Hell's Inhabitants: Do They Deserve It?

It's a very complicated issue, especially with multiple religious implications. I never really thought too hard about it. Though I'm not a fan of beings that can send a good person to hell, or a bad person to heaven, and etc. That would imply beings with absurd amounts of influence and power, surpassing even the guardians. And that level of god power spells trouble. Just in my experience at least.

Pendragon wrote:

It's a very complicated issue, especially with multiple religious implications. I never really thought too hard about it. Though I'm not a fan of beings that can send a good person to hell, or a bad person to heaven, and etc. That would imply beings with absurd amounts of influence and power, surpassing even the guardians. And that level of god power spells trouble. Just in my experience at least.

Nnnot really.

A lot of things mess with your afterlife without being OP. Vampires, for instance, can make you undead, effectively keeping you out of Heaven and Hell for as long as you keep out of the sun. Necromancers could imprison your soul after death, and... well, that's generally considered to be not just undeniably perverse, but downright inexcusable.

It's simpler to say that once you're dead, things work by different rules. We usually measure OP by your impact on the world of the living, for some reason XP while souls are purty much powerless and just drift on a way that's already been predetermined by the time they leave the body. I'd like to think of it this way- souls are powerless, more or less. And there are things that can mess with them- but nobody likes to talk about it.

Sorry, Karbo. ^^; I might have overreacted a little because your words hold pretty much the greatest weight in this community. But I think you're making more sense this time. To me, it seemes like, in the post I quoted in my previous post, you were focusing more directly on the "homicidal dictator" example instead of the overall idea being discussed.

I agree with what you're saying, that all this talk of good, evil, morality, etc etc is a very difficult discussion that involves judgements I'm sure few, if any, of us are qualified to make. That's why I think a more impartial system of the afterlife should apply to Felarya, one that, while influenced gently by your actions while alive (And again, I think looking at the impact one makes on other people's lives would be a great measure of this), is ultimately decided by the angels and succubi who gather souls. Sure, it may not seem like an entirely 'fair' system, but I think it's the only concrete thing we'll be able to get out of this discussion. Any sort of morality-based system woul end up being inherently subjective and difficult to describe, understand, and agree upon. Why do you think there's so many different depictions of the afterlife in the real world?

Stabs wrote:

Nnnot really.

A lot of things mess with your afterlife without being OP. Vampires, for instance, can make you undead, effectively keeping you out of Heaven and Hell for as long as you keep out of the sun. Necromancers could imprison your soul after death, and... well, that's generally considered to be not just undeniably perverse, but downright inexcusable.

It's simpler to say that once you're dead, things work by different rules. We usually measure OP by your impact on the world of the living, for some reason XP while souls are purty much powerless and just drift on a way that's already been predetermined by the time they leave the body. I'd like to think of it this way- souls are powerless, more or less. And there are things that can mess with them- but nobody likes to talk about it.

I can see your argument there, but then it goes into a philosophical debate about power levels and morality and a bunch of touchy topics.  So I try not to talk too much about the issue. but to keep it short, I was never a fan of beings in fiction that could manipulate the concept of a soul, unless they had the power of a god or something. It reminds me of a quote from King of The Hill.

"Oh man, Hank! We tried playing God! Now God is playing God, and he's alot better at it!"

Stabs wrote:

Vampires, for instance, can make you undead, effectively keeping you out of Heaven and Hell for as long as you keep out of the sun. Necromancers could imprison your soul after death, and... well, that's generally considered to be not just undeniably perverse, but downright inexcusable.

For the record, necromancy doesn't work in Felarya, and vampires (at least of the flavor Tanya is) do keep their souls, so that's not really much different from your soul staying out of the afterlife while you're alive.

So the question is, do we come up with some mysterious system in a nether like world where souls go to and gravitate from toward heaven or hell, and are judged there based on infinitely complex factors, and just leave it at that to say that generally people go to where they should?

Maybe this system can also be influenced from the outside and is not without error though? I'm not sure, but one thing is evident with our discussions: we cannot simply create rules for how you go to an afterlife - otherwise we'll have a wiki article longer than the USA tax code.

While I don't think we need to get too far down into the specifics and exact causes of what represents positive and negative energy as far as actions in life go, since (no offense to any writers) I don't trust our writers to not make mistakes with a horribly complex and labyrinthine set of rules, I don't think we've really established the general, overall behavior. Karbo's idea is interesting, but doesn't solve the issue of what the general behavior actually is.

So here's my suggestion for the general behavior: instead of actions, it's primarily motivations that color your soul. Selfishness, vindictiveness, and such would be negative, while their opposites would generally be positive. Basically, doing things that benefit others is positive, while doing things that harm others is negative. Actions that involve both get a fair amount more complex, and who you're benefiting or harming can also affect the magnitude; the further away someone is from your general community, the more positive the actions go. The magnitude (both relative and absolute, with some leaning towards perceived magnitude on the actor's part) of the help or harm affects the magnitude of the positive/negative energy. As positive and negative energy tend to cancel each other out, some justification can be made for the morality of harming a small number of people to help a lot, but the specifics of how those interactions work are enormously complex. Drawing on Karbo's idea, self-deception would be a negative modifier, as would willful negligence. Some examples of the idea at work:

• Self-defense is generally neutral or slightly negative; defense of others leans more towards the positive side, while taking self-defense too far will generally lean negative.
  
• A soldier fighting a war while sincerely following something similar to the Geneva Convention and for the purpose of supporting their community would be somewhat positive, but when the motivations or actions start becoming cruel (example: harming civilians), then it can quickly turn negative.
  
• A Felarya-specific one: predation is generally neutral at best, and becomes more negative the more the predator recognizes its prey as sentient beings, as well as the more the predator torments their prey.

Overall, this system would have both a lot of grey areas and a lot of interacting factors that allows it to easily be used to justify a lot of generally acceptable afterlife destinations by tweaking circumstances a bit, but should keep something of an overall general consistency. I'd also second Bael's idea that outside intervention is possible, and a lot easier on borderline cases. Since there's no real acting intelligence behind it, there's no error, in the normal sense of the word, but things get complex very easily. Souls that don't have that big of an affinity for either positive or negative energy can float around for a while before they finally reach the proper afterlife (so long as something else doesn't interfere with them), so purgatory would exist, but be more of a transient state than a destination.

Wait, dont most predators see humanoids as simple prey and nothing else? Some preds who have human friends know that they are more than that, but still eat humans. So, wouldn't those predators go to hell for belly genocide?

Basically, would all of the Felarya preds go to hell?

dragon808tr wrote:

Wait, dont most predators see humanoids as simple prey and nothing else? Some preds who have human friends know that they are more than that, but still eat humans. So, wouldn't those predators go to hell for belly genocide?

Basically, would all of the Felarya preds go to hell?

It makes sense that that would be the destination of anyone who torments and kills other sentient beings for their own pleasure, yes. Predators wouldn't be treated all that differently from any other sentient in that respect. And I expect all predators, to some degree, recognize their prey as sentient, though even that doesn't matter too much; wouldn't we call someone who tortures animals for their own pleasure evil?

Gamma wrote:

dragon808tr wrote:

Wait, dont most predators see humanoids as simple prey and nothing else? Some preds who have human friends know that they are more than that, but still eat humans. So, wouldn't those predators go to hell for belly genocide?

Basically, would all of the Felarya preds go to hell?

It makes sense that that would be the destination of anyone who torments and kills other sentient beings for their own pleasure, yes.  Predators wouldn't be treated all that differently from any other sentient in that respect.  And I expect all predators, to some degree, recognize their prey as sentient, though even that doesn't matter too much; wouldn't we call someone who tortures animals for their own pleasure evil?

Yes. Like those people who torture cats and dogs... Just thinking about it is horrific.

But then, what about the IRL butchers and cattle farmers? You know, those that take their livestock to the slaughterhouse to be butchered?

I dont think sentience should have anything to do with going to heaven or hell at all. So what, they're intelligent, why should that mean anything? We're all still animals anyway. The only difference is instead of using claws and natural armor as self defense, we use our intelligence as self defense. There should be no connotative association there in my opinion.

Part of the reason why I think we should have an overall system that judges, and avoid using examples. Though there should still be exceptions for things that happen when you go to heaven or hell.

As I said in the beginning, in the mangas and pictures a lot of Karbo's inhabitants of hell dont look like they belong there at all.

Unless we take a greek polytheistic approach where normal people go to hell no matter what and you have to do something really amazing to get the priviledge of going to heaven.

Just want to drop my two cents to bring some food for though, also because I am bored.

Is a soldier automatically considered evil because he killed other human beings despite being trust in a life or death situation?

In that same vein, is a sapient monster considered evil because she ate another sapient creature in spite of the fact that she must eat to survive?

Shady Knight wrote:

Is a soldier automatically considered evil because he killed other human beings despite being trust in a life or death situation?

In that same vein, is a sapient monster considered evil because she ate another sapient creature in spite of the fact that she must eat to survive?

The quick answer to both is no, but there's a whole lot of "ifs" attached. I'd say soldiers killing other soldiers during wartime while following something similar to the Geneva Convention isn't that evil, since both sides are fighting for the benefit of their communities, and they're fighting and killing other soldiers who are also willing to risk their lives to do so. However, as soon as they start knowingly killing civilians, torturing prisoners, or harming surrendering enemies, then yes, it becomes evil. The predator is in somewhat of a similar situation; killing prey for food isn't, in and of itself, evil, though torturing that food beforehand is, as well as preferring intelligent prey for their reactions to being attacked and eaten.

...Perhaps the elephant in the room here is that we're trying to establish an objective morality that simply doesn't exist in the real world, and we're all, to one degree or another, basing it on moralities that have proven effectiveness. The fact is that we're not going to be able to agree on specifics, and probably not even on general principles; a lot of feelings about modern morality is based strongly on faith and religion, which is obviously a giant can o' worms. Anyone have any ideas for how to make this work without really dealing with morality?

There's a way I'd been considering.

Rather than morality being an objective measure of... let's call it, afterlifeness, let's say morality is one thing, but what determines your afterlife is afterlifeness. And afterlifeness says you end up in the place most like you. Which means, the place where the people who are like you also ended up in the past. So rather than being based on morality, afterlifeness is based on precedent and morality has nothing to do with it. You end up in a place- the place ends up being more like heaven or more like hell depending on what's in there.

You either find a divinity to consecrate your soul to, or the psychopomp finding you finds a place where your soul can be entrusted to. And if this means immoral people can add insult to injury by going to heaven anyway... well, I figure, why not? Actually, how about this? I think it'd work for Karbo too.

Let's say I believe in massacrating people for being... ugly. And I spend my life massacrating people for being too ugly. Then I die. I'll go somewhere people believe in massacrating people for being ugly.

Stabs died and wrote wrote:

It should be heaven, they agree with me! Only they think I'm ugly! The place is full of people massacrating each other for being ugly! And now we're all ugly because there's always someone who thinks the other guy is ugly! We've gotta band together against ugly! This is not a fight of ugly vs ugly, it's a fight of pretty vs ugly, and pretty will prevail! I must win for great justice!

But still, it's not very heavenly, wouldn't you agree? Why is heaven full of ugly people!? I gotta massacre them all now! Even in death, there's still ugly! ...maybe the ugly is in my soul? No way... I shall fight to rid heaven of all these ugly people!

I think we could do a small modification on Karbo's version. If death won't strip away their lies, the situation could at least put their hypocrisy in perspective by matching them up with people who agree with them. (Note: some particularly disingenious people still won't get it after an eternity of destroying ugly people in the afterlife) For predators (including nekos and tiny nagas), as they don't believe they're picking on people, just eating food, and they don't define themselves by eating people... well, they will go wherever people that eat food and like to have fun go. And hey, if you were deep down just like them, they might eventually regret that they ate you, once you're both dead. And then you can be best friends 4eva!

If, on the other hand, eating people specifically was something they strongly believed in, they'll be matched with the people who believe in, specifically, eating people. It's a pretty unstable recipe, given souls aren't particularly solid (or stable-sized), so I don't think if those people ever were in a cloud, they'd have been able to stay there for long.

In this version, cannibals go to hell, predators go to heaven, hell is other people (and so is heaven). I think that should mo' or less work without being too objective about what is right and what isn't.

^ I think that works best Stabs. It seems pretty fair without being cruel or unjust to anyone. And it might be cool to be around the Pred who ate you in heaven or hell. Kind of like a condolence thing. Like Crisis could appoligize to a few unfortuante humans who got sent there through a portal or something. It would be a pretty nice closure for everyone really.

But I have a question, Since Angels and Succubi can eat you in Felarya (and other places) By coming to Felarya, does that mean that the Angel or Succubus would go to heaven or hell when they die? In short, What happens to the souls when Angels and Succubi die? (And yes they can die. You can beat them in their weakened forms in Felarya or another world, but they just get banished back to their homeworld and are uncomfortable, but alive. They can only be killed in heaven or hell respectfully to actually kill the Angel or Succubus.)

Another issue is that even if you go to a realm of people who are like you, that realm still has to be assigned as a heaven or hell because one has Angels that help you and the other has Succubi that eat you. Pretty big distinction. So how is that assignment made?

Thinking about it, maybe it's just that a particular realm of the afterlife becomes positive or negative based upon how people treat each other within it, drawing the matching beings to it. If good people are nice to each other, the realm is positive because of that, at which point Angels are drawn to it, until it becomes an "official" heaven, and vice-versa for Hells.

The only problem I have with that, Stabs, is how it conflicts with the Hell depicted in Felarya.

Fortunately we have zero comics involving heaven whatsoever (For some reason), so we can be a bit more liberal. With hell though, on the other hand its just a bad place where bad people go, but it still is difficult because we have realms of hell with specific characteristics that we somehow need to figure out how people get there. I'm still trying to think of one myself after the previous idea of an auto-system of sorts a few posts back.

Archmage_Bael wrote:

The only problem I have with that, Stabs, is how it conflicts with the Hell depicted in Felarya.

Fortunately we have zero comics involving heaven whatsoever (For some reason), so we can be a bit more liberal. With hell though, on the other hand its just a bad place where bad people go, but it still is difficult because we have realms of hell with specific characteristics that we somehow need to figure out how people get there. I'm still trying to think of one myself after the previous idea of an auto-system of sorts a few posts back.

Maybe it's based on your fears? Since I am scared of heights, Chenobryos would be Hell for me. Someone who hates cold may go to Acheron. And the worst of the worst get Melchuum. (Which would be fun to see in a video game).

It might work the same in heaven, you go to the realm that resonates best with you.

I like Stab's idea; honestly, this would work a lot better than basing things on morality. However, it also raises the question of why there should be only two destinations–and I think there should be more. Anyone who's played D&D is familiar with the two-axis alignment system; this sort of afterlife would synergize very well with a multi-axis alignment system, or perhaps no alignment system at all; instead of having two polar opposite destinations where all souls go, we could have an entire system of afterlife sub-planes. It could be that not only do like souls attract, but like afterlifes attract, too; Heaven would be the common name of a group of afterlives that share generally "good" traits, and Hell would be the opposing group of realms of "bad" traits. This lets us keep the already-established multi-realm nature of both that Bael mentioned. I'd say one possibility for why Heaven would be so much of an easier and happier afterlife is that the souls that came by earlier, as well as the angels who live there (whose souls are similar to the souls of mortals that live in those realms, hence why they're attracted there) have put in work to make the realm livable. Hence, the better afterlives are those not only with nicer people, but with people who can work together and make the realm a better place through effort. Hell, on the other hand, consists mostly of mortal souls and demons who are generally trying to hurt each other, and has a history of large-scale, devastating conflicts. I envision a whole bunch of afterlives, in something similar to a solar system, but without a clearly-defined orbital plane. In addition to Heaven and Hell at opposing ends, there would be smaller clusters of afterlives scattered throughout for ideas that were more neutral and don't strongly attract to either extreme. These afterlives would be more or less tolerable, depending on what exactly they represent; an afterlife filled completely with beings who ate to live and never really thought beyond that will obviously be dangerous, because everyone's still trying to eat each other; an afterlife based around personal freedom to the point of anarchy would be highly chaotic (someplace like this might be where fairies tend to end up). As the two largest groupings of afterlives, Heaven and Hell have the most attractive power towards more minor realms, which lets them keep their place as the two major ends, but significantly strong afterlifeness that isn't particularly attracted to either can easily result in a realm, or even a grouping thereof, removed from either. Lastly, entities with the ability to traverse these realms, moving from one to another, would be able to map them and find that as you travel, there is a distinct gradient, with some realms being held in equilibrium between larger groupings, both of which are attracting it.

As for angels and succubi "dying": angels and demons already exist as souls; they never "die" in the sense that a mortal does simply because they never have a soul tethered to a material body the way mortals do. Instead, they simply project into Felarya or other mortal planes; when dismissed, yes, they follow the same inclinations as human souls (which basically just puts them back where they came from, most likely), while if the actual soul is killed, then they're completely gone, the way any soul that dies is.

I dunno I feel that beings like demons and ceiciels all follow a different set of rules for death. however thats a totally different topic...

Archmage_Bael wrote:

I dunno I feel that beings like demons and ceiciels all follow a different set of rules for death. however thats a totally different topic...

I thought it went something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfjp5XkLp2c

It's like poetry, it rhymes.

Afterlifeness... mhh that's interesting ^^

So that would be like having a multitude of realms of Hell and heavens based on what defines most the soul.
For example a special Hell for slavers, one for narcissistic vain people with maybe endless wall of mirrors etc. but maybe a bit less specific and more general for heaven ?

That would make things a bit easier. It would be interesting if this kind of specified afterlife could actually result in someone enjoying their time in a plane of hell, too. XD This kind of thing really takes out the whole questions of good and evil, reward and punishment, and leaves it to be a more simple action and result system

I still question where ghosts and elementals fit in, though.

Karbo wrote:

Afterlifeness... mhh that's interesting ^^

So that would be like having a multitude of realms of Hell and heavens based on what defines most the soul.
For example a special Hell for slavers, one for narcissistic vain people with maybe endless wall of mirrors etc. but maybe a bit less specific and more general for heaven ?

For hell, on one hand, it might not matter so much according to your soul. Could just be there because its hell, its going to be unpleasant, and the demons will make sure it is (possibly in their own way). If you're a masochist then so be it, they probably wont care. If you REALLY don't like the realm in hell you're in, too bad. Its hell. The succubi just don't care.

So yeah, heaven would follow that method I'm sure.