood during festivals for the benefit of the community of Seekers as a whole. That seems to be a Lawful focus to me. Even if it promotes the individual, it's the individual as part of a greater whole, part of the community. You make personal sacrifices now for benefit later. And if anything, secretive conspiracies can certainly be a lawful thing. Moving in dark places, holding your cards close to your chest, waiting for the right time to strike... not now, but soon, soon they shall know and all our patient waiting shall pay off... Delayed gratification is totally lawful in how I see alignment working.
Hellcow 08-12-07, 05:48 PM	For me, Law refers to those who plan, like structure, form, and are able to put off immediate gain for long-term goals... Delayed gratification is totally lawful in how I see alignment working. I completely agree. And the question of individual vs collective is quite different depending on which version of the faith you look at. By the version described in Sharn: City of Towers, the collective is far more important than the individual. The goal of the faith is to win immortality for ALL; the shared blood of the community is a symbol of the bond that holds them together, as their community is all that they have in a universe filled with hostile gods. Meanwhile, the undead champions are martyrs who have given up their own chance at true immortality and divinity to help the others. Faiths of Eberron puts a somewhat different spin on it, but there you have it. But, of course, this doesn't change my previous point that the alignment of the power source the priests draw on isn't determined by the behavior of the followers. The power existed first, and it's the force that responds to their prayers.
Psionycx 08-12-07, 06:10 PM	A good analogy in the real world is Christianity, which in theory is a Lawful Good religion. However, the general population of believers covers the full range of alignments from Lawful Neutral rules-lawyers quoting numbered passages out of the Bible, to Neutral Good people wholly committed to charitable works and disinterested in theological debate, to Chaotic Neutral free spirits, to depraved Neutral Evil types who commit murders because they think they're doing "holy work". Vol herself is Lawful Evil and the trickle down (at least through the higher levels of her operation) seems to go that way as well. But the actual laity doesn't need to be Evil (especially since they don't know about Vol).
ArcTan 08-13-07, 12:10 AM	Why is the Blood of Vol LE? Because that's the nature of the source of power from which its clerics draw their spells, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with the alignment of the worshippers or even their actions. Why is the Path of Light Lawful Neutral when most of its followers seek to do good? Same thing. I have to say I've always found this blunt statement unsatisfying. I don't like there being a theoretical total disconnect between the "source" of the power and the beliefs of the caster. In my idea of how it ought to work, the beliefs of the caster *do* determine how their powers work -- not necessarily because religion is a crock and divine magic is generated by willpower, but because if "sources" do exist out there -- real gods and goddesses -- it's your beliefs that determine what source you draw on. In Eberron, we don't know if the gods are what people THINK they are. But that doesn't change the fact that clerics draw their power from an outside force, and that this force has an alignment, sets the cleric's aura, sets their postive/negative energy connection, and determines the available domains. You may decide that it is purely the faith of the cleric that allows him to cast divine magic, but even if that's the case, it's because his faith allows him to touch this power source and channel this power. And I don't think you can draw from a Lawful Evil source of power without Lawful Evil beliefs. You, yourself, personally may not be Lawful Evil, but your beliefs are (and people often don't have the same alignment as their beliefs). The rituals of the Blood of Vol can ultimately be traced back to the Qabalrin of Xen'drik. They tapped into a source of divine energy. The doctrine of the BoV says that this is the divinity of the blood; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. But whatever the truth of the matter, the source of power that you connect to when you perform the rituals of the Blood of Vol has a lawful and evil alignment, negative energy bias, and the Law, Evil, Death, and Necromancy domains. That doesn't mean the worshipper must be evil. It doesn't mean the goals of the faith are necessarily evil. It simply means that that's the nature of the power source and the effect it has on a cleric who channels it. This may ultimately mean that the power ISN'T what the clerics believe it to be, because if it's what they think it is, why is it evil? But the fact of the matter is that it's not evil BECAUSE of what they believe; it's evil because it's evil. ...Enh. At the very least, these are Clerics who are capable of learning and casting detect evil on themselves, and who have had it done before. It's a 1st-level spell. Things learnable by 1st-level spells, in a world like Eberron, can't really be secrets. *They* know that the "source" of their power is what the members of the mainstream faiths call "Evil". They must have at least rationalized this or incorporated this into their beliefs by now. As I said, the best counter-example is the Path of Light, which is neutral even though most of its followers are good; with the BoV, you have a power that is evil even though many of its followers are neutral. The faith doesn't create the source of power, whether that power is a true god or something else; it simply taps into it. Of course, a follower of the Path of Light isn't bothered by the fact that his power source isn't "good", because he doesn't believe in a god; he knows that the power source is just that, a source of divine energy that he uses to do good (key point: clerics of the Path of Light don't worship il-Yannah, because il-Yannah doesn't exist; il-Yannah is what WILL exist when il-Lashtavar is defeated). And Clerics of the Blood of Vol know that when they draw on the Divinity Within, the power of blood, the power of blood is Lawful (opposes individual will and change) and Evil (opposes compassion and altruism). It's a power that radiates the idea of tyranny and domination. You can whip up a theology that makes sense of this, easily. I don't think the BoV really would've gone for very long without doing so. As I've repeatedly said, I *like* the quasi-Objectivist quasi-Satanist quasi-Nazi thing the Blood of Vol became in Faiths of Eberron. To me it's a lot more realistic than believing that the Blood of Vol consists of a bunch of nice happy people who just have no idea at all that they're funding a militant terrorist group. As with many situations, it's probably more like fundamentalist Islam's relationship to terrorist groups -- most Seekers aren't members of the Emerald Claw and don't directly have any hand in it and maybe are very uncomfortable with the violence they wreak, but still broadly think of the Claw as "on their side". With all that said... how does a good cleric of the Blood of Vol deal with the fact that he has an evil aura? The key issue is that detect alignment spells don't carry the same weight in Eberron as they do elsewhere. Even the Silver Flame doesn't define "evil" as "That which can be detected by detect evil." So depending which variation of the BoV doctrine he follows, I'd expect one of the following responses: If he follows the version mentioned in Sharn - "Evil gods cursed the world with death and suffering, and we must destroy them to bring an end to death for all" - then the answer is obvious; the Priests of BoV have an evil aura because the cruel gods are afraid of them and trying to turn the world against them. Meanwhile, the fact that followers of the Sovereigns get good auras is laughable and proof that the gods are trying to manipulate mortals to do their bidding. If he follows the "There are no gods" version, than the evil aura can be justified by the fear and distrust of the rest of the world. The faith isn't evil, but it is misunderstood and feared by others, and this causes it to be perceived as evil. Anyhow, that's my take on it. My answer is, I think, simpler: "The natural order as it is is wrong and must be replaced and overturned. That means that I have to commit unnatural acts that are highly destructive in order to bring about the future state of immortality for all. That means I have to hurt people and bring suffering. All of this is necessary, because this world is wrong and must be abandoned for the next." It's hardly dissimilar from what many real-life religious radicals believe. I also wouldn't call it non-Evil, though.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 01:19 AM	As with many situations, it's probably more like fundamentalist Islam's relationship to terrorist groups -- most Seekers aren't members of the Emerald Claw and don't directly have any hand in it and maybe are very uncomfortable with the violence they wreak, but still broadly think of the Claw as "on their side". I don't know if you've ever got the impression that I've said otherwise or just people in general, but personally, I agree with this 100%. We may disagree about the reason the BoV source of power is evil. But in my opinion, the relationship between the EC and BoV is exactly as you describe. They're aware of it. They recognize that these people share their faith. Some feel that the EC goes too far or takes actions that violate the core principles of the faith. Many don't support it enough to join - the simple farmer who's first priority is to put food on the table for his family - but would provide shelter to an EC agent being pursued by a follower of the Silver Flame, or share information when the EC agent comes to town. If it comes to "Us vs them" - EC vs CotSF - the EC is going to be "us". And then there are a few who are eager to join but have never had the opportunity to do so. The EC represents the extremist fringe, and it also includes many of the "corrupt" - those who place their own personal goals above those of the faith. But that doesn't make it a truly separate entity. In Sharn, the EC has a separate base from the BoV - but an EC agent will find a welcome at the BoV temple.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 01:34 AM	My answer is, I think, simpler: "The natural order as it is is wrong and must be replaced and overturned. That means that I have to commit unnatural acts that are highly destructive in order to bring about the future state of immortality for all. That means I have to hurt people and bring suffering. All of this is necessary, because this world is wrong and must be abandoned for the next." Change "the natural order" in the quoted paragraph to "the unnatural order", and that's exactly what I believe about the BoV. I've said you can have good priests of the BoV. I've never said it was a religion of sweetness and light. It's a brutal harsh religion based on the principle that the universe itself is against you, that most of the people are in the thrall of the very beings who cursed us all to suffer and die, and that when you die you are dead forever. The good priest may balk from taking these actions HIMSELF, but he still agrees that they must be done. The vast majority of the followers of the Blood of Vol, like any other faith, are peasants. They aren't taking part in the struggles; they are farming, putting food on the table, giving blood on the holy days, supporting the champions of the faith when they pass through town. Like peasants anywhere else, they could be any alignment. They BELIEVE in the BoV; but they may or may not be comfortable with the true duties of the faith when it comes to it. The whole point is that in my view of the BoV, there's nothing natural about death. The divine forces have robbed us of our birthright. We need to break the sky and take it back. But we aren't working against the natural order, we're working against the unnatural. A side note is that I see the BoV as a faith with little interest in good or evil. The universe is against you. Most people who fight you aren't evil, they're fools. There's isn't ROOM for good or evil in this universe; it's life versus death, us versus them. Either you're with them in a fight to end death, or you're a fool and in their way. Whether YOU detect as good or evil doesn't matter; it is a data point about how you might behave, but that's all. And if you believe the universe is against you, the fact that it's marked you as "evil" should hardly come as a surprise. With that said, I still disagree with the assertion that belief creates the power. I hold that the power sources are out there. A priest of the BoV uses different rituals and trappings than the priest of the Keeper. Different holy symbols, different chants... Spellcraft and Knowledge (religion) let me tell the difference. In my opinion, those rituals are tools that draw on the power of the divine force. It is your faith that makes those rituals WORK - but if they work at all, they draw energy from the designated source. A prayer to an evil "god" doesn't end up going to a good one just because your intentions are good. I have no problem with this as a concept - but it's not what I do. And as a wacky aside about the possible nature OF the power source of the Blood of Vol, and why that power is evil... So what is the power source of the BoV? Well, there is no right answer, and what I'm going to say ISN'T the right answer, it's just AN answer. But here's what I'll go with. It's been said before that the doctrine of the BoV is based on the traditions of the Qabalrin, the first elf necromancers. Now, you can say what you like about whether necromancy itself is evil. I don't intended to express an opinion on that (The Aereni and the CotSF will tell you negative necromancy is evil; the BoV will say that it's not). But one thing is certain. The Qabalrin were evil, or at least their greatest nobles and wizards were. Blood sacrifice, powering spells and daily conveniences with the life-force of others, torture - these are only a few of the pleasant aspects of day-to-day life among the Qabalrin. My assertion is that they created a divine power source from whole cloth, in emulation of the Silver Flame - binding tens of thousands of souls (elves, giants, and whatever they could find) in eternal bondage. They then developed rituals to harness this power for their own benefit. So these earliest pracitioners did believe in the power of the Blood - but the blood of others. They saw undeath as a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem of mortality, and had no interest in "defeating death" - certainly not in making any personal sacrifices to do it. Tens of thousands of years later, the elves of the line of Vol rediscovered the rituals that could draw on this source of power, and connected it to their faith. The modern faith of the BoV is not what the Qabalrin believed. It's not even what the first of the Line of Vol believed, which is one reason Erandis herself isn't a die-hard Seeker; if anything, she's got more of the mindset of the original Qabalrin. The modern faith is a variation of all of these things merged and adapted with local customs. It's what evolved when Vol's allies were exiled from Aerenal and blended their faith with the people of the Lhazaar Principalities and Karrnath. So, if you follow this idea, then the actual divine power wielded by a BoV cleric is drawing on this ancient source of power that was created by truly evil methods. The BoV cleric may have his own explanation for why he has an evil aura and where his powers come from; this simply ties to the point that, as with the PoL, the force worshipped and the source of divine power can be two different things. On the other had, you could decide that the power of the BoV cleric really DOES come from his own blood, and that everything they believe is 100% true. Nothing wrong with that. Just call me a cynic. ;)
Rechan 08-13-07, 02:55 AM	To me it's a lot more realistic than believing that the Blood of Vol consists of a bunch of nice happy people who just have no idea at all that they're funding a militant terrorist group. And for me, "realistic" doesn't really enter into the equation. I just want different. It really frustrates me that "Oh they have undead and they are angry with the universe, they're EVIL." But then I've said in many threads on many occasions, that I think undead aren't innately evil, Erandis is a sympathetic but broken tragic figure, bla bla bla other bleeding heart stuff. In my Eberron, the intents of those In the Know has little to do with the core of the religion; the hierarchy of the "Church" has nothing to do with the actual Tenants and Faith. Change "the natural order" in the quoted paragraph to "the unnatural order", and that's exactly what I believe about the BoV. I've said you can have good priests of the BoV. I've never said it was a religion of sweetness and light. It's a brutal harsh religion based on the principle that the universe itself is against you, that most of the people are in the thrall of the very beings who cursed us all to suffer and die, and that when you die you are dead forever. Take out that last part, and it sounds a lot like Buddhism and Hinduism*. Life is suffering. Then you die. Then you are reincarnated, to suffer again. In Hinduism, everything is an illusion, and you must dismiss this reality. You pretty much have to die and die and die until you're reincarnated as a male Brahmen and then when you reach 60 you can go on a walkabout and try to reach Enlightenment. Theravada Buddhism, you pretty much die and die and die, until you are reincarnated as a male monk, and then you can get out of the cycle. Mahayana is more "You can reach enlightenment no matter who you are, but you have to detach all meaning to this reality and stop caring, and spend your time becoming nothing." And one of the main ways to break the cycle is to stop caring, having expectations, and to deny yourself. Because those lead to disappointment, which leads to suffering, and they are anchors that attach you to things which distract you from emptying yourself. I wouldn't call that sweetness and light, either. *Yes, I know they're more complex than this, but you try and put two several thousand year old religions into three paragraphs. A side note is that I see the BoV as a faith with little interest in good or evil. The universe is against you. Most people who fight you aren't evil, they're fools. There's isn't ROOM for good or evil in this universe; it's life versus death, us versus them. Replace "Universe" and "Death" with "Fate". I think that's not really an evil goal. I think that's an interesting notion, to try and beat Fate, to destroy the inevitable predestination. And that this is not only for the BoV worshipers, but if the BoV manages to kill Death, then everyone benefits, even the ones who worship the foolish Gods.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 12:50 PM	Replace "Universe" and "Death" with "Fate". I think that's not really an evil goal. I think that's an interesting notion, to try and beat Fate, to destroy the inevitable predestination. And that this is not only for the BoV worshipers, but if the BoV manages to kill Death, then everyone benefits, even the ones who worship the foolish Gods. Certainly. I don't think it's an evil GOAL at all (which isn't to say that it's possible possible)... as you say, if they're successful, they'll save EVERYONE, and in my mind, that is the goal. If you worship the Sovereigns, you're a sad deluded idiot, but you've been tricked. If they need to kill you, they'll do it. As ArcTan said, they will do whatever they have to do; they will PERFORM evil acts without remorse, because their goal is so far beyond any one act of evil that a single murder is insignificant. But they still beleive that they will save EVERYONE if they are successful. Ultimately, it's the same "Ends justify the means" argument you see in other places in Karrnath, which is one reason it's got a strong following among Karrns. They do believe that they are doing the right thing. But it's such an important quest that all of questions of good and evil become trivial when set next to it. The non-evil BoVer might personally balk when it comes down to murdering in the name of the faith. But he knows that the faith may call on him to do it and that if he does hesitate he's letting his personal weakness stand in the way of the greater goal. But that can still be the case. The peasant may give blood on the holy days, say the prayers, and hope that one day he and his family will be immortal. But he doesn't actually want to be a vampire, and he doesn't want to have to fight on the front lines. So he BELIEVES it's the right thing to do... but he still may have trouble when the knife is in his hands (though this being Eberron, he still may do it, of course). A last point on the BoV vs the EC: The doctrine of the the BoV holds that the undead champions are the soldiers of the faith. Thus, most of the BoV sees the EC as just that: this is the force that is actively fighting that war. Like I said, the peasant follower of the BoV isn't going to murder anyone. But he may believe that he doesn't have to, because the champions will do it if it's required - and that the BoV are those champions. He might not approve of their actions if he UNDERSTOOD them, but odds are that he won't. When he hears that they tried to build some sort of eldritch machine in Sharn and were stopped, he won't know what Lady Vol had in mind for the machine; he'll simply ASSUME that it was part of the greater plan, and that those who destroyed it are cursed thralls of the cruel gods. So there are some within the BoV who disagree with the actions of the BoV, must most assume that the BoV has reasons for its actions that are aligned with the faith, even if they don't understand them. Within the EC itself, you generally have two categories of people. The most diehard, fanatical followers of the faith, who are SO dedicated that they won't question any order and are ready to die for the Queen of Death without hesitation. No room for good or evil: they are soldiers on the front lines of the war against death. This can include officers; not everyone in the upper echelons of the EC is a cynic. On the other hand, it's in the upper circles where you do get that other category: the people who are using the faith to gain power, but have no interest in fulfilling its long term goals, and who may not even believe the long term goal is possible. By basic doctrine, undeath is an imperfect state; it's a tool to be used, but it's not what you should want. Many of the intelligent undead of the EC are perfectly happy to be undead and to revel in the powers they possess, to enjoy their influence over their followers. As I said before, they're closer to the undead lords of the Qabalrin than the undead champions of the modern BoV doctrine. Hence, "corrupt priests"... and yet, still able to draw on the power, because they're actually drawing on that old Qabalrin power. So the EC includes the most dedicated followers of the faith and the least dedicated. Its actions may serve the cause or have nothing to do with it; the trick is that a member of the BoV at large probably can't tell the difference. At the very least, Lady Vol is going to be seen as the greatest of the undead champions, the chosen one who will surely break death. if she says that building an eldritch machine that turns all dead things in Sharn into zombies serves the cause, who's going to question her? The key to me is that the common followers of the BoV believe they are doing the right thing. It's not a religion of sweetness and light. Any foul act can be justified by the grand purpose, and it's certain a goal that others would consider to be unnatural. But they still see themselves as the heroes, because the universe itself is the greater evil. In their eyes it's not fighting the natural order... because there's nothing natural about it. (All this is of course based on the anti-deist version of the faith; when you take gods out of the picture entirely, you'll obviously want to take a different path.)
ArcTan 08-13-07, 03:03 PM	A Take out that last part, and it sounds a lot like Buddhism and Hinduism*. Life is suffering. Then you die. Then you are reincarnated, to suffer again. Acknowledging that life is not fun and that death has no real logic to it is not unique to Eastern religion. It says the same thing in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Nowhere in Judaism, Christianity or Islam is it ever said that death is a good thing -- "death is a curse" actually fits the idea of the Abrahamic religions (death and senescence and loss as the result of original sin and separation from God) more than it does the Eastern faiths. No one actually says "death is good, death is happy, hooray death". The question of *how to deal with death* and *how to deal with tragedy* is the point of separation between religions, not the acknowledgment that death is tragic -- said acknowledgment is a precursor of basically every religion in the world, and can be argued to be the reason for religion in the first place. In Hinduism, everything is an illusion, and you must dismiss this reality. You pretty much have to die and die and die until you're reincarnated as a male Brahmen and then when you reach 60 you can go on a walkabout and try to reach Enlightenment. Theravada Buddhism, you pretty much die and die and die, until you are reincarnated as a male monk, and then you can get out of the cycle. Mahayana is more "You can reach enlightenment no matter who you are, but you have to detach all meaning to this reality and stop caring, and spend your time becoming nothing." And one of the main ways to break the cycle is to stop caring, having expectations, and to deny yourself. Because those lead to disappointment, which leads to suffering, and they are anchors that attach you to things which distract you from emptying yourself. Notice this is *not* what the Blood of Vol says. This is, in fact, a lot more like what the philosophy of the Undying Court is. (The real boddhisattvas are the Ascendant Councilors, who've lost almost all of their own identity to merge with a great gestalt consciousness.) The Blood of Vol is the *opposite* of this. The Blood of Vol says this life -- a physical body, warm blood, lusts and desire -- is not an illusion, but the *only good thing*, something that must be clung to at all costs. The inevitable loss of attachments must not be *accepted*, as in Buddhism, but *combated*. You don't meditate yourself into serenity and accept that your father's death was something that just happened, like everything else just happens, and rid yourself of emotion about it. You *rage* about it. You rail against the horrible cruel gods who created a world where this kind of thing can happen. You bitterly *oppose* it. The Buddhist conception of nirvana -- the goal we're all trying to get to -- is where you, the needy individual self, disappear and vanish into the great world-soul, a part of everything, and are able to see from that detached godlike perspective how everything is beautiful and have love for everything. The people you loved will die. The things you loved will disappear. Change and strife will go on. But you'll see that *behind* that is a great unending peace, and learn to accept it. This is the kind of thing the Blood of Vol hates. They hate it when people who worship the Sovereign Host talk about Dolurrh as a gentle fading away into peace, or people who worship the Silver Flame talk about becoming one with all the souls who fight injustice and losing your petty human weaknesses to become a force of pure compassion, or when people who worship the Undying Court talk about merging with the gestalt consciousness of all ancestors to become a truly wise god. They want to be gods, themselves, *as* themselves. Their *blood* -- the red, hot blood that makes you a living human being -- they will never give up. Their afterlife is a utopia where you *remain you*, where you *have* everything you desire (as opposed to losing the ability to desire), where death and suffering are *defeated* -- not accepted, not seen as illusions, *defeated*. It's, in other words, similar to the relationship between Satanism or Objectivism or William Blake's idea of Lucifer and actual Wicca or actual Buddhism or actual Christianity. It's a story of vanquishing and destroying, not of accepting and melting away. It is, in other words, very close to what both Buddhism and Christianity would describe as the fundamental attitude of one who is "unenlightened" or "sinful" (or what the ancient Greeks would call "hubris").
Rechan 08-13-07, 03:09 PM	Hellcow, I may be missing something. But what does it take to kill Death, or kill the Gods? We know what the GOALS of the BoV are, but what are they doing to accomplish them? You speak of Champions of the Faith fighting the war... but who are they fighting? Who stands in their Way?
Drag0nUL 08-13-07, 04:37 PM	I don't think that the BoV are actually fighting for that goal. What they are fighting for are actually the goals of Erandis, but to the lower-ranking clergy and worshipers they preach something else. As for how one could defeat Death in D&D I have a theory and this is what I would use in my games such a circumstance should occur: all true (non native) outsiders are immortal (or at least all I have read about so far); this (in my vision) is because their soul and body are not separate, but merged together in a single entity. So, if the BoV managed to construct an eldritch machine or something similar that produced this sort of body-soul fusion in living beings, this should grant them immortality.
ArcTan 08-13-07, 05:20 PM	The impression I get from Faiths of Eberron is that they're trying to develop a super-necromantic spell -- all their highest-level research goes into necromancy (like in the Cult of Life's experiments with transferring soul energy) in hopes they'll find a way to make something like Undeath that has no cost -- that leaves you truly alive in every way when you use it to "recharge" yourself. The fact that this might require the deaths or soul-loss of millions of innocent people to bring about immortality for the rest doesn't bother them, or at least doesn't bother the Cultists of Life who are in charge of this project.
Nived 08-13-07, 05:31 PM	No one is actively fighting the gods. What they ARE doing is exploring Xen'drik and collecting the Giant's eldritch superweapons, delving into ruins from the Dhakaani and the age of Demons to steal magic and weapons, collecting artifacts of power! These they believe will be used against the gods. Maybe they will, after all the Undying Court has a divine rank and Vol hates them with a burning passion.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 06:47 PM	But what does it take to kill Death, or kill the Gods? We know what the GOALS of the BoV are, but what are they doing to accomplish them? You speak of Champions of the Faith fighting the war... but who are they fighting? Who stands in their Way? That's essentialy the point and the problem: they DON'T know how to do it. Essentially, it's like being driven out of the Garden of Eden before eating from the Tree of Eternal Life. Gaining the power to match the gods is something that can't be accomplished in a mortal lifetime - and the gods have made you mortal to ensure that you never can match them. Perhaps the undead can find a way, but even then we don't know exactly how. So that's where the rest of the faith does come in. Support the undead and hope that they can find a way. Support your community and stand together against the end. See if you can find another way to reach the Divinity Within, because THAT is the power the gods fear. Do whatever it takes to meet any of these goals. But they DON'T know exactly how they can be accomplished, which is why they've gone for thousands of years without much change. The common follower of the faith doesn't expect it to happen in his lifetime, but he hopes that it will. Different congregrations will have different interpretations of what form this final conflict will take. Some may believe that the undead champions will eventually amass enough might to transition to the hidden realm of the gods and actually engage them in battle. Others may follow ArcTan's suggestion, believing that the key is not actually battling the gods as much as finding a way to break the curse of mortality - so, some sort of massive magical ritual beyond the skills of any mortal casters. Another group may say that the gods draw strength from those who worship them, and that the sad truth is that they need to kill everyone who worships the Sovereign Host). Meanwhile, this is why the majority do support the EC even if they don't like their methods... because they assume that the EC knows things they don't. If Erandis says "Trust me, destroying Sharn is the first step to immortality for all" - what village priest is going to argue with Erandis? Meanwhile, I'm not saying that Erandis has NO interest in the religion, but essentially that's the key; there's no time limit on things for her, because she is immortal. Let's say she thinks ArcTan's approach is the answer - a massive ritual, whether she believes it's charging everyone with energy from Mabar or breaking a divine curse. She may be working on this in her spare time, a little bit every few centuries. She believes she WILL crack it in another thousand years or so. But meanwhile, she has this other goal that she's really focused on right now. She will do her homework later, honest - but right now she wants to get this pair of new shoes. Likewise, either Erandis or other forces in the EC may DO things that are truly geared towards the goals of the BoV. That eldritch machine that turns everyone in Sharn into zombies could have been a first pass at immortality for everyone. She hoped it would work, but she thought it might not... hence trying it in Sharn. So it's NOT just a mad "ZOMBIE PLAGUE ON SHARN!" - it was a test run of the immortality device, and it didn't work. Likewise, they could test a EM intended to punch a hole through the known planes into what they believe to be the home of the "gods", with who knows what results. A new Mourning? Opening a gate to one of the other D&D continuities? A world that appears to be the home of the Sovereigns... but is actually just a dream bubble in Dal Quor (think of the story in the Martian Chronicles where the people think they've found Heaven, but replace martians with Quori)? Just because the EC does terrible evil things and puts the goals of Erandis over everything else doesn't stop those goals from somethings BEING in the interests of the faithful... even if it might be difficult for an infidel to grasp. One last note: if you like the "Erandis truly dedicated to the faith" model, the fact that she wants to regain the use of her Dragonmark could tie right into this. She could believe that her Dragonmark - and remember, she is no normal heir, but the product of generations of arcane breeding between elf and dragon to create something truly unique - is the key to the destruction of death itself. It's not the dragonmark of causing death, it's the tool to end it. If this is the case, then what might otherwise appear to be a selfish quest to regain her mark instead becomes a quest to fulfil the promise of her faith - to be the queen who ends death. And yes, as we've said, she'll do anything and kill anyone to accomplish it, because when she is done, she will have created a new world.
Rechan 08-13-07, 09:11 PM	That's essentialy the point and the problem: they DON'T know how to do it. Essentially, it's like being driven out of the Garden of Eden before eating from the Tree of Eternal Life. Gaining the power to match the gods is something that can't be accomplished in a mortal lifetime - and the gods have made you mortal to ensure that you never can match them. Perhaps the undead can find a way, but even then we don't know exactly how. So that's where the rest of the faith does come in. Support the undead and hope that they can find a way. Support your community and stand together against the end. See if you can find another way to reach the Divinity Within, because THAT is the power the gods fear. Do whatever it takes to meet any of these goals. All right. I was confused how it's constantly talked about their champions and the BoV's methods, and I wasn't sure what the details were. Meanwhile, this is why the majority do support the EC even if they don't like their methods... because they assume that the EC knows things they don't. If Erandis says "Trust me, destroying Sharn is the first step to immortality for all" - what village priest is going to argue with Erandis? Wait, wait wait. Are you saying that the common BoV worshiper knows that the EC are related to the BoV? I thought that was part of the secret. That the cover story for the EC is that they are Karrnathi patriots, who are doing what they're doing for Karrnath. That even the lowest ranking members of the EC think they're patriots. But secretly they are the long arm of Erandis. When did they openly become terrorists in the name of religion, not country? And how is it that the country BoV priest knows about Erandis? I thought very few people were even aware of her current existence, the same way very few people are aware of Kaius's vampire status.
Revvecor 08-13-07, 09:24 PM	Are you saying that the common BoV worshiper knows that the EC are related to the BoV? I thought that was part of the secret. That the cover story for the EC is that they are Karrnathi patriots, who are doing what they're doing for Karrnath. That even the lowest ranking members of the EC think they're patriots. But secretly they are the long arm of Erandis. I think he is saying that the common BoV worshiper views the knightly order as a knight order dedicated to protecting the goals of the religion. Any knowledge of Erandis is limited to highly trusted high ranking members of he church and EC, the rest of the religions worshipers have no knowledge of Erandis. When did they openly become terrorists in the name of religion, not country? My understanding of the EC is that they are a knightly order serving there country and its goals. It was also my understanding that all members of the EC were worshipers of the BoV.
Rechan 08-13-07, 09:30 PM	Acknowledging that life is not fun and that death has no real logic to it is not unique to Eastern religion. It says the same thing in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Nowhere in Judaism, Christianity or Islam is it ever said that death is a good thing -- "death is a curse" actually fits the idea of the Abrahamic religions (death and senescence and loss as the result of original sin and separation from God) more than it does the Eastern faiths. Except that wasn't the point. Keith's point is that the BoV's viewpoint of the universe as full of unfair suffering and pain, THEN you die and stop existing is overly bleak. But the suffering and unfairness of Life is not unique to BoV. The continual reincarnation until you meat the exact prerequisit life and THEN you can potentially reach heaven is even more harsh than the BoV's view of the soul's final destination, because you have to go through so many lifetimes worth of suffering to get there. No one actually says "death is good, death is happy, hooray death". Actually I would say that some Christian theology and some fundamentalist Isalm theology say yay death. "Yay you get to go to heaven". Granted, the latter is more "Yay you get to go because you have made yourself a martyr", but the former is still "You get to go - as long as you were good." The whole notion with some thinking is that life sucks but then you get to leave. Death is a Reward. That's one of the reasons why you have ascetic denominations - they think that you should deny yourself pleasure in this life so that you can have it in the next (and that if you have it in this life, it will distract you and corrupt you, but the notion of delayed gratification is also there). Notice this is *not* what the Blood of Vol says. This is, in fact, a lot more like what the philosophy of the Undying Court is. (The real boddhisattvas are the Ascendant Councilors, who've lost almost all of their own identity to merge with a great gestalt consciousness.) The Blood of Vol is the *opposite* of this. The Blood of Vol says this life -- a physical body, warm blood, lusts and desire -- is not an illusion, but the *only good thing*, something that must be clung to at all costs. ArcTan, you missed the most important sentence. Here is Keith's comment (emphasis mine): I've never said it was a religion of sweetness and light. It's a brutal harsh religion based on the principle that the universe itself is against you, that most of the people are in the thrall of the very beings who cursed us all to suffer and die, and that when you die you are dead forever. And here is Mine: Take out that last bit, and it sounds a lot like Hinduism and Buddhism. Bla bla bla. I wouldn't call that sweetness and light, either. I'm not saying that the BoV have similar theology. I'm just illustrating how similar their philosophies are about how much life sucks. The BoV: The Universe is against you, then you die forever. Buddhism: Life is Suffering and then you die and you suffer some more. The rest of my passage was to illustrate how harsh they view the requirements to get into heaven. Forest for trees, man.
Rechan 08-13-07, 09:43 PM	My understanding of the EC is that they are a knightly order serving there country and its goals. It was also my understanding that all members of the EC were worshipers of the BoV. I would expect that the country and its goals were related to the BoV only indirectly. The way I understand it, it is similar to Knights of England. The Knights were all Christian, as was England. They fought for King and Country and served England. Granted, they served their King, who was believed to be ordained by God (and thus an instrument of God), but I say that their loyalty lay with protecting their Homeland. When a peasant looked at a Knight, they wouldn't see them as holy templars, but as loyal vassals of the King and chivalrous protectors of the people. It's my understanding that the deluded members of the EC (and their supporters) see the EC as the same - loyal vassals of Karrnath, intent on protecting and furthering the goals of Karrnath. Just because they are denounced as terrorists and they do not have the support of Kaius likely makes them think that their detractors are just going against the Will and Spirit of Karrnath.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 10:04 PM	I'll answer these in reverse order. And how is it that the country BoV priest knows about Erandis? I thought very few people were even aware of her current existence, the same way very few people are aware of Kaius's vampire status. I was unclear. In my opinion, very few people outside the EC are aware of Erandis' existence; even many of the grunts of the EC don't know about her. However, if that county priest BECAME aware of her existence, he's part of a faith that believes in the great works of undead champions, she's a mighty undead champion and proponent of the faith... there you have it. When did they openly become terrorists in the name of religion, not country? They didn't... they're both. In my opinion, and you're certainly welcome to play things differently, the soldiers of the Emerald Claw are both die-hard Karrnathi patriots AND fanatical followers of the Blood of Vol. Essentially, they'd like to see Karrnath become a parallel of Thrane - because they believe that will allow Karrnath to achieve its true destiny. The precise balance varies from person to person, but in all cases the two are closely interwoven. Karrnath will prosper if it embraces the BoV, and the BoV will prosper with the full support of Karrnath. As for it being a shocking secret that the Emerald Claw has anything to do with the BoV, I've never supported this. In fact, here's an excerpt of what I originally wrote for the PGtE on the subject: The Order of the Emerald Claw harbors mad necromancers, clerics who seek to transform cities of the living into cities of the dead, and similarly disturbing folk. Much of the bad reputation that the Blood of Vol has in Khorvaire can be directly traced to the Order of the Emerald Claw. However, many who worship the Blood of Vol feel obligated to provide shelter to agents of the Emerald Claw – so even if they are not responsible for evil themselves, they aid through inaction. Their connections to the BoV are why Kaius disbanded the order, and at the least, followers of the BoV are going to know that. Page 95 of Sharn: City of Towers notes that the local BoV community aren't necessarily killers or evil themselves, but that they will "provide shelter and passive assistance to undead or members of the Emerald Claw." My original vision of the BoV was, essentially, a religion that had what were essentially noble goals - bring an end to death and suffering for all - but which was feared and misunderstood both because of its use of undead and the actions of extremists like Emerald Claw. So yes, in MY view, people know that the Emerald Claw is a Karrnathi organization, but they also know it is tied to the Blood of Vol, and it gives both a bad reputation even while its members believe they are serving both. You can certainly play it as a purely political organization whose ties to the Blood of Vol are completely secret. The current wording of the PGtE and even the ECS suggests this (whereas in my original entry, the big secret is its connection to Vol herself and the fact that many of its actions purely serve her goals, not the nation or the BoV). But I like them as the force that gives the BoV its bad reputation, since I don't see the typical village priest or the community in Sharn actually doing much to deserve it. Personally, the BoV are a group I use when I want straight-up pulp villains. It's one of the reasons they were put in the setting, and a reason they appear in so many of the published adventures... because like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, they're the easy bad guys. I'll play games of morality with the BoV at large, but by and large, nine times out of ten you're on safe ground trying to stop the EC from doing whatever they're trying to do (in my campaign). Doesn't mean that THEY may not believe it's the right thing, that the EC grunt may not have been driven to join because the Thranes massacred his family, but despite his reasons he's still trying to turn puppies into specters or seize the weapon of doom from Xen'drik.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 10:07 PM	It's my understanding that the deluded members of the EC (and their supporters) see the EC as the same - loyal vassals of Karrnath, intent on protecting and furthering the goals of Karrnath. Just because they are denounced as terrorists and they do not have the support of Kaius likely makes them think that their detractors are just going against the Will and Spirit of Karrnath. Certainly. My point is that (IMO) most members of the EC are also dedicated followers of the BoV and believe that embracing the BoV IS what's best for the Will and Spirit of Karrnath - and that by turning against the faith, Kaius has betrayed the nation. So they are intent on protecting and furthering the goals of Karrnath, which in their opinion is one and the same as protecting and furthering the goals of the BoV. There's nothing wrong with setting it aside, but for me their role as the public force that gives the BoV a bad name - "It was Vol worshippers who unleashed the zombie plague in Fairhaven!" - is an important one. They're doing it for Karrnath, but just as a Thrane believes that the interests of Flame and nation are closely bound, the EC believes that Blood and nation are closely bound. An interesting point is that if Kaius were to reveal his true nature, he could likely seize control of the EC away from Erandis, as he is both an undead champion AND a king of Karrnath; however, that's obviously an act that would have MANY serious consequences.
Revvecor 08-13-07, 10:26 PM	I would expect that the country and its goals were related to the BoV only indirectly. I agree, what I meant was that the EC members are all loyal patriots of Karrnath whom happened to be very faithful to BoV. A good comparison to my view of the EC's would be the "Knights Templar" who were soldiers loyal to there individual countries, but at the same time they were deeply faithful to the Pope and the church. As they began to travel freely throughout the world and gain wealth many of there members corrupted there original goals and replaced them with there views of the churches goals. In the case of the EC they began as faithful officers of Karrnath with only a minor loyalty to their church. As they grew larger and more powerful they began to corrupt the division of church and state to meet the goals they they were told were in the best interest to their country by their priests. This continued until the goals of the BoV and state were one in the same in the eyes of the EC.
Alex_ 08-13-07, 10:28 PM	An interesting point is that if Kaius were to reveal his true nature, he could likely seize control of the EC away from Erandis, as he is both an undead champion AND a king of Karrnath; however, that's obviously an act that would have MANY serious consequences. How would that work? Hasn't he been publicly decrying their actions, branding them traitors, trying to undermine their faith, and dedicating resources to fighting them for a while now? Even if he is a Vampire, he's openly against Vol and the EC.
Rechan 08-13-07, 10:55 PM	My original vision of the BoV was, essentially, a religion that had what were essentially noble goals - bring an end to death and suffering for all - but which was feared and misunderstood both because of its use of undead and the actions of extremists like Emerald Claw. So yes, in MY view, people know that the Emerald Claw is a Karrnathi organization, but they also know it is tied to the Blood of Vol, and it gives both a bad reputation even while its members believe they are serving both. But I like them as the force that gives the BoV its bad reputation, since I don't see the typical village priest or the community in Sharn actually doing much to deserve it. I like that. Well, at least, that's what I see the BoV as. Take Erandis and the EC out, and you have a religion that, while is gross and macabre to some, noble and potentially good. And thanks for quickly clarifying the EC tightly bound to BoV thing. I was clearly mistaken on how it is handled in the books. It makes sense that they're definitely the bad face of the BoV - an embarrassment to the church, even if they church may think that they are Fighting the Fight, they are making us look bad while doing it. I always understood that the EC were the pulp bad guys. You have no remorse in wasting them, because you KNOW they're up to no good. And I think that, even if the BoV would be a neutral religion without them, the Emerald Claw is certainly bad news. Bleeding heart that I may be, I'm not sympathizing with the jackboots in green armor. Playing with the Pulp though, while I also sympathize somewhat with Erandis, I also like the idea of Erandis being somewhat embarrassed by the Claw. Because the EC are... well, they're really blunt, and keep getting foiled. Here you have an Obvious Mastermind Villain, genius on so many levels, who has to resort to using fanatics who can't even accomplish (Insert task adventurers keep beating), as though she would say after getting the report of the most recent EC failure "You cannot indoctrinate good help these days."
Hellcow 08-13-07, 11:13 PM	How would that work? Oh, it would require many massive changes in behavior and policy, which would themselves alienate many other forces. I'm not saying he'd just say "Hey! I'm a vampire!" and everyone would say "Really? Cool!" A criticalquestion is just how much he's done to supress the faith; as it stands, he's removed official support, but it's not like Atur is under siege. This would obviously determine what sort of reparations he'd have to make. I'm just saying that if he decided to go this way and was willing to make the changes and sacrifices required, it could create an interesting situation. Now, there is one thing I should remind people of, because it does color my views on this subject and moves them away from canon. Remember that I'm a gamer and DM too, and in this I'm speaking as a gamer with personal preferences, not as an arbiter of canon. By my original vision and in my current campaign, the Blood of Vol is the majority faith of Karrnath and has been for centuries. The three major religions of Galifar were the Sovereign Host, the Church of the Silver Flame, and the Blood of Vol, going from most followers to the least. Thrane and Aundair were especially strong with the CotSF, and Karrnath (and the Lhazaar Principalities) was the seat of the BoV, with the Sovereign Host being spread everywhere (but also having a great number of followers only really interested in religion when it directly impacts them). Each religion has its own claim to nobility - fighting evil! Fighting death! Worshipping the gods who watch over us! Each has its own forces that give it a bad name - The Pure Flame and the Whispering Flame; the Emerald Claw and other extremists across history; the followers of the Dark Six, among others. On top of this, the Church of the Silver Flame hates the Blood of Vol because of its belief that negative necromancy and undeath are absolute evils; and the Blood of Vol hates the Sovereign Host because of the belief that the Sovereigns are responsible for death and the other woes that plague mortals. The Sovereign Host has no such views en masse, but has its own extremist sects. And so we have faiths with fundamental irreconciliable differences with one another, which the targets of this hate consider to be flawed and foolish. If you accept the BoV as the predominant faith in Karrnath, then it becomes more obvious that the Karrn patriots of the EC are also likely to be EC diehards, because that's a common part of Karrn identity; you COULD be a member of the EC and not follow the BoV, but you'd be an odd man out. Likewise, Kaius' decision to suppress the BoV becomes much riskier, something a rival warlord could use in a bid to unseat him. Again, this isn't the path the world has taken, and I can see many reasons for this. I'm NOT saying it was the wrong choice. I'm presenting my direction solely because it DOES color my views of the Emerald Claw and the BoV... which means that this entire subject is one where you should take my opinions with an extra grain of salt. And with that said, I REALLY need to get ready for GenCon, so I'm going to sign off. I hope I'll see some of you there.
Hellcow 08-13-07, 11:17 PM	I was clearly mistaken on how it is handled in the books. I'm not so sure about that; I think *I'M* the one who was mistaken. It's a matter of interpretation. Essentially, my opinion is that their loyalty to the Blood of Vol isn't a secret, though it's closely tied to their loyalty to the country and based on the idea that the two are complimentary... but that their loyalty to ERANDIS is a huge dark secret. However, I'm not convinced that this is how it's ended up in the sourcebooks, so this may be a case where I'm steering people away from canon instead of towards it.
ChimericalWolf 08-14-07, 11:37 PM	Keith, would there be room in the BoV/EC for those who think that the Silver Flame is a force for good in the world? That they, indeed, do very good work, and could be a potent ally against the gods if they realize the truth and can accept that the Undead are a necessary evil?
Derys_the_Blade 08-15-07, 11:28 PM	This is very interesting for me, as I have always chosen to portray clerics in my campaign as segregated from the alignment of their churches and gods. I was overjoyed when Eberron hit the shelves to see that the rules for the campaign world allowed for this. It saved me a lot of time, and the content produced in modules and sourcebooks fits right in with my vision. The way I see it. To be a "good" Karrn one must follow the BoV. The true nature of the BoV might be one of evil, necromancy, and tyranny, but the nature of the people is one of lawful good (or at least lawful neutral) because they adhere to both the law of the monarch and church and believe in the goodness of its teachings. In addition, I think I find more evidence in Plato's argument of Essence preceding Existence. Just as basic energy is polarized between positive and negative, a person that believes that essence precedes existence would say that humans are powerless to alter the flow of energy between positive and negative poles, as we are simply products of that energy, and being composed of both "evil" and "good" inside of everyone, or just recognizing that one cannot exist without the other, that erradicating one would erradicate the other. However, if a person believes in the opposite, that existence precedes essence, and that we created the concepts of positive and negative, then we cannot destroy either without destroying ourselves. So either way, I find plenty of philosophy to keep the characters in my campaign happy and give them plenty of opportunities for epistological discussion and liturgical debate.
ArcTan 08-16-07, 12:41 AM	This is very interesting for me, as I have always chosen to portray clerics in my campaign as segregated from the alignment of their churches and gods. I was overjoyed when Eberron hit the shelves to see that the rules for the campaign world allowed for this. It saved me a lot of time, and the content produced in modules and sourcebooks fits right in with my vision. The way I see it. To be a "good" Karrn one must follow the BoV. The true nature of the BoV might be one of evil, necromancy, and tyranny, but the nature of the people is one of lawful good (or at least lawful neutral) because they adhere to both the law of the monarch and church and believe in the goodness of its teachings. That's like saying core Orcs who worship Gruumsh are all LG because they follow the law of Gruumsh and believe that he is "good". There's no rule that because people think something is "good" that means it actually is Good. Karrnath in general doesn't strike me as a very good country. King Kaius himself (the Blood of Vol's bitterest enemy) is Lawful Evil.
Derys_the_Blade 08-16-07, 11:43 AM	That's like saying core Orcs who worship Gruumsh are all LG because they follow the law of Gruumsh and believe that he is "good". No, it's not like saying that at all. There's no rule that because people think something is "good" that means it actually is Good. Karrnath in general doesn't strike me as a very good country. King Kaius himself (the Blood of Vol's bitterest enemy) is Lawful Evil. I never said that the Blood of Vol was "good." I never said the country was "good." And King Kaius is Lawful Evil because he is a vampire which kind of precludes any moral decision he might have in the matter. I suppose what I was trying to say that in a realm of skewed morality, where evil acts are promoted as for the "good" of the kingdom, the world gets turned upside down. I suppose there is some example in looking at the Soviet Union during the reign of Josef Stalin. There were millions of comrades who believed that what the commisars were doing was "good," and themselves were Good people, even though the powers that be were thoroughly corrupt and malicious. Someone who is Lawful Good and is charmed into doing evil deeds is not an evil person. The same should be true for people who are naturally good who have been misguided or fooled into believing that evil deeds done for good purposes are naturally "good." I also never said you had to agree. To each their own.
Alex_ 08-16-07, 02:27 PM	And King Kaius is Lawful Evil because he is a vampire which kind of precludes any moral decision he might have in the matter. That's not why he's Evil. The ECS explicitly states that it is -possible- to have Good aligned Vampires. Although I'm sure his Vampiric nature has much to do with it, another important reason why Kaius is Evil is because of the extremes he's willing to go to in order to stay in power and achieve his personal goals. He has relatively little compassion or concern for the happiness and well being of others. I suppose what I was trying to say that in a realm of skewed morality, where evil acts are promoted as for the "good" of the kingdom, the world gets turned upside down. There are plenty of time when Evil can be beneficial, but it is always Evil. The general idea behind Evil is that one benefits at the expense of others, or cares little for the general well being/happiness of others. It can be beneficial for that particular individual, and if someone else depends on that individuals success, it can benefit them as well. However that doesn't make the act non-Evil. Likewise, Good isn't always best. Sacrificing your own well being and happiness for others, or showing someone compassion can end up screwing you (the Good individual) over. I suppose there is some example in looking at the Soviet Union during the reign of Josef Stalin. There were millions of comrades who believed that what the commisars were doing was "good," and themselves were Good people, even though the powers that be were thoroughly corrupt and malicious. This makes sense in D&D, since Stalin and communist told the people the opposite of what they personally practiced. Stalin told the people of Russia that everyone was supposed to work for the nation itself. He and and the administration were not supposed to be above the people, and were supposed to be just as selfless and altruistic as everyone else was expected to be. Eliminate class/social/economic/political inequality. Allow for common ownership. They obviously didn't abide by their own rules. The Blood of Vol doesn't do that. The Blood of Vol doesn't tell its followers to do one thing, and have the Clergy and higher ups doing the opposite at the expense of those below. The general teachings of the faith suggest Immortality by any means necessary, including the use of dark and evil practices, channeling of evil power sources, and sacrifice of those who disagree with the cause. The Emerald Claw and higher ups in the Blood of Vol are certainly more vicious and cruel than the lay followers, but their actions are still generally tolerated and even supported by them, because they are doing exactly what they said they would do: fight for immortality by any means necessary. The lay people don't know that they're supporting Verandis d'Vol's rise to power, but they do know that they're supporting a group that thinks its okay for the strong to sacrifice the weak, that harnessing dark powers is alright, and that there is generally no limit to what you should do to avoid death. The Blood of Vol isn't really corrupt. They're not doing the opposite of what they said they'd do. They're doing pretty much what they said they would, and according to the faiths practices, most people who violate the rules/ideals/goals badly enough to be ejected from the cult are also usually worthy of death (a helpful deterrent). Someone who is Lawful Good and is charmed into doing evil deeds is not an evil person. The same should be true for people who are naturally good who have been misguided or fooled into believing that evil deeds done for good purposes are naturally "good." However, a Good person would regret having ever done those deeds (while under possession) because they betrayed the things they stand for, believe in, and try to generally practice. Followers of the BoV aren't that deluded though. They arent under mind control, and they don't think they aren't hurting innocent people or not associating with dark forces. They know that their faith and crusaders are doing Evil things, but they accept it. Its worth it. It's better to tolerate Evil, aid, or even perform it and have life for all eternity in this world than to not do so and be doomed to a miserable eternity in the afterlife of Dolurrh. Which is still an understandable and somewhat sympathetic outlook. It's not "hahaha we kill babies for fun and want to destroy the world," Evil, but still Evil. That's what Eberron's fuzzy alignment is about. I also never said you had to agree. To each their own. Well you did also suggest that the books fit right with your vision.
Drag0nUL 08-17-07, 05:03 PM	The lay people don't know that they're supporting Erandis d'Vol's rise to power, but they do know that they're supporting a group that thinks its okay for the strong to sacrifice the weak, that harnessing dark powers is alright, and that there is generally no limit to what you should do to avoid death. Well, I don't think most people in Eberron think it's too wrong for the strong to overcome the weak. After all it's what they have been trying to do in the past 100 years or so during the Last War. As for harnessing 'dark powers', what exactly do you define as 'dark powers'?
ArcTan 08-17-07, 11:43 PM	This makes sense in D&D, since Stalin and communist told the people the opposite of what they personally practiced. Stalin told the people of Russia that everyone was supposed to work for the nation itself. He and and the administration were not supposed to be above the people, and were supposed to be just as selfless and altruistic as everyone else was expected to be. Eliminate class/social/economic/political inequality. Allow for common ownership. They obviously didn't abide by their own rules. Better example is the Swords of Liberty, who claim to want to bring true democracy and freedom and justice to Breland but are really controlled by a Lord of Dust who just wants the country to collapse.
ArcTan 08-17-07, 11:45 PM	Well, I don't think most people in Eberron think it's too wrong for the strong to overcome the weak. After all it's what they have been trying to do in the past 100 years or so during the Last War. People who truly, explicitly believe the War was about the strong controlling the weak are Evil. Kaius is one such. Aurala, by contrast, thinks she should rule Khorvaire because she would do it best and make people happiest. Whether she's deluded about that or not, she seems to hold this belief genuinely enough that it makes her NG. As for harnessing 'dark powers', what exactly do you define as 'dark powers'? Necromancy, secretly sucking out people's souls to keep you alive (and other "experiments" of the Cult of Life), making human sacrifices out of unworthy or failed BoV priests, that kind of thing.
ArcTan 08-17-07, 11:46 PM	I like that. Well, at least, that's what I see the BoV as. Take Erandis and the EC out, and you have a religion that, while is gross and macabre to some, noble and potentially good. You're also taking out all the necromancers who suck people's souls out, right? And the human sacrifices?
ArcTan 08-17-07, 11:49 PM	I suppose what I was trying to say that in a realm of skewed morality, where evil acts are promoted as for the "good" of the kingdom, the world gets turned upside down. ...And standard D&D Orcs live in kingdoms (or tribes) where they're taught that killing others and taking their land in the honor of their war god is "good". I suppose there is some example in looking at the Soviet Union during the reign of Josef Stalin. There were millions of comrades who believed that what the commisars were doing was "good," and themselves were Good people, even though the powers that be were thoroughly corrupt and malicious. If they were actually *doing the corrupt and malicious things*, then they weren't Good. Someone who is Lawful Good and is charmed into doing evil deeds is not an evil person. The same should be true for people who are naturally good who have been misguided or fooled into believing that evil deeds done for good purposes are naturally "good." There's a certain point where that stops making sense. The word "good" is just a word, after all. It doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Everyone thinks what they're doing is "good" in the sense that they think it's what they should do (or at least lie to themselves that it's true). If you're oppressing the weak, taking pleasure and gain out of other people's pain, and generally being a bad person, but you "believe it is good", it's still not good. It's evil.
Alex_ 08-18-07, 01:43 AM	As for harnessing 'dark powers', what exactly do you define as 'dark powers'? Whatever the Monster Manual means when it mentioned the use of "dark and sinister magics" in the creation of Zombies, the "auspices of dark desert gods best forgotten" in the creation of mummies, as well as spells with the Evil type descriptor (which includes all spells that create Undead). I do not mean Necromancy in general (creating Deathless is a Necromancy spell that has the Good type descriptor) or simply using Negative Energy (inflict spells have no alignment type descriptor). The ECS also states that casting an Evil spell is an Evil act, and that even if the caster is Good, their alignment may begin to change if they repeatedly use Evil spells. In addition, all Clerics of the Blood of Vol, independent of their actual personal alignment, have an Evil aura as is made evident through use of a Detect Evil spell. This aura is even stronger than those possessed by Undead, and equal to that possessed by Demons, Devils, and Daelkyr (amongst others). This aura is representative of the force that gives them their powers, and is also the force that worshipers of the Blood of Vol worship and sacrifice (sometimes others) to. All of the above is fine with the majority of Blood of Vol worshipers. They may not know exactly the details or ultimate aims of what's really going on, but they do believe that all of the above is acceptable as part of a plan to get them immortality and escape an eternity in Dolurrh. They're not all Evil, but those facts suggest a bias more towards Evil aligned members than Good.
Drag0nUL 08-18-07, 06:11 AM	People who truly, explicitly believe the War was about the strong controlling the weak are Evil. . In the Last War, like any war in history, each of the fighting countries lived and fought in the base of their own truth: Karrnath: 'We are the descendants of Karrn the Conqueror and Galifar and therefore the crown of the Kingdom should be worn by a Karrnathi king.' Thrane 'It is our holy duty to bring the light of the Flame to the rest of Khorvaire.' Cyre: 'Queen Mishann was the rightful heir to the throne and what the other nations did was treason.' Aundair: they mostly supported Cyre as the rightful heir tot he throne, only later did they assume a position of their own. Breland: not really sure what the Brelish as a people fought for, I guess it was a deformed concept of self defense for the most of the war. The war was about proving strong enough to make the others see that you are right and they are wrong. As for my question about dark arts. I was a little too tired last night when I wrote that post and I made a little confusion. What I really meant to ask was: ''What do you think that is percieved as 'dark arts' by the people of Eberron?'' I mean,according to the RAW creating zombies/skeletons has the [Evil] descriptor, while creating Deathless has the [Good] descriptor. But in game I think this is a distinction available only to scholars. For the average Khorvaire farmer I think that , if the elves from Aerenal ever decide to attack the mainland, the Aereni deathless armies would inspire as much fear and awe as the undead legions of Atur. To Alex (sry but I have no idea how to embed multiple quotes in a single post): you say that the acceptance of such evil things as creating undead and sacrifice of intelligent life forms makes the BoV followers lean toward evil. Hoever, the CotSF is a LG religion with mostly Good followers. And still most of them accepted the Lycanthropic Purge and the slaughter at Talihost which can hardly be considered Good acts.
The White Sorcerer 08-18-07, 10:10 AM	Breland: not really sure what the Brelish as a people fought for, I guess it was a deformed concept of self defense for the most of the war. They wanted big reforms, like the spread of democracy and such.
Alex_ 08-18-07, 10:15 AM	''What do you think that is percieved as 'dark arts' by the people of Eberron?'' Casting Evil Spells and using Evil Divine powers. In addition to such dark arts are just generally ruthless tactics and attacks carried out by the Emerald Claw, Cult of Life, and their various plots with the cults of the Dragon Below. They aren't ignorant of these things, and they may not label them as 'Evil", but they are very well aware that what they're doing is very different from the teachings and general acts of other faiths. I mean,according to the RAW creating zombies/skeletons has the [Evil] descriptor, while creating Deathless has the [Good] descriptor. But in game I think this is a distinction available only to scholars. The distinction is difficult for lay people to understand, but they are not ignorant of it. Many people in Khorvaire are worshipers who listen and try to follow the teachings of said scholars. They may not use the terms "Good" and "Evil", they may use the terms "Jinji" and "Kudak", but the concepts are still out there. It's central to the Silver Flame faith that one have some understanding of the objective idea of Good and Evil in order to cleanse Evil from themselves and more vigorously pursue Good. For the average Khorvaire farmer I think that , if the elves from Aerenal ever decide to attack the mainland, the Aereni deathless armies would inspire as much fear and awe as the undead legions of Atur. They can fear them all they like. The Undying from Arenal are more often than not Good aligned, and the Aereni are largely aware of this. It would simply be misplaced fear on the part of the commoner if they feared Undying as they did Undead. The Bloood of Vol is not misunderstood in this way though. It's Undead are, in general, more Evil, and their worshippers are more aware and accepting of this fact. Furthermore, the Undead leagions of Atur would actually be Undead, which would further justify their fears. To Alex (sry but I have no idea how to embed multiple quotes in a single post): you say that the acceptance of such evil things as creating undead and sacrifice of intelligent life forms makes the BoV followers lean toward evil. Hoever, the CotSF is a LG religion with mostly Good followers. And still most of them accepted the Lycanthropic Purge and the slaughter at Talihost which can hardly be considered Good acts. [/quote] I don't think you really understood what happened during the Lycanthropic Purge. It was not a 100% Good event in regards to all involved, but neither was it the senseless slaughter of Good Lycanthropes entirely for hate, fun, profit, or in the name of faith. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050404a The plague affected all Lycanthropes, turning them into blood thirsty and mindless killers- even the Good and Neutral aligned ones. In the beginning, it wasn't an organized movement led by the church. Once they did start, they targeted Evil Lycanthropes, since Good and Neutral Lycanthropes avoided civilization and Human/Demi-Humans (unless they eventually turned Evil). "Today, many assume that the lycanthropes were hunted prey, fleeing from the overwhelming force of the Church of the Silver Flame. Little could be further from the truth. The typical wereboar is far deadlier than the average templar of the Flame, and even if the soldier defeats his prey, one good bite is all it takes to transfer the curse and create a new wereboar. Evil werewolves infected entire villages, and wererats took great pleasure in infecting templars, imprisoning them until the curse took hold, and then sending them against their former allies. Clever lycanthropes fanned the puritans' paranoia toward the shifters, and these mistrustful folk massacred hundreds of shifters before someone could prove to them that shifters did not carry the curse. While some of the shifters later fought alongside the templars, many have never forgiven the Silver Flame -- and, indeed, humanity -- for these deaths." It was only after the threat of the Evil Lycanthropes began necessitating rooting them out of society that the more controversial parts of the Purge were carried out, and these were performed more often by Aundairan extremists, and angry non-CotSF who were upset about having lost so many loved ones, and fearful for their own well being. "While the evil lycanthropes needed to be stopped, the paranoia and zealotry of the age led to the death of innocents." The Intention of the Silver Flame in the Purge was never to actually kill innocents. When this happened, it was a mistake or the actions of those not upholding the true tenets of the Silver Flame's teachings. The Silver Flame was a factor in this paranoia, as without their help, the people would have remaind on the defensive or been destroyed, rather than go on the offensive, but they did not spearhead or support the death of innocents. If the silver Flame hadn't intervened, far more innocent non-lyanthropes would have died than innocent Lycanthropes. Heck, even after they did intervene, far more innocent non-lycantrhopes died than any Lycantrhope. They were just doing damage control. It was a lose-lose situation. Many people did lose sight of the teachings of the Silver Flame. Paladins did fall. People did turn away from Good. This is a blemish on the Church's history. The followers and clergy of the Silver Flame in general, regret it all, and hope nothing like it ever happens again. This is all indicative of a group of people who are, in general, more biased towards Good than Evil. If something like this had been carried out by the Blood of Vol, followers and the clergy wouldn't have nearly as much regret about it. They would have looked at it from the viewpoint of, "Hey, we did what we had to do." and gone and done more. It wouldn't have been a violation of their principles. It wouldn't have been a hard choice. The Emerald Claw and Cult of Life do stuff like this on a smaller scale all the time, only they make little or no effort to try and avoid innocent deaths. I'm not as familiar with the situation in Talihost (all I know is that an occupation and dispute between Thrane and Aundair is involved). However, I'm sure it's less selfish or unabashedly Evil or heartless as it would be if the Blood of Vol were in charge of it. In general though, followers of the Silver Flame do have more of a bias towards Good than they do towards Evil. It's the idea behind their entire faith.
Drag0nUL 08-18-07, 10:40 AM	Thanks for pointing out that article on the Lycanthrope Purge. I had missed it before. About the Talihost matter: as far as it is presented in the Forge of War (giving the actual quotes probably violates the CoC), after the tranish forces occupied Talihost, the citizens were given a choice: either swear loyalty to the Flame or be put to the sword as heretics. Moreover, this was not a singular event, but has been repeated by the armies of Thrane on other occasions. Talihost is just the best known example. And I really don't think most BoV worshipers believe undead are more evil than their living counterparts. I mean yes, they might appear Evil to the spells that detect alignments but it the average BoV worshipers view they are heroes that have sacrificed their chance to find the Divinity Within in order to help the rest of the Seekers.
Alex_ 08-18-07, 11:29 AM	Thanks for pointing out that article on the Lycanthrope Purge. I had missed it before. About the Talihost matter: as far as it is presented in the Forge of War (giving the actual quotes probably violates the CoC), after the tranish forces occupied Talihost, the citizens were given a choice: either swear loyalty to the Flame or be put to the sword as heretics. Moreover, this was not a singular event, but has been repeated by the armies of Thrane on other occasions. Talihost is just the best known example. Something tells me that this is a great oversimplification of what's going on, and probably the work of a specific individual of Neutral or Evil alignment than an order from the Speaker of the Flame or Cardinals. The Silver Flame in general dislikes "conversion by the sword". If this did happen, I wouldn't expect it to be a very popular decision and a sign of corruption rather than something in line with the proper beliefs of the faith. And I really don't think most BoV worshipers believe undead are more evil than their living counterparts. I mean yes, they might appear Evil to the spells that detect alignments but it the average BoV worshipers view they are heroes that have sacrificed their chance to find the Divinity Within in order to help the rest of the Seekers. However, they also know that the methods employed by these Undead are pretty ruthless and have a general disregard for innocents, so long as the they're on the path to finding a way to defeat immortality. They don't think Undead are as "bad" as everyone makes them out to be, but they are not under the illusion that they're being championed by Paladins or people who would spare innocents or show compassion. This is simply much easier to digest by people of Evil and Neutral alignment in a relative sense. People of Good alignment will have to entertain a lot more lies and distortions, and have their faith more often challenged and dashed by reality. Likewise, a faith that encourages you to give up feelings of selfishness, personal luxury, and embrace self sacrifice and compassion is simply going to be less attractive to Evil individuals in general than Good. Whether the people are aware of Good/Evil to begin with. The better the understanding they have of Alignment, the more true it becomes.
Drag0nUL 08-18-07, 12:10 PM	Something tells me that this is a great oversimplification of what's going on, and probably the work of a specific individual of Neutral or Evil alignment than an order from the Speaker of the Flame or Cardinals. The Silver Flame in general dislikes "conversion by the sword". If this did happen, I wouldn't expect it to be a very popular decision and a sign of corruption rather than something in line with the proper beliefs of the faith. Actually, the way it is depicted in Forge of War, the army of Thrane , 'executing swift and thorough operations that had obviously been planned previously' (exact quote) ensured that Talihost top citizens were either forced into loyalty to Thrane either disposed of. A few lines earlier in the book it is stated that the Cardinals 'exercised a previously unknown level of control over their mob-armies', with reference to the army that occupied Talihost. So, while it might not had been it the true spirit of the CotSF, the Talihost slaughter had the approval or at least silent acknowledgement of the Cardinals. Other cases of sword-point conversions however were usually the work of isolated groups of fanatics ,using Talihost as a precedent. Still this acts had quite significant support in the CotSF clergy and worshippers. When some fo the Cardinals issued a public statement to warn against such 'excess of zealotry', many voices accused them of 'subverting Thrane's holy cause'.
Alex_ 08-19-07, 03:13 PM	Actually, the way it is depicted in Forge of War, the army of Thrane , 'executing swift and thorough operations that had obviously been planned previously' (exact quote) Understandable. Everyone wanted Thaliost, since it was a very important city. It had changed hands several times during the war and resisted even more attempted invasions. It certainly was taken each and every time through mere coincidence and lack of planning and foresight. ensured that Talihost top citizens were either forced into loyalty to Thrane either disposed of. Only the top citizens, and in this case, they had to swear loyalty to Thrane. See, this can be interepreted quite differently from "the citizens were given a choice: either swear loyalty to the Flame or be put to the sword as heretics." It was also pointed out that the higher ups, "perhaps too focused on securing Thrane rule, turned a blind-eye when fanatic soldiers engaged in wide spread sword-point conversions," Suggesting that it wasn't higher ups who were really pushing the join Thrane or die decision, but fanatical soldiers who were delivering such ultimatums upon the discovery of enemies (enemy commanders and prominent officials are more often discovered and captured by lower ranking military personnel). A few lines earlier in the book it is stated that the Cardinals 'exercised a previously unknown level of control over their mob-armies', with reference to the army that occupied Talihost. Mob army also refers to the fact that Thranes forces were largely composed of poorly trained individuals (on page 55). Their forces were, for the most part, mob armies, and this fact contributed to a number of defeats. By pointing out that the Cardinals showed a previously unknown level of control doesn't mean they were manipulating them or viewing them as pawns. It means that for once, the armies of undisciplined and inexperienced troops were actually fighting better and more efficiently than ever before. So, while it might not had been it the true spirit of the CotSF, the Talihost slaughter had the approval or at least silent acknowledgement of the Cardinals. Indeed it was. However, this was also a time when the Silver Flame was in turmoil, and saw a massive influx of new and eager recruits, and people who were largely ignorant or less interested in the true teachings of the faith. This is detailed on page 17. Other cases of sword-point conversions however were usually the work of isolated groups of fanatics ,using Talihost as a precedent. Still this acts had quite significant support in the CotSF clergy and worshippers. I couldn't find that one in the book. When some fo the Cardinals issued a public statement to warn against such 'excess of zealotry', many voices accused them of 'subverting Thrane's holy cause'. Which would have been the work of more militant Neutral or Evil individuals. In the long run, however, the Good and more moderate Neutrals won out, and such acts, like those of the current appointed leader of Thaliost are criticized, and replacements are being looked at. The Church of the Silver Flame is far from perfect. However both the Lycanthropic Plague/Purge and Thaolist occured under unique conditions. Conditions which brought out the worst in many many people, regardless of their political allegiance, faith, or alignment. While one can point and blame the Silver Flame for falling short, it should also be noted that at the same time, people in Aundair were lynching and killing people of the Silver Flame and individuals not even associated with Thrane, and Karrnath, Cyre, and Breland were committing their own atrocities. Also, unlike the Silver Flame, where the leadership tries to exert some form of control or at least try to cover things up, the actions of other institutions were much more open and less readily opposed when and after they occurred. After it lost its King became a Theocracy, Thrane in general became focused more on defense and protection of its own people and way of life, and uninterested in trying to rule the rest of Khorvaire. If the one relglion that makes it an active goal and high ideal to bee Good aligned did all this, one can only imagine what a faith like the Blood of Vol, which does not really encourage a Good alignment, and encourages many acts that would lead to Evil alignment did. When the Silver Flame or Thrane kills someone, it's a big deal. When the Blood of Vol/Emerald Claw kills someone, it's business as usual.
Drag0nUL 08-19-07, 05:34 PM	Mob army also refers to the fact that Thranes forces were largely composed of poorly trained individuals (on page 55). Their forces were, for the most part, mob armies, and this fact contributed to a number of defeats. By pointing out that the Cardinals showed a previously unknown level of control doesn't mean they were manipulating them or viewing them as pawns. It means that for once, the armies of undisciplined and inexperienced troops were actually fighting better and more efficiently than ever before. I actually quoted this part from the book to support my point that the Cardinals were in pretty close contact with the plans and events unfolding in the Talihost campaign. I couldn't find that one in the book. While it is not explicitly stated, the fact that were numerous voices that accused the Cardinals pledging for moderation of what is practically treason led me to assume that the extremist acts had the support of at least part of the population. After it lost its King became a Theocracy, Thrane in general became focused more on defense and protection of its own people and way of life, and uninterested in trying to rule the rest of Khorvaire. There are at least 2 major offensive operations in the Last War that tend to say otherwise: 983- The armies of Thrane, about 100 000 strong (a figure much larger than any other mentioned in the book) led by a squad of 4 archons swept through most of northern Cyre. 994- Thrane executes a joint invasion of Cyre with Brelish troops. This operation is interrupted by the Mourning. If the one relglion that makes it an active goal and high ideal to bee Good aligned did all this, one can only imagine what a faith like the Blood of Vol, which does not really encourage a Good alignment, and encourages many acts that would lead to Evil alignment did. When the Silver Flame or Thrane kills someone, it's a big deal. When the Blood of Vol/Emerald Claw kills someone, it's business as usual. The point that I was trying to make by bringing CotSF in this discussion is that Good to the extreme can produce the same 'monsters' that evil does. The BoV might be , let's say, a pragmatic religion (achieve your purpose no matter what it takes) but I can't find reference anywhere in the book to BoV slaughters executed in the name of religious fanaticism.
Alex_ 08-19-07, 07:07 PM	I actually quoted this part from the book to support my point that the Cardinals were in pretty close contact with the plans and events unfolding in the Talihost campaign. The part that sounds planned was how many troops, where they would go, who, when, where, and how they would attack. I doubt the Cardinals wanted to take over the area specifically using tactics and plans that would result in more casualties than needed or actions contrary to the teachings of the church (unless Cardinal Krozen and his kind were involved). While it is not explicitly stated, the fact that were numerous voices that accused the Cardinals pledging for moderation of what is practically treason led me to assume that the extremist acts had the support of at least part of the population. It was an ongoing debate. However, there was actual morale debate. Which means that while things going on were definitely "non-Good", they were being challenged on moral grounds. You wouldn't see this if people in general didn't care about upholding the standards of Good. There is no sect or movement in the Blood of Vol criticizing the violent or cruel actions of clergy or Emerald Claw on moral grounds. There aren't enough Good aligned people, let alone Good aligned people in high places to pull it off. Furthermore, there's no doctrine or teachings in the faith that encourage Good aligned behavior- and often encourages the opposite- so even if they did oppose such tactics, they have no real justification within the culture of tenets of the faith. There are at least 2 major offensive operations in the Last War that tend to say otherwise: 983- The armies of Thrane, about 100 000 strong (a figure much larger than any other mentioned in the book) led by a squad of 4 archons swept through most of northern Cyre. 994- Thrane executes a joint invasion of Cyre with Brelish troops. This operation is interrupted by the Mourning. Both operations were largely organized by corrupt members of the Silver Flame. Cardinal Krozen (the classic corrupt clergyman in the Eberron setting) and his allies were prominent factors in both campaigns. They were also based more nationalism and political alliances than the teachings of the Flame, with the second being more because Breland wanted it more than Thrane. The other nations launched several more invasion campaigns against one another. They had more to gain from capturing enemy territories and submitting others to their rule than Thrane did. The point that I was trying to make by bringing CotSF in this discussion is that Good to the extreme can produce the same 'monsters' that evil does. I agree. However, the Silver Flame being imperfect doesn't make the Blood of Vol any less Evil or generally heartless or ruthless in general. The Silver Flame has good intentions that are sometimes messed up when people take them the wrong way and misconstrue the teachings of the faith. When they are identified, they face criticisms, and ultimately, some attempt it made to stop or correct them, with regret and remorse expressed. The Blood of Vol has somewhat nice (well it doesn't really care about upholding Good at all) intentions, but unlike the Silver Flame, when a "monster" is created, it's not criticized, corrected, or regretted. It's almost unanimously accepted, if not openly embraced and cheered on as an idealistic example. Both can be dangerous, and it's also dangerous to simply associate with Good/Evil (or even Neutral) in every situation without context. The BoV might be , let's say, a pragmatic religion (achieve your purpose no matter what it takes) but I can't find reference anywhere in the book to BoV slaughters executed in the name of religious fanaticism. You won't really find any mention of the Blood of Vol in Forge of War outside of their supplying Undead troops to Karrnath and increasing number of temples in Karrnath, and much of what the Blood of Vol did do was in secret. You won't really find any mention of any other faiths in the books, because they're not really political. The Silver Flame is tied politically to Thrane, and the Last War, and the vast majority of things that happened were a result of secular politics rather than religion. Also, the Forge of War is one book (and one that the setting creator regards as painting a somewhat unfair and biased image against the Silver Flame). The many faiths of Eberron and their respective faithful are detailed in the Eberron Campaign setting, Faiths of Eberron, Players Guide to Eberron, and other material (along with the Silver Flame) where things are put into much clearer perspective.
Drag0nUL 08-20-07, 04:39 AM	It was an ongoing debate. However, there was actual morale debate. Which means that while things going on were definitely "non-Good", they were being challenged on moral grounds. You wouldn't see this if people in general didn't care about upholding the standards of Good. True.But you can't have a debate without someone who opposes your views. And this means there were some people who approved of the fanaticism. Both operations were largely organized by corrupt members of the Silver Flame. Cardinal Krozen (the classic corrupt clergyman in the Eberron setting) and his allies were prominent factors in both campaigns. They were also based more nationalism and political alliances than the teachings of the Flame, with the second being more because Breland wanted it more than Thrane. While you are right about Krozen's involvement in the second invasion of Cyre, the first one was conducted entirely under the orders of the Messengers (and some things in the books led me to assume that it was for their own hidden purposes too). Also, I can find no mention of the fact that Thrane was reluctant to support Breland in the invasion of Cyre. The Silver Flame is tied politically to Thrane, and the Last War, and the vast majority of things that happened were a result of secular politics rather than religion. You have a point here, although I think the actions of the Silver Flame in the Last War also have something to do with the religion's character. CotSF is a militant religion, one that advocates actively opposing evil (or to the common person whatever the church leaders point as evil). Many of the not-so-LG acts commited during the war were in the name of the Flame and not in the name of Thrane. The The Wardens of the Wood are also a religion with political power and still I find it hard to picture massed armies rallying under the banners of the Wardens and shouting 'Save the forest' as they charge.
Alex_ 08-20-07, 12:05 PM	True.But you can't have a debate without someone who opposes your views. And this means there were some people who approved of the fanaticism. Of course, however, there were an equal, if not larger amount who did not approve or went with either side. Equally, and even excessively horrible things were carried out by others during the Last War, and drew fewer if any criticisms from the people. The Silver Flame isn't perfect, but unlike the rest of Khorvaire, it has more of a conscience and generally makes more of an effort. The Blood of Vol and Emeral Claw have no real conscience. While you are right about Krozen's involvement in the second invasion of Cyre, the first one was conducted entirely under the orders of the Messengers (and some things in the books led me to assume that it was for their own hidden purposes too). Also, I can find no mention of the fact that Thrane was reluctant to support Breland in the invasion of Cyre. It seems that I've discovered a third campaign then. In 976, Krozen and his associates actively sabotaged plans of peaceful negotiations with Breland, and instead move the people towards an attack instead. Archons (which the messengers were) are overwhelmingly Lawful Good aligned creatures. Although their actions can be dangerous, and they might not always follow the same Alignment as their subtypes (althout Outsiders follow their alignment much more strongly than other creatures), but trusting an Archon to do what is Good is generally like trusting a Demon or Evil to do what is Evil. The Second attack into Cyre was part of their recent alliance with Breland. They didn't really fight back, but when the ally says they're going to attack someone, you're often expected or even obligated (depending on the nature of the agreements) to assist. You have a point here, although I think the actions of the Silver Flame in the Last War also have something to do with the religion's character. CotSF is a militant religion, one that advocates actively opposing evil (or to the common person whatever the church leaders point as evil). It certainly did. However, in spite of all that, Thrane was really no worse, and in many ways better than many other nations and institutions during the conflict. This is largely because Thrane had more selfless, compassionate, and aligned individuals amongst its numbers to temper its use of the sword unless deemed necessary and oppose the non-Good elements within. The tenets of the faith list use of violence against mortal Evil as a last resort and a regrettable option. Which has nothing to do with the Blood of Vol being Evil. The BoV faith which, despite not being martially inclined or overly militant in general, nonetheless accepts and encourages killing, lack of compassion, and ruthlessness as a means to an end. Its more martial associate- the Emerald Claw does regularly engage in violent non-Good acts against innocences in pursuit of its goals. The Blood of Vol considers use of violence against anyone to accomplish your goals just as valid as peaceful cooperation. For the Blood of Vol, these aren't the result of misguided individuals or warped values. They're part of what the faith is about. That is why the Blood of Vol is LE. Many of the not-so-LG acts commited during the war were in the name of the Flame and not in the name of Thrane. No they weren't. The war itself was started because of political reasons (heir to the throne). The silver Flame in general had no intentions of taking over all of Khorvaire, but did participate in battles both on the defensive, and on the defensive, but largely for Thrane. When they moved into Thaliost, they didn't demand lotalty to the Silver Flame, but loyalty to Thrane. Of the 3 strikes made into enemy territory weve identified, the first was Cardinal Krozen and his corrupt allies stoking nationalism, the second was an example of (usually) LG Outsiders descending and making a really strong argument for attacking Cyre (with more restrictions than usual), and the third was part of their alliance with Breland. None of these campaigns are mentioned to have been mostly, or even largely inspired by a desire to see the Silver Flame spread over all (or even most) of Khorvaire through coerced conversion. Individuals practiced it, and some were okay with it (particularly corrupt individuals, Aundairan extremists, and recent converts who were largely ignorant of the tenets of the Flame), but it was never institutionalized. Getting involved with politics of Thrane has harmed the Church of the Silver Flame far more than the other way around. The The Wardens of the Wood are also a religion with political power and still I find it hard to picture massed armies rallying under the banners of the Wardens and shouting 'Save the forest' as they charge. That's because there weren't massed armies with rallying banners. They fought an asymmetric and guerrilla campaign. Also, the campaign wasn't so much launched in the name of nationalism, politics, or religion but simply because Andair was ignoring the region, and it was becoming overrun with violence and bandits. It was a, "If you can't protect us, we'll protect ourselves" issue. Even after the fact, the Eldeen Reaches is not a unified nation, but rather a geo-political region, and the Druidic sects are not as politically inclined or as widely practiced as the Silver Flame was in Thrane.
Derys_the_Blade 08-21-07, 03:53 PM	That's not why he's Evil. The ECS explicitly states that it is -possible- to have Good aligned Vampires. Although I'm sure his Vampiric nature has much to do with it, another important reason why Kaius is Evil is because of the extremes he's willing to go to in order to stay in power and achieve his personal goals. He has relatively little compassion or concern for the happiness and well being of others. Yes, it's exactly why he's evil. His body is continuing its physical existence by an infusion of negative energy from the Negative Plane. Vampires in DnD aren't meant to be the soul-searching, lace-wearing Toreadors of the World of Darkness series. And I would disagree with the depth of his ruthlessness. Kaius, I think, struggles with his situation, and fights against his evil urges, but he is, nevertheless, evil be virtue of what he has become. There are plenty of time when Evil can be beneficial, but it is always Evil. The general idea behind Evil is that one benefits at the expense of others, or cares little for the general well being/happiness of others. It can be beneficial for that particular individual, and if someone else depends on that individuals success, it can benefit them as well. However that doesn't make the act non-Evil. I don't think you're paying attention to your own arguments, as you have begun talking in circles. Societies are built on the expense of others, but that doesn't make them evil. By your definition, if someone gave their life for me, then I would become evil because I benefit from their death. Also, Neutral characters don't necessarily care for the well-being or happiness of others, too. Does that mean they're evil? I think you should go back to the PHB and re-read the examples and archetypes given for each alignment. Neutral Evil characters are known as Opportunists who benefit themselves wherever and however they can, at the expsense of others. LAWFUL evil characters benefit themselves at the expense of others AS it fits within the law of the land or their own personal code. That is, Lawful Evil characters DO NOT break with tradition, rules, laws, or belief systems. Therefore, they are NOT ruthless. CHAOTIC evil characters are ruthless. At least that's how I interpret it. This makes sense in D&D, since Stalin and communist told the people the opposite of what they personally practiced. Stalin told the people of Russia that everyone was supposed to work for the nation itself. He and and the administration were not supposed to be above the people, and were supposed to be just as selfless and altruistic as everyone else was expected to be. Eliminate class/social/economic/political inequality. Allow for common ownership. They obviously didn't abide by their own rules. The Blood of Vol doesn't do that. The Blood of Vol doesn't tell its followers to do one thing, and have the Clergy and higher ups doing the opposite at the expense of those below. The general teachings of the faith suggest Immortality by any means necessary, including the use of dark and evil practices, channeling of evil power sources, and sacrifice of those who disagree with the cause. The Emerald Claw and higher ups in the Blood of Vol are certainly more vicious and cruel than the lay followers, but their actions are still generally tolerated and even supported by them, because they are doing exactly what they said they would do: fight for immortality by any means necessary. The lay people don't know that they're supporting Verandis d'Vol's rise to power, but they do know that they're supporting a group that thinks its okay for the strong to sacrifice the weak, that harnessing dark powers is alright, and that there is generally no limit to what you should do to avoid death. The Blood of Vol isn't really corrupt. They're not doing the opposite of what they said they'd do. They're doing pretty much what they said they would, and according to the faiths practices, most people who violate the rules/ideals/goals badly enough to be ejected from the cult are also usually worthy of death (a helpful deterrent). I hate to say it, but I think you need to re-read the book again. I would say that as the Blood of Vol has NOT told its followers that it's really a secret ancient elven death cult that wishes to bring its matron a fiendish, half-dragon vampire to godhood, that it is very much deluding its followers. Even in the sourcebook, it says that although many of the practices of the cult are EVIL, a great many of its followers are good who believe that the undead created by the cult have sacrificed their lives for the betterment of society. By the definition you gave earlier, that would make them "GOOD" wouldn't it? But they aren't good, because they're being inhabited by NEGATIVE energy. Which makes them evil. But the people who WORSHIP them, aren't evil, because they believe the creation of those beings is "GOOD" by their sacrifice. However, a Good person would regret having ever done those deeds (while under possession) because they betrayed the things they stand for, believe in, and try to generally practice. You're ability to determine what a good person would regret is to be commended. Maybe they spent 15 years in therapy and finally reached a point where they could say that it wasn't within their control, and while their actions were regrettable, they could not have been stopped. Or maybe they just went out and got drunk and forgot about it. Remember, that most people are simple commoners, and don't dwell on cosmic issues as much. Most people just want enough land to live on, or enough income to live off of, to raise their children, and to profit. Which is generally good natured enough. Followers of the BoV aren't that deluded though. They arent under mind control, and they don't think they aren't hurting innocent people or not associating with dark forces. They know that their faith and crusaders are doing Evil things, but they accept it. Its worth it. It's better to tolerate Evil, aid, or even perform it and have life for all eternity in this world than to not do so and be doomed to a miserable eternity in the afterlife of Dolurrh. The followers of the BoV are completely deluded. They're not under a SPELL of mind-control, but it's not always necessary to involve magic to dupe someone. If it were, there would be no Bluff skill. They don't know that their crusaders are doing EVIL. They are told that the risen dead are soldiers who are continuing the fight for Karnath. That means that they're doing GOOD things. They're not tolerating what they see as evil. They're bought into what they have been told is the good of their country. Which is still an understandable and somewhat sympathetic outlook. It's not "hahaha we kill babies for fun and want to destroy the world," Evil, but still Evil. That's what Eberron's fuzzy alignment is about. Eberron's fuzzy alignment is about a namegiver's freedom to choose whether they want to be a force for good or for evil. There are many gray areas out there in the game where GOOD people serving a dark religion can do GOOD where they can. There are also other EVIL priests of a GOOD religion who can profit where they will and manipulate the religion to their own ends. The "fuzzy alignment" issue is designed to create character drama and provide opportunity for well-advanced roleplay in the face of the classic "I am good. I do good deeds. I would never do that cause it's not "good." There will never be a "decided" correct way to interpret the system because the system is designed to be multi-faceted. So don't spend page after page in this discussion attempting to tell ME how I should run my game. It's for EVERYONE to decide that on his or her own. Well you did also suggest that the books fit right with your vision.[/QUOTE]
The Dreaming Duck 08-21-07, 04:35 PM	About the Talihost matter: as far as it is presented in the Forge of War, after the tranish forces occupied Talihost, the citizens were given a choice: either swear loyalty to the Flame or be put to the sword as heretics. Just as a note, the depiction of the Church of the Silver Flame in the Forge of War has been criticized by, among others, Keith Baker (see this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=867798), especially posts 9, 22, and especially in regards to Thaliost, 31). When you compare it to the ECS, the Dragonshards, Five Nations, and Faiths of Eberron, FoW presents the Thranish branch of the church as being far more intolerant and violent than the other sources. FoE in particular reaffirms that the sword is NOT supposed to be the prefered tool of the faith, and that beyond this, the stronghold of the Pure Flame (the most zealous and violent followers of the Silver Flame, responsible for the worst attrocities of the Purge) are based in Aundair, not Thrane. So certainly, the Forge of War makes them look like violent heretic-burning nuts... but that's a contrast to many of the other books and sources, and something at least one Eberron creator has specifically called out as a serious flaw with the sourcebook.
Hellcow 08-21-07, 04:50 PM	See this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=867798), especially posts 9, 22, and especially in regards to Thaliost, 31. And while you're there, check out post 45 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12762919&postcount=45) for more on the lycanthropic purge! ;)
Drag0nUL 08-21-07, 05:36 PM	And while you're there, check out post 45 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12762919&postcount=45) for more on the lycanthropic purge! ;) Really good reading. Thank you for pointing them out. Sometimes I wish you were more involved in some Eberron books. I don't want this to be taken as criticism to the other people in the WOTC design team (they mostly do a great job with very few exceptions) but in Eberron most things are 'in-between' absolute values(good with evil elements and viceversa etc.) and in such cases it is very easy to have people with different visions writing about the same thing in different books.
Alex_ 08-21-07, 05:40 PM	Yes, it's exactly why he's evil. His body is continuing its physical existence by an infusion of negative energy from the Negative Plane. Vampires in DnD aren't meant to be the soul-searching, lace-wearing Toreadors of the World of Darkness series. And I would disagree with the depth of his ruthlessness. Kaius, I think, struggles with his situation, and fights against his evil urges, but he is, nevertheless, evil be virtue of what he has become. However, this is not necessarily why he's Evil. Even before he became a Vampire he was willing to do anything and ally with anyone, and go to any lengths to win. That's largely how he ended up in the predicament he was in. Sure his Vampire nature adds some, but that alone isn't what's keeping him Evil. This is how he's described in the books, and also by Kieth. I don't think you're paying attention to your own arguments, as you have begun talking in circles. Societies are built on the expense of others, but that doesn't make them evil. Evil is not just one person suffering and another benefiting. It's taking from someone with no concern for their well being, or their happiness in order to further your own. In a mostly Good or Neutral society, people still lose for others to gain. However, in mostly Good societies, the people losing are willingly giving and making personal sacrifices for the sake of others, and in a mostly neutral society, the people are giving or taking for the benefits of others or the group in general rather than explicitly for personal gain or satisfaction. By your definition, if someone gave their life for me, then I would become evil because I benefit from their death. Not by my definitions (or the general workings of the published rules) it wouldn't. If someone sacrificed their life for your saftey, they would be Good or Neutral. Your alignment, however, wouldn't change. The motivations and acts of others do not influence your alignment. Now if you wanted them to die for your saftey, felt no remorse, or compassion for their sacrifice, and helped them along the way or talked them into it, I'd say you're Evil or Neutral before I'd say you were Good. Also, Neutral characters don't necessarily care for the well-being or happiness of others, too. Does that mean they're evil? However, they also don't generally desire their own well being and happiness at the expense of another's well being and happiness. They'd much rather find a compromise where both parties benefit. I think you should go back to the PHB and re-read the examples and archetypes given for each alignment. Neutral Evil characters are known as Opportunists who benefit themselves wherever and however they can, at the expsense of others. LAWFUL evil characters benefit themselves at the expense of others AS it fits within the law of the land or their own personal code. That is, Lawful Evil characters DO NOT break with tradition, rules, laws, or belief systems. Therefore, they are NOT ruthless. CHAOTIC evil characters are ruthless. At least that's how I interpret it. Well it's a bit more than that in Eberron. A Lawful person can break tradition, rules, laws, and belief systems. They are, however, less likely, and more often than not, less willing to. In Eberron, your alignment is not only based on the numerical frequency with which you perform specific acts, but also your frame of mind and motivation for performing such acts. It actually works that way in the core books too, although these exceptions are much much rarer, and we see the alignments carried to far more extremes. I hate to say it, but I think you need to re-read the book again. I would say that as the Blood of Vol has NOT told its followers that it's really a secret ancient elven death cult that wishes to bring its matron a fiendish, half-dragon vampire to godhood, that it is very much deluding its followers. No. What it has told its followers, however, is that they need to become immortal, and that they should be willing to do so by whatever means, whether it means allying with Undead, harnessing Lawful Evil powers, sacrificing and manipulating the unwilling, or killing innocents. Anything they do is fair and alright as long as it furthers their goal of attaining immortality. She doesn't tell them her personal goals, however, what she does have them believing and doing isn't very in line with Good alignment either. Even in the sourcebook, it says that although many of the practices of the cult are EVIL, a great many of its followers are good who believe that the undead created by the cult have sacrificed their lives for the betterment of society. Where does it say "a great many of its followers are good" exactly? I'm not saying that there aren't any Good followers, but I don't think they're nearly as prevelant as many people seem to suggest, and that the average member of the BoV is a Good aligned person being tricked into supporting a Evil deity (in the published material). The entry regarding the Blood of Vol suggests that most aren't Evil, but doesn't say anything about how many are Good, or how the Good aligned worshipers number compared to the Evil. From what I've read, I've concluded that it seems most likely that the while majority are Neutral, the faith's strong ties to Negative Energy Undead, mostly Lawful Evil clergy, and general belief that any means justifies the end, and that you don't have to (and its probably best not to) feel sorry when others suffer or die makes it difficult to imagine more Good aligned people falling into it than Evil. By the definition you gave earlier, that would make them "GOOD" wouldn't it? But they aren't good, because they're being inhabited by NEGATIVE energy. Which makes them evil. But the people who WORSHIP them, aren't evil, because they believe the creation of those beings is "GOOD" by their sacrifice. That's what the people believe. The people believe the Undead are Good aligned and that the Undead are making sacrifices for them. What people believe about your actions and motivations don't affect your alignment either. From the information provided in the books, there is little evidence that the Undead themselves believe they're out for the people. All of the Undead members of the Blood of Vol statted out thusfar have been Evil aligned, and it seems like, if anything, they're generally more Evil, selfish, and aware of Vol's ultimate plans than even the common worshiper. You're ability to determine what a good person would regret is to be commended. Maybe they spent 15 years in therapy and finally reached a point where they could say that it wasn't within their control, and while their actions were regrettable, they could not have been stopped. Or maybe they just went out and got drunk and forgot about it. Remember, that most people are simple commoners, and don't dwell on cosmic issues as much. Most people just want enough land to live on, or enough income to live off of, to raise their children, and to profit. Which is generally good natured enough. Just because they don't care about cosmic principles doesn't mean those cosmic principles don't affect them. The followers of the BoV are completely deluded. They're not under a SPELL of mind-control, but it's not always necessary to involve magic to dupe someone. If it were, there would be no Bluff skill. They don't know that their crusaders are doing EVIL. They are told that the risen dead are soldiers who are continuing the fight for Karnath. They may not know that their leaders are doing things that are "EVIL", but they are Evil. Furthermore, even though a person may not know how the cosmic forces of Good, Neutral, and Evil operate in the universe, they do know what they feel is right and wrong, justified, and unjustified, and in general, Good aligned people would be more disturbed and less likely to fall for any justification for Evil acts as would Neutral and Evil. That means that they're doing GOOD things. They're not tolerating what they see as evil. They're bought into what they have been told is the good of their country. Again, what people think your doing or what your motivations are, has no bearing on your alignment. Eberron's fuzzy alignment is about a namegiver's freedom to choose whether they want to be a force for good or for evil. There are many gray areas out there in the game where GOOD people serving a dark religion can do GOOD where they can. There are also other EVIL priests of a GOOD religion who can profit where they will and manipulate the religion to their own ends. Absolutely. However, it was never Eberron's or Kieth's intention to say, "The Silver Flame has just as many Evil worshipers and clerics as the Blood of Vol, and the Blood of Vol has just as many Good followers and clerics as the Silver Flame," or that "Vampires are split evenly between Good/Neutral/Evil as are Elves, Archons, Undying, and Medusas." Flavor text and stat blocks give us much better insight into how the "fuzzy alignment" actually plays out. While it's certainly fuzzier than Core D&D in many ways, it's not as fuzzy as many people may think. The "fuzzy alignment" issue is designed to create character drama and provide opportunity for well-advanced roleplay in the face of the classic "I am good. I do good deeds. I would never do that cause it's not "good." I agree. However, it doesn't mean that a Good character is as likely to do or be motivated by Evil as an Evil character is, or that they have the same general point of view. A Good character is still less likely to do Evil, accept Evil, or support Evil than an Evil character. There are still institutions and organizations in Eberron that overall strive more for Good/Neutral/Evil moreso than others, and amongst those, the degree to which they devote themselves to the cause is also diverse. There will never be a "decided" correct way to interpret the system because the system is designed to be multi-faceted. So don't spend page after page in this discussion attempting to tell ME how I should run my game. It's for EVERYONE to decide that on his or her own. I apologize. I never meant to give the impression that my interpretation was how everyone must run their game. That is not my intention at all. However, the original post in this thread asked why the Blood of Vol was labeled as a Lawful Evil in the ECS, Faiths of Eberron book, and other publications. I'm giving (or at least attempting to give people) evidence that would better help them understand that. I try as much as possible to base my posts on what has been published and described in books, as well as what the setting creator has commented on as far as published material. I invite people to offer evidence and quotes related to published and "official" stances on matters, even if it contradicts my own, if they feel it helps clear things up. However, never is it my intention to say that one must and can only abide by the published or "official" material, or my belief that this is the only way to play. I have spent page after page attempting to help clarify "Why is Blood of Vol LE?", which isn't an opinion held by me personally as much as it is a fact written into the book. You can deviate from the fact all you want, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't change what's written in the book, and what's written in the book is what the OP was asking about. Again, I have nothing against what people do in their campaigns.
Derys_the_Blade 08-22-07, 07:10 PM	However, this is not necessarily why he's Evil. Even before he became a Vampire he was willing to do anything and ally with anyone, and go to any lengths to win. That's largely how he ended up in the predicament he was in. Sure his Vampire nature adds some, but that alone isn't what's keeping him Evil. This is how he's described in the books, and also by Kieth. Whatever he might have been before he became a vampire is largely moot at this point. Evil is not just one person suffering and another benefiting. It's taking from someone with no concern for their well being, or their happiness in order to further your own. That is not the way you defined it in your other posts. I will refer you to them. If you want to change your definition at this point, then that's fine, but we'll be here all day if you're going to do that all the time. Children take things without concern for others well-being. The world is full of selfish people. But that doesn't mean they're evil. It doesn't even mean they're neutral. Not by my definitions (or the general workings of the published rules) it wouldn't. If someone sacrificed their life for your saftey, they would be Good or Neutral. Your alignment, however, wouldn't change. The motivations and acts of others do not influence your alignment. I'm a banker. I need to make money to feed my family. I forclose on someone's farm. They turn to a life of piracy. They murder and kill other people for gain. THEY become evil because of my actions. Does that make me evil? I'm a hero. I give my life for a person to live. They do NOTHING with their life except go bankrupt and be generally worthless. My sacrifice was in vain. Does that make THEM evil for wasting my gift to them? The world is not black and white. Everything is tied together. Your actions affect other people and it affects the decisions they make in their lives. Now if you wanted them to die for your saftey, felt no remorse, or compassion for their sacrifice, and helped them along the way or talked them into it, I'd say you're Evil or Neutral before I'd say you were Good. What if they were evil? And you wanted them to sacrifice themselves because it would mean that you had converted someone from an evil person to a noble person? Then you would be wanting the death of another for a good end, plus, it would save your own life in the process. How about that? However, they also don't generally desire their own well being and happiness at the expense of another's well being and happiness. They'd much rather find a compromise where both parties benefit. Evil beings can be selfless. Lawful Evil creatures give their lives for their family and loved ones all the time. They wouldn't be lawful evil without the belief in sacrifice. Are you saying Lawful Evil people can't love one another? Are you saying they can't have friends? Bah, I don't believe that. Well it's a bit more than that in Eberron. A Lawful person can break tradition, rules, laws, and belief systems. They are, however, less likely, and more often than not, less willing to. In Eberron, your alignment is not only based on the numerical frequency with which you perform specific acts, but also your frame of mind and motivation for performing such acts. It actually works that way in the core books too, although these exceptions are much much rarer, and we see the alignments carried to far more extremes.[/quote] I know, I've been saying this the whole time. No. What it has told its followers, however, is that they need to become immortal, and that they should be willing to do so by whatever means, whether it means allying with Undead, harnessing Lawful Evil powers, sacrificing and manipulating the unwilling, or killing innocents. Anything they do is fair and alright as long as it furthers their goal of attaining immortality. NO, that is NOT what it has told its followers. What it has told its followers is that they will be REWARDED with immortality if they are "GOOD." And what do they tell their followers is "GOOD?" Starting to get the picture? She doesn't tell them her personal goals, however, what she does have them believing and doing isn't very in line with Good alignment either. SHE doesn't tell them anything. The people doesn't know she exists. THE PRIESTS get their orders from HIGH PRIESTS and it all rolls down hill from there. Why do you think she deals in such shadowy ways? If, by your reasoning, the BoV was telling its followers to live such heinous lives, shouldn't she WANT them to know she's so powerful and evil? Shouldn't she show herself and let the fear govern the people? I mean, what's more powerful than having a living god for your lawful evil religion? No, she moves through intermediaries and in the shadows because she realizes that most people--if they found out the truth behind it all--would rise up and cast down the priests. I'm not saying that there aren't any Good followers, but I don't think they're nearly as prevelant as many people seem to suggest, and that the average member of the BoV is a Good aligned person being tricked into supporting a Evil deity (in the published material). The entry regarding the Blood of Vol suggests that most aren't Evil, but doesn't say anything about how many are Good, or how the Good aligned worshipers number compared to the Evil. Well, why do you think that many people seem to suggest it? Is it something in the water? From what I've read, I've concluded that it seems most likely that the while majority are Neutral, the faith's strong ties to Negative Energy Undead, mostly Lawful Evil clergy, and general belief that any means justifies the end, and that you don't have to (and its probably best not to) feel sorry when others suffer or die makes it difficult to imagine more Good aligned people falling into it than Evil. If most of them are "Neutral" then there should be just as many "Good" ones as "Evil" ones, statistically speaking. That's what the people believe. The people believe the Undead are Good aligned and that the Undead are making sacrifices for them. What people believe about your actions and motivations don't affect your alignment either. You're looking at this from the outside in--from the get-go. A common person doesn't look at a walking corpse and go--"Gee, I know that thing is evil because it's inhabited by NEGATIVE energy from the NEGATIVE plane. I also know it has 3 hit dice and was formed from the corpse of a murderer and can give me 1 temporary negative level." They know it's evil just the same way that I know a spider is poisonous. It's both nature and nurture. My instincts might tell me it's highly dangerous and out of the ordinary, but it's my NURTURING that tells me it's WRONG. Well--if I happen to have been raised in a society where that was "normal" then I wouldn't have that nurturing to tell me that it's "WRONG"--even though I might still have the instinct to stay out of its way. There should be NO way for a common person to tell the difference between a Deathless and an Undead. But that doesn't keep most Arenal elves from practicing their religion, does it? From the information provided in the books, there is little evidence that the Undead themselves believe they're out for the people. All of the Undead members of the Blood of Vol statted out thusfar have been Evil aligned, and it seems like, if anything, they're generally more Evil, selfish, and aware of Vol's ultimate plans than even the common worshiper. All undead are evil because they are resevoirs of Negative energy. But Karnathi skeletons and zombies still fight honorably for their nation. They protect Karrns NO MATTER THEIR ALIGNMENT. They might think a "good" Karrn is weak, and that's because of their evil nature, but they would still FIGHT to protect his village. So--as you mentioned before--a "good" person might want an army there to fight (and die) to protect them. Does that mean a "good" person is evil because he hopes an army of undead skeletons comes from Korth to defeat the Cyreans? Just because they don't care about cosmic principles doesn't mean those cosmic principles don't affect them. I never said they didn't care about cosmic principles. I'm trying to say they care about those cosmic principles in lay terminology. Most common people don't talk about what's "good" and what's "evil" in terms of cosmic vocabulary. They aren't afforded the luxury of scholarly debate. Most "simple" people are quite "simple." They may not know that their leaders are doing things that are "EVIL", but they are Evil. Yes, and if those Evil leaders manipulate their populace to evil ends, the populace is nothing more than a tool. But that doesn't mean they're inherently responsible for their own actions. Furthermore, even though a person may not know how the cosmic forces of Good, Neutral, and Evil operate in the universe, they do know what they feel is right and wrong, justified, and unjustified, and in general, Good aligned people would be more disturbed and less likely to fall for any justification for Evil acts as would Neutral and Evil. You would be surprised at the length a "good" person will go to rationalize what their government, their king, or their PRESIDENT, tells them is right or wrong. (i.e. Water-boarding or torture.) Again, what people think your doing or what your motivations are, has no bearing on your alignment. Go study mob dynamics. Absolutely. However, it was never Eberron's or Kieth's intention to say, "The Silver Flame has just as many Evil worshipers and clerics as the Blood of Vol, and the Blood of Vol has just as many Good followers and clerics as the Silver Flame," or that "Vampires are split evenly between Good/Neutral/Evil as are Elves, Archons, Undying, and Medusas." Flavor text and stat blocks give us much better insight into how the "fuzzy alignment" actually plays out. Yet it has been your intention to attempt to quantify just how many "good" vs. "evil" followers in the Blood of Vol. While it's certainly fuzzier than Core D&D in many ways, it's not as fuzzy as many people may think. I agree. That was never the issue. I agree. However, it doesn't mean that a Good character is as likely to do or be motivated by Evil as an Evil character is, or that they have the same general point of view. A Good character is still less likely to do Evil, accept Evil, or support Evil than an Evil character. Why are we discussing this if we agree? You had to throw another caveat in there? There are still institutions and organizations in Eberron that overall strive more for Good/Neutral/Evil moreso than others, and amongst those, the degree to which they devote themselves to the cause is also diverse. Again, how is this an issue in our discussion? We're not talking about them. We're talking about the Blood of Vol. I apologize. I never meant to give the impression that my interpretation was how everyone must run their game. That is not my intention at all. Perhaps it was the vehemence of your argument as to what was "intended" by whomever said whatever. However, the original post in this thread asked why the Blood of Vol was labeled as a Lawful Evil in the ECS, Faiths of Eberron book, and other publications. I'm giving (or at least attempting to give people) evidence that would better help them understand that. I try as much as possible to base my posts on what has been published and described in books, as well as what the setting creator has commented on as far as published material. I invite people to offer evidence and quotes related to published and "official" stances on matters. Funny, I haven't seen any quotes that you have to offer. However, never is it my intention to say that one must and can only abide by the published or "official" material, or my belief that this is the only way to play. I have spent page after page attempting to help clairfy "Why is Blood of Vol LE?", which isn't an opinion held by me personally as much as it is a fact written into the book. You can deviate from the fact all you want, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't change what's written in the book, and what's written in the book is what the OP was asking about. Again, I have nothing against what people do in their campaigns. And yet you attempt to tell them YOUR opinion of published material. I notice when Keith posts, he makes every attempt to demonstrate what is his opinion--even going so far as to post it in a spoiler box. I have never felt that he has challenged my viewpoints or interpretations. That's not to say that he feels I am right or wrong. However, there are particular people in this thread, and in other threads, and I'm sorry to single you out--there are others--who seem very determined to "help" other people to the "light" of what they think might be the best interpretation. And frankly, I might add, that seems a little in keeping with the original discussion. Every priest in any cult or religion in Eberron also seeks to increase their flock, whether it be a vile religion like the BoV, or be it the Church of the Silver Flame. They attempt to put forth "their" interpretations, or the interpretations of their masters, as the "TRUE FAITH."
Alex_ 08-22-07, 09:02 PM	Whatever he might have been before he became a vampire is largely moot at this point. That is not the way you defined it in your other posts. I will refer you to them. If you want to change your definition at this point, then that's fine, but we'll be here all day if you're going to do that all the time. I would like to the definitions I used that suggested otherwise. Children take things without concern for others well-being. The world is full of selfish people. But that doesn't mean they're evil. It doesn't even mean they're neutral. I'm a banker. I need to make money to feed my family. I forclose on someone's farm. They turn to a life of piracy. They murder and kill other people for gain. THEY become evil because of my actions. Does that make me evil? I'm a hero. I give my life for a person to live. They do NOTHING with their life except go bankrupt and be generally worthless. My sacrifice was in vain. Does that make THEM evil for wasting my gift to them? The world is not black and white. Everything is tied together. Your actions affect other people and it affects the decisions they make in their lives. What if they were evil? And you wanted them to sacrifice themselves because it would mean that you had converted someone from an evil person to a noble person? Then you would be wanting the death of another for a good end, plus, it would save your own life in the process. How about that? Evil beings can be selfless. Lawful Evil creatures give their lives for their family and loved ones all the time. They wouldn't be lawful evil without the belief in sacrifice. Are you saying Lawful Evil people can't love one another? Are you saying they can't have friends? Bah, I don't believe that. I'm not saying that a person of Evil alignment can't perform Good or Neutral acts. However, that doesn't make the person non-Evil, and it doesn't make the individual acts themselves Evil. Children take things because they don't know any better. If you deem that children do know better, and they continue to be selfish and show little in the desire to share, or compassion, respect for life, then yes, the kid would be Evil. You foreclosed on the house because they made an agreement that if they didn't pay, they would lose their property. They failed to pay, and you followed through, mostly because you knew that your wife and child (people other than you) needed food. You didn't forclose on the house for evil reasons. What happens afterwards has nothing to do with your alignment after that, especially when you can't forsee what will happen, and never intended for it to happen. The person you foreclosed on, however, apparently did become Evil, since they now rely on the pain and suffering of others for personal gain (unless there's more to the story). Your example was how a non-Evil action, can result in undesirable acts that are Non-Evil, which can be factors in Evil acts. You're right in saying it's complicated, and that everything is tied together, but not that there is no black and white. One can make an organization or situation seem gray by mixing in Good and Evil people with Good and Evil actions to the point where it can be difficult to sift through them all, but it doesn't mean that any individual person or act is gray in itself/themself NO, that is NOT what it has told its followers. What it has told its followers is that they will be REWARDED with immortality if they are "GOOD." And what do they tell their followers is "GOOD?" Starting to get the picture? Not "Good" in the D&D cosmic sense though. "Good" as in "right", as in "correct", as in "proper". If you replaced the word "Good" with "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings," you would not get what the Blood of Vol is teaching its practitioners. SHE doesn't tell them anything. The people doesn't know she exists. THE PRIESTS get their orders from HIGH PRIESTS and it all rolls down hill from there. Why do you think she deals in such shadowy ways? She doesn't tell her followers anything directly, no, but what she does want them to know, and believe does reach them. Lay followers get orders from low priests, who get orders from high priets, who get orders from Vol. If, by your reasoning, the BoV was telling its followers to live such heinous lives, shouldn't she WANT them to know she's so powerful and evil? Shouldn't she show herself and let the fear govern the people? She doesn't want them all to actively live such heinous lives. She wants them to be more open minded and accepting of such heinous acts. This way, when the Emerald Claw does something in the name of the Blood of Vol, the people don't go, "How horrible that they would kill so many people!", they go, "Well they must have had a valid reason, so something like that is okay with me." When it comes time to start recruiting people to become low pirests, high priests, and other positions, Vol doesn't want a bunch of people who look at how she REALLY does things and go, "This is the opposite of what I was taught my whole life. You people are sick." She wants them to go, "Well I've never thought it of it that way." I mean, what's more powerful than having a living god for your lawful evil religion? No, she moves through intermediaries and in the shadows because she realizes that most people--if they found out the truth behind it all--would rise up and cast down the priests. She's not a God. She's just a Lich. If Vol just came out and said she was a Lich and that she was going to take down the Dragonmarked Houses, Arenal, and Argonessen, they would have all kicked her rear a long time ago. The Silver Flame definitely would also be actively hunting her down. Well, why do you think that many people seem to suggest it? Is it something in the water? I think many people suggest it because it's an easy conclusion to draw. Lots of people think Warforged are immune to non-lethal damage from a forced march, that the entire Lycanthropic Purge was an event similar to the Salem Witch trials or Spanish Inquisition, that Valenar are Kingon-like warriors who prefer charging headfirst into battle in massive mounted formations, or that Eberron in general is a setting that discourages mid-high or epic level PCs. There are many misconceptions about the setting, because many parts of the setting are more subtle and complex, and as subtlety and complexity rises, the chances of someone mistaking something for something else rises with it. If most of them are "Neutral" then there should be just as many "Good" ones as "Evil" ones, statistically speaking. Most being of Neutral alignment makes no mention of the remaining ratios. You're looking at this from the outside in--from the get-go. A common person doesn't look at a walking corpse and go--"Gee, I know that thing is evil because it's inhabited by NEGATIVE energy from the NEGATIVE plane. I also know it has 3 hit dice and was formed from the corpse of a murderer and can give me 1 temporary negative level." They know it's evil just the same way that I know a spider is poisonous. It's both nature and nurture. My instincts might tell me it's highly dangerous and out of the ordinary, but it's my NURTURING that tells me it's WRONG. Well--if I happen to have been raised in a society where that was "normal" then I wouldn't have that nurturing to tell me that it's "WRONG"--even though I might still have the instinct to stay out of its way. There should be NO way for a common person to tell the difference between a Deathless and an Undead. But that doesn't keep most Arenal elves from practicing their religion, does it?... I never said they didn't care about cosmic principles. I'm trying to say they care about those cosmic principles in lay terminology. Most common people don't talk about what's "good" and what's "evil" in terms of cosmic vocabulary. They aren't afforded the luxury of scholarly debate. Most "simple" people are quite "simple." Alignment works the way it does from an outside in perspective. You character isn't labeled Good, and subject to Smite Good, and detectable by Detect Good merely because they think they're Good. Even if your character is ignorant of alignment, they still have values and morals. Some of the values and morals are Good, some are Neutral, and some are Evil, whether the PCs and NPCs are aware of the distinctions of them or not. The average commoner in game can't tell the difference between an Undying and an Undead but there is a difference. All undead are evil because they are resevoirs of Negative energy. But Karnathi skeletons and zombies still fight honorably for their nation. They protect Karrns NO MATTER THEIR ALIGNMENT. They might think a "good" Karrn is weak, and that's because of their evil nature, but they would still FIGHT to protect his village. So--as you mentioned before--a "good" person might want an army there to fight (and die) to protect them. Does that mean a "good" person is evil because he hopes an army of undead skeletons comes from Korth to defeat the Cyreans? All Undead are automatically or predisposed to Evil because the spell and processes that make them are Evil. We are not told why Karrnathi Zombies and Skeletons fight. We are told why people tolerate them, but that doesn't mean it's the motivations of the Undead themselves. The ECS itself says, they have been imbued with a "malign intelligence", which seems to suggest they're thinking revolves more around the desire to hurt the enemy than a desire to help or defend their allies. Yes, and if those Evil leaders manipulate their populace to evil ends, the populace is nothing more than a tool. But that doesn't mean they're inherently responsible for their own actions. However, are we to believe that with a leadership actively moving the people towards an Evil end, that 100% of the population is going to be unaffected? That the leadership in no way, shape or form has any effect or influence over the attitudes, values, or morality of the people, or that the morality, values, and attitudes of the people in no way effect the leadership? You would be surprised at the length a "good" person will go to rationalize what their government, their king, or their PRESIDENT, tells them is right or wrong. (i.e. Water-boarding or torture.) In D&D I would know that whatever lengths the Good leader went to, the Evil one could more readily and likely surpass. Yet it has been your intention to attempt to quantify just how many "good" vs. "evil" followers in the Blood of Vol. Not only quantify, but also show how such a value would be possible and more likely, and how this is all agreeable with the idea of the Blood of Vol being a Lawful Evil faith. Perhaps it was the vehemence of your argument as to what was "intended" by whomever said whatever. I apologize for the misunderstanding then. Funny, I haven't seen any quotes that you have to offer. That's because I haven't quoted much, if at all directly from the books. For me to give a complete image of the Blood of Vol would require lifting entire paragraphs and sections out of copy righted material. I cannot do that. All I can do is point individuals towards sections like the Blood of Vol entry in Faiths of Eberron, and their description in the ECS. And yet you attempt to tell them YOUR opinion of published material. I notice when Keith posts, he makes every attempt to demonstrate what is his opinion--even going so far as to post it in a spoiler box. I have never felt that he has challenged my viewpoints or interpretations. That's not to say that he feels I am right or wrong. However, there are particular people in this thread, and in other threads, and I'm sorry to single you out--there are others--who seem very determined to "help" other people to the "light" of what they think might be the best interpretation. While Kieth does often acknowledge when things are his own interpretation, when someone asks "why is ABC?" or "where is XYZ", he does tend to respond with what's written in the book. He has even, at times, pointed out that many works were written differently than he had envisioned them, or that they deviated from his intent when he first described them in the ECS. He has also, on more than one occasion, entered to show how something was designed to work in a way that someone suggested it could not. Kieth has to give more disclaimers and use more spoiler tags because if he wasn't so aggressive in his posts about the fact that you can do things differently, people would not only take it as canon, they would be more inclined to do it because he said it. If I (or others) were acknowledged creator of Eberron or a WOTC official with acknowledge authority over the setting, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Not because what we type has any more or less merit, but because of our title. We'd have to give out disclaimers too. There's a thread right above this one, where several posters tried to tell another that officially: there was no official explenation for the Mournland's initial effects on Warforged, and he seemed dissatisfied with their responses. Kieth comes in and posts pretty much the exact same thing as they did, and the thread ended. There are countless threads like that. Multiple people trying to explain what Kieth said to someone else, and they debate with those people for pages and pages, and then Kieth comes in, and with one post, that basically agrees with everyone before, ends the discussion. I'd also like to point out that I'm not upset, angry, or disturbed by this. That's simply the way it is.