| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| theorcrist07-10-03, 09:56 AM | so in FR it is implied that good, evil, law, and chaos are universals... so does cultural relativism exist? for example- good character grows up in evil land with evil cultural norms... what is he? good character with evil tendencies? what if theft was normal, and not thought of as evil in his land.... just food for thought! im in spain right now, and its very inspiring, but i cant wait to get home to my d-d group"!!!! i miss you guys! |
| Neblin of the Green07-10-03, 10:38 AM | Is there nothing to do in Spain, or how did you think of that one? :D I generally don't use alignments, simply because its to black and white, and because of precisely what you mentioned. And to control Paladins and Clerics I use the dogma/clergy description of the deity, to determine when they stray from the Light or Shadow, which ever. The characters act the way they act, due to historical reasons and not alignment restrictions. Thus I would define all characters as good. Characters of opposite disposition would be classified as evil. Does that make any sense/ it almost makes sense to me. |
| Sarelle07-10-03, 02:34 PM | I agree. Alignments simply don't sum up life. that is why I'm an atheist - I mean who is God to judge whether I'm good or not, or even what good/evil is? Anyway, I use alignments in the game because it is a game, and some of the rules are based around alignments. But eriously the better defined a character the less likely your DM is to notice the lack of definitive alignment. i just babbled. To sum it up - have an alignment, use it sparesly. |
| Xae'an07-10-03, 06:47 PM | I also think the alignments described in the rules are simplifications. They give a character a guideline of how to behave but they do not define the character's personality. An example for this would be the description of Mulhorand in the FRCS: The pharao is a LG Paladin, BUT: He leads an aggressive war against Unther, holds up slavery and even sells slaves to the Red Wizards. To everybody outside Mulhorand this kind of behaviour is truely evil, but the Mulhorandi culture in which he grew up takes this social structure for granted and therefore he tries to make the best of it. The description of sun elves who should mostly be CG in Races of Faerun shows similar conflicts in there relations to humans: According to the book they would often rather leave a human to his fate then help him as a result of there bad experiences with the human race. To anybody outside sun elven culture this is nothing but racism and contrary to any good alignment. As in the real world alignments can not be taken as absolute truths and ethic conflicts are always possible. I also think that any intelligent creature should be able to choose alignments freely, e.g. I see no need why red dragons should always be evil and golden ones always be good, this might be the general tendency and true for 95% of them, but individuals can always break with the traditions of their peoples. Celestial and infernal creatures are different on this level since the are more or less personifications of moral concepts and therefore required to have a set alignment. Similar is true for creatures that are naturally bound to a certain (good or evil) way of life, such as mindflayers, since a creature that lives by sucking out other people's brains can hardly have any non-evil alignment. |
| Psionycx07-10-03, 07:28 PM | Personally I think alignments are useful for defining a range of behavior for characters that often exist only in a few lines of words. Consider Liriel Baenre. She's a drow, daughter of the Archmage of Menzoberrazen and an aristocrat in drow society. Her culture is Chaotic Evil. Liriel herself is not Evil, but she is most definitely Chaotic. She leads a life only barely constrained by the "laws" of her culture. She commits acts that many might consider Evil from time to time (like murder), as one might expect of her in her society. But she doesn't do it out of malice or for the thrill. In her early days, she is essentially Chaotic Neutral. After she moves up to the surface and meets Fydor, she begins to drift towards Good. It is not necessarily easy for her. On the one hand she appreciates something of the value that goodness and valuing others adds to life. But at other times she finds it hard not to take more expedient, but Evil, actions that would allow a more direct route to her goals. Gradually, she slides more towards Good. Drizzt was another one. He was never Chaotic Evil. That actually caused him some problems in his Chaotic Evil society, and lead his parents to deceive him about the nature of the things in Drow society. Interestingly, Drizzt was as much of an anomaly being non-Evil in and Evil society as an Evil person would be in a Good society. Just as Good people might seek to contain, control or convert an Evil person in their culture, so does Evil seek the same in Good. I have always thought that alignment really does work, as long as you take the time to relate it to the character's personality. |
| Dargoth07-10-03, 08:03 PM | Good and Evil Law and Chaos are ultimately descided by the the DM if the DM thinks killing babty seals in an evil act then it is. Ultimately the DM has the final say on this issue |
| Dracoth07-10-03, 08:12 PM | Dargoth is my hero -Dracoth |
| Masakado07-11-03, 09:30 AM | Originally posted by Sarelle I mean who is God to judge whether I'm good or not, or even what good/evil is? If you believe in God, then he is your creator & has every right in the world to judge your actions, eh? Being an omnipresent & omniscient deity, He was even smart enough to provide an instruction manual to help you figure out what to do when you're faced with moral dilemmas. Christians call it The Bible. Even if you are an atheist, your mama taught you right from wrong, correct, so even without religion to guide your behavior, you still have some cultural point of reference as to what constitutes proper social interaction? Relativism, schmelativism. We all have precise concepts of what constitutes good or evil, even some that trancend all cultural / religious barriers and are universally accepted. We inject grey areas into our morality when it intrudes on our levels of comfort. "Wow. That clerk in the department store gave me $10 too much. No sense in returning it. Those stores make millions & propably won't even miss the money." Return the 10-spot, homey. Anywho, as far as the topic goes, I concur with Dargoth. In a fantasy setting there are clear lines of good & evil / law & chaos which are the realm of the DM to enforece as he / she sees fit. Which is why a lot of powergamers take the Chaotic Neutral alignment because they think it allows them to do anything they want to without reprocussions. |
| Sarelle07-11-03, 02:15 PM | So what alignment would God be then? Why is a good act a good act in God's eyes? Evil people never see themselves as evil. If a person dedicates themselves to helping others in need, but murders someone one day, is that person then evil in God's eyes? If your husband/wife was deemed evil and sent to hell because God had an agenda that did not match his/her own would you stand by and let that happen? And if a person is fundamentally evil according to the teaching of the Bible (hates everything, everyone) but never does anything bad - is that person good or evil? Amd you must remember that if your average person is neutral in a D&D world (concerned with their own life alone but not evil), then how come they sympathise with others in need, and seek to help where they can? Wouldn't that make them good? Nobody (and I mean nobody) in the world considers themselves truly evil. Some people delude themselves that they are evil, some people are so convinced they are evil that they will commit suicide etc., but deep down nobody belives they are truly evil - and most people who are Christian belive they will go to Heaven. Therefore would it not be an evil act for God to tell them that they are to go to Hell? Food for thought. And though I am sorry if I offended anyone personally (and I'm sorry that this is drifting off-topic) I am not sorry if I offended 'God' or the Bible, as I believe God does not exist and the Bible is just an interesting piece of literature by a few men, the main one of whom was a rebellious genius called Paul. Edit/Post Script: Good and evil, law and chaos, and balance are just theories invented by humans to simplify the enormity of the universe and the choices we make. I believe that you should help others, you should strive for good, but that is because I am only human. |
| Masakado07-11-03, 02:49 PM | Originally posted by Sarelle So what alignment would God be then? Why is a good act a good act in God's eyes? Evil people never see themselves as evil. If a person dedicates themselves to helping others in need, but murders someone one day, is that person then evil in God's eyes? If your husband/wife was deemed evil and sent to hell because God had an agenda that did not match his/her own would you stand by and let that happen? And if a person is fundamentally evil according to the teaching of the Bible (hates everything, everyone) but never does anything bad - is that person good or evil? I'm not going to hijack this thread with a discussion of religion. Especially a discussion of religion with an athiest (no disrespect intended) who, most likely, will argue for the sake of arguing & has no desire to appreciate the points of the other side. :) To address your simpler points: 1) God is good. The book says so. In Geometry, this is called a given. 2) Evil people never see themselves as evil because of the aforementioned relationship between morality & comfort. 3) Even good people commit evil acts (ex. All men have sinned & come short of the grace of God). That's why Christians pray for forgiveness (ie. They willingly atone for any transgressions committed knowingly or unknowingly.) 4) Just as in the FR, a person who does good things, but has no faith, is damned, whether it be Hell (Earth) or the Wall of Faithlessness (Faerun). Why folks can accept this as a game concept, but cannot accept the real-life ramifications of being faithless escapes me. Being "only good" is not enough. You must be good and have faith. As a general aside and not a personal shot at you, Sarelle, I wish that athiest would make up their minds sometimes. Are their issues with God, or are they with the hypocrisy that exists in all earthly religions? Just because man does stupid things is no reason not to believe in a benevolent higher power, or think that it is naive to do so. That's like blaming Ronald McDonald himself if your service is bad at your local drive-thru. God loves, man kills. Originally posted by Sarelle Amd you must remember that if your average person is neutral in a D&D world (concerned with their own life alone but not evil), then how come they sympathise with others in need, and seek to help where they can? Wouldn't that make them good? Being compassionate has nothing to do with being good. Sememmon genuinely loves Ashemmi, and probably treats her with kindess & respect. At the end of the day, he's still an evil, self-serving, blackhearted scumbag regardless of his fluffy feelings towards his woman. |
| Sarelle07-11-03, 03:04 PM | Okay I will also wrap up this mini discussion but I would like to say how offensive some of your comments were. You generalised that atheists do not listen and try to understand the points raised - have I shown disrespect to you as a person, except to the Christian fundamentalists' interpretation of the Bible? When did I indicate a lack of ears (in the non-literal sense)? I believe it would be a form of racism if I generalised the relatively small amount of Christians I have talked to with my own opinions, and said that all Christians are naive, unimaginative sheep (by the way that is an example of what I would NOT do, for all those concerned, and it is a HUGELY exaggerated way of putting my opinions). And I fail to see why being faithless is so bad a thing and it means we deserve to go to 'Hell'. Surely God, good-aligned (a given from the Bibel according to you), is not that bigoted and prejudice? Edit: And I have made up my mind. God does not exist. And it is both of the things you said, and more, that indicate that. |
| Faraer07-11-03, 03:14 PM | "Being compassionate has nothing to do with being good." Of course it does. If your compassion is limited towards certain targets, so is your goodness. If I *was* just told that I'm damned for not having faith -- a concept that is a substitute for functional religion -- in the Christian God, that's *really* not Realms-relevant. |
| Masakado07-11-03, 03:35 PM | Originally posted by Sarelle You generalised that atheists do not listen and try to understand the points raised - have I shown disrespect to you as a person, except to the Christian fundamentalists' interpretation of the Bible? When did I indicate a lack of ears (in the non-literal sense)? You did not. As you can see, it is a general remark made about my experiences with athiests. Also note that I clearly stated that it was not a personal barb thrown at you. I'm not sure why you're taking so much personal offense. In the interests of equal time, I don't think that athiests are the only ones with philosophical hang ups: Christians are as well. For a lot who's personal savior said, "Judge not lest ye be judged," they certainly can be rather judgemental people. In general. I've found that athiests often start up discussions on religion with the purpose of trolling for believers, Christian or otherwise, and not for a genuine exchange of ideas. They also (often) confuse belief in God with church dogma, and attack practices rather than principles. It's sad that more often than not, mosts athiest assume that someone who defends or shares his faith is a religious wacko lurking for converts. Originally posted by Sarelle I believe it would be a form of racism. Bah. Its not racism, its a difference in philosophies. Racism implies hate, and I don't hate you because you don't believe in God. A proper Christian is supposed to love you despite the fact that you don't believe in God. An even more proper Christian will witness his faith to you (the annoying part if you're an athiest) because he realizes the ultimate price to be paid for those that lack faith. From their perspective, it's akin to thowing a man a life preserver, even if he prefers to drown, and is annoyed by the life preserver. ;) A perspective to be admired, even if it is not appreciated, or even liked. Originally posted by Sarelle And I fail to see why being faithless is so bad a thing and it means we deserve to go to 'Hell'. Surely God, good-aligned (a given from the Bibel according to you), is not that bigoted and prejudice? It's not me with the predjudice. The fate of the faithless (like in the FR) has already been predetermined. If you follow what the Bible (and other books of faith, for that matter) says. Being good alone does not help, and it never has. This isn't a brand-spanking new religious concept: it's been around since the beginning of religion itself. You don't believe in God or His Word, so why worry about Judgement Day (since you believe that it will never come) or get offended? Originally posted by Sarelle Edit: And I have made up my mind. God does not exist. And it is both of the things you said, and more, that indicate that. So you're telling me that I pushed you over the edge? That you do not believe in God because my apparantly Pro-Christian remarks do not jive with your belief system, and have offended your sensibilities? This is what I alluded to earlier. Is your beef with God, with people who proclaim their faith, or with earthly religious denominations? I like God, but organized religion rattles me & seems very hypocritical. I suppose that makes me a deist or something. Most athiests I've encountered consider themselves athiests because it represents the opposite of "being Christian" (aka. the stereotype of the wild-eyed Bible thumper), not because of an intrinsic lack of belief in God. It is a rebellion against church doctrine and doesn't appear to be a genuine belief that there is no God. Originally posted by Faraer If I *was* just told that I'm damned for not having faith -- a concept that is a substitute for functional religion -- in the Christian God, that's *really* not Realms-relevant. On the contrary, the concepts are exactly the same in scope. Please bear in mind that I am discussing the philsophical slants & am not the Church Chat gestapo attempting to win souls. In Christianity, those that do not believe in God end up in Hell, no matter how "good" they are are. A person that hasn't committed the slightest sin, but worships Baal (the sin of worshiping graven images) or does not believe in God at all, goes to Hell. I didn't make this up. It's in the book. Conversely, the soul of a faithless Faerunian is sent to the Wall of the Faithless regardless of how kind or benevolent he was in life. In a sense, he is damned, as his good deeds do not earn him a pleasant afterlife. There wouldn't be so many "Wall of Faithless is Bogus" threads if that weren't the case. Originally posted by Faraer "Being compassionate has nothing to do with being good." Of course it does. If your compassion is limited towards certain targets, so is your goodness. I was referring to "good" in the ultimate spiritual sense. Sorry for the lack of clarification. A person whose compassion knows no bounds, yet has no faith, is dealt with harshly by the uber spiritual powers. So sayeth the Bible & the FRCS. |
| Faraer07-11-03, 04:48 PM | Within Christianity, isn't faith vs works an ongoing argument? The Bible says all sorts of stuff that churches choose not to take literally (like most of Leviticus). In any case, the semi-monotheistic slant is definitely a late modification to the pantheistic Realms, and I don't use it. |
| Masakado07-11-03, 05:25 PM | Originally posted by Faraer Within Christianity, isn't faith vs works an ongoing argument? The Bible says all sorts of stuff that churches choose not to take literally (like most of Leviticus). Yep. One could argue that since man is discussing the validity of what's supposed to be God's word, the debate is slightly tainted with that "relativism injected into morality in order to make you feel better" notion I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't know for certain since I'm not privy to the discussions, nor am I a religious scholar. Who's to say that the loose interpretationalists are correct in their assumptions? Or even pious for that matter. ;) As Shakespere said, "Even the Devil can cite scripture for his own purposes." Originally posted by Faraer In any case, the semi-monotheistic slant is definitely a late modification to the pantheistic Realms, and I don't use it. The issue is not a false injection of monotheism into the Realms, Faraer. It is the fact that there are direct parallels between real religion & game concepts as far as the ultimate fate of those without faith is concerned. In game concepts as well as real life religious practices, it is written that those who are exceedingly benevolent, yet are without faith, are punished. In the FR, they go to the Wall. In real life, it's either Purgatory, or Hell, depending on your denomination. If reincarnation is your thing, you come back as a bug. |
| Ivy07-11-03, 05:31 PM | To try to bring this discussion back on topic... It's well-known that the four alignments in D&D and FR are absolute and concrete forces. As a DM, I find that limiting in a story/plot sense, but from a games mechanics perspective it greatly simplifies things. In my campaigns, I try to achieve a happy medium by acknowledging that the concepts of good, evil, law, and chaos are universal forces, but individual characters have their own definitions of these, allowing for perceived gray areas. However, personal definitions do not affect the character's true alignment, and no character knows his or her true alignment for sure without the use of the detect x spells (though loss of class abilities is a good indicator of what alignment you are not!). For PCs, I let the player choose the character's alignment at the start of the game, then track it secretly if I deem it changes. As mentioned above, if a PC really wanted to know their alignment for sure, they would have to resort to divinations. Therefore, a character who thinks he is pure and shining good but is not might be in for any number of surprises (often involving various magic items). I define the four (absolute) alignments in my game as follows: Good -- puts wellbeing of others ahead of self. Neutral -- puts wellbeing of self ahead of most others. Evil -- puts wellbeing of self ahead of most others, and actively seeks to harm most others. Lawful -- puts wellbeing of the group or community ahead of the individual. Neutral -- wellbeing of group/community and individual are considered equally important Chaotic -- puts wellbeing of individual ahead of the group or community. |
| Psionycx07-11-03, 10:08 PM | Exactly, alignment is meant to be a definition of BEHAVIOR, not "morality". For example, Lawful Good, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good characters are all "Good", even though they may not all agree about that. The key element is the Good places value on other beings. Likewise, Evil characters all share a common thread of selfishness. Evil places one's self and one's goals above all other things. Going back to the Liriel example, one reason she is not evil is because, as much as it pains her sometimes, she does do things for the sake of others without any sign that she herself will benefit. Lawful alignment elements define the notion that all things have their place in a proper society. Lawful Neutral characters may take this to extremes. The outer planar Modrons, the exemplars of Law, have a clockwork society where every creature exists solely to fufill it's role. Status may change, but only in the greater context of the society's needs and not the individual's. Chaotic beings on the other hand believe the individual should determine for themself what their role in life should be. Some might choose to be Good, but independent, hence Chaotic Good. Chaotic Evil seeks to both define one's own role at the expense of others. Neutrality is when a character is diffident, taking a sampling of all for of the extreme views as the situation warrants but favoring none. A Neutral Druid may on the one hand help lost people find their way out of the forest. On the other he might choose to not interfere with an animal killing a lost human for food. Alignment helps to provide an idea for how individuals behave. |
| Tokugawa07-12-03, 03:52 AM | Agreed, the alignment system can be a little simplistic for general story/rp purposes, but it serves to simplify the game greatly for game mechanics. But, one doesn't have to adhere to one's alignment 100% of the time. I forget where in the PHB this is mentioned, but there are passages that I distinctly remember suggesting things like a lawful good fighter with a kleptomanic streak, etc etc. This can be paralleled with real life: one can be an upstanding citizen, but be prone to excessive drinking or some other "evil" vice. And not to bring this thread more off-topic than it already is, but I just wanted to add my two bits. I personally think that the alignment system, while albeit a little simplistic, is also a relatively accurate system representing morality. Not that I'm being a hellfire and brimstone Judeo-Christian zealot or anything, but since most of modern Western ethics is founded on the Bible (the seemingly-eternal existence of the Roman Catholic Church should have had SOME effects on what Western ethics, after all), I tend to use the Good Book as my unofficial DM's code on what is right and wrong. Now, why do I mention two seemingly disparate comments about the alignment system and the Bible in the same paragraph? Because it all ties in together on how one thinks morality works in the world, fantasy or otherwise. I am a proponent of an idea called natural law *this no doubt will offend some of you post-modernists out there, and for those of you who are, please don't be*, which basically states that there exists a universal code of morality and ethics that all human beings instinctively know and understand (e.g. everyone of any culture knows that killing in cold blood and stealing another man's possessions are inherently wrong). Of course, minor points will differ; for example, some cultures will believe that it is ok for a man to marry more than one woman, while other cultures will abhor such a notion. However, both cultures will probably agree that it is not ok for a man to forcibly take a woman to his bed, etc etc. And even if you don't think that natural law exists, here's a little food for thought: every time you say "that isn't fair," what are you referring to? If someone steals the cake off your dinner plate, and you say "that's not fair, give it back" aren't you comparing the action of the cake being stolen to some sort of moral code? You automatically know that it was wrong for your cake to be stolen. However, if no such universal code exists, then technically it wasn't "wrong." There was no law broken, so nothing "wrong" happened, because technically nothing is "wrong." But I digress. I'm turning this post into a soapbox on my philosophical beliefs. Going back on topic now, the point that I am trying to make is that since this sort of universal code seems, in my opinion, to exist in the real world, I do not see why it wouldn't exist in a fantasy world, especially in FR. In FR, Good and Evil are highly tangible things, and can be seen actively effecting major changes on the world (the least of which, for example, being the cleric's ability to channel positive or negative energy). Thus, the alignment system is a perfectly logical system, given the fact that I believe that there is some sort of moral "glue" that binds the FR universe together. And because the Bible is one of the most readily *and most familiar* availiable printed and logical moral codes in most parts of the known world, I choose to use it as the good/evil thermometer when determining if a player is following alignment or not *of course, the players are informed that I am using this source*...just to keep everybody on the same page. One's opinion on how effective the alignment system is probably also depends on one' view on human nature. Like Psionycx posted earlier, I believe that alignment is more of an indication of behavior than the character's actual nature. For me personally, being the old-fashioned philosophical conservative that I am, I view humans as inherently "evil", or selfish, as opposed to "good", or sacrificing. For instance, if a male was to go "fall in love" with a female, it is because the female makes the male "feel good;" in other words, it benefits the male. But again, I digress. Since, at least in my game *and my perception of the real* world, sentient beings are essentially selfish, some choose to fight against this inherent nature, while others revel in it. This is how I come to the conclusion that alignment represents behaviors: a lawful good paladin will never be lawful good 100% of the time. There are numerous passages in novels, rule books, and what not, about paladins "striving" to be good. What does this mean? That paladins aren't inherently good; otherwise they wouldn't be "striving" to be something that they already should be. Bah...I tried not to make this a rave about my personal beliefs, but it seems to have morphed into one anyway. I'm not bagging on anyone else's beliefs/game methods/etc. This is how I run my campaign, and I find that this style is very logical, both in terms of real life as well as in the game itself. Of course, it is always interesting to see how other people view alignment, and I encourage such information sharing *just as long as no heavy flaming goes on between opposite camps* :angel: P.S. Please please please please don't flame me for posting what I think is a logical system for determining morality in my campaign, as well as for real life. If you are a post-modernist who would rather dispense with the alignment system, then by all means go ahead. I'm not your mother, and so I'm not going to tell you what to do *hehe*. After all, it IS your campaign, and YOU get to decide how to run it...or at least, your DM does, anyway. |
| Sarelle07-12-03, 09:25 AM | I had intended to wrap up this off-topic discussion, but with no support in the matter from those involved, and because this is so thought-provoking a discussion I continue. Masokando, I am taking offense in the same way that a person whose parents were foreign to Britain (or the USA in your case) would take offense to a generalised comment that all people 'like him' or 'like her' are stupid/wastes of space/leeches and all the other racist junk that cowards spurt. You cannot expect anyone to not take a comment that offends them as a member of larger group, but not expect them to take it personally, as they are one. I doubt you are racist so maybe you should start putting your views of that into all our world's generalisations that turn to prejudice. I have no hang ups with God, because I don't believe he exists. I have hangs ups with the worship of God because of the hypocracies and naiveties of those that worship him. I can see the use of a united front that hopes to spread love, but not when such an organisation is run by evil hypocrites. And I do not believe in true evil, but I use the word to describe what humans see as evil - self-absorbed and prejudice people, paedophiles, rapists and abusers of power. Not to ever say that all church ministers are like that - they preach the message of good, but that such corruption exists defiles the point of their teachings. So how do you then follow the Bible when you disagree with what it teaches? I can see the benefit of worshiping God, but not following a teaching that goes against your instinct. I am homosexual, so how do you feel about that in relation to the Bible's teaching? And do you believe that the Bible is the one true teaching, or do Muslims go to Heaven too. Or are they worshipers of a craven idol? What defines a God, and what defines a craven idol? Why do Baal-worshipers not go to Heaven? I know I constantly ask questions, but it is mostly out of curiosity - my inability to undersatnd the working of an alien thought-process. And I have nothing against you Masokando. I am enjoying this discussion. If you are not just say and I really will end it. |
| Xae'an07-12-03, 10:03 PM | I think the discussion about religion show up cultural relativism again, this time in the real world: As far as I know atheism is more accepted by European culture than by American one. Speaking in terms of alignment, it's often regarded as evil in America, where fundamental believes are still wide-spread, while it's rather said to indicate neutrality in most European countries, where religion is often reduced to nearly formal rituals that are performed habitual but without any real devotion. I come from Austria and if I 'confess' my atheism there, people might tell me it's a pity that I don't believe in God or that I would be happier if I did, but nobody would ever tell me that I will go purgatory or hell because of my lack of faith. Literal interpretation of the bible is still pupular in some parts of the USA but has almost died out in Europe. This is also observable by comparing the different attitudes Europeans and Americans have to political ideologies that are against religion such as communism, which is much more disliked by Americans (For my point I don't think political ideologies should be absolutely neutral to religions, neither condemning them nor bringing them into their political concepts). Americans are however more tolerant regarding small, not so wide-spread faith groups or sects, which are seen with great suspicion and distrust where I live. Personally I think not being a member of a religion does not neccesarily make you are an enemy of religion, it rather gives you or should give an objective (as far as possible, since every personal opinion is by definition subjective) point of view. Faith or the lack thereof does not make somebody a better or worse person in a moral sense, only the reasons for somebody's good or evil behaviour are propably different. BTW: Look at the way, atheists are described in the D&D books. Unfortunatly they are always somehow the bad guys (Kir-lanan, the wall around the city of judgement, the ur-priest prestige class in the Book of Vile Darkness...) |
| Masakado07-13-03, 12:29 AM | Originally posted by Sarelle Masokando, I am taking offense in the same way that a person whose parents were foreign to Britain (or the USA in your case) would take offense to a generalised comment that all people 'like him' or 'like her' are stupid/wastes of space/leeches and all the other racist junk that cowards spurt. *sigh* In none of my comments do I recall insulting you to that harsh a degree, nor do I recall insulting you, personally, at all. My comments directly stem from the interactions & discussions I've had with other self-proclaimed athiests, & I said as much. BTW, are you calling me a coward? Just asking for clarification's sake. Tone is a difficult thing to detect on message boards. Originally posted by Sarelle You cannot expect anyone to not take a comment that offends them as a member of larger group, but not expect them to take it personally, as they are one. Of course I can expect someone to not take offense. Think of what you're saying, Sarelle. If you are an athiest who does not believe in the concepts of Heaven, Hell, or God, then what would the word of a person who believes in God & states that "people without faith go to Hell" matter to you? The concepts are empty to an atheist: they simply do not exist to them. Damnation is a hollow threat to a person that does not believe in Heaven, Hell, God, or Satan. Originally posted by Sarelle I doubt you are racist so maybe you should start putting your views of that into all our world's generalisations that turn to prejudice. I said that the fate of the faithless is pre-determined. Which it is if you believe in Christian doctrine. You do not, as you are an athiest. No harm, no foul. I have no prejudices because it is not my place to judge anyone. Originally posted by Sarelle I can see the use of a united front that hopes to spread love, but not when such an organisation is run by evil hypocrites. And I do not believe in true evil, but I use the word to describe what humans see as evil - self-absorbed and prejudice people, paedophiles, rapists and abusers of power. Not to ever say that all church ministers are like that - they preach the message of good, but that such corruption exists defiles the point of their teachings. Then we have something in common because, as I mentioned before, the ills of organized religion also trouble me to a certain degree. I just haven't let it shake my faith. Not in God, nor that all mankind behaves like that. At least I don't. Once again I quote Shakespere, "Even the Devil can cite scripture to his own end." The men that do horrible things in the name of God obviously are not godly men, so I do not blame God for the evil that man does to man. God loves, man kills. I was born innocent, I will live with faith, and die with honor. That's the best I can expect to do in this world. Originally posted by Sarelle I can see the benefit of worshiping God, but not following a teaching that goes against your instinct. What particular teaching would that be? Originally posted by Sarelle I am homosexual, so how do you feel about that in relation to the Bible's teaching? Again, it's not my place to judge you because of your sexual orientation. Whether or not I agree or disagree with it is immaterial. Originally posted by Sarelle And do you believe that the Bible is the one true teaching, or do Muslims go to Heaven too. Or are they worshipers of a craven idol? What defines a God, and what defines a craven idol? Why do Baal-worshipers not go to Heaven? Baal-worshippers do not go to Heaven because Baal is a pagan concept, much like Roman polytheism, or so it says in scripture. Take that for what it's worth, I suppose. I have not studied enough Islam to comment on Muslims, nor would it be my place to judge Muslims in the first place. Originally posted by Sarelle And I have nothing against you Masokando. I am enjoying this discussion. If you are not just say and I really will end it. Proper discourse is good for the mind, and makes sure that you believe in your personal convictions. As long as things stay civil, I have no problems continuing a discourse, although the FR board may not be the proper place for this discussion. :behold: We should be complaining about how Drow weapons don't decay in sunlight or something. E-Mail perhaps? |
| Celtavian07-13-03, 02:17 AM | Originally posted by Masakado God loves, man kills. This is incorrect as God has killed many times, but Christians would call it justified. Why folks can accept this as a game concept, but cannot accept the real-life ramifications of being faithless escapes me. Then we are equally mystified. I don't understand why religious folks can believe in God while at the same time not thinking it possible that the Bible is the work of men considering how many men have created stories from nothing more than their imagination and experience, up to and including deities with well-detailed histories and sets of beliefs. Humans have believed in many different gods, and in fact, still do. It just so happens that Christianity became the dominant religion in Rome, and they saw to it that it became the dominant religion of the western world by use of the sword. Christians so often forget that their religion was spread by oppressive conversion and not well-meaning missionaries, though that is more common today due to changing social values. Please jump off the high horse. Christian folk are just as dogmatic and close-minded as any Atheist I have ever met. They refuse to believe they are incorrect though they back up their arguments with scripture, scripture from the Bible. How lacking in objectivity can you possibly get? "I'll argue there is a God from a book that is the ultimate source of the dogma of the belief, but I'll still be open to the arguments of the other side." This is coming from a person who isn't particularly an atheist, but has had the extreme displeasure of arguing with close-minded Christians on many occasions about the nature of good and evil, morality and other such philosiphical questions. |
| FineasBoggs07-13-03, 02:19 AM | cultural relativism is bunk anyway. |
| Celtavian07-13-03, 02:24 AM | Originally posted by Masakado If reincarnation is your thing, you come back as a bug. Another show of extreme ignorance by a "well-meaning" Christian who doesn't know the first thing about Hinduism if he thinks that they believe people return as bugs. If you truly understood reincarnation, then you would understand that it ties in with a Hindu belief that embraces the idea of always having the chance for Redemption, a commonly accepted Christian belief. Reincarnation is not some mindless, non-sensical occurrence save to those who do not understand its purpose in the religion. Do some studying, then you might be able to speak on the subject with understanding rather the common ignorance of many Christians. |
| FineasBoggs07-13-03, 02:29 AM | uhh...... YOGA FLAME!!!! |
| Celtavian07-13-03, 02:30 AM | I agree with those who see alignment more as a reflection of personal behavior/personality than a reflection of morality. I think you can be a Chaotic Evil person and never commit murder for example. You can just be an overly selfish, uncaring, indifferent bastard who enjoys the misery of others. I also think you can be a Lawful Good womanizer (as long as you are not a Paladin). You believe in laws, justice and all that is good, but you have a problem resisting the temptation of women. Morality is entirely separate from alignment, though a DM must still determine the basic morality of his campaign. |
| FineasBoggs07-13-03, 02:31 AM | Is this really the place to be addressing theology??? Take it to another board. |
| Celtavian07-13-03, 02:44 AM | Originally posted by Sarelle I agree. Alignments simply don't sum up life. that is why I'm an atheist - I mean who is God to judge whether I'm good or not, or even what good/evil is? Anyway, I use alignments in the game because it is a game, and some of the rules are based around alignments. But eriously the better defined a character the less likely your DM is to notice the lack of definitive alignment. i just babbled. To sum it up - have an alignment, use it sparesly. You will be judged good or evil by the way you interact with other human beings. God has never been the judge on earth save for in myth, human beings judge based on moral teachings present in a culture, but also build morality from an innate idea of what is right or wrong. Some cannot live in a world where they as human beings must choose right or wrong for not only themselves, but for the group. That is the nature of right or wrong. There are countless times in human history and even in the modern day when we engage in actions that are "wrong", but we do not define them as wrong. For example, there was slavery endorsed by God in the Bible. God also endorsed the destruction of opposing human groups, and in fact punished the Jews for not completely wiping out another group of people they were at war with. Now Jesus changed must of this. Jesus is the messiah in the sense that he was the first person to successfully teach morality in such a way that it taught us ideas of mercy, peace and tolerance. He was wise and showed the world a different way of life which even the Roman empire eventually embraced. We have often relied upon such people to change our way of thinking. Those who for some reason have a deeper way of understanding morality and are able to convey that understanding words powerful enough to sway the hearts of men. Many of them are religious worldwide, but some are non-religious philosophers. Even now we battle over morality, even as we have for all our human history. A battle for the hearts and minds of humans. It is neverending, and we are neither long-lived nor particularly wise. It is often only after the fact that we realize if we have done great evil or good in this world, because we are subject to the morality of time and place. |
| Sarelle07-13-03, 07:45 AM | Originally posted by Masakado *sigh* In none of my comments do I recall insulting you to that harsh a degree, nor do I recall insulting you, personally, at all. My comments directly stem from the interactions & discussions I've had with other self-proclaimed athiests, & I said as much. BTW, are you calling me a coward? Just asking for clarification's sake. Tone is a difficult thing to detect on message boards. No I was just using an example of the type of prejudice, not a direct translation of impact etc. And I certainly was not calling you a coward - unless you are racist. You have shown a large amount of stubbornness (not sure if I can call it bravery) in continuing this discussion, unlike most other Christians I have talked to about this. Of course I can expect someone to not take offense. Think of what you're saying, Sarelle. If you are an athiest who does not believe in the concepts of Heaven, Hell, or God, then what would the word of a person who believes in God & states that "people without faith go to Hell" matter to you? The concepts are empty to an atheist: they simply do not exist to them. Damnation is a hollow threat to a person that does not believe in Heaven, Hell, God, or Satan. I see what you are saying - but damnation, whether or not you believe in the concepts of Heaven and Hell, is still a very negative view of someone's life (or rather death). This, in part, is from the domination of Christianity in society - but I'm atheist, not a genius. Rooting out all the impacts Christianity had on society, and as a result on me, would leave me a very strange person. Christianity has had a benefit in society, but I wonder is that relevent any more - if atheists can be wonderful human beings, do we still need the so-called 'guiding hand' of God? I'm not saying we are any more clever than those back in Roman days, but we no longer need salvation from an oppressive dominance, unless that dominance is Christianity (or the main religion of any place). Then we have something in common because, as I mentioned before, the ills of organized religion also trouble me to a certain degree. I just haven't let it shake my faith. Not in God, nor that all mankind behaves like that. At least I don't. Once again I quote Shakespere, "Even the Devil can cite scripture to his own end." The men that do horrible things in the name of God obviously are not godly men, so I do not blame God for the evil that man does to man. God loves, man kills. I was born innocent, I will live with faith, and die with honor. That's the best I can expect to do in this world. What particular teaching would that be? The teachings of the Christian church. You have just said that you are shaken by the corruption of the church, yet you still follow the Bible. As I have said, it is one thing to believe in God, but another to follow, word-for-word the teachings of a book that has/is used by many to create vast amounts of misery and suffering. Again, it's not my place to judge you because of your sexual orientation. Whether or not I agree or disagree with it is immaterial. Well, if you follow the Bible, it is. According to the Bible it is a sin - punishable by the worst sort of evil, murder. But it is nice to see you have not followed that section of it. Baal-worshippers do not go to Heaven because Baal is a pagan concept, much like Roman polytheism, or so it says in scripture. Take that for what it's worth, I suppose. I have not studied enough Islam to comment on Muslims, nor would it be my place to judge Muslims in the first place. There isn't much I can say to that - if you are willing to follow the Bible's writings. Just food for thought - if Baal-worshipers created a Baalble (lol) that named Christianity as pagan, what really would be the difference between it and the Bible? Proper discourse is good for the mind, and makes sure that you believe in your personal convictions. As long as things stay civil, I have no problems continuing a discourse, although the FR board may not be the proper place for this discussion. :behold: We should be complaining about how Drow weapons don't decay in sunlight or something. E-Mail perhaps? Well I know I have again made this more thought-provoking than I intended, but with your support I felt this could be wrapped up in a last post from each of us, whatever we are left with (this being my last post for comments of your replies). As my computer may well be set to be infiltrated with viruses (some damn e-mail), I wouldn't recommend trading e-mails with me :( But anyway, thanks for discussing with me - you have given me an insight I would not have had otherwise. Now about those drow weapons... :D |
| Masakado07-13-03, 08:17 AM | Originally posted by Celtavian Another show of extreme ignorance by a "well-meaning" Christian who doesn't know the first thing about Hinduism if he thinks that they believe people return as bugs. I was being satirical, Celt. I apologize if I offended you if you're a Hindu. :embarrass I suppose I should have used a smiley emoticon or something. Thanks for the unrestrained jabs to my solar plexus, BTW, as well as the assumptions that I am some tyrannical zealot. Celt says things like this, yet I'm the one accused of being prejudicial. :rolleyes: My grasp of Hindu is pretty good, actually, and as I mentioned before, tone is a very difficult thing to convey on a message board. And just as Christians come out with Bibles in hand, ready to club you into repentance, so come those who love to assume that Christians are "ignorant" of other faiths just because they are partial to their own. :rolleyes: We, the self-righteous, yet corrupt, Christians who batter you with our heavy, black Bibles until you repent & realize the "error of your ways." Ignorance, or intollerance, of other faiths is not a uniquely Christian hubris (Middle East politics, anyone?), yet Christians are the ones most often branded with such villification. I suppose it's warranted. As I mentioned before, Christians can be a pretty judgemental lot, even when the core of the philosophy says that they shouldn't be, nor do they have the right to be. And yes, God has killed, but his wrath has always struck down the wicked. Originally posted by Celtavian 1) Please jump off the high horse. 2) Christian folk are just as dogmatic and close-minded as any Atheist I have ever met. They refuse to believe they are incorrect though they back up their arguments with scripture, scripture from the Bible. 3) How lacking in objectivity can you possibly get? 1) I'm not on a high horse. I don't remember claiming any moral high ground in any of my posts. Nor should I, if I aspire to Christian beliefs. 2) Check my posts again. I never said that I believed that Christians were any less dogmatic than any member of any other faith. As a matter of fact, I believe I said that I felt that, on average, Christians are some of the most judgmental people I've ever met, even though the core of their belief system says that they shouldn't be. 3) Why ask such a paradoxical question? Since when has objectivity ever been a requirement for those who debate religion, or even for the participants to show some semblance of tolerance for the other's point of view, for that matter? It hasn't. More often than not (as is the case here), debates on religion tend to be confrontational, and consist of two or more parties that are rather unyielding in their viewponts. They don't have the luxury of yielding. Yielding would imply that they do not have faith in the belief system that they prescribe to. I hate to quote movies, but the discussion in The Matrix Reloaded between Morpheus & Commander Lock sums up typical religious debate nicely. Commander Lock: Not everyone believes what you do Morpheus. Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to. It's ludicrous to assume that someone defending his faith, or belief system, is obligated to attempt to "see the other side." Which leads ultimately to the final paradox of religious debate: you believe what you believe - your beliefs do not require others to believe as you do - yet you still engage in a discourse whose ultimate objective is to get others to share your belief system. Irresistable force meets immovable object. A cosmic Catch 22. I attempt to remain objective, but others don't, and I don't expect them to, given the nature of the topic. To Sarelle Reformat that hard drive so that we can get some correspondance going. Do not let the evil that man does rob you of your joy, or your faith. |
| Qevelias07-13-03, 08:58 AM | Well here's a braincracker ; how about Lawful Chaotic !?! even Chaos exists out of rules ! If you disagree , than simply explain what chaos is. If you can you'll have proven my point. every one can be chaotic and chaos does not let itself be divined by good or evil. So can a character be so into chaos that he lives his lives by the rules of chaos ( and I'm not refering to neutal chaotic ) ? |
| FineasBoggs07-13-03, 12:27 PM | There are certain universal truths. You can believe all you want that 2+2 = 3, however, no amount of belief will make it so. |
| Sarelle07-13-03, 01:56 PM | Fineas, except that numbers and their relativity are human concepts. Hard to grasp I know (we are human) but numbers would not neccessarily be the same in an alien mind, nor even would they be numbers. Edit: And Masakando... if ya mean about my mention of virus vulnerability it is gonna take a lot more than 'getting my hard drive sorted out' to get that fixed. I am going to buy a firewall package, but at the moment I don't even know if I have a virus or not. Until then, adios! |
| FineasBoggs07-13-03, 06:00 PM | I was merely trying to take the universal principle of mathmatics and break it down to a much more simplified example. Numbers can be written in any form, and even here on earth there are many ways to write numbers, from different languages to different numbering systems; binary, decimal, hexdecimal, octdecimal ect. The underlying principle is the same. Math IS the universal language with universal principles. The equation for the speed of light is the same wherever you go, no matter what language or numbering system you use. |
| Celtavian07-15-03, 02:39 AM | Masakado, No, I am not a Hindu. I am not particularly religious though I like to read up on various religions. Maybe you are not a zealot. I have heard too many horror stories from people of varying faiths of their experiences with Christian zealotry in America (though Christian zealotry in America is very tame compared to the religious zealotry found in other countries in the modern day). I still remember well a story about a woman who was a Buddhist Christian (something many Christians don't understand for some reason) dying in a hospital. A Christian minister came to speak with her and saw a picture of the Buddha on the wall. He took it down without asking and tried to tell the dying woman that she should not be practicing Buddhism , even though she was still practicing Christianity at the time. The man had no understanding of Buddhism, and I have found this to be a common trait amongst many Christians. I do understand that all religions have their zealots, some more extreme than others. I do think Christianity for the most part is a good religion to follow if you can sift through the hypocrisy and take into your heart the parts that are good for mankind to follow, as is the case with most religions. I do not follow the path of Atheism because it seems like an equally narrow and false path filled with hypocrisy. Atheists for some reason can believe that such a perfect universe can come into being spontaneously (I dont' mean in terms of good and evil), one that works together better than any machine or invention man has ever created, yet they can see with their own eyes that nothing built is done without the guidance of some type conciousness whether it be a human learning to play baseball or building a computer to a wolf hunting for food. All of it is driven by differing levels of conciousness, why then is not the universe also driven by a conciousness we do not understand? That is where there argument fails. It is pure human vanity to believe that there is not a greater conciousness than themselves that causes life to be, possibly for no other reason than the joy of creating. Anyhow, I am sorry for jumping the gun and assuming you are a zealot. As you stated, tone is difficult to convey, so in the absence of it, I allowed my prejudice towards religious zealots to cause a knee-jerk reaction. |
| Astanphaeus07-15-03, 03:50 AM | Originally posted by Celtavian I do not follow the path of Atheism... [snip] For the record, there's really no such thing as a "path of Atheism". Atheism is either a byproduct of a particular belief system or philosophy, or it's a default state. And if you really want to get technical, there's various forms of it as well. But I doubt there's a need to get that deep into it here. Atheists for some reason can believe that such a perfect universe can come into being spontaneously. Atheists can believe and not believe a lot of things. All "atheism" indicates is a lack of belief in gods. Beyond that, they're quite disparate in their worldviews. There are, for example, atheistic religions. FYI, just in case you're interested. Now onto the thread topic... I find the alignments, as they're usually presented, to be far too narrow. In a broad sense, I look at the Chaos/Law axis as being primarily a question of Individual Maxim vs. Social Maxim, and how much a given individual or society prioritizes one over the other. I take Good/Evil to be mostly a spectrum of deliberate parasitical behavior and destruction for destruction's sake vs. creation and provision: free and honest exchange. In a fantasy realm, the way I run things, these are fairly much absolutes. Cultural relativism can impact them to a degree, but not a whole lot. This is because we have things like fiends and celestials in the mix. As spirits that emobody concepts (that's how I view them), there has to be some sort of all-encompassing definition of these extremes, or these creatures would have nothing to be "built" upon. Whether these building blocks are absolutes codified into the very fabric of reality, or reached through some sort of mass consensus, that's a matter for debate. The point is, they're there... and they're nigh-inmalleable, if they're malleable at all. However, in my games, on a human level, these concepts don't have much importance. They rarely impact the IC arena and when they do, they are more influenced by subjectivity. To a Paladin, for example, the concept of Evil is going to be much broader in scope than it is for the next guy, and it could even include the idea of Chaos, depending on just how much emphasis there is on Law in his worldview. I would suggest checking out the Book of Hallowed Might, by Monte Cook (put out by Sword and Sorcery under the Malhavoc Press imprint). It includes a far more flexible approach to alignments, in which characters can rate their alignment qualities from 1 to 9 (L5G3, for example). Characters who can't get beyond 1 or 2 in any of the extremes are considered True Neutral. -- A. |
| Sarelle07-15-03, 01:09 PM | Originally posted by Celtavian Masakado, No, I am not a Hindu. I am not particularly religious though I like to read up on various religions. Maybe you are not a zealot. I have heard too many horror stories from people of varying faiths of their experiences with Christian zealotry in America (though Christian zealotry in America is very tame compared to the religious zealotry found in other countries in the modern day). I still remember well a story about a woman who was a Buddhist Christian (something many Christians don't understand for some reason) dying in a hospital. A Christian minister came to speak with her and saw a picture of the Buddha on the wall. He took it down without asking and tried to tell the dying woman that she should not be practicing Buddhism , even though she was still practicing Christianity at the time. The man had no understanding of Buddhism, and I have found this to be a common trait amongst many Christians. I do understand that all religions have their zealots, some more extreme than others. I do think Christianity for the most part is a good religion to follow if you can sift through the hypocrisy and take into your heart the parts that are good for mankind to follow, as is the case with most religions. Hear hear. Totally agree. Originally posted by Celtavian I do not follow the path of Atheism because it seems like an equally narrow and false path filled with hypocrisy. I don't see how atheism can be filled with hypocrisy - because it means we follow no pre-set path. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Originally posted by Celtavian Atheists for some reason can believe that such a perfect universe can come into being spontaneously (I dont' mean in terms of good and evil), one that works together better than any machine or invention man has ever created, yet they can see with their own eyes that nothing built is done without the guidance of some type conciousness whether it be a human learning to play baseball or building a computer to a wolf hunting for food. I'm afraid I am quite surprised with this comment. You believe this universe is perfect? It is far from perfect. Take a look around and study astronomy. You'll see that creation, destruction and change happen every microsecond. The earth was a burning ball of lava and gas for billions of years. And life only developed from water, which is a 'creatable' chemical substance. Scientists have proved how this happened. And conciousness is simply electronic impulses in our brains, a product of living organisms evolving to better survive and have babies in order to beat death. I hate to boil things down to science - it makes life seem so uninteresting - but I thought i should try and challenge your statment. I believe as an individual you have the thoughts expressed on this thread (and elsewhere), and that alone should show that you mean something. I would like to believe in spirit, but I don't. I do believe in a level of conciousness that forever leaves its mark, though - even if we havn't discovered how to find it. All of it is driven by differing levels of conciousness, why then is not the universe also driven by a conciousness we do not understand? That is where there argument fails. It is pure human vanity to believe that there is not a greater conciousness than themselves that causes life to be, possibly for no other reason than the joy of creating. Well I've mentioned water = life before. However I never said I don't believe in a greater being of conciousness, I just don't believe it deserves my worship, and I don't believe it has anyhting, as of yet, to do with Earth. And I am not vain or self-centred, I am just opinionated that my own view is realism. |
| FineasBoggs07-15-03, 02:07 PM | which is a 'creatable' chemical substance Please explain what you mean by "creatable"??? |
| Lashan07-15-03, 02:15 PM | To interupt the flamer war... I think that things are a lot different in the DnD worlds. In our world, we have a few religious orders with their holy books and people who say one thing over another. Heck, even in the general christian ethos, they can't even agree on what is "proper". This is not the case in the DnD world. In the DnD world, there are direct manifestations of power who believe in certain ethos. Not only can these beings show up to either communicate and/or smite someone off the face of the planet, but they also have outer-planar entities to help, and even clergy who get direct divine power from the god in question. This means that the religious in FR and other DnD worlds are an active and alive pressence in the world. Also, it is pretty easy to settle a schism in the church as a high lvl spell can let you directly contact the god him/herself. This ability here helps clarify any niggling questions of faith in the game world. It is not the same in our world. Also, there are natural forces in the multiverse that strive against each other. Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil. These are not abstract concepts to be debated over. These are primordial forces and even places of existance that fight one another. Creatures, whose souls are contained by these primordial powers, run amok in the multiverse and trying to influence each other. Various gods and powers project themselves into the prime material plane and demand obedience from followers. These powers are not mere philosophical abstractions, but powerful beings. The society in most DnD games is also different from our own. There is usually a polytheistic culture instead of a monotheistic (or actually diocotic) system. People are ok with saying that "I believe in this one aspect because it agrees with me" and not saying "I believe in the almighty truth and am going to smite those who say different". So, in this case, people could choose certain forces that they believe in. Therefore, choosing a side in the eternal struggles is not entirely a far fetched concept. If someone chooses Lawful Nuetral, they might really want to have Law override all other powers in the universe (instead of just kinda follow the rules guy). Of course, a lot of stuff is open to interpretation. This is also just my rambling interruption of the religion debate. |
| Sarelle07-16-03, 02:05 PM | Originally posted by FineasBoggs Please explain what you mean by "creatable"??? Hydrogen atoms + oxygen atoms = H2O (water). Someone hasn't been paying attention to Chemistry! :D (Well - I'm guessing that scientists have "created" water from those, anyway.) |
| FineasBoggs07-16-03, 02:37 PM | No, I asked that because matter can not be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Thus you don't ever really create anything, you organize it from matter that already existed. |
| Sarelle07-16-03, 02:41 PM | Well I meant water can be created from other stuff, not from nothing. I did know that. |