The Council of Eagles

[Petraverd]

...The only Talking Beasts we see choosing to turn for one reason or another are depicted as rather malicious sorts to begin with, and all seem to do it for the sake of power in one form or another - a distinctly human desire.

...but I think in most cases it wouldn't be enough for a Beast to justify defecting to the other side - not unless some more destructive sort of motive (greed, power, pride, etc.) was present.

This. The Beasts that we see turning from Aslan either were malicious to begin with or let a less than honorable motive take precedence. Some creatures are incapable of having this happen to them, due to their inherent virtue - such as we Unicorns. Others have the potential to go either way - as it is with most of the Talking Beasts. The capability is there - but when it does happen, it tends to go hand-in-hand with other things I've already mentioned, at least, as we see it in the Chronicles.

[Zayev]

Then why are eagles defined in the game as Neutral, not Good aligned?

Mainly because those who are good aligned typically are magical creatures which bind them even closer to the side they are on. though you raise a good point. And I'm not saying there no hint of disloyalty, perhaps an eaglet, born in the very heart of the winter, would have once voiced doubts, only to be strongly corrected. And even then would likely feel great shame for his actions. I know I still regret silly/stupid things I said as a kid. But I think as a whole mature Adults would have been steadfast.
And to quote the Eagle SI info

Eagles are dignified creatures, often thought to be the wisest of all of the Talking Beasts. They carry themselves with the regal grace that accompanies such a distinction.

Neutral, but dignified and wise. Hard to RP at times but I'd think the wisdom they were gifted with would hold them through.
Again just my 2 cents

[Miskord]

Eagles are dignified creatures, often thought to be the wisest of all of the Talking Beasts. They carry themselves with the regal grace that accompanies such a distinction.

Neutral, but dignified and wise. Hard to RP at times but I'd think the wisdom they were gifted with would hold them through.
Again just my 2 cents

That's what lead me to my notion that thinking deeply, being left alone to determine what the wisest course is, with Aslan and the Pevensies not having yet made an appearance, maybe one or two over a hundred years in the Council might have considered they were not accomplishing anything.

Intelligence, cunning, grace ... these are attributes just like strength is. And just like strength is not necessarily good or evil (you could have a mighty hero, or a powerful demon), I feel quite strongly that, at least in the real world, intelligence and even seemingly wise notions of trying to act in the best interest of all can sometimes lead to decisions that do not seem morally just.

It sounds noble that soldiers would fight to the last, dying, breath ... but I imagine its another thing to actually be on the battlefield, outmanned and outgunned by the enemy. Do you keep shooting, knowing it is futile, or try to safe your life and those of your buddies by offering surrender?

I think there's fascination there in the revered great thinkers having even a tiny smidge of a chance of faltering, and depth. If every eagle is hatched as good, and can never be not good, and in fact that is so of all Narnian creatures, that would make Aslan a charming but evil messiah offering the same prohibition against free will as the Ice Queen -- no being he condemns ever had a choice to be good or evil, and no being he saves has such a choice, either. I really hope that's not the principle on which every talking beast character on the MUCK is based. If there's no thought, chance or opportunity to go astray, then there is no nobility or goodness.

However, trying to adjust for what seems to be the prevaling assertion that it is impossible for any talking beast to falter in their faith, would this idea work better, avoiding the supposed impossibility of an eagle choosing to go astray while allowing for dramatic pain? Suppose The Ice Queen and her minions, not all of them slobbering idiots who can't think, realize the eagles are among their most dangerous foes, and that having some on their side could help their tyrannical cause, so they set out to capture unhatched eggs and/or recently hatched young eaglets, and train and raise them to serve the Ice Queen. Upon learning of them, the good Eagles would be forced to choose to kill them rather than let the Ice Queen's forces indoctrinate them ... would that break canonical ideas?

[Antheia]

There's some inherent misunderstanding of the nature of Narnia, Talking Beasts, Aslan, and wisdom here.

1. Talking Beasts aren't human. They are more like humans than dumb Beasts, but their 'free will' is a lot more like the free will of angels. According to Christian mythology, when the angels rebelled against God, that was it. There wasn't any 'going back' stage. That's how we end up with Satan/Lucifer. The angels who did not rebel on the other hand-- we don't have any doubts about them being /good/.
Talking Beasts are not as powerful or glorified as angels, and their free will is somewhat looser than angels, but not as loose as with humans. A Talking Beast might rebel against Aslan, but when they were created Aslan warned them that should they rebel, they will revert back to dumb Beasts. It took a while for that to happen to Ginger the Cat in the Last Battle, but I think the point is it is so against their nature, that they turn into another thing entirely if they go for it. There are a few Beasts that seem to have gotten around that in LWW, probably because Lewis hadn't fully established the world yet, like Wolves, but Eagles are definitely not one of them, and if Lewis doesn't break the general rule for a species, we aren't likely to encourage breaking it either. And even in LWW, Lewis has already established that people who turn to the White Witch are somehow inherently different. They 'have a look about them' as Mr. Beaver says. There is something inherently wrong going on.

2. The White Witch is really obviously evil. There is no question about it. Those who work for her are working for evil. They are working to oppress their brother and sister Narnians. The example we have of a good character working for the Witch is Tumnus (not a Talking Beast, again, but he gives us a little light) and he says that the reason he accepted the job was because he thought he would never have to do it. He chose the job that would protect him without him actually having to do anything for the White Witch. Even a character who is inherently more complicated than Talking Beasts chooses only to work for her in a manner which he thinks will be more appearance than actuality.

3. Wisdom and intelligence are extremely different. An intelligent person could easily say 'hey look, we'd survive if we were working for the White Witch'. A wise person would probably not even voice the question if it occurred to them because the following question would be-- 'at what price?'. In Lord of the Rings, when Saruman chose to work for Sauron, he was called foolish, not wise, even though his reasoning was intelligent. And power-mongering was in Saruman's nature, where it is not in a Talking Beasts.

4. The Chronicles of Narnia are children's books. Lewis thinks it's important to show children real evil, but (and he said this), evil should always get conquered. Hope, in children's books, and especially Lewis's since he specifically said that, is a founding ingredient, especially among 'background characters'-- which is what the Talking Beasts mostly are. In a children's story some things may be complicated, but the fact that evil is evil never is. A wise creature in a children's story would have no trouble seeing this because it's just so clear.

5. What's more likely to happen during the 100 year Winter is that the Eagles would lie low-- try to be as unnoticeable as possible. The White Witch was pretty confident in her power-- all they had to do was come near her and they would be easily turned to stone. Even a wise creature would have trouble getting around that. I'm not sure why she would see a reason to kidnap Eagles and turn them to evil. If they were a problem, she could (and was extremely likely to) simply kill them at birth-- and if she got that close to baby Eagles, she'd get that close to the adults, and turn them all to stone, too.

If anyone wants a character with more moral ambiguity, I would strong recommend a Dwarf, Wolf, or Human. You could also consider an Ape, but keep in mind their cleverness is a selfish sort of cleverness, that really can't see beyond itself to a bigger picture very well.

[Miskord]

I hope to fix my situation soon so I can get a library card and actually read the books. All I have for now are the scant articles, like narnia.wikia.com which I have perused, but I know is no substitute for the books. In the article on Aslan's country, it describes the stable on Stable Hill, where Aslan decides who is good and can go on to His Country by those who rejoiced at looking into his eyes, whereas those who hated him upon looking into his eyes would go instead into the darkness of the stable (and not go on to His country). This seems different than what you describe, and allows that good beings might have made mistakes, but if in the end they realize Aslan's goodness, and keep themselves pledged to him, that they are still good and still in Aslan's grace ... but, again, I know that article is not the same as the book. Is the wiki article in error, or my interpretation of it?

What you describe is John Calvin's doctrine of unconditional election, a Christian equivalent to the worst of Islaam adopted by Fred Phelps and his membership of the Westboro Baptist Church. That's their inherent philosophy that drives their bigotry -- you are either born to be 'Good' and go to heaven, or born to go to heck and no one is capable of changing their destiny in that. I hope this is not what C.S. Lewis nor Narnia MUCK are about.

All I ask is a thin sliver of choice for some to make mistakes without having to be purely evil beings. A being who is good at heart to falter, to protect their families, the Council perhaps or even more Narnians, and that just maybe making a mistake, being remorseful and finding a way to make amends might be 'good' too unless that was expressly dismissed. If Eagles and all talking beasts are, however, completely unable to not only make an evil choice but to make a mistake to accidentally do evil, then the SI files listing alignment as Neutral which I based my decision on are innacurate and should be changed to indicate eagles can never choose wrong, intentionally or blunderingly, and can't make mistakes. That would have better informed me when choosing a species and whether Narnia MUCK is a place conducive to the sort of RP I enjoy or could adapt my style to.

[Antheia]

Again, it's extremely important to note that Talking Beasts are Not The Same As Humans. Also while that is a common interpretation of Calvinism, it is not a complete accurate one. Regardless, I don't think it's necessary to debate Calvinism to this purpose.

Without having read the article yet, that sound vaguely accurate, but Narniawikia is a not-to-be-trusted source. It often has wrong information regarding book canon, partly because it also uses games and movies for a source.

Here's the thing. We're not saying don't make mistakes. Turning to the White Witch is a lot more than a little mistake though. At the risk of being 'that guy'-- people made the mistake of following Hitler. The ones who chose not only to passively let things happen, but to actively follow and/or work with Hitler knowing that he was a really corrupt man who was slaughtering people based on their race-- that's more than just a mistake. That's a pretty corrupt choice. The White Witch was killing both indiscriminately and by way of genocide. Choosing to follow her, especially in an active sense, is not simply a mistake.

[Antheia]

I should add that while putting more iffy 'mistakes' in your own background is sometimes okay, putting them in the background of an entire species is forcing all the other players of the species to share that interpretation of the gameworld, and that is (one) part of the problem here.

[Miskord]

Nowhere did I do that. I proposed a minority that was quelled. That's hardly the entire race, and I'd really tsk you for considering a minority of a group faltering condemn the whole bunch.

If Tumnus made a mistake to spare his life or family in choosing to wave a meaningless flag for her, maybe an eagle could have proposed the same thing. Unlike poor Tumnus, who likely had no one to dissuade him, the eagles had each other in the Council to put down such a thought, but I don't see how the idea that such a thought might have surfaced and been proposed would condemn the entire race of eagles as being evil or power-hungry.

The specific wiki article subsection I was referring to: http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/Aslan%27s_ ... table_Hill

Of course, it would be nice if Narnia MUCK got its own wiki ...

[Antheia]

What I am saying is that by establishing a major plot in the history of the species in RP when you are a new character and without getting confirmation from other older members of the species that that seems like a plot they would like to roll with --even if it is regarding only a few characters in the history-- is unfair to the rest of that species. The plot you suggest affects the species as a whole even if it is only directly affecting a few characters because it reflects on the culture of the species as a whole. I am not saying it means every member of the species would act like that. I am saying it reflects on the species.

If you would like a place to reference where we specify our preference for sticking within the standard, whether some members of a species or group might stray or not, our Info Files, under Roleplay ==> How to Roleplay Well read as follows:

Everyone who roleplays much has his or her own preciously-held standard for what qualifies as 'good roleplay', and not all of them agree. For our purposes, though, (and yours), here are some guidelines that should help you along:

* A well-played character is one that is BELIEVABLE, not one that is ORIGINAL.
We absolutely CANNOT stress this enough. There seems to be a widespread misconception among online roleplayers that the way to prove your RP talents is to create a character concept that thwarts convention in every way. Somehow the goal of being 'unique' overrides the goal of being 'realistic', and we regularly have people requesting to be good Ogres or evil Badgers.

If you want to impress me with your RP talents, be a typical, run-of-the-mill Faun that is so typically faunlike that I can envision him against the backdrop of the actual books and he'll blend right in. Don't be the one single Faun who hates to dance, dreams of the sea and wears a silly hat. Being original is easy; ANYONE can play a faun who isn't faunlike, because none of us are actually fauns (or badgers, or werewolves, or nymphs, etc.).

There is room for creativity and uniqueness in a believable character. A good roleplayer can make a character who stands out and still holds true to what he or she should be. It all comes down to how the character 'unfolds' as you play it. So as a new player, don't try to be unique, creative or original as your primrary goal. Instead, strive for accuracy. Be believable.

[Miskord]

What I am saying is that by establishing a major plot in the history of the species in RP when you are a new character and without getting confirmation from other older members of the species that that seems like a plot they would like to roll with --even if it is regarding only a few characters in the history-- is unfair to the rest of that species. The plot you suggest affects the species as a whole even if it is only directly affecting a few characters because it reflects on the culture of the species as a whole. I am not saying it means every member of the species would act like that. I am saying it reflects on the species.

You set an impossible condition here, as the "older members of the species" haven't logged on in some 800 days. Realistically, they will never return to the MUCK. How exactly do I get confirmation from players who don't log on? That's like insisting I RP with players who don't log on ... I am not capable of such conjurations. The oldest active member seems to be Skarlieth, the only others are Farflight and Starsoar. I have not seen any other eagle players log on to collaborate with. I've tried p #mailing you and Emilia, and making threads, but as yet, there are no constructive, helpful files to guide making a background, envision what eagles actually do, nor even state how tall they are. There's no definitive information accessible on the MUCK, nor the website to suggest what I came up with was wrong; in fact, it fits in with the SI file describing Eagle alignment as 'Neutral,' so apparently what scant information is provided, is either wrong and unacceptable to you, or my interpretation of Neutral as being something other than 100% good and flawless is different from yours.

I've proposed a background fleshing out that includes one suggestion from a minority of NPCs done in the past, in a dark time. Personally, if I knew a group had an ill suggestion brought forth and readily dismissed it, I would think better of that group than one that pretends to never have ill ideas brought forth.

Your assertion that talking animals have no will or soul to make decisions, including occasionally wrong ones, seems to me to be a rather significant omission from the MUCK reference files a player would need to conjure up a character design and background.