Maya, Aztec, Toltec, Inca
- Thread starter Benben
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Why try to pretty it up? Why not just accept that the culture your characters are playing in IS evil and that the people involved have their reasons--which seem good to them--and that everyone pretty much accepts it as their way of life.
There's not much point in exulting in the "shades of grey" or the amount of "relativism" in your world if you insist on prettying things up so that the evil the PCs may compromise with isn't really that evil.
Of course, it's other posters who are boasting about how they've moved "beyond" "simple-minded" ideas like good and evil. (And then prettying up their "evil" so that it's not really that bad). You were asking how not to make the culture inherently evil. A good way to start would be to ask what would it mean for a culture inherently evil. Would it mean that every participant in the culture is evil? Probably not. That the culture has absolutely no redeeming qualities? That's hard to believe. A culture would be hard pressed to survive without a significant number of redeeming qualities. Would it mean that the culture is evil with no hope for gradual change? That the evil in the culture is so engrained that removing it would render the culture unrecognizable? But if change did come, presumably it wouldn't come overnight. So, there would be an possibility for good people to live in an inherently evil culture.
So, the next step would be to ask, what role good people might play in a culture that engages in evil practices. And in truth, they can play a lot of roles.
If you like the setting but either you or your players don't want to explore the living in an evil culture aspect, you can let human sacrifice and other evil practices go on in the background. Maybe the characters don't believe in them or personally oppose them, but they can't do anything about it. It would be like setting a police drama in the homocide division of Stalinist Russia. Sure, there are purges going on and that's wrong but there's nothing the PCs can do about it so they just keep their heads down. In the mean time, there are still real murderers and it's really still good to catch them, so they do the good that's available to them and try to avoid being pulled into the apparatus of the purges. (Or maybe the purges just don't happen in their city--in your case, the sacrifices of captives are all made to the emperor in the capital city and that's a long way away so it's all off-screen).
If you and your players are interested in exploring the themes of cultural transformation, you could put them in the situation of ante-bellum Southerners who opposed slavery but wanted it to end gradually. In addition to whatever else the PCs do, they can try to convince people that the sacrifices don't ensure that the sun rises; instead they ensure that the people are always at war with their neighbors and that they never enjoy the peace to reflect upon the ways that they're exploited by their rulers. You could place them in the forefront of a revolution if you wanted to. You could also refuse that opportunity. They convince people who convince people until, sooner or later, a ruler arises who shares their belief. Or you could have a different group begin a rebellion for different reasons. The PCs could join in (possibly only to replace one bloody-handed tyrant with another) or they could sieze the opportunity to open a third front dedicated to the creation of a more just society.
And if you wanted to make things more complicated, the oppressed neighboring peoples or slaves could seize the opportunity to revolt and put all of their oppressors to the sword. In that case, those that the players naturally sympathize with (western society tends to revere victims) are dedicated to their extermination so the PCs can't join them (in fact, they have to oppose them or die). And if this new revolt is simply dedicated to upending the social order and reversing old or instituting a new oppression (as most revolts tend to be) they would have to fight both sides if they wanted to make a different society.
There's not much point in exulting in the "shades of grey" or the amount of "relativism" in your world if you insist on prettying things up so that the evil the PCs may compromise with isn't really that evil.
Of course, it's other posters who are boasting about how they've moved "beyond" "simple-minded" ideas like good and evil. (And then prettying up their "evil" so that it's not really that bad). You were asking how not to make the culture inherently evil. A good way to start would be to ask what would it mean for a culture inherently evil. Would it mean that every participant in the culture is evil? Probably not. That the culture has absolutely no redeeming qualities? That's hard to believe. A culture would be hard pressed to survive without a significant number of redeeming qualities. Would it mean that the culture is evil with no hope for gradual change? That the evil in the culture is so engrained that removing it would render the culture unrecognizable? But if change did come, presumably it wouldn't come overnight. So, there would be an possibility for good people to live in an inherently evil culture.
So, the next step would be to ask, what role good people might play in a culture that engages in evil practices. And in truth, they can play a lot of roles.
If you like the setting but either you or your players don't want to explore the living in an evil culture aspect, you can let human sacrifice and other evil practices go on in the background. Maybe the characters don't believe in them or personally oppose them, but they can't do anything about it. It would be like setting a police drama in the homocide division of Stalinist Russia. Sure, there are purges going on and that's wrong but there's nothing the PCs can do about it so they just keep their heads down. In the mean time, there are still real murderers and it's really still good to catch them, so they do the good that's available to them and try to avoid being pulled into the apparatus of the purges. (Or maybe the purges just don't happen in their city--in your case, the sacrifices of captives are all made to the emperor in the capital city and that's a long way away so it's all off-screen).
If you and your players are interested in exploring the themes of cultural transformation, you could put them in the situation of ante-bellum Southerners who opposed slavery but wanted it to end gradually. In addition to whatever else the PCs do, they can try to convince people that the sacrifices don't ensure that the sun rises; instead they ensure that the people are always at war with their neighbors and that they never enjoy the peace to reflect upon the ways that they're exploited by their rulers. You could place them in the forefront of a revolution if you wanted to. You could also refuse that opportunity. They convince people who convince people until, sooner or later, a ruler arises who shares their belief. Or you could have a different group begin a rebellion for different reasons. The PCs could join in (possibly only to replace one bloody-handed tyrant with another) or they could sieze the opportunity to open a third front dedicated to the creation of a more just society.
And if you wanted to make things more complicated, the oppressed neighboring peoples or slaves could seize the opportunity to revolt and put all of their oppressors to the sword. In that case, those that the players naturally sympathize with (western society tends to revere victims) are dedicated to their extermination so the PCs can't join them (in fact, they have to oppose them or die). And if this new revolt is simply dedicated to upending the social order and reversing old or instituting a new oppression (as most revolts tend to be) they would have to fight both sides if they wanted to make a different society.
Wombat said:
Kichwas
Half-breed
The Aztecs would sacrifice someone regularly - almost always from among the majority Toltec population of the region...
The Aztecs saw themselves as good and saving the world. The Toltecs saw them as evil, and thus helped Cortez conquer their conquerers.
My own ancestors, the Inca, did some level of sacrificing. The odd nun here and there. I don't know as much about the faith as I ought to though.
Every religion on earth can be easily seen as evil by outsiders. Almost all of them have histories of bloodshed and some form of conquest.
The Aztecs saw themselves as good and saving the world. The Toltecs saw them as evil, and thus helped Cortez conquer their conquerers.
My own ancestors, the Inca, did some level of sacrificing. The odd nun here and there. I don't know as much about the faith as I ought to though.
Every religion on earth can be easily seen as evil by outsiders. Almost all of them have histories of bloodshed and some form of conquest.
My understanding is that while blood sacrifice had always been a key part of mesoamerican religion, the scale of the sacrifice increased when the Aztec confederacy took over the Mexico Valley. Many of the subject peoples were upset that the Mexica increased the scale of such sacrifice to a considerable degree.
Remember, also, that a significant portion of those sacrificed were volunteers -- winners of ball games, participants in the flowery war, etc. This is hardly surprising when it is considered that the purpose of the sacrifice was to prevent the world from ending. It seems to me that it would be impossible to view as evil the sacrifice of a willing volunteer. Sacrifice, thus, is not really the problem we are talking about -- the problem we are talking about is state-sanctioned murder.
Ronald Wright, author of Stolen Continents made rather a good point on that front in a radio interview: really, the Spanish and Mexica deserved eachother -- they were the two empires in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that slaughtered the most innocent civilians in the name of god.
There is no doubt that what the Mexica did was monstrous but I think a case can be made that it was not objectively evil. While characters might object to the sacrifice of unwilling victims, and the excessive sacrifice of too many people per year, there is no reason for them to object to human sacrifice in principle.
One last thing, though: the people living under the Mexica when Cortes arrived had the most vegetarian diet of any society since antiquity.
Remember, also, that a significant portion of those sacrificed were volunteers -- winners of ball games, participants in the flowery war, etc. This is hardly surprising when it is considered that the purpose of the sacrifice was to prevent the world from ending. It seems to me that it would be impossible to view as evil the sacrifice of a willing volunteer. Sacrifice, thus, is not really the problem we are talking about -- the problem we are talking about is state-sanctioned murder.
Ronald Wright, author of Stolen Continents made rather a good point on that front in a radio interview: really, the Spanish and Mexica deserved eachother -- they were the two empires in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that slaughtered the most innocent civilians in the name of god.
There is no doubt that what the Mexica did was monstrous but I think a case can be made that it was not objectively evil. While characters might object to the sacrifice of unwilling victims, and the excessive sacrifice of too many people per year, there is no reason for them to object to human sacrifice in principle.
One last thing, though: the people living under the Mexica when Cortes arrived had the most vegetarian diet of any society since antiquity.
Wombat
First Post
Many cultures have engaged in ritual sacrifice at one point or another. Certainly the Celts and Norse cultures did.
This is one of the major problems of history, anthropology, sociology, and even rpgs: judging cultures.
Let us consider the position of the Toltec, the Maya, the Aztec and the Spanish. As far as we can tell the Toltec probably engaged in ritual sacrifice. The Maya definitely did. The Aztec fell quickly once the Spanish arrived, not due to the numbers of Spanish or disease (both of these would come later), but due to the hatred of the other nations around the Aztec regarding sacrifices -- it's not that the Toltec, Zapotec, etc., were against human sacrifices, but the Aztec had increased the number of sacrifices to such an extreme level that the other nations were feeling drained. Human sacrifice was an integral part of their religion.
Now many people in the modern world would look upon these sacrifices as evil; I don't think I would get much of a show of hands for the actual re-introduction of human sacrifice on this board. But equally the Spanish get a black eye for destroying the Aztec and Incan cultures (more of a horrible reputation than any other European nation for doing pretty much the same thing). Were the Spanish evil for destroying all those books, smashing the statues, and all the rest? Again, this destruction of "pagan" artifacts was an integral part of their religion.
We are trying to judge the actions of the Aztec, the Inca, the Spanish or even the leaders of WWI from a great remove. We are judging them by the standards of 20th/21st century urban, educated North American/Western European (sorry if I left anyone out, but that's the majority of folks on this board) ideals and mores. Trying to understand a culture in terms of itself, rather than in terms imposed by a different time, is a difficult task. Yes, that would probably be labelled as "cultural relativism", but how will we measure up to the standards of a culture 300 years in our future?
Maybe something we are doing right now on a day to day basis, something we consider normal, ordinary, acceptable and even important, will be judged then as something evil, vile and/or superstitious.
Can we be expected to conform to those future generations' notion of right and wrong?
This is one of the major problems of history, anthropology, sociology, and even rpgs: judging cultures.
Let us consider the position of the Toltec, the Maya, the Aztec and the Spanish. As far as we can tell the Toltec probably engaged in ritual sacrifice. The Maya definitely did. The Aztec fell quickly once the Spanish arrived, not due to the numbers of Spanish or disease (both of these would come later), but due to the hatred of the other nations around the Aztec regarding sacrifices -- it's not that the Toltec, Zapotec, etc., were against human sacrifices, but the Aztec had increased the number of sacrifices to such an extreme level that the other nations were feeling drained. Human sacrifice was an integral part of their religion.
Now many people in the modern world would look upon these sacrifices as evil; I don't think I would get much of a show of hands for the actual re-introduction of human sacrifice on this board. But equally the Spanish get a black eye for destroying the Aztec and Incan cultures (more of a horrible reputation than any other European nation for doing pretty much the same thing). Were the Spanish evil for destroying all those books, smashing the statues, and all the rest? Again, this destruction of "pagan" artifacts was an integral part of their religion.
We are trying to judge the actions of the Aztec, the Inca, the Spanish or even the leaders of WWI from a great remove. We are judging them by the standards of 20th/21st century urban, educated North American/Western European (sorry if I left anyone out, but that's the majority of folks on this board) ideals and mores. Trying to understand a culture in terms of itself, rather than in terms imposed by a different time, is a difficult task. Yes, that would probably be labelled as "cultural relativism", but how will we measure up to the standards of a culture 300 years in our future?
Maybe something we are doing right now on a day to day basis, something we consider normal, ordinary, acceptable and even important, will be judged then as something evil, vile and/or superstitious.
Can we be expected to conform to those future generations' notion of right and wrong?
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Actually, at least in our current culture, the sacrifice or murder--even of willing individuals--is generally viewed as evil. When people remember Jonestown, it's generally with horror that all of Jim Jones's followers were convinced to poison themselves. Similarly, the Heaven's Gate incident is remembered for the horror of the mass-suicide. While there are significant portions of the public willing to endorse assisted suicide, most want very strict controls on it--to limit it to incurably ill individuals or those who are in horrific, irremediable pain. To assist an individual who is merely depressed in committing suicide is generally seen as evil/wrong.
From most religious points of view, human sacrifice--willing or not--would be wrong as well. Especially from points of view that take the claim of the sacrificial ritual to impart spiritual power seriously but dispute the source of the power.
The rest of the discussion of relativistic "morality" (a different notion from cultural relativism--just because people disagree on a question doesn't mean that they're all wrong; it certainly doesn't mean that they're all correct. Either of those positions requires a whole lot more philosophical justification than simply "people have disagreed on this"), it's one of the things that doesn't really matter for this discussion. The original poster and his players are not people from three centuries in the future or from five centuries in the past and they will judge things by their standards or they won't judge things at all--however the latter isn't really an option since one has to act and action implies a better/worse judgement. (And, for all we know, the people of the future could decide that murder is OK as long as you kill Jews, slavery is OK as long as the slaves are from a particular racial group, that denying that Mohammed is God's prophet is a crime worthy of death, and/or that rape isn't a serious crime--it's folly to think that the future will be morally or physically better just because it hasn't happened yet. In 1921, German Jews or Russian Kulaks might have thought so but they would have been wrong (at least in the short term)).
From most religious points of view, human sacrifice--willing or not--would be wrong as well. Especially from points of view that take the claim of the sacrificial ritual to impart spiritual power seriously but dispute the source of the power.
The rest of the discussion of relativistic "morality" (a different notion from cultural relativism--just because people disagree on a question doesn't mean that they're all wrong; it certainly doesn't mean that they're all correct. Either of those positions requires a whole lot more philosophical justification than simply "people have disagreed on this"), it's one of the things that doesn't really matter for this discussion. The original poster and his players are not people from three centuries in the future or from five centuries in the past and they will judge things by their standards or they won't judge things at all--however the latter isn't really an option since one has to act and action implies a better/worse judgement. (And, for all we know, the people of the future could decide that murder is OK as long as you kill Jews, slavery is OK as long as the slaves are from a particular racial group, that denying that Mohammed is God's prophet is a crime worthy of death, and/or that rape isn't a serious crime--it's folly to think that the future will be morally or physically better just because it hasn't happened yet. In 1921, German Jews or Russian Kulaks might have thought so but they would have been wrong (at least in the short term)).
fusangite said:
Elder-Basilisk,
I want to make clear that I am not a big proponent of cultural relativism. I agree with you that even voluntary suicide is something our society reasonably sees as objectively wrong.
However, what I'm putting forward here is more a game mechanical question of how evil works. While I will agree with you that Aztec sacrifice of human beings is objectively wrong, I don't think that D&D evil is actually a proxy for objective wrongness. I think good and evil in D&D are game mechanical tools that can be used to make certain kinds of myths and stories work. Although I don't think wrongness can be a relative thing in all cases, I am of the view that evil, as a game mechanic, is far more flexible than our sense of right and wrong.
As long as another cultural reference frame can be comprehended, we can adapt the good-evil dynamic in D&D to it, regardless of how the culture's values map to our understanding of right and wrong. Thus, I think that it is reasonable for there to be characters of good alignment who believe in consensual human sacrifice and oppose the increasingly excessive state-sponsored murder the Mexica imposed on their region in the late medieval period.
I want to make clear that I am not a big proponent of cultural relativism. I agree with you that even voluntary suicide is something our society reasonably sees as objectively wrong.
However, what I'm putting forward here is more a game mechanical question of how evil works. While I will agree with you that Aztec sacrifice of human beings is objectively wrong, I don't think that D&D evil is actually a proxy for objective wrongness. I think good and evil in D&D are game mechanical tools that can be used to make certain kinds of myths and stories work. Although I don't think wrongness can be a relative thing in all cases, I am of the view that evil, as a game mechanic, is far more flexible than our sense of right and wrong.
As long as another cultural reference frame can be comprehended, we can adapt the good-evil dynamic in D&D to it, regardless of how the culture's values map to our understanding of right and wrong. Thus, I think that it is reasonable for there to be characters of good alignment who believe in consensual human sacrifice and oppose the increasingly excessive state-sponsored murder the Mexica imposed on their region in the late medieval period.
Benben
First Post
1) I agree with the Avalanche material. They research just enough to get them into trouble.Wombat said:
2) What's the title of the GURPs supplement? There's always ebay.
3) To make the sacrifice not so evil, make it part of a larger process. Similar to the death of a wizard or priest before they preform liche apotheosis. Sacrifice could be preformed to create any undead priest or warrior caste. The sacrifice itself could be a ritual to apply a template tailored to combat a specific threat to the Maya/Inca city. I'm contemplating a different template for the different sacrifice techniques: mummification, heartless, flayed, and burned.
Khorod
First Post
I don't know why, but I just remembered an episode of Star Trek.
What if you spun it that only the elderly were sacrificed? Means of population control and magical energies to enchant the great something-or-others that make the society one that can defend itself from all comers. Like flashlights.
What if you spun it that only the elderly were sacrificed? Means of population control and magical energies to enchant the great something-or-others that make the society one that can defend itself from all comers. Like flashlights.
Last edited:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Well that makes a lot more sense then. I agree with you that D&D uses good and evil as a mechanic for making a lot of myths and stories work in the context of the game. However, I don't think that D&D dissociates good and evil from the real-world meanings of the words. (And, since most D&D players have vaguely modern notions of the meanings of those words and apply them to D&D societies, D&D societies tend to end up looking like modern "enlightened" societies with some ancient window dressing).
What you're suggesting is dissociating good and evil from our (the players' and DM's) understanding of their meaning and attaching a pseudo-Aztec meaning to them. I'm not certain that's possible or desirable. Despite relativist claims to the contrary, good and evil--especially evil--are pretty securely ensconced in our language as objective terms. (I think that's one of the reasons why a lot of people make relativistic objections (the most common being "simple-minded") to political speeches that include the terms good and evil in the context of the war on terror: because using that terminology presupposes a morally non-relative world). Consequently, I think that doing as you suggest would probably result in more confusion and misunderstanding than it's worth. It's one thing to acknowledge that the Mexica thought human sacrifice to be good. It's another entirely to call it [good] myself--or to try and adopt view of good in the game that allows for it even though my real views don't. (I also think that, if successful, it could not help but muddy the meaning of the terms making it harder to think clearly in terms of good and evil--as Orwell said, confused language makes it easier to think confused thoughts).
In that context, I think it would be easier to jettison the good-evil axis of D&D alignments (which seem to be quite strongly based on an act-ethic) and, instead begin with a little discussion of how good people (people even we moderns would tend to think of as good) might participate in Aztec society. Alternately, once could try to switch D&D's good-evil axis to accomodate a virtue-ethic. Moral value would be located in people rather than in actions and the ethics would be virtue based (courage, justice, wisdom, piety, moderation, etc.=good; cowardice, injustice, foolishness, impiety, immoderation, etc=bad). The alignment based spells, might be shoehorned into that schema (although I doubt they would then serve their purpose well) or simply converted into (The gods' Protection (Prot evil), Magic Circle against spirits/magic (evil), Holy Smite (effects enemies), etc).
-Edit-BTW, Fungasite, I've just noticed you live in Vancouver; are you part of the VGG? Just curious about whether or not I actually know you. . . .
What you're suggesting is dissociating good and evil from our (the players' and DM's) understanding of their meaning and attaching a pseudo-Aztec meaning to them. I'm not certain that's possible or desirable. Despite relativist claims to the contrary, good and evil--especially evil--are pretty securely ensconced in our language as objective terms. (I think that's one of the reasons why a lot of people make relativistic objections (the most common being "simple-minded") to political speeches that include the terms good and evil in the context of the war on terror: because using that terminology presupposes a morally non-relative world). Consequently, I think that doing as you suggest would probably result in more confusion and misunderstanding than it's worth. It's one thing to acknowledge that the Mexica thought human sacrifice to be good. It's another entirely to call it [good] myself--or to try and adopt view of good in the game that allows for it even though my real views don't. (I also think that, if successful, it could not help but muddy the meaning of the terms making it harder to think clearly in terms of good and evil--as Orwell said, confused language makes it easier to think confused thoughts).
In that context, I think it would be easier to jettison the good-evil axis of D&D alignments (which seem to be quite strongly based on an act-ethic) and, instead begin with a little discussion of how good people (people even we moderns would tend to think of as good) might participate in Aztec society. Alternately, once could try to switch D&D's good-evil axis to accomodate a virtue-ethic. Moral value would be located in people rather than in actions and the ethics would be virtue based (courage, justice, wisdom, piety, moderation, etc.=good; cowardice, injustice, foolishness, impiety, immoderation, etc=bad). The alignment based spells, might be shoehorned into that schema (although I doubt they would then serve their purpose well) or simply converted into (The gods' Protection (Prot evil), Magic Circle against spirits/magic (evil), Holy Smite (effects enemies), etc).
-Edit-BTW, Fungasite, I've just noticed you live in Vancouver; are you part of the VGG? Just curious about whether or not I actually know you. . . .
fusangite said:
Last edited:
Similar Threads
