The Ethics of Slaying half-fiendish silver dragons

[Celebrim]

The point is that they are reflections of the evil in our own psyche. Evil that strikes close to home. They are reflections of our own weaknesses, lusts, and sins.

Ok. I'll accept that without too much quibble. I'd add that if they are well developed symbols, that we will see our own weaknesses, lusts, and sins as reflections of their monstrousity.

Many people deny the Evil that lurks in their own heart. Demons remind us that this Evil exists.

Sure, I'll accept that.

But for this, they must be recognizeable as twisted reflections of humanity.

Wait a minute. How did we suddenly get here from there? I think that is a non sequitur, and I'm not going to buy it until you develop an argument to support it.

It's not necessary for demons to be recognizable as twisted reflections of humanity. It's only necessary for them to be recognizable as that destructive maiming nihilistic impluse within us. It is not at all necessary that they share any larger attributes with us, and certainly no qualities within ourselves that we would find admirable and attractive. Any attractive properties they possess must be a sham, or at least based upon the fact that evil is mysteriously attractive even when it is disturbing and loathesome.

For example, its easy to recognize the twisted humanity within Gollum, because there is a portion of him (Smeagol) who is worth saving. Frodo has mercy on Gollum because he sees in Gollum himself, and has pity on him. It's hard to imagine Frodo seeing the same twisted humanity in the Balrog of Moria, or seeing something in the Balrog of Moria that is worth saving and having pity on it. In fact, if Frodo sees in the Balrog something worthy of saving, then arguably Frodo is decieved because the whole point of 'demons' is to have something that stands for what is not worth saving because it is purely evil. IF we take the Balrog of Moria and make it a twisted reflection of humanity, then we haven't made it deeper - we've simply started erasing certain symbols from our mythic vocabulary - and if we ever want to replace those symbols then we have to invent replacements - HPL's unknowable alien evil that you previously referred to.

It seems to me that at some level your arguing against yourself. First you boldly state that the point of demons is to remind us that evil exists. Then you want to say that they must therefore be twisted reflections of humanity. But this seems like saying to me that they need not be, nor should they, be wholly evil because they are no more (or no less) than twisted humans, and to be recognizable as twisted reflections of humanity they must have empathetic qualities (like the aforementioned Hannibal Lector). It seems to me like you are saying instead that pure evil doesn't exist, and that demons are there to remind us that everything is more complex than that. I reject such a usage as short sighted and a betrayal of the very definition of demons as the embodiment of evil.

Demons give us something as a symbol that mere twisted humans can never give us. We'd never want to cast any person in the role of utterly irredemnable and complete evil, because even if we must take steps to defend ourselves from evil - the destruction of any person is a moment of loss and tragedy. As utterly evil and unredemnable beings, demons are well past that point of tragedy which allows us to have a symbol of something that we can completely and utterly reject in a way that would be troublesome if the thing we were rejecting was a person.

 

[Celebrim]

Tolkien also asked: What is the greatest weakness of Evil? His answer: That it can only see Good as weakness.

I don't think that was his full answer though. He also said that evil lacked the capacity of original thought, that it could only mock and twist the creations of others. He also said that the problem with evil is that it continually turned on itself, and worked against its own purposes. Also, he said that evil eventually caused one to forfeit thier identity and thier capacity to choose. Notice that one of the problems evil things experience in his stories is that they are forgetting thier own name, the most explicit reference to which is when Tolkien introduces the 'Mouth of Sauron' - who is an utterly pathetic character the more you think about it.

It's worth noting of course that the answers are exactly the opposite of the boasts that evil make to justify themselves. Morgoth believes he is 'doing his own thing', but he was really doing his own thing only in the first moments of his rebellion. Before long his rebellioned deepened to the point that he could just repeat his same themes over and over again in ever louder and shriller tones, and his original purpose (initially merely to increase the respect his audience would have for him) very quickly got lost in his attempts to justify his failures afterwards. The later thoughts that we might speculate that he had - that Manwe and the rest didn't do the same solely because they didn't think of it first or were too cowardly to try - is probably only part of that justification, and is part of Melkor/Morgoths own maiming of his reason. Like Gollum, even if he succeeded in his goals he would have just found 'empty darkness' where he could gnaw fruitlessly on the dreams of his old plots. In fact, Tolkien writes that Morgoth is reduced to gnawing on himself endlessly in the void.

 

[Voadam]

But the balrog is a twisted Maia or whatever, the same thing as Gandalf. He is one who fell and became evil.

When Gandalf faces off against it, he is facing off also against what he could have become, a brother he can relate to.

For the surface story that never comes up, but it is there.

Falling is a classic for demon figures, starting out good and going bad. The changeability of the moral status is part of the archetype.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Wait a minute. How did we suddenly get here from there? I think that is a non sequitur, and I'm not going to buy it until you develop an argument to support it.

It's not necessary for demons to be recognizable as twisted reflections of humanity. It's only necessary for them to be recognizable as that destructive maiming nihilistic impluse within us. It is not at all necessary that they share any larger attributes with us, and certainly no qualities within ourselves that we would find admirable and attractive. Any attractive properties they possess must be a sham, or at least based upon the fact that evil is mysteriously attractive even when it is disturbing and loathesome.[/QUOTE]

Well, for D&D I'm mostly using the Planescape model of demons and devils, where they are twisted reflections of humanity on some level - after all, they originated from human souls.

Cthonic entities, on the other hand, are Beyond Good and Evil, as Lovecraft would have said. The horror with them is not that they are evil - because they are not; in the universe of the Cthulhu Mythos, "Good" and "Evil" are merely human constructs that are irrelevant to the cosmos at large. The horror is that in their very existence, they make human beliefs pointless. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos - they all don't matter in the face of the Mythos. And the human mind shatters at these implications. That makes them loathsome - because humans are loath to confront all the implications of their existence.

Plancescape demons and devils, on the other hand, are the opposition that must exist to the forces of Good to make Goodness meaningful. There are hints of ancient Cthonic entitites in Planescape as well - the Ancient Baatorians, for example. But I think it is significant that the Baatezu, who are made from human souls, took their place and now dominate that aspect of the setting.

At least that's my theory of How Things Work, and I'm sticking to it for my campaign.

For example, its easy to recognize the twisted humanity within Gollum, because there is a portion of him (Smeagol) who is worth saving. Frodo has mercy on Gollum because he sees in Gollum himself, and has pity on him. It's hard to imagine Frodo seeing the same twisted humanity in the Balrog of Moria, or seeing something in the Balrog of Moria that is worth saving and having pity on it. In fact, if Frodo sees in the Balrog something worthy of saving, then arguably Frodo is decieved because the whole point of 'demons' is to have something that stands for what is not worth saving because it is purely evil. IF we take the Balrog of Moria and make it a twisted reflection of humanity, then we haven't made it deeper - we've simply started erasing certain symbols from our mythic vocabulary - and if we ever want to replace those symbols then we have to invent replacements - HPL's unknowable alien evil that you previously referred to.

But in Tolkien's world, Balrogs are pretty much the definition of ancient cthonic beings!

A better analogy to demons would be the Ringwraiths - they are tragic figures in a way, and they were once humans and are thus on some level understandable. And yet they are utterly lost and evil beyond redemption.

It seems to me that at some level your arguing against yourself. First you boldly state that the point of demons is to remind us that evil exists. Then you want to say that they must therefore be twisted reflections of humanity.

I think we simply have different views on this. But to me, Good and Evil are first and foremost human concepts - and beings that reflect these concepts thus reflect humanity.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, for D&D I'm mostly using the Planescape model of demons and devils, where they are twisted reflections of humanity on some level - after all, they originated from human souls.

Ok, but the origin of that belief system (that evil souls become demons if they are 'worthy' in some fashion) is Satanism. Make of that what you will.

Plancescape demons and devils, on the other hand, are the opposition that must exist to the forces of Good to make Goodness meaningful.

I firmly reject the notion that evil must exist in order to make good meaningful.

But in Tolkien's world, Balrogs are pretty much the definition of ancient cthonic beings!

No, in Tolkein's world, Balrogs are 'demons of fire' and are literally fallen angelic beings which no embody an evil principle. That didn't become the archeatypal fantasy demon by some misundertanding.

A better analogy to demons would be the Ringwraiths...

Let me get this straight. You are saying that a better analogy to a demon than a demon would be a non-demon? It's going to take me a while to get my head around that.

...they are tragic figures in a way, and they were once humans and are thus on some level understandable. And yet they are utterly lost and evil beyond redemption.

Yes. But its not clear to me that the Ringwraiths by this point retain any existance which is separate from thier master. They are disembodied manifestations of fear and despair which Sauron wields like a fist. In that fashion, they have become 'demonic', but there is nothing in them which we now recognize as people - no element of 'complexity' in thier personality. They have neither names nor existence apart from the will of Sauron and they perish when his thought perishes. The only thing recognizable in them is their orginal lust for power and immortality back when they were mortal, but they remain only as object lessons in complete slavery. It's difficult to imagine that they retain those human motivations, or any independent motivation at all for that matter.

I think we simply have different views on this. But to me, Good and Evil are first and foremost human concepts - and beings that reflect these concepts thus reflect humanity.

I think we have different concepts of this too. But, whether or not good or evil are human concepts is somewhat unimportant here. The whole purpose of discussing evil in terms of 'demons' (or good in terms of 'angels') is to be able to remove the humanity from the equation and ask, "What is the essential nature of evil?" Even if evil is only a human concept in its invention, it has to have some recognizable quality of itself that let's us distinguish an evil act from one that isn't. What is evil like in its pure form? Evil is of course too abstract of a concept to deal with easily (otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about what it meant), and symbols like 'demons' and such give us a more concrete language for addressing that question through narrative.

 

[Celebrim]

But the balrog is a twisted Maia or whatever, the same thing as Gandalf. He is one who fell and became evil.

I'm aware of that.

When Gandalf faces off against it, he is facing off also against what he could have become, a brother he can relate to.

No more so than he can relate to Sauron. Gandalf's commentary on Sauron is instructive.

A better example would be the way that Gandalf tries to relate to Saruman, whose moral fall is apparantly not absolute. Or at least, even if Gandalf believes it be absolute, his goodness compells him to make the pitch anyway as 'the right thing to do'. It's pretty clear that beings which fell in eternal time aren't looked at in the same fashion.

For the surface story that never comes up, but it is there.

Falling is a classic for demon figures, starting out good and going bad. The changeability of the moral status is part of the archetype.

I'm afraid that I'd have to get into a discussion of Catholic doctrine on this, and not only am I not the best person for the job, but I'm not sure just how well the moderator's would appreciate this becoming an open (rather than cloaked) discussion of religion. Suffice to say that to Tolkein (a Catholic as I'm sure you know), the changeability of the moral status of spiritual beings is not part of the archetype. Once a spiritual being apprehends the nature of evil and makes a choice, its choice is eternal and irrevocable. So a figure like Satan is enternally fallen from the moment of its apprehension of good and evil because there can never be more about the matter that it could learn. Once this decision is made, it is completely unvacillating in its will to act on this decision. Falling (or not falling) is a completely one way road.

 

[Elephant]

I firmly reject the notion that evil must exist in order to make good meaningful.

Can you give me an example of any concept that exists without an opposing counterconcept in our consciousness?

 

[Ryltar]

Most of the points that I'd have made have already been covered by Jürgen Hubert, so I'll stick to your latest post . A short disclaimer beforehand: I actually DM a Planescape campaign, and thus everything I'll put forth will be influenced by my understanding of that setting. You are free to ignore PS references in your games, of course, but with it being the grandaddy of all things planar, I think that it is the setting that provides the most depth on concepts like Evil, [Evil] and Good.

I firmly reject the notion that evil must exist in order to make good meaningful.

Answer this one, then: How would you even know Good from Evil when the latter would not exist? There'd be no way to tell, because concepts can only be defined by delineating them using their polar opposites, thus narrowing down the sense of a word. Without you knowing "X is Good", you would not consider Y as Evil, because you would not know what Evil meant.

Regarding the difference between Evil and [Evil], I agree with JH. From a DM's standpoint, not everything you use can be "just evil", because if evil equals absolute, incomprehensible evil, then there would be no way that its usage in your game would emotionally touch your players in any way. "It's evil, they're alien, we can't understand their motivations - we'll kill them and take their stuff." If you want that kind of game, you're free to do so, of course, but it takes away all other options the party might have in dealing with fiends. Also, it reduces Evil to something that is akin to zombies in horror movies: it fulfills no role but that of cannon fodder without motivations. What about all other forms of evil - scheming, duplicity, trickery, beguilement, et cetera - that, to the players, can be much more emotionally involving and intense than just fighting a creature that they know they cannot communicate, and thus not even try to reason with it? I for one would not want to cut off my player's options - and my own, in designing a story - so easily.