Remove ads

A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover

Reader mode
I guess Azel hasn't got a problem with principles, as long as they are open to discussion and being changed if proven lacking or inappropriate in the current situation. If I understand him correctly, he's got a problem with internalizing values and never questioning them, just applying unreflected judgments.
Which the alignment system reinforces. 'Evil is bad, Orcs are always evil, kill Orc' - sure, that makes it easier to play as you don't have to think and the GM doesn't has to invent lots and lots of background, but as a guide for morality it falls flat.
 
MTB said:
I guess Azel hasn't got a problem with principles, as long as they are open to discussion and being changed if proven lacking or inappropriate in the current situation. If I understand him correctly, he's got a problem with internalizing values and never questioning them, just applying unreflected judgments.
Which the alignment system reinforces. 'Evil is bad, Orcs are always evil, kill Orc' - sure, that makes it easier to play as you don't have to think and the GM doesn't has to invent lots and lots of background, but as a guide for morality it falls flat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah but if you just say that what will we talk about?
 
I'd love to contribute, but I feel relatively ill equipped to assist with battle plans or intrigue at this stage.
[X] Goldfish

DragonParadox said:
He thinks slavery is wrong but it is not on the basis of dogmatic belief. The vast majority of slaver systems he has seen have been cruel and senseless and if pressed he would explain the reasons why he finds them so very easily. He is uneasy with the Shaitan system because he finds them exploitative, rigging the system as it were.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Very interesting, thank you. I'm glad to know that he does actually find it wrong, and for quite well founded reasons. Some parts of the thread were talking like Viserys didn't actually care about slavery morally and just found it inefficient or convenient as an excuse to gather power, which confused me greatly as it didn't seem to match what I've read of the character at all.
I was a bit off in that I honestly thought Viserys was against the idea/practice of slavery in and of itself, not just the conditions under which it is practiced. He's not willing to allow people who are respectful and kind towards their slaves keep them after all, and look at how hes always reacted to R'hllor's claim that all people are his slaves (though admittedly that might just be because R'hllor is a giant tool).
If I might make a suggestion? If Viserys doesn't actually have any issue with the notion of slavery in the abstract, merely that usually he sees it being practiced in horrifying ways, you might want to have that come up more in the narrative.
 
Sqweaktoy said:
I'd love to contribute, but I feel relatively ill equipped to assist with battle plans or intrigue at this stage.
[X] Goldfish


Very interesting, thank you. I'm glad to know that he does actually find it wrong, and for quite well founded reasons. Some parts of the thread were talking like Viserys didn't actually care about slavery morally and just found it inefficient or convenient as an excuse to gather power, which confused me greatly as it didn't seem to match what I've read of the character at all.
I was a bit off in that I honestly thought Viserys was against the idea/practice of slavery in and of itself, not just the conditions under which it is practiced. He's not willing to allow people who are respectful and kind towards their slaves keep them after all, and look at how hes always reacted to R'hllor's claim that all people are his slaves (though admittedly that might just be because R'hllor is a giant tool).
If I might make a suggestion? If Viserys doesn't actually have any issue with the notion of slavery in the abstract, merely that usually he sees it being practiced in horrifying ways, you might want to have that come up more in the narrative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The thing is the idea of 'good slavery' is just an odd thought experiment at most. He has never encountered such a thing so the outrage against slavery is very much honest. If he ever did encounter it then the point would come into focus.
 
Azel said:
At the core, the alignment system promotes tribalism. Us vs them. And the system even gives you the tools to easily identify members of a group that should be killed (Detect Evil), absolves you of all responsibility for doing so ("Killing Evil creatures is never an Evil act.") and build a whole class around these concepts (Paladin).

And that is horrifying once you stop for a moment and think about it's implications and parallels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
@DragonParadox still want to have our honeymoon on Axis...
 
Azel said:
At the core, the alignment system promotes tribalism. Us vs them. And the system even gives you the tools to easily identify members of a group that should be killed (Detect Evil), absolves you of all responsibility for doing so ("Killing Evil creatures is never an Evil act.") and build a whole class around these concepts (Paladin).

And that is horrifying once you stop for a moment and think about it's implications and parallels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There was a LOT of problematic stuff in early D&D; Just look at where half-orcs came from. But alignment is indeed one of the wrost bits. One of the reasons I like Eberron so much is that it takes that surety away.
 
Last edited:
zxzx24 said:
Salt nuke detected.

Prepping bunker...

Edit: holy canole no!

SO MUCH SALT!!!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What? :confused: I'm not sure what salt you see here? I suggested that because I honestly misread DP's writing and working under the admittedly arrogant assumption that I'm not a moron, it's possible others did as well.

DragonParadox said:
The thing is the idea of 'good slavery' is just an odd thought experiment at most. He has never encountered such a thing so the outrage against slavery is very much honest. If he ever did encounter it then the point would come into focus.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That'd be an interesting read, to be sure.
 
Last edited:
Sqweaktoy said:
What? :confused: I'm not sure what salt you see here? I suggested that because I honestly misread DP's writing and working under the admittedly arrogant assumption that I'm not a moron, it's possible others did as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A quest relevant discussion on the ethics of slavery may causw us all to spiral into mad saltiness.

I'm mostly jabbing though so don't sweat it too much.
 
Azel said:
At the core, the alignment system promotes tribalism. Us vs them. And the system even gives you the tools to easily identify members of a group that should be killed (Detect Evil), absolves you of all responsibility for doing so ("Killing Evil creatures is never an Evil act.") and build a whole class around these concepts (Paladin).

And that is horrifying once you stop for a moment and think about it's implications and parallels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I removed my old awnser because in retrospect it was kind of gross.

I dislike the idea that paladins are thoughtless hate machines.

I dont think they should be nailed to to a certain stereotype any more than any other class should be nailed to one personality type.

Edit:
Urgh, you were arguing tendencies notabsolutes. Forget all of this then

Fuck me I need to go-to bed I've been up since 11am yesterday.
 
Last edited:
My personal problem with slavery is that it removes choice and makes the slave a tradeable commodity, where someone not himself facilitates the trade. And I also like the human rights ideal.
 
zxzx24 said:
I removed my old awnser because in retrospect it was kind of gross.

I dislike the idea that paladins are thoughtless hate machines.

I dont think they should be nailed to to a certain stereotype any more than any other class should be nailed to one personality type.

Edit:
Urgh, you were arguing tendencies notabsolutes. Forget all of this then

Fuck me I need to go-to bed I've been up since 11am yesterday.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, I'm talking tendencies. My core point is that unreflected generalisations are poison and that goes in both directions.

The average Paladin is a good chap who just wants to do the right thing.
Some are facist monsters that use their morality as an excuse for rampant murder, merely paying lip service to actual morality.
 
DragonParadox said:
He thinks slavery is wrong but it is not on the basis of dogmatic belief. The vast majority of slaver systems he has seen have been cruel and senseless and if pressed he would explain the reasons why he finds them so very easily. He is uneasy with the Shaitan system because he finds them exploitative, rigging the system as it were.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Shaitan's system, is basically what Pentos system would be sans cruelty, from how I have read things, you can in theory buy yourself out of slavery, but in practice the pay you get after living expenses, is so low that even a minor debt being paid off this way, takes decade to be paid, the Shaitan's don't have the cruelty inherent in the Pentoshi system, but it's if anything even more extreme in time needed to pay for your freedom, as it was noted that most mortals, who become slaves in the Opaline Vault, die of old age before they manage to pay their debt off.

They don't treat their slaves cruelly, and they always have a theoretical chance of paying their way out, but for the most part, it's only those who will live forever if not killed, who actually have a chance at paying their way out, as slaves are paid very small amounts, after living expenses are deducted.
 
Last edited:
Azel said:
And I am strictly opposed to this notion.

You are substituting reason with belief. You are saying that it can be a good thing to say "I am right and I don't need to justify myself, because it is obvious that I am right."

And this will never be a good thing. You can justify anything that way.

If you can't find a reason for your ideas, then these ideas are inherently without worth. At best you are blindly parroting what others say, at worst you are lifting an ideal above all doubt become blind to it's implications.

Can you construct valid arguments for why slavery should be abolished? Yes. There are a lot of ways to do so.
But that doesn't mean you are excused from actually doing so. The act of reasoning about an idea is what gives it it's value. It is what separates good ideas from bad ideas.

Without this, you are just chanting slogans at each other.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fundamentally, all ideals are based on ethics. If you go back up the chain underlying assumptions behind everyone's actions and convictions, you will find things like "I think that people dying of hunger isn't great" or "I think that torturing the innocent is bad". On some level basic empathy is natural, as well as a desire to live in a world where people don't have to feel afraid constantly.
Of course being able to debate things is important and leads people to changing their positions on certain issues (see my previous example with Waymar accepting sacrifice because we framed it as something that didn't clash with his fundamental beliefs), but the fundamental underpinnings of people's convictions aren't reasonable.

Otherwise, why would empathy and altruism be a thing? Why would people care about famines in Africa, when they clearly don't affect us in any way? Why would people do things that benefit others at cost to themselves?
Now you could argue that they do this because it brings them satisfaction, but I'm unconvinced. Would people really put their lives in danger rescuing flood victims and whatnot just for personal satisfaction?

Azel said:
To illustrate my point:

You are saying here that there a Good Ideals and Bad Ideals. But how do you separate one from the other?

Is the other automatically bad because it isn't yours? If all you have is a firmly held belief in the righteousness of your own cause, how can you even use any other metric to decide this question?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My post was literally arguing that deeply-held ideals are fundamentally irrational, so yes. There are people out there who argue that killing all infidels is a good thing. I'm not going to reason that with them, nor will I be convinced that their ideals are morally correct and that I should adopt them.
Therefore yes there are good ideals and bad ideals, and in my opinion good ideals are my ideals and bad opinions are those opposed to mine. Of course not everything is an ideal: my political opinions may change during my lifetime, as the situation changes and people convince me that the best way to apply those ideals isn't what I thought it was.
But @Azel, fundamentally everyone seems to share basic ideals. What group or party doesn't agree about basic ethical principles? Things like "don't murder people", "it's better if everyone is happy" and "basic security is nice". Of course people don't agree about how to enact this (what is "basic security" ? Should we have social security to make everyone happy, or is that crippling society and the economy and eventually removing basic security and happiness by leading us to collapse ? Is it murder to lynch a lesbian, or is it defending our daughters against the irredeemable?). Maybe such ideals are stupid and naïve, but most people have them. And even getting people to do immoral things that directly benefits them often requires re-framing it and convincing people so that it doesn't clash with these ideals.

I dunno. I think that having ideals you stick to can be a good thing. It makes it harder for you to be swayed towards doing horrible things through fear or coercion. Of course it's important to be willing to talk them though and debate, and to be open to being convinced that in a specific situation it's necessary to do something that you normally wouldn't. But convincing you should be hard, and will require persuading you not only that something is a reasonable choice but also that it will eventually further your ideals in the long run, even if it means its necessary to accept "bad things" in the short term.

EDIT: I also believe that these basic ideals I think most people have are also reasonably correct, and that if you think things through we'll all agree that living in a world that isn't "dog eat dog" all the time is better for everyone (although we may disagree on the exact shape that the world should take and on how our different beliefs should interact with each other). But people don't think things through like that, do they?
 
Last edited:
tarrangar said:
The Shaitan's system, is basically what Pentos system would be sans cruelty, from how I have read things, you can in theory buy yourself out of slavery, but in practice the pay you get after living expenses, is so low that even a minor debt being paid off this way, takes decade to be paid, the Shaitan's don't have the cruelty inherent in the Pentoshi system, but it's if anything even more extreme in time needed to pay for your freedom, as it was noted that most mortals, who become slaves in the Opaline Vault, die of old age before they manage to pay their debt off.

They don't treat their slaves cruelly, and they always have a theoretical chance of paying their way out, but for the most part, it's only those who will live forever if not killed, who actually have a chance at paying their way out, as slaves are paid very small amounts, after living expenses are deducted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
WTF are you talking about?
This is literally all speculation. We haven't learnt any of this IC, or seen any evidence for it.

However what we have seen is that the Shaitan are perfectly willing to put in place a system in which people are forced into lose/lose situations, and that in their empire losing too much (getting into debt for example) means you are enslaved.

DragonParadox has also confirmed that Viserys sees this system as inherently exploitative and coercive just a few posts ago on this very same page. The system is rigged!

@DragonParadox, is a child of a slave free in Shaitan lands? Or are they also a slave? Who raises the slave's child?
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
Fundamentally, all ideals are based on ethics. If you go back up the chain underlying assumptions behind everyone's actions and convictions, you will find things like "I think that people dying of hunger isn't great" or "I think that torturing the innocent is bad". On some level basic empathy is natural, as well as a desire to live in a world where people don't have to feel afraid constantly.
Of course being able to debate things is important and leads people to changing their positions on certain issues (see my previous example with Waymar accepting sacrifice because we framed it as something that didn't clash with his fundamental beliefs), but the fundamental underpinnings of people's convictions aren't reasonable.

Otherwise, why would empathy and altruism be a thing? Why would people care about famines in Africa, when they clearly don't affect us in any way? Why would people do things that benefit others at cost to themselves?
Now you could argue that they do this because it brings them satisfaction, but I'm unconvinced. Would people really put their lives in danger rescuing flood victims and whatnot just for personal satisfaction?


My post was literally arguing that deeply-held ideals are fundamentally irrational, so yes. There are people out there who argue that killing all infidels is a good thing. I'm not going to reason that with them, nor will I be convinced that their ideals are morally correct and that I should adopt them.
Therefore yes there are good ideals and bad ideals, and in my opinion good ideals are my ideals and bad opinions are those opposed to mine. Of course not everything is an ideal: my political opinions may change during my lifetime, as the situation changes and people convince me that the best way to apply those ideals isn't what I thought it was.
But @Azel, fundamentally everyone seems to share basic ideals. What group or party doesn't agree about basic ethical principles? Things like "don't murder people", "it's better if everyone is happy" and "basic security is nice". Of course people don't agree about how to enact this (what is "basic security" ? Should we have social security to make everyone happy, or is that crippling society and the economy and eventually removing basic security and happiness by leading us to collapse ? Is it murder to lynch a lesbian, or is it defending our daughters against the irredeemable?). Maybe such ideals are stupid and naïve, but most people have them. And even getting people to do immoral things that directly benefits them often requires re-framing it and convincing people so that it doesn't clash with these ideals.

I dunno. I think that having ideals you stick to can be a good thing. It makes it harder for you to be swayed towards doing horrible things through fear or coercion. Of course it's important to be willing to talk them though and debate, and to be open to being convinced that in a specific situation it's necessary to do something that you normally wouldn't. But convincing you should be hard, and will require persuading you not only that something is a reasonable choice but also that it will eventually further your ideals in the long run, even if it means its necessary to accept "bad things" in the short term.

EDIT: I also believe that these basic ideals I think most people have are also reasonably correct, and that if you think things through we'll all agree that living in a world that isn't "dog eat dog" all the time is better for everyone (although we may disagree on the exact shape that the world should take and on how our different beliefs should interact with each other). But people don't think things through like that, do they?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time right now for an in depth reply. Please ping me about this in the evening in case I forget to get back to you on this.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
WTF are you talking about?
This is literally all speculation. We haven't learnt any of this IC, or seen any evidence for it.

However what we have seen is that the Shaitan are perfectly willing to put in place a system in which people are forced into lose/lose situations, and that in their empire losing too much (getting into debt for example) means you are enslaved.

DragonParadox has also confirmed that Viserys sees this system as inherently exploitative and coercive just a few posts ago on this very same page. The system is rigged!

@DragonParadox, is a child of a slave free in Shaitan lands? Or are they also a slave? Who raises the slave's child?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have confirmation that working yourself out of debt take a long time, not first hand confirmation, but in the first Shaitan chapters, there were remarks about how long it takes to get out of debt there, or at least if I remember right there were.
 
Azel said:
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time right now for an in depth reply. Please ping me about this in the evening in case I forget to get back to you on this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure. I don't want this to come off as agressive, btw - I'm genuinely interested in your arguments, and don't want to turn this into a slapfight. I'm aso open to being convinced that I'm totally or partially wrong, although of course I'm not sure how you'd manage that (otherwise I wouldn't be writing these arguments :D )

tl;dr:
  • Having deeply held beliefs isn't always bad, as long as you're not a dumbass about applying them. Not everything can or should be done right now or directly - that's why Viserys didn't conquer Tyrosh on a whim when Leila was freed, and took the time to prepare a transition away from slavery instead of going full canon!Daenerys.
  • People's beliefs may be justifiable through reason, but reason isn't the reason that they have them. It's education, empathy, emotion. I don't think people actually think through their beliefs at all, and I don't think that they learnt them perfectly from people who do think them through.
  • Getting people to do things requires you to convince them that it's the best way to follow their beliefs. See left-wing/right-wing conflicts, where people often share the same values despite wanting completely different policies.
  • Not everyone agrees on everything despite most people sharing the same fundamental beliefs, because they don't agree on how these beliefs interact (which supersede which, ect), and of course also because of what personally inconveniences them.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top