The Table of Balance

[Lentrax]

Okay, here is the deal. I am running a campaign over in the pbp section of the forums. I have a character using one of the various Magical Girl classes (The exact one escapes me, atm).

Anyway, we needed some kind of background for why she could do what she does.

It actually resulted in the following bit of story:


A long time ago, the Gods made Arret. But because they did not want to interfere with the intricacies of what they had made, left behind what they called, the Table.

Picture the Table as being massive circle, balanced on a point at its center. As things happen in the world, it off balances the Table, which causes it to rebalance the world by adding 'counterweights' to the other side.

You are one such Counterweight. A being of Good, born to balance the Evil spawned by the return of the Destroyer.

This is all well and good, but I am now left with an interesting problem. When I said this, I was trying to explain why a thirteen year old girl would develop her powers. But it may come in conflict with later planned story.

So, I guess what I need, is some help in defining more of what the Table can and cannot do. Or even ideas of ways that I can influence my players using the Table. Or anything really.

[Totally Guy]

Someone ought to try spinning the table. The thing would be more stable but all the weights would fall off.

That's a metaphor.

[SowZ]

Which means that any Good I do is actually for my own benefit only, since it will cause an equal amount of Evil. This is not criticizing the idea, it is interesting, simply exploring it. I like the idea. It just implies that I can never make the universe a better or worse place, really, only make myself better at the expense of something else. It is a somewhat fatalistic, deterministic world. Even though you may have some control of your own actions, they don't affect things one way or the other on any large scale.

This is not 'bad' for a fantasy story, especially a dark one. Beserk is pretty popular and may have a similar level of nihilism with its theme. I can see some Good, angsty characters here. (: Have fun with it, and let your characters explore the philosophical ramifications of such a setting. (Might be good to resist the urge to stroke the fires here/provide too many ethical arguments yourself, lest you discourage the players pondering on it in favor of agreeing with the 'authority.')

For balance sake, maybe it doesn't allow one race to go extinct without making the one who caused the extinction to also go extinct, for balance. There is never one super power of the world for too long. The speed at which said kingdom dominates and takes over the world will also be the speed at which it crumbles when it starts to fall apart.

[Reaper_Monkey]

I really like the idea of this, and will now go on a long ramble and make presumptions which form it into an interesting world building structure. Feel free to bail out at anytime.

---

In theory a world governed by such an item would promote neutrality rather than 'Goodness' - as it would allow much greater powers to exist in the "centre" of the table as it were, as it doesn't unbalance anything. As such the main powers of the world would be resistant and unyielding to change, of any sort, but be able to have massive influence and power due to this (again preventing any noteworthy change).

The interesting outcome would be that Good is simply there to counteract Evil, and once the Evil is gone then Good has no place ("thank you heroes for vanquishing the evil dread demons of the elder pits, now please die because we can't have you doing any more Good or you'll summon up more Evil") - although at least you always have a job if you're fighting Evil and doing Good (as that will cause more Evil to fight).

The other thing of note is that a small power in one extreme causes the same amount of unbalance as a large power very close to neutrality, thus the more you enforce the status-quo (of a neutrally-biased, or un-biased world) the more power you're allowed to have. This might explain why big heroes hang up their weapons and refuse to fight (minor) Evils, and instead leave new more minor heroes to do so (as if they engaged in the fight they suddenly move further out and cause more unbalance in the long run, which only causes more Evil - so defeats the point of fighting Evil in the first place).

Another axis of contemplation is that of the Chaos Vs Law if you cared for it, a circular table which has each extreme on one side, but allows dynamic movement between the two axis - causing more hassle for balance purposes and allowing more 'counter-weights' to be generated to try and offset it (who invariably move and shift the balance again).

---

With all this in mind, I'd say the table can only add weights, and only by empowering existing weights - ie everyone is already on the table, they are tiny little pieces all laid out and slowly milling about this massive table. When something gains more power it increase in size and therefore weight, which causes the table to unbalance. The table can then choose to add more weight to another piece to try and rebalance the issue, it cannot however influence that piece in any other way. So if the piece sudden gets corrupted/saved and moves over to the other side of the table then it has to find another piece to empower to attempt to rebalance the issue again.

This allows the 'board' to be forever in flux, forever changing and requiring small (or major) tweaks to attempt to rebalance things - as the pieces can move as much as they like, and can grow (or shrink) in power (size) naturally as time progresses. Of cause the 'keepers of the table' (or some other man-made cult attempting to aid the balance) will attempt to influence things directly as so not to cause power inflation as the board keeps adding more and more weight to pieces in an attempt to balance itself (which in the long run only causes more instability).
These 'keepers' are forces that clearly sit as large weights in the very centre of the board, very powerful, but only care about preserving balance - so often look like both villains and saints depending on their current actions (though mostly they'd just look like a manipulative and insidious force with secret agendas, if the table is unknown about or not believed in).


The logical conclusion of all of this is to ask the question 'why' - the answer to which is actually quite easy. Should too much power grow on one side of the table, then it will tip past the point of no return - and all the pieces will involuntarily slide across the table to sit on the side with most power (be that Good or Evil) forever damning the world into that one state and therefore removing freewill - as no piece can choose to roam freely around the table anymore.

The final outcome of 'one side "winning" forever' is fine, and obviously explains why both Good and Evil seek that final goal - however it leads to the moral questions of if a world without Evil is worth the cost of a world without Choice. Whilst allowing Good to still be better than Evil, as a world without Good and Choice is truly damning.
As such you've not overly eroded Goods cause and don't need to worry too much about a nihilisms or cynicisms towards Goods motives - and you might find that your players decide that free will is a cost they're willing to pay to stop Evil forever, which would be an epic ending to the campaign, even if its fuelled with moral ambiguity.

Sufficient to say, this is something I might actually now steal - it really explains a lot of the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, like why Goods job is never finished, and why powerful Good forces often 'retire'. :smallsmile:

[Lentrax]

I like your descriptions.

I have to admit, I kind of stole this idea from an explanation in the Sword of Truth novels.

A world was described where the Keeper (Death) was destroyed. Suddenly, there is no death. People cannot die, yes, but neither can plants or animals. Now everyone and everything must live forever in a world that becomes more and more crowded, but suffers from eternal hunger because nothing can die to be used as food. So a balance is reached between life and death.

I also like the idea of a secretive order of Keepers of Balance. It would be an interesting way to provide some continuity for them. They may even have some secrets from the world that was lost before the campaign began.

Secrets to become weights on the Table. :smallamused:

[THEChanger]

Assuming this is an actual, physical table, or even a semi-real, metaphorical sort of thing, what would happen if one day things got so out of wack that the table created more weights than it is physically capable of supporting-and cracked?

[Techwarrior]

(Note to self: Do not Megame during the reading of this thread.)

More inherently troubling than that. What if someone (i.e. The BBEG) got access to the table.
Possibly as troubling, what if some naive righteous do-gooder found the table (sigh, I did just call my character that.) and tried to do somethimg good for everyone.

[RandomNPC]

I think the OP about the table isn't about day to day good/evil, like shoplifting or giving $10 to charity. The table adds counters when one strong good/evil threatens to tip it entirely.

For example, you could make the world a better place, and tip the table a little towards good, but if there was no evil, you'd have no opposite to check your good against.

I like the idea, real table or metaphor. As for what it does and doesn't do, it wobbles and waves, sometimes sits in one tipped position for long periods of time. When it adds a weight to one side or the other it may slide a bit, representing the new force for good/evil learning the ropes and potentially failing, making the table tip even more.

Maybe it also only measures some kinds of evil, you said the character was a magic girl, maybe it doesn't register non-magic as a problem. If robots took over and committed human genocide, the table would remain balanced.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Someone ought to try spinning the table. The thing would be more stable but all the weights would fall off.

That's a metaphor.

At least until the gods start eating dinner in the living room on table trays and start using the table as a place to set down any random piece of crap they're too lazy to put away.

...Where was I going with this?

[SowZ]

I think the OP about the table isn't about day to day good/evil, like shoplifting or giving $10 to charity. The table adds counters when one strong good/evil threatens to tip it entirely.

For example, you could make the world a better place, and tip the table a little towards good, but if there was no evil, you'd have no opposite to check your good against.

I like the idea, real table or metaphor. As for what it does and doesn't do, it wobbles and waves, sometimes sits in one tipped position for long periods of time. When it adds a weight to one side or the other it may slide a bit, representing the new force for good/evil learning the ropes and potentially failing, making the table tip even more.

Maybe it also only measures some kinds of evil, you said the character was a magic girl, maybe it doesn't register non-magic as a problem. If robots took over and committed human genocide, the table would remain balanced.

Awww, but I liked the narrative potential of the crushing despair a Paladin or equally super-virtuos person is hit with when they realize that by being paragons of righteousness, they are actually depriving others of having even small amounts of goodness in their lives.

HOLY CRAP! COOLEST VILLAIN IDEA! Okay, he is a fallen Paladin. He lives in this table world. He believes being good and having good in your life is more fulfilling and leads to a better community. But being TOO good is actually selfish, depriving people of goodness by centralizing it and encouraging evil beasts to rise up. SO, (see where I am going?) the Paladin decides the most self-sacrificial thing to do is become totally puppy-kicking-baby-eating-EVIL in all caps as a way to free up more Good in the world for the common man to enjoy. With enough power and enough Evil, he could single-handedly improve the lives of thousands in his twisted world view.

He would, most of all, hate Good heroes. If there were no Good heroes, the citizenry as a whole would have to be empowered to stop evil creatures, (and rulers like himself.) But as long as the table is successful in raising up heroes, it will dole out the goodness unfairly. So, this Blackguard must slay any and all good heroes, (which, consequently, makes the Blackguard even MORE evil which demands even more heroes, etc. etc. Eventually he hopes the Table will make 'everyone' just slightly more heroic instead of combatting with a few truly heroic people.)

Even if this is a too literal or too strict interpretation of the Table, this is a megalomaniacal villain we are talking about here. He is allowed to have an extremist-not-exactly-accurate thought process. (Can't believe I spelled megalomaniacal right on the first try...)

What do ya'll think?

[Reaper_Monkey]

Assuming this is an actual, physical table, or even a semi-real, metaphorical sort of thing, what would happen if one day things got so out of wack that the table created more weights than it is physically capable of supporting-and cracked?

I find it more interesting to consider what would happen if the table was a physical entity (no doubt huuuge one) and then someone props the table up on one end! Now it can swing one way, but not the other... a powerful proposition if you can keep wedging things under it as it swings further and further. Add all the counter-weights you want, until you get to the table it will never rebalance the world - and if its already past a tipping point you'll find everything else slowly slipping towards that end! (assuming my previous mechanical implementations of the table)

[Lentrax]

I think the OP about the table isn't about day to day good/evil, like shoplifting or giving $10 to charity. The table adds counters when one strong good/evil threatens to tip it entirely.

For example, you could make the world a better place, and tip the table a little towards good, but if there was no evil, you'd have no opposite to check your good against.

I like the idea, real table or metaphor. As for what it does and doesn't do, it wobbles and waves, sometimes sits in one tipped position for long periods of time. When it adds a weight to one side or the other it may slide a bit, representing the new force for good/evil learning the ropes and potentially failing, making the table tip even more.

Maybe it also only measures some kinds of evil, you said the character was a magic girl, maybe it doesn't register non-magic as a problem. If robots took over and committed human genocide, the table would remain balanced.

The Table takes everything into account. The soul of a thief is accounted for, and balanced with the birth of a person who cares for his fellow man.

Everything the Table does is to bring back balance.

But I think with some of the ideas presented here, I am going to envisage it more as like a chess board, with pieces being able to shift their positios on the Table. They may not realize it, but every action they take is going to affect someone, somewhere.

Heroes would be tricky. Obviously, heroes are born to counter Villains, but if the Heroes themselves are Evil, then how would they help bring balance back to the table? Even the lesser of two evils is still Evil, right?

[neonchameleon]

Okay, here is the deal. I am running a campaign over in the pbp section of the forums. I have a character using one of the various Magical Girl classes (The exact one escapes me, atm).

Anyway, we needed some kind of background for why she could do what she does.

It actually resulted in the following bit of story:



This is all well and good, but I am now left with an interesting problem. When I said this, I was trying to explain why a thirteen year old girl would develop her powers. But it may come in conflict with later planned story.

So, I guess what I need, is some help in defining more of what the Table can and cannot do. Or even ideas of ways that I can influence my players using the Table. Or anything really.

You have two huge secret factions if you have a Table like that: Balancers and Anarchs, both skewing to the good - and skewing to something the PCs will oppose.

Balancers know about the table and seek to rig the game. Most of them are highly cabbalistic, making hideously complex calculations in order to try to do as much good as possible while convincing the table evil is winning. So, for example, like an evil magician, a balancer will normally practice blood magic. An evil magician will because it's a powerfully evil act. A balancer will because it's an evil act that doesn't hurt anyone except either the caster or the chicken you were going to eat for tea anyway. Some will try to set up systems like Omelas (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.omelas.pdf) inflicting suffering on some, to balance out the way they help others thrive - trying by their calculus to beat the system.

Anarchs hate the tabel itself, considering it something that ensures that we can't do anything productive. And are therefore trying to wreck the table to allow life to go on unimpeeded.

[SowZ]

The Table takes everything into account. The soul of a thief is accounted for, and balanced with the birth of a person who cares for his fellow man.

Everything the Table does is to bring back balance.

But I think with some of the ideas presented here, I am going to envisage it more as like a chess board, with pieces being able to shift their positios on the Table. They may not realize it, but every action they take is going to affect someone, somewhere.

Heroes would be tricky. Obviously, heroes are born to counter Villains, but if the Heroes themselves are Evil, then how would they help bring balance back to the table? Even the lesser of two evils is still Evil, right?

Well, by being evil, you force the birth of an equal amount of good, right? So evil is just as important as good for keeping balance and goodness in the world.


You have two huge secret factions if you have a Table like that: Balancers and Anarchs, both skewing to the good - and skewing to something the PCs will oppose.

Balancers know about the table and seek to rig the game. Most of them are highly cabbalistic, making hideously complex calculations in order to try to do as much good as possible while convincing the table evil is winning. So, for example, like an evil magician, a balancer will normally practice blood magic. An evil magician will because it's a powerfully evil act. A balancer will because it's an evil act that doesn't hurt anyone except either the caster or the chicken you were going to eat for tea anyway. Some will try to set up systems like Omelas (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.omelas.pdf) inflicting suffering on some, to balance out the way they help others thrive - trying by their calculus to beat the system.

Anarchs hate the tabel itself, considering it something that ensures that we can't do anything productive. And are therefore trying to wreck the table to allow life to go on unimpeeded.

Don't be so sure. I personally don't think either of those factions are unreasonable in the proposed setting and would do nothing to stop either of them. I'm running a campaign right now and of three major factions, (all are total extremists,) one player has decided that the lesser of the evils is the faction which is both threatening a military coupe, advancing cloning/genetic manipulation for questionable purposes, and kidnapping and brainwashing those with superpowers to serve them.

He is working for that faction now, which is interesting. So yeah, I can see these guys becoming the faction of the player as opposed to enemies. In fact, when confronted with the 'table' most players will likely have an instinct to want it gone. Players joining the anarchs seems a fifty-fifty shot to me, really.

[neonchameleon]

Don't be so sure. I personally don't think either of those factions are unreasonable in the proposed setting and would do nothing to stop either of them. I'm running a campaign right now and of three major factions, (all are total extremists,) one player has decided that the lesser of the evils is the faction which is both threatening a military coupe, advancing cloning/genetic manipulation for questionable purposes, and kidnapping and brainwashing those with superpowers to serve them.

He is working for that faction now, which is interesting. So yeah, I can see these guys becoming the faction of the player as opposed to enemies. In fact, when confronted with the 'table' most players will likely have an instinct to want it gone. Players joining the anarchs seems a fifty-fifty shot to me, really.

Mea culpa. I meant that both groups will initially appear to be antagonists. The Balancers at first seem crazy and to be harmful to people - and the anarchs are trying to destroy things. Where the PCs will end up in the end is anyone's guess.

[invinible]

That table is basically the way all true concepts that aren't Corruption tend to be wieghted against each other in reality.

All you have to do is check out any true Sugarbowl or Grim Dark story to see what happens when the balance is beyond stabalization.

[Admiral Squish]

So, the table balances good and evil. Does it also balance law and chaos, or does it only tilt on the one axis?

[navar100]

If it is given that doing an act of Good causes an equal amount of Evil somewhere else and vice versa, then the Table is actually Evil, not Balanced. Evil does not care that some Good happens someplace as long as it gets to flourish where it is. Should Evil go someplace else only to have Good crop up where it once held sway, Evil would love to come back to its old hunting grounds and destroy the new Good. Evil may crave complete dominance with no Good anywhere, but it doesn't need that to happen. As long as Evil exists and can spread, it is happy. It enjoy reconquering territory temporarily lost to Good.

Good does not have such a luxury. Good cares about not having Evil corrupt that which is already Good while trying to liberate what is currently Evil. Good needs complete dominance. It's an unobtainable goal but requires vigilance anyway to keep what it has while trying to spread. It cannot tolerate Absolute Requirement of Evil creation because Good does something.

The act of forcing balance always feeds Evil and starves Good. The Table of Balance is a Table of Evil.

[Lentrax]

If it is given that doing an act of Good causes an equal amount of Evil somewhere else and vice versa, then the Table is actually Evil, not Balanced. Evil does not care that some Good happens someplace as long as it gets to flourish where it is. Should Evil go someplace else only to have Good crop up where it once held sway, Evil would love to come back to its old hunting grounds and destroy the new Good. Evil may crave complete dominance with no Good anywhere, but it doesn't need that to happen. As long as Evil exists and can spread, it is happy. It enjoy reconquering territory temporarily lost to Good.

Good does not have such a luxury. Good cares about not having Evil corrupt that which is already Good while trying to liberate what is currently Evil. Good needs complete dominance. It's an unobtainable goal but requires vigilance anyway to keep what it has while trying to spread. It cannot tolerate Absolute Requirement of Evil creation because Good does something.

The act of forcing balance always feeds Evil and starves Good. The Table of Balance is a Table of Evil.

That is as may be, but the Table is Neutral.

It maintains the balance that existed when it was created.

Good always tries to exterminate evil, but if it were ever to succeed, there would be no room for choice. How can one choose, when there is nothing to choose from?

A balance must exist or the world will fall over the edge and be lost to all.

[neonchameleon]

That is as may be, but the Table is Neutral.

It maintains the balance that existed when it was created.

Good always tries to exterminate evil, but if it were ever to succeed, there would be no room for choice. How can one choose, when there is nothing to choose from?

A balance must exist or the world will fall over the edge and be lost to all.

If you think good is trying to "exterminate evil" then you have ... interesting ... ideas about good. Good seeks to redeem evil. Cutting people open is bad. Cutting people open for the purpose of surgery isn't. And most people who've thought about things realise why good can not exterminate evil. Take out a sin like lust. What happens? Humanity dies out. One like greed? We stop building things and stop growing. Where good tries to exterminate anything this is an admission of failure, pure and simple.

The difference between good and evil is that good genuinely cares about those beyond its immediate area. Evil is purely self-interested. It's not football teams. It's about approaches.

As for "The balance that existed when it was created", this would be "nature, red in tooth and claw". You've shattered free will by the mere presence of the table. And the world can never be better than it starts out as, making genuine good impossible - good is largely about caring for others and caring for everyone on the table. Genuine evil on the other hand doesn't give a damn about the table. It doesn't care on that scale. It cares that what is under its control. That someone somewhere will arbitrarily get some good because you are doing what you want isn't something evil will care about.

The table therefore completely hamstrings those who would do good and doesn't do a single thing to discourage those who would do evil. As navar100 says, the table is evil.

[neonchameleon]

Shorter me:

Under the Table of Balance, the Nazis were one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, and the Holocaust was an incredibly efficient way of unleashing good on the world.

[Reaper_Monkey]

Why are people defaulting their view to "well either evil profits or evil causes good" and not the reverse? It seems like people are viewing Good as a homogeneous entity that is self aware of the total good in the world, but viewing Evil as singular entities with personal scope and drive only. Both of these assumptions are incorrect, but by having them its very easy to paint the Table as an evil entity.

Assume for a moment the Table is the weather, its a force that makes itself felt around the world, but is governed by basic thermodynamics that it neither controls nor cares about - its only purpose is to enforce those rules.
Now some areas of the world are hot, some are wet, some are flat etc, in addition some people in the world make fires, or dams, or flat farmlands etc. All of these features affect the weather, even if they're only tiny little changes, but the total result of each of these features is how the weather acts. Some areas get rain so become wet, whilst others get snow and become cold, over time even elevations are eroded and flattened.

The overall change caused by the weather is slow and unpredictable, so whilst starting a forest fire is known to affect the weather - there is no way to know how it did. It may be easy enough to say "well you made a lake and therefore have changed the world", but it is not quite as simple as a binary change - the knock on effect of the lake or forest fire goes much further than the feature itself, and causes a whole host of changes in the long run.

It is because of this that its not so easy to just say "you did Good now the world must suffer Evil" or "you did Evil therefore Good will occur, which nullifies your evil act in the long run but you've still profited so 'win' as Evil doesn't care". Some Evil acts will cause the Table to produce more Evil, as a natural Good backlash rises up to defeat the cause of that evil - leaving the world with too much Good (and therefore in need of balancing by the table). The world has its own free will and doesn't need the Table to balance things most of the time, however when the scales tip too far in any one direction the Table steps up and adjusts things to rebalance them - as such it is neutral, (all be it 'schizophrenic neutral' in that it does both Good and Evil to maintain a state where neither is in charge).

Don't forget that if Evil keeps coming out ahead and is always the side that threatens to tip the scales over, then the Table will always be doing Good in an attempt to rebalance.

[neonchameleon]

Why are people defaulting their view to "well either evil profits or evil causes good" and not the reverse? It seems like people are viewing Good as a homogeneous entity that is self aware of the total good in the world, but viewing Evil as singular entities with personal scope and drive only. Both of these assumptions are incorrect, but by having them its very easy to paint the Table as an evil entity.

One fundamental difference between good and evil is who you care about and who you wish harm on. And a critical difference between good and evil is that the good wish good for all and evil to none. The evil still wish good for those they consider their own.

Keeping balance on the table means doing good for some and evil for others. Enslave someone and you are doing evil to them and gaining material good for yourself. If you don't care about those you enslave then enslaving them is doubly a good act. You and yours both benefit from the slave labour and from the table adding more goodness to the world. So slavery is not just a local economic win under the table, it's a metaphysical win.

The only sort of evil that the table in any way, shape, or form discourages is moustache twirling cartoon villainy. For the rest it encourages more evil deeds - because that leads to a sharp increase in goodness that can be channelled to those the evil ones care about. Slavery is encouraged. Racism is encouraged. You've just turned the world into a zero sum game. Good thrives where the world is positive sum - where we get more back from helping each other than we put in because we all have different strengths. The table makes this impossible.


The overall change caused by the weather is slow and unpredictable, so whilst starting a forest fire is known to affect the weather - there is no way to know how it did.

But that's not what's proposed. We're proposing a balanced table - which is simplistic and has direct consequences and is statically balanced rather than a chaotic system.


Don't forget that if Evil keeps coming out ahead and is always the side that threatens to tip the scales over, then the Table will always be doing Good in an attempt to rebalance.

But evil is much more "balanced" than good. Good to those you care about, Evil to those you despise. You're in a zero sum game with the table - and all you can do in a zero sum game is grab what you can for those you care about. And screw the rest as hard as possible.

Shorter me:

Good wants to do good to all. Evil wants to horde the good for their own and trample the rest. The table makes goodness into a limited resource - enabling and encouraging the objectives of the evil and completely hindering those of good.

[Lentrax]

One fundamental difference between good and evil is who you care about and who you wish harm on. And a critical difference between good and evil is that the good wish good for all and evil to none. The evil still wish good for those they consider their own.

Keeping balance on the table means doing good for some and evil for others. Enslave someone and you are doing evil to them and gaining material good for yourself. If you don't care about those you enslave then enslaving them is doubly a good act. You and yours both benefit from the slave labour and from the table adding more goodness to the world. So slavery is not just a local economic win under the table, it's a metaphysical win.

The only sort of evil that the table in any way, shape, or form discourages is moustache twirling cartoon villainy. For the rest it encourages more evil deeds - because that leads to a sharp increase in goodness that can be channelled to those the evil ones care about. Slavery is encouraged. Racism is encouraged. You've just turned the world into a zero sum game. Good thrives where the world is positive sum - where we get more back from helping each other than we put in because we all have different strengths. The table makes this impossible.

No. You make it impossible by seeing a static good vs. evil arguement. Adding Evil does make more good. But adding more good adds more evil.

Think about the laws of thermodynamics, and the balance we see in nature.

You cannot create something from nothing. You cannot conjure matter out of thin air. You must get that matter from somewhere. The table does not 'make' anything. It pulls it from what is around it to create a force of good to combat the evil. You have the choice to be a paladin and live to bring the light of your belief to others.

Just be ready to have the Table shape an evil to combat your good intentions.

Now, before this gets any more out of hand than it already is, what would you propose for a construct created by gods so they did not have to interfere with things themselves?

All morality aside, I intended this to be an object of neutrality and balance, not morally right or wrong. It is for a fictional game world after all.

[Reaper_Monkey]

But that's not what's proposed. We're proposing a balanced table - which is simplistic and has direct consequences and is statically balanced rather than a chaotic system.

What was being proposed was a system which maintained a balanced state between good and evil. It did not state that it was simplistic, or that the consequences of your actions were direct. Equally a chaotic system is fully capable of producing static and predictable balance when viewing form and structure rather than the details of the moving parts - this is exactly what chaos theory states.

As such I choose to assume that the Table, which has no invested interest in the moving pieces of the world, influences the world as so to organise it back to its preferred state of 'balance' - but in a way that is unpredictable in its details, but not in its outcome.

As such it's entirely likely that doing great Evil will cause one of your evil buddies to come and steal your stuff, and in the process weaken both of your potency as they negate each others forces in the ensuing battle. The outcome of which is the same level of Evil in the world as before you committed Evil, and no Evil force gaining anything from their Evil acts.

[navar100]

No. You make it impossible by seeing a static good vs. evil arguement. Adding Evil does make more good. But adding more good adds more evil.


That's the point. Evil does not care some Good is created somewhere by its act of doing something. However, Good cares very much that some Evil would be created somewhere by it doing something. It is Good's nature to care. Good can't act because more Evil will result. Good's existence is then entirely dependent upon Evil, which is abhorrent to Good. Good is just there, not doing anything. At best could be said is the area where Good exists is just a lack of enough Evil noticeable enough because Evil is busy doing something somewhere else to have created the Good. Evil is in control without having complete dominance. The Table is therefore Evil.

[Lentrax]

And because I cannot get the assisstance I asked for without a phlosophical discussion about something which I clearly stated many times I do not want, I am asking for this thread to become locked.

Anyone who wishes to help me flesh this out, instead of bombard everyone with arguements that are all about how awesome and all powerful evil is, then feel free to PM me.

Otherwise, good day.

[Reaper_Monkey]

Anyone who wishes to help me flesh this out

What else do you want help fleshing out? You've numerous suggestions of functionality and scope, and you came in with an idea of how the device empowers people. Where do you need more details?

[navar100]

When dealing with the gameworld mechanics of how alignment works a philosophical consequence is necessary to understand how it affects the world. It explains why meeting a Lawful Good Red Dragon Paladin in Ebberron is known as Sunday while in Greyhawk players would double check it's not April 1st or October 31st. Maybe not as metagame, but the point is there.

[headwarpage]

Interesting idea. It seems like everybody's take on this is a very dynamic balance - extreme good and extreme evil canceling each other out, like a scale (or a table :smallamused:)that swings wildly one way and the other. But what if, over time, the swings become less and less pronounced, so that the world ends up as a fundamentally boring place? I think this would be an interesting unintended consequence of the table's existence. So you would end up with a world without any great atrocities, but also without any great uplifting moments that bring people together. This wouldn't necessarily be something that people choose, just a natural consequence of the oscillations getting smaller and smaller as the world tends towards equilibrium.

I'm not sure what kind of campaign you could set in such a world, though. Among those who know the nature of the table, I could imagine two factions, though. One would want to cause some dramatic balance-altering event (Good OR Evil), simply to make the world more vibrant and meaningful. The other would be convinced that the absence of true Evil in the world is worth any price, and be committed to maintaining the stability of the table.

Actually, I think there's something to that. In a world where Good and Evil are always in perfect balance, it creates a good framework for a conflict between Law and Chaos.

[neonchameleon]

No. You make it impossible by seeing a static good vs. evil arguement. Adding Evil does make more good. But adding more good adds more evil.

Which means that actually doing good is impossible. Doing evil is fine - those who would aggrandize themselves at the expense of others win coming and going. The table


Think about the laws of thermodynamics, and the balance we see in nature.

If you mean conservation of energy, that only applies in a closed system.


You cannot create something from nothing. You cannot conjure matter out of thin air. You must get that matter from somewhere. The table does not 'make' anything. It pulls it from what is around it to create a force of good to combat the evil. You have the choice to be a paladin and live to bring the light of your belief to others.

But good and evil aren't forces. They are means of interaction.


Just be ready to have the Table shape an evil to combat your good intentions.

In short be ready to have the Table make your attempt to do good worthless. The table is therefore evil. But when it comes to stopping evil? To stopping those in favour of their short term aggrandizement at the expense of others? The victims of evil are dead and the evil one lives high on the hog. The table negates the good intentions but not the evil ones. Evil is much more short term. People profit from evil precisely because they don't care about the whole board.


Now, before this gets any more out of hand than it already is, what would you propose for a construct created by gods so they did not have to interfere with things themselves?

Humanity. Churches. Magical waterfalls - only a certain amount of magic per God appears in the world at any given time (which is I think what you want). A non-aggression pact because the Gods are powerful enough that if they contended within the world directly they would smash the world and none of them want that. Any of the above would work.


All morality aside, I intended this to be an object of neutrality and balance, not morally right or wrong. It is for a fictional game world after all.

But it only makes sense if your morality is "football team morality" - it is right to murder orcs not for what they have done but because they are orcs and inherently evil. Good and evil work in fundamentally different ways - you might as well, to take another physical example, try to balance the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.


As such it's entirely likely that doing great Evil will cause one of your evil buddies to come and steal your stuff, and in the process weaken both of your potency as they negate each others forces in the ensuing battle. The outcome of which is the same level of Evil in the world as before you committed Evil, and no Evil force gaining anything from their Evil acts.

That is explicitely contrary to the way the Table works. The table does not combat evil by turning evil on evil. It combats evil by opposing it with good.


And because I cannot get the assisstance I asked for without a phlosophical discussion about something which I clearly stated many times I do not want, I am asking for this thread to become locked.

The nature of the table and what effect it has on good and evil is fundamentally the most important part of the consequences of the table. You are having exactly the conversation you asked for.

If you try to balance light and dark magic rather than good and evil themselves, almost all the philosophical objections vanish.


Anyone who wishes to help me flesh this out, instead of bombard everyone with arguements that are all about how awesome and all powerful evil is, then feel free to PM me.

Otherwise, good day.

No one is saying how awesome and all powerful evil is. What we are saying is you have not understood how good or evil works. Good adds like the force of gravity - it's all additive. Every bit of good added to the world adds a bit of good to the world. And like charges attract. Evil adds like the electromagnetic force - far stronger at small scales than the force of gravity, but evil repels and conflicts with evil the way like charges repel. Evil fights with evil and ends up feuding and cancelling itself out. (The electromagnetic force is 10^25 times stronger than the gravitational force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)* but it's gravity not electromagnetism that holds stars and planets together and creates the tides).

Your table prevents good adding up cumulatively the way it gains its real strength. And does nothing to prevent evil getting the local footholds it can.


I'm not sure what kind of campaign you could set in such a world, though. Among those who know the nature of the table, I could imagine two factions, though. One would want to cause some dramatic balance-altering event (Good OR Evil), simply to make the world more vibrant and meaningful. The other would be convinced that the absence of true Evil in the world is worth any price, and be committed to maintaining the stability of the table.

Actually, I think there's something to that. In a world where Good and Evil are always in perfect balance, it creates a good framework for a conflict between Law and Chaos.

I was talking about the Anarchs earlier :)

* If you aren't familliar with exponential notation then to put it into perspective, the electromagnetic force is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravitational force. And despite this gravity creates the tides and controls the universe on a large scale and electromagnetism doesn't.

[Admiral Squish]

You all seem to be ignoring the part where the table creates good. Good opposes evil. You say that by doing evil, the forces thereof profit, while good suffers. But through their evil actions they also create the forces that oppose them. The balancing of good can be in the form of good-hearted citizenry, or it can be empower police forces, or create heroes. Even minor villains, purse-thieves and scammers and their ilk, will find their schemes unraveling faster, their evil deeds getting punished more often, if good becomes significantly more powerful.

Also, nobody answered my question. Does the table balance along the law/chaos axis as well?

[Lentrax]

Which means that actually doing good is impossible. Doing evil is fine - those who would aggrandize themselves at the expense of others win coming and going. The table



If you mean conservation of energy, that only applies in a closed system.



But good and evil aren't forces. They are means of interaction.



In short be ready to have the Table make your attempt to do good worthless. The table is therefore evil. But when it comes to stopping evil? To stopping those in favour of their short term aggrandizement at the expense of others? The victims of evil are dead and the evil one lives high on the hog. The table negates the good intentions but not the evil ones. Evil is much more short term. People profit from evil precisely because they don't care about the whole board.



Humanity. Churches. Magical waterfalls - only a certain amount of magic per God appears in the world at any given time (which is I think what you want). A non-aggression pact because the Gods are powerful enough that if they contended within the world directly they would smash the world and none of them want that. Any of the above would work.



But it only makes sense if your morality is "football team morality" - it is right to murder orcs not for what they have done but because they are orcs and inherently evil. Good and evil work in fundamentally different ways - you might as well, to take another physical example, try to balance the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.



That is explicitely contrary to the way the Table works. The table does not combat evil by turning evil on evil. It combats evil by opposing it with good.



The nature of the table and what effect it has on good and evil is fundamentally the most important part of the consequences of the table. You are having exactly the conversation you asked for.

If you try to balance light and dark magic rather than good and evil themselves, almost all the philosophical objections vanish.



No one is saying how awesome and all powerful evil is. What we are saying is you have not understood how good or evil works. Good adds like the force of gravity - it's all additive. Every bit of good added to the world adds a bit of good to the world. And like charges attract. Evil adds like the electromagnetic force - far stronger at small scales than the force of gravity, but evil repels and conflicts with evil the way like charges repel. Evil fights with evil and ends up feuding and cancelling itself out. (The electromagnetic force is 10^25 times stronger than the gravitational force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)* but it's gravity not electromagnetism that holds stars and planets together and creates the tides).

Your table prevents good adding up cumulatively the way it gains its real strength. And does nothing to prevent evil getting the local footholds it can.



I was talking about the Anarchs earlier :)

* If you aren't familliar with exponential notation then to put it into perspective, the electromagnetic force is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravitational force. And despite this gravity creates the tides and controls the universe on a large scale and electromagnetism doesn't.

And i asked you to stop lecturing me. I do not want or need it.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.