I have been thinking about some of the fluff elements in my Greyhawk campaign that have been neglected as long as I have been judging and playing. I recently re-read my copy of The Book of Righteous from Green Ronin and was struck by some questions in Chapter IX.
I have never considered the concept of jus cogens, a term that in New Latin, literally means "compelling law." A jus cogens is a fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted (e.g. genocide, piracy, slavery and slave trading, etc.).
These laws cannot be violated by any state through international treaties or local/special customs. In other words if you practice these acts, nothing will protect you from their consequences if you are held accountable by other nations.
NOTE: I am not going to get into a debate about whether the above are really examples of jus cogens, I am just trying to help frame the debate on what will constitutes a jus cogen in Greyhawk in relation to the concepts of good and evil.
For the purposes of jus cogens in Greyhawk I am asking what is considered fundamentally an evil act by the good and neutral powers (gods, celestials, etc.) of Greyhawk and the powers of evil that would embrace them. While you might not be judged by a temporal power, a celestial one will judge you and your soul might be in jeopardy. Here is a list of acts for consideration:
Genocide
Slavery
Incest
Attacking an anointed member of the clergy unprovoked
Killing a member of your own family
Destroying a soul
Imprisoning a soul
Consorting with internals
Creating undead
Cannibalism
Descrating a temple of a god.
Denying the existence of one or more of the gods.
NOTE: This list is by no means complete, but it’s a start. If you have one to add please post up.
I am sure we will have to further refine some of these terms in order for them to be considered a jus cogen in Greyhawk. For instance is an indentured servant considered a slave? Is the threshold for defining slavery involuntary servitude that is hereditary? I also see that desecrating a temple of a god might need to be defined as desecrating a temple of a non-evil god.
What I hope to gain form this is a framework in which servants of good and neutral powers will understand where the line is. And when they just swing away because once someone does this, they can cut loose on them with little fear of consequence to their alignment and soul.
A bit more selective in which gods might judge you for it, but regicide would be considered an unspeakable crime by many lawful deities, and will probably buy you as a special place in the lower planes. Going to Dante I'd also add treason and simony.
Regarding indentured servitude or peonage it would probably depend upon the god. I'd think Tritherion would be opposed to it outright, and champions of the poor like Mayaheine and Pelor would see it as manipulative of that segment of society. I'd probably include Rao in that camp also although I don't really have any evidence other than such systems don't seem particularly peaceful or reasonable. Heironeous, as an upholder of social order I don't think would necessarily be opposed to it as long as it was done "by the rules."
Regarding slavery I don't see Heironeous, Pholtus or Cuthbert having a problem with the enslavement of hopelessly evil and chaotic creatures such as humanoids as a means of spreading order and preventing the evil they might otherwise perpetuate. At the very least it would be the lesser of two evils given the choice between it and genocide. I realize this does sound very much like arguments used for slavery in the past, and it might make some people uncomfortable, but that's just my view of how the churches of those gods would see it. I'm certainly not trying to justify it. I also suspect that Pholtans probably wouldn't have much problem with genocide directed at most humanoids.
If you are going to say that whether one the acts is judged individually by each god, it is by definition not a jus cogen principle. Remember this is an absolute concept willful evil that cannot be derogated. We have taken a concept used by nations and transferred it to the gods. Also, I am not talking about temporal matters here (so churches don't have a say in what is willful evil), this is a divine issue.
For example, for the sake of argument, we agree that the basic criteria of genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a sentient race (Int >2). If Pholtus and the elven pantheon has no problem systematically wiping out all orcs (a race of humanoids with Int >2), then the broad definition of genocide is not a jus cogen.
So either genocide is out, your you have to narrow the definition of what all good and neutral gods consider willful evil, and thus jus cogen.
Ok, so lets say you rule that savage humanoids (orcs, goblins, bugbears, etc.) are irredeemably evil. It is in their very nature to be evil. Then you could say, genocide against races that are good, neutral or redeem ably evil is jus cogen, but genocide against races that are irredeemably evil is not.
Or, you could specify those races that it is evil to commit genocide against. In The Book of the Righteous it is only evil if you commit genocide against the races of the fruit (this is part of the mythology of the book and the five people of the fruit are: humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes).
In either case almost without exception the gods of good and neutrality would have to agree genocide (with specific limits) is always an evil act.
So, bringing this back to Greyhawk begs the question, "is the collection of good and neutral gods too heterogeneous to agree on jus cogen principles? Or, is there basic fundamental principles that all gods agree?"
If it is anything goes, a position I cannot support, then its all moral relativism and you might as well through out the alignment system because you can justify just about any sort of behavior at that point.
I think this would fall back to ultimately the lawful extreme of the spectrum. You're putting a good filter on it, which is considered the right thing to do, don't get me wrong), but for it to be universally accepted, it would be pretty much only the lawful side of things. Now if you keep a modicum of compassion and the law, then you tend towards lawful good. If you lack compassion, then you tend towards lawful evil. If you stick strictly to the law, then you end up lawful neutral.
Tenets:
Murder without cause or provocation is a crime.
Rape in any context is a crime.
Desecration of a person or the beliefs of a group of people is a crime.
The government of any area has absolute right of law within that area.
A lawful organization, such as a church or an order of knighthood, has a duty to uphold the law of the land.
A member of a lawful organization is subject to whatever protection granted by their charter. Attempting to strip an agent of that lawful organzation of any right granted by the charter is a crime.
Anarchy is without benefit. Only a people who understand their place and work towards the common goals can lead themselves to prosperity.
It is not a crime to defend oneself. Neither is it a crime to be in conflict with those who would threaten you.
It is unlawful to detain another against their will without the express direction of the law of the land or one of its agents. Detainment, imprisonment, and indentured servitude are the whole right of the crown/leadership of a land.
A criminal (one who has commited a crime) has no right except for those granted by the law of the land. A criminal may be detained for as long as is deemed necessary by the crown or its agents. Having openly defied the concept of law, the criminal is at its mercy alone. None may interfere with this process without leave of the crown.
Now several of these have loopholes that allow for legalized slavery, and evil churches being given lawful status and therefore protection by the crown. Also, the concept of fighting to defend oneself is defended, while murder is seen as the evil act it is. Also, war to defend oneself or one's beliefs is protected, allowing for a war of agression by those who liberally interpret the wording. You might say that a lawful good society might want it more stringently good. I saw for it to be a universal law, as you intended, then it has to be defendable under any morality that espouses law. Now by its very wording, its meant to be biased towards a lawful good society, but its broad enough a lawful evil society would agree to be bound by its edicts, which would ease the mind of the lawful good society a bit, because at least they have agreed to play by the same set of rules. They may take them to a far extreme of those rules, but they are bound to follow them regardless. That could be seen as a major win by the forces of good, even if it is really only a win by the forces of law. Now if your intent was to provide a framework for what is good, then we can do that too, but law and good are not intimately tied. Both can exist quite happily apart from the other. If that's what you're after, say so and I'l help with that too.
Is imprisoning a god (as the priests of Telchur did with Vatun, and as Zagig did numerous times) considered the equivalent of imprisoning a soul? It seems like the kind of thing the gods in general would consider off-limits for the sake of their own self-preservation - the ultimate blasphemy and desecration. Yet Boccob and Telchur approved of it. That suggests that either Boccob and Telchur are considered by the other gods to be aiding and abetting wicked blasphemy in mortals, or there is no consensus on the issue among the divine hosts.
My preference would be the former. I like the idea that Boccob would be considered one of the "gods of evil" by Pholtus and even Heironeous, Pelor, and Rao based on this issue.
I think this would fall back to ultimately the lawful extreme of the spectrum. You're putting a good filter on it, which is considered the right thing to do, don't get me wrong), but for it to be universally accepted, it would be pretty much only the lawful side of things. Now if you keep a modicum of compassion and the law, then you tend towards lawful good. If you lack compassion, then you tend towards lawful evil. If you stick strictly to the law, then you end up lawful neutral.
Mikel,
I appreciate your attempt to redefine the argument but I am going to stay focused on my original idea and not get pulled into a broader discussion. It won't address the issues I am trying to resolve.
Here is an example of why I am doing this thought exercise:
If my wife's paladin goes on a killing spree, attempting to slaughter all orcs in the Pomarj. She kills all male and female orcs, young and old, those that can fight and those that cannot, without mercy.
Most leaders, countries, and even some good aligned churches would applaud her pluck and support her attempt to get rid of the savage humanoid problem. She would probably be lauded as a hero.
Would her god see it that way? If the gods agree that orcs can be redeemed and this wanton slaughter gave no chance for said redemption, then the Paladin would have committed an act of willful evil and loose her powers.
Can you see the difference in what I am trying to define. Mortals will always try to justify what they do in the best possible light, but in Greyhawk we are also judged by the divine and that will be separate from mortal judgment.
The term "jus cogen" is a legal one and if I were using it in its pure, original intent, you would be correct, that this is a mater of ethics (lawful vs. chaotic) and not morality (good vs. evil).
I have redefined for this thread that jus cogen is a peremptory norm for what is willfully evil, not willfully chaotic. I am not even talking about "laws" that a lawful person might uphold or a chaotic person might ignore.
What I am trying to do is define what the gods would say is a willful evil act. Not mortals, not nations, not courts.
So, with that in mind, I will decline your digression and ask that you create a different topic to address your argument.
That was actually one of the purposes of my post was to try and nail down what you were getting at. Your original post, when I read it, seemed to me to deal more with the laws of a people, rather than moral imperitative. I'm actually quite familiar with both concepts. I did ask if you meant to define good vs evil or law. Regardless of that, here then is my reply. Incidentily, The previous post of mine could easily be seen as a divine meaning for law with only a bit of rewording.
Defining what would send you to the domain of one deity or another in death is a different matter than the tone of your orginal post (as I read it - wouldn't be the first time I misread something ). To define this we must define good and evil.
Willful killing of others not for survival, but for profit or desire is always evil. ("I kill because they would just as soon kill me. Were there another option, I would take it." as opposed to: "They're orcs, they ALL deserve to die, no matter what. Anything they say to the contrary is merely trickery."). In the example cited, yes, she would lose her paladin abilities and require one heck of a quest to regain them. She might even be cursed to exist for a time, without her abilities as an orc. The punishment would, of course, depend on the DM's designs.
As for genocide, no matter who you are, you cannot consider it EVER to be a good thing. That is pretty much agreed upon by all religions, real and imagined, at least all with any modicum of sense. The Elven pantheon may consider themselves at war with the orcs, but no one would ever think that they would eliminate them. If such were even concievable (because it IS possible), then they would already not exist, and the elves in turn would already not exist, and the race whose god who killed them would be dead, and so on. Like a nuclear war, its not over until the last bomb drops, or someone gets scared enough to surrender. In fact I see genocide being one of those things that the Gods agreed early on was an EXTREME no-no. Now giving accolades to those warriors who turned to the tide of battle by slaughtering hundreds of orcs is much different than wiping the wizard who devised an epic spell which wiped them from the planet. To get to that level of desperation, several compassion tests have to fail. "You could do that to an innocent orc who was raised by humans to be a good and moral person?" or "You could do that to all the orc infants naked to the world? Are you so heartless that you would destroy a million INFANTS?" There is no way genocide, even of a humanoid race, could ever be construed as good. Sorry, it just can't, and no deity who ever wanted worshippers would ever agree to it. Kill them by the thousands in battle, OH yeah! But slaughter them without so much as a swing of the axe or pull of the bow? That's just plain evil.
Imprisoning a soul, destroying a soul - It is evil to deny the will of creation in regards to the souls of others. Each being is responsible for their own soul, and none other. To do otherwise is a sin. Basically, whoever would traffic with infernals and sell/trade a soul that is not theirs, is committing as evil an act as the creature who uses magic to destroy the souls of others. The soul is part of a contract a being has with the divine. It is the only currency of note to the divine beings, good and evil. It is from souls that all divine beings draw powers. The belief of living souls, and the power of collected souls, are the very basis of the power of the gods. Withdrawing even one of those upsets the balance of power in the outer planes. Infernals still play within the rules for souls, even if all they want is every soul in existance, so they can be all powerful. Consorting with infernals would then not itself be a crime, but rather, it would be the deals made with an infernal. This would make enslaving an infernal and forcing it to give you secrets of magic, not a direct sin (even if it is a foolishly stupid mistake, as they are going to try and corrupt you). Basically its not the gun (infernal) that kills (damns) you, its the bullet (the trade of souls).
I almost said I didn't see desecration of a temple as an evil act, but as I think of it in terms of the genocide arguement, then it does make sense as a universal sin. Basically if you can desecrate Pelor's temple, then his followers can desecrate your diety's temple. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just means its frowned upon by the gods. Does that mean a player must preserve the underground temple of Orcus when he finds it? No, but it does mean he has to understand that he is not acting strictly in the desires of a good person. He is being pragmatic. Being pragmatic is not the same as evil, but it is definately NOT good. Not good might as well be evil when speaking of absolutes. Of course if an otherwise good person made this decision, then they would not be endangering their soul, but merely putting a single negative mark on an otherwise glowing report of their life.
Incidentily this arguement would make for an interesting time for an exalted character. One of the reasons I like the concept, even if it does take a lot for someone to actually play it.
I think we'd have to craft something similar to Kant's theories if this were to be viable. The link is below. And I think it would in effect be a universal law by which good and evil is defined. And even evil divine beings would have to abide by them, at least the high sins of genocide, enslavement, torture, etc. I think those are what should be defined here: What would cause the other gods to gang up and destroy one of their own who did said action? (The superpower method of control - you don't do it because all your neighbors would overcome their differences long enough to wipe you out) This line of reasoning supports a universal law of good and evil that all the gods would agree on, at least in spirit. Some evil ones might bend a few, and even stretch them to the breaking point, but the simple fact is, they do have a limit, and none of them want to reach it.
All this presumes that the gods have the power to determine what is good and what isn't. That is, things are good simply because the gods say they are, and not because of anything intrinsic to the actions themselves. The gods could, in theory, decree that torturing a small child to death for the fun of it was good, and it would be so.
I think alignment is something extrinsic to the gods. It's interesting to contemplate what the church of Pelor might say about morality, but the church of Pelor isn't necessarily correct in its teachings.
Is imprisoning a god (as the priests of Telchur did with Vatun, and as Zagig did numerous times) considered the equivalent of imprisoning a soul?
This is a bit beyond the scope or my mind exercise, because I am talking about the judgment of mortals by the gods and not gods judging each other. But, it raises a interesting question, are gods judged the same way mortals are?
I guess the first question I would ask, does a god have a soul? If the answer is yes and you kill a god where does its soul go? I guess this is a question of who watches the watchers (or who judges the judgers).
In my campaign, the gods are unknowable and the anthropomorphizing of them is a construct of mortals attempting to comprehend the divine. So, attempting to judge the actions of the gods by mortal standards is ultimately futile.
Example, if we determine that incest is a jus cogen for mortals and is willfully evil (in the context of the game, and not the real world), we do not judge the Suel pantheon by the same standards, Almost all of the Suel gods ultimately sprung from Lendor and can be by mortal standards be considered brothers and sisters. Those few gods that didn't were born of a brother and sister "mating," and accordingly by mortal standards, would be considered the product of incest. I somehow don't think the church of Kord sees it that way.
I would say imprisoning a god is not the same as imprisoning a soul. One is just going to piss a god off (or get you special attention for your impetuousness) while the other stops a soul from fulfilling its "natural" destiny. Souls are the currency of the afterlife and taking one out of circulation tends to piss powers off.
Thank you for raising good points. I will attempt to answer some of them to help define the argument.
rasgon wrote:
All this presumes that the gods have the power to determine what is good and what isn't. That is, things are good simply because the gods say they are, and not because of anything intrinsic to the actions themselves. The gods could, in theory, decree that torturing a small child to death for the fun of it was good, and it would be so.
The reason I have setup the gods as the ultimate arbitrators of what good and evil is there is nothing above them. In essence as nations of the world define jus cogens by consensus, the gods define good and evil, at least that is the basis I operate under in my campaign.
If there is something beyond the gods that defines good and evil then my argument is not going to work in that framework. If there is an "ultimate evil" separate from the gods al la Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show, I have seen nothing to define it in D&D or Greyhawk.
rasgon wrote:
I think alignment is something extrinsic to the gods. It's interesting to contemplate what the church of Pelor might say about morality, but the church of Pelor isn't necessarily correct in its teachings.
While it is interesting, it ends my argument and really of no use to me. If the gods are subordinate to the concepts of good and evil, then are they really gods or just really really powerful beings? Basically it puts everything back to moral relativism and I have no basis to judge the actions of my mortals who profess to follow the gods. I am going to pass on this one because I basically have the assumption that the gods are real and define morality in my campaign.
Mikel,
Thank you for clarification. I will say this, I am not defining what is moral by my standards or your standards, but by those of the Gods in the world. In D&D we pretty much kill as a mater of course, its for magic and treasure so if we get into real world morality there is going to be trouble. I am not going to hold my players to those exacting standards. I am going to find acceptable limits within the context of Greyhawk.
The pantheons of Greyhawk humanocentric, or more to the point humanoid centric. Essentially there is a bias in the structure of the gods in Greyhawk to humans specifically and humanoids in general. Why this is so is its the way EGG and TSR/WotC made it. In terms of why it so in terms of Greyhawk reality, I don't know.
The question of what has a soul and what does not, is not answered Greyhawk. But if I were to guess, the souls of humanoids are considered the platinum pieces of the divine and other souls have less currency or there are fewer of them. Those beings without souls are ultimately useless to the divine.
This is not very well thought out but it does give a framework for how the gods might view the ultimate fate of mortals.
Anyway, I am going to plug along and try to define this for my campaign and let people pick at it. It will only make what comes out of it stronger.
Thanks,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Last edited by Saracenus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Saracenus wrote:
But, it raises a interesting question, are gods judged the same way mortals are?
Well, it may be the reason why Big T was imprisoned. Wishing the destruction of all things he would be gulty of planning genocide on a planetery/universe scale.
If there is an "ultimate evil" separate from the gods al la Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show, I have seen nothing to define it in D&D or Greyhawk.
You have. It's called Hades, or occasionally the Gray Waste. The Outer Planes define the alignments. Chaos is defined by Limbo, Good is defined by Elysium, Chaotic Evil is defined by the Abyss, and so on.
The Book of the Righteous assumes a different cosmology than the one Greyhawk typically uses, one where there's a single pantheon and a very small number of gods who are, by definition, good even if they're also chaotic neutral or whatever. There is a much smaller number of evil gods (only five) who seem to have not been made part of the decision-making process because they're all imprisoned or hiding. The gods created the planes, which often don't match the alignment matrix anyway (the realm of the dead is home to souls of all alignments other than the ones who end up in Hell or the Abyss, and the Seven Heavens are the home of nearly all the gods of good even if they're chaotic neutral), or if they do it's for reasons other than the nature of the alignments themselves (i.e., the Abyss exists where it is because it was created by qlippoth tunneling out of their prison in Hell, and the gods built Gehenna in between them later on as a place where daemons could observe the dark shadows of mortals).
Greyhawk, even if you just use the human pantheons, has a very large number of pantheons and deities, and these deities are not presumed to be "good" simply because they are divine. How good they are is related to where they live in the Outer Planes, though there's not always a precise correlation. These planes are not only the home of the gods, but also the home of a wide variety of sub-divine entities and souls who weren't pledged to any specific deity in life, but end up where they do because of what their alignments are. The rule that generates the Outer Planes is "like calls to like," with chaotic things drawn toward the chaotic side of the wheel and evil things drawn to the evil side of the wheel, and this seems to be independent of the gods.
Your system would have to suppose that before deciding among themselves which things would be good and which would be evil, the gods would first have to break themselves up into at least three camps (good, evil, and neutral, assuming we don't even consider the law-chaos spectrum, which would be strange considering how important that dynamic is for many of the gods - Pholtus is far more concerned with what is lawful than what is good, for example, and Wee Jas isn't concerned with good or evil at all but is very interested in what is lawful).
The good gods would make a list of things that pleased and displeased them, and decree that that which pleases them is good, and that which displeases them is evil. The evil gods would make their own list and decree the reverse. The neutral gods would stay out of it entirely, or perhaps act as arbitrators between the two camps. Even with the aid of the gods of balance, you're still going to end up with some things being decreed both good and evil simultaneously (like blasphemy). Where does that leave the PCs and detect alignment spells?
The question, then, is what made them break up into these particular camps before alignment was even defined? There would have to be some criterion that all the evil gods have in common and the good gods don't have other than their alignments, and this criterion must be independent of divine will (even if they all just drew lots to determine which group they would stand in, you've established that fate or chance is beyond the gods). And so we're left with the idea that alignment is based on something independent of the gods.
Or, alternately, the gods decide the definition of good together, as the gods in The Book of the Righteous do. The problem is that the gods of Greyhawk are roughly balanced, alignment-wise, so you have both Pelor, Zodal, and Pyremius and Nerull weighing in on whether or not murder is abhorrent, and the end result is going to be that "good" is defined as something that looks an awful lot like neutrality.
If all the gods determine what is good and what is evil, then anything that pleases the gods is good and anything that displeases the gods is evil. Because being imprisoned displeases the gods, Zagig (a mortal at the time, remember) and the priests of Telchur (also mortals) were evil. Because we know Zagig, at least, was in fact chaotic neutral, we must bring this into question.
Do you see what I'm getting at? If the gods decide what is good, they must have reasons for doing so. If they have reasons for doing so, there must be some definition of Good that exists beyond the gods.
This is the divine command theory of ethics. Plato saw it as a paradox, because it makes no sense in real life, and it makes no sense in the game either. It makes a certain amount of sense in the artificially small cosmology of The Book of Righteous, but is unworkable in Greyhawk.
Quote:
If the gods are subordinate to the concepts of good and evil, then are they really gods or just really really powerful beings?
If you define a god as "a being who is not subordinate to the concepts of good and evil," then a recently ascended deity, born after those concepts were set in stone, isn't a god either. If what is good and what is evil is dynamic, and changes as each new god ascends into the heavens, then alignment is a very subjective thing; all paladins might lose their powers if the divine hierarchy changes enough to tip the balance of opinion.
Quote:
While it is interesting, it ends my argument and really of no use to me.
It may end your argument, but isn't it useful to know your premise is unworkable before you put too much more thought into it?
You have. It's called Hades, or occasionally the Gray Waste. The Outer Planes define the alignments. Chaos is defined by Limbo, Good is defined by Elysium, Chaotic Evil is defined by the Abyss, and so on.
<SNIP: The Book of the Righteous Critique>
Ok, lets say I buy your argument that Law, Chaos, Good, Neutrality and Evil existed separate from gods and is embodied in the planes. So we have pure principles of each alignment. They are not actors in the worlds, they just representations of it.
So, along come the gods and they see these principles in planar form and take up residence in the ones that fit their alignment profile. The gods are the intelligent actors on these alignment stages.
While the plane of Seven Heavens is the embodiment of Lawful Good it has not sentient interest in those that dwell there or might be attracted to it. The plane of the Seven Heavens has no concept of Genocide. The gods that dwell there do.
Further, even if I buy your argument, the gods can morph the planes with a mere thought. So whom controls whom, the plane or the god.
So, in either case, if you posit that Greyhawk gods are real and not made up by the mortals on the prime, then they have some say in who gets into a plane and judge mortals souls when they pass on from the prime material. If they sit in judgment of souls are they just channelling the plane they reside in? I don't think so.
Also, if deities control the spigot of spells and abilities of Clerics and Paladins and can take them away when a line is crossed where is the aligned planes in this equation?
The reason I am trying to suss out jus cogens for the Greyhawk powers is that Greyhawk does not have a monotheistic faith to say this is so, deal with it. In order for something to be universally considered evil by gods and other powers it has to come from some type of agreement.
Look I am not trying to argue the fine points of philosophy and theology with you. Its an argument that I just don't care to win. Its a level of "realism" that I don't need in my game.
I am trying to make some internally consistent guidelines about good or evil so that I know when my players have crossed the line into evil. I am not going to try and figure out the individual morality of each god, its just not going to be done to that level of detail.
So far I have seen a lot of no here. It doesn't help me. If my attempt here is too simplistic, then by all means ignore it. If you have an idea how you want to set the bar for evil in your campaign and who sets it, by all means let me know. I would be curious how you would communicate that to your players.
While their may be academic absolutes; life is subjective.
The very nature of the alignment system within GH is subjectively fluid, even the Deities are given philosophical views. In a sense; they are engaged in a theological philosophical argument competing for the moral loyalty of the mass of worshippers.
According to your critera; the act of imprisoning Tharzidun is an unredeemable act which all the deities committed. Every one of your critera can be justifibly broken if the rationale is extreme enough. While most societies can agree on General accepted models of desired behavior their is no truly Absolute model of behavior especially within the polythesitic and philosophical nature found within GH. Of course like all systems once a person chooses a particular faith or moral philosophy; they also accept the consequences inherent within the philosophy and the society whatever that entails.
While the plane of Seven Heavens is the embodiment of Lawful Good it has not sentient interest in those that dwell there or might be attracted to it. The plane of the Seven Heavens has no concept of Genocide. The gods that dwell there do.
The Outer Planes are concepts perceived as physical terrain, sites, and entities. The Seven Heavens embody a specific range of beliefs and actions, equally balanced between the ideals of Law and Good, or Justice and Mercy.
If you start as your premise that genocide is embodied by the Blood War in the Lower Planes (as an example), then those planes furthest from the main fronts of the Blood War are those whose concepts are the least related to genocide. Someone who commits genocide in life may find their soul drafted into the Blood War in the form of a warrior-fiend, while someone opposed to genocide may end up in the Upper Planes instead.
By this criterion, a god of good who endorses genocide (for example, Moradin calling for the extermination of all orcs) is simply wrong. His priests and paladins will still gain spells because Moradin wills it, but Moradin is wrong to do so by the objective criteria of the Outer Planes. If his servants follow Moradin's hypothetical command, their alignment will change and they will detect as evil. Moradin's alignment will also change if he persists in this behavior, and eventually he will find the Heavens too uncomfortable and move to Acheron to confront Gruumsh directly.
That's just an example, of course. You may also decide that genocide is sometimes morally justifiable and the Blood War is not an incarnation of the whole of the act, but only its most evil aspect.
Quote:
Further, even if I buy your argument, the gods can morph the planes with a mere thought. So whom controls whom, the plane or the god.
The Outer Planes are infinite, but a god can only control a limited amount of terrain. According to the official chart, a greater god can command at most a hundred mile radius (a demigod a mere 100-500 feet), but even if you increase this amount, the infinite bulk of the planes is beyond the gods' control.
Quote:
So, in either case, if you posit that Greyhawk gods are real and not made up by the mortals on the prime, then they have some say in who gets into a plane and judge mortals souls when they pass on from the prime material.
That doesn't follow. No Greyhawk deity has the portfolio of judging the dead. Souls naturally drift to the plane that's most like them in the same way that oil will rise to the surface and water sink to the bottom. Like calls to like, unless they have a contract with some planar entity (like a god, demon, or devil) so that that being now owns their soul. A lawful good cleric of Pelor will travel to Pelor's realm in Elysium rather than the Seven Heavens, but a lawful neutral character who worshipped the Suel pantheon as a whole will end up in Mechanus. The gods collect the souls that are theirs by right, but they have no power over the others.
Quote:
Also, if deities control the spigot of spells and abilities of Clerics and Paladins and can take them away when a line is crossed where is the aligned planes in this equation?
As above, a god can continue to grant spells at their discretion, based on the rules of their faith. It's perfectly possible to fall from grace in your god's eyes without changing your alignment (for example, a lawful neutral cleric of Wastri could befriend a demihuman, costing him his spells but remaining lawful neutral and bound for Mechanus or Acheron). It's also perfectly possible to change your alignment without falling from grace in your god's eyes (for example, the lawful neutral cleric of Wastri might adopt a much harsher tack, secretly murdering demihumans instead of merely preaching intolerance, and become lawful evil without Wastri batting an eye).
A soul travels to the realm of their patron god regardless of their alignment. A soul with no specific patron god (which isn't the same as a faithless soul, since they may be pious without favoring one god over another) travels to the plane of their alignment.
In the real world of polytheistic religions (at least those organized into pantheons), there was a pretty clear division that allowed for jus cogens type arrangements. There was always "that gods" and "the bad guys"... titans, jotuns, demons, whatever.
So the Greeks had a set of cultural values that were absolute for them. And all the gods, from Apollo to Hades to Zeus, supported these things and punished those who broke them. Supernatural entities that did not support them were evil.
Greyhawk does not have any such coherence. It presupposed the existance of a number of apparently unrelated pantheons that are intermingled without any clear explanation of their new relationships. Further, its clear that the gods consist of good and evil entities themselves. THere is no "All the gods, light and dark, vs the Fiends" type dynamic. There simply isn't any common ground between Zodal and Nerull as presented.
You can rewrite the pantheon system to allow for some semblance of a common 'divine culture' either by casting gods like Nerull, Incabulos, and so on "beyond the pale" of the rest of the gods or by altering the evil gods to fit into the pantheon's culture. Hades and Ereshkigal were "evil" cthonic deities of death, but they acted within the confines of their respective cultures. Hel, on the other hand, was an enemy of the gods.
But you aren't going to find any jus cogens that includes all the gods as they are presented in GH source material (and particularly not in the fully expanded LG list). Or, at least, any you find will be really abstract and pointless like "blowing up creation is bad"
If your intent is to define a Jus Cogens regarding the gods instead of the nations of Oerth, then the items you proposed will not be validated on a gods' consensus.
We do know that the gods put as an adamant rule that one of them cannot intervene directly on Oerth without the others do the same. I guess it's more a practical rule than an absolute one. The Oerth would most likely be destroyed if they battled on it.
If we consider the Jus Cogens at god-level, so we must admit that Good, Evil Lawful, CHaotic and Neutral aligned gods agreed upon a common statement. Since Evil gods will not condemn consort with fiends, undead creation or even mass murder or genocide, the Jus Cogens will be reduce to nothing, or at least one agreement : we cannot interfere directly on <world name>.
About souls' judgment, as far as I know about GreyHawk, on departure all souls go to the Astral Plane and then migrate to the god's domain where they will be judge upon the god's teachings and beliefs. Only if the y had sinned regarding the god's faith they will be punish, not if their acts are utterly evil or good for other gods. _________________ What does not kill us, makes us stronger. Friedrich Nietzsche
So, bringing this back to Greyhawk begs the question, "is the collection of good and neutral gods too heterogeneous to agree on jus cogen principles?
Yes.
Saracenus wrote:
Or, is there basic fundamental principles that all gods agree?"
Nope. My first through it to say they'd all support not killing each other's clery and desecrating each other's temples but I don't really see that. IMC it's a god eat god multiverse.
Saracenus wrote:
If it is anything goes, a position I cannot support, then its all moral relativism and you might as well through out the alignment system because you can justify just about any sort of behavior at that point.
Given the structure of the multiverse one can't deny a certain ethic structure, so I'm not saying anything goes, but among the gods I do see there being a framework of ethical subjectivism, even differing among gods of the same alignment. But then I've always seen alignment as more of a big tent than a little tent so that works for me.
For the purposes of jus cogens in Greyhawk I am asking what is considered fundamentally an evil act by the good and neutral powers (gods, celestials, etc.) of Greyhawk and the powers of evil that would embrace them.
I think this is a flawed way of looking at it. The reason I see it as flawed is that it's basically trying to use an in-game mechanic to come up with a meta-game assumption. What is 'good' or 'evil' should have absolutely NOTHING to do with what the gods think they should be. Alignment is a 'meta-game' element; it's not much different from "roll a d20 to hit". The gods don't watch down on their chosen champions and think 'Ooo...man, did you see that hit? He must have rolled a natural 20! Keep it up boy-oh!'.
Saracenus wrote:
While you might not be judged by a temporal power, a celestial one will judge you and your soul might be in jeopardy. Here is a list of acts for consideration:
(1) Genocide
(2) Slavery
(3) Incest
(4) Attacking an anointed member of the clergy unprovoked
(5) Killing a member of your own family
(6) Destroying a soul
(7) Imprisoning a soul
(8) Consorting with internals
(9) Creating undead
(10) Cannibalism
(11) Descrating a temple of a god.
(12) Denying the existence of one or more of the gods.
I numbered the above to give my quick answeres/thoughts.
-1- Nope. Some races are just 'no good' (re: outright evil). Said race would have no qualms about doing unspeakable things to others. It is pure survival for one race to desire the total eradication of another such 'evil' race that forever prays on them. So, IMHO, not 'always bad'.
-2- Nope. Sometimes this is a good thing...temporarily. For example, a city of an enemy state is taken. It's citizens and soldiers would be used to keep the city running, and probably changing it to be more of what the conquering force thinks is a 'good thing'. It better to have them as slaves then to line them up and kill them.
-3- Yup. I can't think of one good thing to come out of this, nor any other reason where it would be a 'good idea' (re: "keeping the royal bloodline pure by marrying your sister and making babies"; just plane bad no matter how you slice it).
-4- Nope. This places one type of person as "more valuable" than another. With regards to a meta-game standpoint, this is a bad idea.
-5- Nope. If your brother is the reincarnation of Tharizdun, it would be a VERY good thing for you to off him before he gets to his first birth day.
-6- Yup. I can see this as being one of those things that could potentially 'upset the multiverse'. The rules of the game have simplicities built in; if you are LE and you die, you go to Hell. If you are CE and you die, you go to The Abyss. And so forth for the other alignments. If you destroyed a soul...nothing goes to the outter planes. I can see the 'multiverse' getting tossed outta whack if this kept happening on a larger and larger scale.
-7- Nope. Imprisoning a soul is just mean and way up there on the 'serious' scale as far as the grand scheme of the multiverse is concerned...but it's not inherently 'bad' to the point of the multiverse collapsing.
-8- Consorting with "infernals" (my assumption that's what you meant)... Nope. Just having a chat with a demon lord to try and get some info from him in exchange for you giving him info about where some particular evil relic is isn't gonna upset the multiverse.
-9- Nope. Raising up a few zombies to carry the sick and wounded back to camp, for example, is not a problem; even for LG folks, for the most part.
-10-Nope. Preserving life is more important than chewing on a fallen comrades leg. And, again, as far as the great scheme of things is concerned, not gonna matter.
-11- Nope. Raid the evil temple...repel the evil invaders from the holy church of light...no matter. One raided/destroyed temple isn't going to make a difference in the great multiversal layout.
-12- Nope. Having someone say "Naaa...I've never seen proof of any deity. They don't exist." isn't going to upset eh order of the multiverse any more than a deity actually getting permanently destroyed, never to return. Sure, the multiverse may hiccup a bit as it re-shifts some things, and some growing pains as a new deity takes the dead ones place...but again, not going to destroy all creation as we known it.
So, it looks like 2/12 might fit that jus cogens. I think for something like that to be actually developed, it would have to be from a meta-game/rules viewpoint and use meta-game/rules for their determination. As soon as you start to think of 'what would creature X in Greyhawk think', you're going down the wrong path. What the deities, creatures, kings, adventurers, etc. think is 'good' or 'bad' has NOTHING to do with what is written in the rule books under "Alignment". For a jus cogens thing to be used as a 'game aspect', it has to be based on game rules...not campaign quirks.
IMHO, of course. :) _________________ ^_^<br /><br />Paul L. Ming<br />
Jus Cogens requires consensus, and I just don't see that occurring. Iuz just aint seeing eye to eye with Cuthbert.
Or else Jus Cogens must be defined by one power big enough to enforce its will on everyone else.
Canon Greyhawk lacks both of these. Of course YOUR Greyhawk may not. It may have a great Parliment of the Gods where these things were all laid down.
BTW: at least one culture, Ancient Egypt, considered incest in the royal family the only proper thing to do. Anything else would dilute the divine blood of the pharaoh! You just don't go around mixing the sacred and the profane. And in a fantasy world where gods and their off spring would be a lot more common than IRL this might actually be important.
I think there is a bit more vartiation required here. The options as given are a bit too black and white, so most of the things mentioned so far are not going to be evil.
Incest- not evil, but definitely frowned upon as being immoral, but not evil. Incest where one party is not a willing participant? Now you're touching on evil. Even theft is not neccesarily evil, but the act of it will define it as such or not. Stealing a little bit from a filthy rich person who literally won't notice it is not evil, even if it is immoral. By comparison... "Hahaha! I took your last bit of food...and I'm not even hungry! I just want to be sure that you to die slowly of starvation...for no reason whatsoever! Nyahaha! " Very evil.
It is really the situation or reason behind an action that defines whether it is evil or not. I think "immorality" is being greatly confused with "evil" here.
And "Consorting with Infernals" is DEFINITELY evil. "Consorting with Infernals" doesn't mean summoning a fiend and then questioning it under duress as many a good or neutrally aligned priest or mage might be forced to do to find out some key bit of info, like a detective questioning a perp. It means interacting with them in friendly manner, making plans with them, working together with them for mutual gain, rubbing elbows(or other more naughty bits) with them. Yes, that is definitely evil. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Adding to the confusion is the fact that several GH deities are themselves evil - so even if certain acts are evil; you will still not find concensus. The only two times consenus was reached; Imprisonment of Tharzidun and non-interference pact (even that has been broken).
Consorting with Infernals - Evil but so what; Hextor and Iuz have no problem with it. If the deities couldn't come to an agreement to halt the mass importation of inferals during the recent war - it is hard seeing it change. Some deities portofolios not only condone evil acts but actively encourage them. With the inclusion of the olman pantheon even human sacrifice has divine sanction.
Ulitmately, the late Gary Gygax (may his soul safely arrive in whatever plane great gamers go to) defined good and evil for his original version of Greyhawk, and the rest of us have to either a) figure out for ourselves what he meant; or b) come up with our own interpretations. And looking at the early stuff he wrote, it looks a lot like 'go find an evil creature, kick in his front door, kill him and take all his stuff' was generally considered a good act, in spite of the issues of what would in modern times considered breaking and entering, armed robbery, and 1st degree murder.
If you want pretty good examples of what is generally defined as good and evil in a game context , a good place to start might be the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness that WOTC published several years back in support of 3.0/3.5. These two books go through a lot of the same type of debates as have been posted here, but perhaps a bit more organized and easier to sort through.
To make it fit for Greyhawk, you need to look at the individal gods and their particular interests. Iuz - incidentally a god who not only violates the non-interference ban, but actively resides in an empire of his own making on Oerth! - probably wouldn't sees a problem with pretty much anything that doesn't actively interfere with his own goals and actions. Pholtus and Lendor, on the other hand, likely have lists of 'do nots' that puts the Ten Commandments to shame (in length, if not content). And then you have Pelor, who seems less cocerned with specific 'sins' than in whether an act is for the benefit of the many.
Long and short - there is no absolute right answer. The DM has to make these sort of decisions based on the nature of their individual game.
I tend to see something of a disconnect in GH lore on this topic, and I'm not really sure how I'd resolve it without redefining a few things.
Given the material published thus far, and given that it was written by numerous individuals with differing beliefs, and given that none of these had any intention of turning GH into a theologically and philosophically consistent setting, and given that even the deities themselves seem to have radically differing views of what constitutes good and evil (whew, that's a lot of givens), I do not see there being any universally accepted (or even "nearly" universally accepted) view of what constitutes jus cogens law. As I peruse my various books on GH it seems clear to me that any disputes involving such crimes are decided on a personal basis, with religious and political considerations sometimes deciding the matter.
However, when designing the planes, the deities, and related items Gygax clearly fell back on the old "blessed for being good/damned for being evil" view of eternity. This view is also an underlying basis for the paladin and certain other classes. Thus there is at least a suggestion that there is an objective standard for determining right and wrong, good and evil, at least at the celestial level, and that beings will eventually be judged by that standard.
Being a student of theology and philosophy in real life, I've made it clear to my players that the objective standard IMC will be the Judeo-Christian ethic as presented by the Bible, but I suspect the average GH player doesn't necessarily have an advanced theological degree to fall back on. Therefore, I recommend that the same principles that guides individual disputes in GH also be applied to eternal and international disputes. In other words one's eternal destiny, like one's fate on Oerth, should be decided by the expedience of the moment. There is no concept of jus cogens on Oerth; rather, there is a general (and very broad) definition of what constitutes good and evil, and whichever authority gets to the dispute first decides the case as he chooses based on his own interpretation of the situation. International disputes would be decided on the basis of who kicked who's butt, verbally or physically. In cases involving political figures, back room deals and intrigues rule the day. There should be no objective - or even universally accepted - standard.
The only thing that needs addressing at this point IMO is 'Just what is a paladin's code in Greyhawk supposed to be, anyway?' With no clear 'Jus Cogens' to fall back on, the poor paladin is left at the DM's mercy and whim, and this can easily lead to conflict.
Proabaly the best thing for a player who wishes to play a paladin is to work together with the DM and define the code based not just on the ideals of the god involved, but also on the nature of the campaign.
A paladin of, say, Pholus is going to be very strict. He would likely be a sticker for following local law except for the very rare case where that would be clearly inappropiate. A paladin of Pelor/Mayahene would respect the law, but likely be willing to bend it to accomplish a greater good. Take, for example, the man who steals bread to feed his children. A paladin of Pholtus would proabably want the man to serve the legally mandated sentence, period - but would make sure the family was taken care of in the meantime (Lawful, but still good). A paladin of Pelor would try to get the sentence waived because of the man's extreme need, and try to correct the circumstance that lead to him needing to steal in the first place (Good, but still Lawful).
Even more important, however, is the nature of the game and the players involved. Some groups want very basic, black and white morality - bad guys are really bad, good guys are really good, and innocent bystanders really are innocent. Other feel more comfortable delving into grey areas like, 'What do we do with the baby orcs?' Paladins are easy to play in the first example, and can be a lot more difficult in the second. It all comes down to what the people involved want.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
