The Lich vs. the Angel and Abomination
-
Mann, I just love the fantasy
-
@galdaen i didn't understood it form the OP.
I think lich is good for human transformation, and I hope there will be more.
And I hope there will be more transformation for half way beastman/demon.
-
I think that Lich should be similar to Angel and Abomination. Do not look at the skills - those are driven by schools of magic/combat you use.
I would see it like this:
Demon turned good -> Angel (Demon that lives on the beast planet - Arobreus)
Beast turned bad -> Abomination (Beast that lives on the demon planet - Tartaros)
Human turned bad -> Lich (Human that lives on the demon planet - Tartaros)
Human turned good -> Saint/Druid (Human that lives on the beast planet - Arobreus)
-
@gothix Not all cultures are equal.
I don't know enough about Star Trek, particularly the Klingons, but if the Klingons wanted to practice human sacrifice, child-rape, murder, etc.. we'd all agree that was not moral behavior.
Morality is objective. It takes religion to force people to make certain things that are immoral seem moral.
-
@dybuk I think there needs to be another option for Humans "turning evil", and Lich doesn't fit.
"Forsaken"? Perhaps.
Lich seems like it would be a completely different thing.
-
@dulu said in The Lich vs. the Angel and Abomination:
we'd all agree that was not moral behavior.
Humans can agree, because it is majority of human opinion that's "bad".
Some other cultures can have other values. That's the whole point. Morality is defined through the prism of viewpoint of a particular culture, more precisely, through viewpoint of majority of it's members.
Universe is huge and you don't know even a 1% of what's "true" or how things affect one another. Reality may very well be (and likely is) much different than you think. Murder can actually benefit a victim enormously, if the reality of death is going to a 100 times better reality after that (maybe the younger someone dies, the better reality he ends up in after death), and that would mean that keeping someone alive would in that case be very bad. This is just a crude example.
This is why you can decide only for yourself what you view as "good" or "bad", and not for anyone else. Majority of people can force the definition of good and bad it on it's own members through laws and/or repression, but that still doesn't mean that's good or bad.
Morality is subjective. The problem is that you are trying to define morality through the extremely limited knowledge box of what you know and think is true.
-
@Dulu said in The Lich vs. the Angel and Abomination:
Morality is objective. It takes religion to force people to make certain things that are immoral seem moral.
I wouldn't put it all on religion. More on socially accepted behaviour in a group of people we currently reside.
If you are raised by cannibals, then you won't see anything bad in eating humans. This is not religion.
As @Gothix stated above - I agree. Even now there are different moral standards in different countries. For example in Europe and US a research and experimentation on stem cells or dead fetuses is frowned upon, but in China such research is additionally funded by their government.@dulu said in The Lich vs. the Angel and Abomination:
@dybuk I think there needs to be another option for Humans "turning evil", and Lich doesn't fit.
Why not? For me Lich is an undead creature, that usually dabbles in some dark arts and I would not perceive him/her as a boy- /girl- scout. In my opinion Liches are evil
But maybe you are right - Liches are too genre specific. It would be hard to imagine a Lich using Restoration school of magic.
"Forsaken", "Damned", "Sinner" - there is a lot of names that can be used
-
@Gothix I know i'm quite late and the party is long overdue, there's no more rum, and the hookers are exhausted... I'm still going to drop this. Even though acceptable behavior is indeed subjected to cultural (more likely survival compromises dictated by ecosystem that have become traditions and stuck even though the reasons behind them are overdue) dominance, there still exist what the ancient Romans defined as "natural rights". They recognized such rights to slaves and animals and even objects. It basically refers to not deliberately hurt another without proper cause. Yes the Romans where businessman and profit was proper cause. But they where acknowledging it as an evil act. Also, selflessly helping another will always be an act of good. Therefore. Good and Evil can be universally defined. What confuses people is the judicial recognition of an act as acceptable or unacceptable in a certain law system. That is indeed subjective to context. In the same country, under the same administration, death sentence is forbidden during peacetime and common during wartime! Still it will always be recognized as a necessary evil!
