| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 17:03:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
The blackguard epitomizes evil. He is nothing short of a mortal fiend. The quintessential black knight, this villain carries a reputation of the foulest sort that is very well deserved. Consorting with demons and devils and serving dark deities, the blackguard is hated and feared by all. Some people call these villains antipaladins due to their completely evil nature.
Not a stereotype, it's the concept of the class.
hmm, I have to agree with you and Rinonalyrna. Thank you for pointing that out. In the end, I'm the one using blackguards differently then it is designed to be. |
 |
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 17:04:44
|
You're welcome. Remember though, that it's your game, and your decision as to what to do. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 18:38:42
|
Also note that there's a difference between "becoming a blackguard by accident" and "fooling yourself into believing you're a paladin, when you're really becoming a blackguard."
Evil for evil's sake is nonsensical and, IMO, intensely boring.
Evil as justified within the evil person's mind--now that's the ticket. Look, for instance, as Gareth Cormaeril (CoS: Waterdeep sourcebook, page 49)--a cahotic evil blackguard who believes he is still a paladin, through "elaborate rationalizations" and "willful ignorance." He still knowingly made the bargain, yes, but he has successfully convinced himself (and many, many others) that he did not acquire the taint of evil, even as he really, truly did.
People don't do evil things *to be evil*--they do them for real reasons, like power, coin, pleasure, validation, respect they feel they deserve, etc. Evil people just don't have an compunctions about the methods they use, and/or they like seeing people suffer (which fulfills a natural need of some sort in their mentality). Even evil people don't do evil all the time--taking a shower isn't evil, for instance, or eating, or breathing. And you can bet your last copper piece that they have some sort of emotional attachment to people or things, which isn't evil in and of itself--and may indeed be good (see Riven + dogs, in the Erevis Cale trilogy). So this notion of a "pure evil" person isn't realistic.
If your monster/blackguard/goblin/orc's motivation is "TO BE EVIL YAYS!", then you've got a cardboard cutout--not a person or even an animal, but an isoteric concept given flesh.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 19:03:45
|
Fiction is precisely esoteric concepts -- the underlying archetypes of the cosmos -- given flesh, that is, rendered at whatever level of realism or fabulation the author is working with. The power and meanings of novels and films are far greater than the sum of their naturalistic fake psychologized bioraphies: if you focus on the surface manifestation that's, as I mention above, not fantasy but dogmatic realism in quasi-medieval drag. It's Tolkien's modern Fourth Age, which he couldn't write about, rather than the progressively descending First, Second and Third.
So yes, in the Realms, evil without human processes and reasons is inadequate. But for me, Erik, you go too far into the modern orthodoxy that exalts those processes, greyness and psychological nuance and verisimilitude, as ends in themselves. Your dichotomy is false: implicitly conflating stereotype and archetype, which are two quite distinct alternatives to psychological murk.
Evil, cruelty and suffering in our world is, to an extent, a thing-in-itself, whose irrational reality defies partial explanations of upbringing or simple psychological labels, and characters written as if those labels make a person are as much cardboard cut-outs as those that miswrite good and evil into complete internalities. And the more so in the concentrated, heightened worlds of fiction. |
Edited by - Faraer on 24 Nov 2008 19:31:08 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 20:34:50
|
This is rapidly heading majorly off topic, so I'll post this and leave it at that. I suggest we not continue this thread of conversation, lest this turn into another morality thread.
I disagree with you about evil being a "thing in itself" in our world--it (like good) is a characteristic of actions and intentions. But we can agree to disagree on that. It's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is more along the lines of how evil operates in fantasy.
Cutting through the high-level discourse (I'm not really sure what you mean by any of it, and honestly it seems to me to be an obfuscation of the point): I think we fundamentally disagree about the function of fiction, or perhaps we disagree more about *how* fiction is supposed to achieve that function.
Personally, I believe that fiction is a tool meant to teach us about ourselves, and that it does that by reflecting us as we experience it. From a writing perspective, when we write we create an expression of our conscious and subconscious beliefs, fears, and views about the world, as given voice through the words that we write. From a reader's perspective, this applies to the words that we read--they seep into our minds and interact with our preconceived notions and thoughts about the world.
Both of these thought-processes (writing and reading) are impossible to escape--they just happen. Otherwise, it's just letters on a page without meaning of any sort--it's up tot he mind to put them together. To pretend that we can *escape* this process--that we can write without creating reflections of ourselves (whether they are poor or nigh-perfect reflections)--is a fallacy. We write ourselves, or we read ourselves.
But to be fair, I don't think you're suggesting that we should strive not to "write ourselves"--I think what you're suggesting is that we should write reflections, but they should all be archetypes? They shouldn't bother with any of this false "realism" the author tries to put on them, because that just distracts?
You seem to be saying that trying to make fantasy characters into reflections of real people (i.e., granting them a complex psychology, rather than going by simple archetypes) is stupid--that it isn't the point of fiction and is, indeed, creating "fake psychologized biographies" (to use your terms). Do you think all fiction should be escapist? That it should be discussing (to put it Socratically) forms, rather than actual objects? That we should all be writing mythology--like Tolkien's work--rather than fantasy?
Well, I'm sorry, but I learned a LOT about human nature from reading George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, and I see his writing operating on an archetypal level and a very human one as well. I see no reason that you need to pick "psychologized biographies" or archetypes--they aren't mutually contradictory.
I wonder what you think makes a work of fantasy *good*?
(And don't say Tolkien, because Tolkien isn't really fantasy--as I said before, he's writing mythology. Made-up mythology, ok, but mythology nonetheless. Maybe that's what you think all fantasy should be, in which case, you're bound to be disappointed.)
A fictional work means many things--one thing to its creator, and a whole host of other things to its audience. What you get out of a book (or a movie, or music, or anything artistic) is what you bring to it--if you bring a certain view of morality, that's what you'll see in the book: how it enforces or contradicts your view.
Now you don't *have to* consciously take anything out of fiction. If you want to read it for pure escapism (as you seem to imply we *should* do, else we run the risk of turning it into "dogmatic realism in quasi-medieval drag" if we try and take psychological lessons to apply to our own world), fine by me.
But just because it's fiction doesn't mean it doesn't contain truth--and just because they're fictional humans doesn't mean they get to act like they aren't human or suffer the same faults human have, or have the same thoughts, hopes, and dreams that humans have.
And on that note, I'll quit my participation in this thread. If you want to discuss this further, contact me through some other means.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 24 Nov 2008 20:40:17 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 20:53:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
So this notion of a "pure evil" person isn't realistic.
Just to clarify, I was disagreeing with the idea that a blackguard's level of "intensity" (which I understand to be "passion for the cause") couldn't match that of a paladin, and if it did, that's "just a stereotype".
Just giving my take on things.
|
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 21:49:03
|
Guess I lied about quitting the thread! Had another thing to say:
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Just giving my take on things.
I wasn't meaning to contradict you or suggest that you weren't right, 'Lyrna. My post was mostly to Faraer.
And I rather suspect that a blackguard can muster the same enthusiasm and intensity a paladin can, but the paladin's intensity isn't for "goodness" so much as for doing things that *are* good, like protecting, aiding, healing, supporting, etc., or (less specifically) supporting a good cause (like that of Tyr, Torm, or any other good-aligned deity). In the same way, a blackguard could muster up that sort of intensity for evil acts (like hurting, violating, crushing, pillage, or supporting an evil deity).
But I personally find the psychopathic "evil for evil's sake" characters kinda boring.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2008 : 23:38:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
This is rapidly heading majorly off topic, so I'll post this and leave it at that. I suggest we not continue this thread of conversation, lest this turn into another morality thread.
I disagree with you about evil being a "thing in itself" in our world--it (like good) is a characteristic of actions and intentions. But we can agree to disagree on that. It's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is more along the lines of how evil operates in fantasy.
Cutting through the high-level discourse (I'm not really sure what you mean by any of it, and honestly it seems to me to be an obfuscation of the point): I think we fundamentally disagree about the function of fiction, or perhaps we disagree more about *how* fiction is supposed to achieve that function.
Personally, I believe that fiction is a tool meant to teach us about ourselves, and that it does that by reflecting us as we experience it. From a writing perspective, when we write we create an expression of our conscious and subconscious beliefs, fears, and views about the world, as given voice through the words that we write. From a reader's perspective, this applies to the words that we read--they seep into our minds and interact with our preconceived notions and thoughts about the world.
Both of these thought-processes (writing and reading) are impossible to escape--they just happen. Otherwise, it's just letters on a page without meaning of any sort--it's up tot he mind to put them together. To pretend that we can *escape* this process--that we can write without creating reflections of ourselves (whether they are poor or nigh-perfect reflections)--is a fallacy. We write ourselves, or we read ourselves.
But to be fair, I don't think you're suggesting that we should strive not to "write ourselves"--I think what you're suggesting is that we should write reflections, but they should all be archetypes? They shouldn't bother with any of this false "realism" the author tries to put on them, because that just distracts?
You seem to be saying that trying to make fantasy characters into reflections of real people (i.e., granting them a complex psychology, rather than going by simple archetypes) is stupid--that it isn't the point of fiction and is, indeed, creating "fake psychologized biographies" (to use your terms). Do you think all fiction should be escapist? That it should be discussing (to put it Socratically) forms, rather than actual objects? That we should all be writing mythology--like Tolkien's work--rather than fantasy?
Well, I'm sorry, but I learned a LOT about human nature from reading George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, and I see his writing operating on an archetypal level and a very human one as well. I see no reason that you need to pick "psychologized biographies" or archetypes--they aren't mutually contradictory.
I wonder what you think makes a work of fantasy *good*?
(And don't say Tolkien, because Tolkien isn't really fantasy--as I said before, he's writing mythology. Made-up mythology, ok, but mythology nonetheless. Maybe that's what you think all fantasy should be, in which case, you're bound to be disappointed.)
A fictional work means many things--one thing to its creator, and a whole host of other things to its audience. What you get out of a book (or a movie, or music, or anything artistic) is what you bring to it--if you bring a certain view of morality, that's what you'll see in the book: how it enforces or contradicts your view.
Now you don't *have to* consciously take anything out of fiction. If you want to read it for pure escapism (as you seem to imply we *should* do, else we run the risk of turning it into "dogmatic realism in quasi-medieval drag" if we try and take psychological lessons to apply to our own world), fine by me.
But just because it's fiction doesn't mean it doesn't contain truth--and just because they're fictional humans doesn't mean they get to act like they aren't human or suffer the same faults human have, or have the same thoughts, hopes, and dreams that humans have.
And on that note, I'll quit my participation in this thread. If you want to discuss this further, contact me through some other means.
Cheers
One word: wow 
Sir, if you wish to quit this discussion because you have said all you wanted to say, I respect that. But please, don't stop because you think you went off-topic. This is way too... I don't know, inspiring? I bow to your wise words. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 25 Nov 2008 : 00:54:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
And I rather suspect that a blackguard can muster the same enthusiasm and intensity a paladin can, but the paladin's intensity isn't for "goodness" so much as for doing things that *are* good, like protecting, aiding, healing, supporting, etc., or (less specifically) supporting a good cause (like that of Tyr, Torm, or any other good-aligned deity). In the same way, a blackguard could muster up that sort of intensity for evil acts (like hurting, violating, crushing, pillage, or supporting an evil deity).
Yes, that's more or less what I was getting at. Evil gods are out there, and they do manage to attract worshippers, so it makes sense to me that at least a few individuals would be passionately devoted to their causes, even if such causes would be repugnant to the average person. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Nov 2008 : 14:53:03
|
Well (and this is my "pseudo medieval drag" talking--I actually kinda like that phrase), I rather think that people act in ways we ascribe as evil to fulfill their own internalized needs (power, ambition, domination), to act against trauma (avenge past misdeeds, try and balance yourself after being a victim of horrendous abuse), or out of simple psychosis (i.e., the inability to empathize or connect with other human beings, thus becoming a reptilian-brained "evil-machine" as it were).
Fantasy (as Faraer's posts imply, and I think it's correct) adds a fourth motivation: corruption by the forces of darkness. Fantasy often acts to tie all the evil motivation into this fourth dimension, with "forces of darkness" being the fundamental explanation for the evil in a fantasy novel.
This, of course, lets "evil people" off the hook and turns them into archetypes rather than actual people. And if anything, this is a VERY medieval mindset (where "the devil made me do it" was a legitimate excuse).
I think, however, that presenting "evil deeds" as symptomatic of "corruption" is problematic, mostly because it enforces a naive and false simplicity to morality, and young and impressionable people read these books. I don't believe the author can (or should) try to account for everyone's reaction to his/her work--that said, I think an author has some responsibility to "do no harm," as it were. For instance, if I wrote a novel glorifying serial rape or child molestation (or, at least, justifying it so we see it as anything other than the object horror it is), then I have done a morally reprehensible thing unworthy of a writer.
I think what Faraer and I are really arguing about is the appropriate *balance* between psychological parallelism to our world on one hand, and archetypal striving between fundamental, cosmic forces (like good and evil) on the other. I came out swinging for parallelism, and he fought back for archetypal fundamentalism. I seem to think, though, that in this--as in most things--moderation is the way to go.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
see
Learned Scribe
235 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2008 : 07:30:27
|
I think the 3e rules for Helm were a mistake; like the equally LN St. Cuthbert in core, he shouldn't have allowed evil clerics. In 2e, his allowed clergy alignments were LG, LN, or N. His worshiper alignments included all non-evil alignments and no evil alignments. All of his named foes were evil except Garagos . . . and Garagos was on the edge of evil (living in Pandemonium, only non-good worshipers, only CN and CE clergy).
So I don't like the idea of Helm giving divine power to any evil characters.
Now, if we were talking about, say, Azuth? Azuth himself wouldn't care unless it affected his service. Paladins of Azuth would be various mixtures of saddened and disgusted, and treat him coldly (with some having to be sternly reminded not to be violent to the "traitor" who is, after all, still in Azuth's service). Good clergy would be somewhat more detached than paladins, as a rule. Neutral clergy would see this as an unpleasant swing; he didn't abandon his concerns outside order and magic, he just traded them for a more disagreeable set of outside interests. Evil priests of Azuth would tend to see him as finally seeing the light and shedding his hypocrisy.
Similar reactions would apply in the cases of other LN deities like Hoar, Red Knight, or Siamorphe. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2008 : 22:25:03
|
I'm unclear: are you saying Helm should be Lawful Good in alignment, rather than LN? Or are you saying the LN label should stick, but his clerics should be prohibited from being LE?
This may be an instance where the mechanics (be within one step of your deity's alignment) conflict with the previous lore. And really, I'm fine with the LN Helm having evil clerics--they're just clearly not the majority. (See my previous notes about uses for an "evil" guardian.)
I think Helm's leaning toward goodness was more of a church-wide initiative than a function of his personal alignment. As a deity, he is strictly lawful neutral in alignment, and we see that trumps his commitments to good or evil allies (as in the Time of Troubles, when he honors his appointed duty rather than his friendship/alliance with Mystra). But just because he's neutral doesn't mean he doesn't *prefer* good allies over evil ones, and most of his conflicts in the past have been with evil deities.
If it were all about alignment, Bane and Helm would be the best of friends, really. But they are bitter enemies: not because of an alignment conflict, but for reasons of motivation and action.
Alignment is only one aspect of a D&D conflict, and there's no reason evil clerics couldn't completely support Helm's cause while at the same time being evil.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
see
Learned Scribe
235 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 07:56:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm unclear: are you saying Helm should be Lawful Good in alignment, rather than LN? Or are you saying the LN label should stick, but his clerics should be prohibited from being LE?
The latter. Helm is clearly neutral, not good. But, the lore shows him (uniquely among the seven LN deities of Faerun, living and dead) as not allowing evil clergy. Thus the analogy with St. Cuthbert; to quote the 3rd editon PHB (p.29-30, emphasis added):
quote:
Typically, a cleric is the same alignment as his deity, though some clerics are "one step" away from their respective deities. For example, most clerics of of Heironeous, god of valor (who is lawful good) are lawful good themselves, but some are lawful neutral or neutral good. Additionally, a cleric may not be neutral unless his deity is neutral. Exceptions are the clerics of St. Cuthbert (a lawful neutral deity), who may only be lawful good or lawful neutral.
So. Given the pre-existing lore from 2e (mentioned in my previous post), and given the precedent of St. Cuthbert directly in the core rules, I'd have limited the alignment choices of Helm's clerics in 3.x FR to LG and LN only. I think it was a mistake that it wasn't, and a bigger mistake that no errata was ever issued to change it. |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 14:54:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by see
So. Given the pre-existing lore from 2e (mentioned in my previous post), and given the precedent of St. Cuthbert directly in the core rules, I'd have limited the alignment choices of Helm's clerics in 3.x FR to LG and LN only. I think it was a mistake that it wasn't, and a bigger mistake that no errata was ever issued to change it.
While I agree that many would prefer it that way, I think it would be wrong to assume that it was a mistake on their part. As it has been shown in previous posts, mostly by Mr de Bie, LE clerics of Helm COULD find their place in this church, but are significantly in fewer number than the LN or LG. If you disagree, and you are certainly allowed to, that's fine, but I don't suggest that you wait for an errata (mostly because Helm died in 4th ed  ) |
Edited by - Kilvan on 07 Dec 2008 15:18:01 |
|
|
|
see
Learned Scribe
235 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 20:41:18
|
Yeah, if I were going to hold my breath for errata, I'd be awfully blue by now. But whether they allowed LE clerics of Helm intentionally or accidentally, it was still a mistake/an error/wrong/whatever.
I understand and appreciate arguments in favor of LE Helmites. I just think they misjudge Helm's personal character (with the 2e lore being used to bolster my opinion of Helm's character). Helm, I feel, would consider characters who crossed the line into a full-blown evil alignments too much of a risk. In reaction, Helm would cut off their spells and send a vision to inform both the Hemite and his superior(s) in that he had done so. Of course, an evil god might continue to supply spells, and send a vision claiming the first vision was the deceptive act of an evil god. This would be especially likely in the case of Mask or Cyric. |
|
|
|
Mouse
Acolyte
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 11:26:47
|
I don't believe Blackguards actually have to have a patron deity at all.
They DO need to do that evil outsider pact thing, but that could be from a god, a servent outsider of a god, or just some random demon without alignment.
Scyulla Darkhope is a blackguard attached to a god, but nowhere does it say that ALL blackguards have to be that way.
I for one once played a blackguard who only worshipped Bane because it had benefits politically with the Zhents (to be fair, he WAS a Lawful Evil warrior who wanted to rule stuff), and really only fought for his own gain (he was kind of a anti-hero though....his Lawful traits came into play quite often).
Isn't that a defining trait of a really evil person like a blackguard is supposed to be?
No matter whom you're serving, you really only serve yourself. |
"Barbarians are more polite then civilized men, for civilized men know they may be rude to another without having their skulls cleaved open as a general thing."
-Conan |
|
|
|
Ionik Knight
Learned Scribe
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 13:31:50
|
I'ld say that after the Time of Troubles Helm has earned evil worshipers and clerics, but that's just me.
As far as the name Michael; Earth style spelling of names is rare but not unheard of. Gareth, Christine, and Sylvia of the Bloodstone lands come to my mind immediately; and Earth names with alternate spellings are fairly common. |
Fools to right of them,
Jesters to left of them,
Clowns in front of them
Pun'd and parody'd. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 15:27:40
|
| The fact that certain authors have been ignorant or uncaring of what Realms names are like, and certain editors messed up by letting them through, doesn't mean their mistakes are models to follow. |
|
|
|
Arion Elenim
Senior Scribe
933 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 19:35:08
|
A quick fix of any Faerun name is to insert the letter 'y' somewhere. Steven becomes Styven, Michael to Myckel. :)
By the way, I'm loving this premise. How can a god sanction both classes? It's a great way to add some drama into a campaign.... |
My latest Realms-based short story, about a bard, a paladin of Lathander and the letter of the law, Debts Repaid. It takes place before the "shattering" and gives the bard Arion a last gasp before he plunges into the present.http://candlekeep.com/campaign/logs/log-debts.htm |
|
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
Senior Scribe
USA
387 Posts |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 22:20:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arion Elenim
By the way, I'm loving this premise. How can a god sanction both classes? It's a great way to add some drama into a campaign....
A god can do this because he doesn't care specifically for good or evil but focuses on law/order aspect of alignment. Law does not have to be good, and a lawful neutral god who denies evil worshippers should either switch to lawful good or accept that evil worshippers = more worshippers = more power.
The paladins and blackguards shouldn't be expected to work together, and probably wouldn't even be part of the same local church heirarchy. |
Some people are like a slinky... not good for much, but when you push them down the stairs, it makes you smile. |
|
|
|
dwarvenranger
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 01:18:52
|
| Yeah, some of the stuff that went on Maztica, has me thinking that Helm has evil followers too. |
If I waited till I knew what I was doing, I'd never get anything done.
|
|
|
|
Arion Elenim
Senior Scribe
933 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 01:18:58
|
But if a god doesn't care about good or evil, how can he 'empower' a blackguard when that class specifically draws power from 'evil' sources?
I'm not trolling the class, just the opposite: pointing out that a DM and a PC have a GREAT opportunity to explore a deity's personality and interests in this situation. I couldn't imagine NOT have a crisis of faith if I was suddenly staring into the eyes of someone completely opposed to my every moral belief, and who didn't just claim to worship my own god, but who was even empowered by them!
Good stuff. :) |
My latest Realms-based short story, about a bard, a paladin of Lathander and the letter of the law, Debts Repaid. It takes place before the "shattering" and gives the bard Arion a last gasp before he plunges into the present.http://candlekeep.com/campaign/logs/log-debts.htm |
|
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
Senior Scribe
USA
387 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 02:16:54
|
| Perhaps there's a complex system of favors involved... maybe Helm bargains with another Faerunian god of evil alignment or maybe some devil to be the source of blackguard empowerment, perhaps in exchange for a little of Helm's watchfulness over this or that for the other entity. I think the same should hold true for paladins. How can a neutral god empower paragons of virtue? |
Some people are like a slinky... not good for much, but when you push them down the stairs, it makes you smile. |
|
|
|
Arion Elenim
Senior Scribe
933 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 06:26:39
|
I may be getting overly-philosophical here, but "right" and "good" are not always the same thing (ie: it may be 'just' or 'right' to kill a murderer, but not 'good', etc), and a neutral god dedicated to nature, travel, or an element, could empower a being with positive energy and call them a paladin.
Tempus or Talos would be good examples - Talos as god of storms and thunder could philosophically have worshippers (or even paladins) dedicated to the power of thunder as a destroyer of the wicked or of a destroyer of...well everything, and not care how each act is done - just that the act is done at all. |
My latest Realms-based short story, about a bard, a paladin of Lathander and the letter of the law, Debts Repaid. It takes place before the "shattering" and gives the bard Arion a last gasp before he plunges into the present.http://candlekeep.com/campaign/logs/log-debts.htm |
|
|
|
Ghost King
Learned Scribe
USA
253 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 10:46:16
|
Helm, as I understand him, is about Protecting Toril. Period. He doesn't care about "good" or "evil" he cares about making sure Toril stays in existence. Now being a LN god as it is, more then half would probably share his alignment and even a good chunk would just be neutral aligned including the random followers, if you want to go by the typical leadership rules in 3.X. Now if it were the real world, people more rational in nature would be drawn to him as their god. What's not to like about a god that says everybody deserves protection that can't defend themselves?
However, I'm sure a good chunk of people both good and evil do worship the Watcher god because of his dogma and it appeals to them. Dare I say he is probably the most fair lawfully? He was the only god Ao didn't slap down and actually had Helm defend the Throne of the Gods from the gods of Faerun in the Time of Troubles. (Might be wrong heard that second hand. I haven't gotten to read that series just yet, just sourcebooks on the history of that time.)
Now as for having evil clerics and giving them spells, yes, but let me explain it further. Helm is a calculating deity that guards against evil as well as overzealous good, which isn't necessarily a bad thing except when it goes out of control and ventures into evil. Now I'm sure I'm going to get ripped a new one for saying "Too much good can be a bad thing" but here me out. When the Crusades started it was started with the ideal to do good by both sides, as they saw it. Sure they wanted land, power, wealth, glory and smiting the evil guy with the false faith, but many of them truly believed they were doing "good".
Now, lets change history up and add in a neutral contender just as powerful as the two other factions. Busts in and smacks both around and protects the innocent people caught in this little difference of opinion. Let's venture even further that this faction accepts all faiths as equals and they even work together to protect others regardless of race, creed or nationality. That's Helm in a nut shell.
He doesn't want two crazy-nuts, known as "good" and "evil", to knock around the people that get caught in the middle. Now does Helm want to consort with good gods more then evil gods, of course. Helm hates Bane for a good reason, Bane wants to enslave EVERYTHING, including other gods and planes, to his will or destroys that what defies him. Same with every other evil deity, you can't trust them; they lie to you, they tell lies about you, they'll betray you, and they'll kill you when you show any weakness or they have no more use for you. Interestingly enough, while good deities don't practice such things they do try to manipulate things to their agenda and will pretty much do whatever it takes to further their agenda like an evil deity, they just try to avoid killing if it is possible, and lock away or recruit their fellow deity.
Helm just thinks both are full-of-you-know-what; he still prefers the company of good dieties, because unlike evil deities they can be trusted to not always be scheming your demise. Of course, only as long as you don't offend their dogma or sphere of influence, which Helm would never do until provoked. So as Helm being a god of planning, guarding, and lawful in deed and action, has nothing to fear from good deities unless they try to harm Toril, him or his followers in some way.
Now as for clergy being evil, Helm being a calculator as he is, uses them for his own means. He is known as the Watcher for a reason, and probably uses such clerics to spy and blend into his rivals clergy or to use them as bait to see if Cyric or Bane tries to turn them. Or as was stated before, he wants to just keep them in the church to see if they can be bent closer to his point-of-view. Another possibility could be he just sees them as a chess piece needed for certain tasks, even if it is undesirable to have them do it. Heck, really nobody knows Helm except Helm, and why he does what he does. It even says in the Pantheon sourcebook that all the gods, good and evil, have no clue what he thinks or is up to or why he does what he does. And that's why neither side can stand Helm, but the part about not losing this divinity in the Time of Troubles is really what hurts all the other gods' pride. And gods do not like to be shown up, especially from one of their own.
Whew, I didn't mean to write this much! My bad folks, I usually try to keep my posts as short as possible, just got on a writing kick. Anyways, that's just my opinion on the matter.
~Ghost King~
Side-note to orginal poster: I personally think a Blackguard wouldn't be involved in Helm's heirarchy due to the fact they are considered the most foul evil of all mortal beings, I do not think Helm would knowingly allow them in his clergy or church. Blackguards to me are just people that finally got fed up with their humanity seeing it as a hinderance and give it away freely to sow evil for whatever reason. If an ex-paladin goes this route it is literally the metaphorical slap-in-the-face that is good and just in the world. They know better and they willing just say "F' YOU!" to everything they used to stand for. The ultimate betrayal so to speak.
And while I agree it would be interesting to see two exact opposites worshiping the same god in the same room, it just isn't realistic. Paladins would know they are evil with a blinding headache and vice versa. They would want to just kill the other just for the pure offense of the matter of them being in their prescence. Paladins will not knowing associate with evil people, now Blackguards will associate with anyone, but since they really would see Paladins (if they're ex-paladins) as weak and a slap in the face to see others succeed where they failed. Pride would give way to them wanting to kill, corrupt their rivals, cause them to fall from their paladinhood, or maybe a combination of all three.
But as its been said, it is your campaign you can change the concept to fit in your world as you see fit. As always, the point of playing a game is to have fun. Best of luck.
|
Edited by - Ghost King on 18 Dec 2008 12:28:19 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 12:42:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arion Elenim
I couldn't imagine NOT have a crisis of faith if I was suddenly staring into the eyes of someone completely opposed to my every moral belief, and who didn't just claim to worship my own god, but who was even empowered by them!
Good stuff. :)
I see your point, but that's the core of this awkward situation: Their beliefs are NOT completely opposed. They are both dedicated to protection, only that their "definition" of protection is different.
At the end of the day, the both want Faerun to be a safer place. (or should I say, a lawful place)
Look at it that way, why can't we consider LG working hand in hand with LE, but we have no trouble with say LG and CG? The law/chaos axis is as different/powerful than good/evil. It is easier to punish an evil act over a chaotic act (in rl), maybe we should not think that way in a fantasy world (considering that we live in a lawful society, but let's not get into that please). |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 13:11:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
However, I'm sure a good chunk of people both good and evil do worship the Watcher god because of his dogma and it appeals to them. Dare I say he is probably the most fair lawfully? He was the only god Ao didn't slap down and actually had Helm defend the Throne of the Gods from the gods of Faerun in the Time of Troubles. (Might be wrong heard that second hand. I haven't gotten to read that series just yet, just sourcebooks on the history of that time.)
IIRC it was Ao's way to punish Helm. He made it clear that ALL deities were responsible for their fall. Tyr tried the injustice flag, cost the poor fella his eyes 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Now I'm sure I'm going to get ripped a new one for saying "Too much good can be a bad thing" but here me out. When the Crusades started it was started with the ideal to do good by both sides, as they saw it. Sure they wanted land, power, wealth, glory and smiting the evil guy with the false faith, but many of them truly believed they were doing "good".
Attaboy Ghost King, that's exactly it. The crusades are probably the best example of being "too good". For faerunian, dawn cataclysm is perfect too to illustrate this. Lathander tried to shape the pantheon to his image and to get rid of all evil, he ended up doing more "bad" things. Helm lost his consort in this conflict, that should remind him that good can be as dangerous than evil. Rumors are that Lathander is preparing for a second attempt, who do you think is gonna be in the front line to stop him?
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Side-note to orginal poster: I personally think a Blackguard wouldn't be involved in Helm's heirarchy due to the fact they are considered the most foul evil of all mortal beings, I do not think Helm would knowingly allow them in his clergy or church. Blackguards to me are just people that finally got fed up with their humanity seeing it as a hinderance and give it away freely to sow evil for whatever reason. If an ex-paladin goes this route it is literally the metaphorical slap-in-the-face that is good and just in the world. They know better and they willing just say "F' YOU!" to everything they used to stand for. The ultimate betrayal so to speak.
You are right, but as I said earlier, this character will be a blackguard more Lawful than evil. My interpretation of blackguards tend to be less evil than the PrC description, I always try to avoid the ultimate-evil-for-no-particular-reasons at all cost, at least for religious characters (or npc).
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
And while I agree it would be interesting to see two exact opposites worshiping the same god in the same room, it just isn't realistic. Paladins would know they are evil with a blinding headache and vice versa. They would want to just kill the other just for the pure offense of the matter of them being in their prescence. Paladins will not knowing associate with evil people, now Blackguards will associate with anyone, but since they really would see Paladins (if they're ex-paladins) as weak and a slap in the face to see others succeed where they failed. Pride would give way to them wanting to kill, corrupt their rivals, cause them to fall from their paladinhood, or maybe a combination of all three.
Keep it mind, (though at this point it's not even part of this thread, and it's quite allright) that the organization he's leading puts all religious beliefs aside to work on a common goal, kill the heretics (binders). If a priest of Bane can ally with a priest of Tyr or Torm, then a blaguard of Helm can do the same with a paladin of Helm. Check it out in the Tome of magic (3.X ed), it's the order of Seropaenes. In a different situation, then I guess it would be case by case, I do not think that we can assume that ALL blackguards would attack the paladins on-sight, or vice-versa. |
Edited by - Kilvan on 18 Dec 2008 14:02:52 |
|
|
|
Ghost King
Learned Scribe
USA
253 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 13:42:53
|
Well, if you're just talking about LG and LE without classes such as Paladin and Blackguard in the mix, then yes they could. Just that Paladins are dedicated to vanquishing evil in all its forms and Blackguards are the opposing force there to corrupt or destroy all that is good.
As for law/chaos, Helm would be opposed to chaos just as much as good/evil. He does want a lawful world with Order. Having both good and evil in the ranks assures he is keeping such order by beating chaos to the punch, in a matter of speaking. If you have LE and NE people working with you to keep order against the chaos of the world, then you are one step ahead. Chaos on the other hand is by definition unpredictable, and in the case of CE highly destructive. While necessarily not bad it isn't good for civilization to have constant change and lack of stability, but on the flip side it isn't good to become stale and inflexible.
With your example about CG and LG vs LG and LE, I would say you do have a point. However, evil has the same problem with LE, CE, CN and LN. Each would conflict differently due to their good/neutral/evil axis. But regardless, if they share at least one element in common, there is common ground to forgive or compromise the opposing person's wild or rigid behavior. But conflict is always there to be sure and many times such people don't regularly consort with one another. That doesn't mean though they can't work with one another or get along.
Long story short, unless people have some super ability to tell what alignment someone is, anybody can work with anybody else. They might not like one another and very well might hate one another, but if they have a common goal, agenda, belief, etc, people of differing philosphies of a cause can work together. The key word is that there has to be something in common in order to do that though. Without that they probably wouldn't bother to associate outside of people that share their views.
~Ghost King~ |
|
|
|
Ghost King
Learned Scribe
USA
253 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 14:00:07
|
Oops! *Chuckles* You posted again since your last one, Kilvan. Forgive my impatience. Hmm, I was not aware of that, been a while since I skimmed my older books. As I said far be it of me to tell you how to play Blackguards and Paladins. And yes I over-dramatized the rivaly a little, but the dinner table discussion would be rather quiet, me thinks? (Cold-stares across the table and gritting teeth, sounds like family dinner night! J/K!)
But your idea is intriguing and I suppose possible in extreme circumstances for say Blackguards and Paladins to join forces to fight enemies of Helm, but I don't think either would give any thanks to the other and would just part ways as quickly as possible after the job was done. (Which by your example you gave, has already been done and I thank you for teaching me something new). |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 14:00:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
Long story short, unless people have some super ability to tell what alignment someone is, anybody can work with anybody else. They might not like one another and very well might hate one another, but if they have a common goal, agenda, belief, etc, people of differing philosphies of a cause can work together. The key word is that there has to be something in common in order to do that though. Without that they probably wouldn't bother to associate outside of people that share their views.
Right. I hate a handful of my co-workers, I still have to work with them to get the job done . |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
paladin and blackguard of the same god
