Reminder on Politically Charged language could be better

[Ork]

We've plenty of examples where that's not the case. Let's talk about drow and the city of Sshamath: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Sshamath. Lloth holds no sway here. Let's look the drow city of Ched Nasad: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ched_Nasad. Lloth holds no sway here.

Deities created the mortal races.

Humans are a creator race, meaning they existed on Faerun prior to the arrival of modern gods. No one created them. And yet, they have traits that other races prejudice (quick to act, ephemeral, hot-tempered, etc.)

Your book dump means next to nil when you cherry pick your sources to suit your arguement. Even more hilariously, when your sources support my arguments where the elf that fell in love with a treant was prejudiced against.

[LovelyLightningWitch]

We've plenty of examples where that's not the case. Let's talk about drow and the city of Sshamath: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Sshamath. Lloth holds no sway here. Let's look the drow city of Ched Nasad: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ched_Nasad. Lloth holds no sway here.

Deities created the mortal races.

Humans are a creator race, meaning they existed on Faerun prior to the arrival of modern gods. No one created them. And yet, they have traits that other races prejudice (quick to act, ephemeral, hot-tempered, etc.)

Your book dump means next to nil when you cherry pick your sources to suit your arguement. Even more hilariously, when your sources support my arguments where the elf that fell in love with a treant was prejudiced against.

She was prejudiced against, and swiftly Hanali slapped the bigoted fools, clarifying that "Love is love" indeed means "Love is love", that those who try to sabotage young love sin against her.

And humans vary wildly depending on the pantheon they worship.

Only after the Fall of Netheril and the forming of the Faerunian pantheon do we get the homogenization of humanity we have now.

But even then, the Chauntean Ffolk behave very differently to the the Fury-worshipping Northlanders.

The Uthgardt behave very differently to the Mulhorandi.

[Drowboy]

Ignoring that this is all a really weird fabricated argument derailing into insane Greenwood/Gygax biological essentialism from a server community I'd least like to discuss it with, from an unnecessary semantics complaint about a months-old, actually rather clear announcement post..

Ched Nasad was like, literally built by Lolth, and was in fact destroyed during the War Of The Spider Queen series because Lolth stopped protecting it. So. Some sway, anyhow.

[Ork]

She was prejudiced against, and swiftly Hanali slapped the bigoted fools, clarifying that "Love is love" indeed means "Love is love", that those who try to sabotage young love sin against her.

Ah, bigotry exists in the setting. I'm glad we agree.

[LovelyLightningWitch]

She was prejudiced against, and swiftly Hanali slapped the bigoted fools, clarifying that "Love is love" indeed means "Love is love", that those who try to sabotage young love sin against her.

Ah, bigotry exists in the setting. I'm glad we agree.

And Chaotic Good aligned society does not suffer such people.

The Avowed are almost exclusively human, though there's no bar to other races, and are overwhelmingly (over eight in every ten) male, though females aren't forbidden. It should be noted that one of the reasons so few female monks are seen by visitors is that some female Avowed prefer to wear magical male guises to avoid the attentions of visitors.

It should be noted that there's no bar to marriage, relationships, and sex among the Avowed, regardless of age, rank, race, or gender. Avowed often bathe together, and nudity or partial nudity is not seen as a cause for embarrassment or censure among them. However, Candlekeep is no cauldron of lust, either: most of its Avowed are rather disinterested in the physical side of existence, and are most ecstatic when uncovering long-hidden lore, finding books unexpectedly, proving hunches and conclusions as fact, and laying bare deliberately-concealed secrets.

- Ed Greenwood, 2004. A special lore piece he wrote to the Candlekeep community, linked earlier.

[msheeler]

So a simpler question - What would you label someone who believes that any one of any other race or species is below them and less deserving. Someone that believes in segregation - there are places where only my race is allowed, and any others can and should be either expelled immediately or simply put to death.

I am not talking about someone who's character is RP'ed as "I hate orcs" or "I hate drow". I am talking about the character that displays varying degrees of distain for /any/ race that is not their own. Someone who even labels those of their race that do not adhere to the same beliefs of being superior as outsiders and people to be shunned at best and hunted at worst.

[Eyeliner]

Elitist maybe?

Looking for synonyms brought up "hidebound" which is not totally accurate but close and antiquated-sounding enough for fantasy. I may have to use that one myself. I'd recommend finding similar old-fashioned words for when you want to avoid words flying around today like racist, supremacist etc.

[Dean]

stuff

arrogant

[LovelyLightningWitch]

So a simpler question - What would you label someone who believes that any one of any other race or species is below them and less deserving. Someone that believes in segregation - there are places where only my race is allowed, and any others can and should be either expelled immediately or simply put to death.

I am not talking about someone who's character is RP'ed as "I hate orcs" or "I hate drow". I am talking about the character that displays varying degrees of distain for /any/ race that is not their own. Someone who even labels those of their race that do not adhere to the same beliefs of being superior as outsiders and people to be shunned at best and hunted at worst.

Chauvinist when describing an individual who does this. Chauvinism when describing the concept.

A big issue with the term is that it originates from the Napoleonic Wars, and is named after a person who fought in those wars.

For Forgotten Realms, you'd probably want to find someone analogous to Nicolas Chauvin and use their name.

Amongst elves, I could see some using Kymil Nimesin's name in such a vein. Like, sun elves after the war of 1371/1372 warning their children who think themselves closer to Corellon's image than moon elves as "you're acting like Kymil, such behaviour leads only to woe and pain for our People. Stop it."

[Drowboy]

how bout thayan

[Void]

Demons/Devils: Literal manifestations of planar evil. Their presence twists the balance of the Prime Material, and their actions violate deities' turf.

All of them are hated due to cosmological concepts and faith, not biology.

It doesn't make any difference, though. Also good and evil are physical forces in the realm, so being judged by alignment is not far removed from being judged by your biology, especially for entities born with specific alignment.

A manifestation of evil will not fit into a society made out of forces good. Because the purpose of good is to exterminate all evil. So the society will exterminate the manifestation. Meaning the good employs genocide as a tool to further their goals.

And as such there's no progressive in the realm, where everybody would be accepted as they are. A progressive world in my opinion, is where each find their place and work together regardless of race, species and alignment. In FR such place is not possible, as good would exterminate all that deviate too far from what seems to be acceptable.

The point was that the terms "Racism" and "communism" are out of place and should not be used in the settings.

I do not find this direction of discussion interesting and will not participate in it further. Have a good day.

[Void]

So a simpler question - What would you label someone who believes that any one of any other race or species is below them and less deserving.

You're describing a drow.

"Arrogance" is a good word as well. Few more to add are "megalomania" and "pride".

-----

The fun thing is, that in forgotten realm settings this sort of person may be right. The races are not the same, some are superior to others, and there are huge lifespan differences at play. So rather than trying to make them fit in a single society, it would make more sense to separate them in area where specific race is dominant but their specific needs are taken care of.

[LovelyLightningWitch]

Demons/Devils: Literal manifestations of planar evil. Their presence twists the balance of the Prime Material, and their actions violate deities' turf.

All of them are hated due to cosmological concepts and faith, not biology.

It doesn't make any difference, though. Also good and evil are physical forces in the realm, so being judged by alignment is not far removed from being judged by your biology, especially for entities born with specific alignment.

A manifestation of evil will not fit into a society made out of forces good. Because the purpose of good is to exterminate all evil. So the society will exterminate the manifestation. Meaning the good employs genocide as a tool to further their goals.

And as such there's no progressive in the realm, where everybody would be accepted as they are. A progressive world in my opinion, is where each find their place and work together regardless of race, species and alignment. In FR such place is not possible, as good would exterminate all that deviate too far from what seems to be acceptable.

The point was that the terms "Racism" and "communism" are out of place and should not be used in the settings.

I do not find this direction of discussion interesting and will not participate in it further. Have a good day.

This is the same argument as arguing that "Bring Balance to the Force" means to kill both jedi and sith. No, Balance to the force means to destroy the Sith, as their existence violates the natural order of the Force (They seeks to dominate it and bend it to their will, rather than be its tools/servants).

Permitting Evil is to oppose Life. Permitting Evil is to oppose Creation. Evil deities all represent concepts of destruction, decay, pointless violence, painful death and emptiness.

Progressive does not permit such to exist. Progressive does what Harpers do:

• Harpers work against villainy and wickedness wherever they find it, but they work ever mindful of the consequences of what they do.
• All beings should walk free of fear, with the right to live their lives as they wish.
• The rule of law aids peace and fosters freedom, so long as the laws are just and those who enforce them lenient and understanding.
• No extreme is good. For freedom to flourish, all must be in balance: the powers of realms, the reaches of the cities and the wilderlands into each other, and the influence of one being over another.
• Whatever it takes, a Harper will do. Pride never rules the deeds of a true Harper.
• Freedom is a multiversal right, though Harpers can spare themselves less freedom than those they work to protect when the need presents itself.
• Harpers police their own. A Harper who hears the call of personal power can no longer hear the sweet song of the harp. A Harper who seizes power, and holds it above all else, is a traitor to the harp. Traitors must die for freedom to live.
• Without a past, no being can appreciate what they have, and where they may be going.

Where Evil exists, Life cannot exist. Freedom cannot exist. Even Chaotic Evil is antithethical to freedom, as Chaotic Evil is for the Powerful to dominate and destroy the others. Chaotic Evil is Individualism for the Strong, Life for the Strong, and Death, Destruction, Emptiness, Slavery, Fear for the Weak.

Harpers seek to allow harmony between different beliefs, different races, species, cultures.

But they will not permit cultures/beliefs to exist that are antithethical to Freedom. Allowing worshippers of Bhaal to exist means people will live in fear of being murdered for ritual. Allowing worshippers of Bane to exist means people will fear being conquered by tyrannical rulers. Allowing worshippers of Furies to exists means people will fear Nature, rather than live in harmony with it (non-Faerunian deities offer Neutral/Good alternates to the Furies who fulfil the same role, but with different purpose. Aerdrie: Lightning storms/forest fires -> Rebirth, change, reacreation (Good aspects of Destruction/natural disaster), Talos: Lightning storms/forest fires -> The elimination of Creation. Talassans want to undo creation, Aerdrieites seek to guide change and rebirth).

And so forth.

Again, Evil is incompatible with Life, with Creation, with Freedom, with Justice, with the freedom to live without Fear.

It is not "not-progressive" to eradicate evil. It is very much progressive to actively stamp out the seeds to evil, tyranny, destruction, fear. This is what Harpers do.

Death itself is neither evil, nor good. Under Myrkul, Faerunian Death was evil. Under Kelemvor, it's no more. Under Sehanine, it's an outright Good thing. The opposite of Life is not Death, it's Destruction and Unlife.

Natural disasters are neither evil or good. Presented as Destruction, they're Evil. Presented as Change/Rebirth, they're Neutral/Good.

[Void]

This is the same argument as arguing that "Bring Balance to the Force" means to kill both jedi and sith. No, Balance to the force means to destroy the Sith, as their existence violates the natural order of the Force (They seeks to dominate it and bend it to their will, rather than be its tools/servants).

Permitting Evil is to oppose Life. Permitting Evil is to oppose Creation. Evil deities all represent concepts of destruction, decay, pointless violence, painful death and emptiness.

Eh, no. Really, no.

Evil is ultimate selfishness, while good is ultimate altruism. Those forces are asymmetrical.

Evil does not seek to destroy all life by default, as it only cares about itself (there are specific evils that seek this sort of thing, but not all evil). Evil does not even seek to destroy forces of good and can coexist with it, if that matches evil's interest. Good, however, does seek to destroy all evil, as to guarantee that nobody will ever get hurt.

Thus, forces of good are genocidal, while forces of evil are not necessarily so. And because of that society of good is not a world of acceptance, but a world of crusaders who will extermiante those who do not fit into their way of life.

A progressive world, in my opinion, would be lawful neutral or true neutral and not good. Due to good's genocidal nature.

There is a good example of that. Can you imagine an agent of hell in radiant heart headquarters? No. It would be slain. What about the opposite? Absolutely possible.

[Nitro]

You really know a thread has run its course when one person starts aggressively arguing their headcanon against all comers in a way only remotely connected to the original topic if you squint really hard and cross your eyes.

[Hazard]

[LovelyLightningWitch]

This is the same argument as arguing that "Bring Balance to the Force" means to kill both jedi and sith. No, Balance to the force means to destroy the Sith, as their existence violates the natural order of the Force (They seeks to dominate it and bend it to their will, rather than be its tools/servants).

Permitting Evil is to oppose Life. Permitting Evil is to oppose Creation. Evil deities all represent concepts of destruction, decay, pointless violence, painful death and emptiness.

Eh, no. Really, no.

Evil is ultimate selfishness, while good is ultimate altruism. Those forces are asymmetrical.

Evil does not seek to destroy all life by default, as it only cares about itself (there are specific evils that seek this sort of thing, but not all evil). Evil does not even seek to destroy forces of good and can coexist with it, if that matches evil's interest. Good, however, does seek to destroy all evil, as to guarantee that nobody will ever get hurt.

Thus, forces of good are genocidal, while forces of evil are not necessarily so. And because of that society of good is not a world of acceptance, but a world of crusaders who will extermiante those who do not fit into their way of life.

A progressive world, in my opinion, would be lawful neutral or true neutral and not good. Due to good's genocidal nature.

There is a good example of that. Can you imagine an agent of hell in radiant heart headquarters? No. It would be slain. What about the opposite? Absolutely possible.

You should take a look at descriptions of the Evil aligned deities in Faiths & Avatars/Faiths & Pantheons.

Evil is incompatible with life. While a mortal evil may "just" be selfish, their patrons require actions that are more than that.

Tolerating evil invokes the good old paradox of tolerance.

The Harpers are supported even by Silvanus and Oghma. Neutral deities who don't care about cosmic good/evil, deities that just want to do their thing, be it watching seasons go by or collecting knowledge.

Even these extreme-neutral deities recognize the need to eradicate evil deities and their worshippers for the world to survive and flourish and not become some scorched wasteland or exploited utterly.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

[Void]

You should take a look at descriptions of the Evil aligned deities in Faiths & Avatars/Faiths & Pantheons.

Evil is incompatible with life.

No, there's no point refer to descriptions when lore itself contradicts such statement.

There are evil societies composed of living beings. So the statement that "evil is incompatible with life" is false. The Underdark is a living testament to that.

Even these extreme-neutral deities recognize the need to eradicate evil deities and their

Which is why Silvanus accepts evil worshippers, I suppose?

The statements you're making contradict the lore.

You appear to desire to believe that the right choice is picking the good side. I believe this is not the right choice (partly due to good being genocidal). The setting has areas like city of sigil as well, which are largely neutral and accepts both devils and celestials alike.

I would also highly recommend to play an evil underdarker for a change. That will provide an unique perspective on the subject and perhaps make you rethink a few things.

Anyway, I'm done here.

[Exordius]

Um good is not always genocidal... lawful good is genocidal. Neutral good, and chaotic good can tolerate evil to an extant as long as said evil is not doing things that cause suffering or death. Neutral good especially is more likely then not going to try and reason with them rather then just smite them.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I'm all about following lore and alignment standards, but I definitely agree that there is no definitive standard that says all evil deities and philosophies are incompatible with life. Several of them, in fact, require life to obtain power in the first place. Many less notoriously villainous evils are tolerated, prayed to, and even donated to by the wider masses as an essential part of their existence during various stages of their life - Talona, Umberlee, and Beshaba come to mind.

Yes, these powers often have dubious or nefarious motivations. No, not all of them are out to rule the world or wipe out all life. Yes, an evil character can be a functional member of society- someone who exploits the poor masses for labor and goods as a baron, yet maintains a standing army that holds an important border route between two neighboring lands, perhaps.

A better example is someone who engages in amoral practices to achieve what they believe is a goal that justifies their practices. A Faerunian Punisher, if you will. An evil adventurer who goes out and does awful things to awful people, or maybe he does it to monsters menacing the local townsfolk, knowing where his bread is buttered and that if he performs such actions on actual people he'll be strung up in the village square. He's still doing awful things. He's not getting good points. But the people he saves from monsters likely aren't crying about his villainy to the bards in hopes of finding a savior. As far as they're concerned, he is their savior.

Good also isn't always genocidal- it does seek to stop evil, but the perception that one always does so only by going the murder-hobo route is more upon each individual player's approach than the actual setting. It's easier to kill than it is to capture- and further still, capturing is exponentially easier than holding, much less redeeming- but doing Good isn't always supposed to be easy. This is also why most individual characters don't cleave 100% to their alignment disposition in all decisions they make - only a few paths in life require such absolute dedication to upholding an ideal, and the average person is generally forgiven for being flawed, so long as they don't make a clear pattern of it.

[Void]

Um good is not always genocidal... lawful good is genocidal. Neutral good, and chaotic good can tolerate evil to an extant as long as said evil is not doing things that cause suffering or death. Neutral good especially is more likely then not going to try and reason with them rather then just smite them.

That is a good point, but I'd need to see it in practice more often to fully subscribe to it.

I'm aware of "saintly good" described, say, in book of exhalted deeds, but in practice I've yet to see a single person try to make a fiend rethink their life choices and change their ways by talking.

Regarding neutral good... let's say that there are two settlments. A neutral good one and an evil one. They're far apart. And the neutral good one learns that awful things happens in evil settlement. Would they try to put an end to it? That's the question which determines whether the good has tendency for genocide or not.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

...

Regarding neutral good... let's say that there are two settlments. A neutral good one and an evil one. They're far apart. And the neutral good one learns that awful things happens in evil settlement. Would they try to put an end to it? That's the question which determines whether the good has tendency for genocide or not.

I'd say this leans into case-by-case territory, perhaps due to a dearth of detail. Does this Neutral Good settlement tolerate LG and CG inhabitants? Who's in power? Are the awful things happening in the neutral evil settlement personally relevant to the people in power in some significant way- say an escaped slave contemplating a settlement known for brutal slavery, as opposed to a good local ruler who has lived a relatively sheltered life being told about a lord who exploits his own people way on the other side of the continent, with no apparent plans for expansion?

I'd argue that if the settlement is way over there and keeps its festering evil to itself, the NG settlement could be perfectly justified in its alignment while focusing on itself and whatever more local problems they have. If, on the other hand, people from this faraway place are notorious for showing up on their trade routes and doing awful things to their citizens, do we ignore the duty to protect their people and label it genocide?

Edit: Also, if people come to this Neutral Good settlement asking for saving from the Evil people, is that genocide or duty?

[Void]

I'd say this leans into case-by-case territory, perhaps due to a dearth of detail. Does this Neutral Good settlement tolerate LG and CG inhabitants? Who's in power? Are the awful things happening in the neutral evil settlement personally relevant to the people in power in some significant way- say an escaped slave contemplating a settlement known for brutal slavery, as opposed to a good local ruler who has lived a relatively sheltered life being told about a lord who exploits his own people way on the other side of the continent, with no apparent plans for expansion?

I'd argue that if the settlement is way over there and keeps its festering evil to itself, the NG settlement could be perfectly justified in its alignment while focusing on itself and whatever more local problems they have. If, on the other hand, people from this faraway place are notorious for showing up on their trade routes and doing awful things to their citizens, do we ignore the duty to protect their people and label it genocide?

Edit: Also, if people come to this Neutral Good settlement asking for saving from the Evil people, is that genocide or duty?

Should it be moved into another thread, I wonder?

I'll explain my logic.

If the settlmenets are far apart and their paths do not cross, the good settlement will feel the push to do something about evil settlement just because the evil settlement exists because bad things happen there.
The evil settlement would not feel the push to do something about good settlement unless it has something this particular evil wants or gets in its way. And in case evil settlement is a destructive one, then it wouldn't mattter for it if the settlement is good or not.

So, what we have here is that good will try to seek out evil and either exterminate it or make it stop being evil.
While evil will treat all others pretty much the same way (well, alright, it will have a laugh at moral values of good) regardless of what they are, as it only cares about itself and its desires.

And that's what I mean when I spoke about forces being asymmetrical. The good seeks to end all evil, while the evil does not care if good exists unless good gets in its way.

And when we speak of duty we're talking about lawful good. A neutral good or chaotic good would not have any duty to them. But they may feel that something should be done about it or that it isn't right.

----

That's my opinion on this matter. I think this interpretation is a reasonable one, but I do not expect everybody to agree with it.

[Exordius]

That is a good point, but I'd need to see it in practice more often to fully subscribe to it.
I'm aware of "saintly good" described, say, in book of exhalted deeds, but in practice I've yet to see a single person try to make a fiend rethink their life choices and change their ways by talking.

True... i find many of those who play good to be rather lazy when it comes to rp-ing it... smite first and ask questions later tends to be the norm sadly.