Good as anti-evil

[Milosrdenstvi]

It's been said many times that on Erebus good and evil are completely relative terms without consideration of a character's morality -- that evil is in rebellion against The One, and good is merely opposed to that.

I don't see it, though. At least, not completely. Look at our 'good' and 'evil' characters.

Veil - wants to destroy the world / Order - wants to preserve it.
Esus - based on lies and deceptions / Empyrean - based on knowledge and truth.
OO - insane and mutated dreams / RoK - hard work, honesty, and excellence

Sacrifice the Weak / Public Healers - no comment needed

Calabims: eat their people
Sheaims/Infernals: mission in life is to bring suffering to other people
Doviello: so savage they are scarcely human
Illian: want to return the world to ice
Clan: conceded, they are only barbaric and not necessarily evil
Svaltalfar: conceded, they are only a 'different sort' of elf -- though having a predisposition towards betrayal and backstabbing
Perpentach: insane, and from what we can tell, rather violent

All in all not a bunch of people you'd want as neighbors.

Cardith/Varn: believe highly in compassion towards people
Elohims: Pacifists
Bannor/Mercurian: conceded, they are on crusade just as much as Sheaim/Infernal -- but still, with life-giving, not death-giving ends.
Good elves: conceded -- but they are 'guardians of nature' and life and such things
Good dwarves: conceded, but with RoK as they naturally should see note above on said religion.

A little sketchier, but each one a more palatable companion than their contrasting evil people, Basium possibly excepted.

Ultimate goals: to bring blight, plague, and disease to the world before consuming it with fire and killing everybody vs. stopping that from happening/finding The One.

Have I missed things? Or is good more moral than we have been lead to believe?

 

[smjjames]

I don't think there are any 'evil' dwarves, although there are certainly bad seeds, the civ entry for the Khazad leader mentioned a murderer, or maybe that was an assasin and not a serial killer. The Khazad could be considered 'good', just more conservative maybe. I mean they have the same or similar morals as thier Lucichirup cousins, just that they would prefer to be left alone.

 

[Blackmantle]

Where the whole good thing starts to fail though is the be with us or against us attitude of some of the good ones and the whole struggle of the extremes especially towards the netral ones. (And if you read the Pedia entry for cardith you could very well see that if he goes into "dragon-mode" even his adamant followers get scared. Don't mess with the golden dragon.. )

Also some of the neutral ones are morally rather very well (grigori might be one of the empires with the highest standarts of morale especially in regards to their leader. Amurites need not be so bad. They freed Erebus of its Age of Ice after all and Dain likes good treatment of peoples. And the Lanun Sea Dogs should be a fun bunch as well if you don't wrong them. Especially under Falamar.)

So yes, there is a tendency of most good leaders to treating there people and matters morally well as there is a tendency of evil leaders to treat there people and matters badly. (This is more true for the evil ones than for the good guys in basic tendency since the way to apocalypse seems to involve some quite horrible acts while protecting it from apocalypse might not involve much friendly things in necessity.)

So there is that connection but it is purely coincidence (you basically whould have to do a whole new chart for all civ-religion combinations if you want to treat morale where a rare few of the evils may end up even at more or less neutral like Svartalfar, Clan or Illians with Fol (Covering the world in eternal unchanging natural beauty in large expenses of boreal forest is not the worst of all visions of Erebus if you compare to other visions of some leaders) which i belive has been possible for some time (and might be again if Ice phase comes and Illians perhaps lose beeing agnostic. I don't know that one though. We will see in some time in the future) and many neutrals clearly in good territory. And some of the good ones in neutral or even borderline evil territory like Bannor.) and especially if you take the neutrals into account it no longer stands up to the trial whatsoever (Empyrean Lanun under Falamar as just one example which might be quite a nice place to be as are ROK Khazad if you value honest labor and are part of the clan.).

Also you have to take into account that religions (Meaning each civ could end up us 7 different empires + their basic one) clearly influence the FFH alignment (The civs allignment is just their society without those state-religion influences which have a much bigger impact on the "good versus evil battle" than the basic leaning of the civ without religion).
And there you start to get some of the good ones clearly dragged into morally evil
(the description of the order religion leaves not many questions about its ways and yet its the one religion that turns everything! into good. Even Calabim, to whichs society the order seems to fit rather well btw. And that whould be a horrible place to live especially if they also gate in Basium.
A pawns fate being eaten for the greater good of erebus to help their vampire overlords sending the demons back to hell in a big all encompassing battle that will consume Erebus. What a really delightful prospect for the pawn. )

This is especially seen if you take the extremes of good and evil in FFH terms which are undoubtedly Basium and Hyborem. You don't want to be up to the judgement of either of them to be honest if you are not part of the battle (Sidar anyone... ? Divine intervention was needed to safe them from a painful demise on the end of Basiums warhammer just for refusing to claim a side in the War). Morally both are just deeply wrong in that regard. (Hence Cassiels preposition towards them.)
And Basium i guess whould be allright with apocalypse coming. Getting the full-scale anti-demon war he so much longs for. What care about the world and its denizens given that prospect?


But forcefully applying RL morale values (which are not universally accepted anyways and labeling might not get you very far if faced with some realities where lines blur and there may very well be no "right" decisions whatsoever in some situations, not even nonaction. As well as tons of double edged decisions which are both right and wrong at the same time. Which is often the rule and not the exeption) to games which explicitly and by design use the terms of good and evil otherwise might not get one far (That energy might be better put into real life where it might yield some real good. And im sure that the need is quite existent here and there. Also its quite possible to a certain degree without extreme effort especially if the people around us are concerned.).
The "good leaders" in FFH need no defense after all. They are tools there to bring us fun not to be judged as though they were real persons or anything living for that matter.
The ethics / morale references are rather found in the pedia. And is it really neseccary to push that point so much? I always juged the monodimensional allignment system of D&D as one of that games clear weak points and quite like the labaling of good versus evil as rather very much relative terms here (but that is a matter of tastes naturally and i can very well see that simpleness at times can add to games and fun with them.).

 

[Mewtarthio]

I don't think there are any 'evil' dwarves, although there are certainly bad seeds, the civ entry for the Khazad leader mentioned a murderer, or maybe that was an assasin and not a serial killer.

I got the impression that he was more like a Dwarven MIB: He doesn't care who his target is, and he'll silence anyone who gets too close to The Truth.

Evil Dwarves, I imagine, would tend towards the Stewards of Inequity, given the choice. In public, they likely pay lip service to the Runes of Kilmorph, but selectively "interpret" its teachings to justify their greed. They'd stretch the definitions of "honest work," claiming that their criminal activities are justified or that tradition upholds them (think the mafia).

 

[smjjames]

could you point to where it's mentioned about basium and the sidar? I've seen that mentioned a couple times here on the forums, but I don't know where or what it's referring to.

Unless I have to play the age of ice scenario to find this out.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't don't believe there is a single reference to Basium or to the Sidar in AoI.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6230604&postcount=12

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6230906&postcount=19

 

[Nikis-Knight]

It's been said many times that on Erebus good and evil are completely relative terms without consideration of a character's morality

shrug. I've never felt that this should be so. I think that if we use words like good and evil, the civs should demonstrate that, in sum total anyway, at least in comparison to one another. (no person, let alone culture, is pristine good or entirely evil, but the sum total can certainly end up in one side or another.)
If we just want two teams, then the alignments should be called red and blue or nice and mean.

Of course, in the good lands, there are wicked people, cowards, misguided policies, cut-throat politics, tragedies, and all sorts of things that make fanatasy 'dark'. But there are clear and intentional differences between good and evil in the default setting. Of course you should role-play however you play, and you can come up with whatever reasoning you like to fill in the considerable and intentional gaps in the character stories.

This is especially seen if you take the extremes of good and evil in FFH terms which are undoubtedly Basium and Hyborem

Basium is an arguement against my point of view, though. His 'good' label largely comes from the fact that he opposes the demons and served a good god. And he has broken the compact. So in my mind he shouldn't really deserve good, but gains it for symetry's sake.

 

[Kael]

Yeah the classic argument about who is "gooder", Basium or Cassiel.

Basium considers himself good, in fact he thinks he is the brave hero of creation, willing to sacrifice everything to deal with creations greatest enemy. The Mercurians, the people and angels that follow him certainly share that view. He is certainly sacrificing, brave and devoted to his task (which, if you assume the Veil has no redeeming qualities is a good task).

But if you define goodliness by compassion alone Basium falls woefully short. What alignment does that make him? Its a more complex question that D&D's simple alignment system will allow us. But thats part of the blurry ethical lines we love to play with in FfH.

And what I loved to have in my D&D games, there was rarely a "right" and wrong" side. Even Tebryn and the Sheaim, attemtping to destroy the world. Sounds like a particuarlly classic bad guy. Until the characters full story came out, at the pinnacle fo the players battle against him they find out that he is their creation. A friend who fell into internal torment because of their failure, who was doing this just to escape that punishment. And the players were put in the position to stop him, and therefor eternally enforce the punishment they themselves caused. Of course they still carried out their task, but the morale implications were a major theme of the campaign.

Cassiel has withdrawn. He isn't particarly compasionate, but he isn't uncompassionate. He philosophy values personal freedom and independance, as long as that personal freedom doesnt include a religious conviction. Basium would say he is a coward, Cassiel would say Basium is no different than those he fights against. You may agree with one or the other, but its hard to place any sort of objective good/neutral or evil against either.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I think it's safe to say that in FfH, every nation is an exaggeration of something. Some are exaggerations of generally good things, like courage and sacrifice for Basiums case, but when taken to extremes are no longer as good as they would be if tempered with other virtures. Basium is borderline, imo.

And what I loved to have in my D&D games, there was rarely a "right" and wrong" side.

Of the evil civs, I think the Clan, Balseraphs, and maybe the Doviello are sympathetic. Most of the others happily choose the suffering of others for their own gain (and with sound minds). For the rest, either there isn't enough context to see redeeming features, or I'm just not buying thier sob stories.

Sorry Tebryn, Hell is a harsh price to pay, but sending every other person there in your place shouldn't be an option. Though what a person would agree to under extreme torture in the after life is probably anything, so there is pity for him. Not enough to hope he doesn't lose, of course.

 

[Sofista]

But if you define goodliness by compassion alone Basium falls woefully short. What alignment does that make him? Its a more complex question that D&D's simple alignment system will allow us. But thats part of the blurry ethical lines we love to play with in FfH.

Very true - but still, my two cents:
Basium is like a gardiner who's (rightly) willing to chop off every rotten branch he sees in the garden he feels entrusted to him. That's all right - only, he takes it further, chopping off branches that are sickly, but could be healed or ultimately prove harmless to the plants' welfare.
I guess the point is about how much you weight idealism. He sure does not, yet, his resolve that there should be a Creation after his job is done, with or without him, keeps him with the good guys, although the even-gooder-guys may look at him like Captain America looks upon the Punisher.

Cassiel has withdrawn. He isn't particarly compasionate, but he isn't uncompassionate. He philosophy values personal freedom and independance, as long as that personal freedom doesnt include a religious conviction. Basium would say he is a coward, Cassiel would say Basium is no different than those he fights against. You may agree with one or the other, but its hard to place any sort of objective good/neutral or evil against either.

..and here's where I ask you if I'm far off the mark if I see Cassiel as the ultimate rationalist, an Illuminist who managed to avoid any kind of Romantic dream about Shangri-la being available if only everyone would sign some paper, be it the Order or the Av's one.

 

[Blackmantle]

@ Nikis-Knight: I do understand your point about the civs but what about religions and the order then?

Its clearly the most "good label" religion in game-terms (enough to turn even Sheaim led by our friend Tebryn or Calabim under Alexis "adamantly good".).
Yet morally / ethically you could find more than enough points where Empyrean, RoK and even (good or neutral) FoL surpass it (depending on views of course. ).

 

[Nikis-Knight]

@ Nikis-Knight: I do understand your point about the civs but what about religions and the order then?

Its clearly the most "good label" religion in game-terms (enough to turn even Sheaim led by our friend Tebryn or Calabim under Alexis "adamantly good".).
Yet morally / ethically you could find more than enough points where Empyrean, RoK and even (good or neutral) FoL surpass it (depending on views of course. ).

That's a good question. I think there are many factors at play.
[tab]First, certainly there is some merit to good and evil as team labels. But I don't think that they are *just* that. If good wins, things will be much better than if evil wins. If neutral were to win, things wouldn't be bad, but neutrals aren't playing the same game.
[tab]As far as the Order goes, I think it's kind of complicated. Paritially because it's hard to seperate out the Order and the Bannor, paritally because everyone has thier own views of them--there aren't all that many of any of the religions tenets described, just stories of characters.
[tab]But yeah, often those stories show them to be much harsher than I am comfortable calling good. (Although some of that has actually been reduced now that they lost ring of flames, ironically.) I would reconcile it by saying that their sacrifices on behalf of mortals in fighting demonsmight counter-balance some out of control fanatics or irrationally strict dictates, if I needed to.
[tab]But I don't think that they are the most good as in the best at developing ethical people. They are the most good as in most likely to make a society good--by being the best at getting rid of evil (people or behavior.) Their laws and society leave no room for evil to develop, so nations following this religion must be good. Of course, if they allowed more for free will and redemption, their good would be better--but in doing so, they would allow more evil to take hold--thus Empyrean and Runes can allow neutral civs to stay so, but not the order. Make sense?

 

[Blackmantle]

Your point about in-game-morale is quite a good one.

But what i tried to point out more or less, is that projecting real-world ethic values on FFH2 and accessing the civs from that point of view might not be the best thing to do in the first place. (And i guess, that the labeling of good as anti-evil is a phrase to make it easier to understand for people who take that point of view.
Which might indeed be the case for some casual gamers or gaming critcs/testers who want a simple answer instead of a multilayered and sophisticated epic as an explanation. For that i whould give the answer, yes in FFH2 they are just labels. Otherwise in the gaming world itself, and its consistency, we might very well find some common ground here.)

Its a fantasy world after all. So why even pressing that point wenn it works in game and the world / game is not really fanatic about it and likes to put some twisted morale into some things (which add a lot of depth into some of the stories imo. Just if you take Einons pedia entry. Quite multilayered and complicated stuff. What whould be if he whould have cared more for his wife instead of his order / Nation? There is just no clear "right" decision in that story. That makes that story much more interesting imo. Kaels example in here is another quite terrific example how twists and blurry lines can quite seriously spice up a backstory or an encounter.).
I remember some thread about the depiction of women in the mod and the teams valuing of them. While its far more extreme and even harmful to the image than the OPs question here, its the same kind of overattatchment (imo) to things that are just not exist at all albeit on wholely another level.

Sadly often people (and some quite smart and influential ones too.) do confuse games to much with reality and do project far to much into it / grossly underestimate the ability of even the most simple minded players / people to indeed know fiction/games and trivia from reality quite unmistakably.
Which might deter people from games and badly damage the gaming communities reputation.
Its especially true for the country which i live in where gaming is viewed as a rather strange (for grown-ups) and perhaps even a bit suspicious pasttime which has become even more suspicious in the last Years when all sorts of evils have been (in quite an unrealistic and totally oversimplified way sometimes) connected to games (i even have the slight guess that the Op of the "Mod Temas problems with women-thread" is indeed from my county given how much there has been projected into the game there.). Which is a bit of a shame imo given the many people which derive fun from it without really harming anyone real in the process.

Hence my remarks, that the leaders and civs + religions of FFH2 are not more than tools to bring us fun and don't need our defense (neither do they need our damnation in case of the evil ones) as though they where real beings.
Its not that there aren't games making an really bad impact out there which leave a lot of questions indeed to be asked and that everything should be free for everyone and legal but the zeal of game-dislikers can go quite far seeing threat to society in games everywhere you can see something which might be slightly or more desturbing in real life.

In the game-world itself the terms could very well be a bit more than labels (its hard to argue, that the turning of your world into hell is quite a bad prospect to most people after all and that given that prospect some means are easier to justify by that ends. If rightfully whould rather to be juged by the inhabitants of erebus than real people. ) and that even includes Basium which whould fall more or less into your reasoning why the order is labeled as good.
Though even there i find the lines are rather blurry sometimes and its still more derived from their stance towards Armageddon in Erebus.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Which might indeed be the case for some casual gamers or gaming critcs/testers who want a simple answer instead of a multilayered and sophisticated epic as an explanation. For that i whould give the answer, yes in FFH2 they are just labels

Well, those gamers probably aren't asking questions in the lore sub-forum! But even for casual gamers, it's a bit more complicated than that--they are labels that come with some restrictions on civics and units (fairly limited, of course, but common sense if you assume some literal use of the terms [and are familiar with paladins and eidolons, of course!]), and are altered by your religion.

Hence my remarks, that the leaders and civs + religions of FFH2 are not more than tools to bring us fun and don't need our defense

Certainly. FfH 2 is meant to be a fun strategy game especially for people who enjoy a certain fantasy atmosphere, and all the background is meant to further that atmosphere to provide a fun experience rather than advance any agenda.

But it's interesting to talk a bit about what can be inferred about the people and places depicted there, etc. We do strive for coherence when writing this, both between the pieces and with the mechanics.

 

[Ekolite]

deleted...

 

[Ekolite]

deleted...