Krensky
First Post
Here, here. It's what WotC should have done in the first place.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The Misalignment of the Gods
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
Here, here. It's what WotC should have done in the first place.
Cirex
First Post
I disagree. Avandra also says that change is inevitable and encourages people fighting back at those who try to take your freedom.
Where you see "revolution for the good" I see anarchy. No respect for the stablished order or hierarchy isn't what a good god should encourage.
Again, my interpretation of this Goddess. She's the opposite of Erathis.
hamishspence
Adventurer
Maybe its a natural bias of western civilization?
From Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independance, there is a strong theme of freedom over tyranny "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots" etc etc.
Freedom, Liberty, etc has been associated with Good for a while now. "Fight those who wish to take your freedom" is a popular credo: fighting doesn't have to be physical: opposing restrictive laws via political pressure is another way. Another phrase "those who trade liberty for safety end up with neither"
Melora and Erathis both being neutral works well with civilization vs wilderness. Druids, who opposed expansion of civilization into the wild were Neutral. In 3rd ed they could be any kind of Neutral though.
The Harpers in Forgotten Realms were described as opposing the formation of empires and preferring smaller kingdoms. Empires have been common villains in fiction for a while.
Its fair to say the suggestion of teams: being affiliated with those who share your alignment, works best for Good or Lawful Good. And even they might have disagreements. Evil/Chaotic Evil groups might be opposed to each other, even if they have short term alliances: Lolth/Gruumsh, both CE, have had alliances but they tend to fall apart.
From Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independance, there is a strong theme of freedom over tyranny "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots" etc etc.
Freedom, Liberty, etc has been associated with Good for a while now. "Fight those who wish to take your freedom" is a popular credo: fighting doesn't have to be physical: opposing restrictive laws via political pressure is another way. Another phrase "those who trade liberty for safety end up with neither"
Melora and Erathis both being neutral works well with civilization vs wilderness. Druids, who opposed expansion of civilization into the wild were Neutral. In 3rd ed they could be any kind of Neutral though.
The Harpers in Forgotten Realms were described as opposing the formation of empires and preferring smaller kingdoms. Empires have been common villains in fiction for a while.
Its fair to say the suggestion of teams: being affiliated with those who share your alignment, works best for Good or Lawful Good. And even they might have disagreements. Evil/Chaotic Evil groups might be opposed to each other, even if they have short term alliances: Lolth/Gruumsh, both CE, have had alliances but they tend to fall apart.
Ideally, every diety should be unaligned. Worshippers of every diety in history have been good, evil, selfish, generous, orthodox, lapsed, etc.
The god(s) demand a certain level of devotion, but unless a god is a god *of an alignment* (a god of law, for instance, or a god of chaos), there's no reason why a god of cities can't be the god of oppressive exploitive dehumanizing stinking cities that serve as a breeding ground for civil unrest, plague and crime, as well as pretty happy shiny faerie-tale cities with streets of gold and nobody living in squalor and sewage that magically goes away all by itself.
Fire? Good, in that it keeps people alive in cold climates, cooks food, purifies water, sears away infection by cleansing wounds, forges tools, and renews the forests. Evil in that it kills children and destroys homes (and cities!) and renders crops unfit to eat. Lawful in that it is a slave to it's hungers, a tool controlled by man and created or destroyed at his will. Chaotic in that it leaps out of control and spreads unpredictably when it slips its leash, burning begger and king indiscriminately. A Fire god should be able to have priests and worshippers of every type, from those who celebrate the hearth-fires that prepare the meal and warm the bones, to those who jump up and down chanting FIRE! FIRE! HEH HEH.
The god(s) demand a certain level of devotion, but unless a god is a god *of an alignment* (a god of law, for instance, or a god of chaos), there's no reason why a god of cities can't be the god of oppressive exploitive dehumanizing stinking cities that serve as a breeding ground for civil unrest, plague and crime, as well as pretty happy shiny faerie-tale cities with streets of gold and nobody living in squalor and sewage that magically goes away all by itself.
Fire? Good, in that it keeps people alive in cold climates, cooks food, purifies water, sears away infection by cleansing wounds, forges tools, and renews the forests. Evil in that it kills children and destroys homes (and cities!) and renders crops unfit to eat. Lawful in that it is a slave to it's hungers, a tool controlled by man and created or destroyed at his will. Chaotic in that it leaps out of control and spreads unpredictably when it slips its leash, burning begger and king indiscriminately. A Fire god should be able to have priests and worshippers of every type, from those who celebrate the hearth-fires that prepare the meal and warm the bones, to those who jump up and down chanting FIRE! FIRE! HEH HEH.
Cirex
First Post
Terrorists and bandits* have always stated that they were fighting for freedom.
If humans invade goblin lands and harass them, would be evil if goblins started to kill civilians in order to "soothe" the pressure? They are fighting for freedom, even if they are not good at heart.
*Not bandits when meaning thieves, but, uhm, "medieval terrorists".
So did the American colonies.
Edit: Also, the hell? You're mixing the goal (freedom) with the means some groups use (terrorism). The idea that YOU CAN'T HAVE FREEDOM WITHOUT BEING A TERRORIST is...frightening, to say the lest.
The line between "Unaligned" and "Evil" can be an awfully mushy one - especially with Melora. Not caring about morality doesn't make you Unaligned. Chaotic Evil sociopaths are, by and large, fully in denial of the existence of moral right and wrong. Evil characters aren't evil because they believe themselves to be Evil.
Butchering millions of sapient individuals because you "hate cities" and "love wild creatures" doesn't seem to be any different from any other justification of slaughter ascribed to Evil and Chaotic Evil forces. This kind of thing doesn't make you Unaligned - it makes you Evil, even if you like to plant trees and refrain from kicking puppies.
If Melora is Unaligned it is because her consciousness is unable to make moral choices - such as that of a Computer or an Animal - not because her actions would make a reasoning character Unaligned if they chose to make them. She may not be able to even evaluate a human as distinct from a tree other than by physical characteristics. That's kind of interesting to keep in mind if Epic PCs ever have to wrangle or deal with deities. Moral debate / appeals to Melora would be like trying to have a conversation with a Llama or a Whale.
- Marty Lund
Butchering millions of sapient individuals because you "hate cities" and "love wild creatures" doesn't seem to be any different from any other justification of slaughter ascribed to Evil and Chaotic Evil forces. This kind of thing doesn't make you Unaligned - it makes you Evil, even if you like to plant trees and refrain from kicking puppies.
If Melora is Unaligned it is because her consciousness is unable to make moral choices - such as that of a Computer or an Animal - not because her actions would make a reasoning character Unaligned if they chose to make them. She may not be able to even evaluate a human as distinct from a tree other than by physical characteristics. That's kind of interesting to keep in mind if Epic PCs ever have to wrangle or deal with deities. Moral debate / appeals to Melora would be like trying to have a conversation with a Llama or a Whale.
- Marty Lund
Cirex
First Post
Where did I say that? I'm talking about self-called "Freedom fighters", both in real and fantasy environments, not what do I percieve of the concept of freedom.
The only one personal thought I'm implying is that I dislike the "fighting for freedom is always good" thingy.
Andor
First Post
Errmm.. I think people are conflating two seperate conflicts.
One is Erathis vs Melora. While I suppose this might seem like a value neutral conflict to some hypothetical bodiless energy being, I don't see how any humanoid could think it so. Basically if you don't enjoy sleeping in the mud and watching your family get eaten by lions, most people would be firmly on the side of Erathis. Melora opposes any grouping of people large enough to show up on a map. I suppose hunter gatherers might pass muster, but any other lifestyle is right out. Even the most idealized of native americans wouldn't pass muster. Certainly not the town dwellers and farmers like the Pueblos, Iraquois or Mississipi Mound building cultures. Cities, civics, and civilization are all on her no list.
Now I'll grant that we, here, in this day and age on earth could do with a vengeful wilderness goddess. But in a Points of Lights setting? She's probably thought of as a poor second choice to Asmodeus.
Her priesthood is still going to be tolerated however because she's also the goddess of the sea and sailors need to placate her before setting out. In fact she's probably feared enough that offerings are made to stay her wrath whenever a new building is built or a field is plowed.
Avandra on the other hand is freedom vs ... everything apparently. She opposes the status quo, whatever it may be, and urges her followers to seize destiny. Or tempt fate as often as not. She is probably the patron goddess of Punk Rock. While I'm all for freedom, I have issues with describing a god who apparently wouldn't give a rat's patootie about personal or social responsibility the moniker of 'Good' when there is a perfectly fine 'Unaligned' category for her to use.
One is Erathis vs Melora. While I suppose this might seem like a value neutral conflict to some hypothetical bodiless energy being, I don't see how any humanoid could think it so. Basically if you don't enjoy sleeping in the mud and watching your family get eaten by lions, most people would be firmly on the side of Erathis. Melora opposes any grouping of people large enough to show up on a map. I suppose hunter gatherers might pass muster, but any other lifestyle is right out. Even the most idealized of native americans wouldn't pass muster. Certainly not the town dwellers and farmers like the Pueblos, Iraquois or Mississipi Mound building cultures. Cities, civics, and civilization are all on her no list.
Now I'll grant that we, here, in this day and age on earth could do with a vengeful wilderness goddess. But in a Points of Lights setting? She's probably thought of as a poor second choice to Asmodeus.
Her priesthood is still going to be tolerated however because she's also the goddess of the sea and sailors need to placate her before setting out. In fact she's probably feared enough that offerings are made to stay her wrath whenever a new building is built or a field is plowed.
Avandra on the other hand is freedom vs ... everything apparently. She opposes the status quo, whatever it may be, and urges her followers to seize destiny. Or tempt fate as often as not. She is probably the patron goddess of Punk Rock. While I'm all for freedom, I have issues with describing a god who apparently wouldn't give a rat's patootie about personal or social responsibility the moniker of 'Good' when there is a perfectly fine 'Unaligned' category for her to use.
Starbuck_II
First Post
Frightening because it implies America was once a terrorist nation or frightening because it is such a radical (un-thought prior) idea?
Similar Threads
