I know that Netheril's supposed to be considered the prime evil in the North: after all, "empire" usually has a negative connotation, for whatever reason. But in a situation where their expansion seems pale in comparison to a much bigger threat, would they band together with their former enemies, at least temporarily, or are they just too scheming and evil for their own good?
Now I normally wouldn't ask this, because really, I tamper with FR lore quite a lot to suit my campaigns. I've run 4e games where Mulhorand still exists, the Simbul is a raving lunatic, and I distinctly remember in my last game where Waterdeep was destroyed by a warforged army. But I just want a second (and third, fourth, fifth, etc.) opinion from people that have read more Forgotten Realms books than I have (I've read a whooping one book in the FR universe so far).
Historically though, in the Realms, Cormyr would likely be the coalition leader and one making deals, given Azoun's actions during the Tuigan Crusade. But as with that action, any alliances formed would be temporary at best, and require quite a bit of diplomacy to hold it together. If you're familiar with Trek, I would probably compare the idea with the Dominion War, particularly the Romulans involvement with it, in a lot of respects, just without the starships and phasers.
Furthermore its obvious the Nightseer, Rivalen, needs to employ politics and diplomacy (along his 12 able and scheming brothers) to steer the decisions of his father Telamont, who ultimately decides what happens to the Shade enclave. Sure Telamonts goals are conquest, but the Shade Empires first action was to stomp on a major other threat in the Aunaroch, the evil Phaerimms.
The 15th century Netheril operates without Telamont directing the multitude of govermental styles of the twelve Shade Princes. The Netherese Empires conquest is likely to be considerably more slow to start after their initial gains in the Aunaroch. I can even see the brothers falling out over the directions to take the endeavor of conquering earthbound lands. Classic stories abound of great empires fracturing among its heirs after its commanding figurehead passes away.
So if you're looking for allies amongst the Shades be sure to approuch the right Shade Prince and you'd have a fair chance of succesfully convincing him to your cause if you can offer him some sort of advantage over one of his brothers.
are asking about the historical empire from days long past, of what would not be called True NEtheril??
evil??? no not really, a bit more nuertal than much else.
the current empire??
yeah they're evil, and they are not netheril, two enclaves does netheril not make.
But I wouldn't lay this at Shar's doing. Shade simply give lip service to her. Rivalen appears to be her only true servant.
Netheril will do whatever is necessary to regain what they believe is theirs. There is no questioning their evil. They are a political machine--not a religious or fanatic one. Those in power are infused with Shadowstuff and have accepted it. There is no getting around it.
Just to let you know, I also ask this in part because I'm accustomed to playing Eberron campaigns far often than I do Forgotten Realms campaigns. In Eberron, good and evil are much more blurry---good vampires and evil silver dragons exist, and a evil character wouldn't necessarily make him the bane of humanity and a villian who laughs himself (maniacally) to sleep.
And to sfdragon: I refer to the current Netheril.
(mind you, they do contain a good wedge of history info i suppose)so the were the links i sent you not relevant - sorry if they weren't. my bad (mind you, they do contain a good wedge of history info i suppose)
Now that you mention it, now I see your message in my Inbox. Sorry 'bout that, I'm usually more vigilant about receiving PMs! I'll definately check them out, history on Netheril is what I really need. Thanks!
But I think they are a lesser evil compared to Thay and the abominable Szass Tam.
Do I think every Iranian has bad intentions toward the west? Of course not. But as a nation, Iran can be considered hostile. Just a comparison.
And, yes, I would agree that they are a lesser evil than Thay. Netheril will slowly seize power, while Szass Tam looks to snag it all at once. Difference at this point is that Thay seems to stew, while Netheril is more proactive. They are the more prominent "evil".
My current campaing (still 3.5) is all about the return of Thultantar, so I tried to gather as much information about the Netheril empire as I could, from the old AD&D stuff to 4th ed. manuals through novels etc..
Being Shade the last city of an entire empire (I'm not considering Selunarra) to survive a long war with the phaerrims, karsus folly, more than a thousand years in the plane of shadows, a total conversion of faith towards a deity like Shar, it seems to me that we should at least take their motives into account before stating "good", "evil" or whatever.
It was Waterdeep itself that refused diplomatic relationship with Shade when they offered an alliance against the phaerrims around Evereska. Of course they didn't care about consequences when they tried to melt the high glacier, nor when Tilverton was about to be destroyed by the interference between the two weaves.
Nevertheless I keep thinking that the simple adjective "evil" doesn't really fit their ethical conduct.
By the way, regarding the issues of relativity which some of you talked about before... Maybe it's west that has bad intentions toward Iran...
Being Shade the last city of an entire empire (I'm not considering Selunarra) to survive a long war with the phaerrims, karsus folly, more than a thousand years in the plane of shadows, a total conversion of faith towards a deity like Shar, it seems to me that we should at least take their motives into account before stating "good", "evil" or whatever.
The "total conversion" of faith to Shar isn't quite accurate. For the most part, she receives lip service, rather than faith form the Netheril Empire. Even among the princes, Rivalen is the only true devotee to her--the rest hold a tenuous relation with her at best.
As for their motives, I think they speak for themselves--establish the Netheril Empire at any and all cost necessary. Their actions thus far cannot really be seen as anything but evil, due to the sacrifice of others taken to ensure this.
It was Waterdeep itself that refused diplomatic relationship with Shade when they offered an alliance against the phaerrims around Evereska. Of course they didn't care about consequences when they tried to melt the high glacier, nor when Tilverton was about to be destroyed by the interference between the two weaves.
Actually, I'm not sure all the facts are laid out on the table there in those statements. While I can't debate the properly at the moment, I do know that that is not how I interpreted things in the least.
Nevertheless I keep thinking that the simple adjective "evil" doesn't really fit their ethical conduct.
I'm not sure where murder, oppression, and manipulations for further personal gain don't fall under the description of "evil".
By the way, regarding the issues of relativity which some of you talked about before... Maybe it's west that has bad intentions toward Iran...
This is not something we are really supposed to debate here. Just remember that we were allies with Iran until 1979. Then they did something that many of us seemed unethical.
To me it's a more subtle approach.
Think about this: couldn't Telamont ask himself "Where were Evereska, Earlann, Delzoun, Ammarindar and Myth Drannor when the conflict between Netheril and Phaerrims took place?" I think it's a fair question. Besides, until 1372 DR nobody seemed to care that much about Anauroch, now, all of a sudden many nations and kingdoms are interested in this worthless desert which could rightfully be claimed as Netherese territory. It's at least understandable that they could bear some sort of grudge towards those people.
With this, again, I don't want to say that Thultantar and Sakkors are cities of angels. Just that there is a wide difference between drows and Shadovars ethics. What you pointed out about worshiping Shar is another piece of this picture. Since Shade's stay in the plane of shadow,Shar has been decleared to be the only god to be worshiped, wiping out Tyche, Aumaunator, etc, etc. But nevertheless It can hardly be said that in Netheril nowadays (1479) everyone is a sharran.
I don't think that "deception for own personal gain" is that far from other civilized places... The Lords of Waterdeep perhaps?
Simply, it's partially incorrect to state that Netherese people are evil, it's more complex than that. Even two characters as Telamont and Rivalen are not similar to each other, being the second really more inclined to acts of pure evil than his father. (Still referring to "The return of archwizards" trilogy).
I hope I have been able to make my point... ;)
To me it's a more subtle approach.
Think about this: couldn't Telamont ask himself "Where were Evereska, Earlann, Delzoun, Ammarindar and Myth Drannor when the conflict between Netheril and Phaerrims took place?" I think it's a fair question.
Yes, but that does not justify actions towards Faerunian's at large. Need to pick a bone with someone? Then do so plainly. Don't sacrifice everyone in your path. That's not too "subtle" to me.
Besides--Karsus is the true cause of their 1000 year exile--not any of the aforementioned nationes.
Besides, until 1372 DR nobody seemed to care that much about Anauroch, now, all of a sudden many nations and kingdoms are interested in this worthless desert which could rightfully be claimed as Netherese territory. It's at least understandable that they could bear some sort of grudge towards those people.
That's not true at all. Had they came in, reclaimed the Anaroch as it was, brokered peace, and not jeopardized the entire north with climate change, things may have ended up being much friendlier. As is, they took active hostility to obtain their desires.
What you pointed out about worshiping Shar is another piece of this picture. Since Shade's stay in the plane of shadow,Shar has been decleared to be the only god to be worshiped, wiping out Tyche, Aumaunator, etc, etc. But nevertheless It can hardly be said that in Netheril nowadays (1479) everyone is a sharran.
Thus, was my point.
I don't think that "deception for own personal gain" is that far from other civilized places... The Lords of Waterdeep perhaps?
It was actually "manipulations for further personal gain." Granted, this may be relevant to all individuals of power, but you conveniently dropped the murder and oppression I mention prior to that. In triplet, that is evil.
Simply, it's partially incorrect to state that Netherese people are evil, it's more complex than that. Even two characters as Telamont and Rivalen are not similar to each other, being the second really more inclined to acts of pure evil than his father. (Still referring to "The return of archwizards" trilogy).
No. It is completely incorrect to state that Netherise people are evil--which I partially eluded to concerning Shar. But I never said the Netherise people are evil. I said the Netherise Empire is evil. That has always been my point.
While I understand you are referring to The Return of the Archwizards trilogy for much of your basis, I'd have to ask if you have read The Twilight War trilogy yet. I cannot see anyone having read that and the former having any doubt in their mind concerning the alignment of the Netherise Empire.
In D&D mechanical alignment terms the Empire of Netheril is evil. In roleplaying terms the Empire straddles amorality and immorality. They are not cartoon villains who kick puppies because it scores them evil points.
The Netherese have no qualms about working with anyone - even people of good alignment - if it serves their interests. That's the key to understanding them: They are self-interested. If what you want and what they want happen to align, then great - you can become allies at least temporarily. On the other hand, if you're working to oppose them then they're likely to hire an assassin to slit your throat while you sleep. (Assuming, of course, they cannot think of a better use for you alive than dead.)
If you think of them in these terms, and ask yourself: "What do they want? What are their goals?" Then have them weigh the pro's and con's of each potential action as they craft a meticulous plan to obtain it; all the while ignoring whom might get hurt in the process.
...and I think I just invoked Godwin's Law. *facepalm*
The returned Netheril Empire is definitely evil. They're essentially the Faerun version of Nazi Germany.
...and I think I just invoked Godwin's Law. *facepalm*
I disagree with this statement. While there is no doubt Netheril is mechanically evil their world view is decidedly amoral. They aren't committing random acts of genocide. They're actively plotting and scheming for power. If they could obtain -ALL- that they wanted from painting rainbows and hearts on their tummies and doing carebear stares that's what they'd be doing. It just so happens the most effective way to get what they want is to act immorally, but their mindset is not in and of itself immoral. They are highly pragmatic as a whole.
The returned Netheril Empire is definitely evil. They're essentially the Faerun version of Nazi Germany.
...and I think I just invoked Godwin's Law. *facepalm*I disagree with this statement. While there is no doubt Netheril is mechanically evil their world view is decidedly amoral. They aren't committing random acts of genocide. They're actively plotting and scheming for power. If they could obtain -ALL- that they wanted from painting rainbows and hearts on their tummies and doing carebear stares that's what they'd be doing. It just so happens the most effective way to get what they want is to act immorally, but their mindset is not in and of itself immoral. They are highly pragmatic as a whole.
Shar's ultimate goal for Faerun is to eradicate all life. That was 100% clear from Kemp's books, where they visited worlds of gray ash where Shar had "won" the war.
While not all citizens of Netheril want this, as not all are Sharrans, the goal of the Empire is to subjugate other nations (as they've done with Sembia) and they rely on Shar as a nation. Murder and oppression are part of the package that comes with Telamont and Shar.
Similarly, not all of the Nazis participated in genocidal acts, were privy to Hitler's goals, or even knew about the atrocities of the regime. Many German citizens were forced into war service or joined out of (misguided) hope.
New Netheril = the Nazis of Faerun, IMO.
The returned Netheril Empire is definitely evil. They're essentially the Faerun version of Nazi Germany.
...and I think I just invoked Godwin's Law. *facepalm*I disagree with this statement. While there is no doubt Netheril is mechanically evil their world view is decidedly amoral. They aren't committing random acts of genocide. They're actively plotting and scheming for power. If they could obtain -ALL- that they wanted from painting rainbows and hearts on their tummies and doing carebear stares that's what they'd be doing. It just so happens the most effective way to get what they want is to act immorally, but their mindset is not in and of itself immoral. They are highly pragmatic as a whole.
Shar's ultimate goal for Faerun is to eradicate all life. That was 100% clear from Kemp's books, where they visited worlds of gray ash where Shar had "won" the war.
While not all citizens of Netheril want this, as not all are Sharrans, the goal of the Empire is to subjugate other nations (as they've done with Sembia) and they rely on Shar as a nation. Murder and oppression are part of the package that comes with Telamont and Shar.
Similarly, not all of the Nazis participated in genocidal acts, were privy to Hitler's goals, or even knew about the atrocities of the regime. Many German citizens were forced into war service or joined out of (misguided) hope.
New Netheril = the Nazis of Faerun, IMO.
The mistake I believe you're making involves your view of Shar's role. The goals of Shar do not align neatly with the goals of Netheril. Certainly, there are some powerful individuals within Netheril who buy into Shar's end goal hook, line, and sinker. The sooner she is successful, the better - that's what they say. They are a vast minority.
The majority of Netherese are acting counter to Shar's dogma... but let me put it this way.
Let's say the average Netherese understands Shar's end goal. Look at the real world. We know what the fate of planet Earth will be, regardless of what happens to humanity. It will either be destroyed when the Sun becomes a Red Giant or it will be turned to a hellish molten wasteland. The latter is most likely true. However, we have a few billion years till that happens.
Let's just assume with that knowledge, the average Netherese Joe views things in that context. (This isn't something that is going to impact me, my children, or my great-great-great-great-great grandchildren. It's something that is inevitable besides, so it's best just to ignore it and go about my life as normal.)
The Netherese clearly have to view Shar in this manner, otherwise they'd follow her dogma - giving up hope, not planning for the future, etc. They are clearly planning for the future and hold a great deal of hope for their success.
Furthermore, you're viewing Shar as a one dimensional deity. She has a truck load of portfolio's, many of which are worthy of worship and lip service, even if you don't completely buy into what the church orthodoxy is pushing.
Finally, the Netherese do not wish to commit acts of genocide. They will, of course, commit acts of murder or oppression if necessary. However, such acts could also easily be committed by a nation such as Cormyr.
Imagine if Cormyr faced a peasant rebellion. Think something along the lines of the French Revolution. The peasants are rising up against the crown and the nobility. They are demanding democratic rule in Cormyr and the destruction of the royal line. Part of Suzail has been destroyed by fire as a result of a riot, at least one entire noble family was taken by rioting peasants, dragged into the street and beheaded.
What would be the response from the Cormyrian Nobility and the Crown? Are they merely going to say, "Oh, we should abdicate all of our power, authority, and social station because it's what the people want!" No. They aren't going to say that. They're going to call in the Purple Dragon's and War Wizards. They're going to ruthlessly hunt down the rebel leaders and execute them. They're going to imprison and perhaps execute every person that openly speaks out against the Crown or the Nobility. In other words: murder and oppression.
Likewise, the Netherese would do the same. The only difference is that they're crossing into sovereign nations and demanding that their leaders bend the knee to them. If they refuse they do what is necessary to make them.
If Silverymoon were to suddenly surrender to Netheril, proclaim that they will become a vassal city-state of the Empire... what would be the Netherese reaction? Are they going to show up and begin murdering people (assuming there are no riots)? No. They're going to welcome them with open arms. Not a single individual need be killed because they've submitted willingly.
Netheril is committing no crime that any kingdom, nation, or city-state in the past has not also committed: the crime of expansion. If you want an apt comparison, it isn't the Nazi's - it's the Greeks under Alexander the Great.
New Netheril = the Nazis of Faerun, IMO.
Actually, my man, that is far over-reaching the nature and actions of Netheril.
Evil? Yes. Nazi? Not nearly. Nazi's were fanatical. Neth's are methodical. The two do not equate, other than the fact that they believe themselves superior to others and are evil entities seeking to control of all those around them.
I disagree with this statement. While there is no doubt Netheril is mechanically evil….
Than there is nothing really to debate other than the “Nazi” bit.
…their world view is decidedly amoral.
So…heartless? Got ya.
They aren't committing random acts of genocide.
Other than the phaerum, no. But they have no issue with mass murder in quest of their own goals. Even with an “amoral” viewpoint, you have to worry about how one is judged over such acts.
They're actively plotting and scheming for power. If they could obtain -ALL- that they wanted from painting rainbows and hearts on their tummies and doing carebear stares that's what they'd be doing.
(cou-)bullsh*t(ghs)
Show me Lord Telmont or Rivalen painting rainbows or hugging f*cking Carebears with real zest if it meant world domination and I’ll show you a chicken that chokes itself in the belief it can get itself off.
Seriously now. These are rulers infused with Shadowstuff. It doesn’t work that way.
It just so happens the most effective way to get what they want is to act immorally, but their mindset is not in and of itself immoral. They are highly pragmatic as a whole.
If what they want is so morally correct, then why the need to act any other way?
Dude, your argument makes no sense to me. Perhaps you are trying to stick with sourcebook definitions and trying to force them to apply to this debate, but they just don’t. I can’t even bother commenting on your last post, ‘cause it just holds no weight.
And, look, it may sound like I am being intentionally controversial with you here, but I’m not. I believe you’ve been around long enough to know that I am just a blunt sh*t the majority of the time. I simply don’t see how you can play a spin factor on this and justify the actions of the empire itself.
Again, I find we may just find ourselves morally polarized. It simply works that way sometimes. But, if you say, that they are "mechanically evil", then they are evil.
I think it's hilarious you both believe I'm reading the Netherese unfairly.
Let's look at a few quotes from the 4E FRCG, and then reconsider how "wrong" I am for suggesting they're Nazi-like:
"(Within its borders,) memory of its brutal genocide of the native dwarves is suppressed, as is the forceful integration of the primitive peoples of Anauroch. The rebuilt cities of Landeth, Orofin, Rasilith, and Oreme are peopled with Bedine who have mostly forgotten their nomadic past."
No genocide? The word genocide is right there in print, in the FRCG, which I've highlighted above. Apparently, they have utterly wiped out all the dwarves that were in their claimed borders. And by suppressing knowledge of the genocide, they are controlling their populace's understanding of history.
They have suppressed and forcefully integrated most of the Bedine, destroying a native culture to service their own. Why did they take in the Bedine, who they thought were savages anyway? Because they are genetically Netherese. Furthermore, the former Bedine have been forcibly converted to the worship of Shar.
They would destroy every last phaerimm and sharn if they could. And it's possible most of the phaerimm have been destroyed.
They have not merely occupied the former free nation of Sembia, but have oppressed the entire nation as a servitor state. They even remade Sakkors to float above it, and "(s)tories of bloodshed and heartache follow in Sakkors’ wake." It's murder and loss if you fall out of line, and by the way you'd better worship Shar as a Sembian if you want to get ahead.
It is believed that they planned to loose the phaerimm on Evereska, back when they first arrived.
They believe they should be "rightful masters of all Faerun" because they believe the other nations are savages.
They caused massive meteorological changes and damage when they melted the High Ice, showing only disdain for their "savage" neighbors.
They unleashed the Shadowstorm, which would have been cataclysmic had it not been stopped. When your goddess unleashes something like this, and it's recent enough to be in many shadovarran memories, they're still supposed to believe that it's about slow entropy and not all-out destruction? I don't think they're that naive, really.
Honestly, there hasn't been a single Sharran who has been shown in novels as anything other than fanatic. Within Shade and Sakkors, worship of any deity other than Shar is forbidden. I will agree that most common citizens of Netheril probably give Shar minimal lip service, but the shadowvar and the high rulers of Shade owe her their status and survival. Before these novels came out that illustrated Sharrans and their faith, I might have believed that Shar was unfairly portrayed, not entirely evil, and that not all of her worshippers were evil or insane. Now, not so much.
They aren't merely pragmatic in their expansionism, they "threaten all of Faerûn’s nations" per the FRCG.
]Netheril is committing no crime that any kingdom, nation, or city-state in the past has not also committed: the crime of expansion. If you want an apt comparison, it isn't the Nazi's - it's the Greeks under Alexander the Great.
I agree, this is a much better comparison than those involving Germany or Iran
JudgeDookie - I think you're misunderstanding the words I used. I called them mechanically evil because they are - by D&D's definition they are evil. Yet, by the same token a merchant who is merely motivated by greed who would charge hungry peasants full price for food can also be considered evil in D&D.
That is why I felt it was important to define the Netherese and their actions as amoral. Yes, they do evil things - this is not in dispute. Any nation that ever goes to war with another does evil things. In 4E since Cormyr has a more expansionist attitude should they be considered evil?
The essence of my point was this: The Netherese are not thinking in terms of good and evil. If someone who was good aligned were useful to them, and was willing to provide them assistance, they'd take the assistance and make use of them. If nations would submit to them willingly, they wouldn't have to murder or suppress anyone, and if given the choice the Netherese would love for other nations to do exactly that.
The Netherese are not sociopaths who get off skinning puppies alive and hurling crying babies from their Enclaves onto the rocks below. They do not commit actions for the sake of being "evil", they commit their actions because they believe it is the most effective way to achieve their goals.
The distinction I am making is important. The creator of this thread wanted to know if Netheril would band together with their former enemies, at least temporarily, to face a much bigger threat. The obvious answer to me is: absolutely. The Netherese are pragmatic, if their former enemies are willing to put aside their hatred for them, and they believed the only path to success was to work together that's exactly what they'd do.
Jorunhast - I don't think either JD or I are making the claim that the Netherese are misunderstood victims, who if given a fair shake would really be sweet as honey. No, they're actively committing atrocities. I'm not trying to paper over any action they've taken. That's why they're mechanically evil - they've committed many, many, many evil actions.
My problem with viewing them as merely evil individuals is that it makes them two dimensional. They're a highly advanced culture that has returned to their home world to find it ruled by (in their eyes) savages. Imagine if the United States were suddenly whisked away to an alternate dimension. When we returned to planet Earth, instead of finding advanced cultures, something happened while we were gone that threw humanity into a dark age. Every other culture on Earth had the technological equivalence (at best) of the 1300's. What would be our reaction?
I believe our first reaction would be one of horror. We'd view the rest of the world as primitive and backward compared to us, and some would most definitely argue for world-wide domination and suppression of the primitive cultures. They might paint it as being "for their own good" or to "restore the world to its former glory." There may be other reasons as well, but the end result would be the same. The psychology would boil down to, even if it is not outright stated, "They are primitive compared to me, thus I am justified in doing what I want with them because it will ultimately be helpful and good to them in the end - even if they do not see it that way now."
And this is not just true for the United States. It's true for -ALL- nations. I cannot think of a single instance where a more technologically advanced culture has encountered a less technologically advanced culture - and the more primitive culture was not either wiped out or integrated into the new culture. Just ask the Native Americans how awesome it was when Europeans "discovered" the America's and decided to come over to make "friends."
That's the exact mindset the Netherese have when looking at the other cultures of the world. Just substitute technological superiority with magical superiority. Substitute Netheril for European and the rest of Toril as Native American tribes. Then imagine that world through the eye's of a European, and you're more-or-less viewing the world through the eyes of the Netherese.
...The essence of my point was this: The Netherese are not thinking in terms of good and evil. If someone who was good aligned were useful to them, and was willing to provide them assistance, they'd take the assistance and make use of them.
Thing is, people (or nations) who are evil, they rarely think of themselves as evil.
The distinction I am making is important. The creator of this thread wanted to know if Netheril would band together with their former enemies, at least temporarily, to face a much bigger threat. The obvious answer to me is: absolutely.
Any villain worth his salt would do the same, if the benefits for themselves were clear.
My problem with viewing them as merely evil individuals is that it makes them two dimensional.
The Nazi regime was also pragmatic and complex, not "merely" evil, and are only really portayed as simplistic in some fictional works. I certainly don't view them as two-dimensional villains, nor should anyone else. Same goes for the 4E Netherese, the fact that they're complex doesn't negate any of their evil. Just because their motivations are intricate and multidimensional doesn't excuse their long list of atrocities.
They're a highly advanced culture that has returned to their home world to find it ruled by (in their eyes) savages. Imagine if the United States were suddenly whisked away to an alternate dimension. When we returned to planet Earth, instead of finding advanced cultures, something happened while we were gone that threw humanity into a dark age. Every other culture on Earth had the technological equivalence (at best) of the 1300's. What would be our reaction?
This really isn't a good comparison, though. They believe that they're superior and should be the masters of all Faerun, but they're not more advanced technologically or magically.
Do they really have more magic than other big nations? The elves have their own archmages and access to high magic. Silvermoon has archmages. Cormyr has archmages. Waterdeep has archmages. And they pretty much have access to the same power sources and spells.
The difference is that Netheril is willing to commit massive acts of destruction against their neighbors, even genocide, to reach their goals of expansionism and lording over the other cultures. But in terms of raw power, they're not more advanced.
I think an important distinction to make here is the difference between mechanics and lore. Mechanically Netheril doesn't have access to anything special that would totally allow them to dominate the other nations.
Yet, at the same time compare them to something like the Red Wizard's at their Prime. In terms of arcane knowledge and potential is Netheril more advanced than them? Absolutely. What about Halruaa? Absolutely. Halruaa (lore wise) was merely a pale imitation of what Netheril used to be.
The only group that comes close are the Elves, but the truth of the matter is - especially in 4E - they're living off the legacy of their ancestors. The Elves have been in decline since the Crown Wars, and that decline only got worse after the fall of Myth Drannor.
To me at least, when I view things in this context, it is very easy to understand why the Netherese would regard the other nations as primitive.
Comparing Netheril to the Europeans and the other nations to the Native American's is an extreme example but it served to illustrate my point. For a more apt power / development comparison I'd use virtually any highly developed first world nation as Netheril, and then for the other nations I'd use China, Brazil, or India - any other developing nation - as a fair comparison.
There is a strong and clear difference in power. This is why Netheril is a major threat.
Go outside the United States, and the West in particular to a developing nation. Listen to the people there. They'll tell you how they feel that the US and other first world nations (such as the UK or France) "condescend" to them. That they do not feel as if they're treated as equals. Obviously, here in the United States would we consider a nation such as (at random) Russia as our equal? Clearly not. We have more power (in terms of economics and military) and we use it to serve our interests.
Netheril in many ways is similar, though clearly has decided to take a walk on the Dark Side. They do not regard the other nations as their equal, they have more power than them, and will use that power to intimidate them if necessary.
I think one of the issues we're having is how I view alignment. Stigger and I often find disagreement here as well. I'm not a huge fan of the D&D alignment system, because I feel it makes things two dimensional. The world is not black and white, it's filled with complexity and many shades of gray. I tend to put good and evil on absolute extreme ends of the spectrum, making it nearly impossible for a mortal to obtain such an alignment without purposeful dedication. I've always viewed alignment on a bell curve. In the middle was neutrality (the many shades of gray), and on the absolute extremes were good and evil. Such alignments were meant primarily for planar beings such as demons which are chaotic evil incarnated into physical form.
In my mind, a mortal who wanted to be truly evil (beyond redemption) would essentially have to be some type of twisted sociopath. Otherwise, they were just a lighter or darker shade of gray - existing somewhere in the middle.
D&D in my view has always been too quick to label an individual as good or evil when in my mind they were undeserving of such a label (especially good alignment). Being good in my mind, as an example, involves some form of extreme altruism. You must be willing to make a sacrifice for absolutely no reward.
Good Alignment Example 1: The King is dying and needs a magical heart transplant. You know that if he dies the kingdom will be thrust into civil war and thousands of innocent peasants shall die as nobles raise armies and wage a war for the throne. To prevent this you complete a ritual in which you give your heart to the king (ensuring that he will live long enough to produce an heir) but you die as a result.
Good Alignment Example 2: You have virtually no money to your name. As you travel through a crowded street you spot two impoverished children begging for food. They appear to be orphans and are clearly starving - their bones are visible through their skin. You know a friend of a friend within the city who could potentially take in two young children, but would be hard pressed to provide for them. Even so, you decide to give it a shot. Luckily he's willing to take them in and care for them, and so you give him -ALL- of your money and sell your horse so that he can provide a moderately lower class life for them. As a result you now have to travel by foot, go hungry for the next three days, and sleep in ditches along the road as you travel to your destination.
Here are two perfect examples of an individual committing acts of genuine altruism. They are utterly selfless, giving to others even though it means they'd be worse off as a result. They're also extremists. It's not good enough in my mind to be considered "good" for donating to the Church of Ilmater or the Orphanage, or whatever. No. Selfless and altruistic acts gain you absolutely NO reward and should cost you something in return. If you're extremely wealthy giving 1% of your wealth away means nothing. It's even worse if you're giving it away in such a way that provides you with some benefit. Giving to the church raises your standing with the Church. Giving to the Orphans and Beggars raises your standing with the Peasantry.
In short: If you want to do good, your actions must have a direct benefit to others and a strong cost to yourself. You must gain absolutely nothing as a result.
Evil Alignment Example 1: You are the Emperor of an expanding Empire, and your men have brought to you a rebel spy. You have your torturer on hand but after he secures the rebel in his chains ensuring that he cannot escape you dismiss him. The rebel has already spilled his guts. He's told you everything willingly in desperate hope that you'd show mercy. That perhaps you'd just order him executed. No. That's not who you are. You're an arcanist but you've decided that you want to use your hands for this - you like the feeling of flesh as you slowly torture and kill someone. Being close you can almost smell the terror, and their screams are like music to you, all of it is intoxicating. Taking hot coals you burn out his eyes. The hot coals cauterize the wounds ensuring that he doesn't bleed to death. He won't live long enough for infection to set in. You pull out his teeth, fingernails, and burn his flesh with hot irons. Finally, after a couple of hours when he's starting to simply go numb from the pain you castrate him; then move to your throne to watch him slowly bleed to death before your very eyes.
Evil Alignment Example 2: You are a General in charge of the Emperor's army. After having laid siege to a city-state for more than a month their supplies have finally run out. They send word that they're ready to surrender. You accept and they open the gates to allow your men to enter their city. At the center of the city, outside the Mayoral Palace the leaders of the city await your arrival. Once there, you give the signal. Your soldiers butcher the leaders. You've strategically placed troops at every exit point within the city. There is no way out. You have every man, woman, and child butchered. When there is not a single citizen of the city left alive you have the corpses of the children decapitated and their heads dipped in tar to preserve them. The city is then looted completely and burned to the ground. You move forward toward your next city-state. Upon your arrival, like the last city you just conquered, they've been forewarned. The gates are locked. You order your soldiers to place the heads of the children into a catapult. Nailed into the skull of each child is a note which states clearly that they have forty-eight hours to surrender or their children will suffer the same fate.
Here are two perfect examples of individuals committing acts of pure evil. Why are they pure evil? Is it because one tortured an individual and the other butchered an entire city including the children? No. They are evil because their actions were unnecessary. In the first example, the Emperor gained pleasure and enjoyment out of the suffering of the rebel. He already had all the information he needed. He could have simply had the rebel executed, but instead he decided to torture him for his own sadistic enjoyment. In the second example, the General could have allowed everyone to live, requiring only for the leaders of the city-state to bend their knee to his Emperor. Had he allowed them to live he could have used this diplomatically with the next city-state he attempted to conquer. ("If you bend your knee to my Emperor you will be allowed to retain your positions of power - I have proven to be a man of my word.") Instead, he decided to use fear and intimidation. He decided to butcher everyone unnecessarily, likely for his own sadistic enjoyment, much like his Emperor.
In short: Evil, like good, is extreme. An evil individual does not have loyalties, lovers, or friends. They are physically incapable of such emotions because they are sociopaths. They seek only ways to use and destroy people.
I do not like to use good and evil lightly. The Netherese in my mind have indeed done evil things, but they are not utterly depraved sociopaths. They are Machiavellian schemers, who are more advanced and powerful than their neighbors, and aren't afraid to use that power to intimidate and threaten them.
It is virtually impossible to paint an entire nation as either good or evil, because the truth is the vast majority do not exist on the extremes. If they did their nations could not survive.
I know some people use the alignments of good and evil extremely loosely, but I feel that it only cheapens real good and real evil. Greedy merchants and tribal warlords are not, at least in my mind, -TRUE EVIL- individuals simply because one is greedy and the other is warlike.
Personally, I view it as an actual continuum: good does not require total and complete altruism (which is often short-sighted, given that usually such a thing can happen once), and evil does not require definitive sociopathy. And I don't think my view "cheapens" anything. On the contrary, some small acts of good can be more powerful than a "wholly selfless act" depending on the person.
"Real" good and "true" evil only suggest absolutes, which is a very narrow view of something so complex. There are, perhaps, a few acts that are universally evil or good, but it's usually the case that morality flows from culture and society. And not all cultures share the same mores and values.
It's interesting, really. You're giving lip service to the idea of "shades of gray" in alignment, yet you have an extremely impassioned argument for absolutism in good and evil.
I don't believe in absolutes. D&D believes in absolutes. That's my problem with alignment. Certain actions in D&D are defined as evil and good. There is no middle ground.
So yes, I view D&D as having absolute good and evil. However, this is impractical for the most part for PC's and NPC's unless you're dealing with a planar being such as a devil.
As a result, virtually every single mortal NPC created is going to fall somewhere in the vast middle. Neutrality. Some will be lighter shades of gray than others. An insanely small number will be either black or white.
That's how I've made D&D alignment work for me: I've basically eliminated it by making everything neutral.
My problem with alignment is that when you call an NPC evil you've effectively de-humanized that NPC. That's how murder becomes acceptable to humans, through de-humanization of the enemy. (We're good, they're bad, thus we're justified in killing them.)
As a DM it strips away complexity in NPC's. It makes it difficult to see them in a full perspective. Take this mock Netherese Military Commander as an example.
Commander Andros Sadai
Race: Human (Bedine)
Gender: Male
Age: 32
Home Nation: Netheril
Culture: Netherese
Patron Deity: Shar
Career: Military Commander
Core Beliefs: The Empire is the only stable force in this savage world. It must be preserved at all costs.
Shar must be appeased regularly. If I fail to do this, she will turn her gaze upon me, inflicting great loss and hardship. Only through regular appeasement can this be avoided.
I must protect and provide for my family at all costs. I must serve as a role model for my children, and a loving and loyal husband to my wife.
Personality: All know Andros as a man of integrity, always striving to keep his word. He has a stern demeanor and can often be harsh on his subordinates but is not as cruel as some of the other Commanders. This has made him popular among new recruits. When in the field he eats and lives among his soldiers, and is much admired by them. He is intensely devout to Shar, offering regular prayers and offerings. When dealing with potential enemies he is always willing to engage in entreaty with a rival Commander, ensuring his safety while within his camp. Those who have faced him on the battlefield know him to be a skilled and patient strategist and tactician.
Biography: A father of three children (two sons and a daughter), he is both an intensely devoted father and husband. Although his position within the Empire is not very prominent, he is well known in military circles and even once got to meet a Prince of Shade. His father was a soldier who died defending the Empire when Andros was a young age and as a result he was raised predominately by his single mother. Upon maturing he applied to join the military like his father, one of the few careers within the Empire in which an average non-arcanist citizen can rise above their station. Over the course of eighteen years he has managed to rise to the rank of Commander.
Although he's led his troops in multiple campaigns he won distinction in the Battle of Tibar's Gap. In this battle he faced off against a group of anti-Netherese rebels being led by the Dwarven Clan Ozkobar. The Clan had been providing arms, armor, and tactical advice to human rebels coming from the Dalelands. Andros managed (through clever use of scouts and trackers) catch the rebels when they were meeting secretly five miles or so southwest of the tip of the Desertsmouth Mountains (nearly in the Stonelands). Numbering just over a hundred, the rebels quickly attempted to flee as Andros attempted to engage them in a skirmish. Most of them escaped, though Andros made certain to capture the Dwarf among them for information on the hidden location of the Dwarven Clan.
He then divided his troops up into segments, sending one group Northwest along the Desertsmouth Mountains, sending another group Northeast along the Mountains, a third segment Northwest along the other side of the range, and a final segment led by himself heading directly north along the mountains. This ensured that the rebels had only one way to flee: North.
For three days Andros pursued the rebels northward along the Desertsmouth Mountains until nearing Tibar Gap. He then called back his nearest eastern flank to join him in the south. The rebels then did exactly as Andros' planned - they turned east, attempting to flee through Tibar's Gap, back into the safety of the Dalelands. However, they were met with a horrifying surprise. Andros's second eastern flank had traveled the opposite side of the range, and was already waiting for them in Tibar's Gap.
The rebels were trapped within the Gap as Andros' western flank moved to rejoin him and they traveled into the Gap behind the rebels. Unable to flee, those that did not surrender were executed. All told, of the just over one hundred rebels were reduced to just under twenty prisoners of war which were sent back to the Shade Enclave.
During the first brief respite of the three day long pursuit he had taken the time to question the dwarf. The dwarf had been stubborn, and Andros' had been required to torture him (not a business he was particularly fond of – but one he saw as sometimes necessary) for the hidden location of Clan Ozkobar. The Dwarf, the information he had provided, along with the other prisoners were sent back to the Shade Enclave.
A few days later he received word back from a Shade General: Go to Clan Ozkobar and eradicate them. Leave none alive. We will use their deaths as a warning to the other Dwarven Clans. Andros did exactly as he was ordered. He found the Clan remarkably undefended for a dwarven clan, and after a three week siege he was able to slaughter every man, woman, and child within the clan and send word of his success back to the Shade General.
-----
Now some may call this NPC evil. They'd look at his action with the dwarf (torture) and his action with the dwarven clan (genocide / mass murder). Yet, these are only singular events in a much more complex character. He is a fantastic father who has children that admire and adore him. He's a loyal soldier and a good commander. He believes in the cause of the Empire, seeing them as a stable force in a chaotic world. He's admired by his troops. In short, he's complex.
When someone says, "evil" they immediately strip away everything that makes another individual human. They forget that every NPC in the world has or had a family. That the NPC had friends. It makes it easy to kill them without taking the time to understand their world view or their position. If a DM takes this position they create boring and flat NPC's.
Characters should be viewed as a whole. Single actions or events in their lives should not be used to describe them completely. These events and actions merely give a minor insight into who they are - it does not completely comprise them.
Naturally, in Netheril there are many sadistic individuals, but these individuals do not make up the totality of the Empire. Describing an entire nation as evil does the same exact thing. It strips away any complexity the nation might have, and instead focuses on individual acts and deeds.
That is why I prefer to think of the Netherese as amoral and call them mechanically evil. I believe it causes harm for DM's and Player's to take simplistic views of things, when it is necessary to treat them with much more complexity.
As to your example with the character Meldread, I'd disagree on principle, in that some can have a defining moment, where they make a choice that colors and shapes everything that comes afterwards for them. Not everyone has that of course, but in some cases its pretty justified.
Having said that, I do agree that describing an entire nation as evil does it a disservice in a lot of respects, in the real world, but within the context of a game or fiction, its a useful shorthand for what you can expect from these guys. Of course there will be exceptions, but for the sake of the setting, the rule holds most of the time.
As to simplistic versus complexity, that very much depends on one's style... if you're just bashing evildoers and looting their corpses on Saturdays for a laugh, there really doesn't need to be much more complexity than "those guys are fair game 'cuz they're ebil". If you're running a game of politics, then yeah, its bad to just dismiss them as evil and not think on it further, as it very much matters in that instance. The value of complexity is a variable that depends on who's involved. ;)
Having said that, I do agree that describing an entire nation as evil does it a disservice in a lot of respects, in the real world, but within the context of a game or fiction, its a useful shorthand for what you can expect from these guys. Of course there will be exceptions, but for the sake of the setting, the rule holds most of the time.As to simplistic versus complexity, that very much depends on one's style... if you're just bashing evildoers and looting their corpses on Saturdays for a laugh, there really doesn't need to be much more complexity than "those guys are fair game 'cuz they're ebil". If you're running a game of politics, then yeah, its bad to just dismiss them as evil and not think on it further, as it very much matters in that instance. The value of complexity is a variable that depends on who's involved. ;)
Well you and I have gone over good vs evil in D&D in the past. ;)
I'm a story and character driven player / DM. When role-playing, I'm less interested in bashing things head in for fun. It's a large part of the reason I moved away from D&D. After all, if I wanted to kill things I could play a MMORPG or some other type of computer game instead. No prep time, graphics, fast combat, more combat, and I still get to do it with friends. The only thing a CRPG cannot offer - the only thing that makes a traditional tabletop game stand out - is the near-absolute amount of freedom given to the story and character.
Thus, you're exactly right in your last paragraph. If you're HONESTLY viewing another character as evil, why are you really going to dig any further? You're either devaluing the word evil (i.e. applying it too broadly and in a generalized fashion - stripping evil of any real meaning) or you're dealing with a sociopath who is absolutely rotten to the core (in which case why do you bother interacting at all?). To the vast majority of people when you say evil, they dehumanize the individual in their mind, when the truth of the matter is the situation is infinitely more complex.
It's one reason I hate D&D's absolutist alignment. However, I see little way of getting around it with essentially supernatural beings such as demons and devils. Thus, I use alignment to describe them, but rarely would I use it to describe a mortal - in 4E virtually every PC and NPC would be Unaligned. They may lean to one side or another, but they'd lack the mental ability to completely commit - at least without going to some insane extreme (which as a DM might be fun to explore, but as a PC wouldn't really be fun to play for an extended period of time).
I've never viewed D&D alignments as simplistic things, though. They are labels, to be sure, but even in the earliest editions of D&D they were more guidelines than walls. Some DMs and players do stop at the label, and that's good enough for them. But I think it's inappropriate to suggest that anyone, even if they are short-handing, is "devaluing the word evil, applying it too broadly, stripping it of meaning," or alternatively "treating it as two-dimensional and dehumanizing the individual."
That's a lot of assumptions about your fellow players, and honestly it's unfair and unnecessary. Furthermore, it's dismissive and insulting. Because someone goes with a game label and might like to just have a straigntforward gaming session of good v. evil doesn't make that person anything that you're suggesting. Nor does it mean that taking a complex view and having tons of RP makes a player "better" in any way.
D&D game labels are as "absolute" as you want them to be, or as deep and continuous as you want them to be, and they've always been that way. When I see the "evil" label, I only see shorthand. It can be the beginning of peeling back the layers, IF your game that night is the layer-peeling type. The real problem is not in the label but in the way people treat the label. If you're clearly playing a deep RP game and yet decide that you're going to treat the alignment labels as black and white, that's not a problem with the game mechanics but a problem in the application.
One of the most frustrating things to watch is a person who insists on playing (for example) a lawful good paladin as "lawful stupid" and then flatly states "that's what it says in the rules!" But alignment is a descriptor and not a guide, as it only suggests general principles to roughly indicate what team you are playing on. They've never been intended as rigid roles to lock you into playing a single way. You take the label because you fit in with the general description. NPCs have the label to indicate what they are generally like. The label does not determine your personality, or your personal history. DMs and players fill that in with roleplaying. That's why alignments can change both mechanically and in RP: they are not, in fact, absolute and unchanging.
Let's take on the question of whether or not your example military commander is "Evil." Yes, yes he is definitely evil. If you are suggesting that he is not, which I think you are, the old saying "Befehl ist Befehl" (i.e. "orders are orders," or "I was just following orders") comes to mind; it is clearly an ethical mistake to think that this "defense" dismisses his actions when he has a choice. It's a hard choice, but it's a choice. He is still responsible for the atrocities conducted by his hand.
You say that he is a "devoted father and husband," unfailingly loyal to the Empire, a man of his word, and admired and adored by his children. These things, while making him complex, do not in any way wipe away the crimes against other sentient beings / soverign nations that he actively and unflinchingly carries out. Loyalty, and appreciation by one's peers, those are qualities that good people can appreciate, but they are not inherently good in and of themselves. What is he teaching his children, for example, other than "serve without question" and that other sentient beings should be devalued as lesser things that should fall in line or be killed?
You suggest that viewing him as "evil" is dismissive and simplistic, but let's turn this on its head and look at the bigger picture. If every Nazi war criminal who "just followed orders" while commiting atrocities were let off the hook, because you think they didn't have a choice, isn't it really the case that you're devaluing the courage of those Germans who actively made the good choice: those who chose to leave rather than submit, those who fought in the underground, and those who signed up in other countries to stand against them? That military commander, he has a choice... it's just a really difficult one. Most moral questions involve hard choices.
So yes, that military commander is Evil with a capital E. And I'm not just being simplistic for saying so.
You know, I'm a story and character driven D&Der also. Deep, rich campaigns with lots of interweaving storylines, that's what I've loved most about playing and being a DM. But I'm not going to say that's the only way to play, it's certainly not for everyone. I appreciate that a lot of people want to shorthand the RP and just get on with smashing villains. At the end of the day, both types of players are really there to be with their real life friends and have a good time.
Of course it isn't the only way to play. D&D is entirely based around skirmish combat, it's core essence is the dungeon crawl. It's in the name - Dungeon's and Dragons. My point was not that playing D&D in such a fashion was wrong or incorrect. Just that, as a personal preference, if I wanted to have some fun hacking and slashing with friends, that I'd prefer to play a multiplayer CRPG. Why? No prep work is involved, the computer handles the fiddly bits and allows you to focus on killing baddies. Thus, in my view Tabletop RP's greatest strength is in the ability to collaboratively tell a story.
I've never viewed D&D alignments as simplistic things, though. They are labels, to be sure, but even in the earliest editions of D&D they were more guidelines than walls.
This is where we find disagreement. D&D makes it very clear that some actions are intrinsically evil. The very existence of devils, demons, and celestials - which are the pure embodiment of certain alignments - makes this clear as well. D&D relies on absolutist interpretations of alignment. Torture is evil. Murder is evil. Altruism is good. Charity is good. A demon thus is never going to be charitable nor is it going to be altruistic, but it will always take sadistic enjoyment in torture, murder, and ****. A demon is a two-dimensional creature. It's motivations are largely predetermined by its very nature.
How then can a mortal character, who should (rationally) have both good and evil motivations also be evil like a demon? You could argue that there are varying degrees of evil, but then you're argument becomes confusing and muddled. How do you know someone who is a little evil verses someone who is very evil? It becomes an unnecessary point of debate. Thus, I've argued that the vast majority of mortals should be thrown into the neutral / unaligned category. They should not be viewed by the totality of their actions - their complete person - rather than any single action taken individually. When this is done, it usually becomes clear where an individual belongs on the D&D alignment axis.
Some DMs and players do stop at the label, and that's good enough for them. But I think it's inappropriate to suggest that anyone, even if they are short-handing, is "devaluing the word evil, applying it too broadly, stripping it of meaning," or alternatively "treating it as two-dimensional and dehumanizing the individual."That's a lot of assumptions about your fellow players, and honestly it's unfair and unnecessary. Furthermore, it's dismissive and insulting. Because someone goes with a game label and might like to just have a straight forward gaming session of good v. evil doesn't make that person anything that you're suggesting. Nor does it mean that taking a complex view and having tons of RP makes a player "better" in any way.
I don't consider anything I said dismissive or insulting, nor was it intended that way. That being said, I feel that I am absolutely correct in my statement. If you want to "just have a straight forward gaming session of good v. evil" then it can't be denied that you're creating two-dimensional characters. Why care about the reason the orcs are invading nearby villages? They're evil monsters. You're a hero - you're job is to kill them. By the very nature of playing such a game, people -WANT- to strip it of complexity. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but it can't be denied that is exactly what such individuals are doing.
Furthermore, I'd argue that's exactly how D&D was intended to be played. It wasn't made to have complex stories. It was made to kill things and take their loot. Hence why XP is almost entirely gained through combat. Generalizing and hand-waving, "Oh, that person / monster is evil - it's okay to kill it." That mindset is essential in justifying your actions.
There is a reason when you invade the goblin lair you don't see female goblins clutching their crying children as you butcher the males trying to defend their home. It tends to not only be anti-heroic, but also raises important moral questions. On the other hand remember this: Killing goblin babies grants XP too.
D&D game labels are as "absolute" as you want them to be, or as deep and continuous as you want them to be, and they've always been that way. When I see the "evil" label, I only see shorthand. It can be the beginning of peeling back the layers, IF your game that night is the layer-peeling type. The real problem is not in the label but in the way people treat the label. If you're clearly playing a deep RP game and yet decide that you're going to treat the alignment labels as black and white, that's not a problem with the game mechanics but a problem in the application.One of the most frustrating things to watch is a person who insists on playing (for example) a lawful good paladin as "lawful stupid" and then flatly states "that's what it says in the rules!" But alignment is a descriptor and not a guide, as it only suggests general principles to roughly indicate what team you are playing on. They've never been intended as rigid roles to lock you into playing a single way. You take the label because you fit in with the general description. NPCs have the label to indicate what they are generally like. The label does not determine your personality, or your personal history. DMs and players fill that in with roleplaying. That's why alignments can change both mechanically and in RP: they are not, in fact, absolute and unchanging.
You've touched on a number of issues.
First, when a human hears "evil" they immediately (mentally) dehumanize the other individual. Suddenly, things that previously were unjustifiable become justifiable. The entire point is to create "teams" - as you said - to set up an us vs them conflict.
Second, if you have fluid alignments then it devalues the meaning of the words good and evil. What does it mean to have an individual who is evil for part of the campaign to be "redeemed". Then, as the campaign continues to progress this person becomes good and heroic. Then events in the characters life begin to cause him to "slip", and oops - he's evil again, and has to be redeemed once more. It's far better in my view just to throw him in the neutral / unaligned category and keep him there.
If you take someone (such as the guardsman vigilante) who seeks out and murders crime lords without a trial because the judges of a city are corrupt - and he's committed to justice - in my mind, such a character is not evil. His actions are evil, yes. He cannot be good. He's committing murder. Yet, his reasons are noble and his actions are arguably making the city a better place for the law abiding citizens. In his own way, he's an adventurer, protecting people from more cunning "monsters" than just goblins and orcs - one's with human and elven faces.
The same is true for any soldier. As a soldier, in a war, you're job is to kill. Murder is evil. Killing an enemy soldier causes harm to innocent people who may not even be on the battlefield. This ranges from the family that depended on him, to the friends who cared for him, to any potential value he could have added to the world if he had been allowed to live. Even if he has committed numerous evil actions, by killing him you've deprived him of a chance for redemption. Thus, a soldier can never be good, but a soldier is not in and of himself evil for killing people in war.
Let's take on the question of whether or not your example military commander is "Evil." Yes, yes he is definitely evil. If you are suggesting that he is not, which I think you are, the old saying "Befehl ist Befehl" (i.e. "orders are orders," or "I was just following orders") comes to mind; it is clearly an ethical mistake to think that this "defense" dismisses his actions when he has a choice. It's a hard choice, but it's a choice. He is still responsible for the atrocities conducted by his hand.
He is absolutely responsible for the atrocities he's committed. Yet, from his perspective he was defending his nation from hostile aggressors - terrorists. Dwarves that were supplying humans from the Dalelands with weapons, armor, and tactical advice to aid them in attacking and killing Netherese people. It is difficult to say that his actions, in going after both the rebels and the dwarves, were unjustified. Though certainly they were in no way "good." But when can a soldier - whose main job is to commit acts of murder - ever be truly good?
Who was right and who was wrong? Was the Commander wrong for attacking the rebels from the Dalelands who were killing Netherese? Were the rebels right to kill people from Netheril?
You suggest that viewing him as "evil" is dismissive and simplistic, but let's turn this on its head and look at the bigger picture. If every Nazi war criminal who "just followed orders" while commiting atrocities were let off the hook, because you think they didn't have a choice, isn't it really the case that you're devaluing the courage of those Germans who actively made the good choice: those who chose to leave rather than submit, those who fought in the underground, and those who signed up in other countries to stand against them? That military commander, he has a choice... it's just a really difficult one. Most moral questions involve hard choices.
So yes, that military commander is Evil with a capital E. And I'm not just being simplistic for saying so.
I believe viewing the character in such a light is simplistic. His actions, by the estimation of others, are criminal. Let's make no mistake about that. If the Netherese were to be defeated, he would be placed on trial, and likely executed as a result. He isn't meant to be a hero, either. He's just a slightly above average soldier.
Yet, if you were to execute him, you've effectively made yourself no better than he was - you're committing an act of murder. You're causing harm to his innocent family by depriving them of a father and a husband. You're also depriving him of a chance to obtain redemption.
Evil in the mortal world is often in the eye of the beholder. It is relative.
I will make a few very minor modifications to the character and his story. Tell me then if you think the character is evil, even though nothing substantially has changed.
Paladin Andros Sadai
Race: Human (Cormyrian)
Gender: Male
Age: 32
Home Nation: Cormyr
Culture: Cormyrian
Patron Deity: Torm
Career: Purple Dragon Commander
Core Beliefs: Cormyr is the only stable force in this savage world. It must be preserved at all costs.
The teachings of Torm guide my every action. Duty to faith, family, and Cormyr is the stable foundation upon which I've built my life.
I must protect and provide for my family at all costs. I must serve as a role model for my children, and a loving and loyal husband to my wife.
Personality: All know Andros as a man of integrity, always striving to keep his word. He has a stern demeanor and can often be tough on his subordinates but is not as harsh as some of the other Commanders. This has made him popular among new recruits. When in the field he eats and lives among his soldiers, and is much admired by them. He is intensely devout to Torm, offering regular prayers and offerings. When dealing with potential enemies he is always willing to engage in entreaty with a rival Commander, ensuring his safety while within his camp. Those who have faced him on the battlefield know him to be a skilled and patient strategist and tactician.
Biography: A father of three children (two sons and a daughter), he is both an intensely devoted father and husband. Although his position within the Purple Dragons is not very prominent, he is well known in military circles and even once got to meet the King. His father was a Purple Dragon who died defending Cormyr when Andros was a young age and as a result he was raised predominately by his single mother. Upon maturing he applied to join the Purple Dragons like his father, one of the few careers within the Empire in which an average peasant can rise above their station. Over the course of eighteen years he has managed to rise to the rank of Commander.
Although he's led his troops in multiple campaigns he won distinction in the Battle of Tibar's Gap. In this battle he faced off against a group of invading goblins being led by the Blackfist Orc Tribe. The Tribe had been providing arms, armor, and tactical advice to the goblins coming down from the Thunder Peaks. Andros managed (through clever use of scouts and trackers) to catch the goblins when they were meeting secretly five miles or so southwest of the tip of the Thunder Peaks (nearly in the Vast Swamp). Numbering just over a hundred, the goblins quickly attempted to flee as Andros attempted to engage them in a skirmish. Most of them escaped, though Andros made certain to capture the Orc among them for information on the hidden location of the Orc Tribe.
He then divided his troops up into segments, sending one group Northwest along the Thunder Peak Mountains, sending another group Northeast along the Mountains, a third segment Northwest along the other side of the range, and a final segment led by himself heading directly north along the mountains. This ensured that the goblind had only one way to flee: North.
For three days Andros pursued the goblins northward along the Thunder Peak Mountains until nearing Tibar Gap. He then called back his nearest eastern flank to join him in the south. The goblins then did exactly as Andros' planned - they turned east, attempting to flee through Tibar's Gap, back into the safety of the mountains. However, they were met with a horrifying surprise. Andros's second eastern flank had traveled the opposite side of the range, and was already waiting for them in Tibar's Gap.
The goblins were trapped within the Gap as Andros' western flank moved to rejoin him and they traveled into the Gap behind the goblins. Unable to flee, those that did not surrender were executed. All told, of the just over one hundred goblins were reduced to just under twenty prisoners of war which were sent back to Arabel.
During the first brief respite of the three day long pursuit he had taken the time to question the Orc. The Orc had been stubborn, and Andros' had been required to use his divine powers (not something he is particularly fond of – but one he saw as sometimes necessary, he does not like to abuse his abilities) for the hidden location of the Blackfist Tribe. The Orc, the information he had provided, along with the other prisoners were sent back to Arabel.
A few days later he received word back from a Purple Dragon General: Go to the Blackfist Tribe and eradicate them. Leave none alive. We will use their deaths as a warning to the other Orc Tribes in the mountains. Andros did exactly as he was ordered. He found the Tribe remarkably undefended for an Orc Tribe, and after a three week siege he was able to slaughter them all and send word of his success back to the Purple Dragon General.
When I read your posts, a certain historical figure comes to mind, Napoleon I. I've studied the man and the period he lived in for a while now, and I'm simply fascinated by him, not just for his life as a military commander but his life as a statesman, emperor, husband, lover, and revolutionary. He seems to fit into that gray zone, unlike historical figures such as Hitler and Gandhi. Unlike Hitler, whom is overwhelmingly hated by most of the world and seen as a scourge of civilization, there's less consensus on whether Bonaparte was a hero or a tyrant. Some see him as both, some think more in black and white---he was absolutely a hero, he was absolutely a tyrant.
I'm hoping to not start up a completely different argument about Napoleon, and whether he was a bloodthirsty warlord or a political visionary---the thread should stay purely on Netheril (and to a lesser extent, alignment). I just wanted to bring him up because, to me personally, he fits in that catogory of gray---not purely good or evil.
EDIT: Not sure why my text is all in bold and the first two words are up top there. Forum glitch I suppose?
Anyways, reading through the thread I am going to pick up on a few things. "Oh wow, Netheril caused climate change they must be..." Now we have created a justification. How does climate change affect the surroundings kingdoms? Loss of mines and farms. This means a loss of power in the region.
Self-interest is not amoral or immoral. During Forgotten Realms spotty history there have been numerous times when mortal enemies of the alignment divide have banded together against a common foe.
About power. There is naked use of power and the hidden use of power. If Netheril use force and subjugation. How does Waterdeep maintain its power as one of the most powerful city states in Forgotten Realms?
I can twist words with forceful integration. It's not forced, it's civilizing. Netheri are simply civilizing it's poor mistaken neighbours into what true civilization can bring. It's not genocide, it's that they refused to understand that the toys they were playing with could cause them harm. For that reason we will have to safeguard them from themselves. No empire should be afraid of another. Therefore, we are using both diplomatic and covert means on safeguarding ourselves and them from their threat.
While perhaps we cannot condone the group of elves who destroyed the mithal and our hearts go out to the many who died from the magical reaction. We can understand their sentiments of a better future unfettered by the past, for that reason we have generously offered to send supplies and personal to assist in the reconstruction efforts of our elven neighbours.
There is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is done for personal gain. Killing is done on the behest of the interests of the nation. Killing is not an immoral act, but murder is.
Still if you feel squemish with killing that's why you can simply sidestep and use client states. The Zhentarim for example are always looking for suitable backers of materiél and money. You are not evil, if you create the situation where a favourable outcome to you is perpetuated. After all, you were not responsible for any actions outside of your control.
Torture is for personal pleasure, interrogation is the use of many methods, including physical coersion, to extract information from a person of interest.
Making your enemy know the high cost of warfare with you is a way to force peace in a situation where peace can no longer be achieved by diplmatic means. Enemies somtimes first need to learn the hevy hand of the lash before they are willing to accept the gentler hand of the olive branch.
The Netheri are a nation of people and therefore a nation of alignments. The nation is comprised of a magical meritocracy and like any great ship of the fleet a nation needs to have leaders of singular purpose guided by one admiral who is in alignment with its captains. The Netherese as a fleet, ship and nation are simply using their right to manifest destiny.
All words and actions can be twisted to fit what moral alignment you wish. Because you do not want to think about the cost of your own security and lifestyle.
Stigger--back to your hole!!! Back!
Everyone else, put away the f*cking rule books and look at the characters in charge. Evil is completely apparent.
As for Nazi's, they do not compare. Close, but no cigar.
And I don't live in or occupy a hole, I leave that sort of oddball freak behaviour to you and yours.
As to the twisting of words, you're certainly correct that it can be done. That doesn't however change the whole leadership = evil thing we have in print. Certainly anything can be justified with the right words, but going under the presumption that morality and ethics are tangible concepts (in the Realms of course), it doesn't change the underlying alignment of actions or people, no matter how its justified or explained away. That they could convince others of their non-evil is immaterial if the actions are still tangibly evil in a planar sense.
I really dislike the constant comparison of the Netherese to the Nazi's. It's completely ridiculous; in part because it's a cheap attempt to say that all things evil are somehow synonymous with Nazism, and in part because it cheapens what the Nazi's actually did. There have been countless regimes and instances in which mass murder and genocide has taken place. I'm certain everyone can be a bit more creative than running to the old tried and true Nazi comparison.
The Netherese emerged and exist in an entirely different historical and political climate. This makes it very difficult to give a real world comparison, but one of the closest I can imagine are the Spanish Conquistadors.
I would use this comparison for the following reasons:
1. The Netherese have a technological (magical) advantage over the rest of Faerûn.
2. There are heavy cultural factors at play on all sides. Some of which is ethnic and religious.
3. The goal of the Netherese is to conquer the barbarian kingdoms. One of the methods of doing this is to manipulate political situations between the various enemies.
4. If you take the actual Shadovar as the Spanish they are a minority of the native population. Even during the height of the conquest the Spanish population never exceeded 2% of the native population.
5. The Netherese assimilate natives, such as the Bedines and Sembians, to bolster their numbers.
One of the largest differences between the two is that the Spanish conquest of South America was in large part due to the diseases they introduced to the native populations. It caused massive death among the natives, creating higher casualties than all the battles combined.
That being said, it's likely that the Spanish would have still succeeded in the end due to advanced military technology - they had firearms, steel, and horses - though it certainly would have been much more costly.
The motives are also different. The Conquistador's who were lured to South America were primarily soldiers, explorers, and adventurers. The Netherese are motivated by Imperialistic, Nationalist, and Ethnic ambitions.
Taking all of the above into account, the only real world comparison's that can work for the Netherese are of an advanced culture or society suddenly and unexpectedly arriving to encounter a less advanced native population. The more advanced culture then proceeds to conquer the natives lands. The comparison grows even closer when you seek out real world examples in which the more advanced culture assimilates the natives and then uses them against other natives. That is what the Netherese are doing.
You say that the Nazi comparison is "ridiculous" but it's really just about the best real-world comparison one could make for the returned Netherese. Let's go over the similarities again:
- Returned Netheril was initially small, yet motivated by Imperialism and Nationalism, and they are marked by several totalitarian and fascist-like beliefs.
- They believe in their "inherent" superiority over all other nations and races, and have no respect for their "lessers" in any way.
- They are racists, having completely subjugated the Bedine: forced conversion into their society, faith, and ideology simply because they are genetically most like the returned Netherese. Culturally, the Bedine no longer resemble their former selves.
- A segment of the population, the Shadowvar, holds all political and spiritual power over a severely oppressed people.
- An even smaller circle of elite, the princes, command the Shadowvar to do the dirtiest work against their enemies.
- They rule through intimidation, lies, murder, and the re-writing of history in order to suit the goals of the state.
- The state worship of Shar is enforced, other faiths are simply not tolerated at all, and they also follow a somewhat narrow interpretation of Shar's dogma.
- They have invaded and attacked soverign nations without provocation, and have subjugated one entire nation (Sembia) already as a servitor state; fear, murder, and terrorism keep their servitor state peoples "in line" with the floating city of Sakkors.
- They unleashed the Shadowstorm on Faerun, which could have destroyed the entire planet had it not been stopped.
- Before that, they caused massive damage to most surrounding nations after inducing massive climate changes over northern Faerun; they didn't care who they hurt in the process.
- They have no respect for life, other than for those who are genetically Netherese.
- They have committed acts of genocide against the dwarves who (formerly) lived in territories they sought to claim.
- Some of their leaders have a penchant for collecting art and artifacts of not only their "great culture of the ancient past" but also mementos and art of other nations.
- They are a twisted and morally currupt version of a culture that was previously respected for its many accomplishments.
- They feel morally justified for all of the various atrocities they've committed.
Shall I go on? This isn't a "cheap" comparison, it's completely appropriate. It's not perfect, no, but no analogy ever is perfect. But it's a lot better than comparing them to the Conquistadors which is really off the mark.
But the most ridiculous thing is this constant "they're not so bad" stuff, mixed with thoughts that "they're no worse than other nations." The real question here is why you're trying to paint them as non-evil when they're one of the worst that Faerun has seen.
The Conquistadores, really? Come on, that's a comparison that only works (and minimally so) if you restrict it to the relationship between the Netherese and the Bedine.
And the Sembian's. Those are the only two groups they've successfully conquered so far.
But it's a lot better than comparing them to the Conquistadors which is really off the mark.
The Netherese are a magically / technologically superior culture that has encountered less magically technologically advanced cultures. Their appearance was unexpected and sudden. Their actions are hostile to the natives. I believe it aptly describes both the relationship between Netheril and the rest of Faerûn.
- Returned Netheril was initially small, yet motivated by Imperialism and Nationalism, and they are marked by several totalitarian and fascist-like beliefs.
The invading Spanish never exceeded 2% of the population in South America during the height of the conquest. Their conquest was motivated by similar goals. On the flip-side of things, I think you're incorrectly understanding fascism. Nazism, totalitarianism, and fascism are three separate things. Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that seeks to organize a nation's political system and economy around corporations. In a sense it is a form of radical capitalism that embraces collectivism rather than the individualism generally associated with it.
If I had to classify the Netherese form of government I'd call them an Authoritarian Aristocracy. It could be argued, perhaps, that they're Totalitarian instead of merely Authoritarian, but I believe sufficient evidence is lacking to go all the way into that categorization. However, they lean in that direction, most definitely. Netheril is not a free society, but the private lives of its citizens is not wholly under the absolute control of the state. There is still some degree of autonomy in that area. That being said they are definitely an Aristocracy - they are ruled by the Princes of Shade.
- They believe in their "inherent" superiority over all other nations and races, and have no respect for their "lessers" in any way.
This is hard to quantify in terms of the real world. The Shadovar are not human. As a result it could be logically argued that they are in fact superior to humans. This makes the Nazi comparison inapt because they were humans who believed themselves to be superior to other humans. Many Elves - as an example - particularly gold elves, consider themselves superior to humanity. Again, such a thing could be logically argued. By the fact that they are not human it takes things out of the realm of subjective opinion and into the realm of something that can be measured and quantified. It would be as if we encountered an advanced alien species who were vastly more intelligent than us. Would that make them superior to us? Well that depends on whether or not you consider intelligence a mark of superiority. It could certainly be argued, however, that intelligence is what separates us from other apes. Then by virtue of us considering ourselves superior to other apes, the advanced aliens - be they Elves or Shadovar - could easily be justified in feeling the same about us.
- They are racists, having completely subjugated the Bedine: forced conversion into their society, faith, and ideology simply because they are genetically most like the returned Netherese. Culturally, the Bedine no longer resemble their former selves.
I fail to see how this is all that different than what the Spanish Conquistador's did. They subjugated the natives of South America, forced them to convert to Christianity, and destroyed their culture and society. In the process of doing this roughly 80% of the native population of South America was decimated as a result of war and diseases brought from Europe.
- A segment of the population, the Shadowvar, holds all political and spiritual power over a severely oppressed people.
...and the Spanish were living in a thriving democracy? They were ruled by aristocratic nobility and the seat of spiritual authority was the Pope in Rome.
- They rule through intimidation, lies, murder, and the re-writing of history in order to suit the goals of the state.
All of which the Spanish Conquistador's did, save the re-writing of history. They just obliterated entire cultures and societies that they saw as pagan, causing much of the history to be lost. I'm not sure which is worse: re-writing history to suit your needs or eliminating it entirely.
- The state worship of Shar is enforced, other faiths are simply not tolerated at all, and they also follow a somewhat narrow interpretation of Shar's dogma.
For the Spanish, they called it Catholicism. I'm assuming you're not saying that the native South American's religion was tolerated? I can assure you that wasn't the case. Converting "pagan savages" was one of the primary goals of many Conquistador's.
- They have invaded and attacked soverign nations without provocation, and have subjugated one entire nation (Sembia) already as a servitor state; fear, murder, and terrorism keep their servitor state peoples "in line" with the floating city of Sakkors.
I wonder how the Incan's and Aztec's feel about those remarks. I'm pretty sure they would have considered themselves sovereign nations who were invaded without provocation, and subjugated by foreigners.
- They unleashed the Shadowstorm on Faerun, which could have destroyed the entire planet had it not been stopped.
Nothing comparable has happened in the real world. So the comparison to Nazism fails in this regard.
- Before that, they caused massive damage to most surrounding nations after inducing massive climate changes over northern Faerun; they didn't care who they hurt in the process.
Again, comparison to the Nazi's fail here again. The closest thing in the real world is modern day climate change, but that is self-inflicted and the Nazi's have nothing to do with it.
- They have no respect for life, other than for those who are genetically Netherese.
Some segments of Sembia seem to be rather well off, despite not being genetically Netherese.
- They have committed acts of genocide against the dwarves who (formerly) lived in territories they sought to claim.
The Conquistador's committed acts of mass murder against the native populations of South America. I'd say the Conquistador example is rather strong in this regard.
- Some of their leaders have a penchant for collecting art and artifacts of not only their "great culture of the ancient past" but also mementos and art of other nations.
I wasn't aware that Nazi's had a strong penchant for collecting magical artifacts from their former fallen empire. 
I'd say the comparison fails because there is no real world parallel.
- They are a twisted and morally currupt version of a culture that was previously respected for its many accomplishments.
You act as if the fallen Netherese Empire was somehow a beacon for good and justice. They weren't. Just ask all the Rock Gnomes the Netherese enslaved. It could easily be argued that the only difference between those who left and those who still survived upon their return is that the "evil" they display is more naked and open than it was previously. Not that it is new.
- They feel morally justified for all of the various atrocities they've committed.
So have countless others throughout history. It is hardly unique to either the Netherese nor the Nazi's.
Shall I go on? This isn't a "cheap" comparison, it's completely appropriate.
Going on is not necessary, because it won't change my mind. I see it as a cheap comparison because people too often use Nazi as a synonym for evil. I find it cheap because doing that glosses over and simplifies what the Nazi's actually did - it's far better to actually document and quantify the atrocities than simply to hand wave them away with a single word.
In many ways, that's exactly what you're doing with the Netherese. Rather than looking at each individual atrocity they commit, examining each participant individually, and looking at their mindset, society, and culture as a whole... it simplifies them. It cheapens them. It strips away their complexity.
This is not a debate over whether or not the Netherese are evil in D&D terms. That is an objective fact. The debate here, from my perspective, is whether or not calling the Netherese evil cheapens and simplifies them.
My problem with evil in D&D stems from the logical problems it creates in the mortal world. It's fine among the planes where you can say - yes Devils are always Evil, and Angels are always Good. In the mortal world, however... Well, look at it this way.
If the Netherese, Orcs, or Goblins - or any other species or group - are inherently evil, why not just kill them all? Especially the children. If an Orc is inherently an evil monster, then it should be killed. Evil is bad - period. It's not subjective in D&D - evil is a real and tangible thing.
This, obviously, leads to genocide. Which morally speaking - in the real world - we'd consider evil. Yet, in D&D based upon alignment is wholly justifiable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone smashing an orc baby against the rocks. It's going to grow up to be a monster. It's going to kill people. It's effectively no different than if you had encountered some form of demonic larvae.
The only way to avoid that situation and logic is to cheapen evil. Water it down. Claim that there are degrees of evil. If that becomes the case, what is the point of calling something evil at all?
In -MY- alignment system such a thing would just be some form of dark gray neutrality. It's not evil, but it's definitely not good - in fact, it's openly bad. I save 'evil' for things that are truly repulsive and vile, deserving of the word, things that you -SHOULD- destroy the moment you locate it.
By calling the Netherese evil it leads to threads like this one, in which the original poster wanted to know if it was even possible that the Netherese would forge alliances with outsiders due to the fact that they are "evil". Of course they would, but the fact that they were called "evil" made the question necessary. If they were viewed merely as some form of dark gray neutrality, then the question shifts away from morality and toward what such an alliance would look like, how it might form, and whether or not the Netherese could be trusted, etc.
In any event this discussion is merely repeating itself over and over again. I've already been over all of this in previous posts. I don't suspect that I'm going to change anyones mind, so we're merely going to have to agree that you're all wrong. 
Going on is not necessary, because it won't change my mind.
Agreed, on this at least.
But as was said, its probably best just to drop the issue and agree that, once again, its you that's wrong Meldread.
Nazis = evil = Netherese, but then again postman = evil = cthulhu.
In short the comparisons are naïve.
I see the Netherese as an imperial and colonial and expansionist power. Therefore if you wish to make such a crude comparison then we have look at American imperialism or British colonialism.
However, both of those are not traditionally considered evil by the West.
Evil assumes a comparison. So Netherese are evil - compared to what?
That's a good point Chrysalis. The same question could be posed for Thay, Sembia (now under Netherese rule), and Amn (with the rise of Cyric worship there).
One of the problems I have with labeling individuals as 'evil' - it denies them any possibility of redemption. I like to think of actions as either right or wrong, and while you can certainly judge an individual by their actions, an individual is not solely their actions. Simply looking at actions alone ignores intent, culture, ignorance, and all other things that influence an individuals actions.
In effect, labeling someone evil creates the same exact mindset that the Nazi's preyed upon to conduct their atrocities. When you label someone as evil, you're effectively justified in causing them harm and suffering. This becomes magnified when you label an entire race, ethnic group, or nation as evil.
If they are evil you're justified in killing them. You're justified in taking whatever extreme measures necessary to remove them because they are an active blight upon the living. The world is a better place with them dead.
You wouldn't hesitate in killing a devil, demon, or some evil undead abomination. Why would you hesitate to kill an evil individual - they are effectively monsters.
This leads down a dark path - the same path that justified thousands of atrocities in the real world - the same path that made it acceptable to so many to kill millions in concentration camps.
When you label an individual as evil, rather than their actions, you deny them the possibility of redemption. How can you be redeemed if you are evil? If you're evil you've gone beyond the moral event horizon - you're a sadistic monster.
This is not to say that an individual who commits evil actions can easily absolve themselves through some form of repentance. No. An individual is still responsible for their actions, and thus must face justice (ideally justice that is fair). After they've faced justice only then should they be allowed to absolve themselves through some form of repentance - likely by attempting to make whole those they harmed.