| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 14:16:14
So I wasn't sure how phrase this in the subject but essentially I got in a conversation with a friend of mine about what would be considered a valid servant of a god.
In this case we defined Valid as: Their methods are accepted (If not liked) by the god; They still receive Blessings/Prayers answered by their god; They wholeheartedly believe in their god (Thus aren't faithless or false).
Part of this came about when the question was posed:
"Abstracted from game mechanics: Would a Paladin who performed Lawful Evil actions still receive prayers from his god so long as they still upheld the dogma?"
Its obviously subjective but the situation was this:
A Paladin of Torm and his Order has been tasked with protecting a town ravaged by a nearby tribe or Orcs. The tribe has been smashed several times before but has reformed from the tatters and come back stronger and more aggressive each time. So this time when the Order marches on the tribe he commands them to slay all of them men, woman, and children and from now on any Orc peoples or tribes who settle in the area will be dealt with in the same manner.
To preface I am aware that if the deity was Helm or another Grey themed god it would be no issue but the conversation was directed towards gods with iron clad moralities.
Mandating Genocide being a Evil act (normally, more on this below), would Torm support this as his portfolio is Loyalty, Obedience, and Duty all Grey area concepts to begin with.
- Does his personal feelings trump his cosmic duty?
- There has been sentencing in the past named "Incompetence by Humanity" referring to gods acting on personal feelings or not in the interest of the cosmic order. could Torm refusing his follower here fall under that?
-In publications gods have said straight out that some creatures were entirely evil in nature (Mielikki on orcs was what came to mind) is that just like, a case by case basis for them?
-If they were considered evil by nature, would genocide even be considered evil cosmically?
We were discussing the likelihood of religious schisms were both sides were receiving prayers from their god |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 21:34:42
quote:
Originally posted by Corruption
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
The real question is, if a unicorn farts a rainbow and you collect it and sniff it..... will you commit genocide?
Let's not talk about last weekend Sleyvas
[/quote]
Dude, I was trying to clandestinely find out if anyone else had done that... ummm, genocide... thing after they were sniffing unicorn farts. We was supposed to keep it a secret. Noone was supposed to know what happened to the stench kows from the nine hells.
|
| Cyrinishad |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 20:05:26
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
So like, if alls you want is a happier example then can you accomplish Bane's portfolio (Tyranny, ambition, control) through neutral or even good methods?
I.E tyranny isn't so bad if all our needs are met and we arent attacked by destructive forces.
Take genocide of the table my dude and make the problem more applicable to all gods.
I'm not sure where you're coming up with your portfolio info at this point... but, Bane's portfolio has 4 specific elements to it: Strife, Hatred, Tyranny, and Fear... All of these concepts are explicitly evil, and no, there is no "good" method to spread Strife, Hatred, Tyranny, or Fear.
I.E. Tyranny is always evil, because the very definition of the word is Absolute Rulership characterized by Cruelty & Oppression. So, if "all our needs are met and we arent attacked by destructive forces", a Tyranny is still going to deliberately behave in ways that are Cruel, Oppressive, Unfair, and Abusive towards its people... Without those characteristics it's not Tyranny.
There are many deities that contain diverse concepts in their portfolios that are not explicitly good or evil... but, Bane is definitely not one of them...
Tyranny = Evil
Genocide = Evil |
| Irennan |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 16:24:30
^Outsiders are the only creatures that I think really are evil because of their intrinsic nature (or, as some put it, blood). Other mainstream evil races have been shown to be able to choose if raised in a different environment. Orcs included.
Some other evil races are not even evil, they're more along the lines of "blue and orange" morality. Example: illithids treat other races just like humans treat livestock. It is evil to us, sure, but it doesn't make sense for it to be evil to illithids.
Then again, this is derailing the thread, so I'll just drop this. |
| Corruption |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 16:02:51
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
That's what I find interesting is the difference between someone the god is currently interested in / using and a full priest.
So as a example lets take those extremist elves from your comment, if they came into conflict with a more moderate church or ranger group would Mielikki be justified in intervening in any way?
Granting one side's prayer and not the other; Actively working against a distasteful element of her mortal church etc... or are gods more shackled to the outcome?
Mielikki is a human God, and thus those Elves would not worship her, thus there is no conflict.
Now, for splits in the church, I remember reading one novel where that was dealt with. Sylune still granted theirprayers for Healing weakly. The weak part was to show them they were not in her favor, but that she has not fully turned her back on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
The topic was more about if a deity would support a priest (Support being granting their prayers for spellcasting) if they were doing something that was
A) In favor of the god's portfolio/domain
B) In direct conflict with the god's personal alignment
Example being Torm who is LG but whose portfolio has 0% to do with being good. Duty, Loyaly, and obedience are all neutral concepts.
There was a example earlier that I hope gets some citation of Mielikki supporting a Anti-Human group of rangers which would be in favor of "Yes, gods will grant spells to off-alignment organizations" now my only question is how does this work with Schisms in a church. when two factions are both working in favor of a portfolio but one matches the alignment of their god and the other doesn't.
Can the deity pick and choose who he wants to win with his support or are their hands tied by the cosmic shackles of their positon and they just have to wait and see who win granting the prayers of both.
In Prince of Lies it was shown that in Zentil Keep, among the Zents, was a fairnumber of Torm's followers.
Dieties can chose who they wish to support. Look at all the infight followers of Chaos Gods have. Can you imagine how boring it would be if Lloth couldonly support the clerics in one side of a House War? Of course, they try to get her favour so she gives them the better prayers.
Simply put, a Diety does not have to grant prayers. They grant them for their own reasons.
As for Torm being LG, just remember this, when Tyr killed Helm for not just allowing Tymora into their area (because she was a chaotic Diety who had many thieves and scoundrals following her), the followers of Torm followed Tyr's instruction to kill all followers of Helm who would not convert.
Also, Paladins are different to just Clerics. Paladins sometimes draw their power directly from the concept of Justice, thus no Diety is needed.
Tyr is considered a God of Law and Justice being a secondary part to that, at most. It was pointed out by Dragonbait, I think it was, that sometimes doing the right thing means breaking a few laws. This was after he pick pocketed some money pouches to free some people being auctioned as slaves, I think.
Consider that and the fact that he is a Paladin of Tyr, and kept his power. He admited that more then a few people who have been sent to prison were there because they tried to do the right thing.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
The real question is, if a unicorn farts a rainbow and you collect it and sniff it..... will you commit genocide?
Let's not talk about last weekend Sleyvas
Demzer, that is possible, in theory. The question is how to remove the influence in their very blood? |
| Irennan |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 01:51:04
^^^That's the point I make whenever the "100% evil orcs" thing comes up. Ondonti, the orcs in Thesk, the peace of Many Arrows (which lasted for like 2 orcish lifespans. RW humans cannot flaunt that record...). |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 01:46:47
FWIW, the odonti orcs of the Moonsea maybe prove otherwise. Faithful of Eldath raised them to not be chaotic and evil. I also agree with Cyrinishad. Torm's description and dogma explicitly speak to his goodness. Tyr might be more lawful than good, but he remains, good. I also think that nearly every god's portfolio should be looked at/interpreted through the biased lense of the god's alignment. There are exceptions, like Mystra, but not many. So Torm's interpretation of his portfolio of duty and loyalty is viewed through a LG interpretation of that. Here's perhaps a trickier one, I would say that Hoar interprets revenge through a LN lense, so a more chaotic interpretation of revenge that really isn't linked to some sort of lawful or just punishment would be frowned on and perhaps punished.
You can also look at the faithful of Helm in Maztica. Because they mistreated the native folk of Maztica, Helm, a LN god, punished them. Seems implicit in that there are punishments. It's hard to say there are many absolutes as each situation is unique (and we have folks who believe in dead gods or heresies that still get divine power), but I think a clear violation gets you the boot.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Jun 2018 : 01:34:07
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
Can't this f**king paladin order take in the lady and baby orcs, out of their frigging caves and make them live another life? Or are they good just at bashing skulls?
Maybe if you go 2 or 3 generations in, the cycle of violence stops, like in Amn (see Purskul)?
...And that's where the argument of inherent alignment versus learned alignment comes into play. Are orcs born irredeemably evil, or just strongly inclined towards evil, or is orc society forcing otherwise neutral orcs to become evil? There are arguments either way, especially when a lot of fantasy races are said to have been directly created by a patron deity who shares their alignment.
It's where you fall on that particular argument that dictates whether or not genocide is the only option.
And it's not a debate I particularly want to be a part of, myself. We've had that one before, and it can get messy.
|
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 22:52:39
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
The real question is, if a unicorn farts a rainbow and you collect it and sniff it..... will you commit genocide?
Nah, you just smell the rainbow, and it smells like Skittles |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 22:30:08
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
Can't this f**king paladin order take in the lady and baby orcs, out of their frigging caves and make them live another life? Or are they good just at bashing skulls?
Maybe if you go 2 or 3 generations in, the cycle of violence stops, like in Amn (see Purskul)?
So like, if alls you want is a happier example then can you accomplish Bane's portfolio (Tyranny, ambition, control) through neutral or even good methods?
I.E tyranny isn't so bad if all our needs are met and we arent attacked by destructive forces.
Take genocide of the table my dude and make the problem more applicable to all gods. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 22:27:02
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
The real question is, if a unicorn farts a rainbow and you collect it and sniff it..... will you commit genocide? |
| Demzer |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 22:22:02
Ok, just for one minute, since we are in a fantasy setting with unicorns farting rainbows and ancient unspeakable evils, can someone please explain to me why the only way out is genocide?
Can't this f**king paladin order take in the lady and baby orcs, out of their frigging caves and make them live another life? Or are they good just at bashing skulls?
Maybe if you go 2 or 3 generations in, the cycle of violence stops, like in Amn (see Purskul)? |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 21:07:02
Personally, I've never liked the idea of the Wall. I think Kel had the right concept, but the Wall ended up staying, so...
I didn't like when Torm absorbed Tyr (or the absorption of any of the gods in 4e, really), so I'm glad they rectified that. It's true, Torm is not justice per se (Tyr is). However, I think the idea of justice can coincide with things like duty and loyalty. Cyrinishad made a good point about Torm above, too.
Since Torm is loyalty, duty, and obediance, as a god, he is not going to stray from that. He is doing his duty *as* a cosmic entity. Again, both Tyr and Torm are pretty rigid in their stance (and this is why I think there is sometimes an overlap between them).
In regards to the example of paladins under the "head paladin": true, the other paladins going against their leader would be going against the mandate. Howeever, it is not a blind obediance, and the paladin would be allowed to question the head paladin if he thought his actions went against their duties as Tormite paladins, in which case, the head paladin likely isn't acting in accordance with his faith, anyway.
|
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 20:49:46
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I can see a paladin of Torm going after an orc clan who raided a village. That could be seen as an act of justice. It doesn't mean the paladin is going after *all* the orcs. But again, what constitutes justice?
So this part I think is my biggest hang-up with the topic. Torm is not the god of Justice, Tyr is, Torm's dominion/portfolio is exactly: Loyalty, Obedience, and Duty.(Before he absorbed Tyr, and *grumble* *grumble* whatever)
Loyalty, Obedience, and Duty... unless Torm came down and said (Hey... do not do this, that is a order). That paladin is only following the Order's mandate to protect people, every paladin under him cannot disagree with his orders because then they would be direct conflict with their deity's portfolio.
No one here has disrupted or acted against the portfolio.
Morality good or bad have no barring whatsoever on Torm's portfolio yet he seems to mandate it with no cosmic reprisals.
yet Kelemvor who acted in the interests of mortals doing his best to make death not feared but welcomed as a natural part of life. Removed all punishments for faithless (good faithless went to a different heaven; bad to different hell) and was tried and CONVICTED by his fellow gods of "Incompetence By Humanity"
He was thinking too much like a mortal and not considering the ramifications of applying his own moral bias to a universal concept. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 20:40:13
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
The God concept in the realms is fundamentally flawed as written in canon. If you cannot reconcile it with your interpretation of how the realms works (like me) then come up with your own way of how the divine stuff works.
I separate God from church. The dogma is created and enforced by the church. If they catch a priest behaving against this dogma then they will punish him but they have to catch him first and it's all prone to human error.
The deity is merely an outer planar manifestation of belief on the material plane. It is moulded by that belief and may only interact very distantly with the material plane. The primary function is for the deity and it's domain to receive the energy of a being when it dies which it then parasitises to fuel itself and perform magics that allow it to interact somewhat with the material plane.
Thankfully it's your game and you can do what you want but for me the canon modus operandi of the gods completely broke the immersion of the setting because it made no sense and upon closer examination could not ever work (to my mind and logic)
You and I have always disagreed strongly on this point. The gods have long been an active (whether directly or indirectly) part of the setting, and while, yes, their involvement can be overdone at times, I think overall their presence in the Realms (and I don't necessarily mean them coming to the mortal plane. I mean their general presence) enriches the setting. Yes, they're flawed, and I think that is part of the point.
Of course, you are free to do whatever you want in your own campaigns. |
| Cyrinishad |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 20:32:29
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad
Quick answer is: Genocide is always Evil. A Paladin that claims to devoutly worship Torm as their patron deity would likely be judged "False" by Kelemvor.
This is interesting. Why do you think that?
Nothing about his portfolio is inherently good. Only his actual personality as a character is good and there are examples of characters who are not of their god's alignment accepted as faithful because they honor their god's portfolio. Thinking now of Mystra's chosen and followers.
She is Neutral Good and they are whatever they want to be so long as they honor her portfolio.
Can a deity just decide that they don't want you, so you are now False?
To answer your last question first... No, I don't think a deity can just decide they don't want you, therefore "False"... The judgment of the dead as either "False" or "Faithless" rests with Kelemvor, and I tried to outline how Genocide breaks the various Oaths of Paladins... An "Oathbreaker" that does not seek atonement would ultimately be judged as "False"...
And, I will respectfully disagree with you that there is nothing inherently "good" about Torm's portfolio... He is actually one of the only gods who specifically does have something inherently "good" as part of his portfolio, because there are actually 4 concepts of Torm's portfolio: Duty, Loyalty, Obedience, and Paladins...
"Paladin" was part of his portfolio throughout 3rd edition, which were required to be "Lawful Good"... which essentially means the concept of "Lawful Good" is part of his Portfolio.
Furthermore, from 3e Faiths & Pantheons, Torm is described as the "Patron of Paladins and unswerving enemy of corruption and evil." This might simply be ascribed to his personality, instead of his followers, however in Torm's entry for his faith's Dogma it states: "Your fourfold duties are to faith, family, masters, and all good beings of Faerun." Additionally, under Torm's entry for his Clergy & Temples it indicates that his Clerics & Paladins swear themselves to the "Penance of Duty", which requires them to uphold their Oaths & advance the cause of Goodness.
In 5e, the alignment restriction was dropped from Paladins, but every type of Paladin must still swear to uphold a specific type of Paladin Oath... and I already outlined how a Paladin that advocates Genocide is breaking their Oath as a Paladin, no matter what kind of Paladin Oath they have sworn to uphold (even the Evil Paladins)...
Also, the 5e Sword Coast guide, it continues to reinforce that the concept of "Good" is central to being a faithful Tormite, because it states very specifically: "Those who take Torm to heart must strive to fulfill his commandment to go out into the world and be an active force for good, to right wrongs, and to help the hopeless."
I just don't see anything Gray about Torm. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 20:26:10
The gods aren't going to know every single action you're doing. I wouldn't call moral slavery, as the gods know humans have free will. Most Faerunians follow the god(s) who is best aligned with their moral and ethical outlook. So, as I said earlier, a paladin of Torm is going to have LG tendencies, anyway. Also, the standards are just naturally going to be higher for a paladin or priest than they are lay worshipers, because the paladin, priest, or cleric, is representing their deity.
I think that the moral ambiguity comes from the interpretation of how one (as a mortal) goes about achieving the deity's goals. Since Justice has been mentioned, I will use that as an example. Justice is a large concept. We have the basic concept of what is "justice and good", but what actions can and cannot be committed in the name of "justice"? I can see a paladin of Torm going after an orc clan who raided a village. That could be seen as an act of justice. It doesn't mean the paladin is going after *all* the orcs. But again, what constitutes justice? What acts are and are not permissible, and when does justice stop being justice and becomes revenge or personal vendettas?
I do think that, yes, part of it is going to come down to the individual deity. Certain deities, such as Torm and Tyr, are rather rigid in delivering justice and loyalty. Again, deities think long-term, so if an act of violence is going to achieve peace, law, or justice, I can see a deity like Torm or Tyr, well, "justifying" it. This does not mean they would necessarily approve of genocide, but, Tyr especially, can take a stance that can be seen as extreme both by mortals and his fellow deities. We do see a bit of blurred lines here because Tyr and Torm are both deities who want to achieve the "greater good", but sometimes, to achieve that, there are "necessary evils". |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 20:12:16
The God concept in the realms is fundamentally flawed as written in canon. If you cannot reconcile it with your interpretation of how the realms works (like me) then come up with your own way of how the divine stuff works.
I separate God from church. The dogma is created and enforced by the church. If they catch a priest behaving against this dogma then they will punish him but they have to catch him first and it's all prone to human error.
The deity is merely an outer planar manifestation of belief on the material plane. It is moulded by that belief and may only interact very distantly with the material plane. The primary function is for the deity and it's domain to receive the energy of a being when it dies which it then parasitises to fuel itself and perform magics that allow it to interact somewhat with the material plane.
Thankfully it's your game and you can do what you want but for me the canon modus operandi of the gods completely broke the immersion of the setting because it made no sense and upon closer examination could not ever work (to my mind and logic) |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 20:00:28
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
There is much I could say on this subject but to prevent a rant and a scolding all I will say is that there are numerous examples in the sourcebooks of priests doing morally and portfolio questionable acts. They do not seem to be punished by their God. Now either the godis ignoring them or a God does not have that level of detection and control of people. Free will is important for human beings why would anyone submit to what is essentially moral slavery, being unable to ever make a mistake for fear of punishment. What about those performing a good act that leads to horrors.
The very idea that a deity can know your every action and punish you for it is the worst kind of tyranny I can imagine.
Think of a God of truth. His priests would be unable to tell any lies at all, a most impractical and unpopular restriction. A God of justice is equally as insane an idea, who defines the code of justice, some nations follow the eye for an eye principal which would lead to horrendous feuds.
This is kind of why I started the topic, I whole heartedly agree with this. I'm just wondering how the Realms interprets this contradiction as gods as depicted have taken both a "All That Serves the Portfolio" stance and a "Universal Morality" stance.
Don't get me started on Tyr being a greater god of Justice (alone) and being LG in nature...
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 19:54:53
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
. Now either the godis ignoring them or a God does not have that level of detection and control of people. Free will is important for human beings why would anyone submit to what is essentially moral slavery, being unable to ever make a mistake for fear of punishment. What about those performing a good act that leads to horrors.
The very idea that a deity can know your every action and punish you for it is the worst kind of tyranny I can imagine.
Yes, and I don't think that deities have that level of awareness. For example, to be automatically aware of an event pertaining to their portfolio, it has to involve at least 500 people at once for a lesser deity, IIRC. That means that a lesser deity won't be aware of a priest doing bad stuff, unless a huge number of them does that at the same time. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 19:15:35
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Even though it sounds like many souls end up on the Wall, I don't think ending up on the Wall is all that easy. There are few true atheists in the Realms, as the existence of the gods is an established fact, and most people worship in some form or another. As far as being judged "false" goes, those who repudiate the gods, or are renounced by the gods on the account of their actions, are judged False. And even here, I think the follower would have to do something *really* bad to be cast out of the faith entirely. It would depend on the deity, but even "fallen" worshipers have been able to redeem themselves.
EDIT: that said, looking over Torm's description in F&A, I don't think he would tolerate genocide, so if a paladin of Torm went raging and killing orcs, for example, I think Torm would, uh, frown on that. A swift, quick death to offending orcs (for instance, those terrorizing a village), sure, but going around killing orcs for the sake of eliminating the race...no.
That would kind imply that gods get a kind of personal leeway? Like cosmic law is more like suggestions vs something they absolutely must adhere too. Cause Helm certainly don't care what alignment you are and Mystra doesn't either but Torm would and could act on that feeling.
So they are allowed to either strictly follow their portfolios and/or rebuke their worshipers based on their personal biases.
Gives them a lot of freedom to be hypocritical really.
Deities adhere to their portfolio (it's what they represent, after all), but what they stand for is going to influence the actions of their followers. The gods are not unthinking or unfeeling, but neither are the mortals. Mystra is the goddess of the Weave, and therefore, she cannot limit evil wizards from using it, whether she wants to or not.
Torm is about justice and loyalty, and weeding out corruption. It is unlikely an evil paladin would follow him in the first place. Being an LG god, he naturally invites those to his faith with LG inclinations. His followers strive to maintain law and order. I don't think he would approve of genocide, but he may approve of extreme actions in the name of the law (so long as the action itself did not break the law).
Also, we need to remember that these are cosmic entities, so we aren't going to understand their actions and motivations. What may appear as hypocritical from a mortal standpoint may be because we don't fully understand.
Followers can and do commit hypocrisy, but if a paladin, priest, or cleric of Torm went against the doctrine (in an obvious way), they would face repercussions, the severity of which depending on the severity of their tranagressions. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 19:05:02
There is much I could say on this subject but to prevent a rant and a scolding all I will say is that there are numerous examples in the sourcebooks of priests doing morally and portfolio questionable acts. They do not seem to be punished by their God. Now either the godis ignoring them or a God does not have that level of detection and control of people. Free will is important for human beings why would anyone submit to what is essentially moral slavery, being unable to ever make a mistake for fear of punishment. What about those performing a good act that leads to horrors.
The very idea that a deity can know your every action and punish you for it is the worst kind of tyranny I can imagine.
Think of a God of truth. His priests would be unable to tell any lies at all, a most impractical and unpopular restriction. A God of justice is equally as insane an idea, who defines the code of justice, some nations follow the eye for an eye principal which would lead to horrendous feuds. |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 18:38:50
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Even though it sounds like many souls end up on the Wall, I don't think ending up on the Wall is all that easy. There are few true atheists in the Realms, as the existence of the gods is an established fact, and most people worship in some form or another. As far as being judged "false" goes, those who repudiate the gods, or are renounced by the gods on the account of their actions, are judged False. And even here, I think the follower would have to do something *really* bad to be cast out of the faith entirely. It would depend on the deity, but even "fallen" worshipers have been able to redeem themselves.
EDIT: that said, looking over Torm's description in F&A, I don't think he would tolerate genocide, so if a paladin of Torm went raging and killing orcs, for example, I think Torm would, uh, frown on that. A swift, quick death to offending orcs (for instance, those terrorizing a village), sure, but going around killing orcs for the sake of eliminating the race...no.
That would kind imply that gods get a kind of personal leeway? Like cosmic law is more like suggestions vs something they absolutely must adhere too. Cause Helm certainly don't care what alignment you are and Mystra doesn't either but Torm would and could act on that feeling.
So they are allowed to either strictly follow their portfolios and/or rebuke their worshipers based on their personal biases.
Gives them a lot of freedom to be hypocritical really. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 18:18:13
Even though it sounds like many souls end up on the Wall, I don't think ending up on the Wall is all that easy. There are few true atheists in the Realms, as the existence of the gods is an established fact, and most people worship in some form or another. As far as being judged "false" goes, those who repudiate the gods, or are renounced by the gods on the account of their actions, are judged False. And even here, I think the follower would have to do something *really* bad to be cast out of the faith entirely. It would depend on the deity, but even "fallen" worshipers have been able to redeem themselves.
EDIT: that said, looking over Torm's description in F&A, I don't think he would tolerate genocide, so if a paladin of Torm went raging and killing orcs, for example, I think Torm would, uh, frown on that. A swift, quick death to offending orcs (for instance, those terrorizing a village), sure, but going around killing orcs for the sake of eliminating the race...no. |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 17:48:02
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad
Quick answer is: Genocide is always Evil. A Paladin that claims to devoutly worship Torm as their patron deity would likely be judged "False" by Kelemvor.
This is interesting. Why do you think that?
Nothing about his portfolio is inherently good. Only his actual personality as a character is good and there are examples of characters who are not of their god's alignment accepted as faithful because they honor their god's portfolio. Thinking now of Mystra's chosen and followers.
She is Neutral Good and they are whatever they want to be so long as they honor her portfolio.
Can a deity just decide that they don't want you, so you are now False? |
| Cyrinishad |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 17:33:41
Quick answer is: Genocide is always Evil. A Paladin that claims to devoutly worship Torm as their patron deity would likely be judged "False" by Kelemvor.
Longer answer is: Religious schisms where both sides are still receiving prayers/spells is likely in all religions in the Realms... because it has been established repeatedly that deities (and other planar beings) can provide prayers/spells, and the recipient could be mistaken about who/what is answering their prayers or providing spells. There are many deities/entities that would want to exploit a Tormite Order that perpetrated a genocide.
Regarding Torm specifically, I think he would view a Paladin that does not uphold their Oaths as clearly acting in contravention to the concepts of Loyalty, Obedience, and Duty...
Furthermore, I interpret this kind of Genocide as a violation of all of the different Paladin Oaths (Devotion, Ancients, Vengeance, Conquest, and Redemption).
Oath of Devotion: This is a clear violation of the tenets of Compassion and Honor... Compassion requires the Paladin to "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." In this context, I would consider all non-combatants to be considered "the weak" and therefore must be protected from harm... Honor requires the Paladin to "Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm." Obviously, there is no honor in genocide.
Oath of Ancients: This is a clear violation of the tenets of Kindle the Light and Be the Light... Kindle the Light requires the Paladin to "Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair." There is nothing merciful, kind, or forgiving about genocide... Be the Light requires the Paladin to "Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds." Genocide spreads despair and death, and discourages joy and courage.
Oath of Vengeance: This is a clear violation of the tenets of Fight the Greater Evil and Restitution... Fight the Greater Evil requires the Paladin to, when "Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil." Clearly, non-combatants are neither a "greater evil" or a "sworn foe"... Restitution requires the Paladin to "If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds." Clearly, the children of an "evil" humanoid society are being harmed by their society's misdeeds and must be helped/protected.
Oath of Conquest: Ironically, even though this might be considered the archetypal "Evil" Paladin Oath. Genocide remains a clear violation of the tentets of Douse the Flame of Hope, Rule with an Iron Fist, and Strength Above All... Douse the Flame of Hope requires of the Paladin that "It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies' will to fight is shattered
forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire." If the Paladin has to kill all the Orcs to be victorious, it means that the Paladin has failed to break their will, and the dead fear nothing... Rule with an Iron Fist requires of the Paladin that "Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow." Obviously, victims of genocide have been killed, not conquered... Strength Above All requires the Paladin to "Rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin." The Paladin cannot rule the dead.
Oath of Redemption: I don't think this one needs any explanation, but just in case there's some conjecture about an inherent "evil" nature of Orcs (or anything else)... I'll just sum it up with this one quote from the Oath- "Every creature can be Redeemed."
So, that's my take on it... Genocide = Total Paladin Fail |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 17:03:10
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
NOTE: in what I'm about to say, the genocide thing is an out. I'm just talking about a follower of Torm putting loyalty/duty before good for what people might call "gray areas" (again putting people in a camp and slaughtering them has no gray area). For a lay worshipper of Torm, the ideas of gray areas would definitely hold. For a divine champion of Torm (i.e. the prestige class), it could very well hold, as your tenets of faith are the only things of importance. For a cleric or favored soul of Torm, again, depending on the situation... it might hold. For a paladin of Torm though, their vows are first and foremost to the tenets of a paladin and not their deity. A paladin that breaks his OWN vows who follows Torm... I'm seeing atonement in their future (and Torm might be a particular stickler here, because in essence he's a god of taking and keeping vows).
It was probably not efficient for me to have given the example situation me and my friend spoke of. It isn't about being a paladin or even Torm specifically.
Are all gods required to grant prayers to ANY of their faithful, including those that are directly opposed in alignment.
And even in the case that two or more sects of their church are in direct conflict with each other.
|
| LordofBones |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 15:43:01
Depends on the paladin order.
You're going to get different results from a Paladin of Kelemvor and a Paladin of Sune, for instance. It also depends on the paladin's alignment, if you use UA's paladin variants. I don't think a paladin of slaughter would bat an eyelash at casual genocide. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 13:16:08
quote:
Originally posted by Archmage of Nowhere
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
I'd suggest you check out this website on alignments,http://easydamus.com/alignment.html, it collates nearly all the official and semiofficial (Dragon magazine articles) on the alignments. I think you will find that wholesale slaughter/genocide of intelligent creatures is a no no even for neutral alignments. It's just wrong. Now casualties of war, might be more acceptable to neutral alignments, but slaughter is still slaughter.
(I also happen to really like the discussion of "real" alignments as it plays well with the game's alignments IMO.)
The topic was more about if a deity would support a priest (Support being granting their prayers for spellcasting) if they were doing something that was
A) In favor of the god's portfolio/domain
B) In direct conflict with the god's personal alignment
Example being Torm who is LG but whose portfolio has 0% to do with being good. Duty, Loyaly, and obedience are all neutral concepts.
There was a example earlier that I hope gets some citation of Mielikki supporting a Anti-Human group of rangers which would be in favor of "Yes, gods will grant spells to off-alignment organizations" now my only question is how does this work with Schisms in a church. when two factions are both working in favor of a portfolio but one matches the alignment of their god and the other doesn't.
Can the deity pick and choose who he wants to win with his support or are their hands tied by the cosmic shackles of their positon and they just have to wait and see who win granting the prayers of both.
NOTE: in what I'm about to say, the genocide thing is an out. I'm just talking about a follower of Torm putting loyalty/duty before good for what people might call "gray areas" (again putting people in a camp and slaughtering them has no gray area). For a lay worshipper of Torm, the ideas of gray areas would definitely hold. For a divine champion of Torm (i.e. the prestige class), it could very well hold, as your tenets of faith are the only things of importance. For a cleric or favored soul of Torm, again, depending on the situation... it might hold. For a paladin of Torm though, their vows are first and foremost to the tenets of a paladin and not their deity. A paladin that breaks his OWN vows who follows Torm... I'm seeing atonement in their future (and Torm might be a particular stickler here, because in essence he's a god of taking and keeping vows).
However, I think this is the topic where you wanted to discuss various deities. Tyr and Torm are two deities that I see as very much about your vow / keeping your end of the bargain. Other deities having paladins may forgive things that may break their paladin tenets if its in service to the religion. For instance, a paladin of Mystra who steal a book of vile necromantic magic and returns it to the church of Mystra instead of seeing to its destruction. |
| Archmage of Nowhere |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 12:45:16
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
I'd suggest you check out this website on alignments,http://easydamus.com/alignment.html, it collates nearly all the official and semiofficial (Dragon magazine articles) on the alignments. I think you will find that wholesale slaughter/genocide of intelligent creatures is a no no even for neutral alignments. It's just wrong. Now casualties of war, might be more acceptable to neutral alignments, but slaughter is still slaughter.
(I also happen to really like the discussion of "real" alignments as it plays well with the game's alignments IMO.)
The topic was more about if a deity would support a priest (Support being granting their prayers for spellcasting) if they were doing something that was
A) In favor of the god's portfolio/domain
B) In direct conflict with the god's personal alignment
Example being Torm who is LG but whose portfolio has 0% to do with being good. Duty, Loyaly, and obedience are all neutral concepts.
There was a example earlier that I hope gets some citation of Mielikki supporting a Anti-Human group of rangers which would be in favor of "Yes, gods will grant spells to off-alignment organizations" now my only question is how does this work with Schisms in a church. when two factions are both working in favor of a portfolio but one matches the alignment of their god and the other doesn't.
Can the deity pick and choose who he wants to win with his support or are their hands tied by the cosmic shackles of their positon and they just have to wait and see who win granting the prayers of both. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 07 Jun 2018 : 03:19:08
I'd suggest you check out this website on alignments,http://easydamus.com/alignment.html, it collates nearly all the official and semiofficial (Dragon magazine articles) on the alignments. I think you will find that wholesale slaughter/genocide of intelligent creatures is a no no even for neutral alignments. It's just wrong. Now casualties of war, might be more acceptable to neutral alignments, but slaughter is still slaughter.
(I also happen to really like the discussion of "real" alignments as it plays well with the game's alignments IMO.) |
|
|
