Alignment (Again?!)

[mpgn_archive]

> Just because it is common does not make it GOOD! So, even if this is the
>elven point of view, they are still evil for doing it! As a matter of fact,
>I’m not even sure if this is the argument you are trying to make (that
>argument being, “If this (above) is the case, the elves are good.”). If
>you aren’t making this argument to try to prove the elves good, though, I’m
>not sure why you posted it…
> Now I just talked myself in a circle, I’m going to bed.

What I meant by my post is that most people are looking at what the elves do
as incredablly out of date ie problems that happened hundreds of years ago.
To the elves they weren’t that long ago. And what I meant was that even
humans continue fights that are hundreds of years out of date. Also the
elves that do blatant acts of brutality are evil, the torture that Rhoube
seems to thrive off of. But the rest of them are fighting what they see as
a war for their homes. And they are doing it in a way that definately makes
them not good but I would say more neutral and hard rather than simply evil.

In my last one I think I did talk myself in circles but I don’t think the GS
are evil just the ones that are most noted such as Rhoube. I also might
point out that Aelwynn the commander of Lluabraight’s GS is CN and not evil
though he has part of the most Xenophobic elven kingdom.

Its very late and I don’t know if I did anything other than talk in circles
again.

Mike

[mpgn_archive]

Let’s see if I can do this correctly. I am not sure how everyone does
this, but I am going to give it try.

I am unsure of what has gone on before, as I have only been on the BR email
network for about a week. I happened to notice a discussion about alignment,
then some examples about the quandaries of alignment. At first, there were
some comments in the game sense of alignment, then the comments expanded to
include real-life, including personal beliefs. This is what I was responding
to, the premise of alignment in the game world but with real-life beliefs.

I do not believe my supposition is incorrect. When we roleplay, whether it be
in a rpg or a mixed rpg/wargame (or whatever else there may be), we are
ourselves in a different situation. We can try to be otherwise, but we cannot
shut ourselves off that way. This is true of the gm as well as the players.
Which is good, in my eyes, because we can view things in a different light,
and perhaps learn from the experience. I do not believe anyone is fully (note
that, please) capable of going outside oneself and trying to place oneself in
another’s situation and say they are them, in the individual or plural sense.

My one email to the BR network expressed my opinion. That is all. I did not
write such to confuse nor to become personal in any way. I thought this was an
open forum for discussion, where reasonable discourse is expected and
encouraged. If there are some who disagree with this, that’s fine. I, however,
would like to avoid the the apparently strong personal comments that I have
seen. That is my preference. I would also like to note that perhaps before
people comment (and yes, this includes me), perhaps we should remember that we
are all real people with our own styles and viewpoints, and act accordingly.
Basic courtesy and respect should be observed, if you see what I mean. Just a
thought.

There are several emails I would like to respond to, but I do not believe I
will. I want to get more of a knowledge of how this network operates and a
feel for people’s styles. And I most definitely do not want to rile anyone.
That would be counterproductive at the least.

Well, that wraps up my lengthy, ponderous missive. Til later, enjoy what you
can.

Shadewulf

[mpgn_archive]

At 07:40 PM 10/8/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>You’re right. Civilian casualties are much more prevalent than I
portrayed in my
>post. As you say, in ancient times when the distinction between civilian and
>soldier was much more ill-defined, so killing one over the other was not as
>distinctly defined. In the 20th century when front lines became very
broad and
>deep, including everything within the range of air power.

There was a period where war was given some strange rules. Soldiers lined
up, aimed their rifles, and fired into the enemy line. People would bring
lawn chairs and have picnics while they watched the ‘battle’. War became
civilized. Then back to uncivilized. I don’t know what our ‘push botton’
wars of today would be.

>As for which moral system to use… well, I’d say use them all. What I
mean by
>that is that much of the morality that we use today is based on morality
developed
>thousands of years ago. Honestly, I don’t see people having a higher moral
>standard now than they did in the time of Socrates.

Maybe not a higher moral but life isn’t viewed the same way. Some cultures
would make ammends to someone they offended by offering the life of a slave
or even a child. I do hope that our standard are higher that the time of
Socrates. I’m certain that women were still property then and slaves were
owned. Neither had a right to participate in the Athenian democracy. And
we get much of our morality from the Bible that once taught people to stone
their children until the New Testament brought a religion based on
pacifism. Then that would be corrupted by when a pope sanctioned war for
the first time when turn the other cheek had always been so prevalent
through the Christian religion. Not meaning to offend anyone but morality
has always been in constant change that who can guess what the future view
of our own time will be.

At 09:31 PM 10/8/98 -0700, swords wrote:
>
>I think this still needs to be looked at from the elves point of view.

Agreed.

>For a better point of view look at Bosnia and Serbia the
>people of that area have been fighting each other for several years now and
>the origin of that war is several hundred years old.

Even though that is does show humans have long memories, I still find that
hard to understand.

>In my last one I think I did talk myself in circles but I don’t think the GS
>are evil just the ones that are most noted such as Rhoube.

An interesting comparison could be made of the NRA. Three children died
recently because of them yet I’m positive the group isn’t made up of
totally evil people. The gheallie Sidhe is just as complex. We may never
understand it but it would be a mistake to write it off as completely evil.
Remember the old saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
When do those good intentions become evil?

At 02:45 AM 10/9/98 EDT, Shadewulf@aol.com wrote:
>
>Which is good, in my eyes, because we can view things in a different light,
>and perhaps learn from the experience. I do not believe anyone is fully (note
>that, please) capable of going outside oneself and trying to place oneself in
>another’s situation and say they are them, in the individual or plural
sense.

I’d agree with that. We can come away with an idea of why they feel and
act as they do. But you can’t completely abosrb a thought process. But
it’s not impossible to understand enough that you are able to convey some
of that to an audience. Acting is based on that and I’m sure we’ve all
seen example of bad acting where there is no idea of motivation of a
character. But then, gaming isn’t acting, is it?

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

[mpgn_archive]

In a message dated 10-08-1998 4:38:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
mcsorley.1@osu.edu writes:

> They’re not fighting a war. The GS isn’t practicing guerilla tactics,
> they’re more like terrorists. And, there haven’t been any real invasions
of
> elven territory by men since well before the Empire fell, 500 years back.
> Even an arrogent elf might start to notice a pattern like that after 500
> years. They can’t be guerillas, because there is no invading/ occupying
> army for them to guerilla (Is that a verb? Aw, heck.)! They mainly
> slaughter civilians, merchants and poor farmers. The human armies don’t go
> in the elven woods, they might try to intercept a war party before it hit a
> village, but they wouldn’t pursue it back into the elven home territory.
> People fear elves, and the GS is the reason why.
>
No invasion of elven territory for the last 500 years? Heh, not in my world.
Look at published information on Lluabraight and Cwmbhein. Both of these have
lost 2 ENTIRE PROVINCES in very recent times. I believe there are other
recent noted losses published as well. But hey, it’s your campaign, man.
Now, it’s true that these losses were incurred by awnshegh (White Witch,
Ghuralli, and the Raven), but do you really think the elves will distinguish
between an awnshegh-lead rampaging horde of humans (White Witch & Raven) and a
normal regent-lead rampaging horde of humans? Unlikely.

Lastly, I doubt the elves of Cerilia will ever forget the loss of their lost
colony, Tuar Anwn. This country has suffered a fate worse than death because
a rampaging horde of Vos tried to drive their entire nation into the sea. And
they would’ve, too, but the elven wizards got desparate… Now Tuar Anwn is
feared by elf and human alike, and none ever return from its darkened
depths… If fear of something like this happening to an elven nation isn’t
motivation, I don’t know what is. And remember that elves perceive time
differently. It could have happened 500 years ago. It could have happened a
moment ago. It’s just as clear to them, and just as painful.

To the Gheallie Sidhe, the war has never ended. Not in 1951 years. Maybe
they’re evil, maybe they’re not, but you can’t say they don’t believe
themselves to be fighting for their lives. And recent times support this
position.

• -DKE

[mpgn_archive]

In a message dated 10-08-1998 6:05:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
galwylin@airnet.net writes:

> >They attack civvies. That’s a no-no
> >in warfare even in medieval times. Oh, war has always been brutal on
> >civilians, but making the slaughter of civilians the object of your
efforts
> >rather than incidental to it (what has now been euphemistically called
> >“collateral damage”) is immoral.
>
> That’s true up until modern warfare in which civilians did become targets
> (WWI, I believe).

Boy you guys are idealistic. Not a bad thing, though. But I’m sure you’ll
recall accounts (or at least wild claims) that as early as the Dark Ages this
stuff was going on. Vikings loved to raid villages, pillage them, kill
everyone who didn’t get out of the way, rape the women --and steal them–,
take all the livestock, etc.

Later (although it wasn’t part of noble ideals of later knighthoods) this kind
of thing was still done as Lord fought Lord and mercilessly put down “peasant
rebellions”. I believe there may have even been instances in the 100 Years
War in France where the English were pretty brutal to the populace as well,
but I’m not an expert there.

Of course, I don’t think I’d want to put all this reality-nastiness into my
fantasy campaign (which is about as idealistic as you guys are). But I just
had to point out some things if analogies to the Real World ™ were going to
be used.

• -Dustin (doesn’t know who tm-ed the Real World) Evermore

[mpgn_archive]

Galwylin wrote:

> Maybe not a higher moral but life isn’t viewed the same way. Some cultures
> would make ammends to someone they offended by offering the life of a slave
> or even a child. I do hope that our standard are higher that the time of
> Socrates. I’m certain that women were still property then and slaves were
> owned. Neither had a right to participate in the Athenian democracy. And
> we get much of our morality from the Bible that once taught people to stone
> their children until the New Testament brought a religion based on
> pacifism. Then that would be corrupted by when a pope sanctioned war for
> the first time when turn the other cheek had always been so prevalent
> through the Christian religion. Not meaning to offend anyone but morality
> has always been in constant change that who can guess what the future view
> of our own time will be.

I think what you are describing is definitely a shift in behavior, but I don’t
think that’s any change in morality. People might be behaving more morally
nowadays (highly debatable, but let’s skip that for now) but the point is that the
moral standards (read: universal morality) have remained largely the same since
they were first penned thousands of years ago. What I was trying to get across
was that the moral standards of today aren’t much different from those written a
long time ago. That is why moral standards in the form of alignments can exist in
the game.

Gary

[mpgn_archive]

From: DKEvermore@aol.com
>No invasion of elven territory for the last 500 years? Heh, not in my
world.
>Look at published information on Lluabraight and Cwmbhein. Both of these
have
>lost 2 ENTIRE PROVINCES in very recent times. I believe there are other
>recent noted losses published as well.
Yes, Tuarhievel lost a province to the Gorgon, I don’t know how recently
though. I think they would be able to tell the difference between an
awnshegh and a human. Awnshegh is an elven term, after all, so they must
understand that those guys are a little different than your garden variety
peasant, but hey, the peasants are so much easier to kill, right?
The elves can distinguish between awnshegh and man, if they choose not
to, that is no excuse.

>Lastly, I doubt the elves of Cerilia will ever forget the loss of their
lost
>colony, Tuar Anwn. This country has suffered a fate worse than death
because
>a rampaging horde of Vos tried to drive their entire nation into the sea.
And
>they would’ve, too, but the elven wizards got desparate… Now Tuar Anwn
is
>feared by elf and human alike, and none ever return from its darkened
>depths… If fear of something like this happening to an elven nation
isn’t
>motivation, I don’t know what is. And remember that elves perceive time
>differently. It could have happened 500 years ago. It could have happened
a
>moment ago. It’s just as clear to them, and just as painful.
>
Hmm, brings up an interesting point: do the elves distinguish between
different types of men? Vos/ Anuirean/ etc that is. All the elven nations
are just elven, do they think of all the men as just men?

>To the Gheallie Sidhe, the war has never ended. Not in 1951 years. Maybe
>they’re evil, maybe they’re not, but you can’t say they don’t believe
>themselves to be fighting for their lives. And recent times support this
>position.
>
If the elves want to take a few examples of awnsheghlien invading, and
generalize that hatred and fear to all humanity, which hasn’t done anything
to them recently, then they can try to justify that in their own minds, but
logically it just doesn’t follow. And don’t try to tell me they can’t tell
between an army and a village of helpless sleeping people. The GS is just
viscious, evil elves who, being afraid to go after their real enemies the
awnsheghlien, say “These awnshegh were human once, lets go kill some humans
in retribution!” It’s still no excuse, and they’re not fighting for their
lives.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[mpgn_archive]

>I’m going to assume from this…that you wouldn’t find anything wrong
with
>the indians commiting acts of terrorism against everyone…just because
>hundreds of years ago…all this was their’s…I’m not condoning the
method
>by which the land was taken from the Indians…but I think at this
point
>more than a hundred years later…that I would consider the Indians
>commiting terrorism to be evil…so for the Elves to do the same some
>several hundred years after humans came to Cerilia seems kind of evil
to me
>also…
The difference is…that for the Indians, as many generations have
passed as have for the “invaders” however, MAYBE one generation has
passed for the elves and most likely a great deal of the adult elves
were children or teenagers DURING the elf-human wars, there is probably
a great deal of bitterness there still, it would take several elven
generations for them to actually cool down

---

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[mpgn_archive]

We’re usually much more civil than this, Shade. Stick around a while.

Ben

[mpgn_archive]

> Yes, Tuarhievel lost a province to the Gorgon, I don’t know how
recently
>though. I think they would be able to tell the difference between an
>awnshegh and a human. Awnshegh is an elven term, after all, so they
must
>understand that those guys are a little different than your garden
variety
>peasant, but hey, the peasants are so much easier to kill, right?
> The elves can distinguish between awnshegh and man, if they choose
not
>to, that is no excuse.
>
The point he’s trying to make, i think, is that a great deal of the
awnshegh, raven and white witch in particular, use human troops. Thus
the hatred of humans
> Hmm, brings up an interesting point: do the elves distinguish
between
>different types of men? Vos/ Anuirean/ etc that is. All the elven
nations
>are just elven, do they think of all the men as just men?
>
I’d be pretty sure that thats how they think of them, just think of
today when HUMANS cant tell or refuse to try to tell the difference
between races, example that is really prevailent in the states today is
asians.
>>
> If the elves want to take a few examples of awnsheghlien invading,
and
>generalize that hatred and fear to all humanity, which hasn’t done
anything
>to them recently, then they can try to justify that in their own minds,
but
>logically it just doesn’t follow. And don’t try to tell me they can’t
tell
>between an army and a village of helpless sleeping people. The GS is
just
>viscious, evil elves who, being afraid to go after their real enemies
the
>awnsheghlien, say “These awnshegh were human once, lets go kill some
humans
>in retribution!” It’s still no excuse, and they’re not fighting for
their
>lives.
Again, humanity HAS done things to them recently, humans were in the
armies of the awnshegh. There is a great deal of prejudice outside of
the elven lands. It’s flat out dangerous for an elf to leave the borders
of his nation in places like vosgaard, large sections of anuire and a
great deal of rjurik territory.

---

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[mpgn_archive]

Daniel caught a mistype of mine in a post made earlier. I had typed NRA
when it should have been the IRA when talking about a recent event in Ireland.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

[mpgn_archive]

From: Ryan Freire
>The point he’s trying to make, i think, is that a great deal of the
>awnshegh, raven and white witch in particular, use human troops. Thus >the
hatred of humans
That’s no excuse! If they want to hate those specific humans, the ones
that work for the awnshegh and invade their lands, then that’s their
business. When they generalize that hatred to all of humanity, they are
guilty of prejudice, bigotry, and pretty much attempted genocide, therefore
the GS is evil!

>Again, humanity HAS done things to them recently, humans were in the
>armies of the awnshegh. There is a great deal of prejudice outside of
>the elven lands. It’s flat out dangerous for an elf to leave the borders
>of his nation in places like vosgaard, large sections of anuire and a
>great deal of rjurik territory.
>
The humans in the armies of the awnshegh are not “humanity”. And, part
of the reason it’s dangerous for an elf to go into human lands is because of
the GS, which is a huge cause and effect argument that we don’t want to go
into.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[mpgn_archive]

A large problem i see is with people saying is that the elves are trying
to commit genocide, they aren’t, what the elves are trying to do is
drive the humans from cerilia by any means possible, they arent planning
on marching to aduria and wiping out all humans there either, they
simply want their ancestral lands back.

Off to another point someone made a few posts back with referring to the
elves living on plains and whatnot and so not necessarily defending the
forests alone. A great deal of plainsland and hills in areas like
anuire and vosgaard WAS forest before the humans came. Five hundred
years of clearcutting and farming pretty much would decimate all the
tree life there.

A major argument for the GS not being evil is in the fact that they dont
persecute people like dwarves and halflings. They pretty much keep
their emnity for the “enemy”, humans. I guess the biggest flaw in the
whole alignment argument is that its entirely possible for an elf to
behave in a chaotic evil fashion to humanity and its works, yet behave
and think in a completely chaotic good manner with other races (ie:
elves dwarves, halflings). Is a being who would slaughter and kill
innocent people for whatever reason completely good? on the other hand
is someone who would lay down their life to ensure that the children of
their race will have a place to call home and a decent life completely
evil?

At any rate this will be my last post on the subject because the more i
debate it the more i realize that theres no easy answer for one side or
the other.

---

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[mpgn_archive]

I’d like to emphasize on a point that has been stated several times but some haven’t
noticed it:
Very few elven generations have passed between Diesmaar and 551 MR.

IMO-Elven time is the same in terms of minutes, seconds, etc. Even days are the same.
But to elves, a human year is (as far as memories, physical growth, etc. go) more like a
month or even a week. So going with a week, humans managed to take most of the elven
lands in 500 elven weeks or about 10 elven years. In ten years (elven years that is) the
elven population in Cerillia dropped from (my guess) the high millions to the high
thousands. Then about 31 years later humans write the date 551 MR on thier calenders. So
to the elves, humans kept encroacing on them until about 25 years ago. These figures may
seem odd so I am also open to the idea that 1 human year=2 elven weeks which would double
all figures.

[mpgn_archive]

In a message dated 10-09-1998 9:15:47 AM Central Daylight Time,
mcsorley.1@osu.edu writes:

> If the elves want to take a few examples of awnsheghlien invading, and
> generalize that hatred and fear to all humanity, which hasn’t done anything
> to them recently, then they can try to justify that in their own minds, but
> logically it just doesn’t follow. And don’t try to tell me they can’t tell
> between an army and a village of helpless sleeping people. The GS is just
> viscious, evil elves who, being afraid to go after their real enemies the
> awnsheghlien, say “These awnshegh were human once, lets go kill some humans
> in retribution!” It’s still no excuse, and they’re not fighting for their
> lives.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>

Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still “elven”. So why not humans?

Point 2) Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
kill humans?

Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves as just
elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?

Point 4) The Tuar Annwn example still stands. Those humans were NOT awnshegh
controlled.

Point 5) More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!

Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans aren’t
and neither are elves.

As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
already assembled army, and the other is a potential army. Get real. The
GS will fight the battles it can win.

• -Dustin “thinks the elves are pretty much toast anyway” Evermore

[mpgn_archive]

At 06:36 AM 10/9/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>I think what you are describing is definitely a shift in behavior, but I
don’t
>think that’s any change in morality.

Sorry, Gary, but I have to disagree. Behavior is ruled by morality. A
person that lived 1000 years ago would be shocked at today’s morals. And
most likely, we’d be shocked at some of theirs. I think you’re looking at
alignments correctly though. They are absolute. Good today was good
yesterday. What’s changed is the interpretation which is morality. The
debate about the gheallie Sidhe (both sides making excellent points, I
think) shows that morality is not absolute even to people living in the
same society during the same times. Someone from a different society will
probably see a different view of what is moral.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

[mpgn_archive]

Galwylin wrote:

> At 06:36 AM 10/9/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >
> >I think what you are describing is definitely a shift in behavior, but I
> don’t
> >think that’s any change in morality.
>
> Sorry, Gary, but I have to disagree. Behavior is ruled by morality. A
> person that lived 1000 years ago would be shocked at today’s morals. And
> most likely, we’d be shocked at some of theirs. I think you’re looking at
> alignments correctly though. They are absolute. Good today was good
> yesterday. What’s changed is the interpretation which is morality. The
> debate about the gheallie Sidhe (both sides making excellent points, I
> think) shows that morality is not absolute even to people living in the
> same society during the same times. Someone from a different society will
> probably see a different view of what is moral.

I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this point. I’d like to think
behavior is ruled by morality. My observation of such things, however, leads
me to suspect that behavior and morality have only a casual relationship. Most
people consult their dentists more often than they consult their morals. But,
hey, we can’t really complain about the immorality of so many people in our
society. After all, we elected them…

Gary

[mpgn_archive]

At 05:52 PM 10/9/98 EDT, DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:
>
>Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still “elven”. So why not
humans?

Aren’t the awnshegh a result of humans and their gods?

>As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
>already assembled army, and the other is a potential army. Get real. The
>GS will fight the battles it can win.

I think the only way to prove the gheallie Sidhe is not evil is to prove
its at least noble in the eyes of the elves. I can understand the view of
a potential threat but couldn’t accept that an attack on a village is noble
because its a fight they can win. There should be battles fought that they
can’t win.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

[mpgn_archive]

I’m going to combine a few of these posts and try to cut down a bit on the total
number of messages being sent out.

DKEvermore@aol.com wrote:

> Point 1) Elves still see elven awnshegh as still “elven”. So why not humans?
>
> Point 2) Awnshegh usually use humans to attack elven nations. So why not
> kill humans?

I think these are good points. The elves might very well associate the evil
awnsheghlien with humanity in way that they do not with their own people. There
is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that humans become
awnsheghlien more often than do elves. How many elven awnsheghlien are there?
Just a few, isn’t it? There are many more awnsheghlien that sprang from humans.

This is, however, something of a racist argument. I don’t have any sort of
population statistics, but the number of awnsheghlien running around can’t be much
more than a few hundred. That’s in the 0.01% or so of the population. Even if
humans do become awnsheghlien more frequently than elves they’d still have to go
to the far right column of the abacus to do that calculation.

DK, is also right in that the awnsheghlien do use human troops very often. The
gorgon, however, does also use dwarven and goblin troops. Shouldn’t that earn the
dwarves a little bit of enmity from the elves?

> Point 3) As you pointed out, humans view all nationalities of elves as just
> elves. Why not ditto for the elven point of view of humans?

They might very well see all human nationalities as the same. Again, I think this
is a racist kind of argument, though isn’t it? Shouldn’t they know better? The
elves fought on the side of the Vos against all the other races of humanity at the
beginning of D-Day and then switched to the human side. Even the elves that
stayed on Azrai’s side (those who would probably be more likely to be in the
Gheallie Sidhe) would notice that some humans are different from other humans,
wouldn’t they?

> Point 4) The Tuar Annwn example still stands. Those humans were NOT awnshegh
> controlled.
>
> Point 5) More often, humans are all too ready to assist awnshegh in their
> attacks upon the world. Heck more awnshegh lead human nations than all the
> other awnshegh-lead demi-human or humanoid nations combined!
>
> Point 6) In a fantasy rpg, things do not have to be logical. Humans aren’t
> and neither are elves.
>
> As for you village full of sleeping people and army point: Sure one is an
> already assembled army, and the other is a potential army. Get real. The
> GS will fight the battles it can win.

I think part of the differences between the people making arguments about the
alignment of elves here is the different interpretation of their motivations.
That is, some folks think that the motives of the elves offset the evil of their
actions, while others think their motives don’t matter a lick. I’m of the latter
group. I think Gheallie Sidhe can have all kinds of arguments that justify their
behavior, but that doesn’t vitiate the evil of their actions.

The Olesens wrote:

> I’d like to emphasize on a point that has been stated several times but some
> haven’t
> noticed it:
> Very few elven generations have passed between Diesmaar and 551 MR.
>
> IMO-Elven time is the same in terms of minutes, seconds, etc. Even days are the
> same.
> But to elves, a human year is (as far as memories, physical growth, etc. go)
> more like a
> month or even a week. So going with a week, humans managed to take most of the
> elven
> lands in 500 elven weeks or about 10 elven years. In ten years (elven years
> that is) the
> elven population in Cerillia dropped from (my guess) the high millions to the
> high
> thousands. Then about 31 years later humans write the date 551 MR on thier
> calenders. So
> to the elves, humans kept encroacing on them until about 25 years ago. These
> figures may
> seem odd so I am also open to the idea that 1 human year=2 elven weeks which
> would double all figures.

I think it would be better to put this in terms of generations rather than years.

How often do elves reproduce? They are mature around 100-130 aren’t they?
(PHB/33.) That would make an elven “generation” be about every 150-200 years.
Let’s call it 250. That’s ten times the standard human generation. Since
Deismaar, that’s six generations. Granted, elves live indefinitely, but how long
are even immortals going to live before they get killed fighting, or just fall out
of the a tree or slip in the bathtub, for that matter?

We’re about seven or eight generations out of the civil war. To continue the KKK
analogy I made the other day, wouldn’t that be pretty similar?

Binagran wrote:

> If you can refer to a John Wayne film, the least I can do is refer to a comic.
>
> I would recommend for all those who have been reading these postings to do with
> alignment/morality etc. to read the very excellent graphic novel “Watchmen” by
> Allan
> Moore and Dave Gibbons.
> This debate reignited my interest in it, and rereading it, it seems that almost
> every
> argument posted here is present in “Watchmen” in some form or another.
> Depending on
> your POV (there’s that word again), the character of Rohrsharc (sp?), could
> either be
> seen as a LG character (forgive the use of alignments) or a NE character.
> “Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon”
> Admittedly, he was slightly around the bend, but his heart was in the right
> place (or
> was it?)
>
> Anyone got any comments to make about it?

The Watchmen rocked! Anyway, I think Rorschach was Lawful Neutral. He was
totally dedicated to the truth even if it meant global war, he persecuted law
breakers relentlessly, and never gave any thought to the difference between good
or evil.

Ryan Freire wrote:

> A large problem i see is with people saying is that the elves are trying
> to commit genocide, they aren’t, what the elves are trying to do is
> drive the humans from cerilia by any means possible, they arent planning
> on marching to aduria and wiping out all humans there either, they
> simply want their ancestral lands back.

Well, I don’t know that that is true. Given the number of humans on Cerilia, the
difference between genocide and the type of pogrom required to get their ancestral
lands back is pretty slim isn’t it? Besides, to me it doesn’t matter if there is
a difference between an out and out genocide and the kind of “retaking of
ancestral lands” that you describe. Both amount to the same kind of behavior. I
mean, the elves pretty much controlled all of Cerilia before humans came (except
for those lands controlled by dwarves or humanoids) so that means they are going
to have to wipe out the lot in order to get those lands back. Population
estimates of Cerilia have ranged from five to ten million humans…

> Off to another point someone made a few posts back with referring to the
> elves living on plains and whatnot and so not necessarily defending the
> forests alone. A great deal of plainsland and hills in areas like
> anuire and vosgaard WAS forest before the humans came. Five hundred
> years of clearcutting and farming pretty much would decimate all the
> tree life there.

This is true. There were substantially more forests, though we don’t really know
how much more for sure. There are several hints, but I don’t think we have a
pre-human map or anything.

> A major argument for the GS not being evil is in the fact that they dont
> persecute people like dwarves and halflings. They pretty much keep
> their emnity for the “enemy”, humans. I guess the biggest flaw in the
> whole alignment argument is that its entirely possible for an elf to
> behave in a chaotic evil fashion to humanity and its works, yet behave
> and think in a completely chaotic good manner with other races (ie:
> elves dwarves, halflings). Is a being who would slaughter and kill
> innocent people for whatever reason completely good? on the other hand
> is someone who would lay down their life to ensure that the children of
> their race will have a place to call home and a decent life completely
> evil?

I really don’t see the that elves don’t persecute dwarves and halflings as being a
big argument in their favor. A neutral attitude towards one race doesn’t make
evil actions against another less evil…

Gary

[mpgn_archive]

In a message dated 10/9/98 7:04:41 PM, galwylin@airnet.net writes:

>I think the only way to prove the gheallie Sidhe is not evil is to prove
>
>its at least noble in the eyes of the elves. I can understand the view
>of
>
>a potential threat but couldn’t accept that an attack on a village is noble
>
>because its a fight they can win. There should be battles fought that
>they
>
>can’t win.
>
>
>
>This has been a Galwylin® Production

Actually, I wasn’t trying to prove any kind of morality of the GS. I was just
stating what I thought likely based on their past behavior. After all, War IS
evil (i.e. running about attempting to kill your neighbors and what not).

• -DKE