How can this not be evil?

[Hellcow]

I was thinking more along the lines of Commune which could provide information as to the fate of the absorbed souls (destroyed, consumed, merged, baked, fried....)

True, certainly, but who's asking? The top heirophant says something along the lines of "The soul of the host will merge with that of the hero, finding rest within his noble spirit." Taerans are specifically defined as being a very authority-driven society who see things in black-and-white terms, and clearly this is an explaination they'd want to believe. So if a priest has been told that this is the will of the Arbiter - and it must be, because it's preserving our greatest priests - why would I use commune to see if he was lying?

There's also the key point here that we don't know what happens to the souls. Once the orb has taken over, the soul cannot be recovered. But it may still exist in some form, in the orb or out of if. So commune - which is limited to five words - may present something cryptic and unclear: "His spirit rests eternally" or "He has passed beyond understanding."

Alternately, commune could provide a very clear answer - "The soul is destroyed" - but no Taeran ever asked. However, the Ixians - the theocracy that opposed Kel Taera and cursed the orbs - could have discovered this, and this could have been the reason they were so determined to oppose Kel Taera. Nothing in Seven Civilizations says the Ixians were villains; it's possible that they approved of some of Kel Taera's values, but were determined to break the cycle of soul destruction.

 

[DMH]

There's also the key point here that we don't know what happens to the souls.

Yes we do. The text specifically says, "[After the orb reaches an ego of 30], the host' spirit has been completely obliterated." That is from page 90.

If the soul merged with the one in the orb, then shouldn't have an effect on the original soul? What does that mean for the paladin who inhabits a bugbear?

And what about the orb in the teenager? Why doesn't she tell the girl what her future holds, being good and all?

 

[Hellcow]

Yes we do. The text specifically says, "[After the orb reaches an ego of 30], the host' spirit has been completely obliterated." That is from page 90.

And yet, what I'm saying is, what does "obliterated" mean? As the person who wrote that sentence, the point I was trying to make was primarily mechanical: it means that it cannot be communicated with. It means it cannot be returned from the dead. For all game purposes, it is gone. But for theological and spiritual purposes, who knows?

If the soul merged with the one in the orb, then shouldn't have an effect on the original soul? What does that mean for the paladin who inhabits a bugbear?

Why should it have an effect on the original soul? It's entirely clear that the personality of the original soul is gone forever (see "obliterated"). But that doesn't stop the Taerans from feeling that it has been fused into the soul of the hero - that it can't be commuinicated with or resurrected because it is part of the hero.

And what about the orb in the teenager? Why doesn't she tell the girl what her future holds, being good and all?

First off, you assume she KNOWS what is going to happen to the girl. As I've said, I see no reason the Taerans would have given any thought to the fate of the souls of the orb-bearers other than that they are going on to a reward. The girl has chosen to take the orb, which is what the orb is used to dealing with - she's had many willing hosts in the past. She's promised the girl adventure, and that's what she'll get - a chance to participate in an adventure that will reshape the world.

Again, from the Taeran point of view, this is a tremendous honor - you get to shape the destiny of the entire world! We can argue about the word "obliterated", but bear in mind that the TAERANS have never read page 80 of Seven Civilizations - and I see no reason that they would view things in those terms.

Turning back to the ethics class example, does it make a difference if a healthy person volunteers to give his life to save thousands (remember, they believe that their actions safeguard entire future generations)? That's what the Taerans are used to dealing with: volunteers. The idea that they have to deal with unwilling hosts is entirely new and alien to them, and it's when you are dealing with an unwilling host that the fate of the soul becomes more of a concern. So certainly, I think the idea that some Taerans might question their actions in the modern day is an interesting one to explore. As for the paladin listed in the book, he's inhabiting the body of an evil creature, so yes, he believes that the destruction of the host is a good thing (you can argue that the destruction of a soul - even that of an evil monster - is never a good thing, but then we're back to whether he has any knowledge or way of proving that the soul is being destroyed).

Anyhow, the request was made for me to explain my thoughts in writing it, and there they are. The host's personality is certainly lost. And for game purposes, the soul is lost - there is no way to recover it or communicate with it once the transformation is complete. But I see no reason that the Taerans would be aware of this fact. If you feel that nonetheless, this mere form of existence would make them evil, by all means, make them evil. But the point is that they are going to continue to try to do good: battling the forces of evil in the world and trying to overcome other forms of social injustice. So good or evil, it comes back to the fact that good people can unwittingly do evil, and evil people can do good.

 

[cyferwolf]

I tend to draw the line more at the idea of self sacrfice versus personal sacrifice. Anybody ever see swordfish? towards the end, Gabriel asks Stanley 'if you could cure all the ills in the world, and all you had to do was sacrifice a single innocent child, would you do it?'

'no'

'why not?'

'how about ten?

'or a hundred, how about a thousand!'

The problem that comes up isn't so much the act, it's the choices involved. If the people involved are arware of the consequences and volunarily decide to have their souls destroyed to do this, that's one thing. if the sphere dwellers are not telling them, or just doing it and explaining it away as necessary, then that's another. To me the evil is that you can't make the choice for somebody else. if they're willing to be sacrificed and know about it, then you're on the good side for the most part. when you start to dissemble about the consequences or force your choice on somebody, that's when you cross the line.

 

[Goblyn]

Evil ...

I'm not sure if anybody is still arguing whether it's evil or not, but just in case: yes it is. No conditions will change this. Destroying souls, or even using them as energy(which detroys the soul anyway), whether or not the soul itself is evil or innocent, even whether the destroyer is aware that he is destroying a soul, is irredeemably evil. This is spelled out in the BoVD, THE DND evil book.

Oh, and before I'm jumped on about the relevance of this other sourcebook, remember that the BoVD is on the same level as where the Taerans appear.

 

[reanjr]

"Destroying things for the greater good" sounds like textbook LG

You know, "needs of the many..." and all that.

Sounds Lawful Neutral to me.

In my opinion, a Lawful Good individual would inconvenience the few for the good of many, but not destroy them.

Either way, I still don't see them as evil. Fascist, yes. Evil, no.