Feedback for Cynical Cat

[frigidmagi]

Nal would argue he has nothing to apologize for and that you should be fucking thanking him you ungrateful Sun Elf.

[LadyTevar]

Indeed. Though, Astinius is big on poetic justice. He isnt ALL "Destroy the evil" SImetimes, he doesnt mind converting it, or at least making it pay for their its crimes. Literally pay

The Geas idea might actually work pretty well...

Of course, we both know that unless he is magically compeled, Nal probably wont apologize

Actually, he will. It just won't be recognizable to Astinius and Gar as one.

[Cynical Cat]

But the next chapter should have her asking Nalifan what in the nine Hells made him think he could kill the hornets nest by burning down the house. If she knows Geas, she ought to hit him with it and make him single-handedly kill an Adult Red Dragon and donate it's entire horde to Ilmater's temple for the rebuilding efforts.

Good gods woman. Isn't there enough carnage already?

[SirNitram]

Good gods woman. Isn't there enough carnage already?

*Looks at the campaign which he originally knows Astinius and Gaheris from* You aren't even close to the limit yet.

[Comrade Tortoise]

yeah.... you really arent...

[Cynical Cat]

Well the body count will go through the roof with the next story so you'll have to let me know. And if your body count was so high, why are people doing so much whining about it?

[LadyTevar]

But the next chapter should have her asking Nalifan what in the nine Hells made him think he could kill the hornets nest by burning down the house. If she knows Geas, she ought to hit him with it and make him single-handedly kill an Adult Red Dragon and donate it's entire horde to Ilmater's temple for the rebuilding efforts.

Good gods woman. Isn't there enough carnage already?

That made me laugh for a good five minutes, and it'll send me to work with a smile.

"Nice of them to leave us alone," said Nalifan. "Shall we have it out?"

The problem with having it out with Nalifan? He's already explained himself, in terms that Kaeryn might not like, but she can follow his reasoning. Actually, he's shown remarkable restraint, considering the provacation. Kaeryn may just throw up her hands and say "What is there to say?"

Hell, she might wind up defending her own actions, since she broke her word to help him.

[Narsil]

Moral of this story: a citywide crisis is bad for relationships. Though I, myself, think Nalifan was entirely justified in his actions, and that the whole D&D Alignment system is completely and utterly unsuited to shades of grey.

[frigidmagi]

Though I, myself, think Nalifan was entirely justified in his actions, and that the whole D&D Alignment system is completely and utterly unsuited to shades of grey.

And I find you completely unable to determine a real shade of grey. Nalifan's action was not grey at all, whether or not it was the best course of action is a different story. Just because something is the best course of action does not make it any less evil in and of itself. Take Dresen or the fire-bombing of any number of Japanese cities, that is excaltly compareable to what Nalifan did in this story although on a much smaller scale.

No one I know would call those things good acts, or even a grey. They were dark, necessary to shorten the war and in the end save lives, but still dark deeds, saying anything else is pretending. Nalifan's act may have been necessary, it may have been his best choice on a menu of shitty options, however that doesn't change what it is of itself.

[LadyTevar]

That's the whole reason why Kaeryn can't argue about it. Dark, yes... but when laid out in the long-term, she can see the reason and how it would make the SwordCoast better as a whole. It all boils down to can Kaeryn accept the means to the end.

Since she's neutral, not Lawful, she'd be a bit more broadminded. However, she would think it fair for Nalifan to help with the rebuilding, to balance out the destruction. On that she would be firm.

[Narsil]

The motive, reasoning, and result are just as important as the act, frigid. The deed might be dark on its own, but there's a much bloody bigger picture to think of as well.

[Comrade Tortoise]

The motive, reasoning, and result are just as important as the act, frigid. The deed might be dark on its own, but there's a much bloody bigger picture to think of as well.

Maybe, but alignment system or no, there is no moral relativism in the FR. Good and evil are fairly cut and dry. That is what happens when evil incarnate can be summoned into your living room. Not to say there are no moral choices, but at the end of the day, any given action IS either good or evil. lawful, or chaotic in nature. And the sum of them, or at least the sum of them that any given character would like to see, is the basis of the alignment system

The motive may well have been good and decent. But the act itself was evil, no ifs and or buts.

[Cynical Cat]

Maybe, but alignment system or no, there is no moral relativism in the FR. Good and evil are fairly cut and dry.

Bullshit. Moral relativism is all over the place in FR. It has a long history of alliances where people choose the lesser of two evils, such as allying with the Zhents when the Tuigan Horde invaded or the alliances against the phaerimm outbreak when the City of Shade returned. The existence of Neutral alignments means there are grey areas between good and evil, law and chaos. What D&D does have is moral absolutes as well as grey areas, redemption, and absolution.

[frigidmagi]

I'm not sure allying with the lesser evil in order to keep Faerun free is an example of moral relativism or expedientcy.

[Cynical Cat]

I'm not sure allying with the lesser evil in order to keep Faerun free is an example of moral relativism or expedientcy.

How could it be anything other than an example of expediency? And it happens a lot. Zhentil Keep got its hands the Fortress of the Raven through a similar alliance (and then backstabbing).

[frigidmagi]

Execpt moral relativism and expenientcy aren't the same.

[Cynical Cat]

Execpt moral relativism and expenientcy aren't the same.

No, but one allies with Zhental Keep out of both. You know you are in bed with snakes, you know you are helping snakes, but you find it the lesser of two evils.

EDIT: And then there is Khelben's manipulative, ends justifiy the means Harpers off shot the Moonstars . .

[LadyTevar]

EDIT: And then there is Khelben's manipulative, ends justifiy the means Harpers off shot the Moonstars . .

*Kaeryn hides badge*

J/k

[SirNitram]

Expediency is major in the Realms. Remember that Torm allied with Mask, God Of Theives, and performed a sneak attack on the City Of Strife to deal with Cyric. Torm, God Of Shiny Happy Paladins. Morality is not cut and dry there, never should be. There's too many powerful evils to start playing black and white, all or nothing.

[Rogue 9]

What I said earlier stands. Gaheris would have no intention of gunning for Nalifan unless something forces his hand; not only is he not that stupid, but he has his word to consider.

Oh? Which words are those?

These?

No, these:

Gaheris nodded. "Alright. We had a misunderstanding here. I'll make sure there's good reason here before I come at you again."

And you're damned straight he'd be making plans for that contingency. Something would have to force his hand, but there are all manner of things that could and likely would do it. Just for starters, if a high justiciar decided that Nalifan needed to be brought in to answer for his crimes and ordered Gaheris to help do it, he can't very well refuse.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Execpt moral relativism and expenientcy aren't the same.

No, but one allies with Zhental Keep out of both. You know you are in bed with snakes, you know you are helping snakes, but you find it the lesser of two evils.

EDIT: And then there is Khelben's manipulative, ends justifiy the means Harpers off shot the Moonstars . .

There is a difference between that, and moral relativism. Moral relativism being, as far as I understand it, the lack of existence of concrete good and evil.

They key here, is what you just said. You know you are in a bed with snakes. You know that you are working with evil/doing an evil thing. But in the end, the good will balance out the bad. That balance doesa not change the fact that you are working with evil/doing evil things. Nor does it excuse you from the consequences of those actions in a proximate, or even cosmic sense.

[Cynical Cat]

There is a difference between that, and moral relativism. Moral relativism being, as far as I understand it, the lack of existence of concrete good and evil.

That is the technically correct definition of moral relativism. What is actually being discussed is situational ethics (the two are frequently confused), but I didn't want to side line the discussion by nitpicking.

[LadyTevar]

Situational Ethics: Whether or not it would be right to have gone in and deposed Saddam back in DesertStorm.

Situational Ethics: Drop the Nuke on Nagasaki, make the Japanese understand the war was over.

[LadyTevar]

... So, the young men from the North come all this way to get vengence on the Drow that raped his sister... and Trizk kills them in one round, horses and all.

That's... rather pathetic.

[Narsil]

It's in fitting with what Trizkel would do, though.

EDIT:
Must have misread. Of course, there could be the whole 'Mystery Inc.' thing, 'let's split up into small easy to pick off groups'