To mercy or not to mercy

Kethaera

I haven't forgotten Lusternia, but between school and theology(yay, I got new books!) and a plan to have a book of my own ready for publishing by the end of the year cuts down into other things. Still, I wanted to share an idea about 'mercy' that reminded me of Glomdoring, even if I may forget that I don't live there anymore...

Mercy was not always understood as an act of compassion or feelings of pity as we think of it today. It used to be understood in terms of a reciprocal, paternalistic relationship between a group of people or with God. When asking for 'mercy', what they were really saying was more like, "I have been a faithful servant, and will continue to be, so fulfill your debt to me as well." This was neither a demand from the patron or a cry of desperation, but a reminder of the interpersonal obligation owed to both parties. It was mutual respect in an ongoing relationship.

What this meant to me in game-terms is that while Glomdoring is perfectly reasonable to show mercy to those within the forest, they owe no obligation to anyone outside of it. Asking Glomdoring for mercy would be nonsensical, unless you were also asking to join the commune: to become part of the relationship through service. This doesn't mean that they would have to be cruel to outsiders either(the opposite of mercy might be indifference), but to recognize that those not contributing to their forest are owed no obligation in return. Taken to an extreme, for an outsider to ask for mercy could also be considered presumptuous or deceptive- they haven't done anything to deserve it, and to claim otherwise would be insulting.

...thoughts?

Daganev

I'd say that in a moral society, that is how mercy should always be applied.

For glomdoring however, service is the top priority so no mercy even for commune members  You'll be a loyal servant regardless of how you are treated.

Rialorm

This is how Rialorm sees it, with the addition that some actions simply deserve no mercy, such as grand scale betrayal of the Glomdoring. If one does an action that leads to outright removal from the organization, they are on par with those unwilling to serve as their actions have shown that to be so. They may claim otherwise but it would be considered false words.

Iari

I tend to get the impression that there's no two way relationship between Glomdoring and it's citizens. You live for the forest, you die for the forest. And your blood waters the roots, and body becomes food for plants. Nothing matters but Glomdoring.

You benefit by being a part of the glorious Wyrd, and in return you give everything you have to its benefit. It has no obligation to offer you anything in return other than the honour of being a part of it.

Fail it? Betray it? Put yourself before the forest and the Wyrd?

F'ai Glomdoring.

DISCLAIMER: This is, of course, all from an OOC outside point of view, and may, in fact, not be in keeping with the ACTUAL spirit of Glomdoring.

Kethaera

Daganev said:

I'd say that in a moral society, that is how mercy should always be applied.

For glomdoring however, service is the top priority so no mercy even for commune members  You'll be a loyal servant regardless of how you are treated.

Not all moral societies have the same standards for mercy, though. I actually think it's a bit unrealistic(even in a fantasy 'evil' organization) to be abusive to all those on your side... exceptions for powerless peons notwithstanding.

Kethaera

Iari said:

I tend to get the impression that there's no two way relationship between Glomdoring and it's citizens. You live for the forest, you die for the forest. And your blood waters the roots, and body becomes food for plants. Nothing matters but Glomdoring.

You benefit by being a part of the glorious Wyrd, and in return you give everything you have to its benefit. It has no obligation to offer you anything in return other than the honour of being a part of it.

Fail it? Betray it? Put yourself before the forest and the Wyrd?

F'ai Glomdoring.

DISCLAIMER: This is, of course, all from an OOC outside point of view, and may, in fact, not be in keeping with the ACTUAL spirit of Glomdoring.

That's the thing: You benefit by doing so. If there was no benefit, there'd be no reason to serve. I like the collectivistic concept that the group is more important than the individual, but it doesn't automatically lead to mistreatment of the individual. So long as you're serving the interests of the collective, they have every reason to keep you happy and healthy. In most societies like that, being part of the collective is advantageous, especially if the outside world is chaotic. 

"The honour of being a part of it"- perfect summary of the ideal collectivist mentality. But the individual is also valued to at least the extent that they ARE part of the group, and group survival depends on individual survival. In practice, I think that is what most Glomdorians are going for, really.

Daganev

Kethaera said:

Daganev said:

I'd say that in a moral society, that is how mercy should always be applied.

For glomdoring however, service is the top priority so no mercy even for commune members  You'll be a loyal servant regardless of how you are treated.

Not all moral societies have the same standards for mercy, though. I actually think it's a bit unrealistic(even in a fantasy 'evil' organization) to be abusive to all those on your side... exceptions for powerless peons notwithstanding.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean.
What I meant is as follows.
When you "bend the rules" (i.e. show mercy) to the cruel and manipulative, then you end up making life worse for everybody else.  Your "mercy" then becomes an "injustice".  The underlying assumption behind all acts of mercy, is that the person you show mercy to, will eventually become a productive member of society and show loyalty, even if it is only in deed and not in creed.

Kethaera

Daganev said:

Kethaera said:

Daganev said:

I'd say that in a moral society, that is how mercy should always be applied.

For glomdoring however, service is the top priority so no mercy even for commune members  You'll be a loyal servant regardless of how you are treated.

Not all moral societies have the same standards for mercy, though. I actually think it's a bit unrealistic(even in a fantasy 'evil' organization) to be abusive to all those on your side... exceptions for powerless peons notwithstanding.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean.
What I meant is as follows.
When you "bend the rules" (i.e. show mercy) to the cruel and manipulative, then you end up making life worse for everybody else.  Your "mercy" then becomes an "injustice".  The underlying assumption behind all acts of mercy, is that the person you show mercy to, will eventually become a productive member of society and show loyalty, even if it is only in deed and not in creed.

But why would Glomdoring be different? I mean, even in societies where "service is the top priority", it's practical to be supportive to those who are supporting you. Rule by fear works better in a monarchy than a collective- the powerful can keep the weak in line by force. Not so much if everyone is relatively 'equal.' 

If you show compassion toward someone, I agree that the hope is that they might become a productive member of society. But if mercy is defined as a service contract, as opposed to bending the rules for someone, then the same idea wouldn't apply to those outside the contract. If someone within the contract is acting cruelly or manipulatively, then there's no good reason to show them mercy at all. 'Mercy' doesn't have to mean that you're a doormat, even to those toward whom you have an obligation.

Daganev

In many ways, Glomdoring is a monarchy, and the Wyrd/Glomdoring is the monarch.  It's a cruel evil place, that sees itself as a kind wonderful paradise.  It's a fictional place, that only works in a fantasy world.

"then the same idea wouldn't apply to those outside the contract."

In the Modern world, that is still true.  However we have expanded the "contract" to include all of humanity. Some today have expanded that contract to certain classes of animals as well.  It's harder for us to see, because the contract is so global as to almost not exist.