Remove ads

A Green Sun Illuminates the Void (ZnT/Exalted)

Reader mode
Valiran said:
In short, there is no simple solution to Creation's problems, and serious thinking needs to be done on what system should replace the current one. One thing is for sure, it needs to have abundant safeguards in place to prevent any more catastrophes from occurring.


It also makes me wonder what Creation might have been like if the Exalted had never been afflicted by the Great Curse. It certainly would have been better than the way things are now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is no simple solution that works. There are plenty of simple solutions. So far, most of them make things worse.


Also, I think this debate shows just how rich a setting Creation is that people can have such differing interpretations of it. Even if everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. :p
 
There is no clear cut system in our universe either, and we get by somehow. The biggest issue is that the universe is built to sustain imbalences in power, such that the mightest can't be meaningfully held accountable. People give Salina a hard time, but she made what was probably the biggest gusture ever towards reversing that, though she didn't go far enough.
 
TheLastOne said:
There is no clear cut system in our universe either, and we get by somehow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I personally disagree that there is no clear cut system in our universe, and stipulate that there is merely no universal human consensus on what that system is, or for that matter whether it exists or not. Basically, the system is not reliant on it's adherents to exist.
 
What does that even mean? You can form very logic morality systems (some form of utilitarianism probably) that, to the extent that good and evil are useful concepts, is good. You can do the exact same thing in Exalted.


Even if there is a god, his or her existance is basicly irrelevent to moral arguments, outside of the arguement that might makes right. Something doesn't suddenly start (or stop) being a weal or woe just because some powerful being delclaired it.


I suppose you could scar creation with some morality system the same way the virtues are written in, but it would likely be somewhat arbitary and prone to odd outcomes.
 
hyzmarca said:
There is a simple solution to Creation's problems.


Destroy Creation, kill all the Yozi, kill all the surviving Primordials, throw Yu-Shan and all the gods into Oblivion, throw all the surviving Exalted into Oblivion, then rebuild the world to be sane and reasonable and design your new humans with a soul structure that is completely and totally incompatible with Exaltation or Essence use. Then you either throw yourself into Oblivion in order to erase the last vestige of Exalted insanity from the universe or, if you're concerned about the Wyld and want to watch over your new Creation, you apotheosize into a titan whose entire thematic is being a sane and personable person who understands the perspective of others.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...Didn't a bunch of Solars had this idea in a similar form?
 
TheLastOne said:
Even if there is a god, his or her existance is basicly irrelevent to moral arguments, outside of the arguement that might makes right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not necessarily. The argument I use is not might makes right, but an inherent infallibility of such a being. This is unfortunately something that does not have any real analogue common to human experience, and thus seems fantastical on the face of it.
 
Being infallible still has no relevence to a moral argument. You can have an all-knowing, ever present, and all-powerful God, and that God can still be malevolent, disinterested, or just an asshole. God has zero validity in a moral argument, the best you can do is argue that 'good' (for some definition of good) is a trait it holds, but it doesn't get to define that space anymore then anyone else (beyond might makes right).
 
But even if a being is infallible, it's moral framework is essentially arbitrary. An infallible being's every action will fit within its framework perfectly, sure, but humans might disagree with the moral framework itself.


That's the great thing about free will. You get to look omnipotent creator-gods in the face and say "I disagree with your moral system."

Hopefully, that omnipotent creator-god won't then smite the crap out of you.
 
TheLastOne said:
Being infallible still has no relevence to a moral argument. You can have an all-knowing, ever present, and all-powerful God, and that God can still be malevolent, disinterested, or just an asshole. God has zero validity in a moral argument, the best you can do is argue that 'good' (for some definition of good) is a trait it holds, but it doesn't get to define that space anymore then anyone else (beyond might makes right).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the fundamental disconnect we have here is that I am viewing good and evil as objective concepts that are defined by a God who embodies absolute good as one of his inherent qualities. It is not defined by divine fiat, so much as making God the yardstick by which good and evil are measured.
 
One day, an angel and demon are having a conversation and the angel goes to say.

"Well, look. I can go up to the Highest Heavens, walk into the Holy Lord's office, pound his desk, and tell him 'Lord, I don't like the way you're managing the universe'.

The demon replies, "I can do that."

The angel asks in confusion, "You can?"

The demon replies, "Yes, I can go to the deepest pit of Hell, walk into Lucifer's office, pound his desk, and tell him 'Lord Lucifer, I don't like the way that God is managing the universe."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For some reason....I felt tempted to post that after reading recent comments.
 
Delusionist said:
Not necessarily. The argument I use is not might makes right, but an inherent infallibility of such a being. This is unfortunately something that does not have any real analogue common to human experience, and thus seems fantastical on the face of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Any attempt to split Euthyphro's Dilemma always collapses back into the same Dilemma. But this is really beyond the scope of this thread...



--------------

Epsilon
 
Delusionist said:
I think the fundamental disconnect we have here is that I am viewing good and evil as objective concepts that are defined by a God who embodies absolute good as one of his inherent qualities. It is not defined by divine fiat, so much as making God the yardstick by which good and evil are measured.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This does not, however, answer the question of why Good is preferable to Evil from a human perspective. If Objective Cosmic Good brings me suffering, why should I not call it evil? If Objective Cosmic Evil brings me joy, why should I not call it good?


Cosmic truths are not a useful yardstick by which to measure human morality. Human morality is, by nature, colored by human perspective and experience, something which such cosmic concepts lack. What is good for the goose may, in fact, be And I Must Scream for the gander
 
I think the fundamental disconnect we have here is that I am viewing good and evil as objective concepts that are defined by a God who embodies absolute good as one of his inherent qualities. It is not defined by divine fiat, so much as making God the yardstick by which good and evil are measured.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't matter for the purposes of the story. As far as I know, in Exalted, there is no Shinma of Morality, therefore, there is no objective morality. Remember, real world religions don't feature in the Exalted cosmology.
 
False, the only reason the Ebon Dragon counts as a being of villainy is because the setting is recognizable to modern people, and he defines himself by opposing whatever the standard order happens to be.


That this makes him turn into a mustache twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain is simply coincidence
 
But there IS a primordial of objective villainy.


Do we really need to get into a discussion of virtues vs morality?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Ebon Dragon doesn't define villainy. He is, as has been pointed out, the embodiment of a number of traits that, taken together, happen to make him a villain. That is a small but important difference.
 
Screwball said:
The Ebon Dragon doesn't define villainy. He is, as has been pointed out, the embodiment of a number of traits that, taken together, happen to make him a villain. That is a small but important difference.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In fact, I know there are several people who hypothesise/have run games where that's ultimately the Ebon Dragon's ultimate goal. He wants to impose an objective morality on the universe, so he can hollow it out, set himself up in opposition to something even more fundamental than Sol.


Otherwise, all the morality that exists in Exalted at the cosmic level can be expressed by the laws of the Endless Desert, and they are fundamentally an expression of Might makes Might; that if you are powerful, you can force other people do what you want.
 
I thought the Ebon Dragon's goal was to, basically, rule the world and torment everyone in it for shits and giggles? WhiteWolf pointed out that if the Ebon Dragon really had his way with Creation, Oblivion would be a preferable alternative. Hell, even the Fair Folk hate him.


Besides... the Ebon Dragon created Sol not to have a nemesis; he simply wanted to be allowed into Creation, and while Ligier shed his light the Ebon Dragon couldn't get in.
 
There are a few times during the Return of the Scarlet Empress where you can ally with the Fair Folk against the Primordials, and they will really pitch in rather then try and backstab you. Though, they sort of hate all the Primordials because of the whole 'inventing form' thing.
 
EarthScorpion said:
In lost Zen-mu, which is no more,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, I like this whole story, but I'm curious about the second part of this. You normally think everything through and I understand this is something canon isn't explicit about, but I'm not sure what it brings to the story.
 
Please explain this statement further.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Fair Folk want to destroy Creation; to them, it's wrong, evil, sickening and abhorrent. They fought constantly with the Primordials before the latter built Creation, and their dislike has only gotten worse since. They aren't evil, because that concept doesn't really apply to them, but they don't like anything with form. From their point of view, it's just not right.


But they're willing to side with Creation against the Ebon Dragon if the opportunity presents itself. Which just goes to show how much of a jerk the Ebon Dragon really is. :p
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top