Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 2217871" data-attributes="member: 18549">I think this is what rubs me, and the others who share my concerns, the wrong way about KM's deva.  We do not know that he's right about what's going to happen to the material plane.  But he thinks he's right.  We can hypothesize that, should he be right, it would probably be a good idea to support him, and that his actions are [Good].  But equally, he could be wrong, it would be a bad idea to support him, and his actions might turn out to be [Evil] despite his belief to the contrary, and his inability to knowingly perform [Evil] acts.Why would the deva support such an apparently wrong-headed campaign?  Perhaps since he's compelled by his nature to support [Good] above all else, he can't help but bring about what he believes is a triumph of [Good] over the other alignments, despite the cost.  Perhaps he's just misinformed.  Perhaps we are.  But since the gods themselves seem to have mutually conflicting ideas of the nature of the coming apocalypse, it is reasonable to believe that the outcome is unpredictable.  And if that's so, we're better off with the devil we know (the current situation on the material plane) than the possibility of a fiendish victory, no matter how certain the deva is that this will not come to pass.Well, yes.  That my perspective conflicts with the deva's (presumably) and both are valid Good perspectives, illustrates the problem with the deva's mentality.  He's attempting to bring about a paternalistic kind of good, while I think that a tolerant kind of good is superior.  Obviously, we don't see eye to eye on the nature of good, he and I.  Your comments here could be just as easily levelled at the deva, since his pursuit of good excludes the possibility for my pursuit of good.  Which, really, was the point I was trying to make.  I disagree that the deva's actions represent Good in its entirety, claiming that they really only represent his perspective on good.  He's a friggin' deva, and he should represent all Good, not just his favourite parts.  If he doesn't include tolerance and compassion in his appraisal of the alignment, then he's missing the point, as far as I'm concerned.  And since that's the case, he has no more claim to speak for Good than I do, in my opinion.  And since that's the case, I see no reason to support his campaign, especially considering how uncertain it is.I just use Good and Evil for convenience here, since I do agree with you on this point.  Actually, we could take the conflict between me and the deva I illustrate above as being a Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good argument.  The deva is parochial, paternal good, while I'm individual, conscience-driven good...or something.  The details don't really matter.The point still remains that neither one of us has a claim to speak for our shared alignment in totality (and neither could the Neutral Good character, whom neither of us could convince), and neither of us can predict what will happen when the material plane collapses.  The only difference between me and the deva is that I have doubt and he doesn't.  But I could surmise that doubt is not something that any deva can possess in any quantity (since for a deva, "to doubt" may be equivalent to "to fall from grace"), and so I have a reason, at least by suspicion, to not trust him.  Certainly when I compare him to the inevitables that claim that the coming collapse will bring about a perfect order of Law.  I don't expect that they'd lie to me (although perhaps Chaotic or Evil outsiders would).The bottom line here is whether I, no matter what my alignment, can support any side. But it seems that there's too much unknown.  I don't know if I can trust the deva.  I certainly don't know if I can trust him more than the inevitables.  If I doubt that I can trust him, it means that I'm gambling on an outcome.  The outcome happens to be the end of the material plane.  At the moment, the material plane isn't so bad.  Certainly not as bad as it could be if the deva is wrong.  It could be that it will simply cease to exist and no rebirth is forthcoming.  I have no basis for predicting the outcome, so I must weigh the risks versus the rewards.  And it does not appear that the rewards are worth the risks, especially since so much evil must be done (specifically, genocide) to realize the rewards.  I'll support the cause of the material plane against the outer planes, because they've given me no reason to believe that the universe will be improved, and some suspicion to believe it will get wrecked.  And by wrecked, I mean either destroyed utterly or changed to align against my personal alignment goals.  So if I'm Chaotic, I fear a Lawful victory, and if I'm Evil I fear a Good victory.As an aside, if I assume that there's an equal chance for any of the four alignment forces to "win" the material plane, then it's still a weak gamble.  If I'm Lawful Neutral, I'll suffer if either Good, Evil, or Chaos win, although more if Chaos wins.  If I'm Lawful Good, I suffer greatly if either Chaos or Evil win, but only benefit moderately if Good or Law wins.  Either way, it's a non-zero sum game.  Especially if I happen to like dragons or fey.Precisely.  Which is why I don't trust the deva, and think he should be supporting the material plane against the other outsiders.</blockquote>

Verification