Hel is right as hell

[goodpeople25]

I think that a sizable portion of our population is secretly made up of CE spies.

I really doubt that this is true...
It seems far more likely to me that the majority of the spies would be lawful evil and definitely not chaotic evil, justifying other peoples actions doesn't scream chaotic evil to me at all.

On an unrelated note belkar and xykon are the coolest CN people ever!!!!
I am totally not a CE spy BTW
seriously

[Molan]

I really doubt that this is true...
It seems far more likely to me that the majority of the spies would be lawful evil and definitely not chaotic evil, justifying other peoples actions doesn't scream chaotic evil to me at all.

On an unrelated note belkar and xykon are the coolest CN people ever!!!!
I am totally not a CE spy BTW
seriously

Bwahahahahahaha!

[Bad Wolf]

I really doubt that this is true...
It seems far more likely to me that the majority of the spies would be lawful evil and definitely not chaotic evil, justifying other peoples actions doesn't scream chaotic evil to me at all.

On an unrelated note belkar and xykon are the coolest CN people ever!!!!
I am totally not a CE spy BTW
seriously

I see a huge mistake here...

[goodpeople25]

I see a huge mistake here...

Well i wasn't quite sure if people would accept that he actually is CG with CN tendencies, so i just decided to make it CN.
Also this is 100% serious and not a joke at all now what are we gonna do about the LE spies in our midst justifing evil acts, luckliy there are no CE spies justifing evil acts just LE ones not CE ones and definitely not me.

[Doctor_Cthulwho]

Roy has every right to interfere with her vote. Now, if it were Thor or Odin or some other god abusing a rules loophole to fight Hel 1v1, I would absolutely agree with your statement, but that's not what I'm saying. Because the gods all agreed to this vote, and had their fair say in it; attacking somebody on the other side so you'd win would be horsecrap. But Roy isn't fighting because he was part of a fair vote and his side didn't win or something, he's fighting because a bunch of people (well, gods, but it's actually a minor distinction at this point) who have no stake in the actual personal lives of the people on this planet are having a vote without the consent of anyone down there to end all of their lives. I have to answer differently to the question presented earlier: this situation is more convenient for Roy because he has a loophole to avoid all the Clerics bearing down on him at once, but at the end of the day, he's still a hero, and probably would've tried to kill (or at least remove from the moot) the High Priests of the gods who voted yes even if Hel via Durkon didn't have to step in. He's protecting himself and tons of others. This is like self-defense taken up to a billion.

If Roy has no right to interfere with Hel's vote, then the gods have no right to be holding this vote in the first place. Plain and simple.

That's my stance as well. In big part because - irregardless of alignments of those involved, or how polite and by the rules the gods have been as they come to their decision - I view fighting to save the world as usually the good thing to do.

Which might sometimes involve resisting the well intentioned plots of a higher power, and their servants. Be they gods, kings, or whatever else. Especially when they're making decisions for everyone else, in secret (they didn't even hear Roy's speech because of how this works).

Good is subjective of course, and so not homogeneous, thus people can and would disagree. But I think more often than not it would come down on the side that opposes "destroy the world, because it's better to be safe than sorry". Doubly so as - with the benefit of dramatic irony - we know the gods are not voting with anywhere near complete knowledge (we don't even have that yet) of what's going on. They're voting out of fear.

It's mad, but Loki's "lets try and fix it, and if it fails we still have time for the last resort we know will work" does seem the most rational and good, if he's correct in his timing.

Thus - I'd be supportive if Roy was fighting Durkon with loophole, or if he was prepared to sacrifice himself to take down Heimdall's high priest to save the world from destruction at the hands of the gods. Sometimes what's right isn't easy or nice.

[The_Weirdo]

If other evil and pro-destroying gods can vote, why should't she? Roy has no right to interfere with her vote.

The gods do not have the right to even make the call. The entire vote is illegitimate. People have the right to live and, if that means killing a few clerics to fudge an illegitimate vote, so be it.

[falsedot]

The gods do not have the right to even make the call. The entire vote is illegitimate. People have the right to live and, if that means killing a few clerics to fudge an illegitimate vote, so be it.

Illegitimate based on which law? I cannot believe that there is such a clause in the gods' laws otherwise the lawful gods would have complained. If, on the other hand, you do not accept their laws then it is not a question of legitimacy of the vote, but of the (divine) right of the gods to rule.

But in the end, Roy is just an impulsive, spoiled kid/PC with horrible judgment that is readily approaching Miko levels by reenacting the Girard Gate fiasko: "oh did the gods decide to destroy the world because I hacked a gate to pieces? I know better! Lets kill some of the yes clerics. Slash slash slash"

[The_Weirdo]

Illegitimate based on which law? I cannot believe that there is such a clause in the gods' laws otherwise the lawful gods would have complained. If, on the other hand, you do not accept their laws then it is not a question of legitimacy of the vote, but of the (divine) right of the gods to rule.

But in the end, Roy is just an impulsive, spoiled kid/PC with horrible judgment that is readily approaching Miko levels by reenacting the Girard Gate fiasko: "oh did the gods decide to destroy the world because I hacked a gate to pieces? I know better! Lets kill some of the yes clerics. Slash slash slash"

Humans have a right to life. And there is no such thing as divine right to rule. Boils down to this, really.

[Murk]

Humans have a right to life. And there is no such thing as divine right to rule. Boils down to this, really.

Eh, this borders closely on real world morality, so I'll only react to it from the perspective of OoTS-world: why would humans have a right to live? I know why the humans would feel that way, but then Belkar would probably say he has a right to kill humans. Just because a character feels he has a right doesn't really make it so.

Even more, the gods do have a point in that the souls of the humans have a right to be protected too. Maybe the gods could get away if the Snarl broke free, but the humans not. They would get unmade, soul and all, while destroying the world at least saves some souls.
What this means is that, while Roy might feel to take his chances, I don't really feel he should make that decision for other humans. If I got to choose between "Adventurer gets a small chance to save the world, if he fails you will be unmade" or "We kill you now but you get to live on in an afterlife as long as you want", I'd choose the latter.
Not everyone would. Roy wouldn't. That's fair, and I understand his emotions and his desire to live make him attack Durkon. That's fair too, but I don't think it's his holy duty to humanity.

[diremage]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but an analogy from a famous real-life religion is directly applicable. Suppose that a group of farmers held a field in common. Each farmer has a barn where they store their grain, and each farmer harvests their special grain from the field. These wheat kernals are the essence of an individual's life, and when harvested that essence goes safely into a barn.

But, there's a problem with the field. There's a little fire in it, and if left unchecked, that fire will burn down the field with all existing grain, plus all the grain that's been stored in the barns, plus possibly killing all the farmers.

Some of the gods are proposing that they conduct an orderly harvest now, then raze the field to control the fire. The barns will be OK, the farmers will be OK, and all the crops they've harvested will be OK. Then they can plant a new field, and the process will continue, and hopefully this time without any fires. In terms of Heimdal's duty as a lawful good god to preserve all life, this is the surest and swiftest method because in OotSworld, death isn't really dead. It's just the stage where the wheat is ripe and ready to spend an eternity in a heavenly barn adding to some farmer's wealth and prestige. However, snarl annihilation IS really death. If someone gets eaten up by the snarl, it may be that they go to the world-within-the-snarl and they aren't really dead. But as far as the gods can tell, anyone slain by the snarl is gone. Do not pass go, do not collect a soul on your way out.

Some of the gods are proposing that they wait a bit. Sure, there's a slightly larger risk that everyone dies horribly, but there's also a chance that the fire will go out by itself. If that happens, they don't have to waste the time and effort tilling a new field; they can still use the one they've already got. Profits will be higher, and everyone wins.

Hel is saying that she wants to harvest the field now because, under the terms of her deal, that would make her the wealthiest farmer and she'd get to play boss when they set up the next field. Of course, she's one of those bosses from hell, literally. She likes to keep her barn dark and moldy, and sometimes goes in there and beats up the wheat. She's got issues.

Roy, of course, is part of the current crop of wheat. He doesn't get a vote on whether or not to raze the field. If the world is razed by the gods, he gets to go to his heavenly barn and his life, meaning his awareness, consciousness and sense of self, are preserved. If he dies fighting the snarl, he's probably really, really dead.

[Keltest]

Eh, this borders closely on real world morality, so I'll only react to it from the perspective of OoTS-world: why would humans have a right to live? I know why the humans would feel that way, but then Belkar would probably say he has a right to kill humans. Just because a character feels he has a right doesn't really make it so.

Even more, the gods do have a point in that the souls of the humans have a right to be protected too. Maybe the gods could get away if the Snarl broke free, but the humans not. They would get unmade, soul and all, while destroying the world at least saves some souls.
What this means is that, while Roy might feel to take his chances, I don't really feel he should make that decision for other humans. If I got to choose between "Adventurer gets a small chance to save the world, if he fails you will be unmade" or "We kill you now but you get to live on in an afterlife as long as you want", I'd choose the latter.
Not everyone would. Roy wouldn't. That's fair, and I understand his emotions and his desire to live make him attack Durkon. That's fair too, but I don't think it's his holy duty to humanity.

The thing is, as Loki pointed out, if the Gods react swiftly and decisively if/when the protection of the last gate goes sideways, they can still save everybody from being unmade. There is still some risk, but it is by no means a guarantee of global unmaking.

[BaronOfHell]

Why do we have any rights? Because someone with the power to uphold them grants us them.

[Edhelras]

I also have to disagree with this.

First, killing "innocents" to keep people safe is not always evil. This follows a generally flawed like line of logic that the value of one life is incalculable, therefore there is no justification in taking one. The implication being that two lives do not carry a greater value then one life. This simply does not make any practical sense. Killing ten people to kill ten thousand is not evil, it's the only rational thing to do.

Moreover, it's a REAL stretch to call the priests innocent. They have tied their banners to their deities and act in their deities support -- in this case, standing by and/or supporting said deities while those very same gods debate the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of people. This not only violates the above principle (it would be wrong and hypocritical to kill the priests to save a world full of men, women and children) but it does in fact at least partially revoke the priest's collective innocents as they are participating in the event, even if only indirectly.

I don't think you're describing good-evil in the DnD fashion here. You're saying that killing innocents to keep (many more) innocents isn't Evil - rather, it's "the only rational thing to do". Rational - maybe, if you believe that the ends justifies the means. But that's not how the very abstract and un-real-life-like Good-Evil moral system of DnD works, as I see it. The two axis/9 catogories of the alignment system doesn't resemble real-world morality very well, particularly not the Good-Evil axis.
Remember what the Deva meant about Roy's escapades into chaotic acts: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html
Quote: "Using Chaotic means to fulfill Lawful obligations strikes me as fairly Neutral".
Similarly: Using Evil means to fulfill Good obligations is not Good, at best it's Neutral, depending on how many innocents you have to slaughter.

Roy isn't Lawful Neutral, but Lawful Good, and a heroic character as well. I think a LN general might well make a careful consideration, and decide to sacrifice some innocents for the clear benefit of saving thousands of others. A LG hero, particularly one acting directly and not scheming from behind via proxies and armies, should be very careful not to start rationalizing his actions.
"It was for the greater good".... isn't that how many paladins and other LG champions start their descent?

[Molan]

Beginning to think that the OP was just flaming us, lol. Well done though.

[The_Weirdo]

Why do we have any rights? Because someone with the power to uphold them grants us them.

I believe rights are inherent to us. The act of "granting" them isn't generosity; the act of taking them away is unspeakable evil.

[The_Weirdo]

I don't think you're describing good-evil in the DnD fashion here. You're saying that killing innocents to keep (many more) innocents isn't Evil - rather, it's "the only rational thing to do". Rational - maybe, if you believe that the ends justifies the means. But that's not how the very abstract and un-real-life-like Good-Evil moral system of DnD works, as I see it. The two axis/9 catogories of the alignment system doesn't resemble real-world morality very well, particularly not the Good-Evil axis.
Remember what the Deva meant about Roy's escapades into chaotic acts: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html
Quote: "Using Chaotic means to fulfill Lawful obligations strikes me as fairly Neutral".
Similarly: Using Evil means to fulfill Good obligations is not Good, at best it's Neutral, depending on how many innocents you have to slaughter.

Roy isn't Lawful Neutral, but Lawful Good, and a heroic character as well. I think a LN general might well make a careful consideration, and decide to sacrifice some innocents for the clear benefit of saving thousands of others. A LG hero, particularly one acting directly and not scheming from behind via proxies and armies, should be very careful not to start rationalizing his actions.
"It was for the greater good".... isn't that how many paladins and other LG champions start their descent?

Also of note: the innocent people that get the shaft are under no obligation to take it lying down and are fully within their rights to commit a genocide and a deicide if need be to preserve their own existence.

[Molan]

Also of note: the innocent people that get the shaft are under no obligation to take it lying down and are fully within their rights to commit a genocide and a deicide if need be to preserve their own existence.

Lol, no they're not! You are NOT morally entitled to commit genocide to save your own skin. Nor are you compromising your moral high-ground taking out innocent bystanders to protect a much, much larger number of innocents. Again, these statements imply that morality and justice are relative -- they're NOT. They're quantifiable, material and measurable. If someone finds themselves in a position to prevent billions of deaths by letting themselves be killed, they ARE in fact morally obligated to die.

To live under that context and damn all those innocents to an untimely death is what would be morally reprehensible -- that is how justice works, lol.

And anyway, these points are especially moot here, for the following reasons:
- 1. The Priests are not innocent bystanders, they're advocates, allies and in many ways minions for their gods.
- 2. If the world is destroyed, they die anyway, so killing them to save the lives of others doesn't even come close to being evil as you're not changing anything
- 3. The #1 target of Roy's aggression is an evil vampire cleric trying to AT A MINUMUM damn 10MM of his own people to hell, which is IRL immoral, and in DnD terms, he's also a VAMPIRE and is therefore made of pure evil (again, game terms) so he has no moral protections against being dusted in the first place.

But seriously though, how can you POSSIBLY think that it's BAD or even "not-good" to save a billion people's lives, just because a handful of innocent bystanders got in the way? Moreover how could someone POSSIBLY have a moral right to defend themselves when doing so would cost a billion people their lives? It just doesn't make sense, DnD, IRL or otherwise.

[Jasdoif]

Also of note: the innocent people that get the shaft are under no obligation to take it lying down and are fully within their rights to commit a genocide and a deicide if need be to preserve their own existence.

The gods and the mortals have the same rights with regard to self-preservation, yes. And with those rights comes responsibility for the consequences of attempting to exercise them.

[Edhelras]

But seriously though, how can you POSSIBLY think that it's BAD or even "not-good" to save a billion people's lives, just because a handful of innocent bystanders got in the way? Moreover how could someone POSSIBLY have a moral right to defend themselves when doing so would cost a billion people their lives? It just doesn't make sense, DnD, IRL or otherwise.

I think the somewhat interesting issue here is whether any Good bodyguard of priests of a Good-ish deity should feel either a right or even an obligation to turn against his own charge, in order to save the world.

For instance - would it be Good, Evil or Neutral for Wrecan to kill Velindra, in order to save the world and millions of innocents? Whatever her personal feelings on the issue, she is the conduit of the "yes"-vote of the Western pantheon. Killing her would save the world.

Yet Velindra herself might be personally opposed to world destruction, her obscure Elven deity might as well. So, she might be a true innocent in this aspect. Would it be a Good act, for Wrecan, to kill her to save the world? I don't think so - killing an innocent is killing an innocent - the prime example of Evil acts. In DnD, they aren't justified by their ends. However, a Good character may to some degree perform Evil acts and still remain Good in alignment.
If Veldrina is Neutral (I think the Elves of OOTS often are depicted as Neutral, more than the classial lighthearted Chaotic Good of Faerun's Elves), she might accept the choice that millions must be sacrified to save their souls. And Wrecan, were he Neutral as well, might see that turning against his charge, abusing her trust in him (he came as her bodyguard, right), might be acceptable in order to save the world, and his family.

[Themrys]

Roy isn't trying to kill anyone. Durkula is already dead. So, that is not only morally justified, there is no problem in the first place.

[The_Weirdo]

Moreover how could someone POSSIBLY have a moral right to defend themselves when doing so would cost a billion people their lives? It just doesn't make sense, DnD, IRL or otherwise.

Yeah, I just disagree. If the problem wasn't caused by the person who's trying to live, why are they morally obligated to let themselves be killed to solve it? Innocent people have rights. Absolute rights. Non-negotiable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The "good of the many" is no argument to take those rights away. It will never be.

[The_Weirdo]

The gods and the mortals have the same rights with regard to self-preservation, yes. And with those rights comes responsibility for the consequences of attempting to exercise them.

Yes, except the gods caused the snarl. The mortals did not.

[Keltest]

Yes, except the gods caused the snarl. The mortals did not.

As it is the mortals who are poking at the rifts and making them worse, I would say that the current crisis is on both parties equally.

Also, heres a crazy idea. What if both sides for and against the destruction of the world, are not inherently good or evil? Hel's actions are evil because she is taking active steps to try and destroy the world for her own personal benefit, but that doesn't make Heimdal's reason for preserving the souls of the mortals wrong, or the cautious approach evil. Nor is it reckless and irresponsible to give the mortals a chance.

[hroþila]

Any analysis that fails to take into account that there *is* good reason to destroy the world, and that doing so wouldn't necessarily be Evil, is inherently flawed.

Sure, many of the gods are demonstrating their callousness because they're hardly taking the well-being of the mortals into account, but that's hardly the point. Thing is, after a certain point the risk of not destroying the world becomes too big for gods and mortals alike - it's just a matter of where to draw that line.

edit: also, I agree with Keltest. I don't think the vote was ever meant to be interpreted along alignment lines. Quite the contrary.

[The_Weirdo]

Any analysis that fails to take into account that there *is* good reason to destroy the world, and that doing so wouldn't necessarily be Evil, is inherently flawed.

Sure, many of the gods are demonstrating their callousness because they're hardly taking the well-being of the mortals into account, but that's hardly the point. Thing is, after a certain point the risk of not destroying the world becomes too big for gods and mortals alike - it's just a matter of where to draw that line.

Oh, I'm not disputing any of that. My claim is that the mortals that want to live and are innocent have the right to disrupt the vote to the point of deicide if it means they get to live, not that this or that approach is good or evil.

Edit: Or: Yes, there is good reason. Yes, it is a matter of where to draw the line. And all of this pales to utter insignificance in comparison to the right of mortals to cause a bloodbath in those halls if it means they get to live.

[The_Weirdo]

As it is the mortals who are poking at the rifts and making them worse, I would say that the current crisis is on both parties equally.

ALL gods created the snarl, or the vast majority thereof. The mortals that are poking the rifts number in less than a hundred, out of tens of millions.

[Keltest]

ALL gods created the snarl, or the vast majority thereof. The mortals that are poking the rifts number in less than a hundred, out of tens of millions.

Which doesn't change the fact that if the thing gets out, it is going to suck really hard for everyone, whether they were involved in it or not, and the gods are the one ones with any ability to compensate for it to any degree, and make it suck less.

[The_Weirdo]

Which doesn't change the fact that if the thing gets out, it is going to suck really hard for everyone, whether they were involved in it or not, and the gods are the one ones with any ability to compensate for it to any degree, and make it suck less.

Which, again, doesn't change the right of the humans that would be killed in the proposed solution to do anything within their power to prevent it. And yes, that does mean that, if one of them could commit deicide, they'd be entitled to. The gods created the snarl. The gods made goblins basically a race made to be exterminated for fun and profit. They owe Redcloak and the goblins both a huge, self-humiliating apology and a world they can live in and they owe the humans the right to live. The humans don't owe anything and would be in the right to defend their lives by any and all means necessary.

[hroþila]

Oh, I'm not disputing any of that. My claim is that the mortals that want to live and are innocent have the right to disrupt the vote to the point of deicide if it means they get to live, not that this or that approach is good or evil.

Edit: Or: Yes, there is good reason. Yes, it is a matter of where to draw the line. And all of this pales to utter insignificance in comparison to the right of mortals to cause a bloodbath in those halls if it means they get to live.

I disagree strongly. Those mortals have a 100% real afterlife to look forward to, and after a certain point they'd be irresponsibly putting it at risk not only for themselves, but also for every other mortal being who didn't have a say.

It'd be very selfish. It's OK now because, if Loki is right, there's still some wiggle room; but there might well come a point after which any mortal who resorts to deicide to avoid normal death, at an irresponsibly high risk of causing everybody to be unmade, would be very much in the wrong. And since they'd be putting their own preferences above the immediate well-being of literally every other living being, I'd personally consider it strongly Evil.

[Keltest]

Which, again, doesn't change the right of the humans that would be killed in the proposed solution to do anything within their power to prevent it. And yes, that does mean that, if one of them could commit deicide, they'd be entitled to. The gods created the snarl. The gods made goblins basically a race made to be exterminated for fun and profit. They owe Redcloak and the goblins both a huge, self-humiliating apology and a world they can live in and they owe the humans the right to live. The humans don't owe anything and would be in the right to defend their lives by any and all means necessary.

To prevent what? The snarl getting out? That's the whole point of the moot! As was mentioned "Plan: Let the mortals handle it." Has so far been failing spectacularly. The gods are doing a risk assessment and deciding if preserving the lives of the mortals is worth the risk of everyone and everything getting unmade.