Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Online Sad
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Gabriel Farishta
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Gabriel Farishta
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Shar is one of the most evil gods in the D&D pantheon. Way worse than even Lolth.


Setting aside the rest of what you say (some of which has merit, especially the last line), this is absolutely not true. Shar and Lolth are both evil deities; Shar is a Neutral Evil greater deity (the goddess of darkness) while Lolth is a Chaotic Evil lesser deity (the Queen of Spiders and goddess of the Drow, and once the elven goddess of destiny). You cannot directly compare how evil they are; but Lolth has certainly perpetrated much more evil as the tyrannical ruler of the Underdark.

Seems like you don't know FR lore that well. My comment has nothing to do with NE v. CE. Those definitions matter only in the cases of players playing the PnP game. In FR lore, the authors of that lore don't really care about "NE v. CE." Lolth has done a lot of really nasty things, but the impact of what she does is actually very limited, generally limited to only the Underdark of the Realms and not even to the Realms overall. By contrast, Shar's singular goal is to destroy the entire multiverse, to end ALL life in the multiverse. There is just no comparison. Shar is the greatest evil in the D&D pantheon. Heck even Bane, who is LE, has a much greater impact with his evil ways than Lolth. So whether they're chaotic, neutral, or lawful does not matter that much. From an FR lore standpoint, what matters is the extent to which each individual god's evil ways impact the setting. And there, Shar is the worst hands-down.


I think you're the one who is in the dark about FR lore. Your argument is incorrect on two fronts.

1. Saying that Lolth is less evil because the consequences of her actions affect fewer people is like saying that a serial killer is less evil than an embezzler. It's not a valid comparison, simply because Shar is far more powerful than Lolth, and plays on a very different stage.

2. Shar's goal is NOT to destroy the multiverse, and she is definitely not the most evil god in the multiverse. To begin with, she is a conqueror, not a destroyer. Her primary goals are to let darkness overtake light (i.e. defeat Selune and take over her followers) and the related goal of gaining control of all magic (to which end she built the Shadow Weave and attempts to corrupt the Weave). Her carelessness in how she went about this has led to drastic consequences such as the Spellplague, which is a big part of why she is reviled. But she does not actively seek to destroy the world; rather, she was one of its creators and even helped save it by aligning with Selune and the other gods during the Dawn War. Even her war with Selune stems from Selune's creation of the Sun, which led to theor original conflict, which in turn ended with the creation of many of the other gods and the banishment of Shar.

Not saying I agree with her actions, but she is far from the most evil god in the pantheon, although she is probably the most powerful of all the evil gods.

Nope. You are wrong about Shar. And your point #1 doesn't even make any sense because I never said anything about one's evil acts being more or less severe than the other. I said given both are evil, one's evil acts affect far more lives than the the other's. So the correct analogy is a serial killer who killed ten people and one who killed a billion. And that you chose to distort this means I've no further interest in this discussion.


Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Shar is the first evil. *The* disagreement that started the divine battle was the creation of the sun. Selune made the sun at the request of Chantea. Shar attacked Selune at the slight and tried to blot out the sun. But that was then -- extinguishing the sun and all life that sprung from its creation is just the start. Once she was happy to maintain the balance between light and dark but now she wants to return everything to time before Selune existed -- when even Shar herself was simply "the void". She wants to bring an end to all things and the destruction of the weave is just one part of her secret agenda.

I don't know if Shar is the most evil but evil was her creation.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nope. You are wrong about Shar. And your point #1 doesn't even make any sense because I never said anything about one's evil acts being more or less severe than the other. I said given both are evil, one's evil acts affect far more lives than the the other's. So the correct analogy is a serial killer who killed ten people and one who killed a billion. And that you chose to distort this means I've no further interest in this discussion.


It's funny you think I distorted the argument. Let's see your original comment:
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Lolth has done a lot of really nasty things, but the impact of what she does is actually very limited, generally limited to only the Underdark of the Realms and not even to the Realms overall. By contrast, Shar's singular goal is to destroy the entire multiverse, to end ALL life in the multiverse. There is just no comparison. Shar is the greatest evil in the D&D pantheon.


You originally argued that Shar is more evil than Lolth because Lolth's actions have a more limited impact, and all I did was call BS on that argument.

That said, this is getting too "he said she said" for my liking, so I'm done with this discussion.

Joined: Jan 2018
W
old hand
Offline
old hand
W
Joined: Jan 2018
“Saying that Lolth is less evil because the consequences of her actions affect fewer people is like saying that a serial killer is less evil than an embezzler. It's not a valid comparison, simply because Shar is far more powerful than Lolth, and plays on a very different stage.“

I just want to point out that this is actually the invalid comparison.

Kanisatha was comparing orders of magnitude of the same thing (being evil) using a moral Utilitarianism approach. This is quantitative

Comparing the actions of a serial killer to an embezzler is qualitative, as you are now comparing different kinds of evil. It is completely outside the scope of his argument, so it doesn’t function as an analogy.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Warlocke
“Saying that Lolth is less evil because the consequences of her actions affect fewer people is like saying that a serial killer is less evil than an embezzler. It's not a valid comparison, simply because Shar is far more powerful than Lolth, and plays on a very different stage.“

I just want to point out that this is actually the invalid comparison.

Kanisatha was comparing orders of magnitude of the same thing (being evil) using a moral Utilitarianism approach. This is quantitative

Comparing the actions of a serial killer to an embezzler is qualitative, as you are now comparing different kinds of evil. It is completely outside the scope of his argument, so it doesn’t function as an analogy.


It's actually not. Lolth is a tyrant and Shar is corruptor and subverter. Their actions are completely different to begin with. My argument from the beginning has simply been that you cannot compare how evil the two are based on the results of their actions; given how different their actions are, this analogy is actually quite apt.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Online Sad
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Warlocke
“Saying that Lolth is less evil because the consequences of her actions affect fewer people is like saying that a serial killer is less evil than an embezzler. It's not a valid comparison, simply because Shar is far more powerful than Lolth, and plays on a very different stage.“

I just want to point out that this is actually the invalid comparison.

Kanisatha was comparing orders of magnitude of the same thing (being evil) using a moral Utilitarianism approach. This is quantitative

Comparing the actions of a serial killer to an embezzler is qualitative, as you are now comparing different kinds of evil. It is completely outside the scope of his argument, so it doesn’t function as an analogy.

Thank you.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I am not sure about the alignments of the companions, and quite frankly I'm not sure they matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. Larian has chosen not to use alignments in their game - which is fair enough (alignments are overly simplified form of morality/ethics, and as such not terribly useful).

Having said that... The current companions are mostly iffy in my mind. My characters tend towards selflessness, kindness, and compassion, and none of the companions seem to be particularly inclined that way. Which I find disappointing, to be quite honest.

As for Shar - Shar is a nihilist. She wants to go back to the way things were before Chauntea was created, and her goal is absolutely to destroy everything to that end. Non "evil" people are drawn to her, because she is the goddess of loss, and there are examples of orders dedicated to her that are more "neutral" than "evil"... However Shadowheart does not seem like one of them, while she shows some vulnerability and softness at times, she's more like the more run of the mill Shar cultist. Just look at her reactions to anything Selune related (though that could just be a case of the lady protesting too much), and also her response to the dreams.

Z.

Last edited by Zandilar; 17/10/20 12:39 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Just saw this video over at the tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpIaJkLR84

Its a conversation with Shadowheart after siding with the Goblins. Never did so myself, so I never had this convo. Quite interesting for those wondering about Shadowhearts alignment.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Zandilar


Having said that... The current companions are mostly iffy in my mind. My characters tend towards selflessness, kindness, and compassion, and none of the companions seem to be particularly inclined that way. Which I find disappointing, to be quite honest.


Z.


The current companions are all chaotic and evil shifted. The good ones are coming later. Lae'zel is definitely evil
she totally approved my complete lack of empathy for sending the monster hunter after Astarion.
Shadowheart is neutral evil. They are adding an alignment choice but a shallow implementation mostly for the RP aspect. Which makes me wonder about fallen paladins and the like.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Shadowheart struggles with her religion. I guess the players actions will decide which way she turns.


I sometimes use thought experiments. I don't necessarily believe in every idea I post for discussion on this forum
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Online Sad
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by jli084
Just saw this video over at the tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpIaJkLR84

Its a conversation with Shadowheart after siding with the Goblins. Never did so myself, so I never had this convo. Quite interesting for those wondering about Shadowhearts alignment.

I don't see anything redeeming of her in that bit of dialogue at all. If anything, what I take from that video is Larian not providing any dialogue options in which the PC can rebuke her for being a Sharan. Seems like Larian is fixing the path they want the PC to take with her (and perhaps other companions as well).

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Vexor
Originally Posted by Zandilar


Having said that... The current companions are mostly iffy in my mind. My characters tend towards selflessness, kindness, and compassion, and none of the companions seem to be particularly inclined that way. Which I find disappointing, to be quite honest.


Z.


The current companions are all chaotic and evil shifted. The good ones are coming later. Lae'zel is definitely evil
she totally approved my complete lack of empathy for sending the monster hunter after Astarion.
Shadowheart is neutral evil. They are adding an alignment choice but a shallow implementation mostly for the RP aspect. Which makes me wonder about fallen paladins and the like.


Paladins aren't alignment restricted in 5e, they have to follow their Oath (it comes with the archetypes they pick at level 3). The Oath of Devotion is like the "classic" paladin, where playing it evil should make you an Oathbreaker if Larian implements that. But Oath of Vengeance and Oath of the Ancient support neutral and evil actions as long as it follow their Oath's limits.

Joined: Oct 2020
P
member
Offline
member
P
Joined: Oct 2020
I felt like Lae'zel's "evil" is mostly from her upbringing -- she says in one dialog that stealing is wrong, but murder culls the weak. This is Githyanki culture. The encounter with the other Githyanki hints that she has a possible path to becoming disenchanted with that culture where it doesn't live up to her ideals. I'm kind of imagining Arnold in the Terminator 2 where the kid tries to convince him to not just randomly kill everyone please. I like her toughness; I can see her learning to be a solid lawful good or neutral good.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5