Realistic credo of an evil deity and a good deity

[lopa12]

I'me creating home-brew world with a duotheistic pantheon consisting of Deanna, NG deity of life and charity and Keballos, NE deity of death and selfishness. I've tried to make Keballos's credo evil and opposing to Deanna's, but I'm also trying to make it fairly reasonable, just enough so that cultists can be justified in worshipping. I'd like to know whether the Keballos's credo strays to far from evil for the sake of justified worship or vice-versa, as well as whether both credos are realistic. And if you have any suggestions on additional credos, I'd love to here them.

Credo of Deanna:
-Be kind and charitable to others. If someone is in need, give to them, even at your own expense, that you might become part of something greater than yourself.
-Do unto others as they do to you. Just as you may help someone, someone will eventually be there to help you.
-Life is not forever, and every moment should be savoured. Don’t fret on the future or past; live in the moment and experience the joys of the world.
-The followers of Keballos are liars and supremely selfish beings. As such, they must be converted to Deanna’s light. Should such measures fail, they must be incarcerated or, should they be sufficiently villainous, executed. -Followers of false deities are typically secret worshippers of Keballos or follow similar credos and should be dealt with in the manner above.
-Nature is beautiful. This beauty fills life with joy and must be persevered, protected and above all, appreciated.
-The body is a vessel for the soul and is therefore more sacred than a temple. Undeath is a great desecration and therefore undead must be destroyed.

Credo of Keballos:
-The followers of Deanna would steal all that you have, rather than let them keep your hard-earned items and power for yourself. They would claim it charity, but you must know better.
-Do unto others as they do to you, tenfold. If one aids you, reward them for this so that you might foster their alliance that you may gain more aid from them. And if one harms you, then they must be punished grievously.
-Death is natural and should not be feared, only controlled. Stave off your own death for as long as possible, and any who would do wrong to you are not worthy for living.
-The followers of Deanna are liars and thieves. Whenever possible, you must either convert or slay them. Do not be afraid to murder worshippers of Deanna, for they are unworthy of life and you are the master of death.
-Nature should be used to serve you for your own betterment, either as beasts of burden or food. Nature that serves no material purpose to you should not get in the way of your happiness; it should be cleared away to make way for your joy.

Optional Keballos credo (some worshippers believe in this, others have never heard of it):

[rferries]

Deanna opposes undeath, what does Keballos feel about them? The implication seems to be that he would approve of prolonging one's own existence at any cost.

[JeenLeen]

I like what you're doing in that both think they are right. I once read here (can't remember the thread name) a thing describing the D&D alignments from the perspective of someone who thinks they really are true. To most evil, the world really is a 'dog eat dog, gotta get your own' world, and those who claim otherwise are naive fools or liars trying to trick you. In other words, it lets an Evil credo be something internally consistent with a paradigm of reality that makes sense, instead of just some mustache-twirling evil for the sake of evil mentality.

As a recommendation for Keballos on undeath: The body is a tool, like any other. For those who have died, use their remains as tools if you wish. For your own remains, once you are dead, why should you care?

Here's another pair, though it might lean a bit towards LG and LE (but is still in guidelines of neutrality, I think, in the sense of even a chaotic jerk should realize mouthing off to the evil emperor gets you killed):
Deanna: "Strength and power are to be used to protect and guide; it is a burden and a gift. Show honor to those who protect you. Show protection and virtue to those you protect."
Keballos: "Power is to be strived for. Show deference to those stronger, lest they destroy you, but have ambition that you may one day exceed them."

And here's something about how they could view each other.
"Deanna views Keballos as a liar, trying to amass its own power by leading others to division and selfishness. She knows that the truth is that strength is in community and protection, in life and love. His lies would shatter all that is true and remake the world in his own depraved image, with only him as ruler of all."

"Keballos views Deanna as a dangerous liar. She is trying to trick mankind by telling them false tales, getting them to avoid or misuse power. No doubt she is gaining it for herself and her followers. Do not believe her; she only wishes you to weaken yourself so that she can bind you. Weaken and kill her influence when you can."


EDIT: as perhaps more clarification, in the above, Keballos truly believes he is helping people, in a sense. He's not wasting his own Power by helping them, but he is showing them the truth, so those worthy of power can gain it. Yeah, he increases his own power and influence by doing this -- otherwise, why would he bother? -- but that doesn't make it any less true. Just like a bandit recruiting thugs or a kind raising an army, it makes sense for the lowly to serve the greater. But they won't do it if they believe Deanna's lies.

[Lord Von Becker]

Well, I like your style. Do you have a similarly-clear view of Law and Chaos?
As for realism, I think they're okay. Not quite how I'd have built them - "maximize everyone's practical-ability-to-help" is the highest good I've yet been able to think of, which suggests that evil is the opposite - but these are believable as philosophies. Kudos!

[Maat Mons]

Here are a few suggestions for "evil" viewpoints:



"Helping a man is the worst thing you could ever do to him." Overcoming obstacles builds strength. Charity not only deprives the recipient of an obstacle (and thus a chance to grow as a person), but receiving charity <i>consistently</i> can cause a man to lose strength he already possesses, from disuse. Thus, [b]charity is a harmful to the very people it purports to help[/i]. Obviously then, no moral man who cares about the wellbeing of his fellows would ever engage in charity.

"Rulership should be granted to those most fit to rule." A kingdom prospers under a wise king, and all benefit. A kingdom languishes under a foolish king, an all suffer. So it is imperative that the best be on top. The only way to be sure that greatest of us are put in positions of power is for all to struggle to reach higher. Then, whoever succeeds in climbing above all others must be the best, and therefore deserves his position. And the only way to ensure that everyone strives for greater positions is to make all men desire those positions. Of course, the only way to ensure a position is desired is to make it desirable. Those who rule must have luxuries and privileges greater than those who are ruled. Moreover, a person's quality of life must be tied to his status. Any attempt at "equality" risks placing the fates of everyone in unworthy hands.

"It makes no sense for one man to work towards the happiness of another." Obviously, it is to the good for people to be happy. And when others are happy, you should be glad for them. Nut the happiness of all people should be approached in the most efficient way possible. Suppose everyone spends 24 hours a day pursuing the happiness of others. Then, on average, everyone benefits from 24 manhours per day of effort on his behalf. Conversely, suppose everyone spends 24 hours a day persuing his own happiness. As before, everyone benefits from 24 manhours per day of efforts towards his hapiness. So these scenarios are the same, yes? NO! When people try to make others happy, they are engaging in guesswork. When they try to make themselves happy, they know exactly what they want. Time a person spends for the benefit of himself is more accomplishes more than the same amount of time spend for the benefit of another. Thus, a world full of selfish people is a happier place than one filled with philanthropists. Pursuing one's own self-interest benefits the common good, while so-called "selflessness" actually decreases the overall wellbeing of society.



I was also going to have one about why, evolutionarily speaking, it is imperative that undesirables be systematically exterminated, but I couldn't figure out how to phrase that in terms a medieval society would understand.

[rferries]

It seems that the original poster has been banned?! 0.0 That was sudden.

[Maat Mons]

It seems that the original poster has been banned‽

Odd. I've looked at all 12 posts he's made, and none of them seem to have been edited by moderators. What could he have been banned for?

Wait a minute... 12 posts... 12 in his user name... I smell a conspiracy!