| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 06 Jun 2011 : 10:50:08
The Bury Elminster Deep sample chapter was posted on the WotC site this morning.
Very interesting... |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Jun 2011 : 04:53:45
-Nice. We've got a Mill's Utilitarian ethics versus Kantian ethics debate going.  |
| Saer Cormaeril |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 22:02:15
I'd like to hear a priest of Torm or Helm's defense of "The Problem of Evil"!
(So would Dove, a Knight of Myth Drannor, as an agent of Mystra, describe her as NG? I bet it probably went down like this....)
Act II Scene 3
The Old Skull Inn, Shadowdale
Adventurer whose Breeches sag due to lack of fit and heavy baldric enters the bar.
Saggy Breeches: "What 'lo, and 'ere, sits yon maiden with the Silver-hair!"
Dove Falconhand: "Good'saer nae molest'est I, fore' quaf I much of finest rye..."
Saggy Breeches: "A pardon, yea', and then a compliment! My lady what, 'tis your alignment?" |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 21:26:04
This was posted today by THO from Ed over in his official Q&A thread. I am copying it here because it directly relates to the discussion we're having.
quote:
Hi again, all.
Arcanus, you're very welcome. Ed sees Mystra, on balance, as neutral, as follows (here follow the words of Ed himself):
Mystra doesn't seek to shut out or favour entire races or kingdoms or regions or particular power groups in their access to ever-greater magic. She doesn't "play favourites." (Those who protest that the Chosen are her favourites have missed the point: they are her AGENTS rather than a "side" among conflicting mortal power groups.)
Mystra does tend to foment rivalries between ambitious or evil mages, because it causes them to work harder at the creative side of magic, and she does tend to more freely disseminate magic among good-aligned casters who cooperate with others (because they will tend to spread magic more swiftly and freely).
Mystra wants all races using more and more magic; to her, this is a desirable goal. So is peace, purely because it causes the deaths of fewer magic-using creatures than war. (Others may see these as "good" goals and they may well be...or may not. Even a kind, benevolent Mystra may be weakening or even dooming races by causing them to rely increasingly on magic and not, say, their thews. Only time will tell.
It is tempting for a given mortal (both beings in the Realms and scribes here at the Keep) to view individual acts of Mystra in the light of their own personal definitions of good or evil and try to label Mystra in terms of alignment (or say that she's mislabeled in her official alignments, or defies the alignment system). However, this is short-sighted; her impact and pattern of activity can only be viewed over the long run, and HER OWN view of what she's trying to do is even-handed and neutral (and alignment is a description of a particular being's world-view and approach to life, the reasons behind a pattern of acts rather than a list of "dos" and "don'ts". . . at least it was according to Gary Gygax, who created alignment as part of the D&D game, because he and I and some other 'old hand" grognards had a long discussion about this, years and years ago).
If I was a Knight of Myth Drannor, I would probably describe Mystra as "neutral with good tendencies" - - but if I was a Zhentarim, I'd probably say she was "neutral tempered with ruthless dislike of some," and if I was a priest of Torm or Helm, I'd say she was "neutral; for if she favoured good, she'd not have suffered the Zhents or Red Wizards to flourish as they did; and if she favoured evil, competing renegade magelords would rule most of the Realms, mustering dragons and worse as allies in an endless struggle to rule us all."
Mortals seeking to judge a particular divine act as "in character" or "right" for a deity are playing themselves for fools from the start, because it's very rare (to unheard of) for any mortal to understand the deity, the various motivations and factors weighing into the deity's decisions, and the situation in which the act is being performed sufficiently well to properly judge the act. Or to put it more simply, "most gods are beyond the understanding of most mortals, almost all of the time." (Which is why, after all, some mortals suffer others to carry on careers as priests.)
So saith Ed. Who has thought through all this stuff, back in the 1970s if not earlier. Controversies rise and rage anew about godly alignments and such with each new generation of gamers...but that doesn't mean all of this hasn't been thought about before.
love to all,
THO
|
| Aldrick |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 21:15:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Alignment is all about intent. Actions express alignment, but are not aligned themselves.
I more or less agree with this entirely. Where there is disagreement (perhaps mostly semantical?) is this part of the statement, "[actions] are not aligned themselves."
There are most definitely definitive examples of good and evil acts. I don't believe you would dispute this. Rape, torture, murder (for fun) - these are actions you'd consider evil, correct? Likewise, someone heroically sacrificing their lives to save someone else would be something you'd consider a good action, correct?
These actions are extreme, yes. There are many lesser evil and good acts that one can preform. However, those acts - in and of themselves - are still good or evil actions.
This is not an area in which we disagree, is it?
If we can agree on this, why then would the same not be true for lawful and chaotic acts? Surely we can both agree that stealing is a chaotic act, and that sticking to a personal philosophy or code is a lawful act. Why then, would there not be lesser degrees of lawfulness or chaotic-ness?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Nope. If I want to control something to keep it all to myself, and to keep anyone else from benefitting from it, and if it's against the laws of my society, then how is it lawful?
Motivation and intent, as you point out, are critical when it comes to considering ones alignment. In your example, simply basing things off your example and going by alignment as normally portrayed in D&D, I'd imagine such an individual you describe perhaps either holds a neutral evil or chaotic evil alignment.
They're seeking to control something for purely selfish reasons related to personal gain. Their actions are (most likely) causing harm to society as a whole. They are also breaking the law (a decided chaotic act). So, at best - if one wanted to be precise - the act of seeking to control something is a lawful act, but the breaking of the law is a chaotic act. Therefore, it ends up being a wash.
I am not saying that seeking to control something, even overtly seeking to control something through aggressive means will make an individual lawful. To paraphrase the d20 SRD; "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies ... It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
Defining where an individual fits on the alignment spectrum in regard to being lawful or chaotic and good or evil, depends entirely on what a character consistently does (and why) over an extended period of time - taken as a whole.
In D&D it is rare that a single deed is going to swing someones alignment. A Lawful Good Cleric of Lathander who murders an abusive and tyrannical lord that serves a devil has broken the law, and committed a chaotic act, but this single act is not enough to swing him away from being either lawful or good. (Murdering the lord is a chaotic act, stopping someone abusing people who also serves a devil is a good act.)
However, if that same Lawful Good Cleric of Lathander decides to create a crusade, a popular uprising against all nobility, and consistently seeks out and slays nobles who abuse their charges... then their lawful alignment is placed in jeopardy. Depending on the context of their other actions, they may become either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.
In the end though, it is the consistency of their actions (and motivations) over a period of time that matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You cite slavery as being lawful... But in many cases, slaves are taken against their will, and often against the laws of their parent society. So how is that a lawful act?
Creating customs / laws regarding slavery is indeed a lawful act. You are correct in stating that kidnapping slaves from their parent nation / tribe / whatever, and violating those laws is a chaotic act.
However, that single chaotic act is small when compared to the larger picture of what is taking place. It's the rough equivalent of breaking an entering into someones home to obtain evidence of the evil and criminal wrongdoings. Most definitely a chaotic act, but done so in order to uphold the law. It is also a "small" chaotic act, whereas attempting to uphold the law (even when you're ironically breaking it yourself) is an larger lawful act.
Likewise, attempting to uphold a custom or tradition of slavery is a greater lawful act than merely capturing the slaves themselves. Furthermore, slaves don't have to be captured by the slave-holders, they can be purchased from third parties.
Where I think we may run into disagreement - lawfulness does not take into account free will. Freedom may be important to many people who are lawful, and certainly many people would view any form of slavery as evil. However, the point remains that chaotic alignment is the side of freedom where as lawful alignment is the side of restricted freedom. What exists there is merely a matter of degree. (And because of this a single action should not be taken into account when judging someones alignment - it is judged based upon the consistency of their actions over a given period of time.)
To give my example of Mulhorand the proper context, it's important to understand that Mulhorand does not practice chattel slavery. There are laws that protect slaves, perhaps even more so than peasants in some city states and nations.
All slaves are owned by the Mulhorandi Temples, and are rented out to those who can afford them. It should be pointed out that virtually every Mulhorandi deity is of good alignment. The cult of Horus-Re is the de facto leader of the nation, which - being a lawful good cult - has Paladins. The nation of Mulhorand itself is led by a Paladin.
The nation is unpopular in some areas of the west due to the fact that they hold slaves, but their slavery is not cruel or barbaric. It is, what I would define as, a caste or class type of slavery. You lack true freedom, but you are still protected by the laws of the land, and to a large degree are treated fairly well. In other words, this is nothing like the slavery that you'd see in neighboring Thay.
In many ways, slavery in Mulhorand is the rough equivalent of being surf in a feudal society (with a great deal more benevolence involved). There is even upward mobility among slaves, with the possibility of a well educated slave ascending to the status of Bureaucrat. Such a status could potentially give you more power and influence than even someone who is technically and legally free.
However, slavery does not cease being slavery simply because it happens to be a more benevolent form. You are still owned by someone or something else. You may have a great deal of freedom, but there is a difference between being allowed freedom and having actual freedom. That is where the lawful and chaotic axis comes into play.
The good and evil axis comes into play in regard to how slaves are treated.
You may proclaim that denial of someones free will is an evil act. Yet, in the end, how is it any different than any law any government would put into place? For example, if a government were to tell you - as happens in the real world - that you may not ingest certain substances (such as drugs), is that an evil or a lawful act? The government or individual asserting such things is proclaiming that they have some sort of ownership over your body. Therefore, they have a right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body. If you were truly free, and truly owned yourself, then no one could tell you what to do with your body.
This is what Mulhorandi slavery is like, though it has more feudalistic echoes.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You quote my example of the little old lady and the piano... Regardless of my intentions, if the little old lady wants to cross the street and I help her, it's not an evil act. The act itself was what she wanted. If I do it to see her get squished, my intentions were evil, but the act itself was still what she wanted.
Spin the same thing slightly differently: if the piano fell on her, and neither of us knew it was going to happen, my intentions were still good. But does it have any bearing on the act itself? No, none at all.
Yes, but as you established early on - and we seem to agree on - intention / motivation is what determines whether something is good or evil. If you KNEW the old lady would get flattened by the piano, and helped her across the street specifically so she'd get flattened then your motivation / intention was most definitely evil.
If you were walking the old lady across the street out of the kindness of your heart, and she happened to get flattened by the piano by accident (you didn't know it would hit her), then quite obviously it is not an evil act. Your intention / motivation for doing what you did was noble and good. That does not change simply because the outcome was bad and unintended.
You can commit good actions and have bad consequences. It happens all the time. As the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." It's no less true in D&D. 
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Most actions are purely neutral -- just like most energy, like fire or magic, or like knowledge. Or even materials, such as steel. It's the motivation behind how it's used that is important.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying all actions correlate to an alignment. That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying many actions correlate to an alignment.
Regardless, we may be missing the forest for the trees here.
Would you disagree with this assessment: Good aligned individuals could have easy and clear motivations to withhold the distribution and spread of magical knowledge. It could range from seeking to suppress the use of obviously evil / corruptive magics, all the way to seeking to restrict knowledge to magic that could cause a great deal of harm and devastation to many innocent people.
Doing these things are, in my view (depending on motivation), inherently good aligned actions. Good aligned individuals should not be spreading magic that corrupts or steals souls from individuals. They should not be spreading magic that could obviously be used to harm innocent people. They should not be spreading around the knowledge of how to cast meteor swarm, as such magic is dangerous in the wrong hands. They may give such knowledge to those that they know can be implicitly trusted, but they're not going to carelessly spread it around.
My objection, and the reason we find ourselves discussing alignment now, is that it is a misconception that only evil aligned individuals seek to control or suppress magic. The motivation and desire to suppress or control magic exists for many people of any alignment - alignments that range from lawful good to chaotic evil. |
| Saer Cormaeril |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 19:46:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Nope. If I want to control something to keep it all to myself, and to keep anyone else from benefitting from it, and if it's against the laws of my society, then how is it lawful?
You cite slavery as being lawful... But in many cases, slaves are taken against their will, and often against the laws of their parent society. So how is that a lawful act?
You're mostly tracking with my own look at alignment, except for the single point that acts (at least, most of them) do not have an alignment.
You quote my example of the little old lady and the piano... Regardless of my intentions, if the little old lady wants to cross the street and I help her, it's not an evil act. The act itself was what she wanted. If I do it to see her get squished, my intentions were evil, but the act itself was still what she wanted.
Spin the same thing slightly differently: if the piano fell on her, and neither of us knew it was going to happen, my intentions were still good. But does it have any bearing on the act itself? No, none at all.
Most actions are purely neutral -- just like most energy, like fire or magic, or like knowledge. Or even materials, such as steel. It's the motivation behind how it's used that is important.
Alignment is all about intent. Actions express alignment, but are not aligned themselves.
Wooley, if one were to eat a human infant with the intent to use that sustenance there gained to go hunting for food for ones village, is that act evil? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 19:42:36
Nope. If I want to control something to keep it all to myself, and to keep anyone else from benefitting from it, and if it's against the laws of my society, then how is it lawful?
You cite slavery as being lawful... But in many cases, slaves are taken against their will, and often against the laws of their parent society. So how is that a lawful act?
You're mostly tracking with my own look at alignment, except for the single point that acts (at least, most of them) do not have an alignment.
You quote my example of the little old lady and the piano... Regardless of my intentions, if the little old lady wants to cross the street and I help her, it's not an evil act. The act itself was what she wanted. If I do it to see her get squished, my intentions were evil, but the act itself was still what she wanted.
Spin the same thing slightly differently: if the piano fell on her, and neither of us knew it was going to happen, my intentions were still good. But does it have any bearing on the act itself? No, none at all.
Most actions are purely neutral -- just like most energy, like fire or magic, or like knowledge. Or even materials, such as steel. It's the motivation behind how it's used that is important.
Alignment is all about intent. Actions express alignment, but are not aligned themselves. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 17:17:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Someone seeking to control something could be doing it simply to keep it from being used against him, or to increase his own wealth, even at the cost of others.
Absolutely. We're in agreement here, that is one reason to control something. However, it is not the only reason to seek to control something. There are many different reasons, and those reasons are in part influenced by whether the individual is good or evil.
A good aligned individual shouldn't seek to control something that increases their power at the expense of others. If you're harming others - intentionally - for selfish reasons, that's not a good aligned act.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I could help a little old lady cross the street out of the kindness of my heart. Or I could help that little old lady cross the street because I know that will it put her under a falling piano, and I want to see her get squished. Same action, entirely different motivations -- proving that the action itself is unaligned.
If you're helping a little old lady cross the street specifically to put her in the way of a falling piano, the act itself is evil because the motivation is evil. (You're seeking to harm or kill her.) However, if you're helping her across the street out of the kindness of your heart, and a piano happens to fall on her as a result of your actions - does it change your motivation? No. Your intentions were still noble and good.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
An easy trap to fall into when thinking of alignment is to say that a particular act is inherently aligned. It's the motivation behind the act that would be aligned -- not the act itself.
I agree with half of your statement. I agree that the motivations behind the act are what determines whether something is good or evil, not the act itself. Yet, I disagree that particular actions cannot fall into an alignment classification.
Certainly, you're not going to say that raping someone isn't an evil act. Of course it is! If you rape just one person, a single time, does it make it any less evil? No.
Likewise, you're not going to say that giving a large portion of your wealth to help the needy anonymously (so that you receive no benefit at all) - out of the kindness of your heart, acting in complete selflessness - isn't a good aligned act. Of course it is.
However, I think you are attempting to view lawful and chaotic actions on the same axis as good and evil acts. These are two SEPARATE axises, which, while they influence each other greatly, are also independent.
Many things fall upon the alignment scales - both small and large. Yes, motivation is critical to alignment. To use your example, if you help a little old lady cross the street out of the kindness of your heart, and a piano falls on her afterward - then does that negate your kind and generous act / intentions (assuming you didn't know it would happen)? Of course not. Your actions were still motivated by kindness.
Alignment is determined, not by a single action, but how you act consistently over a given time period. If you are consistently performing selfless and kind deeds over an extended period of time, then you're alignment is going to become good. Yet, at the same time, committing a genuinely selfless act of goodness does not inherently negate all the other evil you perform.
To use your example again... let us say that an evil individual - who kidnaps, rapes, tortures, and then murders people (think sadistic serial killer) - helps a little old lady cross the street. This individual has a softness in his heart for helpless old ladies because they remind him of his mother. He performs a single and genuinely good act - selflessly helping a little old lady - that act alone does not negate everything else he has done. This does not change the serial killers alignment, but this one act is - in and of itself - still a good act.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Motivations for controlling something may be related to something lawful, but it could just as readily be something entirely personal and self-centered -- which is not lawful, as far as alignment is concerned.
I think the issue we're having is that I view alignment existing on two separate axises. You have the good - evil axis, and then you have the law - chaos axis. These two axises are independent of each other, but they do influence each other greatly.
There is a reason, for example, the Blood War happened. Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are not the same types of evil - they hold different sets of values. It is equally true for Lawful Good and Chaotic Good. They may not be provoked into harming each other (because harming each other over differences of opinion isn't really good - is it? ), but that doesn't mean they inherently agree with each other on HOW good is best achieved.
A person with a lawful good alignment believes, and this is a generalization as all alignment is in D&D, that good is best achieved through keeping your word, maintaining order, fostering strong governments which act benevolently, acting with honor and integrity, etc. Yet, the downside of such a view is that they're often close-minded to new ideas, beholden to tradition, judgmental of others, and in general lack adaptability.
A person with a chaotic good alignment, and again this is a generalization, believes that good is best achieved through personal freedom. They oppose rigidity, close-mindedness, are open to new ideas, are willing to break with tradition, are highly adaptable, and open minded when dealing with others. Yet, they too have downsides. They can be reckless, resent authority figures, often act with irresponsibility, and act in a way that is - well - chaotic. They tend to follow their own personal moral compass, and while that compass clearly points toward good, it may work against order, tradition, and society as a whole.
Both of these individuals are good, but their "brand" of goodness is influenced in a direct way by whether they are lawful or chaotic, and they often find themselves at odds as a result. They may both agree on what is "good", but disagree on how to achieve that goodness.
To give an example, let us say that there is a city-state led by a lawful good individual. There is a newly forged orc kingdom to their north. That orc kingdom seeks to change their brutal and barbaric ways, and seek to emulate the city state through forging a government, establishing trade instead of raiding and pillaging, etc.
But they are still orcs. People know and remember what orcs have done - they've harmed the city state in the past. Yet, the lawful good individual is intrigued, and likes the fact that the orcs are changing their ways. He hopes to help them, and perhaps - someday - get them to abandon their evil gods to worship his goodly gods. Regardless, peace is at hand. Only good could come from working with the orcs, to help them abandon their old and evil ways.
So this leader opens trade relations with the orcs. He invites emissaries from the newly forged kingdom to his castle. He gives encouragement and advise. He befriends them and attempts to - gently but firmly - nudge their kingdom toward lawful goodness (a strong and benevolent government).
However, the people protest. "These are ORCS! They are savage monsters that could never hope to be civilized!" They cry and protest in the streets. Individuals within the city state begin promoting hate speech against the orcs, encouraging violence... unsavory and evil elements seek an opportunity to weaken their lawful good leader and so spread hatred and fear of the orcs, along with a large helping of lies.
What does the lawful leader do? He attempts to shut down such hate speech. He imprisons those who encourage violence against innocent people. Freedom of speech may exist, but it does not extend to vile and hateful speech. People may be free to protest, to a degree, but there would be limitations as to what would be allowed. Maintaining order is important.
What would a chaotic good leader do? He would not shut down such hate speech. Individuals would be free to express themselves, but the leader would see it as an opportunity to counter such public objections to his actions. People would be free to protest to a much larger degree, provided those protests are not causing harm to others. The chaotic good leader would feel that if he attempted to oppress such speech, that it would merely force malcontents underground. Without the ability to express themselves in words, they may turn to other, more dangerous means of self-expression. Maintaining freedom is important, even if it means you're confronted with things you'd normally be opposed too.
Both the lawful good and chaotic good leaders would agree on what constitutes "good", but disagree on how best to handle particular situations. To the lawful good individual, maintaining order is more important than personal freedom. To the chaotic good individual, maintaining freedom is more important than order.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Controlling something has nothing to do with alignment.
Let me give you an actual example in the Realms. As you're probably aware, Mulhorand was ruled by a Paladin and led by the cult of Horus-Re which favored the lawful good alignment.
Yet, the church itself and the nation practiced slavery. Now, when we think of slavery, we immediately think of chattel slavery - people treated worse than animals, etc. However, this need not always be the case.
How is it that a nation ruled by a Paladin and a cult that favored lawful good able to keep slaves - depriving people of their freedom?! Simple.
Slavery in and of itself - the denial of freedom - is a lawful act. How you treat the slaves determines whether that act is good or evil. Chattel slavery is evil because it abuses, harms, mutilates, and ultimately condemns the slaves to horrible fates. This is what existed in Thay.
Mulhorand treated their slaves with kindness. Slavery was, in a sense, a different class of citizenship. You had a master, were denied personal freedom, but there were laws that protected you and determined how you could be treated. Beating your slave would be viewed as inhumane treatment, the same way we'd view beating a beloved pet.
Slaves in Mulhorand may have lived better than some peasants in Cormyr. Especially if they served wealthy patrons.
Years ago I was motivated to write about the different types of slavery that could exist in D&D. I was motivated to do so by Mulhorand.
In the end, as I've said - slavery is merely a denial of freedom. An act of lawfulness (albeit extreme lawfulness - but lawful nonetheless). How you treat the slaves determines whether or not the action is good or evil.
Likewise, seeking to control something is a lawful act. How and why you seek to control that something determines whether that method of control is good or evil. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 15:21:37
Controlling something has nothing to do with alignment. Someone seeking to control something could be doing it simply to keep it from being used against him, or to increase his own wealth, even at the cost of others.
Motivations for controlling something may be related to something lawful, but it could just as readily be something entirely personal and self-centered -- which is not lawful, as far as alignment is concerned.
An easy trap to fall into when thinking of alignment is to say that a particular act is inherently aligned. It's the motivation behind the act that would be aligned -- not the act itself.
I could help a little old lady cross the street out of the kindness of my heart. Or I could help that little old lady cross the street because I know that will it put her under a falling piano, and I want to see her get squished. Same action, entirely different motivations -- proving that the action itself is unaligned. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 09:27:08
I hate to get into an alignment debate... but...
Alignment is always about the individual. A lawful alignment helps explain how an individual feels about the group, not to what type of group they belong. An individual who favors lawfulness prefers society / organizations / nations to adhere to tradition, obey authority figures (or if the nation / organization lacks such - prefers to see them put into place), keep their word, be dependable / reliable, and of course be of an orderly nature.
A lawful good individual believes that 'good' can be best accomplished through promoting an orderly society, keeping your word, maintaining the rule of law (if that law is just), and punishing those who go against such things.
A chaotic good individual believes that 'good' can be best accomplished through promoting personal freedom and self-expression.
However, I want to be clear about something: You do not have to be of a lawful alignment to seek to control anything. Controlling something is indeed a lawful act. The individual may or may not seek to establish laws that promote that control. However, they themselves may personally act as ... let's call them 'moral guardians'.
It is perfectly logical for someone of -ANY- good alignment to say: "This spell / tome is very dangerous. If it falls into the wrong hands it can be used to cause untold harm to innocent individuals. I should keep it locked away in my tower, to prevent such a thing from happening."
This is a wholly logical thing for anyone of a good - even neutral, perhaps even evil - alignment to do. The act of restricting access is a lawful act, but that does not mean they instantly shift alignment - one act alone does not shift alignment, especially a rather minor act such as this.
A good aligned wizard who serves Kelemvor or Lathander isn't going to go around spreading magic that animates / controls / benefits the Undead. They are opposed to the undead, and as such would seek to curtail knowledge that could make something they're fighting worse. Likewise, most good aligned individuals (and I would even argue - spreading such knowledge puts good individuals in jeopardy of an alignment shift) are not going to spread magic that is inherently evil by its very nature. They just won't - it's morally / ethically wrong.
Mystra, while she has a preference as to what type of magic is spread (as such preference is directly beneficial to her), still seeks for all - or at least most (magic that could harm magic or the Weave itself being an exception to this general guideline), magic to be spread freely. She disfavors control of magic - even inherently evil magic, or magic that is objectionable to most individuals. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 06:35:03
Sorry, I'm not buying the whole "good mages spread magic, evil mages don't" argument. It's ridiculous and doesn't make sense. And frankly, control is an aspect of law, it just depends on where the control is applied. The problem, I think, is more about Mystra's "goal" of spreading magic, and whether or not we interpret it as "spreading ALL magics wide and free" or more conservatively as "encourage training and creativity in magic, but limit dangerous magic." How much wisdom does Mystra want to go along with "spreading magic"?
What "good" mage would spread dangerous spells? One might make the argument that even magic missile is something a good mage will be careful about spreading around. After all, it can kill someone (low level) in a back alley just as easily as a knife.
Evil mages, on the other hand, might "covet" the most powerful magics and not spread those, but it's just as important for them to have apprentices and followers as good mages. If you're leading an evil cult, you're quite likely to teach magic missile (and other spells) to your inferiors so they can use magic to further your goals.
Halruaa, one of the greatest magocracies in Faerun history, encouraged the learning and use of magic, but only to a point. Sure, they happily trained almost everyone in cantrips and low level spells. But how jealously did they guard the creation of skyships? How many Halruaans knew magic above 5th level? The more powerful the magic, the fewer who knew it; percentage-wise, the number of higher end mages wasn't all that different in Halruaa than in (original) Thay or Cormy, was it? Good nations like Cormyr and Halruaa tended not to spread extremely powerful magic because doing so would destabilize power structures (not only government, but also trade).
Good mages are more likely to transmit peaceful magics, low-level magics, etc. but they usually insist that you "need to learn the wisdom to refrain from using most of your magic" because powerful spells are dangerous. Evil mages are more likely to teach dangerous low-level magics for money or service, with little qualms about it, then curtail that effort when it comes to the most powerful magic they know. But the overall effect for good and evil is the same: the most powerful spells are held back by the most powerful mages.
Elminster would often create "fake" spellbooks and items (real spells, but falsified histories) and place them in ruins and caches most likely to be found by explorer-mages. But even then, he left monsters and other things around that "made sure" a mage was of sufficient power or wisdom to be able to use (or hold back on) such magics they recovered.
Ultimately, we have to ask: does a neutral Mystra insist on wisdom to go along with extremely powerful magic? The original Mystryl, I'd argue, often promoted dangerous magic "just to see" if mortals could accomplish it. Look at Karsus, she let him topple an entire nation and destroy both himself and threaten her personal divinity in the name of "science" (so to speak). Mystra-1 wasn't as accomodating. Mystra-2, well... she literally became neutral good in FRA2 with the joining of Midnight. One might argue that Mystra1 was pretty controlling, denying access to 10th+ spells. But it was Mystra-2 that actively blocked evil magic for a short period of time, even from deities.
One could quite easily and accurately argue that "control" of magic (holding back based on laws, holding a cult together, or waiting for wisdom to be learned) is one of the most lawful considerations regarding magic. It's good magic users, like Mystra-2's adherents, that would most fervently block evil magic. And for a lawful neutral deity (not counting Mystra-2, but thinking more of Mystryl or Mystra-1), why block half of your portfolio?
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 04:06:03
Wooly hits the virtual nail right on its head.
Also, an LE wizard seeking to control magic will likely covet whatever arcane secrets Mystra reveals to him/her... for reasons of protecting the greater society around from dangerous magicks [and maintaining the Lawful aspect of his alignment], and hoarding it for his own nefarious use later [in keeping with his Evil tendencies]. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 03:50:26
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Seeking to control something is an inherently lawful act.
What's lawful about it? The lawful part of the alignment axis isn't about laws as such -- it's about the group, whether it's a small organization or a large nation. Lawful types consider what benefits their chosen grouping, even if it runs counter to the established laws of the larger area/society.
Controlling something isn't inherently lawful or chaotic. The reasoning behind such control may fall towards one end or the other, but a chaotic type can control something just as readily as a lawful type. The reasons may differ, and the methods may differ, but in the end, both can accomplish the exact same goal. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 02:40:29
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Good-aligned wizards have a greater tendency to share the magic, which serves Mystra's overall purpose. Evil wizards, however, will hoard or covet the power Mystra bequeaths to them, and that runs counter to Mystra's will.
I really have to dispute this type of view. I realize what Ed has said previously, and I believe it is true in the context of the most well known and recognized evil wizards in the Realms. The Zhents, Manshoon, the Red Wizards, etc. They certainly seek to control / hoard magic for their own personal gain. However, this - I argue - is a problem with motivation not alignment.
Seeking to control something is an inherently lawful act. There are two axis when it comes to alignment. The reason and how you seek to control something determines whether or not your motivations and actions are good or evil.
Good aligned wizards are most likely to develop the types of spells Mystra prefers (it leads to more magic and a greater acceptance of it), and those wizards are most likely to share and disseminate that knowledge simply for the greater good.
However, the belief that good aligned wizards are not also equally inclined to control magic - especially certain types - is quite hard to fathom.
Is a Good aligned Wizard of Kelemvor going to distribute magic that helps create undead? Of course not. They're morally opposed to such magic, and as a result they will seek to oppress, hide, or destroy it. This may be less of a problem for Mystra, due to her preferences, but that doesn't mean she approves of the action of destroying magic - I don't believe that she does. (No more than Oghma would approve of burning books, regardless of the reasons.)
However, the good aligned wizard is not restricted to simply controlling magic that they morally disapprove of... They're also inclined to control magic that could potentially be harmful.
As an example, let us say a stereotypical good aligned wizard uncovers a spell of great destruction. Is he going to be inclined to spread that knowledge, when that knowledge could easily fall into "the wrong hands?"
"Holy Mystra forgive me, but I must find people who can be trusted with this powerful magic."
"YOU TOLD ME THIS SIX MONTHS AGO, WHEN WILL YOU FIND THESE PEOLE?"
"I do not know, Holy Mystra, but I shall keep looking!"
The truth of the matter is, people are motivated to control magic for many different reasons. It has little to do with good or evil, as evil can be equally motivated to spread magic - just not magic that Mystra may particularly prefer. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 01:46:41
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
On the contrary, Dennis, Ed was pointing out that you are applying your own (and in this particular case, too narrow) interpretation of "neutral" to Mystra's actions.
Mystra ISN'T helping good more than evil; she's using good-aligned mages more as disseminators of magic BECAUSE IT TENDS TO WORK BETTER than relying on evil/selfish ones.
So she's using the good-aligned wizards to disseminate magic more than evil mages because it's going to further her goals. That doesn't sound neutral to me.
I think you're focusing a little too heavily on Mystra's alignment issue, and not enough on the actual function of good or evil mages with respect to carrying out Mystra's mandate on the dissemination of magic.
Good-aligned wizards have a greater tendency to share the magic, which serves Mystra's overall purpose. Evil wizards, however, will hoard or covet the power Mystra bequeaths to them, and that runs counter to Mystra's will. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 18 Jun 2011 : 01:12:12
I'll jump in here - I won't respond to anyone directly, but broadly in general.
First, I disagree with the assessment that evil aligned wizards are inherently less likely to spread magic. Yes, this is true in some cases, but... well more on that in a moment. The issue with evil wizards is not an inherent problem, but rather the way they benefit from magic. There are many, many, evil wizards that benefit from spreading magic though they are less portrayed in fiction. Just calling upon two examples that immediately spring to mind: A wizard that worships Loviatar and develops magic that helps spread pain and suffering, benefits both his sadistic interests as well as his goddess by spreading that magic. Likewise, a wizard that worships Velsharoon benefits both himself and his deity if more people are studying Necromancy (taking more apprentices, spreading it among the faithful in the cult, attempting to lure others into the faith with the magic). These are just two examples - the list goes on.
However, when you look at a group such as the Red Wizards of Thay - it is different. Their entire power structure is wrapped up in their CONTROL of magic. It directly undermines them and their goals to spread magic.
Outside of religious orders that many evil wizards may belong which would naturally work to spread magic, there is always the quid-pro-quo issue. Evil wizards benefit in sharing their magic with others because those they share with are more inclined to share their magic with them in return. This is a reciprocal relationship that helps both parties involved, and would certainly be HIGHLY approved by Mystra.
Now... to the flip side... I think it is a mistake to simply view evil wizards as the ones most inclined to control magic. The reason is simple attempting to control something is a lawful act. Does anyone want to make the argument that a Lawful Good wizard - dedicated to say, Eldath - would be happy spreading around destructive magic that causes harm to others? It is even easy to believe that such a wizard would either hide, suppress, or destroy such magic to keep it out of the hands of those who'd harm others. Outside of this narrow example, there are endless reasons why a good aligned wizard - lawful or not - would want to control and suppress certain types of magic. Magic that harms souls, that is inherently corruptive, animates or involves the undead, etc.
Now, you may say to me - Aldrick, those are narrow examples! Perhaps. Yet, it is equally possible that a mostly good aligned magocracy could spring into existence in the Realms. They would be no more or less inclined to spread magic than Thay, after all - like Thay - their power would be bound up in the control of magic. "But Mystra, I cannot spread this magic, it may fall into the hands of our evil enemies and they would use this knowledge against us!"
Granted, no such goodly nation of mages exists, but if they did unless they were a religious order of Mystra, the likelihood of them being more inclined to spread their magic - I would argue - would be no better or worse than Thay.
In the end, as I said previously, controlling magic is a lawful action - not a good or evil one. The motivations may differ depending on alignment, but the desire can exist anywhere on the good / evil axis.
Finally, I would make the argument that Mystra's preference to spread so-called 'good' magic that benefits people is not an inherently good act. (Though it could certainly be viewed that way by both worshipers and individuals throughout the Realms.) As previously discussed, and pointed out by Ed, the spreading of this magic is inherently beneficial to Mystra's desire to spread even MORE magic. If people see magic as useful to them, and a positive force, they'd be less inclined to fear wizards and more inclined to become wizards themselves. More wizards means more magic. If people begin to accept magic into their lives in a major way, then they can even become dependent upon it for their standard of living - the same way we might depend on electricity. The more people outside of wizards themselves who desire magic, the more a society becomes open to magic users of all types, and the more magic that will be demanded by the people.
Now, you could look at this and say, 'Mystra is a positive force in the Realms!' However, I look at this and say, 'Mystra is only doing this for selfish reasons.' Doing this inherently benefits Mystra and her aims to spread magic. A good act is one of inherent selflessness. If Mystra is benefiting directly, there is an inherent payoff involved, and a rather large one at that. Naturally, we cannot know the mind of Mystra. Perhaps she - in her heart of hearts - truly desires magic to be helpful and beneficial to people, and would spread it even if it offered her no reward - even if it had a negative impact upon her directly. However, we cannot know that. Everything that Ed has said on the matter, in my view at least, is totally consistent with someone motivated by selfish desire. Now, if you are merely judging on outcome then it is a good action... but what is more important in the end to alignment, the outcome or an individuals motivations?
What, in the end, makes Mystra any different than a drug pusher on the street? "Hey, you want to try some of this magic stuff?"  |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 23:03:57
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
On the contrary, Dennis, Ed was pointing out that you are applying your own (and in this particular case, too narrow) interpretation of "neutral" to Mystra's actions.
Mystra ISN'T helping good more than evil; she's using good-aligned mages more as disseminators of magic BECAUSE IT TENDS TO WORK BETTER than relying on evil/selfish ones.
So she's using the good-aligned wizards to disseminate magic more than evil mages because it's going to further her goals. That doesn't sound neutral to me. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 22:50:06
On the contrary, Dennis, Ed was pointing out that you are applying your own (and in this particular case, too narrow) interpretation of "neutral" to Mystra's actions.
Mystra ISN'T helping good more than evil; she's using good-aligned mages more as disseminators of magic BECAUSE IT TENDS TO WORK BETTER than relying on evil/selfish ones.
The magic thus disseminated is often stolen, seized, or legitimately acquired (in training, trade, etc.) by evil mages, who tend to seek it more energetically, so THEY BENEFIT MORE THAN THE GOOD mages. So it all tends to, over time, "balance out."
Which is, ahem, neutral.
See?
(What you're really saying in your recent posts is "*I* wouldn't call Mystral neutral," which is a slightly different thing. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's beside the point from the POV of the game publishers/Realms designers, who are "taking the longer view" of neutral.)
love,
THO |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 22:48:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You're basically saying that to be considered neutral, she's got to actively aid those who will work against her goals.
NO. What I'm saying is she shouldn't have been labeled neutral at all, because an alignment is supposed to be representative of one's thoughts and actions. Mystra has her own goal, which in some ways don't jive with the alignment "given" to her. I'm fine with her pursuing her goals. Just don't call her neutral because she isn't that, entirely. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 22:34:06
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
And why Mystra covertly works for peace and to support counterveiling power groups: to keep wars less likely and small...because large wars inevitably wipe out lots of potential users of magic.
(All of this comes from Ed, but paraphrased by me.)
love,
THO
That's why I think it's rather useless to "box" Mystra in neutral alignment. Either make her entirely good, or don't label her with an alignment at all. Supporting the good more than the evil is not neutral. Some ---I repeat, some---evil mages care nothing about the destruction they wreck so long as they achieve their nefarious goals. And since Mystra can't accept that (which is understandable, given her own goal), then she isn't entirely of her "supposed" alignment.
But she does not oppose or hinder evil mages. She uses and aids those most likely to further her own goals, and those folks are most often good or neutral -- but she's not using alignment as a litmus test for service or aid. She's not favoring any one alignment, she favors those who further her goals, regardless of their alignment.
You're basically saying that to be considered neutral, she's got to actively aid those who will work against her goals. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 22:26:51
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
And why Mystra covertly works for peace and to support counterveiling power groups: to keep wars less likely and small...because large wars inevitably wipe out lots of potential users of magic.
(All of this comes from Ed, but paraphrased by me.)
love,
THO
That's why I think it's rather useless to "box" Mystra in neutral alignment. Either make her entirely good, or don't label her with an alignment at all. Supporting the good more than the evil is not neutral. Some ---I repeat, some---evil mages care nothing about the destruction they wreck so long as they achieve their nefarious goals. And since Mystra can't accept that (which is understandable, given her own goal), then she isn't entirely of her "supposed" alignment. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 22:16:09
Hang on there, Dennis; Ed warned recently about applying alignments to deities for a good reason.
Everything you say just above is correct, and yet...that's a narrow view of evil. Yours, and correct, but NOT comprehensive/absolute. SOME evil mages are selfish, and use their magic for tyranny. However, some take a longer view.
So does Mystra, which is one of the reasons her Chosen "sew magic" for others to find, and she spreads rumors of "lost" and hidden magic: to keep evil or merely greedy/ambitious mages busy seeking it, rather than attacking other mages to gain magic that way. And why Mystra covertly works for peace and to support counterveiling power groups: to keep wars less likely and small...because large wars inevitably wipe out lots of potential users of magic. Mystra tends to "help" evil mages by enticing them into long-drawn-out wild goose chases (and sometimes, real chases) after hidden magic...
(All of this comes from Ed, but paraphrased by me.)
love,
THO |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 21:39:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So she's required to actively help evil people, to be considered neutral?
Eh? Is this a jest?
She's been helping goodly wizards. (Hah! Most of her Chosen are even of good alignment!) Why wouldn't she do the same to evil mages?
You see, it is difficult to reconcile Mystra's goal (spreading magic) with her neutral alignment. Goodly wizards would happily do what she wants. But some evil wizards hardly would. It is the nature of evil to be selfish. Why share with others when you can have it all for yourself?! That's an evil wizard's mantra. Being neutral means you favor neither good nor evil. You either support both or leave them to fend for themselves. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 21:22:28
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
That is why I suggested a twin, or mayhap an exact "opposite" deity. We learned from Ed that Mystra is practically neutral. But her inkling towards goodly magic "appears" to be more pronounced because, as Ed said, evil spellcasters tend to keep magic to themselves, thus going against Mystra's goal (spreading the use of magic). So, in a way, she's not really neutral. To have some sort of balance, why not make her entirely of good alignment, and create a new goddess, or god of evil magic?!
So she's not neutral because she knows evil mages don't spread magic as readily as non-evil mages... That's a stretch of logic that does not make sense to me.
You misunderstand my post. No, she's not exactly neutral because she does not help evil mages as readily as she does the goodly ones. She either keeps the magical knowledge from them because they are either ill-prepared for it or they intend to use it for their own sake and their own sake alone; or deliberately stops them from casting whatever destructive spells they've created. I would like reiterate my example of Szass Tam's "Ritual" in The Haunted Lands trilogy. I don't think she had ever helped the mad lich in learning of its existence and in devising the means on how to effectively cast it. Heh, she might even be the reason why it took Tam centuries to learn of it.
So she's required to actively help evil people, to be considered neutral?
And where, other than the one novel where it was a minor plot point that she was slapped down for, has she ever worked against evil mages? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 21:15:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
That is why I suggested a twin, or mayhap an exact "opposite" deity. We learned from Ed that Mystra is practically neutral. But her inkling towards goodly magic "appears" to be more pronounced because, as Ed said, evil spellcasters tend to keep magic to themselves, thus going against Mystra's goal (spreading the use of magic). So, in a way, she's not really neutral. To have some sort of balance, why not make her entirely of good alignment, and create a new goddess, or god of evil magic?!
So she's not neutral because she knows evil mages don't spread magic as readily as non-evil mages... That's a stretch of logic that does not make sense to me.
You misunderstand my post. No, she's not exactly neutral because she does not help evil mages as readily as she does the goodly ones. She either keeps the magical knowledge from them because they are either ill-prepared for it or they intend to use it for their own sake and their own sake alone; or deliberately stops them from casting whatever destructive spells they've created. I would like reiterate my example of Szass Tam's "Ritual" in The Haunted Lands trilogy. I don't think she had ever helped the mad lich in learning of its existence and in devising the means on how to effectively cast it. Heh, she might even be the reason why it took Tam centuries to learn of it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 20:56:43
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
That is why I suggested a twin, or mayhap an exact "opposite" deity. We learned from Ed that Mystra is practically neutral. But her inkling towards goodly magic "appears" to be more pronounced because, as Ed said, evil spellcasters tend to keep magic to themselves, thus going against Mystra's goal (spreading the use of magic). So, in a way, she's not really neutral. To have some sort of balance, why not make her entirely of good alignment, and create a new goddess, or god of evil magic?!
So she's not neutral because she knows evil mages don't spread magic as readily as non-evil mages... That's a stretch of logic that does not make sense to me. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 19:59:56
That is why I suggested a twin, or mayhap an exact "opposite" deity. We learned from Ed that Mystra is practically neutral. But her inkling towards goodly magic "appears" to be more pronounced because, as Ed said, evil spellcasters tend to keep magic to themselves, thus going against Mystra's goal (spreading the use of magic). So, in a way, she's not really neutral. To have some sort of balance, why not make her entirely of good alignment, and create a new goddess, or god of evil magic?! |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 15:40:52
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
An evil twin might be more interesting. If Selune could have an evil twin, why can't Mystra?
-Mystra is more "whole" than either Selűne or Shar, who are, by nature, dualistic of each other. An "evil twin" type scenario, embodying the things that Mystra isn't, that doesn't really work too well, unless you want to designate Mystra the patron of 'good magic', or 'magic used in a benevolent manner', or whatever else, which she isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Nothing and no one is an overkill, and certainly not evil. The degree with which a subject elicits favor or arouses interest depends primarily on how deftly the writer presents its multifaceted elements.
-We have a broad inkling of the immense level of Mystra's strength. Should her outlook on sour, and she become evil in the classical "tyrannical despot" sense, there'd be few who'd be able to resist, even among the deities themselves. And, in theory, if she subjugated the world according to her whims, so long as she were proliferating magic, she'd be acting within her bounds as deity of magic, and not doing anything that'd necessarily earn her a reprimanding by Ao. Think of it: Massive spellbattles, on a world-wide scale. That'd be incredibly stimulating to magic. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 08:32:36
An evil twin might be more interesting. If Selune could have an evil twin, why can't Mystra?
Nothing and no one is an overkill, and certainly not evil. The degree with which a subject elicits favor or arouses interest depends primarily on how deftly the writer presents its multifaceted elements. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 08:12:47
-An evil Mystra would be a scary, and honestly, overkill entity. A more neutral, more permissive Mystra, that would be more interesting. |
| Arcanus |
Posted - 16 Jun 2011 : 23:28:39
I'd love to see an evil Mystra. |
|
|
