Fallen Celestials / Risen Fiends

[Voadam]

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

Obviously. Love Hurts.

 

[Kafkonia]

Obviously. Love Hurts.

Indeed, love is a battlefield.

 

[Presto2112]

Obviously. Love Hurts.

Not only hurts, but bites. Stinks even, depending on what classic rock band you ask.

 

[paradox42]

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.

Depends on the virtues in question, I'd say. To take two overly-simplistic ones for the sake of illustration, let's figure on two qualities that your previous posts in this thread seem to imply as virtues: forgiveness and love.

Now, beings with forgiveness who "fall from grace" and lose or tarnish that quality will certainly not be forgiven by those who do not have said virtue, but of course this is obvious because by definition they don't possess it. Now, certainly it can be said of many (or even most) fiends in D&D that they do not forgive, and thus this example supports your argument.

The second example is a being with genuine ability to love, who somehow falls or loses the pure quality (whatever you think the "pure" quality of love means). On the other side are beings without love, who presumably never had it in the first place. In this case, it is not possible to say that they will not forgive the former Lover, because the lack of love does not imply lack of ability to forgive the failing. To make the explanation less abstract, consider this argument for forgiveness: "See? I was telling you this all along. Now you understand and see I was right. Come over here and let's talk about it some more- and see if we can't convince those others who are still deluded." That is definitely an argument I could see a fiend making during the final stages of corrupting a falling celestial.

Thus, circumstances exist in which a being who once was a paragon of virtue, losing said virtue, is forgiven by those who either never had the virtue or were simply never "paragons" of it.

 

[Celebrim]

Depends on the virtues in question, I'd say. To take two overly-simplistic ones for the sake of illustration, let's figure on two qualities that your previous posts in this thread seem to imply as virtues: forgiveness and love.

Now, beings with forgiveness who "fall from grace" and lose or tarnish that quality will certainly not be forgiven by those who do not have said virtue, but of course this is obvious because by definition they don't possess it. Now, certainly it can be said of many (or even most) fiends in D&D that they do not forgive, and thus this example supports your argument.

It's amazing where clear thinking takes you. I like. (Naturally) Continue.

The second example is a being with genuine ability to love, who somehow falls or loses the pure quality (whatever you think the "pure" quality of love means). On the other side are beings without love, who presumably never had it in the first place. In this case, it is not possible to say that they will not forgive the former Lover, because the lack of love does not imply lack of ability to forgive the failing.

No, but I would say that the two are well correlated, but to support that I'd have to get into a definition of love which is always tricky, so, continue.

To make the explanation less abstract, consider this argument for forgiveness: "See? I was telling you this all along. Now you understand and see I was right. Come over here and let's talk about it some more- and see if we can't convince those others who are still deluded." That is definitely an argument I could see a fiend making during the final stages of corrupting a falling celestial.

Aha. But is any actual forgiveness going on in the example? I consider it a given that before you can forgive someone, that someone must owe you some thing. They must have become in some sense indebted to you, either literally because of a promise of repayment or figuratively because they have perpetrated some injustice against you (real or perceived). Hense, if some one say hits you in the face, I cannot forgive him for it (and it would be the height of hubris for me to do so). Only you can offer him forgiveness because his debt is to you (there are complexities here that have to do with relationships, but lets ignore them for the sake of clarity).

So, imagine that you hold that compassion is weakness, mercy is folly, justice is perverse, humility is mere affectation, there is no truth, love is explotation, loyalty is stupidity, joy is illusionary and epemeral, life is pain, honor is a sham, or whatever it is that we agree is essentially non-virtuous and further you are the embodiment of these things. The existence of people who hold otherwise is I think offensive to you, and any of thier protests otherwise in the face of your 'honest' appraisal of reality is insulting. You see through thier shams, why can't they treat you with at least the respect that deserves? You see that everyone is basically the same, only these 'stuck up snobs' maintain the pretense that they are better than you solely to confuse the week minded fools.

Do you forgive thier prior insults so easily when they final admit to you that you've been right along. I don't think so. If when fallen, you prove yourself strong, they might fear you - but by definition, they will never love you. They will always hold resentment for your former slights, and no matter how strong you act it will only remind them of when you were weak, or foolish, or thought yourself better than them. They will by definition, always hate you for what you did. The first impulse will always be to punish and avenge, and 'forgiveness' will never be forthcoming - only a grudging willingness to overlook your past 'sins' in order to exploit you. Which of course, as far as they are concerned, is the best anyone can (and should) expect.

That any one would actually claim to be forgiving is to them something insulting and the thought must be squashed.

I'm reminded of the Orc behavior, who are told, and tell themselves that the elves are far more cruel and unforgiving than they are.

Thus, circumstances exist in which a being who once was a paragon of virtue, losing said virtue, is forgiven by those who either never had the virtue or were simply never "paragons" of it.

I think that as soon as you start dealing with someone whose behavior is by definition bad, you see that this can't be the case.

The way around this argument is to claim that good is by definition unforgiving, but I think if you do that you quickly reach internal contridictions where good is acting in a distinctly non-good way and you no longer have a meaningful distinction between good and evil. Of course, if this is your goal...

 

[paradox42]

Aha. But is any actual forgiveness going on in the example? I consider it a given that before you can forgive someone, that someone must owe you some thing.

I do not consider that a given, in the context for which you were using "forgiveness" in the case of a fiend accepting the fall of a celestial compared with the celestial accepting the rise of a fiend. Where is the debt? And why must there be one in order for acceptance to occur? Debts are a Lawful concept anyway, the idea that a favor done requires a favor returned. Chaotics don't necessarily hold to that, and Good and Evil are silent on the topic of debt in their pure forms. Thus, if forgiveness is necessarily tied to debt, then once again we come around to confusing Good with Law and the Goodness or Evilness of the being the "fallen one" contacts is irrelevant to the proceeding.

So, imagine that you hold that compassion is weakness, mercy is folly, justice is perverse, humility is mere affectation, there is no truth, love is explotation, loyalty is stupidity, joy is illusionary and epemeral, life is pain, honor is a sham, or whatever it is that we agree is essentially non-virtuous and further you are the embodiment of these things.

Very important point to make regarding the above: an Evil being, even a fiend, need not necessarily hold to all anti-virtuous thoughts. Since there are multiple virtues and multiple anti-virtues, it is possible for even an incarnate idea to hold a mix of virtues and anti-virtues. Each virtue and its opposite forms an axis, and they are orthogonal to each other just as Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are. It is very likely, I grant, that a Celestial will hold mostly or all virtues along these axes, and that a fiend will hold mostly or all anti-virtues. But with so many axes to measure on, why should it necessarily be true that the beings pick all the ideas on the same side? Doesn't that just make them all identical, and thus there is no point in differentiating them at all?

Do you forgive thier prior insults so easily when they final admit to you that you've been right along.

It depends on the other ideas I hold at the time, and specifically what the Celestial being did to me or my fellows, and any number of other variables. It is not something that you can invariably give the same answer to, because the possibility exists that it will go the other way.

I don't think so.

Clearly. I suspect this is because you're stuck on absolutes, and have not considered the possibility of the "shades of grey" which naturally result when you consider the "absolute good" as a kaleidoscope of virtues instead, as I pointed out above. If you require that an Outsider which is Good absolutely always has only the virtues in its personal graph of ideas, what then do you call a being who has (out of, for example, the traditional seven Catholic Virtues) six virtues and one anti-virtue? To me, that entity must be a Celestial- it is Good not because it is "pure," but because it is more Good than Evil by a wide margin.

On a side note, there are some on the list of "traditional seven" that I don't consider the least bit virtuous, but again I won't go into that since it crosses the invisible line.

I think that as soon as you start dealing with someone whose behavior is by definition bad, you see that this can't be the case.

Incorrect, for reasons I outlined above. The problem is that using the word "bad" oversimplifies things, and causes you to make snap judgements based on absolute concepts that do not, in fact, exist. What exists are deeper details, different facets of Goodness and Evil, and it is possible- even in Outsiders who are real incarnations of the thoughts on those axes of Virtue/Not- for an occasional Virtue to exist in one that has no others.

The way around this argument is to claim that good is by definition unforgiving, but I think if you do that you quickly reach internal contridictions where good is acting in a distinctly non-good way and you no longer have a meaningful distinction between good and evil. Of course, if this is your goal...

Actually, I came up with another way above. The problem is refusal to deconstruct the blanket concepts of "Good" and "Evil" into their constituent parts, and attempting to force everything to fit into one side or the other. I simply don't think in those terms; it is alien to me. It is the stuff that Laws are made of, and that in turn explains much of my disdain for Laws. For me, there are always possibilities.

 

[Celebrim]

I do not consider that a given, in the context for which you were using "forgiveness" in the case of a fiend accepting the fall of a celestial compared with the celestial accepting the rise of a fiend...

Once again, the definition of forgive:

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).

In each of the specific definitions, to forgive means to excuse what is owed. In #1, you are excusing the debt created by the injustice - a spiritual debt. In #2, you are renouncing your right to avenge the fault - an emotional and personal debt. In #3, you are renouncing your right to to physical restitution - a literal debt. In each case you are forgiving a debt, either personal or on behalf of a group. For example, when a magistrate gives a diminished sentense to a criminal or frees a criminal, he is using his authority as a magistrate to forgive on behalf of the society that instituted him. There is no sense in which you can forgive unless thier is a debt and you have the authority to forgive it.

If you are confused on this point, it is because people often use the word 'forgive' when they don't actually mean forgive because they do not actually wish to forgive.

In the case of an celestial, it can offer forgiveness to the fallen fiend if it either was personally injured by the fiends crimes or if it is empowered by some authority to forgive on the behalf of others.

Where is the debt?

You don't think evil acts impose a debt?

And why must there be one in order for acceptance to occur?

Whoa there. When did we move from forgiveness to acceptance? Those are quite different concepts. Forgiveness has far more to do with debts than acceptance.

Debts are a Lawful concept anyway, the idea that a favor done requires a favor returned.

No, they are not. This whole that's not good, that's 'law' thing is starting to be taken just a bit to far. The concept that you can be empowered to forgive debts other than your own is a lawful concept. A chaotic would never accept that anyone could forgiven anyone else for anything except thier own debts, but the concept of a debt is itself completely alignment neutral. A debt is a physical concept which arises any time you have a principle of conservation in your system. It has nothing to do with law and chaos above the level of the natural law, unless you think its impossible for chaotic beings to exist in a universe with natural laws of any sort which is going to run into problems.

Chaotics don't necessarily hold to that, and Good and Evil are silent on the topic of debt in their pure forms.

I don't know what you mean by that, but we could make a first approximation of good and evil by suggestion that the nuetral position is 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', good is 'Less than an eye for an eye, and less than a tooth for a tooth' (mercy', and evil is 'more than an eye for an eye, and more than a tooth for a tooth' (ruthlessness).

Thus, if forgiveness is necessarily tied to debt..

I didn't invent the language or the dictionary.

...then once again we come around to confusing Good with Law and the Goodness or Evilness of the being the "fallen one" contacts is irrelevant to the proceeding.

At this point, I don't think I'm the one that is confused.

Very important point to make regarding the above: an Evil being, even a fiend, need not necessarily hold to all anti-virtuous thoughts. Since there are multiple virtues and multiple anti-virtues, it is possible for even an incarnate idea to hold a mix of virtues and anti-virtues.

Very true, and a good point, but I'm going to have to refrain from taking on this next point just yet.