The Rape of Morne [Final Update]

[MasterOfHeaven]

Great writing as usual, Sepulchrave. Sigh. You know, maybe you write too well. I'm starting to despise Eadric. Damned blind religious tool. I used to think he was a good guy, but now he seems, to me at least, to be nothing more than a yes man. Sure, he "defied" the church, but only because his deity wanted him to, and only after his friend intervened and took him away from the church authorities.

He never seems to make decisions on his own, he always has to be prompted by some outside force. And now he is going to invade a land, probably killing numerous innocent men all in the name of Oronthon. Pah. Any deity that commands something like that is a deity not worth listening to in the first place.

But, that's just how I see things. Regardless, I look forward to seeing how the story progresses.

 

[tleilaxu]

if one is the kwisatz haderach, then that is enough. so then the Ahma, the Madhi, the voice from the desert.

if god sees all, future and past, then how can we (who only see what is before us in time) judge what is good and evil?

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

if one is the kwisatz haderach, then that is enough. so then the Ahma, the Madhi, the voice from the desert.

if god sees all, future and past, then how can we (who only see what is before us in time) judge what is good and evil?

Heh heh. Funny you should mention that. I always considered Paul to have fallen into evil by the end of the first book. And saying "we can't judge good or evil because we can't see all ends" is a cop out. The means are just as important as the end, and I would rather see the universe end with a good act than continue because of an evil act.

 

[tleilaxu]

(delete this)

you are operating under an ethical system that only works from our (human) POV.

We can say "Eadric invading Morne is bad, b/c people will die". And as humans within our limitations of perception this is a legitimate position to take.

But suppose you have a god (call him Orothonion <sp?>)
His perception is, presumably, greater than that of mortals.

Perhaps he can see all the possibilities for the future. Perhaps the god sees;

1. The world ends
2. 1,000 people die (some of them innocents)
3. 1,000,000 people die (many of them innocents)

((which possibility would seem best to us? which would seem best to a god? i'm not supplying that answers...))

The god cannot create a world that has no pain, so it must choose between these three paths. We, as humans, cannot know any of this, and from our perspective the actions of the godly may seem crazy, irrational, or evil.

(and I personally may often think this in the real world, but the whole point is that the Ahma is the Ahma), at least in the game.)

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

(delete this)

you are operating under an ethical system that only works from our (human) POV.

I'd disagree with that statement.

We can say "Eadric invading Morne is bad, b/c people will die". And as humans within our limitations of perseption this is a legitimate position to take.

But suppose you have a god (call him Orothonion <sp?>)
His perseption is, presumably, greater than that of mortals.

Perhaps he can see all the possibilities for the future. Perhaps the god sees

1. The world ends
2. 1,000 people die (some of them innocents)
3. 1,000,000 people die (many of them innocents)

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, but nothing definite. How can you base your actions on something that you're not even sure has this "perception"? In the end, you have to make decisions based on your own moral compass. And again, as I stated in my original post, I would rather see the universe end with a good act than see it continue with an evil act.

The god cannot create a world that has no pain, so it must choose between these three paths. We, as humans, cannot know any of this, and from our perspective the actions of the godly may seem crazy, irrational, or evil.

But, because he's "god", we should follow his directions anyway? Countless real world religions used this same excuse to commit horrifying acts of evil, claiming it was "righteous" and "in the name of the divine". It didn't make it any less evil..

(and I personally may often think this in the real world, but the whole point is that the Ahma is the Ahma), at least in the game.)

So, the "Ahma", since he's "divine", can butcher a few dozen innocent children, and it'd be alright? After all, since he's the "Ahma" anything he does is divinely inspired, so he must be right to do that. Just like all the other, real world religious figures were "right" to commit all the acts of evil they did.

Now, admittedly, Eadric hasn't done anything like that so far, but if Oronthon ordered him to murder a seven year old girl, I would bet he'd do it. And that's why I don't like him. He doesn't seem to have any real moral compass of his own, he just follows the promptings of others he considers his "superiors".

 

[Cheiromancer]

*ahem*

Let's not go off on a tangent in this thread- a separate thread would be much nicer.

Besides, this kind of religious/moral discussion has an awful tendency to ignite. Let's cut it out while we're still being civil.

 

[Esiminar]

You are arguing over a moot point, as we have no physical contact with "agents of the divine" as Eadric has in the story.
It seems to me that you are trying to bring a real life perspecitve to a game situation which is a foolish thing to do for anyone when the realities are so diferent. You can't say this is what I beleve, or would do, in this situation.
Just as you could not say how you would beleve, or behave toward relegion in the real world if priests could call upon the power of a god to rain fire from the sky until it actual happened.

This paladin has been played for a long time and how he behaves has I expect evolved over time, as the player expereances a world where the above does happen, vicariously through the character. It is therefore not up to us on the outside to judge the characters actions, least of all on principles not pertenent to the world it exists in, when we have not put our selves in that chatacters place at the gaming table.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Alright, first off, this is the last time I make a post about this subject in this thread. If people want to continue the debate, we'll start another thread in another forum.

You are arguing over a moot point, as we have no physical contact with "agents of the divine" as Eadric has in the story.
It seems to me that you are trying to bring a real life perspecitve to a game situation which is a foolish thing to do for anyone when the realities are so diferent. You can't say this is what I beleve, or would do, in this situation.

Again, if real life perspective is so far gone that moral issues can't be debated, what's the point of having morality present in the first place?

Just as you could not say how you would beleve, or behave toward relegion in the real world if priests could call upon the power of a god to rain fire from the sky until it actual happened.

How do you know that? I'm a skeptic by nature. Prove to me the fire "you called down from the heavens" really came from the heavens. Maybe it's a new technological device. Maybe it's a trick of lights. Real life magicians can do things most in a medieval era would consider sorcery, but it's really just a series of tricks.

And irregardless of whether or not the theoretical priests actually were calling down divine fire, what does that have to do with the moral issues? If I'm going to believe in this "god" they are calling upon to bring down fire, then I'm going to classify a god that orders them to commit evil acts as an evil being, and them as evil people for following those orders. Power does not dictate right and wrong.

This paladin has been played for a long time and how he behaves has I expect evolved over time, as the player expereances a world where the above does happen, vicariously through the character. It is therefore not up to us on the outside to judge the characters actions, least of all on principles not pertenent to the world it exists in, when we have not put our selves in that chatacters place at the gaming table.

I guess I can't say I disagree with the actions taken by any mythological villian or character, then, eh? After all, since I'm not actually them, it's impossible for me to say whether or not their actions were evil. Maybe Sauron was just misunderstood.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Sauron put on his fair hue again, and did obeisance to Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented...Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation...and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.

Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

I've always found Sauron a rather sympathetic character. A classic tragic figure. This is kind of beside the point, though.

I'll try and get Lombard to post on this thread, as his perspective is somewhat different to mine. But some things should be borne in mind.


1) Eadric is Lawful Good. As has been mentioned before in the story, the principles of Law and Good are not always mutually supportive - in fact, they can be downright antagonistic to one another. A natural dialectic exists between them.

2) Oronthon is not only the final arbiter of what Lawful Good is, he actually defines it. It is not asmuch a question of Oronthon being expected to abide by an abstract set of principles, but rather "Lawful Good" - in terms of this campaign, at least - being a reflection of Oronthon himself.


MasterOfHeaven - your viewpoint has existential merit, but it is a relatively modern phenomenon. It is based on a post-Enlightenment, intellectual interpretation of reality which places the individual at the centre of his or her own ethical and moral universe. I won't get into the debate why this viewpoint - i.e. some brand of secular humanism - is actually no less "faith" based than any other.

Eadric is more complex than you give him credit for, however.

1) He recognizes (now, although not previously) that Oronthon himself is fraught with his own dilemmas regarding how to act in the world - although obviously, the Deity's apprehension of reality is infinitely larger and more complex than his own.

2) He trusts that Oronthon's judgement is still clearer/wider/deeper than his own.

3) He understands that in order to come to a mystical relationship with Oronthon, surrender of his sense of 'Self' is necessary.

Eadric's reality is not your reality, or mine - or Mostin's, or Nwm's, for that matter. All look at the world through a different lens. If you assert that your interpretation of reality has more merit than Eadric's, then you are doing precisely the same thing that he is.

Being a transmetaphysical multiperspectivist, Nehael would make no such assertions, of course.

 

[Esiminar]

Eadric's reality is not your reality, or mine - or Mostin's, or Nwm's, for that matter. All look at the world through a different lens. If you assert that your interpretation of reality has more merit than Eadric's, then you are doing precisely the same thing that he is.

This is a much less wordy way of saying what I indended.