Fallen Celestials / Risen Fiends

[Celebrim]

You are confounding mercy with forgiving, or rather merciless with unforgiving.

At the risk of sounding even more like a stuck up snob than usual, you won't win at a game of vocabulary with me. I know what mercy is. Mercy is compassion or relief given to an undeserving recipient. From the dictionary:

mer·cy (mûrs)
n. pl. mer·cies
1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency.
2. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
3. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.
4. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.
Idiom:

Forgiveness is merely the mercy without the compassion, the act of relief itself. From the dictionary:

for·give·ness (fr-gvns, fôr-)
n.
The act of forgiving; pardon.

for·give (fr-gv, fôr-)
v. for·gave (-gv), for·giv·en (-gvn), for·giv·ing, for·gives
v.tr.
1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.
2. To renounce anger or resentment against.
3. To absolve from payment of (a debt, for example).
v.intr.
To accord forgiveness.

I grant that you can be forgiving without being merciful, although few that are truly renounce resentment. But, you think you can be merciful without be forgiving? I don't see how.

I have no trouble with fiends forgiving the fallen angel for having done good...

I do. I would imagine that the usual reception the fallen recieves from the depraved is torment. Imagine for example the reception that a former paragon recieves - a police officer, a prosecuter, a judge, a mayor, especially one given to moralizing and sermonizing - when he is found guilty of some high crime and walks into the maximum security cellblock for the first time. You think its all welcome and smiles now that he's "one of us". How do you think fallen Paladins are recieved - as you put it "stuck-up snobs" - when they fall from grace? Do you think thier former righteousness is forgiven of them so easily?

The angels might show the fallen fiend mercy, sure, by allowing him to mend his ways, but they'll not forgive him and make him one of them.

You don't have a very good opinion of 'goodness' do you?

 

[Ripzerai]

I don't recall saying just how an outsider needs to be inhuman.

You gave a quite elaborate example, which is what I was responding to. If you didn't mean to necessarily endorse the example, but instead had something else in mind, I suppose it's my fault for taking the post at face value. However, perhaps you can see why I thought that the example in your second paragraph was intended to illustrate exactly what you meant by "inhuman."

Furthermore, you failed to understand the argument I outlined completely if you think I suggested that demons and devils lack free will.

You suggested that their allotment of free will was used up at the beginning of time, and can no longer be used until after the Final Judgment. Effectively, that means they have no ability to freely choose their moral status in the present day.

While they may be able to choose to turn left rather than right, or elect to throw the Best of Queen compilation out of their cars rather than listen to it, that's not the sort of free will that is under contention.

It is impossible for wrath and hate to love. It is impossible for incarnated pain to feel joy. If it feels joy, if its even capable of feeling joy, its no longer incarnated pain.

If incarnated pain is sapient and capable of understanding mortal drives and desires - and I think it would have to be, in order to be an effective tempter - then there is inevitably going to be some friction between what the fiend is and what it's capable of becoming.

They are not necessarily people to start out with, not in any meaningful sense - if they were ever once mortal souls, most of their humanity has been burnt away. But at the same time, they're more than mere automatons, more than mere tools to be used against the abstract force of Good. They're sophisticated creatures, intelligent enough to seek out means to their desired ends that may be indirect and, yes, counterintuitive.

Can a newly created fiend experience love? Surely not. What of one that has spent millennia interacting with mortals, living among them as it sends one after another spiraling into depravity? Such a being is a more interesting case; even as it learns more and more about what it is to be evil, it also inescapably learns about good.

Is a being that is incarnate Mercy (and I agree with you on that issue) or Forgiveness capable of hatred or pride? Is a being that is incarnate Love capable of causing pain? Is a being that is incarnate Justice capable of Wrath? Perhaps none of these things comes easily to such beings, but I would argue that the answer is yes. The converse, then, is equally true.

I suppose sophistry is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but well, in a word, "Yes." You've read your Milton. "Better to..."

That was well and good for Satan, but they don't all get to reign, do they? Although I suppose there's a nice Existentialist theme in knowingly choosing a futile path leading to ultimate destruction for the sake of making a point.

Insofar as the lesser Fallen were content merely with not serving, even if reigning wasn't an option, Satan's declaration is really about Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil at all.

I find that at the least, there is alot of interesting points to ponder in not dismissing things simply because they are counterintuitive. We live in a universe that functions in demonstratably counterintuitive ways. It would hardly be surprising to find, that if the universe were created by some higher power, that it would function in counterintuitive ways as well.

You misunderstood me, or missed the context of my argument. The point you were making was about mythic resonance, about the visceral reaction we get from seeing mythic motifs. I wasn't arguing that counterintuitive ideas should automatically be dismissed - I wouldn't dismiss either scientific or theological arguments based on that alone. I was arguing, instead, that counterintuitive ideas lack, by their very nature, the resonance you were seeking.

The issue is complex, because I simultaneously tried to challenge your post on multiple levels, from the theological to the literary to issues of continuity with the game universe to pragmatic issues of game play. I'd rather I had stuck to a single argument, in retrospect. In any case, I wasn't saying that the argument lacked theological validity due to its counterintuitive nature. I'm just saying that it lacks mythic flair.

Sure. I just wish people would put a little more thought in it.

I would argue that we have. I'm not proposing vacuous name-dropping for its own sake, but that names are one ingredient among many. However, I do think that some of esoteric theological baggage can and should be dropped when transporting ideas to a new context. Not all, but some, and I'm specifically talking about (as this post implies) the notion that infernal entities are incapable of redemption in the present era.

 

[Celebrim]

You gave a quite elaborate example, which is what I was responding to.

It was not presented an example. I believe I've already explained the purpose of looking at the theology. It certainly can be used as an example, but I believe I already mentioned that particular example wasn't something I'd necessarily endorse adopting.

If you didn't mean to necessarily endorse the example, but instead had something else in mind, I suppose it's my fault for taking the post at face value.

Yes.

However, perhaps you can see why I thought that the example in your second paragraph was intended to illustrate exactly what you meant by "inhuman."

Sure, I can empathize. I'm not always the clearest writer, and I jump from topic to topic in a most right-brained fashion, and I use alot of short hand, and I tend to be thinking somewhat laterally. If you are confused, I'm not surprised and if I'm confused I'm not surprised by that either.

You suggested that their allotment of free will was used up at the beginning of time...

No, I did not. The still possess every bit as much free will as they possessed then.

Let's put it this way. Grant that I have free will (this is something of a point of contention, but grant it for the sake of argument). Now, I am married to a woman and she is the only woman which I have ever known (in the nice rich intimate sense) and the only woman I ever intend to know. If I am faithful to this vow, does it imply that I do not possess free will?

How much less then does the constancy in the mode of behavior of beings wiser and further seeing and more self-possessed than I imply a lack of free will on thier part?

Effectively, that means they have no ability to freely choose their moral status in the present day.

Making the same choice again and again does not imply a lack of free will. Quite the contrary. An inconsistancy in ones behavior implies that ones violition is limited and that one is not fully self-possessed, but under the control of various vagaries and impulses.

If incarnated pain is sapient and capable of understanding mortal drives and desires - and I think it would have to be, in order to be an effective tempter - then there is inevitably going to be some friction between what the fiend is and what it's capable of becoming.

I disagree with the necessity of understanding especially if by understanding you mean phenomenal knowledge acquired through experience. As it where, I can know all about color in great detail, but being color blind be completely inable to experience 'blue'. An incarnated wrath is effectively 'empathy blind' and is as completely unable to be compassionate as a person without eyes is able to see.

What of one that has spent millennia interacting with mortals, living among them as it sends one after another spiraling into depravity? Such a being is a more interesting case; even as it learns more and more about what it is to be evil, it also inescapably learns about good.

I disagree. As a person who lives in darkness cannot imagine light, so you can know everything there is to know about evil and not know anything about good. A fiend living among mortals learns the same thing a cat living amongst mice learns, and actually the cat is far far more capable of empathizing with mice than a fiend is with anything.

Is a being that is incarnate Mercy (and I agree with you on that issue) or Forgiveness capable of hatred or pride?

No.

Is a being that is incarnate Love capable of causing pain?

We will have to define love better before I can answer that question.

Is a being that is incarnate Justice capable of Wrath?

Justice is not incompatible with wrath, so the example is not valid.

 

[paradox42]

I have no trouble with fiends forgiving the fallen angel for having done good, but I'm hard pressed to see the angels forgiving a fiend for having done evil.

I agree with Henrix's conclusion, but not this reasoning. I believe it would be more appropriate to say that Fiends are, by nature, less trustworthy than Celestials, and therefore the Celestials will be hard pressed to trust the Risen Fiend. They will show mercy, and probably even forgive the wrongs done (unless they're Lawful- see below), but they will not trust. Somewhere, deep down in the Celestial mind, will always be that thought: "What if this is all an elaborate act so he can carry out some nefarious thousand-year plan of wickedness?"

Paladins and their ilk are stuck-up snobs, demons and devils more laissez-faire.

Paladins are not stuck-up snobs by necessity, but rather because of the way some people play them. Now, if you're calling the part of their code that says they can't associate with Evil being "stuck up," then we come to a different reason for their snobbishness than Good: it is there because they are Lawful. It is part of their Code, and because they are Lawful they do not break the Code. Ever. If and when a mortal Paladin ever does break the Code, he/she ceases to be a Paladin, and thus the Paladin snobbishness is retained.

Now, Lawful Good Celestials will indeed behave much as Paladins do, Law being as much part of their natures as it is the Paladin's, but the Neutral Good Celestials are considerably more freewheeling- and if you think the Eladrin are stuck-up... well, I'd certainly like to hear why you think that!

To sum up, snobbishness is not a trait of Good. It is a trait of Law.

 

[paradox42]

I do. I would imagine that the usual reception the fallen recieves from the depraved is torment. Imagine for example the reception that a former paragon recieves - a police officer, a prosecuter, a judge, a mayor, especially one given to moralizing and sermonizing - when he is found guilty of some high crime and walks into the maximum security cellblock for the first time. You think its all welcome and smiles now that he's "one of us". How do you think fallen Paladins are recieved - as you put it "stuck-up snobs" - when they fall from grace? Do you think thier former righteousness is forgiven of them so easily?

In keeping with my prior post, I'd like to point out that this argument, too, has nothing whatsoever to do with Good. Police officers and judges and mayors are all agents of government, and therefore of Law. When they are found to have broken Laws, the treatment they receive when placed with others who have broken Laws is really more of a Newtonian reaction than anything else. THey hurt the Lawbreakers by putting them away; thus, when the Lawbreakers get their chance, they hurt the "former paragons." Goodness has nothing to do with it, though Evil certainly has plenty.

Confusion of Good and Law is one of the worst failings of modern society, IMO. But I won't get more into that because it'd probably be overstepping the "no politics" rule.

You don't have a very good opinion of 'goodness' do you?

I can't answer for Henrix, but for my own part I have a very high opinion of Goodness. I just also have a very low opinion of Law.

 

[Ripzerai]

Let's put it this way. Grant that I have free will (this is something of a point of contention, but grant it for the sake of argument). Now, I am married to a woman and she is the only woman which I have ever known (in the nice rich intimate sense) and the only woman I ever intend to know. If I am faithful to this vow, does it imply that I do not possess free will?

I see. So you're not claiming that demons cannot be redeemed, only that they will not be redeemed, because it is impossible that new situations could arise that they were not aware of when they made their initial decisions. It is impossible that their personalities could change in a way that they could not predict at the beginning of time. Because they have always been aware of every twist and turn their personal preferences could ever take, they are essentially unchanging. They could, in theory, decide to repent at any time, but won't.

Attributing that much precognizance to the villains in an RPG is problematic to say the least. However, I now recognize that you weren't trying to imply that D&D fiends should resemble the demons in your example (or tangent, or whatever it was) in that way. I remain confused, but I'll let it the matter drop.

A fiend living among mortals learns the same thing a cat living amongst mice learns, and actually the cat is far far more capable of empathizing with mice than a fiend is with anything.

No, fiends are often far more subtle and intelligent than that. The relationship is not so crude.

I agree that fiends who have "evolved" a great deal, purging more and more of their humanity while comprehending greater levels of evil, are less likely to "reform" than before their evolution. At the same time, however, they are not blind. Many become cunning seducers, with intimate knowledge of mortal hopes and ideals. And yes, I think that's a potential vulnerability.

Similarly, a celestial being who opposes evil can begin to resemble that which it opposes. Nietzsche's Abyss.

Yes, beings of joy can learn sorrow. Beings of hate can learn kindness. Beings of cold disdain can learn compassion.

And by doing so, they become something else.

At least, that's how I look at it today.

 

[Henrix]

I grant that you can be forgiving without being merciful, although few that are truly renounce resentment. But, you think you can be merciful without be forgiving? I don't see how.

I suppose I should thank you for bringing up quotes that support what I said, that merciful and forgiving is not the same thing, but I can only wonder why you bother.

Of course you can show mercy to a murderer without forgiving him. Sentencing him to a penitentiary, rather than death, due to the factors involved, without forgiving his deeds, is merciful.

You don't have a very good opinion of 'goodness' do you?

I don't think goodness is as naïve and simple as you seem to do. And I think the game world becomes much less interesting if goodness is defined as flawless*.


* Not that there is anything wrong with neoplatonic ideas about goodness per se, but it has little room in the Great Wheel cosmology.

 

[Henrix]

Now, Lawful Good Celestials will indeed behave much as Paladins do, Law being as much part of their natures as it is the Paladin's, but the Neutral Good Celestials are considerably more freewheeling- and if you think the Eladrin are stuck-up... well, I'd certainly like to hear why you think that!

Well, I'll agree with you that I've been simplifying things, for the sake of the argument here. ;-)

But I think that, while there are few problems being accepted into any of the lower planes after an eternity of goodness and a moment of falling, the reverse is not true.
A fiend, after years of deviltry (or, well, yugolothry) will not easily, if ever, become elevated to a celestial, not even an eladrin, even though he now does good.

This is, from a neutral point of view, a bit snobbish, a bit stuck-up. If all things were equal, bad deeds would be as easy to forgive as evil deeds. (And mercy has nothing to do with this.)

Why is this? I don't know, my insights in celestial psychology fail me. Perhaps it is the fear of devious fiendish long term lans, perhaps it is something entirely different.

 

[Celebrim]

In keeping with my prior post, I'd like to point out that this argument, too, has nothing whatsoever to do with Good. Police officers and judges and mayors are all agents of government, and therefore of Law. When they are found to have broken Laws, the treatment they receive when placed with others who have broken Laws is really more of a Newtonian reaction than anything else. THey hurt the Lawbreakers by putting them away; thus, when the Lawbreakers get their chance, they hurt the "former paragons."

A very good point. In my defence I still believe that the example holds true with regards to 'good people', but one would be at a loss to pick any general catagory which we could agree on as 'good'. So, take for my example which ever group of people you think of as 'good', and consider whether they will readily be forgiven of thier virtue by those that don't possess it.

Confusion of Good and Law is one of the worst failings of modern society, IMO. But I won't get more into that because it'd probably be overstepping the "no politics" rule.

Quite wise, and the confusion of good and law is one that bugs me also.

I can't answer for Henrix, but for my own part I have a very high opinion of Goodness. I just also have a very low opinion of Law.

I'll accept that answer, but Henrix's answer is of a very different character.

 

[Celebrim]

I suppose I should thank you for bringing up quotes that support what I said, that merciful and forgiving is not the same thing, but I can only wonder why you bother.

I think it quite clear that I bothered because I wanted to demonstrate that you were wrong. And I think that I did so. Mercy and forgiveness being exactly the same thing was not necessary for my point to stand, whereas I think your point collapses if I can only show that they have some direct relationship.

I don't think goodness is as naïve and simple as you seem to do.

Ahh, yes. I am naive and simple for supposing that a thing is the thing itself and not whatever one may wish to make of it in order to be comfortable with the idea. How vulgar of me. True intellectuals don't speak in terms of good and evil, n'est pas? So passé.

And I think the game world becomes much less interesting if goodness is defined as flawless*.

You are free to create whatever sort of cosmology amuses you. For my part, I think the game world is much less interesting if goodness is defined as not good, and evil is defined as not evil, and so forth. There is this strangely common conception that you are painting with a broader and more complex palatte if you only use shades of grey. How simple of you to paint things in black and white, it is said. For my part, I don't deny that there are shades of grey, but a pallette which does not have true black and true white is necessarily a subset of the one that does.

And as long as we are talking about fantasy, as long as we are taking the step incarnating ideas in bodies for the purpose of talking about the abstract in concrete ways, as long as we are bothering with unreality for the sake of talking about things that are difficult to pin down in the real world, it seems to me that in fantasy above all we'd not want to throw out the black and white precisely because fantasy is so well suited to it. But that's just me.