Good Drow

[Fred Delles]

Bookwyrm:

A lot on you, dude!

>> I think you miss the point of the 'grey' fantasy setting. It's not that Drow are good instead of evil, it's that no-one is good or evil - mostly the choice is nasty or nastier. And it's far more interesting than 1 or 2.
>>

Well, the existance of "good" drow based on how we see the drow nowadays. Then again, I never see drow in a "grey" fantasy setting, so I can't comment.


>> The point is not to make 'evil' into 'good', but to get rid of the concepts altogether, and actually have pc's and npc's that are more than cardboard cutouts. Yes, this requires effort, but it's ultimately more rewarding than yet another 'find evil, kill evil' campaign.
>>

Yup. Anybody can be good, anybody can be evil, some races slightly more than others. End of story.


>> You don't know much about the middle east, do you?

Firstly, the whole Arab vs Jew thing is socio-political, not religious, in nature. Religion is only used to easily define 'us' and 'them' (in exactly the same way it is in Northern Ireland).

Secondly, Sharia law actually requires a higher standard of evidence than western law, and if this is not met the case defaults to the civil courts. Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, but this is because the system is corrupted, not because the principles it rests on are unsound. Equally, the same is true of western justice.
>>

I know more than you think. I'm no historian, but I keep up with current events. Off-topic, but anyway.

Yup, the ONLY reason many of the Arabs hate the U.S. and Israel today is because the U.S. defends Israel, and Israel holds about one-half of one percent of the Middle Eastern land as well as part of Jerusalem, which the Muslims claim are holy to them as well as the Christians and Jews.

Read http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29071 for more info.

And you ARE right about the second example. Thanks for pointing that out. But with that weakness, isn't it true that there would be more deviants, for you cannot convict someone for something without specific evidence? (But you do see eye-to-eye to me with the "not EVERY drow is evil" ideal, so I won't further argue.)


>> Thirdly, Al-Qaeda and homicide [sic] bombers aren't evil, they are simply following a code of beliefs antithetical to the West. To say that they are 'evil' is to deny the possibility that they might actually have valid greavances. Doing this reduces it to childish name-calling. I think that if their code of beliefs is wrong it should be fairly simple to demonstrate this with reasoned argument.
>>

As an American, I find that statement insulting. Do you think murdering innocent men, women, and children is considered good!? And do not use the double standard with the Crusades. We lost the Crusades, and besides, you can't blame us for something that happened about 1,000 years ago, can you? NO code of beliefs, except for the evil "hijacked" ones, want you to smite all foes, innocent included, without mercy.


>> Inherently good?? as in "involved in the constitution or essential character of something". Would this be the same inherently good that Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait? Or that Iran wasn't, again, until Iraq invaded Kuwait?
>>

"Inherently" wasn't the right word, sorry. Just plain "favorable" good.

But Iraq good!? Past, maybe (then again, the Middle East supported the Central and Axis powers during WWI and WWII, respectively), but during Saddam? I don't think so. He killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the 80s with poison gas, caused the Iran-Iraq War that killed hundreds of thousands more (we didn't do much because we still had the Soviet Union on our hands), and always seeked weapons of mass destruction to use on his enemies, most notably Israel, and came close to doing so right before the Gulf War. Then Iraq lost its weapons program, but since the U.N. weapons inspectors got kicked out in 1998, Saddam might be trying to create nukes again. Now the Americans are out to enforce the post-Gulf War treaty.

(BTW, "evil" would occasionally attack what we call "evil" there as well. We would hence find the "lesser of two evils" from there.)

Post-9/11, I actually almost STOPPED reading/playing fantasy (and more going into sci-fi) because I KNOW that in real life, there are people who would be those "chaotic evil" types and should be stopped. I believe evil really exists on this planet. Pre-9/11, I believed in the "big grey", in which there weren't good or evil, but just beliefs. Still, I believe that evil IS NOT inherently placed in anyone who is born in the real world (or a world which is real as it gets). Why should I read about something in some cheap fantasy world (not an insult, just a comparison) to the incidents in real life? Well, truth really is stranger than fiction.

The other thing I do agree with Bookwyrm is that "alignment" is too specific for modern roleplaying. I feel better about having good and evil in all races, with beliefs that are generally seen as favorable or unfavorable (NOT "good" or "evil") as opposed to "It's a drow, it should die, even if it is an infant, no questions asked." In real life, you get yourself in a lot of trouble for such.

From that question, if you kill a Drow priestess and come upon her children, mostly infants, would you kill them too? Even if they were type-1s (heretically evil, without exception), I feel a little queasy about doing that.


Oh yeah:
Redleg06: Just my POV:
Crusaders = (ignorant) good or neutral
Priests who thought up of doing the Crusades = evil

 

[Redleg06]

Oh yeah:
Redleg06: Just my POV:
Crusaders = (ignorant) good or neutral
Priests who thought up of doing the Crusades = evil [/B]

Right, but you are over-simplying a more complex matter. Which is kina my point about alignment. (Way OT here...) The Crusades were thought of by the Byzantine Empire to get some cheap mercenary troops out of western Europe to help him keep the Muslim hordes on the other side of the Bosporous. The Pope (or at the time more accuratly the Bishop of Rome) saw them as a way to get the western knights to stop killing each other, even if meant killing someone else somewhere else. The Leadership saw it as a big land-grab, and the rank and files knights actaully believed they were doing God's work.

Hardly black and white. So if you like a "grey" world, I suggest you ditch alignment completely.

If you like either a system to keep PCs from getting Chaotic Greedy like BW said, or you like more Star Wars-ish good v evil setting, then alignment is a great tool.

All of the above was not in reference to good Drow.

Random Denise Richards picture

 

[William Ronald]

I think this thread is beginning to drift into territory that the moderators might have a concern about.

As for the issue of drow, I have seen some neutral drow created before Drizzt was ever mentioned. There is something to be said for a character that rebels against its society and standard expectations. As I don't play in the Realms, Drizzt has never really been an issue in my campaign.

As for evil, I have seen some things that I would consider evil. The murder of innocents can be considered among those. I think it is up to each DM to decide what sort of campaign to run and define what good and evil are for his world, assuming such concepts exist in that world. (Historically, most cultures do have a sense of right and wrong. Mind you, it has often been applied differently to those outside of one's own group.)

 

[David Argall]

fishy English

"yes my name is pronounced as fish. It is nice to see that there are a couple of intellectuals out there!

Ghoti, "

Actually that is probably pseudo-intellectuals. Ghoti is not pronounced as anything like "Fish". This story got started as propaganda by reformers who wanted to highlight the absurdities of English spelling [which are massive and make us suffer an extra year or more of school.]
The pronounciation makes sense when looked at casually, which is all most do. For example, "gh" can be pronounced as "f', as in "tough". However, it is done so only at the end of a word [or base word when we consider words like "toughest"]. Pronounced at the start of a word, "gh" is "g". Try reading a dictionary and see. We have ghast, Ghent, ghost...
The other parts of ghoti are also mispronounciations tho I have forgotten the details for the most part. But while English has loads of spell nonsense, ghoti is not one of them.

Oh yes, on good drow. No societies, but plenty of room for PCs.

 

[Bookwyrm]

Bookwyrm:

A lot on you, dude!

>> I think you miss the point of the 'grey' fantasy setting. It's not that Drow are good instead of evil, it's that no-one is good or evil - mostly the choice is nasty or nastier. And it's far more interesting than 1 or 2.
>>

Well, the existance of "good" drow based on how we see the drow nowadays. Then again, I never see drow in a "grey" fantasy setting, so I can't comment.

I tend to run games from the point of view that 'good' and 'evil' are usually just clever PR to justify wars of genocide and other atrocities against the humanoids ("Why do you care that we've slaughtered this entire orc tribe? They're all evil, you know."). This is not to say that the humanoids are all good and innocent and carefully avoid stepping on the pretty flowers. Remember, all wars are over power, whether this is money, land, politics, etc. Religion (ie good & evil) is just a good excuse.

>> The point is not to make 'evil' into 'good', but to get rid of the concepts altogether, and actually have pc's and npc's that are more than cardboard cutouts. Yes, this requires effort, but it's ultimately more rewarding than yet another 'find evil, kill evil' campaign.
>>

Yup. Anybody can be good, anybody can be evil, some races slightly more than others. End of story.

I always wanted to see Lord of the Rings written from the Orcs perspective. For them, the choice is whether to stay in the cold, desolate, barren mountains or invade and take the lush forests and rich, fertile farmland. Bit of a no-brainer, really.

>> You don't know much about the middle east, do you?
<snip>
>>

I know more than you think. I'm no historian, but I keep up with current events. Off-topic, but anyway.

Sorry, it's just that you seemed to be over-simplifying it a lot.

Yup, the ONLY reason many of the Arabs hate the U.S. and Israel today is because the U.S. defends Israel, and Israel holds about one-half of one percent of the Middle Eastern land as well as part of Jerusalem, which the Muslims claim are holy to them as well as the Christians and Jews.

Well, there's also the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil. There's also 'American cultural imperialism', which they don't seem to like either. Don't forget that Israel is currently engaged in a particularly bloody fight with the Palestinians, and that America isn't considered neutral because it donates billions in aid to Israel each year.

And you ARE right about the second example. Thanks for pointing that out. But with that weakness, isn't it true that there would be more deviants, for you cannot convict someone for something without specific evidence? (But you do see eye-to-eye to me with the "not EVERY drow is evil" ideal, so I won't further argue.)

From what I've read, if it can't be proven in a Sharia court, it defaults to the civil courts which have lower standards of evidence.

>> Thirdly, Al-Qaeda and homicide [sic] bombers aren't evil, they are simply following a code of beliefs antithetical to the West. To say that they are 'evil' is to deny the possibility that they might actually have valid greavances. Doing this reduces it to childish name-calling. I think that if their code of beliefs is wrong it should be fairly simple to demonstrate this with reasoned argument.
>>

As an American, I find that statement insulting. Do you think murdering innocent men, women, and children is considered good!? And do not use the double standard with the Crusades. We lost the Crusades, and besides, you can't blame us for something that happened about 1,000 years ago, can you? NO code of beliefs, except for the evil "hijacked" ones, want you to smite all foes, innocent included, without mercy.

And as a Brit, I find it insulting that America allowed the IRA to fundraise there for years, despite the fact that they were carrying out a terrorist campaign against one of your main allies.

Besides, I suspect that you misread the statement to mean that I agreed with Al-Qaeda. I don't. But I can understand the position they come from, and I think that doing this makes it easier to deal with them and so, should be encouraged. Understanding is not the same as agreement.

>> Inherently good?? as in "involved in the constitution or essential character of something". Would this be the same inherently good that Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait? Or that Iran wasn't, again, until Iraq invaded Kuwait?
>>

"Inherently" wasn't the right word, sorry. Just plain "favorable" good.

But Iraq good!? Past, maybe (then again, the Middle East supported the Central and Axis powers during WWI and WWII, respectively), but during Saddam? I don't think so. He killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the 80s with poison gas, caused the Iran-Iraq War that killed hundreds of thousands more (we didn't do much because we still had the Soviet Union on our hands), and always seeked weapons of mass destruction to use on his enemies, most notably Israel, and came close to doing so right before the Gulf War. Then Iraq lost its weapons program, but since the U.N. weapons inspectors got kicked out in 1998, Saddam might be trying to create nukes again. Now the Americans are out to enforce the post-Gulf War treaty.

(BTW, "evil" would occasionally attack what we call "evil" there as well. We would hence find the "lesser of two evils" from there.)

We supported the Iran-Iraq war, both as a means of punishing Iran for overthrowing the pro-western Shah, and as a way of promoting Iraq as a power in the region. We also supported Saddam when he used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds (BTW, you should read up on Turkey's attitudes towards the Kurds, and they're still our freinds).

Yes, Saddam has sought WMD's, but I suspect that like the rest of his weapons, he got most of them from the west. We're not shy about arming 'our' dictators, it only becomes a problem when they stop being 'ours'. Also, it should be noted that when he was firing Scuds at Tel-Aviv during the Gulf War, he had the opportunity to use chemical or biological weapons, but didn't.

The UN inspectors were actually withdrawn several days before Operation Desert Fox, but the inspection process itself finally broke down over allegations that the CIA were using UNSCOM for spying (which they were, but it's a lot more complicated than that.)

Saddam might be trying to create nukes again (although chem/biological weapons are more likely), but I am going to be very sceptical until I see some evidence.

Got to go, so I'll reply to the rest of the post later.

 

[Bookwyrm]

Post-9/11, I actually almost STOPPED reading/playing fantasy (and more going into sci-fi) because I KNOW that in real life, there are people who would be those "chaotic evil" types and should be stopped. I believe evil really exists on this planet. Pre-9/11, I believed in the "big grey", in which there weren't good or evil, but just beliefs. Still, I believe that evil IS NOT inherently placed in anyone who is born in the real world (or a world which is real as it gets). Why should I read about something in some cheap fantasy world (not an insult, just a comparison) to the incidents in real life? Well, truth really is stranger than fiction.

It's comforting to think that some people are 'evil', just as it's comforting to think that people are 'good'. It doesn't make it true, however.

The other thing I do agree with Bookwyrm is that "alignment" is too specific for modern roleplaying. I feel better about having good and evil in all races, with beliefs that are generally seen as favorable or unfavorable (NOT "good" or "evil") as opposed to "It's a drow, it should die, even if it is an infant, no questions asked." In real life, you get yourself in a lot of trouble for such.

I think alignment is a poor substitute for motivations in any system, modern, futuristic or fantasy. If you want a good example of how I see this, watch Babylon 5 with specific reference to the Vorlons and Shadows to see how self-interest masquerades as 'good' and 'evil'.

From that question, if you kill a Drow priestess and come upon her children, mostly infants, would you kill them too? Even if they were type-1s (heretically evil, without exception), I feel a little queasy about doing that.

Most of my characters would, but I don't think any of them would pretend it was a 'good' act. If you want a justification for it read Machiavelli.

 

[Bookwyrm]

Hardly black and white. So if you like a "grey" world, I suggest you ditch alignment completely.

I did. Didn't notice it had gone.

If you like either a system to keep PCs from getting Chaotic Greedy like BW said, or you like more Star Wars-ish good v evil setting, then alignment is a great tool.

I found playing CP2020 taught me how to turn them into Chaotic Poor.

 

[hong]

Random Denise Richards picture

Random Beta Omega Psi picture

 

[Bookwyrm]

I think this thread is beginning to drift into territory that the moderators might have a concern about.

I don't think they need to worry just yet, since this is still a reasoned discussion, and there's been no reason for anyone to take offence (didn't someone wonder hoe this was possible?)

They should only need to get involved if we descend into screaming insults at each other in BaDlY cApItAlIsEd EnGlIsH.

 

[Bookwyrm]

Read http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29071 for more info.

Just got round to reading this. It's an interesting piece of polemic, but shouldn't be mistaken for anything else. It's important to remember that in a relatively short period of time Israel has got it's hands as bloody as anyone else. I'm not saying that that makes the Palestinians angels, since their hands aren't clean either, but Israel is not an innocent party in all this.