Messages

RL is kicking my ass and I got to take a break. See you all soon

I think the point is that a few more higher ranked people in a faction would allow the lower ranked ones to ask a PC for approval, rather than a DM. That would in turn create more faction action.

Playing a PC who's goal is to discredit the Pallid Mask, I would think that perhaps some of the reputation problems are completely IG.

It is not only my character, but some others as well that have actively made attempts to give them those labels. This thread is kind of proof that an IC action is making a difference in the server.

There are a bunch of votes for NwN:HotU and SoU. If those are added it has a thousand some votes, I think. Still nowhere near the top.

The reduced power would screw over arcane necromancers, who have to use scrolls and items until they reach level 9. I think its good that a corpse is relatively hard to find, but it just makes sense that some areas (like tombs and mausoleums) would have a lot available.

I do have to agree that all the PvP threads are just someone venting, but a lot of other threads in general discussion are people venting about various things.

People need to vent sometimes, and the forum is much better than IG. I would say make a venting section, but I doubt that would be popular.

As someone who was recently SDed in a similar circumstance when FD might have been IC, I can definitely say that it has moved the story along, and brought about tension between chars. I personally think that tension is what makes good roleplay.

Of course, FD could have caused tension between the factions involved, but not nearly as much as letting the person go which leads to scheming and eventually a climactic second confrontation.

If you've already SDed that char once and RPed it out, though, I don't see why the second time shouldn't be FD. If there's no escalation, then theres no tension.

[The Human Axis]

The Human Axis

This text is the third in its series. It draws heavily on the author's previous texts, Dissertation on the Natural and On the Imposition of Morals.

The author would like it known that he does not mean to offend any humanoid race for which this text applies. He simply felt that The Human Axis was a better phrase than The Humanoid Axis. Any references to Humans are indeed references to Humanoids.

Part I - The Established Axes

As has been previously established, our moral system hinges on two axes, that of Good and that of Law. These axes are defined by the outer planes and imposed on our own, often by means of deity worship.

Although there is no Natural morality, it is Natural for all men to place themselves on the axis. No man can find himself outside of the system, no matter how neutral or extreme. Therefore, we must say that any position cannot be deemed wrong or right.

How, then, can we make any judgement at all? To answer this question, we must ask ourselves, is there some third axis which affects our morality? This text seeks to provide an answer.

Part II - Tolerance, An Axis

Surely the reader has seen men, regardless of their moral position, turn to their neighbor and begin verbally or physically assaulting them, entirely unprovoked. Surely the reader has also witnessed men agree to disagree.

These actions outline a third axis. - the axis of Tolerance. Although it may not be as apparent, one's tolerance of other moralities motivates one's decisions, and therefore should be included in our moral system.

While adding this third dimension does complicate things somewhat, it makes it possible to distinguish between the the healer and the paladin, the barbarian and the anarchist. Whereas the healer seeks to do Good to all, the paladin is sworn by oath to destroy Evil. The barbarian may choose to live in the wilds, but the anarchist feels compelled to destroy Law. It is their inherent intolerance of other moralities that sets these individuals apart.

Now we must ask the question, is tolerance correct or incorrect? Again we will revert to the only objective proof. We will determine whether or not tolerance is natural to this plane of existance.

Part III - The Nature of Tolerance

We must again look at the outer planes to determine the origin of Tolerance. Although the traditional moralities are entirely represented within the outer planes, we must notice that, strangely enough, they are all entirely intolerant to one another. One never hears of a demon and an archon having any sort of relationship, save a friendship.

We conclude that tolerance was created within our plane, and is therefore Natural. Indeed, the path of tolerance is one that is inherent to most, without an external force guiding their thoughts. This suggests that Intolerance is unnatural, and, indeed, it seems tp be largely imposed upon our plane by forces supernatural.

The paladin's intolerance is obvious. His deity commands that he obey an oath, else he will lose the supernatural powers granted to him. Less obvious is that of the anarchist. However, properly understood, one can see that the most common anarchists are followers of the "Nature" gods. Clearly their intolerance is driven by this faith, and a commitment to perserve their perverted conception of Nature.

Part IV - The Human Axis

Having properly examined Tolerance, we must now ask the important question. Yes, it is natural, but how does that affect the manner in which we act? Should we embrace it, or shun it? Or perhaps we should ignore it, and continue life as per usual.

I say, here and now, to embrace Tolerance! It is not only natural to the material plane, but it is a human creation as well. This axis is a fundamental part of our identity, that which seperates us from the demons, the archons, the gods. To strive for intolerance, as the zealots do, is to shun the very thing that makes us unique.

But that is not the only thing at stake when Tolerance is dismissed. Tolerance provides us the ability to work together, or at least not impede each other. Tolerance allows for us to make true progress towards building a society that is better for all, rather than destroying a part of society that is found distasteful.

The dismissal of Tolerance is nothing less than the dismissal of Humanity.

Summation

The traditional axes are incomplete

The axis of Tolerance completes the system

Tolerance is natural, and Intolerance is unnatural

Humanity is defined by Tolerance

-Andrew Underwood

Just a thought -

Would it be possible in places where there are piles of bodies to make it so that one can go and take one of the bodies for animation?

I play a necromancer and I was doing the Jergal quest, and thought it was strange that I didn't have a body to animate even though tons were lying all around me.

[On the Imposition of Morals]

On the Imposition of Morals

Preface

The author would like it to be known that this paper does not  necessarily reflect his own moral judgment. It is simply a comment on  moral judgment as a whole.

The author would also like it to be known that this work makes use of  concepts discussed in his previous work Dissertation on the Natural

Part I - The Moral Schema

Our morality is based on two axes - one of Good and Evil, and one  of Law and Chaos. This has been upheld not only by the foremost  philosophical thinkers, but also by empirical data. Through planar  travel, we have come to know that the other planes of existence embody  these moral extremes.

In such a system, it is easy to conceive of how two diametrically  opposed actors may come into contact with each other. For example, an  actor on the side of Good and Chaos may begin dialogue with an actor on  the side of Law and Evil. Of course, it seems obvious to us that such an  interaction would bring about hostility. How could two such individuals  ever engage in civil discourse?

We will come back to this later, as we move to examine the axes  in greater detail first.

Part II - The Axes of Morality

What is it to be Good? What is it to be Lawful? In order to  progress in our discussion, we must answer these questions. It will  become clear to us that Chaos is a lack of Law, and Evil is a lack of  Good, so only two definitions are required.

Lawfulness is easily identified. One who would follow a prescribed  set of rules can be said to be Lawful. What is contained in said  guidelines is irrelevant - simply to depend on any unchanging set of  rules to guide action constitutes Lawfulness. The absence of Law is  known as Chaos. Those who do not depend on any set of rules are known as  Chaotic. They view each action individually, and do not conserve  principles from one action to the next. Their actions in two identical  situations may be radically different.

Good appears more problematic, but upon consideration, we realize  that we can equate Altruism to Good. He who gives of himself to benefit  a stranger, be it with material goods, time, or effort, does Good in  the world. Then we can see how Evil is practiced by he who is unwilling  to sacrifice himself for the benefit of those to whom he has no  relation. By this definition, one who is Evil might even steal from  another, or harm them, as he is unwilling to sacrifice the possible gain  from this action in exchange for the target's well being.

Part III - The Nature of Morality

Now that the axes have been clearly defined, we begin the tricky  question of which direction is correct. As this is difficult to  determine, we look to a method that is purely objective: We seek to  identify the morality that is most Natural.

As has been discussed in earlier papers, we define Nature as that  which has come about within our plane. However, such a definition rules  out actions whose impetus lies in the outer planes. These events, such  as a divine intervention, are to be known as Supernatural.

So where does morality originate? As was previously mentioned,  the outer planes embody this moral schema. As it seems unlikely that  both the material plane and the outer planes came to this schema at  exactly the same moment, we must ask ourselves, did the material plane  impose this system on the outer planes, or was is the other way around?  When we notice the huge impact the outer planes have on our decisions,  often by conduit of the Gods, we must come to the conclusion that the  axes indeed originated within the outer planes, and not our own.

Morality has no relation to Nature, we have therefore concluded.  However, it does seem to be Natural that men arrive at a set of morals.  It would be impossible not to have a position on these axes - even the  most neutral of parties stands on the axes, albeit in the center.

Therefore, we cannot say with any truth that one morality is more  correct than another, but that all moralities are viable options.

Part IV - The Role of Morality

We return now to the dialogue discussed earlier between our two  opposed actors.

In our current society, such a talk would easily escalate from  words to shouts to intimidation to perhaps physical conflict. This may  be common, but it need not be so.

Man has no Natural right to impose his morality on an unwilling  subject. Such an imposition should only take place if the subject has  submitted himself to such. For example, if one chooses to live in a  city, the lawfulness of such may be imposed on him as a cost to the  benefits that come with his choice. Such should be made clear from the  start, and in the above case, usually is.

However, there is often an imposition of morality by those who  wish to make the entire plane agree with their perspective, and would do  so out of coercion. This is not only unnatural - this is wrong.

Should all men recognize this, they could respect each other, or  at least leave each other in peace, rather than give in to childish name  calling. In such a society, there could be a civil discourse about the  benefits and costs of X, Y and Z, rather than the unproductive battles  that are waged in the name of morality.

Summation

Morality consist of two axes - Good/Evil and Law/Chaos

Law is defined as a set of rules by which to act

Chaos is defined by a lack of such rules

Good is defined by the willingness to give of oneself

Evil is defined by a lack of such willingness

No morality can be considered Natural

Man has no right to impose his morality


I hope this text has served to elucidate the phenomenon of morality, and  the societal norms regarding such.

-Andrew Underwood

[Dissertation on the Natural]

Dissertation on the Natural

Preface

The author would like it to be known that he has no opinion on whether Nature is good or bad. He solely wishes to remove the confusion regarding the definition of Nature, and elucidate the consequences of said definition.

Part I - The Creation of Nature

I will start with a fact - intelligent life was created within the material plane.

This seems quite obvious to us. Were we not created in the plane of our existence, where did we exist before? And why do we not continue to exist there? However, with a deeper look into the consequences of such a simple statement, we find that many seem to ignore this crucial fact.

The creation of the material plane is what I will call the creation of Nature. All would agree that Nature is defined as that which has come about within our plane. This phrase moves our minds immediately to pictures of the forest ecosystem, the fragile equilibrium between predator and prey - both Natural beings. Such a picture leaves out the intelligent life, however, which is an integral part of the material plane. If intelligent life came about in the material plane then surely it too is Natural, and all of its actions can be considered Natural.

Thus, to consider intelligent life to be unnatural is to deny our very creation in the material plane.

Part II - The Consequences of Nature

As Natural beings, the intelligent life forms should then be afforded the ability to be involved in the grand Eco-system.

Were a jungle cat capable, it would over-hunt its prey until populations dwindled. Of course this would mean less food for the jungle cats, and so their populations would dwindle, and that of the prey would grow. Through unrestricted action, the jungle cat and its prey have reached a Natural equilibrium.

The same should be afforded to the humanoid races. There are those who attempt to prevent us from hunting, from building cities, from chopping down trees. These, the Natural actions of the humanoid races, are being attacked in the perverted name of Nature! Were we allowed to act in our Natural manner, we would eventually reach such an equilibrium with our surroundings. As we will soon discover, those who deny this do not act in the best interests of Nature at all, instead favoring the Supernatural.

Part III - Deities and Nature

As we have previously defined, Nature is the material plane and all that was created with it. This does not mean, however, that all that occurs within the material plane is Natural.

Extra-planar events, or events that do not originate within the material plane, can not be considered Natural by our definition of the concept. Then surely that which acts from another plane to alter this one cannot be considered Natural. One's first thought must be that the Deities are not Natural. When one prays for a miracle, they are not the cause the of the action, but rather they ask their Deity to modify our plane in an unnatural way.

Those who advocate a perverted view of Nature generally subscribe to an unnatural faith. They rely on Deities such as Silvanus or Mielikki to provide definition for what is Natural. Can they not see how foolish it is to look to an extra-planar being to define the Natural state of our plane?

Part IV - The Magic of Nature

Such a view of nature would appear to bring about problems for arcane magic as well as divine magic. However, this is a problem with the common conception and definition of arcane magic.

The Weave is the source of all magic, we are taught, and this is true. The Weave is also extra-planar, and moreover tended to by a Deity, so one would surely make a claim that arcane magic must be unnatural. This, however, is a fallacy.

The Weave is omnipresent. Even in places where magic is not being used, the Weave exists. Magic, then, cannot be defined as an 'act' of the Weave, but rather as a reshaping of the Weave. With this in mind, one must look at the ability to reshape the Weave to determine whether or not Magic is Natural. Surely the ability to reshape the Weave arose among those intelligent life forms, which we have already determined to be Natural. Therefore, the use of magic must be Natural.

I will again assert that this differs from divine magic in that the instigator of the action was Natural, as opposed to a Supernatural Deity.

Summation

Intelligent life must be Natural.

The Natural course of the humanoid races is to expand.

Extra-planar beings should be considered Supernatural (as opposed to Natural)

Arcane magic use is to be considered Natural.


I hope that this text will serve to elucidate what it is to be Natural, and what the implications of Nature are.

          -Andrew Underwood