Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sundragon 09-01-07, 10:28 PM	I believe that the Great Wheel supports a moral relativism and moral equivalency that undermines the fundamental premise of high/heroic fantasy. The moral relativism of the Great Wheel makes all moral/ethical positions cosmically equal. Regardless of what the heroes do, the multiverse simply sees them as equals on a spectrum of moral equivalents. In the layout of the Great Wheel there is nothing better about moral good over evil. Odin is no more correct than Asmodeus, Tyr is no more correct than Orcus, it all depends on where you stand on the wheel. Who is there to really say that a villian as wicked as Stalin or Pol Pot is any worse than a hero with the heart of Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King when in the end the very wicked and the very good are just points on a philosophical compass with their own entire realities (planes) dedicated to them as fundamental principles? A balor general who wants to commit genocide of all mortals on a given prime material world is only somone of a different point of view from the saint who died saving the kingdom from a demon horde according to the Great Wheel. I say this because according to it's structure there is no alignment more fundamentally valid than another. Personally I have never used this atrocious idea and even though I once used the Great Wheel I made sure my players knew that conscious sentient creatures of "elemental" evil were wrong. I'm not speaking of what people call "natural" evils such as flood, earthquake, fires, etc. I am speaking of moral evil. High Fantasy is best supported when the heroes actually have right on their side as opposed to merely believing they have right on their side. Gandalf and Sauron are not morally equivalent agents of cosmic powers who merely have different points of view, the universe (the Valar, Eru) frown on Melkor and Sauron and work against them. The evil ones are unnatural and deserve destruction. I am using Tolkien as an example but I have yet to see the idea of philosophical equivalency used in regards to good and evil in ANY fantasy genre EXCEPT badly conceived D&D tropes like the Great (alignment) Wheel of the planes. I know that those who love playing murdering, robbing, miscreants may cry foul but that doesn't change the fact that high/heroic fantasy presupposes that good is better and fundamentally more valid than evil. In the real world there is greater moral ambiguity than in even the most morally ambivalent game setting, but that's because we don't know the truth of things for sure. In D&D, and high fantasy in general, it is often possible to be certain that you are right (good) and the enemy is wrong (evil) above and beyond your personal opinion. If the TRUTH is that good and evil are equal yet different positions then the whole thing, all the heroics, all the battling against darkness, all the heroic sacrifices against insurmountable odds, all of it is nothing more than a petty battle of opinions. Sundragon
Shemeska the Marauder 09-01-07, 11:11 PM	Reply posted on the Enworld version
Sundragon 09-01-07, 11:21 PM	Was there a question, or opening for discussion here? Or was this just a polemic rant, crossposted to multiple forums? Actually its a point of view offered up for agreement or disagreement as one so chooses. Within is a question or two as well. Feel free to disagree or agree with me. Also, why shouldn't I post to another forum as well when one can hardly assume that all or even most people read this forum or the other? Its fair game to cross post in entirely different domains ie. gleemax (here) and well....anywhere else enworld, rpg.net, paizo, etc. Sundragon
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-01-07, 11:39 PM	It's certainly a point of view. Tolkeinien fantasy, which I'm pretty sure is the basis for much high fantasy, was written with Christian undertones, which assume that evil is always weaker than good. D&D has been moving away from heroic fantasy to sword and sorcery for a while, in my opinion. Here, there is no assumption that good will always win. It is a battle of opinions. However, that doesn't make it any less important; the motivations are more personal than cosmic, however.
ripvanwormer 09-02-07, 12:38 AM	I believe it's important that every alignment be considered equally "valid," (not equally good) for the sake of the game. It's not the responsibility of the multiverse, or of Wizards of the Coast, to tell gamers what kinds of games they should play - a game full of wicked anti-heroes is as valid as a game full of noble altruists. There are many reasons, however, for Good to be the preferable choice other than "the multiverse itself commands it." I believe rational mortals can see these reasons for themselves - that they'd rather dwell in a place where people care for one another than one where everyone is at one another's throats. Individual PCs can decide to champion this themselves without requiring the multiverse's imprimatur. They can also choose to worship gods who share their ideals, and fight together against the darkness. What determines that Pol Pot is more evil than Mother Theresa? The planes themselves do. What determines which ideology takes hold on a given town, kingdom, or world? The heroes do. Are Sauron and Gandalf identical? Not by a long-shot; one would usher the world into darkness and suffering, while the other would bring light and hope. Regardless of whether "the universe itself" favors one or the other, the PCs should know the difference. I agree with Sundragon that it's philosophically and intellectually problematic when "good" is "merely the point on a compass" rather than a conclusion reached through reason and compassion. What Sundragon doesn't seem to understand is that shifting ultimate moral judgment from the Upper Planes to the multiverse as a whole only defers the problem; it doesn't reduce it. It's equally problematic if good is reduced to "that which the multiverse likes" as it is if it's reduced to "what the Upper Planes like." The question, as always, is what if the multiverse is wrong? All small children know that "because I said so" isn't a satisfactory answer for anything; it's only as they grow older that the more simple and servile among them forget this. The mere fact that morality is objective does not necessarily mean is is correct, and claiming it does reduces both the weight and meaningfulness of the PCs' decisions, giving them an "easy out" when struggling with moral dilemmas is, for many groups, much more interesting. I'm not exactly certain how a multiverse that actively chose to validate part of itself over an another part would function in a practical sense (in an RPG campaign), or even how the PCs would be able to tell the difference. Sundragon doesn't seem certain either, as no specific examples were given in the above rant. The idea that the multiverse itself is moral is actually seldom found in fantasy fiction apart from explicitly Christian writers like Lewis and Tolkien, and perhaps in the Harry Potter books (which I like, and which are not explicitly Christian except in the last book). Certainly, you don't see it in Moorcock, or Lieber, or Lovecraft, or Anderson, or LeGuinn, or Howard, or Pratt and deCamp, or Mieville, or any of the other writers that I personally favor as more sophisticated and mature. As I said, I'm not sure what the practical difference would be in an RPG in any case. "You get a +10 bonus on your Will save due to the Power of Love?" Or do the PCs just witness the Astral Plane giving an approving glow whenever they do a good deed, with no actual practical aid? Is there a meaningful difference between a celestial telling the PCs they've been chosen as champions by the Upper Planes (or by a god of the Upper Planes) and some other being claiming they've been chosen by the entire cosmos (which, presumedly, would also include the Lower Planes, who are perhaps secretly also on the side of Good)? I submit there is not. I think the primary danger, if Sundragon's premise has any practical meaning at all, is that the plot loses a lot of drama - when the universe itself favors the heroes, the sense of danger is much less real, and the heroes become less important. This drawback is countered by absolutely no advantages, and are both ethically and intellectually bankrupt - lazy, really. True morality is associated with deliberation and contemplation, not mere cosmic fiat. In D&D, "good" is defined by cosmic fiat, but the cosmos does not give the PCs free hints that "good" is always right. This is not the same as subjective morality, however - it's still perfectly possible for one answer to be objectively preferable to the others.
Sundragon 09-02-07, 01:44 AM	I believe it's important that every alignment be considered equally "valid," (not equally good) for the sake of the game. It's not the responsibility of the multiverse, or of Wizards of the Coast, to tell gamers what kinds of games they should play - a game full of wicked anti-heroes is as valid as a game full of noble altruists. Well if they are all equally valid then good isn't necessarily better than evil ecept maybe in a mercenary sense of "we'll all enjoy a good afterlife better than an evil one" or in a utilitarian sense of "Getting along and acting good makes for greater survivability and thus all around better lives." There are many reasons, however, for Good to be the preferable choice other than "the multiverse itself commands it." I believe rational mortals can see these reasons for themselves - that they'd rather dwell in a place where people care for one another than one where everyone is at one another's throats. Individual PCs can decide to champion this themselves without requiring the multiverse's imprimatur. They can also choose to worship gods who share their ideals, and fight together against the darkness. Agreed, but my argument is that the Great Wheel promotes moral relativism not that humans can't choose moral positions without the imprimatur of the multiverse. I agree with you. What determines that Pol Pot is more evil than Mother Theresa? The planes themselves do. What determines which ideology takes hold on a given town, kingdom, or world? The heroes do. The question wasn't who was more evil, I asked who was more morally valid or correct on a cosmic scale. I would argue that according to the Great Wheel, neither is and this is IMO a flaw. The Great Wheel posits equal merit to both most good and the most depraved depending on where you stand on the wheel. What Sundragon doesn't seem to understand is that shifting ultimate moral judgment from the Upper Planes to the multiverse as a whole only defers the problem; it doesn't reduce it. It's equally problematic if good is reduced to "that which the multiverse likes" as it is if it's reduced to "what the Upper Planes like." No. I completely understand and the problem is that there is no moral judgment. In fact, no cosmic level moral discernment is even possible in a cosmos where everything is a matter of which plane you happen to be standing on. Pol Pot and his madness is quite valid in the abyss while Mother Theresa is valid in the 7 Heavens. Just a matter of opinion. The question, as always, is what if the multiverse is wrong? All small children know that "because I said so" isn't a satisfactory answer for anything; it's only as they grow older that the more simple and servile among them forget this. The mere fact that morality is objective does not necessarily mean is is correct, and claiming it does reduces both the weight and meaningfulness of the PCs' decisions, giving them an "easy out" when struggling with moral dilemmas is, for many groups, much more interesting. Quite a post-modern fantasy millieu you are promoting there. That there can be no ultimate authority that can, by its very nature and will, lend greater validity to a position is completely post modern and is ridiculous on its face. What I find silly is the very idea that the mortal simian brain can even conceive of such a being well enough to pass judgment on its sensibilities. Such an objective source can easily be so far beyond mortal ideas of error because of its level of wisdom and insight that indeed it may never in fact be morally or ethically mistaken. This does not mean that mortals are necessarily plugged into this knowledge and IMC they are not. I am all for complex moral questions and moral ambiguity on the mortal level. On the immortal level however, I have no desire for any particular level of pathos, angst or uncertainty. IMC the gods and planes are ultimate reality, so they know what's going on. Mortals, on the other hand, don't have the benefit of this transcendant perspective. I'm not exactly certain how a multiverse that actively chose to validate part of itself over an another part would function in a practical sense (in an RPG campaign), or even how the PCs would be able to tell the difference. One may not be able to tell much at all but it is an underlying metaphysic that Great Wheel represents that I am arguing against, not necessarily its practical value. However, like the fact that in the newer Star Wars movies it was bugs (metaclorians??!!?!?) that gave access to the force, it doesn't change what jedi or sith can do, but it subtly changes the flavor. in the case of Star Wars it was a little more than subtle....bugs indeed. Sundragon doesn't seem certain either, as no specific examples were given in the above rant. Who the shiznit are you talking to? Kinda wierd to see you respond to my post while not taking to me. The idea that the multiverse itself is moral is actually seldom found in fantasy fiction apart from explicitly Christian writers like Lewis and Tolkien, and perhaps in the Harry Potter books (which I like, and which are not explicitly Christian except in the last book). Certainly, you don't see it in Moorcock, or Lieber, or Lovecraft, or Anderson, or LeGuinn, or Howard, or Pratt and deCamp, or Mieville. However, it isn't uncommon for a morally good universe to be found in myth and spiritual traditions. In Christianity creation was good before the fall. In Hinduism, all beings who do evil are ignorant of their true nature. In Buddhism evil is ignorance and fear. In mystical Judaism, evil is also a fallen and imperfect state. In fact in NO human myth cycles or spiritual traditions I know of is there an apotheosis of evil where one can achieve anything but ill-fortune by being evil. There is no enlightenment via evil in ANY human tradition. Evil is an abberation to be fought and denied and is in no way valid even outside blatently dualistic faiths such as Christianity and Islam. snipped needless sarcasm It is an underlying assumption that I am arguing against, one I believe that the Great Wheel supports that evil is as valid morally and ethically as good. This has the practical impact of IMO dimishing the heroes as heroes and making them instead nothing more than exemplars of an opinion...bleh. I think the primary danger, if Sundragon's premise has any practical meaning at all, is that the plot loses a lot of drama - when the universe itself favors the heroes, the sense of danger is much less real, and the heroes become less important. This drawback is countered by absolutely no advantages, and are both ethically and intellectually bankrupt - lazy, really. True morality is associated with deliberation and contemplation, not mere cosmic fiat. In D&D, "good" is defined by cosmic fiat, but the cosmos does not give the PCs free hints that "good" is always right. The universe tacitly and even actively, in the form of Gandalf the celestial mage, aided the side of good in the Lord of the Rings saga but this in no way guaranteed victory. It would make sense for a sentient universe or High God type of being to broadly support those things that preserved the promotion of life or those beings it created and wished detriment upon those that sought to undermine the natural order ie. that which exists. The High God/multiverse may value mortal free will so evil must exist to allow choice but that it is allowed doesn't mean it is equally valid or cheered on. This is not to say that there is no place for death, and entropy because those things broadly also support life and existence though narrowly they are can be ruinous. These are natual forces and should not be conflated to include sentient evil such as devils and demons. Sundragon
caeruleus 09-02-07, 03:14 AM	I believe that the Great Wheel supports a moral relativism and moral equivalency that undermines the fundamental premise of high/heroic fantasy. [SNIP] Personally I have never used this atrocious idea Hold on... are you actually meaning to imply that anything other than high fantasy is "atrocious"? :uh-huh: In fact in NO human myth cycles or spiritual traditions I know of is there an apotheosis of evil where one can achieve anything but ill-fortune by being evil. Perhaps there are no myth cycles or spiritual traditions where evil is viable, but there are metaphysical theories in which that might just be the case. The Great Wheel is more than just a path to "enlightenment" for people on D&D worlds, it's a metaphysic, ie, it's the very nature of existence. There is no enlightenment via evil in ANY human tradition. Evil is an abberation to be fought and denied and is in no way valid even outside blatently dualistic faiths such as Christianity and Islam. Except that, when you really get down to it, all these traditions ultimately define evil as "the other". Many Christians say that Muslems are wrong, and many Muslems say that Christians are wrong. Each of the planes in the Great Wheel represents a particular viewpoint, just as each real-world religion does. Are you going to claim that the real world, in itself, is as "atrocious" as the Great Wheel because of this fact? I'm sure Hextor sees his way as "better" than Hieroneous's. I just think that "good" and "evil" are unfortunate terms because of all the baggage they carry. With a few exceptions, people rarely label themselves "evil". Perhaps "good" should have been called "altruistic" and "evil" should have been called "selfish". And before you say it's obvious that altruism is superior to selfishness, I ask you to consider economic theory. Capitalism and socialism each have their own merits. (Yes, I'm simplifying things. I don't intend this to turn into a discussion of economics, I'm just using an example as an illustration.)
Andyr 09-02-07, 06:44 AM	Rip replied more eloquently than I could; in essence, I agree with him. I think the Great Wheel generally does promote moral relativism, and I don't think that this is a bad thing or that it undermines heroic fantasy. I suppose it depends on what kind of game you like to play, though.
Witch 09-02-07, 07:03 AM	There is no enlightenment via evil in ANY human tradition. Evil is an abberation to be fought and denied and is in no way valid even outside blatently dualistic faiths such as Christianity and Islam. This is because monotheistic religions define "Evil" as "Something that is opposed to God's will". D&D defines "Evil" as "Enjoying or not minding causing harm to others". These definitions are not the same. It is fundamentally necessary to understand that evil and good have conventional meaning in D&D, rather than theological meaning. The reason why there is no spiritual tradition glorifying evil is because every spiritual tradition defines good as "what god tells us to do". Incidentally, some religious traditions, such as jainism, glorify things that other religions, such as christianity, consider deadly sins. In this case, sloth (in the sense of not doing anything at all.)
Paix 09-02-07, 08:15 AM	Sundragon you are making assumptions of 'evil' in myths and societies that are just not true. 'Evil' as you define it is a product of post christianity notions. That was not always the case. Hades and the Titans for example in ancient Greek mythology were not described as 'evil'. Hades was just one of the things in the natural cycle. The Titans too represented notion of ills such as pain, fear and so on. But in no way were they 'evil'. Similar paradigms exist in Egyptian mythology and even in much earlier shamanistic cultures there are examples of behaviour that is to be discouraged to maintain the society and its rules but its deviations are not described as 'evil'. Bringing all that in relation to the game and the planes, yes it was originally muddled by giving planes predominant alignments mostly influenced by the prevalent notions of good and evil which stem from modern views of it. However, the setting evolved to represent dominant concepts on each of the planes. Hence it was and is capable of catering to both the gamer that is not interested in exploring notions by simply following the good/evil or chaos/law widebrush classification but it can also support those exploring the clash of the underlying philosophies. In my view it is an ideal compromise and a clever feat considering the simplistic origins. If you wipe out the notions and the existing lore, an example of which is the upcoming change in devils, the setting is diminished. Obviously the setting is owned by the company and they can do whatever they like but returning to the notion that the cornerstone of the game is kill things and take the loot, therefore everything else is unnecessary complications is a step backwards. It is also contradictory behaviour considering that the main settings (FR and Eberron) are supported or complemented by novels that explore a wealth of ideas and concepts. Will they be also retroactively changed to make them focus on a protagonist killing the bad guy and leave it at that? It would certainly make it easier to follow changes if future novels are only a couple of chapters long and follow the 'wake up, kill henchmen, kill antagonist, yay! loot and saved the day' format. Besides, I do not understand why they even have to dumb down things. Eberron has its own separate cosmology from what I am told and FR was given something similar too (a mess of infinite and parallels outer planes.... that was sometimes followed and other times ignored). Is the concept of a Pact Primeval, an Asmodeus looking for revenge upon the laws of the multiverse, ancient Baatorians, the Blood War not evocative enough or perhaps too confusing?
Deacon Liadon 09-02-07, 08:28 AM	I don't believe that the moral relativism that the Great Wheel promotes prevents players from being heroes. It does make it more difficult for them to be truly heroic on a grand scale. One does not walk into Mordor, but it does mean that when the players perform some truly heroic act, it will make it stand out that much more.
Fabius Maximus 09-02-07, 08:51 AM	If the TRUTH is that good and evil are equal yet different positions then the whole thing, all the heroics, all the battling against darkness, all the heroic sacrifices against insurmountable odds, all of it is nothing more than a petty battle of opinions. You've got it right there. Good and Evil as moral categories are a purely artificial invention. They don't exist in reality. That's why the ingrained morality of D&D in the form of alignment is a rather awkward way of categorizing intelligent beings and their deeds. I think the taint rules from Heroes of Horror are better. It does not stop you or your character from judging what is evil and what's not.
sciborg2 09-02-07, 10:31 AM	the evil ones are unnatural and deserve destruction. now who is promoting genocide? Such an objective source can easily be so far beyond mortal ideas of error because of its level of wisdom and insight that indeed it may never in fact be morally or ethically mistaken. And how does one find or communicate with this objective source? In any case, why not just scrap the wheel and keep the planes you like? I've always held the wheel as a theoretical convenience rather than physical reality.
Johngalt137 09-02-07, 10:27 PM	Two points, first the structure of a multiverse is independent of its Moral/Ethical stance (hereafter referred to as a system of values). Just because each alignment has a plane does not necessarily mean that good is no longer better than evil. For example, in this real universe we find no places that are good/evil/law/chaos aligned, it is very much like the prime material plane in D&D. This does not, however, preclude the existence of an objective system of values. Second, you don't understand what moral relativism is. Moral Relativism is saying that good and evil are relative, in other words saying that someone is good is simply agreeing with them. If we had this system in D&D then Fiends would be Lawful Good when dealing with other fiends. A detect evil spell cast by a fiend would detect angels. This is not how D&D works. No philosophy has the notion that good and evil are equally correct, simply because in ethics (in this case meaning the branch of philosophy dealing with morality) good and correct are synonyms, while evil and correct are antonyms. It is unnecessary when dealing with morality to say "oh yeah, and evil is bad/wrong".What you are daringly trying to avoid saying by using the words "Odin is no more correct than Asmodeus" is "Odin is no more good than Asmodeus" you choose not to say this because in the D&D universe Odin is more good than Asmodeus. In this universe people are evil because they are incorrect/worse/wrong Pol Pot is a mass murderer he is therefore reffered to as evil because evil is a negative/bad thing! If D&D truly had a subjective (relativisitic) system of values then we wouldn't have alignments at all. We'd just have agrees with you about ethics/morality and disagrees with you about ethics/morality. However, we do have a clear cut objective alignment system in D&D, and mass murdering is worse/less correct than sainthood because it is an EVIL act in D&D. That is the opposite of moral relativism.
ripvanwormer 09-03-07, 01:42 AM	The question in the standard Great Wheel cosmology, a variation of Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/euthyphrodilemma.html), is whether something is good because the Upper Planes promote it, or whether the Upper Planes promote it because it is good. Sundragon's proposal does not resolve this question, but only defers it. Under Sundragon's system, the dilemma becomes: is something good because the multiverse itself promotes it, or does the multiverse itself promote it because it is good? I argue that, for an ethical system to be truly objective, it has to be valid independent of multiversal imprimatur. I am not arguing for moral relativism. I'm arguing that good has clearly, objectively different qualities and results than evil. Helping the poor is objectively more "good" than genocide, regardless of how the Outer Planes are configured. A "moral cosmos" does nothing to make a system of ethics more "valid" than the presence of a fixed set of Outer Planes. The system, one would hope, is either valid or it is not - an impartial judge could determine which is the case, but this determination wouldn't make it any more or less the case, just as a jury doesn't create a murder, but only confirms or denies its existence to others. To give another example, a sharp-eyed referee may correctly identify the winner of a race, but wouldn't actually have made one of the contestants run faster. The fact of the murder remains objective regardless of the jury's verdict, and the fact of the racer's speed remains objective regardless of the ruling of the referee. If this is not the case, then the ethics are subjective. Even when the judge that makes this subjective determination is the multiverse itself, it is still subjective unless the ethical system is objectively valid independent of this judgment. Good is, therefore, not just an "opinion" - since no one would seriously argue that the deeds of Pol Pot and Mother Teresa are indistinguishable, no one can argue that the opinions of some hypothetical third party, no matter how wise, would change the nature and results of their respective activities. An argument from pragmatism and an argument from simple compassion does more to inform a valid system of ethics than a universal imprimatur ever could. A universal imprimatur can be (and has been) used to justify anything, and that's terrifying. Belief in such a standard, morality untethered by reason, has been responsible for so much suffering in the real world that I can't think of fantasizing about such reliance to be anything but abhorrent. See also the problem of abhorrent commands (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/abhorrentcommands.html). An ethical system is only valid when fixed to reason. It is reason and compassion that informs the edicts of the gods of good, and while some of them may indeed know more about morality than "mere simian minds," the multiversal substrate is incapable of giving their opinions either more or less weight. They are either correct or they are not, and the multiverse itself is either correct or it is not. Even if the multiverse is correct, the path of action would remain correct whether the multiverse recognized it or not. The notion of a secular system of ethics based purely on reason is thousands of years old, dating back at least to Epicurus, and the ideas I'm discussing were Plato's. Needless to say, all this predates postmodernism by quite a long time.
setekh 09-03-07, 10:06 AM	The battle of Good and Evil, Order and chaos is largely irrelevant. Entropy will win in the end, sure, it will take Billions of years (Probably longer still) but it will win out, for nothing can outlast time itself. And as Demons seem to be the Agents of Entropy, It stands to reason that C/E is the 'Right' Alignment. (That last bit is only half in jest:P )
Darkness_Elemental 09-03-07, 03:38 PM	If the TRUTH is that good and evil are equal yet different positions then the whole thing, all the heroics, all the battling against darkness, all the heroic sacrifices against insurmountable odds, all of it is nothing more than a petty battle of opinions. If good and evil are not equal, if good is portrayed as inherently stronger and destined to win, how does that not invalidate the heroism? If you were destined to win all along, how was it heroic? If good and evil are not equal, where did those insurmountable odds come from in the first place? Heroism is doing what you know to be right without a big glowing voice from above saying "YES, YOU ARE RIGHT AND YOU WILL WIN AND THE EVIL ONES SHALL SNUFF IT." It's sticking to your guns and holding out in the face of (as you said) insurmountable odds even if, in the dark of the night, you are afraid that you're going to die and it's all going to come to nothing because people in their hearts are just too fickle and wicked to stand up for each other when it counts. Also, don't confuse the Great Wheel for a static structure. Right now it may be balanced, but every victory of good over evil is a victory of the Upper Planes over the Lower. Even death is not the end of the fight, the Outsiders are made from mortal souls and mortal beliefs. One day, there will be only one Outer Plane left. It's a war to the finish and it's the mortals who are going to decide who's still standing at the end of the day.
Starcloud 09-03-07, 04:38 PM	As I said on ENWorld, you really have the demon's argument for not being Good down pat. "Look, we're all just denizens of the Great Wheel, there's no difference between us demons and those solars over there. We just think that we have different approaches. They want you to help others, to stand against torture, against pillaging, against taking what you want when you want it. They want you to believe that this will somehow mean you're rewarded in the afterlife. Well, kid, I'm here to tell you that if you don't take what you want now, you ain't gonna get it in the afterlife. Let me tell you what the afterlife is like, and maybe, if we do business together, I can get you out of it, give you a head start, help you avoid all the torment that those souls go through." And the demon proceeds to tell his potential victim all about the Abyss, without bothering to tell him about the Seven Heavens or that his free-willed actions while alive determine where he ends up after death. Good and Evil aren't just descriptors, they are also objective moral judgements in D&D. They are not and never have been 'relative' to anything. What you're looking for is a D&D afterlife where there is only the Seven Heavens and all the evil things are just annihilated. And you, personally, believe that this means any afterlife that does not conform to your view must encourage moral relativism.
caeruleus 09-03-07, 05:34 PM	One of the problems with the idea that Good will simply win out over Evil is that it leads people to think that they can one day be done with morality. As a friend of mine says, he wishes he could fight at the Black Gates of Mordor, know that Evil is vanquished, and never have to worry about it again. It's what he wishes for, but he at least realizes that things are not so simple. If we become complacent and just assume everything is Good, we'll never notice the Evil creep back in.
sciborg2 09-04-07, 06:21 PM	Given that a lot of actions taken in RL are really based on control vs freedom with Good vs Evil draped over, one would hope that the Great Wheel showed both objective and relative values. And, surprise surprise, it does. All the Goods are equally valid, but relatively the celestials disagree on which is best. But all can agree that Evil is something to be fought against.
ManTimeForgot 09-05-07, 01:29 AM	I give you credit for having a well-structured argument, but the fact that one of its premises is completely and utterly farcical makes the conclusion complete and utter rubbish. The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that D&D's cosmology supports moral relativism is to assume moral relativism is the prominent feature of D&D's ethical system. This is false as evidenced by the PHB's alignment section, where it outlines exactly which behaviors constitute Good and Evil respectively. Now even presuming for a moment that we ignore the denotion of "good" and "evil" for moment (one could for instance note that "good" by its very definition means correct, proper, etc), we cannot therefore assume moral relativism. Meta-ethical relativism (the inability to arrive at the conclusion of which ideology is correct) maybe. But that presumes one does not possess knowledge of the PHB (which all players by necessity do) and therefore could only be said to be so if a character only considers the artificial state of relative evenness in terms of power/efficacy of the various ideological forces. The even states of power is done in order to preserve the potential for heroic adventures across time. If all evil were eventually eradicated (or good), then eventually heroes would become impractical at best, non-existant at worst. In order to arrive moral relativism, one has to start with the premise that substantive equality in power of the various sides is equivalent to an ideological endorsement of the correctness of that particular side. And yet this fundamentally breaks down when it is actually applied. No mortal could survive, nor would they wish to endorse the application of extremes of law, evil, or chaos to the mortal plane. Too much Evil in D&D results in life losing its luster, eventually giving way to pure pain, suffering, and despair. Wallowing in pure anguish is not something that any sane person would consider to be a way of life worthy of endorsement. Too much Chaos in D&D results in life acquiring characteristics of unpredictability which go beyond survivability. If suddenly one's bowl of cherio's transformed into a bowl of acid, then one's breakfast is... well, ruined. Too much Law in D&D results in a stagnation, both physical and mental, which is beyond mortal capability to cope with. If everything about one's life were predetermined, every action predicted, every facet of life able to be investigated, located, qualified, and quantified right down to the deepest structure conceivable, then individual purpose is eradicated in favor of environmental exigencies. Only universal Good in D&D has any capability of being applied in the extreme, but there is a metagame reason for it not being applied (at least in a widespread fashion). If life were extreme Good, then no conflict exists. Everything is harmonious, and without obstacles to overcome heroes don't exist. MTF
Plastic Sun 09-05-07, 03:04 AM	This is because monotheistic religions define "Evil" as "Something that is opposed to God's will". D&D defines "Evil" as "Enjoying or not minding causing harm to others". These definitions are not the same. It is fundamentally necessary to understand that evil and good have conventional meaning in D&D, rather than theological meaning. The reason why there is no spiritual tradition glorifying evil is because every spiritual tradition defines good as "what god tells us to do". Incidentally, some religious traditions, such as jainism, glorify things that other religions, such as christianity, consider deadly sins. In this case, sloth (in the sense of not doing anything at all.) The idea of good and evil in the sense that you are stating is complete eurocentrism, there are several religions which I can think of at the drop of a hat that do not define evil as "Not doing god's will" some like Taoism and Buddhism have no true gods to speak of. Others like Hinduism have more complex concepts such as dharma in addition to their myriad gods. I have never known anyone (with the exception of childish individuals) who describes themselves as evil and so why should the planes be any different? Does this mean that the Detect Alignment spells use these shaky concepts of good and evil as defined by D&D to notify the caster? But honestly, given the fact that they seemed to try and hammer it out in 2nd edition, I honestly believe that fiends do not believe that they are evil, they believe they are more on the level of pragmatism or calculated selfishness. A complete and utter social darwinism in which only the strong survive and the weak are annihilated. This seems like a bad thing? Well for a society geared towards the utter destruction of enemies it believes are crushing in upon it from all sides such a philosophy would strengthen it. It has been hinted time and time again that if the fiends would set aside the blood war that the celestials would be doomed. I have grown tired of the villain who does something for the sake of evil, it's unrealistic on any level and honestly a childish view on morality. Yes fiends love to slaughter things and love to lay waste to the works of others, but they do this not out of a desire for furthering the concept of some barely recognized force as "Evil" but out of a desire for gratification or destructive impulse.
kintire 09-05-07, 06:14 AM	The moral relativism of the Great Wheel makes all moral/ethical positions cosmically equal. Regardless of what the heroes do, the multiverse simply sees them as equals on a spectrum of moral equivalents. In the layout of the Great Wheel there is nothing better about moral good over evil. Odin is no more correct than Asmodeus, Tyr is no more correct than Orcus, it all depends on where you stand on the wheel. You are elevating the Great Wheel higher than it deserves in the cosmology. Fundamentals like Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos are not defined by the Great Wheel, they define it. The denizens of the wheel are contingent beings, they are not the ultimate verities. Even the gods. The ultimate source of the multiverse, the real basis of what its all about, is canonically unknown, and wisely so. We know there are realities above the great wheel, because we occasionally glimpse them (overgods for example). But Where it All Comes From is unknown. The great wheel, for all its undoubted importance, is a part of the world, not its source.
Witch 09-05-07, 08:22 AM	The idea of good and evil in the sense that you are stating is complete eurocentrism, there are several religions which I can think of at the drop of a hat that do not define evil as "Not doing god's will" some like Taoism and Buddhism have no true gods to speak of. Others like Hinduism have more complex concepts such as dharma in addition to their myriad gods. I have never known anyone (with the exception of childish individuals) who describes themselves as evil and so why should the planes be any different? Does this mean that the Detect Alignment spells use these shaky concepts of good and evil as defined by D&D to notify the caster? The claim that Buddhism has no true gods to speak of is contestable at best and false at worst. You'll have to specify schools to be accurate in such things. And define when a god becomes "a true god to speak of". I'll not claim that about Taoism, because I simply don't know enough about it. But yes, my claim was eurocentric, because the complaints about the definition of good and evil being determined in some universal way nearly always come from people who place themself in a European or Middle-Eastern tradition. But honestly, given the fact that they seemed to try and hammer it out in 2nd edition, I honestly believe that fiends do not believe that they are evil, they believe they are more on the level of pragmatism or calculated selfishness. That's pretty darn lame. You are suggesting a monster with intelligence in the twenties can't cast a Detect Evil spell on themselves? Or realize they are objectively evil in the face of the multiverse? Note - they don't think they are wrong. But they do think they are evil. Because that simply can't be denied, with the myriad of effects and spells proving it. I have grown tired of the villain who does something for the sake of evil, it's unrealistic on any level and honestly a childish view on morality. It's unrealistic because evil outsiders don't exist in the real world. I agree: mortals doing evil for the sake of evil - except for the few who are religiously devoted to evil outsiders - are unrealistic, and to see this as the norm is a childish view on mortal thinking on morality. But these are not mortals. These are fiends, made from the very alignment they seek to promote. It is not unrealistic from that perspective - it is difficult for us to understand such a mindset which is utterly based upon the proliferation of Evil.
Ornum 09-05-07, 08:58 AM	But honestly, given the fact that they seemed to try and hammer it out in 2nd edition, I honestly believe that fiends do not believe that they are evil, they believe they are more on the level of pragmatism or calculated selfishness. A complete and utter social darwinism in which only the strong survive and the weak are annihilated. This seems like a bad thing? Well for a society geared towards the utter destruction of enemies it believes are crushing in upon it from all sides such a philosophy would strengthen it. It has been hinted time and time again that if the fiends would set aside the blood war that the celestials would be doomed. I have grown tired of the villain who does something for the sake of evil, it's unrealistic on any level and honestly a childish view on morality. Yes fiends love to slaughter things and love to lay waste to the works of others, but they do this not out of a desire for furthering the concept of some barely recognized force as "Evil" but out of a desire for gratification or destructive impulse. That might be what you want from the game, but in D&D, as it currently stands, that is just not the case. In most cases, a mortal is very aware that they are committing an evil act when they do so. They may not act in the name of evil, but they know what they are doing is evil, nonetheless. Fiends are worse than that. There is no question that they are acting in the name of evil. They are the incarnation of evil and they know it. Each type of fiend has their own brand of evil, and they actively and intentionally spread that evil. That's just the way it is. Of course, you can change it how you like in your game, but that would not be the official line on the subject. The great wheel, for all its undoubted importance, is a part of the world, not its source. Although this has only been implied over the course of the game, one could say that the "world" (meaning the Prime Material Plane) is actually the source of the Outer Planes. To be more specific, the thoughts and beliefs of the Prime gave form to the current Outer Plane set up, which had previously only been a shapeless mass (that mass being the Abyss' original form, according to FC:1).
asteroidjawa 09-05-07, 12:14 PM	So if Good is better than Evil on the wheel, is Law better than Chaos? Where does Neutral fit in? Why would True Neutral not be the best? It is at the center of the wheel no matter how it is spun right? The wheel doesn't say which one is right or wrong, just describes how they interact with one another. Personally, I view the wheel as just a way to describe what one's actions and motivations, not the force that drives those actions. And it certainly isn't something that would constrain you to following a particular philosophy since alignment changes based on what you do, not the other way around. So saying someone is of a certain alignment is like than saying they are a memberof a particular club, it just gives others(and yourself) a basic idea of who you are and how you act. Also, I think it has become more of an oval than a circle, with good and evil being further away from each other than law is from chaos. For instance, you have a Solar, a Devil and a Demon pop into a room I think the Demon and Devil are more likely to team up against the good guy, rather than the Solar and Devil teaming up against the chaotic guy. Replace the Devil with a Chaotic Good dude(I forget who thier iconic outsider is), the good guys would probably team up instead of the chaotics.
Yue Ryong 09-05-07, 09:33 PM	Having had key portions of my ideas of the nature of fantasy morality (indirectly, at least) defined by vaguely Lovecraftian ideas of supreme, uncaring forces of creation & destruction churning through the universe (with intermediate higher-plane beings enacting more cognisant plots against this backdrop), I find the best way to look at the relationship between the planes and alignment is to view the Alignments as pure universal drives that pull against one another and that draw people into patterns of thought more in line with that concept's nature. This, it is important to note, does not lend moral or ethical credence to these forces, it only assumes that these drives influence the thoughts of their followers in certain directions. In my own understanding, the outer planes (and, by extension, the various Alignment paragon races - is there anything for TN, by the by? I'm a pure 3.5 player who only recently had a proper look at the planes and havent found one) are manifestations of these forces and are formed from the souls of aligned followers that are then used as types of powerful forces in an attempt to influence souls of more sentient beings. The gods, on the other hand, are a quite different planar phenomena. To the forces of pure alignment, Deities are like leaders of political parties - in that they are powerful individual souls who have arisen to represent large groups of 'voters' who might not normally be open to being persuaded to your cause. Beh, it's not something I normally think about. I've always found the Elemental planes more interesting, as they're objectively morally neutral forces that grant power in raw forms but that possess counter-active adgendas without allegience to any one force being more than a purely personal choice. And there's where the ambiguous understanding of what is wanted comes in, even before introducing such complications as the Archomentals (good & bad). Interestingly, there's a passage in one of the FR Drow books (I forget which, possibly one of the War of the Spider Queen books) where a Drow Priestess (actually it might be Drizzt's sister in one of his books) describes the Drow's relationship with Chaos and Evil, outlining Chaos as a form of 'self-reliance' (going by memory, I can't remember which book it's in and can't be bothered to look up) and Evil as 'ambition'. The view espoused by this Drow Priestess largely credits these ideals with the strength of the Drow as a whole, as it forms constant internal strife that culls the weak from their ranks and motivates the strong to become stronger. By extension, Law in our view might be better described as 'Concerted Effort' or 'Interdependance' and Good as 'Altruism'. I dunno, maybe I'm barking completely up the wrong tree. I was always more interested in Politics than Philosophy, anyway.
ripvanwormer 09-05-07, 10:08 PM	(and, by extension, the various Alignment paragon races - is there anything for TN, by the by? I'm a pure 3.5 player who only recently had a proper look at the planes and havent found one) The primary true neutral race is the rilmani. Some of them are described in the 3.0 Fiend Folio. They're humanoids of various sizes with skin of various metallic hues. They dwell, for the most part, near the Spire, but they have agents throughout the planes, attempting to keep the balance through their network of spies, soldiers, assassins, and master manipulators.
Plastic Sun 09-05-07, 10:31 PM	The claim that Buddhism has no true gods to speak of is contestable at best and false at worst. You'll have to specify schools to be accurate in such things. And define when a god becomes "a true god to speak of". I'll not claim that about Taoism, because I simply don't know enough about it. But yes, my claim was eurocentric, because the complaints about the definition of good and evil being determined in some universal way nearly always come from people who place themself in a European or Middle-Eastern tradition. That's pretty darn lame. You are suggesting a monster with intelligence in the twenties can't cast a Detect Evil spell on themselves? Or realize they are objectively evil in the face of the multiverse? Note - they don't think they are wrong. But they do think they are evil. Because that simply can't be denied, with the myriad of effects and spells proving it. It's unrealistic because evil outsiders don't exist in the real world. I agree: mortals doing evil for the sake of evil - except for the few who are religiously devoted to evil outsiders - are unrealistic, and to see this as the norm is a childish view on mortal thinking on morality. But these are not mortals. These are fiends, made from the very alignment they seek to promote. It is not unrealistic from that perspective - it is difficult for us to understand such a mindset which is utterly based upon the proliferation of Evil. Well Yes, I give you the point on Buddhism, I should clarify that I meant a god that you will have to account your actions before, much in like the traditional abrahamic God. But as for fiends knowing they are evil? Well are those spells called "Detect Evil" in the mage's spellbook? Plus as we all know, fiends are prideful and conceited creatures, and something as intelligent as a fiend could certainly rationalize the moniker of "Evil" as given by the spell away easily. I believe that the fiend would merely see it as someone imposing their views of morality upon them through the naming of the spell, or that it wouldn't necessarily be termed evil if someone of that alignment cast it upon themselves. Additionally, I believe that in some ways the moral relativism is necessary to drive hom ethe fact that no one is right. The Xaositects are as justified as the Fraternity of Order and the Ring Givers are as correct as The Fated. It's all a matter of perspective, so why shouldn't this same relativity spread beyond the mortals to the celestials and fiends?
sicsemperjohn 09-06-07, 03:47 AM	The claim that Buddhism has no true gods to speak of is contestable at best and false at worst. Definitely got a point there. Pure Land school Buddhism is, if I would like to mangle two belief systems in one sentence, Catholicism with different actors. On the other hand, Buddhism as in the texts of Dogen or Mumonkan is nowhere near religion, and is more of a philosophy. If you were to translate that kind of Buddhism into something within the D&D realm, it would be more like some kind of combination of the Sign of One, the Transcendent Order, the Bleak Cabal, and I suppose about two or three other factions. (I suppose that might sound contradictory but oh well) My quick personal definition of D&D-good versus D&D-evil is that good usually entails the bettering of others at the cost of the self, while evil usually entails the bettering of the self at the cost of others. In terms of D&D, anything else on the moral scale just works out neutral. 'Course this has to be reconsidered in each and every situation where alignment may come up, but I'm used to that.
kintire 09-06-07, 06:23 AM	Also, I think it has become more of an oval than a circle, with good and evil being further away from each other than law is from chaos. For instance, you have a Solar, a Devil and a Demon pop into a room I think the Demon and Devil are more likely to team up against the good guy, rather than the Solar and Devil teaming up against the chaotic guy. Replace the Devil with a Chaotic Good dude(I forget who thier iconic outsider is), the good guys would probably team up instead of the chaotics. It is certainly true that the celestials don't war against each other and sometimes cooperate, where the fiends do and don't. But this is because part of the good alignment is respecting the right of others to disagree, insofar as that doesn't imperil anyone. Altruism and respect for the dignity of others. It doesn't mean that the differences between the celestials are any less profound. The disagreements between Lawful and Chaotic good are as profound as between Lawful and Chaotic evil, its just that the means of resolving the dispute are not (usually) violent. But as for fiends knowing they are evil? Well are those spells called "Detect Evil" in the mage's spellbook? Plus as we all know, fiends are prideful and conceited creatures, and something as intelligent as a fiend could certainly rationalize the moniker of "Evil" as given by the spell away easily. I believe that the fiend would merely see it as someone imposing their views of morality upon them through the naming of the spell, or that it wouldn't necessarily be termed evil if someone of that alignment cast it upon themselves. Fiends will be perfectly aware of what they are, and what mortals call it. They will therefore believe themselves "Evil". Of course, they will deny that this makes them wrong, but they won't deny they are evil (well, not genuinely. They may well lie about the fact of course). Additionally, I believe that in some ways the moral relativism is necessary to drive hom ethe fact that no one is right. The Xaositects are as justified as the Fraternity of Order and the Ring Givers are as correct as The Fated. It's all a matter of perspective, so why shouldn't this same relativity spread beyond the mortals to the celestials and fiends? But that presupposes that what you say is in fact correct. Its far from clear that it IS all a matter of perspective. Who says the Xaositects are as justified as anyone else? Just because someone thinks they are right, doesn't mean they are.
Furryhowler 09-06-07, 08:33 AM	I believe that the Great Wheel supports a moral relativism and moral equivalency that undermines the fundamental premise of high/heroic fantasy. I think you'll find it has simply followed the line of contemporary society into relativism. It used to be that the general idea was that "Lawful Good" was best and "Chaotic Evil" was worst, whilst the rest all sort of fitted inbetween. But because all sorts of stuff (from communism to mysticism) got pushed into LG this eventually became meaningless and gradually the great wheel notion (where the Hells are no longer portrayed as punishments etc) came into use. So now its all a matter of "choice" and "preference" and other buzzwords of the moment ;) probably for the same reasons as in the realworld; a blend of: * Objectivism being claimed by tyranical nutters and * Human egos demanding importance :)
Plastic Sun 09-06-07, 01:08 PM	But that presupposes that what you say is in fact correct. Its far from clear that it IS all a matter of perspective. Who says the Xaositects are as justified as anyone else? Just because someone thinks they are right, doesn't mean they are. The universe itself proves that they are correct at least on some level, how other way would they receive their faction powers? Their own belief and will imposed upon the universe causes them by extension to become correct merely by fiat.
Ornum 09-06-07, 01:27 PM	And the fact that each can point to some event that took place, ability they are granted, or plane that already exists which backs up their claims shows that they are correct on some level (Xaositects = Limbo, Guvners = Mechanus, etc.). Edit: Basically, this is the same thing that was stated above.
kintire 09-07-07, 04:48 AM	The universe itself proves that they are correct at least on some level, how other way would they receive their faction powers? Ethically, this means nothing whatsoever. I can get power from a wall socket by doing the right thing. Does that mean three pin plugs are ethically right? Their own belief and will imposed upon the universe causes them by extension to become correct merely by fiat. In some backgrounds you can become right about facts through sheer will. But ethically? Good believes that it is better than Evil, that Goodness is worth fighting and striving for. No one is claiming that Evil doesn't exist. All the alignments grant powers to those who support their cause, but that doesn't mean its right (or wrong) to follow them.
Skeptical Clown 09-07-07, 12:08 PM	The morality of the Great Planes is certainly confused, but I think that this is a result of the confusion in the game system more than a fault of the planes themselves. Good and Evil are real forces, as we would expect in High Fantasy, but D&D is really closer to Sword & Sorcery in many ways--it's a game of swashbuckling action and adventure first and foremost. For there to be absolute morality, there must be some arbiter of what is good and what is evil. As most D&D settings are polytheistic however, and the gods that exist are diverse and balanced in power, it cannot be said that there is a single force, or even a duality, arbitrating what is good and evil. That's why I don't think D&D has ever really been a High Fantasy game. The struggles of D&D characters are not on the same plane as the struggles of Frodo and Sam, or the kids in Narnia. They're much more on a level with Conan and Elric and the Grey Mouser and the Three Musketeers. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however, and it's not hard at all to set up a game that IS High Fantasy with the D&D rules. You'd have to scrap the established settings though.
Altar_Boy 09-07-07, 10:44 PM	I believe that the Great Wheel supports a moral relativism and moral equivalency that undermines the fundamental premise of high/heroic fantasy. See, that's where your argument falls apart. Where is this stated? Implied? At best, the alignment system somewhat does (The non-evil alignments are given reasons why they're best). The fact that different planes exist shouldn't determine moral relativism. I am aware of Heaven and Hell, but the awareness of both does not lead me to believe in both of those places' ideologies. Frankly, the general preferability of the Seven Heavens over the Nine Hells should be a good enough reason for why Good is better than evil: better benefits, and the Landlord is nicer. :D Sundragon, if you could make your own Outer Planes, what would they look like? Would you have multiple planes?
Plastic Sun 09-08-07, 02:41 AM	Ethically, this means nothing whatsoever. I can get power from a wall socket by doing the right thing. Does that mean three pin plugs are ethically right? In some backgrounds you can become right about facts through sheer will. But ethically? Good believes that it is better than Evil, that Goodness is worth fighting and striving for. No one is claiming that Evil doesn't exist. All the alignments grant powers to those who support their cause, but that doesn't mean its right (or wrong) to follow them. Yes but you expected that result from the light socket, it isn't a mystical thing, your belief system* (which is supported on some level philosophically by some part of the universe) does not power that three pin plug's device. But here's the thing, this is how I have always thought how many evil beings would look at it: Evil is the practical choice, it is the choice that keeps you alive and keeps you looking out for yourself to the usual exclusion of all others. While it may seem cold and sometimes cruel it makes up for it by the fact the unlike those goody two-shoes or those fence sitters, you gain power, wealth and influence without having to worry about exercising it because of the restraints of a petty moral (or in the case of NE and CE an ethical) framework. As for why places that are governed by evil beings tend to fall apart or are hard places to live? Well that's obviously because you (the one who is right) isn't in charge, if they'd merely admit your superiority and step aside like they should; then things would be so much better for everyone. Of course once you get into power you have to keep the stupid upstarts from thinking they could merely usurp the position from one who has a manifest right to rule over them, so it is best if you sometimes cull the herd to remind them who is in charge and why you're in charge. I guess the crux of my argument is that evil is as viable a moral outlook as good, just because our view of it is obfuscated by not only the term Evil does not mean we should describe it as any less correct of a position than Good. *Or in the case of certain factions/sects like the Free League, The Converts and the Bleak Cabal, the strong belief in the lack of greater meaning or organized belief.
Corpus 09-10-07, 02:17 AM	There can't be any such thing as objective "right" or "wrong" in D&D, just like there can't be in the real world. In D&D, good and evil are attributes that people may have based on a tendency towards benevolence and malevolence, respectively. They're represented more-or-less equally on the Great Wheel because when considered as "forces," they're equally powerful. Of course, a group of extremely powerful PCs might be able to tip the scale one way or another, or at least cause one to propagate in the material plane. It's not that complicated, people.
kintire 09-10-07, 06:13 AM	Yes but you expected that result from the light socket, it isn't a mystical thing, your belief system* (which is supported on some level philosophically by some part of the universe) does not power that three pin plug's device. And the faction expected that result from its beliefs. Why is my belief in physics any different from their belief in [insert alignment here]? I guess the crux of my argument is that evil is as viable a moral outlook as good, just because our view of it is obfuscated by not only the term Evil does not mean we should describe it as any less correct of a position than Good. In practical terms, it is viable (as viable is debateable) otherwise it wouldn't have survived. And if your sole outlook is the practical, then this seems compelling. Those with ethical views may not agree. There can't be any such thing as objective "right" or "wrong" in D&D, just like there can't be in the real world. Your second remark is wrong: there can be objective right and wrong in the real world. There may be some doubt as to whether or not there actually is, but there certainly can be. The first remark lacks even that. Not only can there be objective right and wrong in DnD, there overtly is.
Skeptical Clown 09-10-07, 10:54 AM	There can't be any such thing as objective "right" or "wrong" in D&D, just like there can't be in the real world. Of course there can be. D&D is fantasy, not reality. All objective morality requires is a figure of unimpeachable benevolence who manifests its will on the world in question. There is no question in Middle-Earth that Iluvatar is Good, or that Morgoth and Sauron are Evil. They are absolute figures of good and evil manifest in the world. That's not to say there is no room for ambiguity in characters--but even for those characters, the primary struggle is between salvation and temptation, not true ethical dilemmas. Absolute morality does not work well in reality because there are no such supernatural figures that are obviously apparent. It's difficult as well in the default D&D cosmology because there is no obviously unimpeachable source of morality. There is Neutral Good, and Lawful Good, and Chaotic Good, and several shades between, and who is to say which one is right? But that doesn't mean that absolute morality cannot work in D&D.
sciborg2 09-10-07, 12:54 PM	reason is a better source of absolute morality, though as Bakker would point out our beliefs on morality are based more so on their function than any immovable point of reference. in real life, as in D&D, Good is not an easy thing to define or follow. This is why the product that tried to define good - the Book of Exalted Deeds - may be one of the worst publications in D&D history as it actually recommends going easy on exalted players who otherwise - by the ridiculous code in the book - would be tricked and manipulated. Good is an adventure, as Calasso would say. This is why the Great Wheel is such a lasting edifice, it reflects this idea as a vibrant metaphor. Should celestials make deals with fiends, or sell them arms for the Blood War? Is it evil because villages in the Outlands are destroyed, or is the greater good fulfilled by keeping Evil turning upon itself? Is the Eden like state of the Beastlands ignorance the best Good? Or the hard climb of Mount Celestia? The Great Wheel isn't just a grade-school listing of right and wrong, its a living argument as to the means as well. How does one acheive the Good, what right does one have to be selfish?
Skeptical Clown 09-10-07, 04:32 PM	Reason doesn't lead us to absolute morality; it leads us to situational morality. This is what we engage in on a daily basis--measuring expected consequences and possibilities, and trying to reach the best possible solution. That's not absolute; absolute morality says that there are prescribed ways to behave. The only logical source of prescribed moral behavior is a supernatural figure who creates and defines Good.* The fault of the Book of Exalted Deeds is that it tries to reconcile absolute Good and Evil in a world that is not black and white. It's an impossible task, so the only thing that the Book can be faulted for is attempting it in the first place. The Great Wheel has its own somewhat interesting take on morality; the Law/Chaos divide shades the issues in ways that don't really exist in reality--we don't talk about things in terms of Lawful or Chaotic, really. Sometimes it's interesting to work under different ethical assumptions than what we are used to in everyday life--the D&D morality system illustrates this. Of course, this includes working with Absolute morality; most people who are not very religious in their every day lives probably do not live under an assumption of absolute morality. There's definitely room for that kind of gameplay, but it probably has to exist a bit outside (or least abreast of) the "Great Wheel" cosmology and assumptions. *I'm not, by the way, trying to recommend absolute morality over situation morality, or vice versa; I'm simply asserting what seems obvious to me--that absolutes belong to the supernatural world, not the natural world.
Corpus 09-10-07, 06:15 PM	I never said it D&D couldn't have morality. That's basically what the whole alignment system is. All I'm saying is that the concepts of objective "right" and "wrong" aren't actually viable in D&D, just like they aren't viable in real life. No matter how fantastic a world is, two and two still can't be three.
Skeptical Clown 09-10-07, 06:21 PM	However you want to put it--yes, you can have objective right and wrong in a fantasy setting. Our inability to pin down objective right and wrong in reality is due to practicality. We don't have to be practical in a Fantasy setting--that's why it is fantasy. Things can be objectively right or wrong Just Because. D&D already has one ethical system that doesn't really make sense other than Just Because--the alignment system. Why are things split between Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic? No real reason other than Just Because.
Corpus 09-10-07, 06:23 PM	However you want to put it--yes, you can have objective right and wrong in a fantasy setting. Our inability to pin down objective right and wrong in reality is due to practicality. We don't have to be practical in a Fantasy setting--that's why it is fantasy. Things can be objectively right or wrong Just Because. No, it's because the concepts themselves are flawed. Good and evil are forces in D&D, but that doesn't mean one is "better" or any other normative descriptor you can come up with.
BillTheManiac 09-10-07, 07:22 PM	In D&D, PCs don't fight for good because good is what's best. PCs fight for good because the PCs are good. Players decide to be good because of external morality, based on whatever morality they hold out-of-game. Pact Primeval: That would be an interesting layout to the planes. There would be 3 planes, LG, LE, and CE. CE would contain spontaneously formed demons. LG would contain spontaneously formed angels and the souls of lawful mortals. LE would contain angels who became devils and the souls of chaotic mortals. That is not the great wheel. Alignments: CG>NG>LG>LN>N>CN>LE>NE>CE.
Johngalt137 09-10-07, 10:50 PM	For there to be absolute morality, there must be some arbiter of what is good and what is evil. As most D&D settings are polytheistic however, and the gods that exist are diverse and balanced in power, it cannot be said that there is a single force, or even a duality, arbitrating what is good and evil. This is simply untrue. Morality is absolute, independent of a subjective analysis. Any arbiter would be inherently subjective, even if the arbiter deciding good and evil is really cool. For instance, if there was a devil overgod arbiter that said killing was good it would NOT make it so. Ethics and morality arise from metaphysics. ie. What *is* determines what *is* good.
Corpus 09-10-07, 11:48 PM	This is simply untrue. Morality is absolute, independent of a subjective analysis. Any arbiter would be inherently subjective, even if the arbiter deciding good and evil is really cool. For instance, if there was a devil overgod arbiter that said killing was good it would NOT make it so. Ethics and morality arise from metaphysics. ie. What *is* determines what *is* good. I was going to read your post, but then I noticed your name was "JohnGalt," which means you have absolutely no right to try to contribute to any philosophical discussion, anywhere.
Skeptical Clown 09-11-07, 01:10 AM	This is simply untrue. Morality is absolute, independent of a subjective analysis. Any arbiter would be inherently subjective, even if the arbiter deciding good and evil is really cool. For instance, if there was a devil overgod arbiter that said killing was good it would NOT make it so. Ethics and morality arise from metaphysics. ie. What *is* determines what *is* good. Sigh. I'm arguing from the perspective of fantasy here, not actual ethics. If D&D were a game that involved real-world ethics and philosophy, then the moral alignment system and the outer planes would be quite silly. The Arbiter I'm referring to is not just some guy who is more powerful than everyone else. That's not ethics, that's tyranny. Arbiter is perhaps a bad term, but I'm trying to avoid more loaded ones--The Arbiter is the SOURCE of good. There is no question in Tolkien's world that Iluvatar is GOOD. It's not because of metaphysics or rational systems of ethics--it's because Iluvatar IS, and because there can be no good without Iluvatar. Surely, people (even Randy people) can suspend their own preconceptions about worldly ethics and believe that other, hypothetical ethical constructs exist in fantasy worlds? And the argument I'm making for an "Arbiter" of morality isn't even a particularly unusual one--it's a fairly common theological one. I'm not arguing that people accept these as general worldviews, but merely that there need not be one set of ethical boundaries that encompass all fantasy settings.
ManTimeForgot 09-11-07, 02:50 AM	I never said it D&D couldn't have morality. That's basically what the whole alignment system is. All I'm saying is that the concepts of objective "right" and "wrong" aren't actually viable in D&D, just like they aren't viable in real life. No matter how fantastic a world is, two and two still can't be three. See this is why so many threads about "Alignment system is Broken" get started. Most people just don't know what it is. Alignment in D&D has almost nothing to do with morality. Alignment is a feature of the D&D cosmology whereby one's elemental structure takes on a form/essence more in line (hence alignment) with one force or another. 2 and 2 doesn't have to be three exactly because right and wrong DOES apply in D&D. You see in D&D Good and Evil are both moralities and forces (most people seem to forget about the fact that they are forces). In D&D morality is VERY simple. Just follow what things the force of Good likes and you are doing what is morally good. And if you do what the force of Evil likes then you are doing what is morally evil. It constantly amazes me how many people misunderstand the D&D morality system. If the morality system were made any simpler they'd be spelling things out in red crayon and elmer's glue on construction paper. I'll take the "right and wrong" aren't viable in real life with a grain of salt, since that is just an opinion. Morality might be complex, perhaps even too complex to understand fully (meta-ethical moral relativism), but it sure as hell isn't unapplicable. If you want to try and tell me that it is impossible to discern which actions should be morally permissible in society how come wantonly killing every person you come across is impermissible in every society on planet earth? I don't actually want to get into an argument with you about legal relativism versus moral relativism because I'm actually just using rhetoric here. In all honesty it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks is correct about real life because in D&D it is spelled out in black and white, literally. There are definitions in the PHB that precisely defines moral good and moral evil irrespective of what is true in real life. Now if you have a problem in applying those definitions, then that is another thread; one which I would be happy to debate with you on because application of general theories of societal good I consider to be an interesting and useful topic of discourse. MTF
kintire 09-11-07, 06:17 AM	reason is a better source of absolute morality, Reason fails utterly as a source of absolute morality. Reason, in and of its self, produces no conclusions. Its a method of deriving conclusions from evidence or assumptions. in real life, as in D&D, Good is not an easy thing to define or follow Nonsense. Apart from a few extreme cases its a piece of cake in DnD and rather easy IRL. The fault of the Book of Exalted Deeds is that it tries to reconcile absolute Good and Evil in a world that is not black and white. It's an impossible task, so the only thing that the Book can be faulted for is attempting it in the first place. But the DnD world IS black and white. Individuals are shades of grey, but its a game about good vs evil at its root (and Law vs Chaos to a lesser extent) No, it's because the concepts themselves are flawed. Rubbish. If the rightness or wrongness of an action is independent of any one observer, then it is objective. If it isn't, then its not. Any arbiter would be inherently subjective, even if the arbiter deciding good and evil is really cool. For instance, if there was a devil overgod arbiter that said killing was good it would NOT make it so. If you create the universe you get to set the rules. Of course, only a Good entity would create a universe with any free will in it, so we can be confident from the fact that we exists and have free will that the ultimate source isn't evil. Ethics and morality arise from metaphysics. ie. What *is* determines what *is* good. One slight catch: it doesn't. You can't derive moral precepts from simple facts about the universe.
Plastic Sun 09-11-07, 06:22 AM	Well one of the things that has actually always bothered me about the D&D alignment system is the assumption that the PCs are going to be good and that the evil alignments are restricted to the use of the DM, that somehow being selfish and pragmatic cannot lead you to do heroic or beneficial acts. Now the intent behind why you performed such acts is certainly not a good or noble thing but does it matter? Why straight-jacket yourself into playing (or not playing) a certain alignment because the designers deem that you need to. Literature and entertainment is filled with characters who perpetuate good acts for either selfish or ignoble reason. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were chiefly motivated by money, revenge and sex, they good things they did were often only incidental. Garret from the Thief series wanted nothing more than to be left alone and amass as much wealth as possible, yet he saved the world three times over the course of the series, at no time did he wish to but he was merely forced into the role by circumstance. Hiro Protagonist was driven onwards by the temptation to get back together with his old girlfriend and to repair their relationship, though he grew as a character over the course of Snow Crash his initial incentive was certainly a selfish one. There are many types of fantasy, D&D can easily replicate any of them, including Steam Punk, High Fantasy and Swords and Sorcery and only High Fantasy tends to lend itself to an absolute morality of good and evil, which I believe tends to constrain the players into easily definable and honestly boring roles. Planescape itself was rife with questions of morality. Arcadia is a place of oppression for those who do not mesh with its ideals, even to the point of near fascism. Arborea is a land of fickle gods and angry spirits who will lash out at the slightest provocation or denial of their supremacy. And finally Ysgard is filled with berserkers and madmen, wishing nothing more than to spill blood in glorious battle. All of these planes are counted among the upper planes, but are they more right in any way or a necessarily better choice than the lower planes? The celestials were often portrayed as haughty or self-righteous in much of planescape, forcing their own opinions down your throat, though not nearly as violently as the fiends did. So is being good mean forcing others to be good as well? Is that any better? I was going to read your post, but then I noticed your name was "JohnGalt," which means you have absolutely no right to try to contribute to any philosophical discussion, anywhere. I think that you probably should try to avoid trying to inflame others. It doesn't lead to anything productive and usually just gets the thread locked.
Skeptical Clown 09-11-07, 07:58 AM	But the DnD world IS black and white. Individuals are shades of grey, but its a game about good vs evil at its root (and Law vs Chaos to a lesser extent) If you have four different colors, all four of them aren't black or white.
kintire 09-11-07, 09:01 AM	Well one of the things that has actually always bothered me about the D&D alignment system is the assumption that the PCs are going to be good and that the evil alignments are restricted to the use of the DM, that somehow being selfish and pragmatic cannot lead you to do heroic or beneficial acts. Its a heroic fantasy game. thats a genre assumption. Its also one that its easy to tinker with. There are many types of fantasy, D&D can easily replicate any of them, including Steam Punk, High Fantasy and Swords and Sorcery and only High Fantasy tends to lend itself to an absolute morality of good and evil, which I believe tends to constrain the players into easily definable and honestly boring roles. My opinion is exactly the opposite. Only an objective morality has any interesting moral plots at all, because if morality isn't objective there can be no meaningful moral debate. If the answer to every moral question is "it depends" what's the point of even asking them? Planescape itself was rife with questions of morality. It was indeed, and thus crucially dependent on the idea that these questions meant something. All of these planes are counted among the upper planes, but are they more right in any way or a necessarily better choice than the lower planes? An interesting question in an objectivist world. Totally trite and boring in a relativist one. The celestials were often portrayed as haughty or self-righteous in much of planescape, forcing their own opinions down your throat, though not nearly as violently as the fiends did. So is being good mean forcing others to be good as well? Is that any better? My personal suspicion is that this is partly due to a confusion between objectivism and absolutism, and partly due to a distrust of moral authority. Generally speaking people who claim to be morally superior aren't, which makes the portrayal of creatures that really are difficult. In universe, however, I think it is down to the fact that personifications of a single alignment aren't very good at dealing with mortals unless they have specifically developed the skill. If you have four different colors, all four of them aren't black or white. In fact, none of them are since black and white are not colours.
Skeptical Clown 09-11-07, 10:57 AM	Well I suppose it depends on whether we are dealing with the scientific defintion of color, or color pigmentation--or perhaps more accurately, whether we're completely missing the point. Absolute Right and Wrong are a duality; there is no room for four ethical poles. We can't reconcile absolutism with the standard D&D alignment and cosmology system without trivializing one of the two.
Ornum 09-11-07, 11:14 AM	Well I suppose it depends on whether we are dealing with the scientific defintion of color, or color pigmentation--or perhaps more accurately, whether we're completely missing the point. Absolute Right and Wrong are a duality; there is no room for four ethical poles. We can't reconcile absolutism with the standard D&D alignment and cosmology system without trivializing one of the two. What's the problem? Good and Evil are absolutes (in D&D). Whether you choose to promote your philosophy with established order (law*), personal freedoms (chaos*), or something in between (neutral*) is where the other end of the axis comes from. *Loose definitions for the sake of the argument.
Skeptical Clown 09-11-07, 11:17 AM	So which is more right? Lawful Good or Chaotic Good? Or Neutral Good? Or is Lawful/Chaotic no more important a choice than what color sneakers one likes to wear?
Ornum 09-11-07, 01:11 PM	*Poster's Note: While some of this is actual fact as far as the game is concerned, you'll also see some of my interpretations on the subject bleed through (my opinion, in other worlds). While I highly doubt I'll actually disuade anyone from their own take on the subject, here it is all the same. So which is more right? Lawful Good or Chaotic Good? Or Neutral Good? Or is Lawful/Chaotic no more important a choice than what color sneakers one likes to wear? None are "more right", or alternatively, all are right as they view it. While all four sides are absolutes and are clearly defined, the idea of right and wrong is based only on the good/evil side of the axis (by the rules). Though law and chaos are still defined concepts, they are also beliefs and have no place in a "right or wrong" argument. Law and chaos are opposing views on how to best go about spreading what is "right or wrong". Make sense? Probably not. How about an example (simplified as much as possible). We'll go with the heavens and their opinions on what should be done about the Blood War and the fiends, in general. In particular, the archons, eladrins, and the guardinals. All three know that evil is wrong and want it gone (not realizing that both good and evil are needed, which is where the rilmani come in), but they don't agree on how to go about it. They do know that large-scale direct attacks to eliminate the fiends do not work, so what is to be done. One side would argue that it's a "wait and see" game. Destroy those that come outside the lower planes, but leave them alone otherwise until there is a victor (then eliminate those that remain). Another side would say that isn't the way to go. Pick a side and make sure they win (via direct attacks on the one deemed the loser, arms shipments, etc), then destroy what is left (there are actually more than just two opinions on what should be done, but I said I would simplify). Of course, then you just have the guardinals which either mediate the disputes, or just go to the lower planes and kill whatever they find while everyone else is mired in endless arguments. All sides are good, but have different ways of going about "doing good things", hence the law/chaos descriptors. Now, on to another subject. Good and evil are both needed. Why? Well, in-game, it might have something to the universe needing balance to sustain itself. The rilmani believe in this need of balance and act on it, and the concordant killers go around killing powerful beings of extreme alignment for roughly the same reasons. Also, the gods of the Dragonlance setting *mostly* agree with this. "There can be no good without evil." That is why when Tahkisis was killed, Paladin had to give up his divinity, too. Out of game, it just wouldn't be any fun. If evil is eliminated, there really isn't much adventure to have, is there? To summarize: Law/Order is the means to an end, while good/evil is that end.
Skeptical Clown 09-11-07, 01:17 PM	OK, but that's not "absolute morality." Not in any sense that absolute morality exists (as a concept) in reality (or High Fantasy) anyway--if there is an absolute, it's the need for neutrality and balance, not an absolute of Good over Evil. This is the thrust of the thread-starting comment: that the D&D moral/ethical system is inadequate for the kind of Good vs. Evil conflict in High Fantasy. There is no "balance" in most High Fantasy settings--it's GOod versus Evil, and only one side can ultimately win. Personally, I find the Great Wheel a little unfulfilling--in many ways it seems to turn alignment into football teams instead of relevant ethical choices.
Ornum 09-11-07, 01:35 PM	OK, but that's not "absolute morality." Not in any sense that absolute morality exists (as a concept) in reality (or High Fantasy) anyway--if there is an absolute, it's the need for neutrality and balance, not an absolute of Good over Evil. This is the thrust of the thread-starting comment: that the D&D moral/ethical system is inadequate for the kind of Good vs. Evil conflict in High Fantasy. There is no "balance" in most High Fantasy settings--it's GOod versus Evil, and only one side can ultimately win. Personally, I find the Great Wheel a little unfulfilling--in many ways it seems to turn alignment into football teams instead of relevant ethical choices. Most forces don't understand that need for balance. And in a game, it's pretty moot, anyway. The game is ultimately about good vs. evil, but most mortals don't get the chance to make sure one side or the other wins in the multiversal sense. Besides, it get's pretty boring if you just go around slapping everybody down (to me...some seem to like flipping though the Monster Manuals like a checklist, eliminating everything in sight). And I find that last comment pretty funny (in a good way, I'm actually laughing). The MFL (Multiversal Football League) and the Monday night games with Madden commentating keep popping up in my head.
Corpus 09-11-07, 02:07 PM	Rubbish. If the rightness or wrongness of an action is independent of any one observer, then it is objective. If it isn't, then its not. But that's my point. It can't be independent of an observer, because "right" or "wrong" is just a feeling that someone can get about an action. With no one to feel, there can't be a feeling. So which is more right? Lawful Good or Chaotic Good? Or Neutral Good? Or is Lawful/Chaotic no more important a choice than what color sneakers one likes to wear? How important of a choice it is depends on who you ask, but almost everyone would say it's moreso than footwear. Also, none of them are more right, because something can't be more or less "right." I think that you probably should try to avoid trying to inflame others. It doesn't lead to anything productive and usually just gets the thread locked. Sorry, but I don't think objectivists or even people who think of objectivism as a legitimate philosophy have any right to discuss anything, ever. This is the thrust of the thread-starting comment: that the D&D moral/ethical system is inadequate for the kind of Good vs. Evil conflict in High Fantasy. There is no "balance" in most High Fantasy settings--it's GOod versus Evil, and only one side can ultimately win. Personally, I find the Great Wheel a little unfulfilling--in many ways it seems to turn alignment into football teams instead of relevant ethical choices. Just because they're evenly matched doesn't mean alignment choices aren't relevant. Besides, like I said before, if someone became powerful enough, they might be able to tip the scales towards one side.
Skeptical Clown 09-11-07, 02:36 PM	Right and wrong aren't feelings; they're logical conclusions. 2+2=4 is right; 2+2=5 is wrong. Due to the fact that ethics are usally defined on the situation in the real world, and that most situations are infinitely complicated, it's difficult to toss around Right and Wrong loosely. We have no such constraints in the contained universe of a fantasy setting, however. To those who interpret their religions very strictly, there is no question of what Right and Wrong are--they have been delivered very specific instructions on things that are right and things that are wrong. What's wrong with taking this interpretation of things and applying it to a fantasy world? Not all fantasy settings--just one. Nothing. It's a perfectly valid way to set up a fantasy environment--with an authority and wellspring of Good pitted against the foulest of evils, and no room for equivocation in between. It's even a quite popular one. But again, it's not a setup that the default cosmology is particularly well-equipped to deal with on a cosmic scale. As Ornum implied in not so many words, for it to work, we pretty much have to ignore the D&D cosmology.
Corpus 09-11-07, 08:42 PM	Right and wrong aren't feelings; they're logical conclusions. 2+2=4 is right; 2+2=5 is wrong. Due to the fact that ethics are usally defined on the situation in the real world, and that most situations are infinitely complicated, it's difficult to toss around Right and Wrong loosely. We have no such constraints in the contained universe of a fantasy setting, however. That's a different kind of right and wrong. I'm talking about people claiming that actions can be right and wrong, not equations.
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-11-07, 08:56 PM	This is the thrust of the thread-starting comment: that the D&D moral/ethical system is inadequate for the kind of Good vs. Evil conflict in High Fantasy. There is no "balance" in most High Fantasy settings--it's GOod versus Evil, and only one side can ultimately win. Personally, I find the Great Wheel a little unfulfilling--in many ways it seems to turn alignment into football teams instead of relevant ethical choices. So what? D&D has never been high fantasy (Despite the races and classes being pretty much ripper straight out of Tolkein). It's always been pretty much about individual adventures and victory over whatever stands in your way, not some big universe-spanning conflict. You don't defeat the evil overlord because he's Evil, you do it because he's making life miserable for you or the people around you.
Ornum 09-11-07, 11:59 PM	As Ornum implied in not so many words, for it to work, we pretty much have to ignore the D&D cosmology. That's not what I meant, at all, but I guess that I just didn't explain myself very well. To me, it works fine. It can get complicated if you let it, but you do have to put *some* effort in trying to understand it. Personally, I think the outer planes are missing AT LEAST 8, if not 16 (EDIT: It should be 8 planes, not 16) different "in between" planes between the existing outer planes and the Outlands (I think there was a mimir article suggesting their presence where Purgatory was one such plane, actually). But, if the ones presented are too much for some, then just adding more would just muddy the waters that much more.
ManTimeForgot 09-12-07, 04:50 AM	That's a different kind of right and wrong. I'm talking about people claiming that actions can be right and wrong, not equations. Except in this case it isn't a different kind. In D&D there is an objective standard against which to measure the rightness and wrongness of one's actions and 100% accurate spells to determine how one compares with that standard. Sure it might take a little time for the temperature reading to come back, but there can be no question that the scale exists. If you act in a way that promotes the aligning with Good, then your actions are right. If you act in a way that promotes the aligning with Evil, then your actions are wrong. It's almost that simple. A clever man points out that even right and wrong as conclusions require a reference point, and in this case one asks: "Right and Wrong according to whom?" The answer is again quite simple: the reference point is life. If beneficial to life in general, then good. If not beneficial to life, is it ambivalent? If ambivalent, then see Law/Chaos. If not ambivalent, and not beneficial, then is it harmful to life in general? If Yes, then Evil. The trick is figuring out just how much effect an action has on life in general. So morality in D&D is very simple. Figuring out how much effect actions have on one's alignment and in which direction can be @&S difficult. MTF
kintire 09-12-07, 06:31 AM	Well I suppose it depends on whether we are dealing with the scientific defintion of color, or color pigmentation--or perhaps more accurately, whether we're completely missing the point. Or the other option, which is that we are pointing out using satire that pedantic nitpicking is not a good way to make your point. Absolute Right and Wrong are a duality; there is no room for four ethical poles. We can't reconcile absolutism with the standard D&D alignment and cosmology system without trivializing one of the two. There aren't four ethical poles. There are nine. The dual alignments such as Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and others are not simply mixes of the x/neutral ones around them. And it isn't true that objectivism can't reconcile multiple poles. Given your objective goal there may well be more than one route to it. I suspect that in most campaigns there will be one alignment that is better than the others. Some, like most of mine, may try the "any of the three Good alignments are legitimatly different approaches to Good". But the game designers have, very sensibly, remained mute as to which is the best alignment. You can pick the one or ones you like. This seems to be the essence of the Great Wheel. No canon statements are made about priorities, so you can choose what you like for your campaign. (not realizing that both good and evil are needed, which is where the rilmani come in), Or,as I prefer to put it, correctly realising that the Rilmani are a bunch of deluded twonks burbling on about a "need for balance" that they are utterly unable to explain... But that's my point. It can't be independent of an observer, because "right" or "wrong" is just a feeling that someone can get about an action. With no one to feel, there can't be a feeling. This is so utterly circular my head is spinning. As far as DnD goes this is frankly nonsense. Nor is it a popular opinion in real life!
Thanael 09-12-07, 08:16 AM	If you act in a way that promotes the aligning with Good, then your actions are right. If you act in a way that promotes the aligning with Evil, then your actions are wrong. So what if i act in a way that promotes the aligning with Balance? D&D's absolute morality is not dual. It is not either or. There's always a middle ground.
Skeptical Clown 09-12-07, 10:13 AM	Or the other option, which is that we are pointing out using satire that pedantic nitpicking is not a good way to make your point. Satire isn't usually obtuse. It's not polite either. I'd rather keep the conversation polite. There aren't four ethical poles. There are nine. The dual alignments such as Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and others are not simply mixes of the x/neutral ones around them. And it isn't true that objectivism can't reconcile multiple poles. Given your objective goal there may well be more than one route to it. I suspect that in most campaigns there will be one alignment that is better than the others. Some, like most of mine, may try the "any of the three Good alignments are legitimatly different approaches to Good". But the game designers have, very sensibly, remained mute as to which is the best alignment. You can pick the one or ones you like. This seems to be the essence of the Great Wheel. No canon statements are made about priorities, so you can choose what you like for your campaign. If one ethical pole is the most correct, then what is the point of having the others? What does it add to a high fantasy setting, again using Middle-Earth as an example for familiarity's sake? If the primary conflict is Good versus Evil, then having the Lawful/Chaotic axis thrown into the mix merely confuses things. Further, it trivializes that axis--the divide between Lawful and Chaotic takes a back seat to the real action, and doesn't seem very important in the cosmic scheme. That's a different kind of right and wrong. No, it's not. 'Right' and 'Wrong' are clearly defined terms. There is no question what Right and Wrong mean; the relevant ethical question is: how do we find the right equation that tells us whether an action is Right or Wrong? ... By the way, note that I'm not trying to argue that the Great Wheel is "bad" or that it shouldn't be used. I'm merely pointing out that it is inappropriate for certain types of stories and ethical backgrounds.
SeptimusMagistos 09-12-07, 05:24 PM	Actually, while I believe in moral relativism, I don't think the Great Wheel advances it. On the contrary, it helps with the premise of absolute Good and Evil: Good is good just because it is. It's an axiom. Even if good acts are just evil acts in reverse, they're still good. Same with evil, but flipped.
ManTimeForgot 09-13-07, 04:26 AM	So what if i act in a way that promotes the aligning with Balance? D&D's absolute morality is not dual. It is not either or. There's always a middle ground. What happens if I "Gnarfle cheesedoodles with garflunken wheeze?" Your first question and the one I posted above possess the same level of connection with D&D. Quite simply balance is NOT a force in D&D, hence you cannot align with it. Neutral alignment means you aren't aligned with anything. D&D's morality system is not "dualist;" dualism is a theological description. And the short of the matter is that dualism does not exist in D&D's current incarnation, and even if it did it wouldn't change diddlespit. D&D has objective categorical assignment and the association between action and moral principle are able to be verified empirically. On related note, in simpler terms: choosing to occupy a position of balance between the forces of Good and Evil does not mean one is balanced "morally." In order to achieve a neutral alignment (all non-outsiders are born with a neutral alignment exactly because their essences are not already associated with a force), a creature must engage in sufficient immoral behavior to balance the occurrences of its moral behavior and vice versa. But no where does one actually find "morally neutral" behavior in the above scenario. You are engaging in evil behavior and good behavior. If a behavior is unrelated to Good and Evil, then it is amoral. Either your actions promote life, hinder life, or don't affect life at all. Those are you three options, and only one those results in a characters alignment neutralizing. The four forces in D&D counteract their opposite, so when Good (energy) is exposed to Evil (energy) they annihilate/counteract/dissipate. This means that neutral alignment in D&D is a description of one and only one possible state: that of a lack of effect upon one's self by either force. If a character is neutral with respect to Good and Evil, then this means one of two things has happened: either the character has never engaged in behavior which effects life or the character has engaged in behaviors which does not show a preferential bias towards helping or hindering life. MTF
kintire 09-13-07, 06:38 AM	Satire isn't usually obtuse. It's not polite either. I'd rather keep the conversation polite. I did to you exactly what you did to me: dropped a Gnomic Utterance involving a nitpick and left you to sort it out. The only difference is mine was deliberate, and intended to point out the problems with yours. Let me be straight. Yes, I KNOW that "shades of grey" isn't exactly precise, because grey is a mixture of two opposites, and in DnD there are four. The point I was making is that individuals will be a mix of the extremes, whereas the extremes are pure. Thus, the fact that you have pure extremes doesn't mean that individuals must all be perfect examples of them. Your comeback that there are actually four poles is nitpicking my similie while ignoring my point. And I tried to say all that using a short example rather than an extended paragraph. I'll know better next time. If one ethical pole is the most correct, then what is the point of having the others? What does it add to a high fantasy setting, again using Middle-Earth as an example for familiarity's sake? If the primary conflict is Good versus Evil, then having the Lawful/Chaotic axis thrown into the mix merely confuses things. Further, it trivializes that axis--the divide between Lawful and Chaotic takes a back seat to the real action, and doesn't seem very important in the cosmic scheme. One ethical pole is not necessarily the "most correct". In some campaigns it is, and in some it isn't. The core cosmology is set up to accomodate either approach, and to avoid mandating one of them. One might say, for example, that Good is vital, and Law is the only way of achieving anything, so Lawful Good is best. Or you might say that Good is vital, and the Law/Chaos divide represents two equally valid approaches to it. Or you might go all relative and say that any alignment is right for those that follow it. I get the impression that much of core is written with Lawful Good in mind as the "best". I also feel that the best plots come from avoided wishy washy relativist stuff and sticking with cosmic conflicts that mean something. However, the first is subtext and the second my opinion. As it stands, the assumption is fairly clear that Good is better than Evil, but even that isn't mandated material written for the Great Whell can be used in campaigns with almost any moral structure. And that's good.
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-13-07, 09:51 AM	What happens if I "Gnarfle cheesedoodles with garflunken wheeze?" Your first question and the one I posted above possess the same level of connection with D&D. Quite simply balance is NOT a force in D&D, hence you cannot align with it. Neutral alignment means you aren't aligned with anything. Explain the entire Rilmani race if Balance as a force doesn't exist. Hasn't pursuing a balance been a feature point of D&D's True Neutral alignment since 1e? Granted, there's two kinds of neutrals, the passive and the seeker of balance, but there's the word balance again.
Skeptical Clown 09-13-07, 10:58 AM	Let me be straight. Yes, I KNOW that "shades of grey" isn't exactly precise, because grey is a mixture of two opposites, and in DnD there are four. The point I was making is that individuals will be a mix of the extremes, whereas the extremes are pure. Thus, the fact that you have pure extremes doesn't mean that individuals must all be perfect examples of them. Your comeback that there are actually four poles is nitpicking my similie while ignoring my point. It's not a nitpick--the question of whether there are two or four poles is pretty crucial to the argument! Your point was that D&D is primarily about Good vs. Evil. I don't dispute that at all, but we're talking about the cosmology--which gives no reason to believe that the Law/Chaos axis is any less significant than the Good/Evil axis. So if that is the case, why are games primarly about Good vs. Evil? In a metagaming sense, I know why--because Good vs. Evil resonates with players, and Law vs. Chaos doesn't. That doesn't satisfactorily answer why we need the Law/Chaos axis though, or what function it serves in a "Black and White" campaign. If the importance of that axis is diminished, it throws the nature of the Outer Planes into question. The truth of course is that one cosmology is not going to be satisfactory for all ethical paradigms. The Great Wheel might be adequate for different styles of games, but it's not necessarily satisfactory for them all.
ripvanwormer 09-13-07, 09:10 PM	The Outer Planes are a toolkit. You're given 17 pre-made infinities to do with as you please. They look different to different cultures, and some worlds may fall under the influence of less of them than others. You can add planes, change the planes you have, or cut planes out ruthlessly. The point is, you've got 17 pre-made ones to start with - 17 planes that serve as a common standard you can discuss with others on the internet, if that's useful to you, and 17 planes that a whole slew of sourcebooks and adventures (not to mention websites) exist for, if that's useful to you. You can use as much or as little as you like, but the material is there. Law and Chaos is the axis we care about the most in our modern lives. The needs of society versus the needs of the individual, freedom versus safety, conformity versus tolerance, anarchy versus harmony, libertarian versus authoritarian. Should civil rights be extended to everyone, or does the need to "catch the bad guys" override that? These are questions they debate on the news and in political blogs every day. It might seem a bit anachronistic for some tastes (not mine) but surely it resonates with everyone. D&D, in its default form, is quirky. D&D trolls don't look like the trolls from folklore. D&D hobgoblins don't look like the hobgoblins from folklore. The "assumed" D&D world is a place where hundreds of humanoid races coexist, where Shao-Lin monks brush shoulders with fully armored medieval knights. The double alignment axis seems like the least quirky element. You can, of course, change anything and everything in your own campaign. I just don't understand the desire to strip the cosmology of its quirkiness to fit some imagined mythological "default."
ManTimeForgot 09-13-07, 10:00 PM	Explain the entire Rilmani race if Balance as a force doesn't exist. Hasn't pursuing a balance been a feature point of D&D's True Neutral alignment since 1e? Granted, there's two kinds of neutrals, the passive and the seeker of balance, but there's the word balance again. The Rilmani, druids, Boccob, DOES NOT MATTER. Please actually read for comprehension what I wrote. True Neutral alignment = aligned with NOTHING. Since there is nothing to align with there cannot possibly be any moral principle to associate with. If there is no moral principle to associate with, then balance is a red herring when it comes to D&D morality discussions. People: think about what balance actually means for a moment. What is being balanced? Balance by its very definition requires two or more things in counterpoint or opposition being made equal (or roughly so). So if "balance" in D&D is a matter of Good versus Evil OR Law versus Chaos, then where in holy heck is neutral morality? Truly mind boggling to me how many people actually play D&D without bothering to try and understand alignment. MTF
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-13-07, 10:56 PM	The Rilmani, druids, Boccob, DOES NOT MATTER. Please actually read for comprehension what I wrote. True Neutral alignment = aligned with NOTHING. Since there is nothing to align with there cannot possibly be any moral principle to associate with. If there is no moral principle to associate with, then balance is a red herring when it comes to D&D morality discussions. And yet...D&D is filled with races and classes devoted to maintaining a balance between good, evil, law, and chaos. The 1e Player's Handbook itself said True Neutral characters try to balance their actions (And to keep you happy, I believe there were 'unaligned' Neutral Neutral characters). You keep saying neutrality doesn't exist, and then ask where it is. How can you say it doesn't matter?
ManTimeForgot 09-13-07, 11:14 PM	Show me the defining principle by which "maintaining balance of Good and Evil" acquires moral context. In D&D there is only ONE, (there is nothing else in the PHB), reference point for determining whether or not something is moral: affect on life. D&D good fosters benefit for life. D&D evil fosters harm for life. The only other option is to have no net effect on life what-so-ever. This is what neutral alignment represents (either your actions have no effect on life at all, or your actions present neither a culminated gain or loss for life). So no effect at all leaves us with: it's unrelated to morality period. And when your actions are a balance of good and evil, THEY ARE JUST THAT. A balance of the moral and the immoral. Show me where the "neutral" morality even exists in "maintaining balance." There are only 3 categories of actions when it comes to D&D morality. That which serves life, that which diminishes it, and that which does nothing to it. You can only have your actions perform ONE of those THREE options. Just because someone has an ideology that it is "better to maintain an net alignment balance of 0 or roughly 0" does not make it morality. In order for something to be a matter of morality it must concern Good and Evil (this is basic defintion), and the only thing which nets you a neutral alignment which is not Good or Evil, is that which is by its very nature unrelated to morality. MTF
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-13-07, 11:26 PM	Just because something isn't good or evil doesn't mean it's unrelated to morality. Amorality is a kind of morality, and even then, a net gain of 0 doesn't mean nothing has been done.
ManTimeForgot 09-14-07, 01:05 AM	Just because something isn't good or evil doesn't mean it's unrelated to morality. Amorality is a kind of morality, and even then, a net gain of 0 doesn't mean nothing has been done. Quoted For Falsehood. From Dictionary.com "1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral. 2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person." Note: The first definition as an adjective describes the ideology, and you will note that it, as the most relevant definition, supports me 100%. The second definition describing a person's level of morality denotes a person who is indifferent to morality, which if we look at the definition of indifferent means without interest, concern, bias, or prejudice, etc. Essentially even an amoral individual doesn't have anything to do with morality. Amorality by its very definition = lack of morality. A net effect of 0 definitionally means that NO alignment effect has occurred. It would be a preposterously stupid assertion to make, and as such I will assume you meant to say something like this: "Just because no alignment effect has occurred doesn't mean that no moral actions occurred." And I have no problem with the above statement. I've been saying that can occur all along, but what you keep doing, which is wrong by the way, is assuming that when no alignment effect occurs means that an extra moral standard is taking place. You still haven't told me where this extra moral option is coming from, or even what it is. In order for something to happen to alignment on the Good/Evil axis, an effect on Life MUST have occurred. This is at its core what morality is in D&D: effect on life. I've already told you what the 3 logically possible effects one can have on life are. The onus is on you to produce some kind of fourth option, from which one can derive a separate ideology. The simple fact is that in D&D Evil fosters and ideology which is immoral, D&D Good fosters an ideology which is moral, and the only way to achieve balance morally is to perform moral and immoral actions in relatively equal measure. I hope that by this point you will at least concede that amorality (the lack of anything to do with effect on life for D&D purposes) cannot possibly have anything to do with the "mythical" neutral morality. MTF
kintire 09-14-07, 04:56 AM	It's not a nitpick--the question of whether there are two or four poles is pretty crucial to the argument! Your point was that D&D is primarily about Good vs. Evil. Actually, it wasn't. That was a side point. My point was that DnD is about black and white. There is Good and there is Evil. There is also Law and Chaos, an equally black and white scale, but I was talking about Good and Evil because you were criticising the BOED for its black and white view, and the BOXD are largely about the Good/Evil axis not the Law/Chaos one. However my side point stands. Yes, in the cosmology the Law Chaos axis is given equal weight in the wheel, but frankly the game assumes throughout that Good/Evil is more important, or at least more significant. To name just a few, the rules advise against mixing good and evil in a group, but not law and chaos, the BOXDs have not been matched by similar works on law and chaos, there are extensive Monster Manual entries for Demons and Devils as main antagonists for parties, and only slightly shorter lists of celestials, but Anarchic and Axiomatic types are limted to a few, etc etc. Of course, you don't have to run this way, and the game will certainly support Law vs Chaos, but it isn't the underlying assumption. The truth of course is that one cosmology is not going to be satisfactory for all ethical paradigms. The Great Wheel might be adequate for different styles of games, but it's not necessarily satisfactory for them all. Of course not. If that's what your demanding, you're doomed to disappointment. There exists no cosmology that will be satisfactory for all games, and I don't believe such a thing is possible. The Great Wheel, however, covers most of your bases. You'll find what you need for most campaigns, and theres no rule says you have to use it all. Mantimeforgot This is at its core what morality is in D&D: effect on life. I've already told you what the 3 logically possible effects one can have on life are. The onus is on you to produce some kind of fourth option, from which one can derive a separate ideology. Actually, you are wrong. True neutrality has a plane attached to it, just like all the others. It has an exemplar race, just like all the others. It has petitioners who go to that plane, just like all the others. The background clearly implies it is an active alignment, just like all the others and if you think it isn't, its up to you to explain why it behaves just like one that is. I actually have some sympathy with you, as I think that the ideology associated with true neutrality is a load of incoherent rubbish. However, it does exist, and it is that in order for the world to function it is necessary to ensure that the forces of good, evil, law and chaos remain in balance, and no single one of them becomes to strong. Amorality by its very definition = lack of morality. Amorality is the name of a moral position: namely that theres is no compelling reason to behave in a moral way. It is also used to mean something that isn't connected to morality, but when someone is using a capitalised proper noun to describe a philosophical position, its unwise to solely rely for a counter on Dictionary.com.
Mirtek 09-14-07, 05:16 PM	I believe that the Great Wheel supports a moral relativism and moral equivalency I agree that undermines the fundamental premise of high/heroic fantasy. I do not agree. Odin is no more correct than Asmodeus, Tyr is no more correct than Orcus, it all depends on where you stand on the wheel. Which makes the choice between "what is right and what is easy" all the more heroic. If what is easy is also right, it's much more heroic to still chose the difficult road. High Fantasy is best supported when the heroes actually have right on their side as opposed to merely believing they have right on their side. I disagree. If they merely do what they do because it's a "cosmic right" then it's much less heroic. If the TRUTH is that good and evil are equal yet different positions then the whole thing, all the heroics, all the battling against darkness, all the heroic sacrifices against insurmountable odds, all of it is nothing more than a petty battle of opinions. Because it's much more noble to sacrifice yourself for others when just sacrificing others for your own gain would be just as valid.
ManTimeForgot 09-14-07, 05:42 PM	I agree I do not agree. Which makes the choice between "what is right and what is easy" all the more heroic. If what is easy is also right, it's much more heroic to still chose the difficult road. I disagree. If they merely do what they do because it's a "cosmic right" then it's much less heroic. Because it's much more noble to sacrifice yourself for others when just sacrificing others for your own gain would be just as valid. Disagree with the reasoning you use Mirtek, but believe that the conclusions you reach are correct. High Fantasy by its very nature requires that the protagonists be challenged, more than your average citizen. If the right way is always the easy way, then the metagame makes playing worthless. If the entire world were a perfect utopia, then adventures get reduced to "Let's find out how awesome it is to frolic, bask in the sun shine, and play games 24/7. I believe that living up to the ideals in D&D provides sufficient challenge to make the right way more often than not the hard way. I mean how many people on a daily basis can say that they sacrificed something they cared about for others? How hard is it to forgo earthly pleasures while helping a town rebuild, or live on rations while awaiting the siege of a town? I'd like to stress that just because the powers of the four forces are close to equal, does not necessitate the conclusion that they are equally valid in their application to real life. If everyone in a city were evil, then that city pretty quickly falls apart and people's lives go to crap fast. The reason why the forces are pretty equal is I think more of a metagame reason than anything. If Good were more powerful than Evil, then there is no reason to fight. Eventually Good conquers Evil, then the heroes mean far less. Their accomplishments are sidelined by the forces that Good brought to bear. But when the power Evil is nearly that of Good, the choices people (mortals) make become relevant, meaningful, important. In the world of D&D I think its important to know that your average citizen is an important piece in a great war between Good and Evil. And heroes are even more important. This is the heroes as larger than life figures syndrome, and while it may not play well with everyone; I like to think that it helps escapism to know that my hero character is just that much bigger, that much more important than your average joe. MTF
ManTimeForgot 09-15-07, 07:10 PM	Kintire: Just because there is a plane associated with neutrality does NOT mean that their is a morality associated with it. Alignment is NOT the same as morality. What determines the presence of a relevant ideology is whether or not there is a cosmic force associated with that particular state. Neutrality has no such force associated with it. Neutrality is described as either being a relationship between two of the other forces or a lack of other forces being applied. I am also not incorrect about amorality since my dictionary of philosophy and just about every philosophy book I have ever read defines amorality in the same way. Amorality is NOT a moral position; it is the position that morality does not exist or is wrong. Note: According to philosophical dictionary at: (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#amrl) Amoral: Having no bearing on, declining to be influenced by, or making no reference to, moral values or judgments. The onus on the proponnents of a "neutral" morality is to produce the reference point (by which behavior may judged) a non-good and non-evil but NOT amoral. I'll save you the time of looking because it doesn't exist in D&D. There is no action that you can do which is not one of the following in description: Respectful of life, Disrespectful of life, or Indifferent to life. If it is the former, then it is Good (and thusly moral). If it is the second, then it is Evil (and thusly immoral). If it is the latter, then it is amoral (and thusly has nothing to do with morality). You may choose to be indifferent with respect to life but this too is not "neutral" morality. It is simply doing nothing morally related period. Making this argument is the same as what Taeldrin seemed to be making earlier. 0 must by definition be the same as nothing. The presence of nothing moral means it cannot possibly be a matter of morality. The "onus" in this case is to come up with something that does not exist. There is no neutral morality in D&D. No force, no ideology, no reference point, no existence. MTF
kintire 09-18-07, 06:55 AM	Mirtek Which makes the choice between "what is right and what is easy" all the more heroic. If what is easy is also right, it's much more heroic to still chose the difficult road. No, it doesn't. It stops that choice being heroic, and turns it into simple stupid bloodymindedness. Because it's much more noble to sacrifice yourself for others when just sacrificing others for your own gain would be just as valid. No, its just pointless stupidity. Sacrificing yourself for others is heroic if it is the right thing to do, but is difficult. If it isn't the right thing to do at all, its just difficult, then its daft to do it. Unless, of course you just enjoy the challenge... but then its not really a sacrifice, is it? Mantimeforgot. Just because there is a plane associated with neutrality does NOT mean that their is a morality associated with it. Alignment is NOT the same as morality This wierd disconnect exists largely for you. Actually, alignment is a summary of a person, plane or thing's morality and so overtly so I can't reallly see how you can think it isn't. I am also not incorrect about amorality since my dictionary of philosophy and just about every philosophy book I have ever read defines amorality in the same way. Amorality is NOT a moral position; it is the position that morality does not exist or is wrong. The position that morality does not exist or is wrong is a moral position, albeit a negative one. The onus on the proponnents of a "neutral" morality is to produce the reference point (by which behavior may judged) a non-good and non-evil but NOT amoral. I'll save you the time of looking because it doesn't exist in D&D. Obviously you missed the part where I just told you what it was...
Thanael 09-18-07, 07:58 AM	There is no action that you can do which is not one of the following in description: Respectful of life, Disrespectful of life, or Indifferent to life. If it is the former, then it is Good (and thusly moral). If it is the second, then it is Evil (and thusly immoral). If it is the latter, then it is amoral (and thusly has nothing to do with morality). How about killing a mass murderer. Or an angel killing a devil. Is it respectful or disrespectful of life?
Thanael 09-18-07, 08:10 AM	Alignment is NOT the same as morality. What determines the presence of a relevant ideology is whether or not there is a cosmic force associated with that particular state. Neutrality has no such force associated with it. Neutrality is described as either being a relationship between two of the other forces or a lack of other forces being applied. Morality is part of alignment. The other part being ethics. Per definition. I'm trying to understand you here. What is in your opinion the cosmic force associated with the state LG, NG, CG? and LE, NE, CE ?
ManTimeForgot 09-19-07, 02:21 AM	*sigh* So many people fail to understand just what alignment actually is, so I don't hold it against you guys for assuming "alignment = morality" at a 1-1 basis. Kintire: Alignment IS a sum of person, but not in the way you believe. Alignment is a cosmological indicator NOT a personality indicator. The difference is subtle but very important. Alignment is an assessment of what kind of "energies" your character is associated with (hence the word "aligned"). This has importance because spells, abilities, items, effects all change based on which forces one's essence/body is associated with. Your character has an "aura" or radiates to some extent the energy that he/she is associated with. The position that morality is wrong is all well in good, but it is not a moral position in D&D. It relates to morality, but does not have anything to do with Good and Evil, which is the defining point for D&D morality. Acting as though Good and Evil are both wrong will not change the fact that your spiritual association uses Good and Evil as reference points. And the position that morality does not exist cannot be applied to D&D exactly because morality is an objective reality in D&D. It is your job to show just how either morality can be wrong, but still be the standard by which creatures/people are judged. OR how morality does not exist, when it so very clearly does. Disconnect =/ MTF Thanael: The only question(s) you need to ask yourself is "What features of this event are respectful of life and which features are disrespectful of life?" (substituting altruism/narcissism, concern for the dignity of sentients/oppression in the above where appropriate). This makes for very complicated analyses (no one ever said morality was easy), but in analyzing the above you will note two things: Killing by a strict D&D reading is an immoral component. Preventing someone from killing/harming is a moral component (according to the respect for life stricture). When determining whether or not something is moral by the above standards we need to determine which has greater effect on life: the killing aspect of the above OR the preventative aspect. If you determine that the killing/harming aspect does more damage to life, than the preventative aspect helps, then the overall event is immoral. If you determine that the preventative aspect helps life more than the killing aspect harms life, then the overall event is moral. The alignment part is simple once you have established the morality of the situation. If the situation is in general moral, then one's alignment shifts towards good. If the situation is in general immoral, then one's alignment shifts towards evil. What you are getting at in a round-about way is the "balance of forces" portion of neutrality. If I go around torturing to death all of the multiverses worst fiends, then just how moral am I? Now when you look at this and note that the persons alignment shifts to neutral: I assume this means you believe a "neutral" morality took place? But this isn't the case. What happened was the individual components of the events were looked at: the torture showing a lack of concern for dignity/disrespect for a lifeform/obvious sentient; while on the other hand the removal of obvious threats to other life forms shows concern for the well-being of other life. This means that when the multiversal forces of Good and Evil look at your actions they both see something they like and their "pull/effect" on your character cancels out (the overall morality/immorality of what you are doing results in a negligible or null effect on your alignment). (Note: Something to consider when thinking about alignment-morality relationship: One's personality can shift wildly, with a commensurate change in one's moral outlook, without a change in alignment because the person hasn't actually done anything yet to engender the change). You are correct to state that the Good-Evil axis concerns itself with moral motivation/intent and the Law-Chaos axis concerns itself with methodology/intent. This cannot be disputed, but alignment is not in and of itself the same as the system it exists within. Good and Evil alignment exists because of two factors: 1) Good and Evil both have ideologies which they believe to be correct or desire to have people abide by. 2) Good and Evil are multiverse defining forces which suffuse/permeate/incorporate into beings which engage in behavior which corresponds to what Good and Evil respectively desire/believe to be correct. Number 1 corresponds to D&D morality. Number 2 corresponds to D&D alignment. Interrelated, yes, but the same? No. MTF
kintire 09-19-07, 06:50 AM	Alignment IS a sum of person, but not in the way you believe. Alignment is a cosmological indicator NOT a personality indicator. The difference is subtle but very important. Actually, alignment is a cosmological indicator and a personality indicator. Alignment is an assessment of what kind of "energies" your character is associated with (hence the word "aligned"). This has importance because spells, abilities, items, effects all change based on which forces one's essence/body is associated with. Your character has an "aura" or radiates to some extent the energy that he/she is associated with. Very true. And the thing that aligns you with these forces is your moral outlook and personality. The position that morality is wrong is all well in good, but it is not a moral position in D&D. Not only does it exist, it is ubiquitous. There are nine major moralities in DnD, and everyone believes that at least eight of them are wrong. And that's not counting the "x/y, but more x than y" moralities. It relates to morality, but does not have anything to do with Good and Evil, which is the defining point for D&D morality. Acting as though Good and Evil are both wrong will not change the fact that your spiritual association uses Good and Evil as reference points. Law and Chaos also define DnD moralites. And the position that morality does not exist cannot be applied to D&D exactly because morality is an objective reality in D&D. A devastating refutation anyone who says that morality does not exist in DnD. Its addressed to me why? It is your job to show just how either morality can be wrong, but still be the standard by which creatures/people are judged. OR how morality does not exist, when it so very clearly does. Disconnect =/ MTF The disconnect here is between "what you are burbling on about" and "anything I have actually said". Actually the first bit is easy "when the creators of the morality in question are misguided". I'm not sure what relevance this has, but there you go. The alignment part is simple once you have established the morality of the situation. If the situation is in general moral, then one's alignment shifts towards good. If the situation is in general immoral, then one's alignment shifts towards evil. Now this, right here, is where your confusion is. You are using "morality" to mean "good". A morality is a system of precepts and the guides to action derived from them. "We must pursue Goodness" is a component of some moralities in DnD, but by no means all or even most. Good and Evil alignment exists because of two factors: 1) Good and Evil both have ideologies which they believe to be correct or desire to have people abide by. 2) Good and Evil are multiverse defining forces which suffuse/permeate/incorporate into beings which engage in behavior which corresponds to what Good and Evil respectively desire/believe to be correct. Number 1 corresponds to D&D morality. Number 2 corresponds to D&D alignment. This is a gross oversimplification. DnD alignment consists of a number of moralities based around the two dichotomies Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. You can't just drop it down to two.
Skeptical Clown 09-19-07, 10:39 AM	The question of energies and where alignment comes from is really beside the point. The fractioning of ethicality into numerous subcategories without any objective way of picking out one as "the best" is key--that's what makes the D&D morality system relativist. There's no obvious way to argue that Lawful Good is "more good" than Chaotic Good, or vice versa--as far as any D&D game I've been in is concerned, both are valid expressions of Goodness. Yet both clearly involve very different ethical presumptions and choices. Deciding which way is better is left entirely up to individuals--the type of Good that is best is the one that suits you best. Hence, the relativism. Yes, we can argue that Good is still clearly "Gooder" than Evil, and that this is obvious--but the dichotemy is diluted by the introduction of multiple shades. A problem for some types of stories. That's all. The D&D system has its merits for other types of stories.
ManTimeForgot 09-19-07, 06:08 PM	Actually, alignment is a cosmological indicator and a personality indicator. Very true. And the thing that aligns you with these forces is your moral outlook and personality. Not only does it exist, it is ubiquitous. There are nine major moralities in DnD, and everyone believes that at least eight of them are wrong. And that's not counting the "x/y, but more x than y" moralities. Law and Chaos also define DnD moralites. A devastating refutation anyone who says that morality does not exist in DnD. Its addressed to me why? The disconnect here is between "what you are burbling on about" and "anything I have actually said". Actually the first bit is easy "when the creators of the morality in question are misguided". I'm not sure what relevance this has, but there you go. Now this, right here, is where your confusion is. You are using "morality" to mean "good". A morality is a system of precepts and the guides to action derived from them. "We must pursue Goodness" is a component of some moralities in DnD, but by no means all or even most. This is a gross oversimplification. DnD alignment consists of a number of moralities based around the two dichotomies Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. You can't just drop it down to two. If you are going to try and be exact, then at the very least you need to be specifically correct. It is NOT a personality indicator: I've already shown that this is not so via the "person who has a wild personality swing" example. A person can have their personality shift 180 degrees out, and not change alignment ONE bit. Alignment is a cosmological indicator predicated on behavior not personality. Behavior in D&D has moral context (context is the important word here, as actions do not themselves have morality without a situation in which to apply them). Personality may explain why you acted the way you did in a given circumstance, but alignment will never ever show you a person's personality. You need detect thoughts or a mind probe to do that. Still confusing alignment with morality I see. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as "chaotic neutral" morality. Chaos and Law has nothing (as in 0%) to do with morality in D&D. Chaos and Law provide reference points for analyzing one's methodologies (what one believes to be the correct way of going about interacting with reality; this has nothing to do with Right and Wrong). There is only ONE "morality" in D&D, and it's listed in the PHB alignment section under "Good." (Good implies: Respect for life, Altruism, Concern for the Dignity of sentients...) The aforementioned modality is the only morality in D&D; anything else and you aren't acting morally. Law and Chaos have never been, nor ever will be features of D&D morality. Morality by its very definition denotes Good and Evil. Find me order versus chaos as it applies to any definition of morality any where. You can't. The forces of Law and Chaos desire applications of ideologies. Yes, this does imply that law and chaos themselves have ideologies, but they are meta-ideologies in that regard. They relate themselves to other ideologies. So the force of law believes that it is best to apply one's ideologies (how you behave) in an orderly, methodical manner. This has nothing to do with "Right and Wrong" as understood by the paradigm of morality. Because you said that you showed how amorality was a feature of D&D "neutral" morality. I was being thorough in refuting both definitions. If you don't care to espouse "morality does not exist" as a plausible method of explaining "neutral" morality, then let's let it drop. You need to stop thinking as though Evil, Law, and Chaos have anything to do with what is Moral (as in correct via morality). Good is ALWAYS the standard by which people are morally judged, and since Good is the source of that which is Moral it can never be misguided. It really is that simple. Skeptical Clown: Thank you for the intellectual activity; your assertion is not child's play to refute. Your problem lay either in assuming that law and chaos actually matter when it comes to determining the relevant applications of morality due to their apparent association in terms of alignment scale or making a fundamental attribution error where you assume that one's application of Good must be wholly consistent with Law, Chaos, or a balance of the two across all situations (moral situations). Only what Good wants matters when it comes to D&D morality. As such behavior which is lawful, chaotic, or in between the two doesn't matter when it comes to determining the "most good." All you have to do is look at how actions relate to respect for life, altruism, and concern for the dignity of sentients (possibly including their converse in cases where determinations must be made about quasi-morally appropriate behavior), and this determines what is "most good." Or if the error lay in attribution, then one must look a bit more piecemeal at moral behavior. In one circumstance behavior which is more consistent with Lawful ideology would be the correct (or Moral) thing to do, but in another circumstance behavior which is more consistent with Chaotic ideology would be more correct (or Moral). Good only cares about respecting life, and so under certain circumstances you are going to have to act in an orderly fashion to net this result, whereas under certain circumstances you are going to have to act contrary to the laws or your own personal code to net a respectful outcome. Morality in D&D is absolutely conditional upon the desires of the forces of Good and Evil. If you try and introduce Chaotic and Lawful influences, then I would agree that the morality system becomes relative since one cannot clearly establish an efficacy scale of chaotic versus lawful good or evil. The more relevant issue to standard D&D though is that across the spectra of D&D circumstances the application of Good or Evil behavior in the extreme (that is attempting to abide by either ideology flawlessly) will tend towards a balance of applications as they relate to the desires of Law and Chaos. Good might tend slightly towards Law (as social harmony, social unity, fraternity entail mild lawful association, and it is hard to extricate social good from general good as it applies to respect for life). Similarly, Evil might tend towards Chaos (as undermining social harmony, social unity, togetherness entails a mild chaotic association, and it is hard to extricate a desire to harm from anarchy when social good is pretty clearly a general good). Even so, as the circumstances approaches infinity, the requisite actions to deal with the specific situations will vary according to the environmental, personality, and resource factors of those involved, which will thusly entail varying methods of dealing with the situations, and with varying methods, will vary the ideological associations as they relate to Law and Chaos. Edit: Characters in D&D may well believe that the best way to engender good will or spread benefit to all is to act in either a lawful or chaotic manner, but this doesn't change the reference point. The reference point for Good is always what Good desires, so this stops the possibility of moral relativism. Meta-ethical relativism is still a possibility though, as determining which circumstances require which type of behavior may well be too complex for even those with magical aids to determine which is morally correct behavior under every circumstance. MTF
kintire 09-20-07, 08:22 AM	ManTimeForgot If you are going to try and be exact, then at the very least you need to be specifically correct. It is NOT a personality indicator: I've already shown that this is not so via the "person who has a wild personality swing" example. A person can have their personality shift 180 degrees out, and not change alignment ONE bit. Alignment is a cosmological indicator predicated on behavior not personality. Behaviour and personality are inextricably linked. The first derives from the interaction of the secong and circumstances. This is a difference that is no difference. Still confusing alignment with morality I see. I'm sorry but there is no such thing as "chaotic neutral" morality. Chaos and Law has nothing (as in 0%) to do with morality in D&D. This is just absurd. All of the moralities in the DnD cosmology have to do with Good, Evil, Law and Chaos, though some apply more weight to one axis than others. A Lawful Neutral or Chaotic neutral morality has nothing to do with Law and Chaos? Ridiculous. One of the central planks of those moralitis is that the Law Chaos axis is so much more important than the Good/Evil one that it is the only one worth serious consideration. There is only ONE "morality" in D&D, and it's listed in the PHB alignment section under "Good." (Good implies: Respect for life, Altruism, Concern for the Dignity of sentients...) Except that there are actually four listed in that very section, of which Law and Chaos are two. Elsewhere, more detailed takes on these moralities are listed for each of the nine alignments. The Great Wheel adds more, as it has the planes between the alignments. And that's assuming that each alignment has only one morality associated with it. Find me order versus chaos as it applies to any definition of morality any where. You can't. Its generally considered wise to check that people actually can't before you do this! Actually its trivial. Leninism states that it is right to have a collective, centrally organised state, that the individual should subordinate themselves to the collective whole, and that only benefits that accrue to the state as a whole are worth pursuing. Individual benefit is wrong. Randian objectivism, however, states that the individual is the only really exisiting actor, and that each individual should pursue their own personal benefit as far as they are able, and that attempts by states or organisations to hinder this process are wrong. Law vs Chaos, with no regard for any altruism vs selfishness considerations, except to reject them as unimportant. Because you said that you showed how amorality was a feature of D&D "neutral" morality. Actually, I said no such thing. I said that amorality was a moral position, but the active true neutral alignment was in order for the world to function it is necessary to ensure that the forces of good, evil, law and chaos remain in balance, and no single one of them becomes to strong. You were the one who said it was amoral, because you're on this whole morality = good alignment kick. Good is ALWAYS the standard by which people are morally judged, Utter rubbish. Are you claiming that a neutral evil morality judges people by how good they are? Or indeed a Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral one? Technically I suppose the evil moralities do judge people by how good they are, in reverse, but the Lawful and Chaotic neutrals largely don't care. Good is the source of that which is Moral it can never be misguided. It really is that simple. Of course, if you define a morality as the pursuit of goodness, it is trivially true that ideologies that don't pursue good aren't moral. If you use morality to mean a system defining correct behaviour (which is actually the right definition) not only is it not trivially true, in DnD it is frankly not true. Skeptical Clown The question of energies and where alignment comes from is really beside the point. The fractioning of ethicality into numerous subcategories without any objective way of picking out one as "the best" is key--that's what makes the D&D morality system relativist. It doesn't thoguh. The DnD cosmology has not presented the objective reason why some moralities are better than others, but the whole background is based on the idea that there is one. Good is better than Evil, at least, though the better worse situation isn't as clear between Law and Chaos. However this isn't a mandating of reletivism; its allowing the GM to pick what the best moralities are for their campaign, and refraining from mandating it in the background. Deciding which way is better is left entirely up to individuals--the type of Good that is best is the one that suits you best. Hence, the relativism. This isn't relativism. Relativism states that right and wrong have no meaning outside the culture that defines them. This is no more than precept rather than rule objectivism: Objectivism rather than Absolutism as some prefer. The pursuit of Good is still Right, though how you pursue it is up to you. And this can and does change in different backgrounds. For example, the Forgotten Realms tend towards chaotic rather than lawful good, Greyhawk (to a lesser degree) the other way, and Planescape questions whether good is actually "better" at all. The DnD great wheel can accommodate all of these.
ManTimeForgot 09-20-07, 03:00 PM	Behavior has consequences. Personality doesn't. This is a difference that makes all the difference in the world. It does not matter how bad your personality is if you don't do anything. But the minute you do something which is disrespectful to life (including just communicating about how you disrespect life), then you start to get Evil alignment. Point MTF. You keep using this word "morality" or "moralities." Whatever it is you think it means it does not mean what you think it means. Morality has to do with right and wrong, show me what part of the law and chaos section has anything resembling a moral imperative or framework: The law sections says: lawful characters behave this way. The chaotic section says: chaotic characters behave this way. Heck, the chaotic section references characters behaving in a manner consistent with their "conscience" if chaos determined one's morality, then just where is the character's morality derived from? Answer: Good and Evil. Point MTF You really don't know what morality is do you? Yeah, telling me to check my facts is kinda weird when you mention a bunch of things that have positively nothing to do with the branch of philosophy called: Morality. Its all well and good to find political ideologies which state law or chaos is better, because those are exactly what law and chaos are about. Law and chaos are functions of Organization. Good and Evil concern themselves with how you derive your behavior. Law and Chaos concern themselves with whether your behavior is organized. Point MTF Morality = Good. Immorality = Evil. This isn't a "kick." It's the cold hard reality of definitions. The sooner you understand this the sooner you will realize just how wrong your arguments are. Of course even if somehow law and chaos were a part of D&D's morality scheme it still wouldn't change the fact that Neutral morality does NOT exist. A balance of law and chaos still doesn't get you an ideological reference point for neutrality. You still only have a balance of law and chaos or something which is not related to law and chaos whatsoever. Either way: Point MTF. Law and Chaos doesn't care about morality period. Find a modron. Ask it if it is ok to kill your friend. The modron does not understand "friend." It also doesn't understand why anyone should have any compunctions about killing one way or another. The closest approximation for morality for a Modron is to call Good-Law and Evil-Chaos. It's really quite simple: If behavior is patterned: net effect Law; if behavior is not carry on. If behavior is whimsical or random: net effect chaos; if behavior is not it is unrelated to law and chaos. Point MTF I'm going to ignore the fact that you are still misusing morality in this section and point out that Good already has an objective method of establishing its superiority built in. You can't build a society on the principles of Evil. You can do so with the principles of Good. Good is therefore objectively more useful/better for People. And since we (the characters) are people, we can objectively verify that Good is in fact superior to Evil. Secondly, who cares if you can't determine which is superior Law or Chaos. Neither one works in the extreme; if try to take Law to its obvious extreme you get the modron existence which no human could ever abide. If you take chaos to its obvious extreme you get the chaos beast, which has a multiplicatively individual existence which no human could ever abide. The only force who's ideology could be taken to the extreme and still be liveable is Good. Hence Good > Law, Chaos, Evil. Point MTF. D&D can indeed accomodate questions of which ideology is superior, but it doesn't change the fact that in the final analysis Good is exactly what its namesake suggests: Good. You are also correct that D&D affords to freedom to choose which methods you (the character) believe to be most conducive to effecting good things in the world. Just because the freedom exists to choose which methods the character thinks is best doesn't actually make them better in any objective manner. All that matters is what Good and Evil think. If the situation calls for something free-thinking, unhindered by codified, rigid behavioralism, then that is what Good wants. If the situation calls for something structured, ordered, traditional, then that is what Good wants. Point MTF. Game MTF. Look, it doesn't matter whether or not Good is ultimately correct; you can still run your games as though it is uncertain. In fact there is no real reason why any mortal would ever know this, or possibly even deity, since inevitably everyone who lives within a system is inevitably biased one way or another by their own lives and experiences. Only as objective observers removed from the system can we see that Good is in fact the only ideology which can claim to be completely consistent with human life. No being has ever martialed enough any of the forces to be able to even come close to putting something like that to the test. You needlessly try to attribute cosmological uncertainty, when sociological uncertainty will do. A person doesn't need to know that Good is the only viable truth. All a person needs to know is what they feel. If the character wants to do something, then do it. You don't need some ideology in the sky telling your characters what to do. Yeah, characters may be leaning towards one of another because they care about where they go in the after life, but that's it. MTF
kintire 09-21-07, 06:37 AM	Behavior has consequences. Personality doesn't. Personality+circumstance=behaviour. For moral purposes, personality is far more important, because circumstances are fluid whereas personality, while not fixed, is much more long lasting. Point MTF :heehee awarding yourself points! oh dear... You keep using this word "morality" or "moralities." Whatever it is you think it means it does not mean what you think it means. Pollute not a fine film with your feeble philosophy sirrah. Actually, it does mean what I think it means, which is as you correctly state: Morality has to do with right and wrong Thus far we are in agreement. Then, however, you go off the rails, and start vanishing over the horizon, yelling about points ( :D ) . show me what part of the law and chaos section has anything resembling a moral imperative or framework:The law sections says: lawful characters behave this way. The chaotic section says: chaotic characters behave this way. The law and chaos sections use exactly the same language as the good and evil sections. The moral imperatives for Law are to pursue honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. The moral imperatives for Chaos are to pursue freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Heck, the chaotic section references characters behaving in a manner consistent with their "conscience" if chaos determined one's morality, then just where is the character's morality derived from? Answer: Good and Evil Actually, the point being made here is that a chaotic person will behave according to their personal conscience as opposed to an external system of behaviour imposed by a group. Unless you think this is suggesting that Demons and Slaadi will behave in a Good manner? you mention a bunch of things that have positively nothing to do with the branch of philosophy called: Morality. Its all well and good to find political ideologies which state law or chaos is better, Both Marx/Leninism and randian objectivism begin with a moral position and derive a political and economic system from it. Marxists believe that individuals profiting at the expense of the group is not just uneconomical, but wrong. When they denounce exploitation of labour by capitalists, they aren't just saying its a bit politically doubtful, they are saying its evil, and in the case of the Leninist version that those perpetrating it should be exterminated by force. I don't think Rand ever advocated violence, but she was as opposed to collectivism in any form, and was quite overt about producing a morality as well as economic theory. Morality = Good. Immorality = Evil. This isn't a "kick." It's the cold hard reality of definitions. Its the cold hard reality of the category mistake. The word "Good" has two different meanings here. "That which it is right to do (or pursue)" and "The DnD alignment associated with altruism". You are taking this statement, which is true using the first definition, and claiming its true using the second which it is not. Of course, it may well be that in fact the DnD alignment IS "Good" in both senses, and in fact I would support that view, but you can't just declare that a priori. And even if it is true, other moralities are still moralities although misguided ones. The closest approximation for morality for a Modron is to call Good-Law and Evil-Chaos Yes. That is exactly what they do. Of course, a Modron can tell the difference between Good in the first sense above and Good in the second. It will be aware that it is talking about the first, but not the second. Learn from the Modron... If behavior is patterned: net effect Law; if behavior is not carry on. If behavior is whimsical or random: net effect chaos; if behavior is not it is unrelated to law and chaos. Yes. And this is a (simplified summing up of a) perfectly consistent moral system. You can't build a society on the principles of Evil. You can do so with the principles of Good. Good is therefore objectively more useful/better for People. And since we (the characters) are people, we can objectively verify that Good is in fact superior to Evil. Fails due to circularity. We are not people, we are a person. From a person's point of view, allowing other gullible people to build the society while you bleed it white for personal profit can be a very useful option. Secondly, who cares if you can't determine which is superior Law or Chaos. Neither one works in the extreme; if try to take Law to its obvious extreme you get the modron existence which no human could ever abide. If you take chaos to its obvious extreme you get the chaos beast, which has a multiplicatively individual existence which no human could ever abide. Fails due to anthrocentricism. The alleged fact that humans cannot abide perfect Law or Chaos means that either the concept or humans are flawed. You have failed to refute the second possibility. Incidentally, you seem to be talking as if I believe the Wheel is relativist. I don't. I'm an objectivist.
ArcTan 09-22-07, 01:13 AM	I don't think Rand ever advocated violence, but she was as opposed to collectivism in any form, and was quite overt about producing a morality as well as economic theory. The climactic event of The Fountainhead is Roark blowing up a housing complex with dynamite. Okay, there was no one living in it at the time, but still. She earlier wrote a play about how a guy who assassinated his boss was a hero (because the boss was the Ultimate Altruist -- indeed, I think the play was called "The Altruist"). She wasn't all that much of a pacifist.
Skeptical Clown 09-22-07, 08:34 AM	It doesn't thoguh. The DnD cosmology has not presented the objective reason why some moralities are better than others, but the whole background is based on the idea that there is one. Good is better than Evil, at least, though the better worse situation isn't as clear between Law and Chaos. However this isn't a mandating of reletivism; its allowing the GM to pick what the best moralities are for their campaign, and refraining from mandating it in the background. You keep saying that I'm wrong, but your arguments don't seem to follow through to that conclusion. If DnD hasn't presented the objective reason why some moralities are better than others in three decades, maybe it's because there IS no objective reason. It's strange that you point to the different alignment preferences of different settings, because it's exactly the kind of thing we should expect in a state of moral relativity--without any objective reason to pursue one moral alignment over others, societies are free to question which one is best. As a result, the settings have drifted toward different moral precepts. This is exactly what relativist morality is! Very generally it suggests that there are no objectively absolute sources of morality, and so our only reference point for morality is dependent on the culture one is living in (That's a very crude definition of relativism, but I think it suffices here). And that's exactly what we have in D&D.
kintire 09-28-07, 10:46 AM	You keep saying that I'm wrong, but your arguments don't seem to follow through to that conclusion. If DnD hasn't presented the objective reason why some moralities are better than others in three decades, maybe it's because there IS no objective reason. Or, more likely, because DnD doesn't want to get involved with the eternal verities, or dictate too much to individual DMs. It's strange that you point to the different alignment preferences of different settings, because it's exactly the kind of thing we should expect in a state of moral relativity--without any objective reason to pursue one moral alignment over others, societies are free to question which one is best. As a result, the settings have drifted toward different moral precepts. Difference between settings are fine: difference within settings are the problem. Actually, Planescape is a rather relativist setting, which is one of the reasons I dislike it, but there's nothing in the Great Wheel to say there is. Throughout the entire DnD RAW the basic assumption is that it is better to be Good than Evil. (Law vs Chaos is more wooley). They never get into the philosophy of why, but thats because this isn't a philosophy book. And the suggestion that the Great Wheel contradicts this is just wrong. The Great Wheel just supposes that there are a number of factions that don't accept that Good is better than evil. Well, we knew that. That doesn't mean they're right. Why should we look and a Chaotic Evil Orc and say "well, he's wrong" but look at a Demon and say "ooo.. maybe he has a point"? And yet I don't see anyone saying that the Monster Manual is relativist. Or the PHB which has the different alignments all laid out. How does mapping where their exemplars live make any difference at all? Is Lawful Evil suddenly more convincing an ideology because we have Asmodeus' address? All I see here is people associating power with righteousness, and saying that because Evil is no weaker on the Great Wheel than Good, that means its equally "right". How does that follow?