Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 11-05-07, 12:37 AM	This is about discussing the issue of how much moral ambiguity you want in the Forgotten Realms. Both in your campaigns as well as canon. Eberron has made a market pretending to be the "morally confused setting of choice" where it makes a point of setting up the Orcs as a hippie race of Druids, the Elves as a bunch of Death worshippers, the Dragons are morally variable, and things like the NG Queen of Aundair being a raging War monger while the LE Vampire King of Karrnath is an advocate for peace. However; I've never particularly viewed the Realms as the "Stereotypical D&D world" where Orcs are purely evil creatures, Dragons are always their intended alignment, and evil is to be attacked on sight. While I never particularly prided my FR games on their moral ambiguity like Eberron has, I've always made great variations in the types of evils that exist. I've had very "respectable" evil in the world and even likeable while also having the players ally with one dark source to fight another. Furthermore, I've always made a note that the evil of Orcs wasn't that much different from the evil of most primitive tribes that valued Machismo over literacy and trade. The problem is canon in the Realms vastly varies in interpretation on this matter. R.A. Salvatore has, until recently, had a sort of ironic racism as the default setting. Drizzt is the exception that proves the rule since while Dark Elves CAN be good, 99% of them aren't. It's only with the Orcs quartet of books that he's changed his mind on that end.
Stigger 11-05-07, 04:03 AM	Personally, I think that should be function of the DM's interpretation and the groups style of play, rather than a function of the settings theme or style. What the writers do in their stories is their business and can stay out of my game as I want my take on the Realms as the dominant one in my stories rather than theirs.
Charles Phipps 11-05-07, 04:54 AM	Well feel free to share that as well.
Stigger 11-05-07, 06:15 AM	As a matter of how I prefer to view morality in the Realms, which I understand is hardly canon given the official takes on the gods and their behaviour, which I avidly avoid using, my thoughts tend towards people having demonstrable and concrete definitions of what constitutes good, evil, chaos, order, and balances of the two. With spells like Detect Evil, abilities like a paladin's Smite, there isn't much in the way of ambiguity there. People and their actions can be defined in tangible ways, so there are fewer gray areas to deal with and in some cases hide behind. Obviously, going from a secular point of view of Earth, that is not the case here. Historically, I think it could be easily argued that the early Church, as far as Western Civilization goes anyway, could be fairly characterized as a LE organization, in that they were the prevailing social order of the day and brooked no dissent from official Church doctrine, and indeed went out of their way to root out and eliminate dissent as best they could when they found it, which in fact was the sole purpose of the Inquisition (identifying and eliminating heresy). Certainly the official Church stance was one of rehabilititating heretics, and the whole trial and execution bit was more of a secular activity than a church one, but they didn't really go out of their way to put an end to the secular courts presiding over those cases unless it was in their best interest to do so. But in doing so, they relied on torture to extract confessions, kept prisoners in appalling conditions, and engaged in other inhumane practices (all from a modern point of view) to achieve their ends. But in all fairness to the Church, it was their (self-) appointed role to defend and maintain the Social Order, which was viewed as being of utter necessity at the time, and any deviance from it was considered at the least a dire threat to that Social Order and had to be stamped out to maintain what was viewed as the Church's Divine Mandate. Had they spells like Detect Evil and a paladin's Smite, much of those practices would hardly have been necessary, and in fact would have been counterproductive given their attempts to maintain a position of moral higher ground as best they understood it. We as a society only had philosophy and doctrine, formulated by mere mortals (don't even get me started on the various Church committees who decided what went into the Bible and what didn't), to go off of when determining what constituted good and evil. It follows that in the modern age, we do have a large amount of moral ambiguity and gray areas, as we still do not have a reliable, definitive method of determining what is good and evil in absolute terms, and until we do have such a method, those ambiguities and fuzzy bits are going to remain that way as societies evolve ( :P @ Dan) and change to adapt to what they are currently defining as moral and right behaviour. Indeed what we define as moral and right behaviour has undergone nearly innumerable alterations and we develop and grow as a society, and despite what people might think, those views are in an almost constant state of flux as various societal factors and ideas come into and go out of play. However, it is my contention that no such ambiguities would exist on worlds that did have access to spells and abilities as I mentioned above. Certainly some individuals and societies could adopt attitudes and philosophies that took the stance of moral relativism and the like, but that does not change the fact that morality and ethics (good and evil, law and chaos) are quantifiable things in such a place and that their philosophies are just plain wrong in the context of their world. Human nature (specifically our tendency to grasp on to things that they can measure, categorize, and organize as pattern finding creatures) says that given the option, most of society would grasp on to those abilities and begin defining the world as best they could into Us and Them, and that socieities and individuals who didn't do so, who adopted a more fluid view of the world would be aberrations in a lot of respects. Obviously this is a gross generalization, but as such I think it fits the Realms, and really any D&D setting that uses alignment based spells and abilities, fairly well. Its a bit hard to apply Real-World theories and conclusions on a society that has very different means and methods of viewing the world to my mind, and as such those theories and conclusions have little to no place in current D&D settings. Does that mean that the various societies views on morality and ethics are static and I'm advocating that they remain such? No, not really, it simply means that there are certain absolutes in the framework, constants that do not change, even if societies views of those constants change. Take murder for example. Perhaps early Faerunian society viewed it as an evil thing because it took away defenders from a community and threatened the settlement at large for some petty, personal vendetta or greed. Later the view evolved, and moved away from a community issue to one of a family or clan issue, and then later moved towards being one of a personal issue. The act remains evil, but the Why's of societies definitions can change dramatically over the years and centuries, and the level of importance of the act can change as well, as can the definition of what actually constitutes murder. My view comes down to the thought that the ability to discern alignments simply helps to more efficiently shape and guide our definitions of what is moral and ethical, but it doesn't remove the necessity to ponder and refine our beliefs as to why something is moral or ethical. As it applies to people, that evil people can commit acts of good, that good people can commit acts of evil, I'd say it was simply a view that it was the sum total of how a person lived the whole of their lives that mattered to the gods, more than a few discrete instances of good or evil. I'd agree that no one can live up to the ideals of some abstract definition of what a good or evil life is, but I would also say that their actions overall defined them more than a single act does or doesn't. Obviously there are some who are defined by those single acts, paladins coming to mind most readily, but given their roles in society and their choices to do their best to live up to a set of standards in exchange for divine favor, I don't think that's too harsh a thing to do to them. Does the paladin committing an evil act immediately plunge them into darkness and villainry? No, I'd say not, but it does say that they don't have what it takes to be a paladin when all things are said and done, and that they should be stripped of those divinely granted abilities. That doesn't mean however that they can't try to redeem themselves, or that even if they don't seek atonement and forgiveness, that they can't still be warriors in the cause of good. It simply means that until they make some changes to their lives, they can't be paladins anymore. But paladins are an exception to my mind, given the abilities that come from the knowing sacrifices they make for the greater good, and are not an example of what a typical lawful good person would be like. Obviously, I'm not much of an advocate for moral ambiguity being introduced into a setting like the Realms, no matter what any authors may think. I can see the appeal and logic of it to some, as not many people seem to study religious history as much as I do, but for me personally, I think its a bad idea that doesn't fit well.
Charles Phipps 11-05-07, 06:51 AM	Very interesting defense of the "Realms should not be morally ambigious" stance. In this case, your argument is that magic renders the typical ambiguity of the world to be quite irrelevant since we have spells that reveal Good and Evil so arguing over the definitions is silly.
Stigger 11-05-07, 07:13 AM	Sort of, but there are qualifications in that your average commoner does not have access to the requisite magic to make those calls for themselves, so there is a considerable degree of ambiguity present for them in some respects, but for society as a whole, the presence of that magic is going to color and shape how they view and define it. You may not know the specifics of a particular person, and in most cases it isn't going to even be relevant unless they break the Social Order, but when they do break that order, the suspect and their actions can be judged with something of a litmus test. Now how much a secular authority is willing to concede to the various Churches in authority to determine that is more debatable, but given the whole requirement of a patron deity for PCs, I don't think its too much of a stretch to say that the influence of various churches is considerable, even if it doesn't approach the absolute of the Church of Rome. Sure you could devolve the arguement by saying that the various churches work against each other for political reasons, and even do so with some logic behind it, but my thoughts is that its in the best interests of those various goodly churches to cooperate for the greater good so as not to allow evil to undermine society, in something of a common cause arrangement. Now we could go into corrupt church officials and all that, but if a PC Cleric can lose their spellcasting for commiting acts counter to their faiths best interests, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to NPCs as well. Sure the high cleric of Lathander may very well be a prick, but that doesn't change the fact that he's probably still a good-aligned prick who has the wisdom to act for that greater good.
Charles Phipps 11-05-07, 07:27 AM	My take on the Forgotten Realms can be summarized in Ten Points. 1. There is evil, Evil, and EVIL In my campaigns, I make it clear that there is a substantial amount of evil people in the Realms. The vast majority of them are the people we all know in this world. Heartless lawyers and judges, racist rednecks, abusive husbands, Mister Potters, and so on. About 90% of the people in the world who are evil are individuals who never act on these views in any significant ways. They're just unpleasant people with extreme views. Evil is Mask, Fzoul, Drasek Riven, Artemis Enteri, Jarlaxle, Obould, Elaith Craulnobler, and Malik. Crime Bosses, Assassins, Warlords, and murderers. In general, they're actively evil people that make the world a worse place to be in. Oddly, they're not without their redeeming qualities though. Mask wants to steal and gain power, he doesn't want to destroy the world. Elaith likes Arilyn and will help her despite being a racist ganglord/murderer. Etc. Etc. EVIL is Shar, Demons, Bhaal, Devils, and Cyric. I back and forth on Bane and Talos on this as they are between Evil/EVIL. These people are not RIGHT or of the Lord. They exist solely to make lives worse for others and are pretty much vile abominations in their every deed. They might have been different once but now they're pretty much the enemies of everyone. Paladins exist to combat EVIL and as a sideline, they combat Evil. 2. Good can still be pig headed and ignorant One of my famous examples was a Paladin of Amn locked in eternal combat with a Paladin of Tethyr because both believed passionately in their causes (Amn independence/Tethyrian sovereignity). Becase they both believed that the greater good was served by their causes, they honestly believed the other had to die to save lives. Tyr also granted them their spells because both were nice guys who chose sides in a dirty war based on their understanding of the situation. Likewise, events in our game have the LG King Azoun of Cormyr outlaw the Harpers as an illegal organization on par with the Zhentarim as enemies of the Crown. Indeed, I play up the fact that most people tend to view the Harpers as enemies of the peace at best and terrorists at worst. Let's face it, everyone is leery of any group that claims to break any law they wish and overthrow whatever government troubles them. Similiarly, the Risen Sun heresy is developing into one of the foes in our games. It's followers are decent, law abiding, and kind people who just are the most obtuse fanatics that have ever lived. 3. Alignment fluctuates pretty rapidly. A desperate man might be CE where he's willing to kill, torture, rob, or murder in order to feed his family. On the other hand, in lighter times, he might well be LG. He doesn't have the moral stamina that most PCs might have. Plus, people can act against their alignments under provacation. One famous incident involves a PC murdering King Gareth (totally catching the other PCs off guard) because his child has been captured by the Cult of the Dragon. The PC, up until that point, was LG even if he had hints of a dark past. 4. Deals with the Devil Are a constant running theme in our game. Randal Morn is the Lord of Daggerdale but the Daggerfolk are a selfish, egotistical, suspicious, and cruel lot. Plus, the gureilla warrior must often times make trade concessions with the Zhents to keep the city from being burned to the ground. The Zhentariam hate the Cyricist Zhents who are menacing Cormyr. They offer Cormyr grain, weapons, and soldiery to help deal with them after the Dragon's Rage. Fzoul is just working to bring low an enemy but do you turn it down despite the thousands that will die? Likewise, Piergion may hate the Church of Shar and Bane in Waterdeep but in my games they're tolerated because the other option is beating on the heads of a bunch of innocents who just happen to believe in nihilistic or tyrannical viewpoints. 5. No one is without redeeming qualities except the EVIL Even in my games, I've had moments of levity for Shar where we're reminded that she once was a goddess of good. However, I've had some very strange portrayals in my campaigns that players either have loved or appreciated. Amongst these qualities are... * Larloch is a LE ruthless monster of tremendous power. Larloch's ultimate ambition is to sit in his Extradimensional Cavern in the middle of nowhere and read for the rest of eternity. * Fzoul's word is inviolate and he has respect for warriors. In our campaign, he rescued Scyulla out of disgust for the treatment given an honorable opponent. Oh yes, he still wants to rule the world. * Mask despises slavery, butchery, and "Thuggish" behavior and insists his servants have Savoir Faire. Unless I'm doing up a Demon or Devil or insane monster, I insist that all bad guys have one redeeming quality that I keep in mind during play with them. [Next Five in next post]
Charles Phipps 11-05-07, 07:45 AM	6. Alignment reflects Cultural Tendencies The average orc is Chaotic Evil but that still doesn't mean you won't occasionally find whole communities of Neutral Orcs that probably make up a fifth of the race or more. While LG Eldrath worshipping orcs are pretty rare in my games, the average Orc isn't such a juggernaut of destruction that seeing one as a Dock Worker in Sembia or Waterdeep arouses much suspicion. For comparison, I tell my players that human beings are predominately a Neutral Race with slightly more than half holding that alignment. Likewise, that's the cases with Elves and Dwarves. In a Dwarven City you'll see plenty of street crime, Thieves Guilds, and so on even if there's a tendency to abide by arcane rules of honor and decorum. Likewise, Elves have their own problems even if most of them are too lazy and laid back to be malevolent. 7. D&D "shorthand" is often used to reflect Racism I go with the idea "Stereotypes are grounded in Real life in Faerun"-Typical Answer of a Racist. The majority of orcs are evil but so are the majority of Barbarians in the Northlands. Also, Elves/Dwarves are right when they say that humans (as a rule) can't be trusted to act against their immediate self-interests even if it's for their long term good or is utterly dishonorable. In the Northlands and plenty of other places, you'll see people flee in terror from Drow. However, in Baldur's Gate or Waterdeep, Drizzt would be able to buy ale in a tavern with only a few curious glances. In Zhakara, you'd probably see no sign of anyone thinking him anything other than a regular trader. 8. There's a healthy component of irony in all Realms interactions It's one of my long standing jokes that the Dalelanders have occasionally tried to form Lynch Mobs for the Half-Orc Player character Ranger that worships Miekkli while the first place that he was ever treated completely normally was within Zhentil Keep. Likewise, in Thar, the Black Network is single handidly responsible for introducing civilization to the humanoid peoples from medicine to writing in exchange for the things people usually get from native peoples. 9. Pure Alien can also be a subtitute for Pure Evil In my games, no one can understand an Illithid's mindset. Likewise a lot of other creatures, Beholders being a bit spotty in my games as I tend to run them several different ways. Nevertheless, an Illithid's ways make perfect sense to it but are beyond comprehension. Kill it though. Feel free to muse about whether it was right or not. 10. Always mix up alignments a bit in enemies I've long standingly treated the Formorians as one of the few races needing extermination along with Illithids. They're a expanionist race with no malice but it's a matter of pure survival that they will adapt your world and destroy you unless they are destroyed. Likewise, does it really matter that only half the Zhentil Keep mercenaries are evil when they attack? Only if there's captives and some surrender.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-05-07, 11:36 AM	This is about discussing the issue of how much moral ambiguity you want in the Forgotten Realms. Both in your campaigns as well as canon. Eberron has made a market pretending to be the "morally confused setting of choice" where it makes a point of setting up the Orcs as a hippie race of Druids, the Elves as a bunch of Death worshippers... Well, not all elves in the Eberron setting are "death worshippers"--and the elves that are aren't at all what one probably thinks of when one conjures up an image of "death worshippers". It's more accurately described as ancestor worship than a love of death for it's own sake.
Charles Phipps 11-05-07, 02:23 PM	.... okay.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 11-05-07, 03:52 PM	.... okay. Just saying.
Charles Phipps 11-07-07, 07:20 PM	Out of curiosity, does anyone run an "old fashioned" game where Gnolls and similiar creatures are just pretty much innately evil?
Stigger 11-07-07, 09:13 PM	I tend to. Not necessarily innately evil per se, but the whole racial tendency of worshipping Lower Planar (I still use the Great Wheel) entities puts a definite black mark on them for me. Can some of them overcome this? Sure, but its a barely registerable minority as far as I'm concerned, and won't happen until they abandon the lower planar worship thing. Some races I can see moving towards civilization, some I can't... kinda depends on my view of them really. Goblinoids I can see making the move, most of the rest I just don't for some reason, and it tends to reflect in my games as such.
Daurgothoth 11-10-07, 04:54 PM	@Charles Phipps I pretty much only post to mention that I quite enjoyed your explanation and postings in regards to the topic. I see it similar. Villains who are purely one dimensional are very predictable and quite boring, but if you give them a handful of redeeming qualities or even flaws, they become far more interesting to play against -or- with. The most fun I had with such villains who displayed they have more going on for them than mere kill kill or gaining of powers. Sometimes it helps to learn -why- they go for that, only to find a surprise in that knowledge.
David_Eitelbach 11-10-07, 10:46 PM	Gotta say I liked your ten points, Charles. Definitely a good guide to running villains in the Realms.
Charles Phipps 11-10-07, 10:55 PM	Yes, it doesn't really make much difference in many cases as player characters will fight Mafia-style Thieves Guild members every bit as brutally as they will Demons but I like to think that there's a good chance they could actually take prisoners at time when fighting Orcs and so on. That results in some interesting situations, especially where they pretty much just have to release them afterwards or wonder if they'll be sentenced to death for banditry.
The Ubbergeek 11-13-07, 03:26 PM	Out of curiosity, does anyone run an "old fashioned" game where Gnolls and similiar creatures are just pretty much innately evil? I don't really go the nature way, I prefer nuture myself (my homebrew (long in making....) will have a localised version of Eilistraee, by example). In the said homebrew however, I use Gnolls as big bad guys in one region of the world. o.o They are related somehow to a catfolk culture, and two theories exist; -Eitheir the gnolls remained primitive, evil brutes and the catfolk evolved in a lovely civilisation. or -The gnolls actually DEVOLVED into what they are right now, bloodthirsty humanoids.