Nothing indicates that those extremely rare exceptions are a sign of a nature within those races tjhat can be redeemed, or rather a joke from the gods, a "providential act of gods" that decide to bend the rules of nature which they can since they have created it, in order to spice it up a little. Redeeming one or two selected individuals while continue to curse the entire said race by nature.
Because as you can see with Chow, the danger of considering that all are redeemable is that people will not be able to suffer inequalities, and will end up saying that elves being generally than orcs is down to social factors rather than nature and genetics. And you'll have a hard time defending against that, other than in saying that in nature, orcs/drows are much more predisposed genetically to evil than elves, and that therefore, bias against those races is reasonable vs bias against elves/humans/etc...
Are you really saying there's something like an Evil Gene, that forces them all to be bloodthirsty berserkers or sociopaths? Are you insane?
Personally, I feel that having no variety and only cliches and absolutes is boring and hurts fantasy worlds that are supposed to be complex and interesting.
Well I see it the other way: your RL view of how things are or should be in FR is boring and lack imagination. Because the way it is now, there is a real struggle about Viconia but if it was as Chow puts it, that drow or elves are in nature equally good or evil, then a good aligned character really should save Viconia. And this is where we differ.
Well I see it the other way: your RL view of how things are or should be in FR is boring and lack imagination. Because the way it is now, there is a real struggle about Viconia but if it was as Chow puts it, that drow or elves are in nature equally good or evil, then a good aligned character really should save Viconia. And this is where we differ.
Why is there a struggle? If it really is the way you say, then there is no struggle whatsoever: just kill the woman, clearly her feeble attempts at garnering sympathy are just trickery.
@UknownQuantity Actually you lose -2 Reputation if you have Viconia join you BUT you don't lose reputation for killing the guard.
Personally, I feel that having no variety and only cliches and absolutes is boring and hurts fantasy worlds that are supposed to be complex and interesting.
I'm saying that there are plenty of reasons to save Viconia for a Good guy. Even if you don't let her join you. That's what I did with my Paladin.
For my Blackguard, I save her because she's an awesome character and cleric in general.
I'm not sure what makes it boring for you. Having a true evil and a true good makes not only for a good story, but also makes for a strong reason for the goods need to destroy the evil. Without that you don't really have a story or much emotion at all. It's just a bunch of grey events that don't really matter that much.
Are you really saying there's something like an Evil Gene, that forces them all to be bloodthirsty berserkers or sociopaths? Are you insane?
why? in a world where you can transform someone in a squirrel or become a god, why the heck would that be insane? again you do not make much sense, only trying to apply RL modern world view to FR and going as far as saying that orcs or elves, with regards to good or evil, is the same and it all depends on environment. Really?
Because as you can see with Chow, the danger of considering that all are redeemable is that people will not be able to suffer inequalities, and will end up saying that elves being generally than orcs is down to social factors rather than nature and genetics. And you'll have a hard time defending against that, other than in saying that in nature, orcs/drows are much more predisposed genetically to evil than elves, and that therefore, bias against those races is reasonable vs bias against elves/humans/etc...
Drow being "evil" is purely cultural. They have to be utterly ruthless, because that's the only way to survive in their society. A drow child isn't born with the intent to murder its brothers and sisters for status and power, their society teaches those behaviors, and the children who don't learn get the tentacle rod or something equally horrible.
Let me ask you something, Ignatius: say your band of adventurers comes across a litter of goblin newborns and their mother who just popped them all out. Even if she were in any shape to fight you, she is no warrior, and her babies are only just beginning to open their eyes and are thus obviously no threat, either. Do you kill them now, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing?
why? in a world where you can transform someone in a squirrel or become a god, why the heck would that be insane? again you do not make much sense, only trying to apply RL modern world view to FR and going as far as saying that orcs or elves, with regards to good or evil, is the same and it all depends on environment. Really?
Well, yes. That's precisely how it is: it has always been like that, in basically every story ever, up to and including Tolkien.
Let me ask you something, Ignatius: say your band of adventurers comes across a litter of goblin newborns and their mother who just popped them all out. Even if she were in any shape to fight you, she is no warrior, and her babies are only just beginning to open their eyes and are thus obviously no threat, either. Do you kill them now, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing?
What even makes you think the drow are decided by gods as a race? This has never been alluded to.
What I mean is that drows have been hereditarily cursed by elven gods. Whether it is in the NDA or not, matters little. As long as the curse is there, evilness if transmitted by heredity ie at birth. Getting out of it is possible? so it seems. Proportions? I don't know, Acheos wrote 10% I would have never thought this would be a likely proportion, but have no data or knowledge on such figures.
What I mean is that drows have been hereditarily cursed by elven gods. Whether it is in the ADN or not, matters little. As long as the curse is there, evilness if transmitted by heredity ie at birth. Getting out of it is possible? so it seems. Proportions? I don't know, Acheos wrote 10% I would have never thought this would be a likely proportion, but have no data or knowledge on such figures.
No, they are not. You'll have to throw some source of this sort of a thing at me, because I have never, ever heard of a hereditary curse.
Why is there a struggle? If it really is the way you say, then there is no struggle whatsoever: just kill the woman, clearly her feeble attempts at garnering sympathy are just trickery.
You really think that's not boring?
It is never easy for me to play that sequence with some of my PC's. There is always a doubt, the situation is confusing, it all happens very quickly. That's why I understand that other players save her. But I jumped into thios discussion when some dare state that killing Viconia is an evil, or close to evil act. Now this is non sense, even more so sicne it requires you to kill the FF guy.
It is never easy for me to play that sequence with some of my PC's. There is always a doubt, the situation is confusing, it all happens very quickly. That's why I understand that other players save her. But I jumped into thios discussion when some dare state that killing Viconia is an evil, or close to evil act. Now this is non sense, even more so sicne it requires you to kill the FF guy.
I don't think the very act of killing her is of any alignment at all: it depends on your motivations for it. You could say it's because she's a murderer and not to be trusted, and easily make it good.
The drow are cursed with black skin and a sensitivity to sunlight and nothing more, as far as I recall. There is no biological/magical imperative for them to be evil. That would be counterproductive to the point of the elven pantheon cursing them. It was a punishment, not a spell to make sure they keep being jerks.
What I mean is that drows have been hereditarily cursed by elven gods. Whether it is in the ADN or not, matters little. As long as the curse is there, evilness if transmitted by heredity ie at birth. Getting out of it is possible? so it seems. Proportions? I don't know, Acheos wrote 10% I would have never thought this would be a likely proportion, but have no data or knowledge on such figures.
No, they are not. You'll have to throw some source of this sort of a thing at me, because I have never, ever heard of a hereditary curse.
At worst there is the dark skin thing.
I do recall something of this nature. Elves being created by a god of good and Orcs being created by a god of evil. The main problem is these D&D fantasy games were created even before my time and being that I wasn't into PnP I never read the rules much. I did read a lot of the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms books though.
Drow being "evil" is purely cultural. They have to be utterly ruthless, because that's the only way to survive in their society. A drow child isn't born with the intent to murder its brothers and sisters for status and power, their society teaches those behaviors, and the children who don't learn get the tentacle rod or something equally horrible.
So the god hereditary curse on the drow race is not passed down on them at birth, but via culture, is that what you are saying? in any case the good gods ahev permitted that drow children suffer such curse, hence I cannot see how they can be called innocent. To the eyes of the gods of FR, they deserve this, such is the nature of the curse put on them and their generations. Am I right or wrong here?
Let me ask you something, Ignatius: say your band of adventurers comes across a litter of goblin newborns and their mother who just popped them all out. Even if she were in any shape to fight you, she is no warrior, and her babies are only just beginning to open their eyes and are thus obviously no threat, either. Do you kill them now, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing?
I have already answered that. I do not consider them as innocent. In FR, some creatures are judged from what they are and therefore what they will end up doping, not for what they have done. That is how this world is. So what I will do will depend on who my PC is, and how he is feeling like when he stumbles upon them. He could take pity and let them live like you would of a dangerous animal, but could as well consider that they are not animals and will end up doing a lot of evil. So he might indeed kill them. The more lawful and the more good he is on the scale of alignment, the more he will do the latter. Typically, the more neutral, the more he will go on his way and let good take care of evil.
The drow are cursed with black skin and a sensitivity to sunlight and nothing more, as far as I recall. There is no biological/magical imperative for them to be evil. That would be counterproductive to the point of the elven pantheon cursing them. It was a punishment, not a spell to make sure they keep being jerks.
And even less than this is said of the orcs and goblins, at least in FR. In other settings they are also elves, that got hit pretty hard compared to the drow, but even in those I don't recall them being cursed into evil.
So the god hereditary curse on the drow race is not passed down on them at birth, but via culture, is that what you are saying? in any case the good gods ahev permitted that drow children suffer such curse, hence I cannot see how they can be called innocent. To the eyes of the gods of FR, they deserve this, such is the nature of the curse put on them and their generations. Am I right or wrong here?
In the specific case of the encounter with Viconia and the FF guy in BG1, I would efinitely not consider it as a bad act, and yes potentially, as a good act.
Going with your philosophy that everyone knows Drow are evil and that the Gods are better than CNN, everyone must know that Drizzt is a non-evil drow. Therefore there is greater than a zero percent chance that some drow are not evil.
If you kill someone who is not an active threat to you, who is or may not be evil (and based on the above argument, you have no proof that she is not evil), you are no better than the "Evil" you claim you are fighting.
And again, I ask. Does your party automatically kill Edwin on sight? He is a self proclaimed member of 'The Red Wizards of Thay', a notoriously and well document society of Evil wizards. Not Evil by birth, but by Thought and Deed. If you support killing Drow on sight and don't kill Edwin on sight, you are a hypocrite and a racist. Pure and simple.
If you are playing a Paladin who can 'Detect' evil, and you believe that Drow should be killed on sight 'Because they are Evil', you HAVE to attack and kill on sight Edwin and Kagain and Shar-Teel and Tiax, and Xzar and Montaron. Do you? If not, you are not allowing Viconia to die for any other reason than her race. Which is racism, not 'Goodliness'.
In the specific case of the encounter with Viconia and the FF guy in BG1, I would efinitely not consider it as a bad act, and yes potentially, as a good act.
Going with your philosophy that everyone knows Drow are evil and that the Gods are better than CNN, everyone must know that Drizzt is a non-evil drow. Therefore there is greater than a zero percent chance that some drow are not evil.
If you kill someone who is not an active threat to you, who is or may not be evil (and based on the above argument, you have no proof that she is not evil), you are no better than the "Evil" you claim you are fighting.
And again, I ask. Does your party automatically kill Edwin on sight? He is a self proclaimed member of 'The Red Wizards of Thay', a notoriously and well document society of Evil wizards. Not Evil by birth, but by Thought and Deed. If you support killing Drow on sight and don't kill Edwin on sight, you are a hypocrite and a racist. Pure and simple.
If you are playing a Paladin who can 'Detect' evil, and you believe that Drow should be killed on sight 'Because they are Evil', you HAVE to attack and kill on sight Edwin and Kagain and Shar-Teel and Tiax, and Xzar and Montaron. Do you? If not, you are not allowing Viconia to die for any other reason than her race. Which is racism, not 'Goodliness'.
Yes I am a 'racist' of Drow. Send me to hell. I feel quite guilty already. Grey skin is ulgy. :P
The drow, as they were now named, have always believed that they were punished for being “successful” and have remembered this perceived slight and vowed eternal revenge, still claiming the surface world as rightfully theirs.
It talks about punishment and eternal revenge. Meaning it can never change. I don't how the curse is being passed upon.
There is this:
It is important to recognize that though drow are untrusting and devious, they are not necessarily evil any more than gnolls or tieflings and drow can become forces of good given the right conditions. However, the mental scars of drow culture are not easily removed from the minds of an individual and the terrors of the Underdark and drow society can leave those who reject its evil with fractured minds and even a loose hold on their sanity. Others may escape the Underdark relatively unscarred, but these individuals are rare and considered, by and large, anomalies.
The drow are cursed with black skin and a sensitivity to sunlight and nothing more, as far as I recall. There is no biological/magical imperative for them to be evil. That would be counterproductive to the point of the elven pantheon cursing them. It was a punishment, not a spell to make sure they keep being jerks.
I don't think the very act of killing her is of any alignment at all: it depends on your motivations for it. You could say it's because she's a murderer and not to be trusted, and easily make it good.
But you can kill her just because she is drow (actually in the sequence, you refuse to hand her over you don't even attack her) and also easily make it good. Drow-prejudice, to the point of killing, seems reasonable to me.
Call it punishment then! have the elven gods on purpose punished the drows of those times and their generations, including all future children? then why call them innocent if good gods have decided that they will punished generation after generation, and apparently until the end of times?
But you can kill her just because she is drow (actually in the sequence, you refuse to hand her over you don't even attack her) and also easily make it good. Drow-prejudice, to the point of killing, seems reasonable to me.
Sure. Not necessarily good-aligned, but reasonable.
Call it punishment then! have the elven gods on purpose punished the drows of those times and their generations, including all future children? then why call them innocent if good gods have decided that they will punished generation after generation, and apparently until the end of times?
There's nothing like that ever mentioned either. The only divine punishment is dark skin and aversion to daylight, which drove them underground: anything else is entirely their own doing.
If you kill someone who is not an active threat to you, who is or may not be evil (and based on the above argument, you have no proof that she is not evil), you are no better than the "Evil" you claim you are fighting.
I disagree, because your statement is far too radical. It is all a matter of proportions and risk taking. With drows and the overwhelming odds, by my book you more than get away with it and I cannot see how for instance, the good gods who have punished all drows and their heritage, would later punish you for having smacked one of them just for what he was.
And again, I ask. Does your party automatically kill Edwin on sight? He is a self proclaimed member of 'The Red Wizards of Thay', a notoriously and well document society of Evil wizards. Not Evil by birth, but by Thought and Deed. If you support killing Drow on sight and don't kill Edwin on sight, you are a hypocrite and a racist. Pure and simple.
Everyone is a hypoccrit in BG, at some point or another. As for racial prejudice: yes, it is the most normal thing in FR, no problem with that.
If you are playing a Paladin who can 'Detect' evil, and you believe that Drow should be killed on sight 'Because they are Evil', you HAVE to attack and kill on sight Edwin and Kagain and Shar-Teel and Tiax, and Xzar and Montaron. Do you? If not, you are not allowing Viconia to die for any other reason than her race. Which is racism, not 'Goodliness'.
Yes, in my eyes she deserves to die more than the others because of her race. because in FR people from that race almost never ever get redeemed as I have read countless times in Candlekeep. While an evil human or dwarf might be brought to a better path much much much more easily. The thought iof treating an elf or a dwarf on an equal footing with a drow, whatever their alignment, does not make sense to me. There are hierarchies amongst some of these creatures in the good vs evil alignment scheme.
There's nothing like that ever mentioned either. The only divine punishment is dark skin and aversion to daylight, which drove them underground: anything else is entirely their own doing.
Have these gods no idea of what they do and of the fate drows would suffer underneath? is there no predestination in FR?
So the god hereditary curse on the drow race is not passed down on them at birth, but via culture, is that what you are saying? in any case the good gods ahev permitted that drow children suffer such curse, hence I cannot see how they can be called innocent. To the eyes of the gods of FR, they deserve this, such is the nature of the curse put on them and their generations. Am I right or wrong here?
The FR deities are not infallible. It may be beyond their power to take back the curse. Corellon Larethian may be afraid to remove the curse and potentially look weak in front of the rest of the pantheon or lose followers. There is also the concern that many drow still hold a grudge, and if they were cured of their sunlight vulnerability they might rise up to the surface and wage war unending. They've been hardened by their environment. The Underdark is a terribly dangerous place to live, and its denizens reflect that reality. Obviously, a drow raider is an enemy, and should be fought, but if you took that raider's son and had him raised in a temple or foster family, he wouldn't somehow spontaneously start worshiping Lolth and assassinating his adopted siblings.
I have already answered that. I do not consider them as innocent. In FR, some creatures are judged from what they are and therefore what they will end up doping, not for what they have done. That is how this world is. So what I will do will depend on who my PC is, and how he is feeling like when he stumbles upon them. He could take pity and let them live like you would of a dangerous animal, but could as well consider that they are not animals and will end up doing a lot of evil. So he might indeed kill them. The more lawful and the more good he is on the scale of alignment, the more he will do the latter. Typically, the more neutral, the more he will go on his way and let good take care of evil.
...No. Lawful Good characters don't kill babies unless those babies are playing host to some kind of demon god. Lawful Good characters that kill babies quickly become...I dunno, some other alignment. The babies are not guilty of any transgressions whether moral or legal and there's no profit in killing random babies, so it's honestly hard to imagine ANY alignment being okay with killing babies for no real reason. Sure, an Evil prince might kill his older brother's newborn heir to secure his succession, but to kill a baby that has nothing to do with you or anything in your life? It's madness, pure and simple.
If your goal is to protect the surrounding settlements from the possibility of future raiding, then killing the goblins makes sense, but it is not a Good act. Good characters can't remain Good if they're willing to take those kinds of shortcuts ALL the time. "The ends justify the means" is more Neutral/Evil behavior. Truly Good behavior would be to solve the problem where the goblin babies get to live and grow but also don't start raiding. Either you would need to teach their clan to farm and make their own goods, or you would need to raise the babies yourself.
The only other way I see a Good character reconciling with goblin orphans is to leave them be. They're not your enemies and haven't done anything wrong. If you could kill people for things they may do, you could kill anybody.
Have these gods no idea of what they do and of the fate drows would suffer underneath? is there no predestination in FR?
These same gods keep the Wall of the Faithless going, and bullied the new god of the dead into putting it back when he tried to remove it. If you don't know what the Wall of the Faithless is, look it up.
The FR deities are not infallible. It may be beyond their power to take back the curse. Corellon Larethian may be afraid to remove the curse and potentially look weak in front of the rest of the pantheon or lose followers. There is also the concern that many drow still hold a grudge, and if they were cured of their sunlight vulnerability they might rise up to the surface and wage war unending. They've been hardened by their environment. The Underdark is a terribly dangerous place to live, and its denizens reflect that reality. Obviously, a drow raider is an enemy, and should be fought, but if you took that raider's son and had him raised in a temple or foster family, he wouldn't somehow spontaneously start worshiping Lolth and assassinating his adopted siblings.
That's interesting, thanks. So would you say that a random elf and a random drow, brought up in the exact same environment, have the same chance to be good or evil enclined? same question with an orc/goblin raised in exact same environment. Or in other words: is racial prejudice, for the above races/species, something entirely normal and justified in FR, neither good nor bad, or is it bad?
The most distinctive feature of drow, however, is the touch of Lolth upon them. Just as Corellon cursed them and made them vulnerable to light, the Spider Queen gave the drow a blessing to counteract this, giving the drow a power over darkness that other races lack. This power can manifest in several ways. The most common being the ability to shroud enemies in magical, impenetrable darkness, usually called Globe of Darkness, or a debilitating charm called faerie fire that makes a creature an easier target[1], encasing them in something that looks like purple fire, though causing no harm.
Which talks about a cruse, and then a touch of Lolth to the race as an innate ability. Lolth being an evil God.
From birth, drow are taught they are superior to other races and should crush those beneath them. Children who resist and show kindness or love are brutally punished, so as to drive the instinct of cruelty into them
Which is basically a sort of eugenism to select the most naturally evil within the race, which if true, means that any drow adult would have shown in its nature, an aptitude to evilness beyond average.
If your goal is to protect the surrounding settlements from the possibility of future raiding, then killing the goblins makes sense, but it is not a Good act. Good characters can't remain Good if they're willing to take those kinds of shortcuts ALL the time.
Yes that could be the goal especially in a BG context. I never mean that it is systematic.
Truly Good behavior would be to solve the problem where the goblin babies get to live and grow but also don't start raiding. Either you would need to teach their clan to farm and make their own goods, or you would need to raise the babies yourself.
I did not know neither of these where posibilities.
If you could kill people for things they may do, you could kill anybody.
Yeah. But they're goblins, not people. I was not aware goblins could live peacefully without raiding and basically scavenging on others, realing in cruelty.
Yes, in my eyes she deserves to die more than the others because of her race. because in FR people from that race almost never ever get redeemed as I have read countless times in Candlekeep. While an evil human or dwarf might be brought to a better path much much much more easily. The thought iof treating an elf or a dwarf on an equal footing with a drow, whatever their alignment, does not make sense to me. There are hierarchies amongst some of these creatures in the good vs evil alignment scheme.
This statement says it all. It is rationalization for racism. You claim to want the drow dead because of their 'Evil'. You care not one bit if they actually are evil or act evil in any, or even if they are an active threat to anyone. And you don't kill others that are manifestly evil, even those who actively attempt to recruit you to murder someone. Therefore you want the Drow dead due to racism and no other reason. Pure and simple. QED.
Comments
You really think that's not boring?
Let me ask you something, Ignatius: say your band of adventurers comes across a litter of goblin newborns and their mother who just popped them all out. Even if she were in any shape to fight you, she is no warrior, and her babies are only just beginning to open their eyes and are thus obviously no threat, either. Do you kill them now, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing?
At worst there is the dark skin thing.
If you kill someone who is not an active threat to you, who is or may not be evil (and based on the above argument, you have no proof that she is not evil), you are no better than the "Evil" you claim you are fighting.
And again, I ask. Does your party automatically kill Edwin on sight? He is a self proclaimed member of 'The Red Wizards of Thay', a notoriously and well document society of Evil wizards. Not Evil by birth, but by Thought and Deed. If you support killing Drow on sight and don't kill Edwin on sight, you are a hypocrite and a racist. Pure and simple.
If you are playing a Paladin who can 'Detect' evil, and you believe that Drow should be killed on sight 'Because they are Evil', you HAVE to attack and kill on sight Edwin and Kagain and Shar-Teel and Tiax, and Xzar and Montaron. Do you? If not, you are not allowing Viconia to die for any other reason than her race. Which is racism, not 'Goodliness'.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow It talks about punishment and eternal revenge. Meaning it can never change. I don't how the curse is being passed upon.
There is this: It does not talk about heredity specifically.
Suffice to say, you're wrong here. ...No. Lawful Good characters don't kill babies unless those babies are playing host to some kind of demon god. Lawful Good characters that kill babies quickly become...I dunno, some other alignment. The babies are not guilty of any transgressions whether moral or legal and there's no profit in killing random babies, so it's honestly hard to imagine ANY alignment being okay with killing babies for no real reason. Sure, an Evil prince might kill his older brother's newborn heir to secure his succession, but to kill a baby that has nothing to do with you or anything in your life? It's madness, pure and simple.
If your goal is to protect the surrounding settlements from the possibility of future raiding, then killing the goblins makes sense, but it is not a Good act. Good characters can't remain Good if they're willing to take those kinds of shortcuts ALL the time. "The ends justify the means" is more Neutral/Evil behavior. Truly Good behavior would be to solve the problem where the goblin babies get to live and grow but also don't start raiding. Either you would need to teach their clan to farm and make their own goods, or you would need to raise the babies yourself.
The only other way I see a Good character reconciling with goblin orphans is to leave them be. They're not your enemies and haven't done anything wrong. If you could kill people for things they may do, you could kill anybody.
Gods are kind of jerks.
And then this: Which is basically a sort of eugenism to select the most naturally evil within the race, which if true, means that any drow adult would have shown in its nature, an aptitude to evilness beyond average. Yes that could be the goal especially in a BG context. I never mean that it is systematic. Sure. But sometimes... how many good-aligned characters in BG are forced to free a child-killer? all those who suceeed in the game. I did not know neither of these where posibilities. Yeah. But they're goblins, not people. I was not aware goblins could live peacefully without raiding and basically scavenging on others, realing in cruelty.