The question on the table then, is Defiling necessarily evil? Alternate question, can you even remotely justify a Dragon King epic destiny with a Good aligned character?
Thanks.
To enforce this knowledge upon my single arcane caster I make them roll to cover up his casting while in view of others that could tell he is an arcane caster.... once he failed the roll in front of a caravan leader who accused him of being a defiler and wanted him caste out in the middle of no where.
Was a great roleplaying experience as the others explained that he would never defile and has swore so.
Since then there were times that he has been tempted to use defiling but remembered the grief he got and the promise he made and has yet to break... but I always tempt him with it during rough encounters.
I think a noble-intentioned mage who seeks the path of the dragon in Athas has roleplaying potential. I'd just let him write "Good" on his character sheet (I'm sure Stalin would have written the same thing on his character sheet). It really doesn't matter. The people of Athas will decide how good he actually is.
Preservers that my players are going to meet are definetly going to be evil. I'm planning on having a subfaction of the veiled alliance that wants to destroy Tyr and kill people who are outspoken against Arcane magic.
That said, if an arcane player were to give into temptation once and defile, I wouldn't immediately realign them evil. There would probably be consequences though, and habitually defiling would make them evil.
Personally, I would say defiling is almost always an evil act. As has been said, defiling is killing the world one little piece at a time. But I cannot brand every character who ever defiles as irredeemably evil... because I'm in a sense doing the same thing right now. This computer uses a lot of electricity, to no very constructive purpose right now, and most of that electricity is being produced from the burning of fossil fuels, which is also killing the planet a little piece at a time. And I have enough of a scientific background that I fully understand what I'm doing when I switch this thing on. So, if every defiler is evil, then so am I.
But individuals are not generally defined by single acts unless the act is particularly monstrous. Stealing is also (usually) an evil act, yet we generally consider thieves to be chaotic neutral (or unaligned in 4e terms - I don't use the 4e alignment system myself) rather than evil. Very few DMs are so inflexible with alignment as to brand every PC who ever steals as evil.
So it is possible to see defiling as evil, without labelling every character who does it as evil.
Some defilers might genuinely not know what they're doing. Preserving takes a certain degree of understanding and effort. Somebody who spontaneously develops arcane abilities (i.e. most sorcerers) might defile without realising they are slowly killing their world. It seems unfair to brand such a character as evil. Such a character's true alignment will reveal itself in how they react when they are brought face to face with what they've been doing.
An arcanist can also weigh the evil of defiling against the good they might accomplish through casting that spell. Killing people is an evil act, just as defiling is, but killing a bunch of bandits to save the lives of innocent travellers surely results in more good than evil overall. If we take too hard-line a position, then, to remain consistent, all PCs are likely to end up pegged as evil, because (in most campaigns) PCs kill a lot of people. That's clearly silly. Therefore, I think we have to judge the overall outcome of an act, not merely the details of the act itself. Defiling to cast a spell that saves lives can't be evil overall. Defiling to light your campfire because you're too lazy to do it any other way, on the other hand...
I do think becoming a dragon is a step beyond mere defiling, however. I would have a hard time as DM allowing any character to become a dragon without having an evil alignment. It requires (fluffwise, anyway) a truly monstrous amount of defiling, as well as absolute understanding of what you are doing. It's not possible to become a dragon by accident, without knowing the evil you're doing. It is a declaration that you don't care about anything but your own power, which is pretty much the definition of evil.
Having said all that, I've never had a problem with evil PCs. I would never penalise or punish a character for becoming a dragon. I just wouldn't let them retain a good (or probably even neutral/unaligned) alignment, but that has no real significance beyond a word written on a character sheet anyway.
I suppose a dragon could still consider itself good. Actually, since dragonhood generally results in insanity, such delusions might be quite appropriate. But the dragon's character sheet will still say 'evil'.
So now here I sit, with a PC that has acted Good aligned throughout the campaign (painfully so). Has never once actually used Arcane Defiling. Has a paragon path that has nothing to do with preserving or defiling, and has a legal basis (disregarding the fluff that talks about defiling this and defiling that) to stand on saying he can in fact be a Good Dragon King, especially as he wants to use his powers to go out and defeat all other dragon kings and sorcerer kings. Worse yet, he brought up the quote "A gun is not evil, yet we all know it can kill. It's actions can be used for good, or for evil. It weapon itself is not moral, it is the user of that weapon."
I am leaning towards letting him, until such a time as Wizards places an alignment restriction on the class, or adds a feature similar to the Avangion that prohibits him from using Preserving magic post transformation.
Thanks for all the interesting debate. Most enlightening!
(disregarding the fluff that talks about defiling this and defiling that) ..,
I think the fluff you disregard is a big part of the setting. Also, bringing real world moral and ethics into th Dark Sun setting is far less effective in bringing that setting alive than sticking to the fluff with regards to defiling magic. Further more, the premise of a Dragon King that does not embrace, much less use defiling magic further undermines one of the major premises of the Darksun setting. I can't help but think your players reasoning to becoming a "good" non-defiling Dragon-King, as just a classic justification for any major villian.
But, if a "good" Dragon King works for you and your players then I say go for it.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
1. Something is right or wrong, whether you agree with it or not
2. What is right or wrong will differ from one person to another based on personal beliefs/morals
It seems to me that you might be able to employ the second approach here fairly effectively. You could pick any topic (especially one of the hot-button topics like abortion or assited suicide) and the belief as to whether or not it is evil would run the spectrum completely. However, there are all sorts of philisophical systems to rationalize whether or not something is evil.
Granted, you could always say an act is obviously evil or not, but allow room for some more gray areas (as long as the character sticks to whatever system of rationalization they choose (a little research here might be good). The first thing that comes to mind is utilitarianism (not a big fan of it personally, but it'd probably work). The idea behind it is basically that what is right is what brings the most happiness to the most people (granted, there are variations of it based on things like rules vs. no rules, long-term vs short-term, etc.).
I think it would be impossible to say that defiling is good, but I think it's possible to say that it might not be evil. Really, he might be able to play it off as "necessary"- you only get 3 daily attack powers (4 from 20+), and statistically, you'll probably hit a little more often than not, so he'd only be defiling once or twice a day to make sure he takes out the bad guy and protect others.
All that said, I personally believe it's evil, but I'd be willing to let my players play it off as neutral. In fact, now that I think about it, the idea of the Unifying Force comes to mind- it's not the force that's light or dark, it's the person using it.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
Here here.
I don't like my players choosing alignments, they should be playing their characters not their alignments.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
Here here.
I don't like my players choosing alignments, they should be playing their characters not their alignments.
Not to derail, but I feel like this is a great idea! My last DM was very strict about remaining in your alignment box, punishing us if we even suggested an action outside our alignment. While alignment does help player who are new to roleplaying or otherwise poor roleplayers, I feel like this idea works well with a good group.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
Here here.
I don't like my players choosing alignments, they should be playing their characters not their alignments.
Not to derail, but I feel like this is a great idea! My last DM was very strict about remaining in your alignment box, punishing us if we even suggested an action outside our alignment. While alignment does help player who are new to roleplaying or otherwise poor roleplayers, I feel like this idea works well with a good group.
I think if the players are here to truly roleplay it is like acting. That is half the fun. Make a personality other than your own bent on saving destroying or otherwise milking the world as per your alignment. If they pick an evil aligned character that character should be played as evil. That is why most of my players pick unaligned. But I will nudge them in directions or prohibt them from actions that would not fit the alignment. They can shift thier alignment through the course of several adventures however.
The green angels aside, the closest thing to a good sorcerer king is probably Nibenay, and he can be instructive here.
The Shadow King is an unquestioned and immortal ruler of life and death to his people... but he has built an orderly and prosperous society and rarely exercises his own powers.
His city has at times grown rife with corruption... but it has languished in his absence, not under his heel.
He is inscrutable and prone to strange obsessions... but also wise and farsighted.
He stamps out the forces of nature wherever they raise their heads... but in his domain, those forces are most often mad steam elementals erupting from the earth to spread death to innocent farmers and starvation to all.
In short, Nibenay prevents and fights much evil in the world. He is not rapacious. He is not war-like. He does not have any known sinister ulterior motives. He has even taken the lead in peacefully stabilizing the region in the power vacuum emerging after the death of Kalak (et al. if you count Revised). Why, then, is Nibenay evil?
Because he would burn and consume everything he has built just for one more day of existence. He may be a good king, he may even be a hero and veritable beacon of hope in the setting by relative metrics, but all that does not make him a good person.
I could not have explained it better myself.
People should also bear in mind that turning a blind eye to the evil you do does not make it less evil. Nor does trying to justify it in the name of a "good" cause. That logic was thrown out by the Nuremburg proceedings decades ago.
There is no legitimate way that a defiler can not know the effect he is having. He is leaving a giant black stain where nothing lives every time he does it. The only way to be unaware is through extreme self-delusion.
"Everyone gasps in horror as they see you defile. Though your past actions had won some respect for arcanists, that evaporates now. Many run, though a few glare angrily. The Veiled Alliance member you traveled with speaks a word of power and vanishes..."
vs.
"Sorry dude, you defiled. Your PC is now evil. Please change your alignment..."
Defiling is best in a campaign as a shades of gray issue. As a DM you sort of want to entice PCs to have to defile at some point so that the moral issue comes to light and requires thought. Having it be just an "enemy" thing is a bit dull for me. You want the temptation aspect, the redemption, the pure good vs. necessary for the cause. This should be a source of great RP and story, not an absolute rule.
"Everyone gasps in horror as they see you defile. Though your past actions had won some respect for arcanists, that evaporates now. Many run, though a few glare angrily. The Veiled Alliance member you traveled with speaks a word of power and vanishes..."
vs.
"Sorry dude, you defiled. Your PC is now evil. Please change your alignment..."
I agree completely with this post.
I think defiling and the sorcerers kings and queen being evil is at the core of the Dark Sun setting and always have been. But also at the core of the DS setting is challenging the boundaries of good and evil. A good aligned Pc in a DS setting is thoroughly morally tested, when survival depends on killing someone simply for their water. I always let my players decide what their alignment is and what it means to them. When we started to play Dark Sun I asked my players to really think about what their Pcs alignment. Through out the campaign I hope to challenge my players idea of good and evil, and how there alignment effects there Pcs actions. I have long believed alignment is best used as a role playing tool for both new and experienced players; if it is allowed to be maleable, i.e. a player can change a Pc alignment through out the campaign. I also, think that allowing players to define what their Pc's alignment means to them is important if alignment is to work well as a role playing tool.
I'd still say defiling is symptomic of evil, not inherently evil.
Not to get too serious here, but that's like saying murder or **** are symptoms of evil, but not evil in and of themselves. Seriously?
I'd still say defiling is symptomic of evil, not inherently evil.
Not to get too serious here, but that's like saying murder or **** are symptoms of evil, but not evil in and of themselves. Seriously?
Murderers don't have to be evil. People who kill someone in self defense can be considered murderers.
I stop here because I feel like I'm going to get into a metaphysical debate about how Good and Evil are perceptions and not actually defined labels.
Next game I play I'm creating a Lawful Good Defiler. It might not be the most accepted concept, but this is a world where haflings are cannibals. The world is far from anything normal.
Meet my new defiling Wizard, he uses his defiling to protect people, but is persecuted because of it. When lives are on the line he feels it is necessary to use all 100% of his ability to help protect those in his care. He never attacks unless in self defense. He is targeted by the Veiled Alliance, but avoids them as much as possible because he feels people should do all they can to make a difference in this dark and depressing world.
In short, it depends wholly on the character's back story and the player's role-playing ability.
Very poor parallel for your purposes, Raddu, since both those are defined as evil due to the circumstances of the action, not the act itself.
I don't think those are defined by the circumstances, I think they're defined by the intent. Murder is killing intentionally with premeditation (not self-defense), and **** is destroying something and stripping it of it's possession. Intent.
Defilers have Intent, they drain energy, **** the land and the people they steal the energy from so their spells can be more powerful. In my mind there's nothing remotely not evil about it.
DERHagis, I think that's a good idea to make a defiler like that, a tough story. A very anti-hero that could have a cool story. But is it still Good to kill one thing to save another? In many fantasy stories where heroes are given that choice, it's generally the Good thing to choose neither and figure out a way to save both parties. In this case the choice would be to not be a Preserver and save the people.
Omnijake...agreed.
..;
Defilers have Intent, they drain energy, **** the land and the people they steal the energy from so their spells can be more powerful. In my mind there's nothing remotely not evil about it.
I always viewed defiling as raping the land.
For defiling, it's important to think of what is actually occurring; defiling cannot be evil in a vacuum. Rather than describing defiling in moral terms (like **** or "violating the land"), describe its effects: Defiling strips life energy from the environment and from living creatures. This, at its basic level, destroys plants, causes land to be unable to support plant life for decades, and injures allies of the defiler.
So, is it always evil to kill plants? Absolutely not. It's done all the time. Is it evil to kill a plant in a particular way? Is a scythe worse than fire? Would psionically blasting a tree be more or less evil? Don't consider at this point why someone is killing the plant, just think of how they are doing it. Is the method alone, divorced from consequences, somehow morally different from another? Probably not, even with defiling. The argument the mere destruction of plants to fuel arcane magic is evil itself is necessarily a circular one, or will fail because the person making it will bring in the effect of motive.
Now think of killing a plant contextually and with motive considered. What if one kills a kudzu because, if left unchecked, it will smother and kill a forest? This probably isn't an evil act. How about destroying the crop of another farmer? It sounds evil, but what if the crop was host to locusts that threatened a dozen farms, and burning the field was the only way to destroy the swarm, which would otherwise have eaten half the farms of everyone else? It's a matter of utility.
The problem with defiling isn't merely that it "drains life," but rather that the scope of defiling is so great. It's perfectly moral to destroy life sometimes, or to injure allies. If a raging fire threatens a forest, it's right to create a fire break to ensure that there will be less destruction in the end. If a person is threatened with a failing organ, it's right for a doctor to cut open their flesh to perform surgery.
With defiling, though, the true cost of the act will almost always outweigh the benefit. "Defiling in self-defense" might sound reasonable to some, but what is the defiler actually doing? He's trading an extension of his own life at the cost of life in his allies, and he's destroying the environment, perhaps for centuries. Is his life worth that, compared to the alternative? Recall, the alternative is missing with a daily, or doing less than ideal damage.
When an arcanist chooses to defile, the typical result is modest gains for the defiler and great losses for the rest of the world. If defiling only meant that plants nearby died but that the land could regrow naturally, the moral question would be significantly easier. It would be just like fire - an instant clear-cutting to fuel something you need now. Defiling, however, isn't like that. It's like salting the earth with spent uranium for an edge.
Certainly, a defiler might not be defiling for himself when he defiles, but still, is the trade worth it? Suppose a warlock is trying to defend a slave from death at from an unprovoked gith attack. Aiming for the commander, he uses Kalak's Burning Sands but misses. He defiles and hits, killing the leader and scattering the tribe. All plants in a square 45 feet on a side are destroyed and the land will be dead, probably for at least a century. The slave himself might is hurt if close (depending on how the GM interprets "ally"), as are the warlock's teammates, if he has any. This might mean dead crops now, or it could merely mean that this plot of land has another hundred years before it can try to recover. In the meantime, it's blowing lifeless ash across the land, choking some areas that had otherwise escaped the effects of defiling.
Net gain?
I'd still say defiling is symptomic of evil, not inherently evil.
Not to get too serious here, but that's like saying murder or **** are symptoms of evil, but not evil in and of themselves. Seriously?
Murderers don't have to be evil. People who kill someone in self defense can be considered murderers.
I stop here because I feel like I'm going to get into a metaphysical debate about how Good and Evil are perceptions and not actually defined labels.
Next game I play I'm creating a Lawful Good Defiler. It might not be the most accepted concept, but this is a world where haflings are cannibals. The world is far from anything normal.
Meet my new defiling Wizard, he uses his defiling to protect people, but is persecuted because of it. When lives are on the line he feels it is necessary to use all 100% of his ability to help protect those in his care. He never attacks unless in self defense. He is targeted by the Veiled Alliance, but avoids them as much as possible because he feels people should do all they can to make a difference in this dark and depressing world.
Uh . . . no. Killing in self-defense is not murder. They are two different things.
Very poor parallel for your purposes, Raddu, since both those are defined as evil due to the circumstances of the action, not the act itself.
I think they're defined by the intent.
Intent is a circumstance.
As for how this relates to defiling, the evil comes into the picture because the gutted state of the world means you're recklessly endangering everyone else when you do it, not because it's inherently wrong to use the world to fuel your spells. (It does, after all, recover eventually.)
No it doesn't recover naturally. Someone has to step in and use magic to fix it. Otherwise it stays barren.
.., It's perfectly moral to destroy life sometimes, or to injure allies...,
Net gain?
Few allies. I would have a hard time allying with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral to destroy life, or to injure thier allies.' I mean really would you want to ally with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral.., to injure thier allies.
Few allies. I would have a hard time allying with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral destroy life, or to injure thier allies.' I mean really would you want to ally with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral.., to injure thier allies.
Note again that context is important, including in a post. It's perfectly moral when the utility is greater. Is it wrong to injure someone? Sure, unless hurting them is the only to help them, hence the surgery example.
Another way to think of it is the scorching burst problem: The fighter has 15 HP left and is surrounded by 8 minions, each of whom can deal 5 damage to the fighter. The initiative order is Wizard, Minions, Fighter. Is it wrong for the wizard to center a Scorching Burst on the fighter?
Few allies. I would have a hard time allying with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral destroy life, or to injure thier allies.' I mean really would you want to ally with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral.., to injure thier allies.
Note again that context is important, including in a post. It's perfectly moral when the utility is greater. Is it wrong to injure someone? Sure, unless hurting them is the only to help them, hence the surgery example.
..,
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies. I my self would question the relability of any one who would make such a statement as an ally. I can understand the moral dilemas you present but they do nothing to clarify the pefect morality of the decisions in those examples but they only blur any moral clarity. In other words you offer very specific examples where such decisions are not morally black or white, but in shades of gray.
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies.
Incorrect. Your reading of my post is only plausibly valid when you ignore the context in which I wrote that sentence. "It's a matter of utility" appears directly before the phrase you're quoting. The key to my argument is that something is bad if it hurts more than it helps, and that defiling most often (in the long run, and often in the short term) hurts more that it helps.
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies.
Incorrect. Your reading of my post is only plausibly valid when you ignore the context in which I wrote that sentence. "It's a matter of utility" appears directly before the phrase you're quoting. The key to my argument is that something is bad if it hurts more than it helps, and that defiling most often (in the long run, and often in the short term) hurts more that it helps.
That clarifies a lot for me, thanks. But that still does not make detroying life or injuring your allies perfectly moral, but adds shades of gray to any decision of using defiling magic, showing such decisions are not morally black and white.
Also, an ally who thinks that its perfectly moral to destroy life and injure allies, still makes for an untrustworthy ally. I mean could you really trust any ally who told you that? Really?
Your last paragraph perfectly describes how I would role-play an Athasian noble, as my own PC or as a DMPC.
@sirkaikillah,
Your last paragraph perfectly describes how I would role-play an Athasian noble, as my own PC or as a DMPC.
So some may find him .., untrustworthy and the allies he has may should remain weary of us actions. This would be the noble willing to defile. It sounds very Dark Sun to me.
In our group we have a gladiator/ battlemind who fits that description, he declared unaligned. The party is lucky he does not have access to arcane powers and defiling.
But there are to arcane spell caster in the party, a templar (Ablech -Ra)/ ardent, declared unaligned and a noble adept/ bard declared good and trained in the perserving tradition. One trained as a defiler, one trained as a perserver, it will be interesting to see how they operate together.
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies.
Incorrect. Your reading of my post is only plausibly valid when you ignore the context in which I wrote that sentence. "It's a matter of utility" appears directly before the phrase you're quoting. The key to my argument is that something is bad if it hurts more than it helps, and that defiling most often (in the long run, and often in the short term) hurts more that it helps.
So for you morality is an end/means cost/benefit analysis. That's fine, and probably pretty suitable for Athas, but lots of people over the millenia would dispute the idea that a good enough end justifies any means. If nothing else, there's the idea that people tend to associate the ends that they pursue with "good", and therefore leaving the end/means judgment up to an individual actor is likely to result in a skewed contribution to the greater good while incurring a fixed cost to the same.
Much of the argument through the thread is also looking at the individual's decision to defile or not in a given circumstance, when in reality its the presence of defiling across nations that matters. If you say "the land will recover in a 100 years from what I've done", that may be true, if you were the only one who knew how to defile. If others have defiled nearby, however, then the natural processes that will correct the damage you have done are also operating at an impaired level, and your activies, in combination with those of others, are directly and significantly contributing to the death of an ecosystem, and eventually a world. Your actions are not occuring in a vacuum; enough small tragedies can add up to a global atrocity.
The law of the land (since it's common across the tablelands) essentially states that defiling is morally 'evil'. The people of the land treat it equally to the other offenses.
If there was an Athasian hell (?!?!), all defilers would be decending - assuming you believe in that stuff. Lucky for Defilers, Athasians don't believe in that stuff.
To enforce this knowledge upon my single arcane caster I make them roll to cover up his casting while in view of others that could tell he is an arcane caster.... once he failed the roll in front of a caravan leader who accused him of being a defiler and wanted him caste out in the middle of no where.
Was a great roleplaying experience as the others explained that he would never defile and has swore so.
Since then there were times that he has been tempted to use defiling but remembered the grief he got and the promise he made and has yet to break... but I always tempt him with it during rough encounters.
I think a noble-intentioned mage who seeks the path of the dragon in Athas has roleplaying potential. I'd just let him write "Good" on his character sheet (I'm sure Stalin would have written the same thing on his character sheet). It really doesn't matter. The people of Athas will decide how good he actually is.
Preservers that my players are going to meet are definetly going to be evil. I'm planning on having a subfaction of the veiled alliance that wants to destroy Tyr and kill people who are outspoken against Arcane magic.
That said, if an arcane player were to give into temptation once and defile, I wouldn't immediately realign them evil. There would probably be consequences though, and habitually defiling would make them evil.
Personally, I would say defiling is almost always an evil act. As has been said, defiling is killing the world one little piece at a time. But I cannot brand every character who ever defiles as irredeemably evil... because I'm in a sense doing the same thing right now. This computer uses a lot of electricity, to no very constructive purpose right now, and most of that electricity is being produced from the burning of fossil fuels, which is also killing the planet a little piece at a time. And I have enough of a scientific background that I fully understand what I'm doing when I switch this thing on. So, if every defiler is evil, then so am I.
But individuals are not generally defined by single acts unless the act is particularly monstrous. Stealing is also (usually) an evil act, yet we generally consider thieves to be chaotic neutral (or unaligned in 4e terms - I don't use the 4e alignment system myself) rather than evil. Very few DMs are so inflexible with alignment as to brand every PC who ever steals as evil.
So it is possible to see defiling as evil, without labelling every character who does it as evil.
Some defilers might genuinely not know what they're doing. Preserving takes a certain degree of understanding and effort. Somebody who spontaneously develops arcane abilities (i.e. most sorcerers) might defile without realising they are slowly killing their world. It seems unfair to brand such a character as evil. Such a character's true alignment will reveal itself in how they react when they are brought face to face with what they've been doing.
An arcanist can also weigh the evil of defiling against the good they might accomplish through casting that spell. Killing people is an evil act, just as defiling is, but killing a bunch of bandits to save the lives of innocent travellers surely results in more good than evil overall. If we take too hard-line a position, then, to remain consistent, all PCs are likely to end up pegged as evil, because (in most campaigns) PCs kill a lot of people. That's clearly silly. Therefore, I think we have to judge the overall outcome of an act, not merely the details of the act itself. Defiling to cast a spell that saves lives can't be evil overall. Defiling to light your campfire because you're too lazy to do it any other way, on the other hand...
I do think becoming a dragon is a step beyond mere defiling, however. I would have a hard time as DM allowing any character to become a dragon without having an evil alignment. It requires (fluffwise, anyway) a truly monstrous amount of defiling, as well as absolute understanding of what you are doing. It's not possible to become a dragon by accident, without knowing the evil you're doing. It is a declaration that you don't care about anything but your own power, which is pretty much the definition of evil.
Having said all that, I've never had a problem with evil PCs. I would never penalise or punish a character for becoming a dragon. I just wouldn't let them retain a good (or probably even neutral/unaligned) alignment, but that has no real significance beyond a word written on a character sheet anyway.
I suppose a dragon could still consider itself good. Actually, since dragonhood generally results in insanity, such delusions might be quite appropriate. But the dragon's character sheet will still say 'evil'.
So now here I sit, with a PC that has acted Good aligned throughout the campaign (painfully so). Has never once actually used Arcane Defiling. Has a paragon path that has nothing to do with preserving or defiling, and has a legal basis (disregarding the fluff that talks about defiling this and defiling that) to stand on saying he can in fact be a Good Dragon King, especially as he wants to use his powers to go out and defeat all other dragon kings and sorcerer kings. Worse yet, he brought up the quote "A gun is not evil, yet we all know it can kill. It's actions can be used for good, or for evil. It weapon itself is not moral, it is the user of that weapon."
I am leaning towards letting him, until such a time as Wizards places an alignment restriction on the class, or adds a feature similar to the Avangion that prohibits him from using Preserving magic post transformation.
Thanks for all the interesting debate. Most enlightening!
(disregarding the fluff that talks about defiling this and defiling that) ..,
I think the fluff you disregard is a big part of the setting. Also, bringing real world moral and ethics into th Dark Sun setting is far less effective in bringing that setting alive than sticking to the fluff with regards to defiling magic. Further more, the premise of a Dragon King that does not embrace, much less use defiling magic further undermines one of the major premises of the Darksun setting. I can't help but think your players reasoning to becoming a "good" non-defiling Dragon-King, as just a classic justification for any major villian.
But, if a "good" Dragon King works for you and your players then I say go for it.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
1. Something is right or wrong, whether you agree with it or not
2. What is right or wrong will differ from one person to another based on personal beliefs/morals
It seems to me that you might be able to employ the second approach here fairly effectively. You could pick any topic (especially one of the hot-button topics like abortion or assited suicide) and the belief as to whether or not it is evil would run the spectrum completely. However, there are all sorts of philisophical systems to rationalize whether or not something is evil.
Granted, you could always say an act is obviously evil or not, but allow room for some more gray areas (as long as the character sticks to whatever system of rationalization they choose (a little research here might be good). The first thing that comes to mind is utilitarianism (not a big fan of it personally, but it'd probably work). The idea behind it is basically that what is right is what brings the most happiness to the most people (granted, there are variations of it based on things like rules vs. no rules, long-term vs short-term, etc.).
I think it would be impossible to say that defiling is good, but I think it's possible to say that it might not be evil. Really, he might be able to play it off as "necessary"- you only get 3 daily attack powers (4 from 20+), and statistically, you'll probably hit a little more often than not, so he'd only be defiling once or twice a day to make sure he takes out the bad guy and protect others.
All that said, I personally believe it's evil, but I'd be willing to let my players play it off as neutral. In fact, now that I think about it, the idea of the Unifying Force comes to mind- it's not the force that's light or dark, it's the person using it.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
Here here.
I don't like my players choosing alignments, they should be playing their characters not their alignments.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
Here here.
I don't like my players choosing alignments, they should be playing their characters not their alignments.
Not to derail, but I feel like this is a great idea! My last DM was very strict about remaining in your alignment box, punishing us if we even suggested an action outside our alignment. While alignment does help player who are new to roleplaying or otherwise poor roleplayers, I feel like this idea works well with a good group.
For my 4E dark sun game, I made all the players leave their Alignment blocks empty. No assumptions here. It's a party of mostly templars and their concepts of good and evil are very...Athasian.
Here here.
I don't like my players choosing alignments, they should be playing their characters not their alignments.
Not to derail, but I feel like this is a great idea! My last DM was very strict about remaining in your alignment box, punishing us if we even suggested an action outside our alignment. While alignment does help player who are new to roleplaying or otherwise poor roleplayers, I feel like this idea works well with a good group.
I think if the players are here to truly roleplay it is like acting. That is half the fun. Make a personality other than your own bent on saving destroying or otherwise milking the world as per your alignment. If they pick an evil aligned character that character should be played as evil. That is why most of my players pick unaligned. But I will nudge them in directions or prohibt them from actions that would not fit the alignment. They can shift thier alignment through the course of several adventures however.
The green angels aside, the closest thing to a good sorcerer king is probably Nibenay, and he can be instructive here.
The Shadow King is an unquestioned and immortal ruler of life and death to his people... but he has built an orderly and prosperous society and rarely exercises his own powers.
His city has at times grown rife with corruption... but it has languished in his absence, not under his heel.
He is inscrutable and prone to strange obsessions... but also wise and farsighted.
He stamps out the forces of nature wherever they raise their heads... but in his domain, those forces are most often mad steam elementals erupting from the earth to spread death to innocent farmers and starvation to all.
In short, Nibenay prevents and fights much evil in the world. He is not rapacious. He is not war-like. He does not have any known sinister ulterior motives. He has even taken the lead in peacefully stabilizing the region in the power vacuum emerging after the death of Kalak (et al. if you count Revised). Why, then, is Nibenay evil?
Because he would burn and consume everything he has built just for one more day of existence. He may be a good king, he may even be a hero and veritable beacon of hope in the setting by relative metrics, but all that does not make him a good person.
I could not have explained it better myself.
People should also bear in mind that turning a blind eye to the evil you do does not make it less evil. Nor does trying to justify it in the name of a "good" cause. That logic was thrown out by the Nuremburg proceedings decades ago.
There is no legitimate way that a defiler can not know the effect he is having. He is leaving a giant black stain where nothing lives every time he does it. The only way to be unaware is through extreme self-delusion.
"Everyone gasps in horror as they see you defile. Though your past actions had won some respect for arcanists, that evaporates now. Many run, though a few glare angrily. The Veiled Alliance member you traveled with speaks a word of power and vanishes..."
vs.
"Sorry dude, you defiled. Your PC is now evil. Please change your alignment..."
Defiling is best in a campaign as a shades of gray issue. As a DM you sort of want to entice PCs to have to defile at some point so that the moral issue comes to light and requires thought. Having it be just an "enemy" thing is a bit dull for me. You want the temptation aspect, the redemption, the pure good vs. necessary for the cause. This should be a source of great RP and story, not an absolute rule.
"Everyone gasps in horror as they see you defile. Though your past actions had won some respect for arcanists, that evaporates now. Many run, though a few glare angrily. The Veiled Alliance member you traveled with speaks a word of power and vanishes..."
vs.
"Sorry dude, you defiled. Your PC is now evil. Please change your alignment..."
I agree completely with this post.
I think defiling and the sorcerers kings and queen being evil is at the core of the Dark Sun setting and always have been. But also at the core of the DS setting is challenging the boundaries of good and evil. A good aligned Pc in a DS setting is thoroughly morally tested, when survival depends on killing someone simply for their water. I always let my players decide what their alignment is and what it means to them. When we started to play Dark Sun I asked my players to really think about what their Pcs alignment. Through out the campaign I hope to challenge my players idea of good and evil, and how there alignment effects there Pcs actions. I have long believed alignment is best used as a role playing tool for both new and experienced players; if it is allowed to be maleable, i.e. a player can change a Pc alignment through out the campaign. I also, think that allowing players to define what their Pc's alignment means to them is important if alignment is to work well as a role playing tool.
I'd still say defiling is symptomic of evil, not inherently evil.
Not to get too serious here, but that's like saying murder or **** are symptoms of evil, but not evil in and of themselves. Seriously?
I'd still say defiling is symptomic of evil, not inherently evil.
Not to get too serious here, but that's like saying murder or **** are symptoms of evil, but not evil in and of themselves. Seriously?
Murderers don't have to be evil. People who kill someone in self defense can be considered murderers.
I stop here because I feel like I'm going to get into a metaphysical debate about how Good and Evil are perceptions and not actually defined labels.
Next game I play I'm creating a Lawful Good Defiler. It might not be the most accepted concept, but this is a world where haflings are cannibals. The world is far from anything normal.
Meet my new defiling Wizard, he uses his defiling to protect people, but is persecuted because of it. When lives are on the line he feels it is necessary to use all 100% of his ability to help protect those in his care. He never attacks unless in self defense. He is targeted by the Veiled Alliance, but avoids them as much as possible because he feels people should do all they can to make a difference in this dark and depressing world.
In short, it depends wholly on the character's back story and the player's role-playing ability.
Very poor parallel for your purposes, Raddu, since both those are defined as evil due to the circumstances of the action, not the act itself.
I don't think those are defined by the circumstances, I think they're defined by the intent. Murder is killing intentionally with premeditation (not self-defense), and **** is destroying something and stripping it of it's possession. Intent.
Defilers have Intent, they drain energy, **** the land and the people they steal the energy from so their spells can be more powerful. In my mind there's nothing remotely not evil about it.
DERHagis, I think that's a good idea to make a defiler like that, a tough story. A very anti-hero that could have a cool story. But is it still Good to kill one thing to save another? In many fantasy stories where heroes are given that choice, it's generally the Good thing to choose neither and figure out a way to save both parties. In this case the choice would be to not be a Preserver and save the people.
Omnijake...agreed.
..;
Defilers have Intent, they drain energy, **** the land and the people they steal the energy from so their spells can be more powerful. In my mind there's nothing remotely not evil about it.
I always viewed defiling as raping the land.
For defiling, it's important to think of what is actually occurring; defiling cannot be evil in a vacuum. Rather than describing defiling in moral terms (like **** or "violating the land"), describe its effects: Defiling strips life energy from the environment and from living creatures. This, at its basic level, destroys plants, causes land to be unable to support plant life for decades, and injures allies of the defiler.
So, is it always evil to kill plants? Absolutely not. It's done all the time. Is it evil to kill a plant in a particular way? Is a scythe worse than fire? Would psionically blasting a tree be more or less evil? Don't consider at this point why someone is killing the plant, just think of how they are doing it. Is the method alone, divorced from consequences, somehow morally different from another? Probably not, even with defiling. The argument the mere destruction of plants to fuel arcane magic is evil itself is necessarily a circular one, or will fail because the person making it will bring in the effect of motive.
Now think of killing a plant contextually and with motive considered. What if one kills a kudzu because, if left unchecked, it will smother and kill a forest? This probably isn't an evil act. How about destroying the crop of another farmer? It sounds evil, but what if the crop was host to locusts that threatened a dozen farms, and burning the field was the only way to destroy the swarm, which would otherwise have eaten half the farms of everyone else? It's a matter of utility.
The problem with defiling isn't merely that it "drains life," but rather that the scope of defiling is so great. It's perfectly moral to destroy life sometimes, or to injure allies. If a raging fire threatens a forest, it's right to create a fire break to ensure that there will be less destruction in the end. If a person is threatened with a failing organ, it's right for a doctor to cut open their flesh to perform surgery.
With defiling, though, the true cost of the act will almost always outweigh the benefit. "Defiling in self-defense" might sound reasonable to some, but what is the defiler actually doing? He's trading an extension of his own life at the cost of life in his allies, and he's destroying the environment, perhaps for centuries. Is his life worth that, compared to the alternative? Recall, the alternative is missing with a daily, or doing less than ideal damage.
When an arcanist chooses to defile, the typical result is modest gains for the defiler and great losses for the rest of the world. If defiling only meant that plants nearby died but that the land could regrow naturally, the moral question would be significantly easier. It would be just like fire - an instant clear-cutting to fuel something you need now. Defiling, however, isn't like that. It's like salting the earth with spent uranium for an edge.
Certainly, a defiler might not be defiling for himself when he defiles, but still, is the trade worth it? Suppose a warlock is trying to defend a slave from death at from an unprovoked gith attack. Aiming for the commander, he uses Kalak's Burning Sands but misses. He defiles and hits, killing the leader and scattering the tribe. All plants in a square 45 feet on a side are destroyed and the land will be dead, probably for at least a century. The slave himself might is hurt if close (depending on how the GM interprets "ally"), as are the warlock's teammates, if he has any. This might mean dead crops now, or it could merely mean that this plot of land has another hundred years before it can try to recover. In the meantime, it's blowing lifeless ash across the land, choking some areas that had otherwise escaped the effects of defiling.
Net gain?
I'd still say defiling is symptomic of evil, not inherently evil.
Not to get too serious here, but that's like saying murder or **** are symptoms of evil, but not evil in and of themselves. Seriously?
Murderers don't have to be evil. People who kill someone in self defense can be considered murderers.
I stop here because I feel like I'm going to get into a metaphysical debate about how Good and Evil are perceptions and not actually defined labels.
Next game I play I'm creating a Lawful Good Defiler. It might not be the most accepted concept, but this is a world where haflings are cannibals. The world is far from anything normal.
Meet my new defiling Wizard, he uses his defiling to protect people, but is persecuted because of it. When lives are on the line he feels it is necessary to use all 100% of his ability to help protect those in his care. He never attacks unless in self defense. He is targeted by the Veiled Alliance, but avoids them as much as possible because he feels people should do all they can to make a difference in this dark and depressing world.
Uh . . . no. Killing in self-defense is not murder. They are two different things.
Very poor parallel for your purposes, Raddu, since both those are defined as evil due to the circumstances of the action, not the act itself.
I think they're defined by the intent.
Intent is a circumstance.
As for how this relates to defiling, the evil comes into the picture because the gutted state of the world means you're recklessly endangering everyone else when you do it, not because it's inherently wrong to use the world to fuel your spells. (It does, after all, recover eventually.)
No it doesn't recover naturally. Someone has to step in and use magic to fix it. Otherwise it stays barren.
.., It's perfectly moral to destroy life sometimes, or to injure allies...,
Net gain?
Few allies. I would have a hard time allying with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral to destroy life, or to injure thier allies.' I mean really would you want to ally with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral.., to injure thier allies.
Few allies. I would have a hard time allying with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral destroy life, or to injure thier allies.' I mean really would you want to ally with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral.., to injure thier allies.
Note again that context is important, including in a post. It's perfectly moral when the utility is greater. Is it wrong to injure someone? Sure, unless hurting them is the only to help them, hence the surgery example.
Another way to think of it is the scorching burst problem: The fighter has 15 HP left and is surrounded by 8 minions, each of whom can deal 5 damage to the fighter. The initiative order is Wizard, Minions, Fighter. Is it wrong for the wizard to center a Scorching Burst on the fighter?
Few allies. I would have a hard time allying with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral destroy life, or to injure thier allies.' I mean really would you want to ally with someone who thought it 'perfectly moral.., to injure thier allies.
Note again that context is important, including in a post. It's perfectly moral when the utility is greater. Is it wrong to injure someone? Sure, unless hurting them is the only to help them, hence the surgery example.
..,
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies. I my self would question the relability of any one who would make such a statement as an ally. I can understand the moral dilemas you present but they do nothing to clarify the pefect morality of the decisions in those examples but they only blur any moral clarity. In other words you offer very specific examples where such decisions are not morally black or white, but in shades of gray.
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies.
Incorrect. Your reading of my post is only plausibly valid when you ignore the context in which I wrote that sentence. "It's a matter of utility" appears directly before the phrase you're quoting. The key to my argument is that something is bad if it hurts more than it helps, and that defiling most often (in the long run, and often in the short term) hurts more that it helps.
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies.
Incorrect. Your reading of my post is only plausibly valid when you ignore the context in which I wrote that sentence. "It's a matter of utility" appears directly before the phrase you're quoting. The key to my argument is that something is bad if it hurts more than it helps, and that defiling most often (in the long run, and often in the short term) hurts more that it helps.
That clarifies a lot for me, thanks. But that still does not make detroying life or injuring your allies perfectly moral, but adds shades of gray to any decision of using defiling magic, showing such decisions are not morally black and white.
Also, an ally who thinks that its perfectly moral to destroy life and injure allies, still makes for an untrustworthy ally. I mean could you really trust any ally who told you that? Really?
Your last paragraph perfectly describes how I would role-play an Athasian noble, as my own PC or as a DMPC.
@sirkaikillah,
Your last paragraph perfectly describes how I would role-play an Athasian noble, as my own PC or as a DMPC.
So some may find him .., untrustworthy and the allies he has may should remain weary of us actions. This would be the noble willing to defile. It sounds very Dark Sun to me.
In our group we have a gladiator/ battlemind who fits that description, he declared unaligned. The party is lucky he does not have access to arcane powers and defiling.
But there are to arcane spell caster in the party, a templar (Ablech -Ra)/ ardent, declared unaligned and a noble adept/ bard declared good and trained in the perserving tradition. One trained as a defiler, one trained as a perserver, it will be interesting to see how they operate together.
In or out of context the key to your arguement is that It's perfectly moral to detroy life, or to injure allies.
Incorrect. Your reading of my post is only plausibly valid when you ignore the context in which I wrote that sentence. "It's a matter of utility" appears directly before the phrase you're quoting. The key to my argument is that something is bad if it hurts more than it helps, and that defiling most often (in the long run, and often in the short term) hurts more that it helps.
So for you morality is an end/means cost/benefit analysis. That's fine, and probably pretty suitable for Athas, but lots of people over the millenia would dispute the idea that a good enough end justifies any means. If nothing else, there's the idea that people tend to associate the ends that they pursue with "good", and therefore leaving the end/means judgment up to an individual actor is likely to result in a skewed contribution to the greater good while incurring a fixed cost to the same.
Much of the argument through the thread is also looking at the individual's decision to defile or not in a given circumstance, when in reality its the presence of defiling across nations that matters. If you say "the land will recover in a 100 years from what I've done", that may be true, if you were the only one who knew how to defile. If others have defiled nearby, however, then the natural processes that will correct the damage you have done are also operating at an impaired level, and your activies, in combination with those of others, are directly and significantly contributing to the death of an ecosystem, and eventually a world. Your actions are not occuring in a vacuum; enough small tragedies can add up to a global atrocity.
The law of the land (since it's common across the tablelands) essentially states that defiling is morally 'evil'. The people of the land treat it equally to the other offenses.
If there was an Athasian hell (?!?!), all defilers would be decending - assuming you believe in that stuff. Lucky for Defilers, Athasians don't believe in that stuff.