Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Law & Order regard surrendering savage humanoid

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
sleyvas Posted - 30 Aug 2020 : 19:42:14
I'm curious about what people's takes are on something, and by this, I'd like to hear a complete answer (more on that in a second). I'm going to roughly divide up the realms into different "types" of governmental entities. Let's take that first and let's call them

"Good" Lawful Countries: By this I'm meaning a country that's relatively organized, has nobility, is widespread enough to be a country, and generally is considered "good". I'm picturing here Cormyr, reformed Tethyr, and pre-spellplague Impiltur and to a lesser degree Damara. Other places may fit this mold.

"Good" Magocracies: Countries that are mainly ruled for the sake of supporting a magic class that would generally be thought of as "not evil". Here I'm picturing Nimbral, Halruaa, and to a lesser degree Rashemen (Rashemen is kind of its own unique thing).

"Mercantile" Countries: These would be countries whose focus is business or technology at their core (so Amn, Lantan, Sembia, Durpar, etc...).

Wild, Wild Western Heartland City States: This would be pretty much any small to large city state throughout the realms, but mainly the western heartlands and the Vast come to mind. In this, I would not count tyrannical places, just "goodly" cultures.

"Mild to outright evil city states and governments": Any place that you look at and go "that place just ain't right, but it would likely exist". So, Calimshan, Thay, Unther, to a degree Mulhorand, Dambrath, Zhentil Keep and anywhere else on the moonsea, Vaasa, etc...

"Good" humanoid cultures: Pretty much elven, dwarven, halfling, etc... cultures that don't have many humans in them

So, given these "rough" criteria, here's the scenario:

Some kind of not overly powerful generally evil savage humanoids (goblins, orcs, ogres, gnolls, kobolds) attack this culture for whatever reason. Things happen. Half of them surrender and plead for mercy. The other half is dead. What short and long term happens to these savage humanoids in any of the above cultures (except the evil one, as I know what generally happens there... either they're killed or enslaved) in YOUR realms. If you can list your views for a certain group (i.e. the merchants react X way) that's kind of what I'm looking for. Again, I'm also wanting to hear long term (i.e. if they take them prisoner, what do they do with them?), because I see this as a believable issue and I'd like to hear what people think is the "answer".
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 21:31:00
Great Reader sleyvas,

quote:
You have obviously studied more on ethics than myself, and I think you're bringing some good thinking to the table.


I appreciate the compliment: thank you. Though, I do want to be clear in my hope that I have not come across in a manner as to be condescending, as that is not my intention. So, if I have done so, please accept my apology in advance! I very much appreciate, respect, and enjoy greatly people's free exchange of ideas as it all leads to one place: better thinking and personal growth! :) Thankfully, I've had some great people in my life that got me on the path to start studying this kind of soft science.

quote:
I also admit to not following all of it as some of it makes some assumptions that we're familiar with some of these studies (and maybe some folks are familiar with such). Thus, I tend to use more of "layman's speak" when it comes to these arguments. That being said, let me give a few responses.


No sweat. I do read a lot on this subject matter, so I completely appreciate where you are coming from. Your input is very much wanted: thank you! :)

quote:
On creatures responding a certain way only if they understand the way a certain type of government functions. That is a darn good point, and unless a government epitomizes a certain "type", perhaps its fair to say that creatures won't know HOW to react.


This was mostly regarding my time overseas in other countries, especially in the far East, where the degree of understanding of the 'individual self' insomuch as Americans understand and experience it is very misunderstood. That's not a judgement on that culture, so much as it is a recognition of a different cultural reality: it is what it is.

quote:
Certain countries however do have very "caricature" like reputations (i.e. Amn and Sembia are mercantile state, Cormyr and Impiltur are noble entitled kingdoms, Halruaa is a paranoid magocracy, etc...), so perhaps we should mainly consider these extreme cases.


Yes, you are of course, correct. I feel that the caricature of said cultures is simply the easiest way to water down a very complicated sense of subject matter areas, i.e. sociology, religion, ethics, government, politics. If you can sort of lay over the top of Mulhorand, Egypt, you've saved a ton of work of writer's to have to get into a range of material that would likely bore 95% of people, when it can be easily encapsulated through caricature. I see an interesting issue though arising now days with considerations of "cultural appropriation" when we look at changes that have come about regarding Ravenloft as a recent example. How is a company or writer in general suppose to provide depth to a nation, people, religion, etc., without doing one of two things: a) likely utilizing what will amount to caricature as a means to quickly (but not to accurately) bring a viable definition to 'x' nation, and b) having to produce such voluminous material that the production costs and likely minimal sales disincentivize production of said materials. This in the end, with both options (I recognize this is a possible false choice fallacy, but I could think of no other options) ends up with the conundrum of how would these nations, people, religions, etc., be created and defined without running afoul of both my options presented? It is an interesting issue.

It does make me wonder with the dearth of "fluff" material from WotC, if they are simply considering what I have presented above and decided it isn't worth their time. It may be easier for them to just say what is done, is done, and to leave the existing material for consumption, than to own what they currently produce in the current climate.

quote:
On powers that are in charge not granting the common person autonomy, that's something I hadn't thought to consider. But it IS worth talking about. One thing I'd stress that's different from our world to the realms is the ability of ANYONE pretty much being able to suddenly gain respect and power by simply gaining literal class levels. Whereas in our world, the idea that there's a handful of individuals who rule the masses is very common... rulers in the realms are tiptoeing around not overly upsetting adventurers who may decide to oust them from power OR whom they may need a favor from in order to keep their seat of power. These adventurers rise from all classes of life. Add to this fact that danger in the realms REQUIRES adventurers everywhere, or literally your children will become the meal of some wandering monster. As a result, I see the common folk of the realms having greater autonomy and respect than what we would typically find in our own world. Now, high level adventurers may not give them that respect (because they are asshats at times who forget where they came from), but the ruling class recognize that today's outspoken peasant might be tomorrow's hero. They also KNOW that the gods are real and the gods have a fickle nature that might suddenly grant powers to some "nobody" and entirely overlook "the grandeur of Lord Nobblyknees who should have been imbued with godly power instead" simply because the god likes that commoners attitude this week.


I do partially agree with what you're saying, but with my need to add a caveat with explanation in there.

The idea of "ANYONE pretty much being able to suddenly gain respect and power" is a point of diminishing returns on how that power and respect can be directed and with efficacy, utilized. History is replete with examples of warlords or other power players coming into existence and being understandably seen as a future problem. That future problem has to be dealt with swiftly, or legitimate threats to the current power base occur and that is an instability that most rulers are not willing to allow happen. A few examples:

  • General Sun Yat-sen of Ghuangzou in 1917 assumed a warlord position in China. Other warlord powers rose to significance, and forced the General into self-exile.
  • General Chen Jiongming helps overthrow the then replacement warlord power that caused General Sun Yat-sen into exile and helps establish the Chinese Communist Party
  • General Sun Yat-sen is proclaimed president, and General Jiongming conspires with other warlords to overthrow President Sun Yat-sen


The idea there is just that respect and power are themselves a fluid interpretation of a very dynamic environment. Since respect is itself an outcome of an agreed upon ethic (we don't respect Manshoon, because he is a piece of crap, like Khelben Arunsun is as well), and power has a necessary relationship with respect, we have to therefore consider the impact again, of ethics playing into this, and how that affects governance. I think my CCP example of China back in 1917 through the early 1920's demonstrates that well, as we consider ethics in government.

Best regards!

sleyvas Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 21:04:05
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2

Great Reader sleyvas,

quote:
In the end, there will be outliers in any system, but the "day to day" basics of how to handle prisoners, surrendering folk, refugees requesting asylum, etc... should be something that the average person has an inkling of how THEIR people (as in government model A versus government model B) think it should happen. For instance, I can't see our modern day American prison model functioning anywhere in the realms, because noone has the money or want to basically pay for someone's food and housing without gaining something from it. The idea of punishment, which would fit the model of basically slavery, would be part of the criminal system in a lot of these cultures. The one big difference would be the selling of the slaves, but then again, some governments may "sell the services of slaves/criminals/work details" to private individuals for profit/taxes. This was one big factor to a degree in Mulhorand, btw, is that the Mulhorandi didn't own slaves, the government in the form of the church did, but then again their slaves were taken from out of country. Chessenta on the other hand had private slave ownership, but most of them were criminals being punished. But what would other cultures do with their prisoners that they take? For instance, in the scenario I had given for some... let's just use gnolls... and let's say in Amn... they accept said creatures surrender. They put them in jail. They can EITHER use them in a work detail and provide the security for said work detail (which likely does crappy work) OR they might sell those gnolls to a passing slave trader to get them out of the country and those gnolls end up in Thay working some mines. I can see that happening in a mercantile state like Amn, with the official in charge pocketing the money, saving the costs of feeding the individual, providing security, etc... Make that same call but change the country to someplace like Impiltur, and I instead see them keeping them in country, working them in a work detail to pay off the cost of feeding them, and at any misstep killing them over risking the lives of the security officer.


I completely agree. Your points are very well made. The idea here appears to be that something is causing the differential in decision making about what is and what is not, appropriate in taking actions in a variety of ways in policy as how to best govern.

For example, if a nation took an 'Ethics of Care' approach, such as ethicists like Tove Pettersen argue for, you would see a drastically different approach to how government contends with these issues. To take a quote from that discussion on the ethics of care,

One characteristic feature of the ethics of care, and also a reason for its swift growth and applicability, is its relational ontology. The ethics of care depicts the moral agent not primarily in terms of independence, equality of power and influence, enjoying almost unrestricted freedom to enter and dissolve contracts. Rather, it conceives agents as mutually interconnected, vulnerable and dependent, often in
asymmetric ways. This approach lets us visualize the moral agent as a ‘‘mother–child-dyad’’, for example, instead of the ‘‘autonomous-man-model’’, coined by among others Sarah Ruddich [27] and Virginia Held [11].
[Pettersen, Health Care Anal (2011) 19:51–64 DOI 10.1007/s10728-010-0163-7]

Imagine a nation in the Realms applying this kind of ethic to government and what it may mean for their day-to-day interactions internally, and what that would mean for foreign policy! It could lead to alliances for people that value such notions, while also inviting wolves to the door perceiving weakness that could be taken advantage of in that situation.

A specific example of ethics in government in the Forgotten Realms, is out of Wa and Shou-Lung with role ethics. The idea that the role a person has, and how well that person facilitates that role, is central to being ethical, and you can see how governmental policies in Wa and Shou-Lung could reflect as much. An excerpt from Confucian Role Ethics [Rosemont/Ames] provides an interesting outlook on how governmental policy in Wa and Shou-Lung can be specifically considered:

quote:
We both came to Confucian role ethics as an alternative to autonomous individualism through our study of classical Confucian texts, and then later when we worked closely together over a number of years on Confucian translation and interpretation projects. The concept of role ethics had its genesis in a paper Rosemont wrote in 1991 for a Festschrift in honor of Herbert Fingarette wherein he suggested that seeing the Chinese as flesh and blood role-bearers rather than potential candidates to be abstract rights-holders might give Western-trained philosophers a better background for reading early Confucian texts. Ames then began to work with the idea for developing an ethics of roles in some depth, contextualizing it within the centrality of family as the governing metaphor in Chinese culture.


Now, that I feel is the perfect description for how some would consider the ontology of Eastern society in an ethical framework, and of course, how government would create and apply policy relative to that.

quote:
Given the above two options, I can see creatures being likely to surrender to a place like Amn, but I can't see them surrendering to a place like Impiltur as much.... which is odd, because our general "noble" sensibilities would say it to be the opposite.


Assuming the lower socially tiered creatures were even aware of such sociological and political differences between said nations, I would agree. However, it bears consideration as to why we feel, in certain nations in the real world, why one ethical approach to governance is better than the other. America is extremely individualistic, whereas nations such as China and Japan emphasize collectivism more than individualism.

In medieval worlds, where there is usually a very real difference in education, power, and status in general, the powers that be are generally quite reticent to offer great autonomy to citizens (if they are even viewed as citizens) as that autonomy can lead to different thinking, and therefore, unrest of some degree or another. So, again, looking at the ethics of society, and thus the governmental policies to implement such an ethic are necessary to understand the underlying reasons for decision making.

Best regards as always,




You have obviously studied more on ethics than myself, and I think you're bringing some good thinking to the table. I also admit to not following all of it as some of it makes some assumptions that we're familiar with some of these studies (and maybe some folks are familiar with such). Thus, I tend to use more of "layman's speak" when it comes to these arguments. That being said, let me give a few responses.

On creatures responding a certain way only if they understand the way a certain type of government functions. That is a darn good point, and unless a government epitomizes a certain "type", perhaps its fair to say that creatures won't know HOW to react. Certain countries however do have very "caricature" like reputations (i.e. Amn and Sembia are mercantile state, Cormyr and Impiltur are noble entitled kingdoms, Halruaa is a paranoid magocracy, etc...), so perhaps we should mainly consider these extreme cases.

On powers that are in charge not granting the common person autonomy, that's something I hadn't thought to consider. But it IS worth talking about. One thing I'd stress that's different from our world to the realms is the ability of ANYONE pretty much being able to suddenly gain respect and power by simply gaining literal class levels. Whereas in our world, the idea that there's a handful of individuals who rule the masses is very common... rulers in the realms are tiptoeing around not overly upsetting adventurers who may decide to oust them from power OR whom they may need a favor from in order to keep their seat of power. These adventurers rise from all classes of life. Add to this fact that danger in the realms REQUIRES adventurers everywhere, or literally your children will become the meal of some wandering monster. As a result, I see the common folk of the realms having greater autonomy and respect than what we would typically find in our own world. Now, high level adventurers may not give them that respect (because they are asshats at times who forget where they came from), but the ruling class recognize that today's outspoken peasant might be tomorrow's hero. They also KNOW that the gods are real and the gods have a fickle nature that might suddenly grant powers to some "nobody" and entirely overlook "the grandeur of Lord Nobblyknees who should have been imbued with godly power instead" simply because the god likes that commoners attitude this week. These are factors that don't exist in this world (or exist to a lesser degree), and so we should bear them in mind in arguments.
cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 21:03:08
Master Zeromaru X,

This is the very quintessential arena of ethics though. That has been my point throughout this scroll and the inherent implications of ethics in governance. Great Reader Ayrik and Master Rupert, as well as myself, have provided empirical evidence to affirm that reality.

As to your point that,

quote:
But it's really hard to say that there are "shades of grey" in a universe where, if you have enough power, you can go to the planes and ask the very embodiments of "Good", "Evil", etc. the definitions of such concepts


Just because "might = right" exists doesn't mean it is mutually exclusive from the other concepts of ethics in governance as it relates to "alignment." You're assertion is an apriori argument that power presupposes the definitions of good, evil, etc. Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

quote:
It doesn't matter that they hardly go and bother mortals, the fact that they exist makes the opinion of mortals on the matter basically irrelevant.


Your assertion predetermines outcomes for mortals in consideration of good or evil insomuch as the outside influence has no prohibition in response to the will of the mortals relationship with good, evil, etc. This is completely contravened by empirical evidence from the Gathering of the Gods at the Dancing Place in 720 DR. Those deities eventually made decisions that were contradicting in how certain "good" deities maintained chosen powers of their chosen, when clear "evil" acts were undertaken, all relative mind you, to the pact reached on that day, Flamerule the 27th.

Best regards,



cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 20:45:24
Master Zeromaru X,

quote:
I guess I have a very wrong idea of what alignment is in D&D... but, alignments in D&D, as stated in the sourcebooks (since 1e, IIRC), are not philosophies or points of view. Rather, they are actual in-universe cosmic forces with definite opinions about what constitutes their alignments. So, in D&D there is no "shades of grey" when sentient cosmic forces actually state what is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral.


You make a very central, and interesting point with your statement above. However, I feel it is inconsistent with facts from lore based references from the Forgotten Realms, as I will evidence below:
  • Khelben Arunsun stealing the Scepter of the Sorcerer Kings
  • The Emerald Enclave is with evidence provided by myself known to have murdered between 713,000 and 2.8 million people of the Realms


Evidence:


quote:
So, "good" in the Realms is not what we consider to be good, neither what the younger generation consider, or what people believed what was "good in medieval times". Neither what NPCs in the Realms believe, for that case. "Good" is what the concept of Good believe is good (and this definition is what is stated in the sourcebooks).


The issue here is the following excerpt from The Vilhon Reach game accessory, page 26:

quote:
The only requirement that the Enclave enforces upon its members is that they not be inclined toward good or evil. Theirs is a narrow road best traveled only by those who can walk between light and darkness.


Now, if the "only requirement" for the Enclave forces is to not be inclined towards good or evil, then how exactly is it that the Emerald Enclave can justify either situation when they are responsible for the mass murder of,

quote:
a startup community in Chondalwood in 1362, which was actually performed by the Emerald Enclave


Additionally, if that is the case, then how does it stand as not good or evil when,

quote:
That group's violence and ruthlessness are as legendary as the plagues that swept through the Vilhon. The teachings of the church of Silvanus dictate that those who serve the Enclave do so with Silvanus#146;s approval. If that approval did not exist, those druids would lose their spellcasting abilities. And the clergy of Silvanus cares little for the wellbeing of a particular government or political ruler. All they look at is the big picture; for them, that view encompasses the entirety of the Vilhon Reach.


You really don't need anymore evidence of it than what I have provided here, as what I have provided above in quotes is from my two arguments dealing with both Khelben and the Emerald Enclave.

The reality is that while the sourcebooks say that "there is no "shades of grey" when sentient cosmic forces actually state what is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral", the empirical evidence I just provided above in quotes and links to my earlier robust arguments, demonstrate, unequivocally, that alignment is in fact relative. If that wasn't so, those druids of Silvanus committing mass murder in a clearly evil way, and Khelben Arunsun being a co-conspirator to mass murder, war, and more would have had consequences they never received.

quote:
So, Mr. Thay Slaver may believe slavery is good cuz "I'm stronger and more civilized than you" and "it was good in RL medieval times" (lamest excuse ever to condone something that was considered evil by some cultures even in medieval times, btw), but this goes contrary to what the PHB says "is good" and in fact fits thr definition of Evil in the PHB.


Master Zeromaru X, I want to ask before I make an assumption here: are you implying that I am personally condoning slavery, or is the implication inferred back to "Mr. Thay Slaver"? It appears you are implying I personally condone it based on your partial statement, "it was good in RL medieval times." Is that the case?

Best regards as always,

cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 19:52:55
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,

I agree with most of what you say, and my sole point of minor disagreement only arises from some specific points from a very interesting academic article about surrender, of which I must say, are rare indeed in the study of warfare!

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/zhukov/files/2017_lehmannzhukov_surrender_201706.pdf

The primary point I look to expound upon (and I say it is minimal here overall to your valid points) is only the military consequences of surrendering being demonstrated with significant regression based analysis in the aforementioned article, indicating the "contagious" nature of surrender. Giving in and accepting domination over ones self is one of the most destructive things a being can do, and thus as is evaluated in this peer-reviewed article, it indicates with evidence as much. Other than sharing that, I feel you hit the nail on the head beautifully, and thank you for making those points!

Best regards,


cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 19:46:17
Great Reader sleyvas,

quote:
Wow, I wish I had never gotten distracted about Manshoon and wondering about if he'd ever been imbued with any of Mystra's power.


Yeah, I get your point regarding Khelben. The only reason I mentioned him is to provide an example of how governments can go astray and how understanding ethics is important in determining how a government would operate. In this example with Khelben, he was a very powerful, I'll call it 'executive' leader in the Harpers. The Harpers did have 'government' if you will: it was the master Harper's that had a Code of the Harper's as the legal instrument to inform people of how they should behave. Unfortunately, Khelben chose again (long history of this) to be the criminally horrible person he is, and flaunt the agreed upon Code of the Harper's.

quote:
But, this thread was meant more to discuss how governments function, and not how vigilante justice occurs in the realms.


On to your other points now... ;)

quote:
In the end, there will be outliers in any system, but the "day to day" basics of how to handle prisoners, surrendering folk, refugees requesting asylum, etc... should be something that the average person has an inkling of how THEIR people (as in government model A versus government model B) think it should happen. For instance, I can't see our modern day American prison model functioning anywhere in the realms, because noone has the money or want to basically pay for someone's food and housing without gaining something from it. The idea of punishment, which would fit the model of basically slavery, would be part of the criminal system in a lot of these cultures. The one big difference would be the selling of the slaves, but then again, some governments may "sell the services of slaves/criminals/work details" to private individuals for profit/taxes. This was one big factor to a degree in Mulhorand, btw, is that the Mulhorandi didn't own slaves, the government in the form of the church did, but then again their slaves were taken from out of country. Chessenta on the other hand had private slave ownership, but most of them were criminals being punished. But what would other cultures do with their prisoners that they take? For instance, in the scenario I had given for some... let's just use gnolls... and let's say in Amn... they accept said creatures surrender. They put them in jail. They can EITHER use them in a work detail and provide the security for said work detail (which likely does crappy work) OR they might sell those gnolls to a passing slave trader to get them out of the country and those gnolls end up in Thay working some mines. I can see that happening in a mercantile state like Amn, with the official in charge pocketing the money, saving the costs of feeding the individual, providing security, etc... Make that same call but change the country to someplace like Impiltur, and I instead see them keeping them in country, working them in a work detail to pay off the cost of feeding them, and at any misstep killing them over risking the lives of the security officer.


I completely agree. Your points are very well made. The idea here appears to be that something is causing the differential in decision making about what is and what is not, appropriate in taking actions in a variety of ways in policy as how to best govern.

For example, if a nation took an 'Ethics of Care' approach, such as ethicists like Tove Pettersen argue for, you would see a drastically different approach to how government contends with these issues. To take a quote from that discussion on the ethics of care,

One characteristic feature of the ethics of care, and also a reason for its swift growth and applicability, is its relational ontology. The ethics of care depicts the moral agent not primarily in terms of independence, equality of power and influence, enjoying almost unrestricted freedom to enter and dissolve contracts. Rather, it conceives agents as mutually interconnected, vulnerable and dependent, often in
asymmetric ways. This approach lets us visualize the moral agent as a ‘‘mother–child-dyad’’, for example, instead of the ‘‘autonomous-man-model’’, coined by among others Sarah Ruddich [27] and Virginia Held [11].
[Pettersen, Health Care Anal (2011) 19:51–64 DOI 10.1007/s10728-010-0163-7]

Imagine a nation in the Realms applying this kind of ethic to government and what it may mean for their day-to-day interactions internally, and what that would mean for foreign policy! It could lead to alliances for people that value such notions, while also inviting wolves to the door perceiving weakness that could be taken advantage of in that situation.

A specific example of ethics in government in the Forgotten Realms, is out of Wa and Shou-Lung with role ethics. The idea that the role a person has, and how well that person facilitates that role, is central to being ethical, and you can see how governmental policies in Wa and Shou-Lung could reflect as much. An excerpt from Confucian Role Ethics [Rosemont/Ames] provides an interesting outlook on how governmental policy in Wa and Shou-Lung can be specifically considered:

quote:
We both came to Confucian role ethics as an alternative to autonomous individualism through our study of classical Confucian texts, and then later when we worked closely together over a number of years on Confucian translation and interpretation projects. The concept of role ethics had its genesis in a paper Rosemont wrote in 1991 for a Festschrift in honor of Herbert Fingarette wherein he suggested that seeing the Chinese as flesh and blood role-bearers rather than potential candidates to be abstract rights-holders might give Western-trained philosophers a better background for reading early Confucian texts. Ames then began to work with the idea for developing an ethics of roles in some depth, contextualizing it within the centrality of family as the governing metaphor in Chinese culture.


Now, that I feel is the perfect description for how some would consider the ontology of Eastern society in an ethical framework, and of course, how government would create and apply policy relative to that.

quote:
Given the above two options, I can see creatures being likely to surrender to a place like Amn, but I can't see them surrendering to a place like Impiltur as much.... which is odd, because our general "noble" sensibilities would say it to be the opposite.


Assuming the lower socially tiered creatures were even aware of such sociological and political differences between said nations, I would agree. However, it bears consideration as to why we feel, in certain nations in the real world, why one ethical approach to governance is better than the other. America is extremely individualistic, whereas nations such as China and Japan emphasize collectivism more than individualism.

In medieval worlds, where there is usually a very real difference in education, power, and status in general, the powers that be are generally quite reticent to offer great autonomy to citizens (if they are even viewed as citizens) as that autonomy can lead to different thinking, and therefore, unrest of some degree or another. So, again, looking at the ethics of society, and thus the governmental policies to implement such an ethic are necessary to understand the underlying reasons for decision making.

Best regards as always,



cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 19:06:30
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,

quote:
So...you can't really "treat a person like a Chosen"


You could be correct there; however, you'll have to take that up with Ed, as he stated, unequivocally:

In effect, she treated him as one of her Chosen.

If Ed were to clarify that statement to comport with what you are saying, I would certainly retract my earlier assertion about that part, and agree with your part, as well as Master Rupert. To whit, the reality is that Manshoon was in fact treated "...as one of her Chosen." Below is a URL to the evidence that corroborates my point:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/manshoon-manyfaced

quote:
So would not the Army example be more like: You have General Grant who has high security clearance, command of a battalion and access to tons of military hardware. Then you have Leroy, who lives in a double wide trailer and has a shot gun and a pick up truck. So then you walk over to Leroy and say "you are now General Leroy" and then you...um...."treat Leroy like he is a general" and say have him "invade the back 40".


I believe I understand the nature of your analogy, but I believe it does not possess merit, and this is why.

The idea that there is such a comparable nature between Mystra and Manshoon, such that the analogies of 'General Grant' and 'General Leroy' are valid, appears to be unreasonable. A more valid comparison I feel would be to assign a General status to Mystra, and a Lieutenant or Captain rank to Manshoon (as well as Elminster) due to the power differential. At that point you have a more comparative relationship in power and authority between the two (since the idea of the rank of General is clearly intended to invoke power, authority, and hopefully skill) and can see relate the relatable (Elminster and Manshoon) in their respective capacities as powerful arch-wizards.

I have to say as well: I absolutely love the 'back 40' quip! lol I literally had to stop for a minute and actually stop picturing what a back 40 invasion by Manshoon would look like. It included a bard with a banjo, I'll have you know. ;) haha

Best regards,
cpthero2 Posted - 20 Oct 2020 : 18:44:55
Master Rupert,

Sorry about the delay in responding to your kind reply to mine comment! You know the insanity these days with work, and everything else amidst the mess. That being said, I hope this response finds you well!

quote:
No, a more accurate analogy would be that your E-5 is told to work side by side with an officer, and that he could get his own commission if he chose. But he declined, so he is not an officer, and does not have the pay or ability to command enlisted people that are higher than E-5. The requirement to work with the officer was not contingent on the offered commission.


I can see why that would initially appear as a reasonable argument. I can see the appeal to it. I feel something has been overlooked however, that I would like to address in juxtaposing your rebuttal against my earlier analogy.

There is an oversight about consequences here that exists in your rebuttal, Master Rupert.

There came a time, chronicled in the Sage of Shadowdale trilogy, when Manshoon was given a direct and public command by Mystra to work with Elminster, in furthering her causes. In effect, she treated him as one of her Chosen.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/manshoon-manyfaced#:~:text=The%20Manshoon%20Who%20Faced%20Down,as%20one%20of%20her%20Chosen.

The oversight made in your rebuttal to my Army analogy is that there was a requirement. Sure, Manshoon can say no, but he is then saying no to the deity of Magic, and he may have to possibly deal with some serious consequences that come his way. It is the same as the cadet. Can the cadet say no? Sure. Would there still be consequences for saying no (as determined by the powers that be)? Of course. As I articulated with my Army example that UCMJ still existed for the Cadet, even though a cadet is not in the Army, the same went for Manshoon when he was ordered to work with Elminster. He was acting as if he were, and when he didn't continue to do so, is when he exposed himself to consequences for defying the order of Mystra.

The point is that in the end, Mystra commanded that arrangement, and when Manshoon rejected that, he exposed himself to her "Uniform Code of Military Justice", if you will. ;)

Best regards,

Dalor Darden Posted - 28 Sep 2020 : 11:17:57
Yes lol
SaMoCon Posted - 28 Sep 2020 : 01:42:54
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden

Anyone remember the I Spy cartoon?

That is good vs evil in a nutshell...


Do you mean Spy vs. Spy from the Mad Magazines?
Dalor Darden Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 06:38:07
Anyone remember the I Spy cartoon?

That is good vs evil in a nutshell...
Zeromaru X Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 04:59:14
Perhaps. But they have superiors who have set opinions about their definitions on alignments. For instance, if we go by Planescape's Blood War interpretation, the Abyss itself is the sentient embodiment of "Chaotic Evil" and the ultimate authority of the demons.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 04:15:30
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


Ah, but the rub is: there are multiple embodiments, and they don't always agree.



They agree in enough stuff to be grouped into teams: Good Celestials, Evil Fiends... Dunno how you call members of teams Neutral, Chaotic and Lawful, but I know neutrals are the true villains...



But every team consists of multiple players with different specialties and styles of play. A Lawful Good deity of Duty, for example, is going to have different priorities and agendas than a Lawful Good deity of Healing, for example. Both might agree that protecting innocents is the highest cause, but they're going to pursue very different methods to achieve that. The deity of Duty might think that striking down any who threaten innocents is the best course of action, whilst the deity of Healing might favor dialogue and negotiation.

Just like with mortals, ask a dozen LG deities what the greatest good is and how to achieve it, and you'll get a dozen different answers.
Zeromaru X Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 03:12:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


Ah, but the rub is: there are multiple embodiments, and they don't always agree.



They agree in enough stuff to be grouped into teams: Good Celestials, Evil Fiends... Dunno how you call members of teams Neutral, Chaotic and Lawful, but I know neutrals are the true villains...
Wooly Rupert Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 03:01:42
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

Yeah, you may be right there. But it's really hard to say that there are "shades of grey" in a universe where, if you have enough power, you can go to the planes and ask the very embodiments of "Good", "Evil", etc. the definitions of such concepts. It doesn't matter that they hardly go and bother mortals, the fact that they exist makes the opinion of mortals on the matter basically irrelevant.


Ah, but the rub is: there are multiple embodiments, and they don't always agree.
Zeromaru X Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 00:42:26
Yeah, you may be right there. But it's really hard to say that there are "shades of grey" in a universe where, if you have enough power, you can go to the planes and ask the very embodiments of "Good", "Evil", etc. the definitions of such concepts. It doesn't matter that they hardly go and bother mortals, the fact that they exist makes the opinion of mortals on the matter basically irrelevant.

So, to your question:

quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

[quote]What is "Good" and what is "Evil" in this situation?



What the concept of "Good" and "Evil" say it is, regardless if the mortal paladin decides to think other way.

The fiend, on the other hand, has no way to think other way. He has to act as "Evil" says so. The moment the fiend decides to "change his ways", it ceases to be.
Ayrik Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 21:23:57
quote:
... with, perhaps, the exception of 2e, that says "each culture has its own definition of Good and Evil", and then goes and contradicts itself with Planescape...
To be fair, Planescape's rules assume that one is on the planes, most often the Outer Planes. Places where cosmic alignments are the very stuff of the environment and even tiny variances on those alignments can have profound impact on their surroundings.

The Primes (Toril, Oerth, Earth, etc) are not strongly associated with any Outer Plane. They're the only places in the Planescape universe which allow a full mixture of alignments to coexist in the same place - even in the same individual - without attracting the attentions of angels and demons and modrons and abominations.

I don't think this whole question about evil surrendering to good is even meaningful unless you specify who's involved.

How should a paladin act when a dangerous fiend surrenders to him? Should his decision be unfalteringly merciful or unwaveringly merciless? Should his decision be affected by orders from his peers, his superiors, from his god? Should the fiend be able to appeal this decision? What is "Good" and what is "Evil" in this situation?
Zeromaru X Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 20:57:28
No matter how much leeway you have to justify something within an alignment, you cannot justify slavery with the concept of Good in any edition... with, perhaps, the exception of 2e, that says "each culture has its own definition of Good and Evil", and then goes and contradicts itself with Planescape...
Wooly Rupert Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 20:33:23
Looking at the 1E PHB right now, it says (emphasis mine): "Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only."

From the 2E PHB, again, emphasis mine: "The character's alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idea of how the character will handle moral dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it certainly doesn't prevent a character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character."

So there are shades of gray, and there is wiggle room in the alignments. It's not a hard and fast set of rules and never has been.

Yes, in D&D, alignments are cosmic forces -- but even then, there's still wiggle room, which is why the Great Wheel isn't just 9 planes.

This is why I've never understood the beef with alignments: it's plainly stated that it's generalities and tendencies, not "Oh, you didn't help a little old lady cross the street, thereby violating Section IV, Paragraphs 4-17 of the Codex of Lawful Goodness. Prepare for a divine smiting."
Zeromaru X Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 20:21:11
Regarding alignments:

I guess I have a very wrong idea of what alignment is in D&D... but, alignments in D&D, as stated in the sourcebooks (since 1e, IIRC), are not philosophies or points of view. Rather, they are actual in-universe cosmic forces with definite opinions about what constitutes their alignments. So, in D&D there is no "shades of grey" when sentient cosmic forces actually state what is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral.

So, "good" in the Realms is not what we consider to be good, neither what the younger generation consider, or what people believed what was "good in medieval times". Neither what NPCs in the Realms believe, for that case. "Good" is what the concept of Good believe is good (and this definition is what is stated in the sourcebooks).

So, Mr. Thay Slaver may believe slavery is good cuz "I'm stronger and more civilized than you" and "it was good in RL medieval times" (lamest excuse ever to condone something that was considered evil by some cultures even in medieval times, btw), but this goes contrary to what the PHB says "is good" and in fact fits thr definition of Evil in the PHB. So, he is evil (and a hypocrite) because in-universe the concepts of Good and Evil say so, regardless of what he, you, me, or medieval society may think about its .

That is why I agree with Ayrik about alignment is counterproductive to the narrative and the game in general.

Regarding surrendering:

I also agree with bloodtide_the_red about the concept of surrendering, and how it depends in the customs of warfare in a given society.
bloodtide_the_red Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 17:10:00
Surrender is really much more of a modern concept, and it's not much of a battle field concept. Surrender is much more of a political thing: an agreement between two governments that have relations. The general, covered in blood does not drop his weapon and "ask" for surrender to the nearest enemy trooper: It's much more a political act where an official signs a document in public.

To even entertain the concept of Surrender the two opposing sides need to have somewhat agreed political communication, and plenty of good will helps too. A single commander would only even consider Surrender if they knew the other side had accepted Surrender of others and treated them well and kept their word. They would never Surrender to unknown foes in most cases: better to fight to the death then face the horror of the unknown.

The modern concept of Surrender is much more a liberal Hollywood fictional construct more then anything else. The idea that someone can be a pure inhuman monster and do ANYTHING...then just drop their weapon and put their hands up and they AUTOMATICALLY get treated as if they were an American citizen and are given full legal protections under American law. This is only true IN America, roughly starting in the 20th century.....so when you watch a movie and someone in say 1000 BC Egypt "surrenders" they are not treated like a modern day "American" and put in a humane cell and wait their day in court.

Any "Horde of Huamnoids" in the Realms all most never have any political communication with the place they are attacking. The horde follows none of the civilized rules of war that the nation or country might have: not only do they not know them...but they also don't care. In just about no case would a horde of humanoids surrender: they likely don't even know the concept. But to them it is Victory or Death.....or, if they must, Escape.
sleyvas Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 14:02:12
Wow, I wish I had never gotten distracted about Manshoon and wondering about if he'd ever been imbued with any of Mystra's power. The point I see regarding him and Khelben is Khelben thinking he could give some really powerful magic item to some ultra evil, lying, conniving backstabber tyrant wannabe and having him pinky swear that he'd follow some rules, and thinking that was a "good" idea. Maybe there was something more to their deal than that, but if there were any teeth to it, they found a way around it. Then again, I feel like Khelben did what he did precisely to make one evil bastard attack another evil bastard, and it ended up blowing up on the world as a result, and in my books it doesn't make him the shining epitome of good. Khelben's the "batman" of this world, who does questionable tactics, and honestly its part of the reason I like him. My own NPC's do a lot of the same f'd up stuff because they don't think things through and act like vigilantes.

But, this thread was meant more to discuss how governments function, and not how vigilante justice occurs in the realms. In the end, there will be outliers in any system, but the "day to day" basics of how to handle prisoners, surrendering folk, refugees requesting asylum, etc... should be something that the average person has an inkling of how THEIR people (as in government model A versus government model B) think it should happen. For instance, I can't see our modern day American prison model functioning anywhere in the realms, because noone has the money or want to basically pay for someone's food and housing without gaining something from it. The idea of punishment, which would fit the model of basically slavery, would be part of the criminal system in a lot of these cultures. The one big difference would be the selling of the slaves, but then again, some governments may "sell the services of slaves/criminals/work details" to private individuals for profit/taxes. This was one big factor to a degree in Mulhorand, btw, is that the Mulhorandi didn't own slaves, the government in the form of the church did, but then again their slaves were taken from out of country. Chessenta on the other hand had private slave ownership, but most of them were criminals being punished. But what would other cultures do with their prisoners that they take? For instance, in the scenario I had given for some... let's just use gnolls... and let's say in Amn... they accept said creatures surrender. They put them in jail. They can EITHER use them in a work detail and provide the security for said work detail (which likely does crappy work) OR they might sell those gnolls to a passing slave trader to get them out of the country and those gnolls end up in Thay working some mines. I can see that happening in a mercantile state like Amn, with the official in charge pocketing the money, saving the costs of feeding the individual, providing security, etc... Make that same call but change the country to someplace like Impiltur, and I instead see them keeping them in country, working them in a work detail to pay off the cost of feeding them, and at any misstep killing them over risking the lives of the security officer.

Given the above two options, I can see creatures being likely to surrender to a place like Amn, but I can't see them surrendering to a place like Impiltur as much.... which is odd, because our general "noble" sensibilities would say it to be the opposite.
bloodtide_the_red Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 05:46:33
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Oh, I don't debate that Manshoon was not actually Chosen. He was treated as if he were Chosen.


Ok, so to be a Chosen a deity must touch you and fill you with divine energy that alters your body and grants you magical powers. This is a basic definition of a Chosen. So....unless this happens you are NOT a Chosen.

So...you can't really "treat a person like a Chosen"

So would not the Army example be more like: You have General Grant who has high security clearance, command of a battalion and access to tons of military hardware.

Then you have Leroy, who lives in a double wide trailer and has a shot gun and a pick up truck.

So then you walk over to Leroy and say "you are now General Leroy" and then you...um...."treat Leroy like he is a general" and say have him "invade the back 40".
Wooly Rupert Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 17:20:30
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2


Oh, I don't debate that Manshoon was not actually Chosen. He was treated as if he were Chosen. I'll provide an example that I think highlights why this matters.

When I was a non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army, we would have a training exercise with ROTC cadets every year. When a cadet is at training, they get paid an E-5 wage (a Sergeant's wage in the Army). They are actually training, they are wearing the uniform, getting paid a non-commissioned officer's wages. Are they in the U.S. Army? The answer is no. However, the fact that they are wearing the U.S. Army military uniform, get paid by the Army, and are engaging in military training, means they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 2.

So, the point I am making in this regard is the following: cadet is not in the Army, but gets treated as if he were in the Army until otherwise demonstrated. That is the same situation as Manshoon. Mystra effectively assigned him to work with Elminster, and made the choice not too. Up until the point he chose not too, he was basically like that cadet.

I'm certain he got paid more than an E-5 though. lol

Best regards as always, and I look forward to your rebuttal.





No, a more accurate analogy would be that your E-5 is told to work side by side with an officer, and that he could get his own commission if he chose. But he declined, so he is not an officer, and does not have the pay or ability to command enlisted people that are higher than E-5. The requirement to work with the officer was not contingent on the offered commission.
cpthero2 Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 15:18:46
Master Rupert,

quote:
*Sigh* You just can't leave it alone, can you? I'd go through and refute these points -- AGAIN -- but you've already proven unwilling to consider another viewpoint on this one.


I truly am, most sincerely, willing to consider another viewpoint. I am willing to consider even retracting any and all previous statements on this topic of debate and agree with you or anyone else: I truly am.

I really think what we're debating over here is the ethic that we find to a) be associated with Khelben, b) what ethic that perhaps we have as people in our daily lives, and c) how our ethic is potentially affecting our viewpoint of Khelben as we analyze whether he is moral or not.

Where do you feel I've misunderstood/misinterpreted the material I've put out regarding Khelben and points I've made to you and others since the original debate began?

quote:
Manshoon was not a Chosen. And even if Manshoon had taken Mystra up on her offer, it was years after the thing you're so hung up on -- so he was not treated as a Chosen at the time.


Oh, I don't debate that Manshoon was not actually Chosen. He was treated as if he were Chosen. I'll provide an example that I think highlights why this matters.

When I was a non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army, we would have a training exercise with ROTC cadets every year. When a cadet is at training, they get paid an E-5 wage (a Sergeant's wage in the Army). They are actually training, they are wearing the uniform, getting paid a non-commissioned officer's wages. Are they in the U.S. Army? The answer is no. However, the fact that they are wearing the U.S. Army military uniform, get paid by the Army, and are engaging in military training, means they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 2.

So, the point I am making in this regard is the following: cadet is not in the Army, but gets treated as if he were in the Army until otherwise demonstrated. That is the same situation as Manshoon. Mystra effectively assigned him to work with Elminster, and made the choice not too. Up until the point he chose not too, he was basically like that cadet.

I'm certain he got paid more than an E-5 though. lol

Best regards as always, and I look forward to your rebuttal.

Wooly Rupert Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 11:14:39
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2

Master Rupert,

quote:
I'm not doing the Khelben debate with you again. No new information has been stated, so there's no need to rehash that one.


Fair enough.

quote:
Now, as for Manshoon being a Chosen: There's a hell of a lot more to being one of Mystra's Chosen than being given orders.


I have to admit, we are in agreement here. I think I have a list of those things that at least Khelben as a Chosen does beyond taking orders:

  • Larceny
  • Mass Murder
  • Co-Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder
  • Co-conspiracy to cause an epidemic of social unrest
  • Co-Conspiracy to War and the subjugation of the Moonsea region
  • Co-Conspiracy to Expand the Faith of Xvim/Bane
  • Co-Conspiracy to Provide Aid and Comfort to an Enemy Nation and Religion (the Zhentarim and Thay)


I must admit: that is "...a hell of a lot more to being one of Mystra's Chosen that being given orders." Though, I have to be honest here. I think if he had followed orders, things might have been a little less...murdery, and stuff. All that stealin and robbin', the riots, mass carnage, mass murder, war, and more.




*Sigh* You just can't leave it alone, can you? I'd go through and refute these points -- AGAIN -- but you've already proven unwilling to consider another viewpoint on this one.

quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2

I do acknowledge that sentence regarding the rejection. It's about choice. Mystra wanted to give Manshoon the choice, and he did make a choice. As Ed said though, "In effect, she treated him as one of her Chosen." That's as clear as it gets there. Mystra was having Manshoon working with Elminster, and he chose otherwise. That doesn't reverse Mystra's treating him as Chosen. So, Khelben did in fact go against Chosen.



Manshoon was not a Chosen. And even if Manshoon had taken Mystra up on her offer, it was years after the thing you're so hung up on -- so he was not treated as a Chosen at the time.

And again, Khelben did not act against Manshoon, so the entire argument is moot.
cpthero2 Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 06:19:37
Master Rupert,

quote:
I'm not doing the Khelben debate with you again. No new information has been stated, so there's no need to rehash that one.


Fair enough.

quote:
Now, as for Manshoon being a Chosen: There's a hell of a lot more to being one of Mystra's Chosen than being given orders.


I have to admit, we are in agreement here. I think I have a list of those things that at least Khelben as a Chosen does beyond taking orders:

  • Larceny
  • Mass Murder
  • Co-Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder
  • Co-conspiracy to cause an epidemic of social unrest
  • Co-Conspiracy to War and the subjugation of the Moonsea region
  • Co-Conspiracy to Expand the Faith of Xvim/Bane
  • Co-Conspiracy to Provide Aid and Comfort to an Enemy Nation and Religion (the Zhentarim and Thay)


I must admit: that is "...a hell of a lot more to being one of Mystra's Chosen that being given orders." Though, I have to be honest here. I think if he had followed orders, things might have been a little less...murdery, and stuff. All that stealin and robbin', the riots, mass carnage, mass murder, war, and more.

My god: Finder must be thinking, "How in the hell did I get a sentence to the Citadel of the White Exile for as long as I did for having my apprentice accidentally killed, and me preserving my music out of pride?" If ever there was a need for an appellate court with the Harper's that was time. haha

quote:
Besides which, you may want to read the next sentence: 'And he rejected her, behind her back, a moment after her "departure."


I do acknowledge that sentence regarding the rejection. It's about choice. Mystra wanted to give Manshoon the choice, and he did make a choice. As Ed said though, "In effect, she treated him as one of her Chosen." That's as clear as it gets there. Mystra was having Manshoon working with Elminster, and he chose otherwise. That doesn't reverse Mystra's treating him as Chosen. So, Khelben did in fact go against Chosen.

As always, thank you for the spirited debate Master Rupert!

Best regards,

cpthero2 Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 05:42:07
Great Reader slevyas,

quote:
The Chosen thing came in one of Ed's novels revolving around the sundering. I forget the exact storyline of it. EDIT: And I see cpthero2 just quoted it above. Better arguments than mine.


In all fairness at the same time, it was a little buried though too. I vaguely recalled it, and dug in the trunk a bit for it.

quote:
On the rest, it can all be viewed through the lens of the beholder.


Agreed there, but then again, that is the point about the amazing discussion we're having about ethics, etc. in some of the other scrolls.

quote:
Essentially the zhents not expanding westward just means they stay out of the hair of other power groups in my view. It may not accomplish anything. Meanwhile, multiple Manshoons get created.


My only point to Master Rupert was that Fzoul didn't keep his word about the 10,000 days. There is no possible way Khelben didn't see that coming, unless he had dementia or something. Now, if that's the case...I retract most, if not all of my previous argumentative points.

quote:
I don't hate Khelben, but I can understand the argument put forth by someone who says he did wrong.


I don't hate Khelben as I know him for who he is. I hate the notion that he gets so much cred for being a "good guy" [whatever that means], while he goes around taking archmage-sizes craps on the planet, and when called out on it by the only system of justice he has agreed to stand by, he says, "Nah, thanks anyways. Thanks for the chips.", and boogies out of town to go sulk in his Battower and makes another club, that is........shocking, evil as well. It has some good people in it, but when you start hanging out BFF'ing it up with a vampire as one of your broham's, I think you've gone dark side.

quote:
Essentially, I'm saying "the world is gray and not black and white", which is kind of why I started this thread... I didn't start it with something as complex as Khelben's actions mind you... I started it with something a lot more simple hoping we could delve the differences with various cultures... but as with a lot of things, its hard to keep us all on point (and I'm as bad about that as anyone else).


Oh, I know. This stuff is heady. I always appreciate anyone willing to jump in on this stuff and to have a good, solid, discussion/debate about it.

Thank you to Great Reader sleyvas and Master Rupert as always gentlemen!

Best regards,

Wooly Rupert Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 03:00:32
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2



quote:
And I don't recall Manshoon being a Chosen, anyway.


Ed sort of disagrees with from 29 Oct 2014 [https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/manshoon-manyfaced]:

quote:
There came a time, chronicled in the Sage of Shadowdale trilogy, when Manshoon was given a direct and public command by Mystra to work with Elminster, in furthering her causes. In effect, she treated him as one of her Chosen.


So, one could argue that because he didn't have the powers of a chosen, he wasn't chosen; however, I think we both know that is a non-argument as well. Mystra herself treated him as chosen. Good enough for me from Ed. If you're going to argue that she is ethical by keeping The Blackstaff's chosen powers going as you did in your final argument below, then it's illogical to argue that her effectively treating Manshoon as chosen is not the case. That would simply defy any sensible rationale whatsoever.


I'm not doing the Khelben debate with you again. No new information has been stated, so there's no need to rehash that one.

Now, as for Manshoon being a Chosen: There's a hell of a lot more to being one of Mystra's Chosen than being given orders.

Besides which, you may want to read the next sentence: 'And he rejected her, behind her back, a moment after her "departure." '

So no, Ed does not disagree with me on the topic of Manshoon being a Chosen: he states himself that Manshoon rejected it.
sleyvas Posted - 22 Sep 2020 : 02:37:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Khelben didn't act against another Chosen of Mystra with the Scepter -- he gave it to Fzoul.

And I don't recall Manshoon being a Chosen, anyway.

It must also be noted that Khelben's deal with Fzoul prevented the Zhents from expanding west for more than 27 YEARS. This would have protected hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, for an entire generation.

It also must be noted that the deities of the Harpers continued to extend their blessings to Khelben's group -- which makes it obvious that at the worst, they considered his actions to be a lesser evil, compared to what he accomplished. And given the way Khelben played the game, we may not have seen yet what all he accomplished with this.



The Chosen thing came in one of Ed's novels revolving around the sundering. I forget the exact storyline of it. EDIT: And I see cpthero2 just quoted it above. Better arguments than mine.

On the rest, it can all be viewed through the lens of the beholder. Essentially the zhents not expanding westward just means they stay out of the hair of other power groups in my view. It may not accomplish anything. Meanwhile, multiple Manshoons get created. I don't hate Khelben, but I can understand the argument put forth by someone who says he did wrong. Essentially, I'm saying "the world is gray and not black and white", which is kind of why I started this thread... I didn't start it with something as complex as Khelben's actions mind you... I started it with something a lot more simple hoping we could delve the differences with various cultures... but as with a lot of things, its hard to keep us all on point (and I'm as bad about that as anyone else).

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000