"Goodest of the good" and why Hell is a bad place

[Farcaster]

I would tend to agree with the prevailing opinions on this thread that Neutral Good would probably be the purest form of good. A neutral good character does what he feels is right and good. Most of the times, in a lawful and good society, doing the right thing is going to agree with the law. However, even good intentioned laws can have negative, or I daresay evil results. Therefore, a neutral good character would follow the law most of the time, but isn't morally bound by them. Since law is, after all, a creation of society, it in and of itself is fallible. However, it is notable that while the NG person follows what he believes to be the righteous course, that doesn't necessarily make him right.

As to the hostile nature of the Hells, the reasons are probably numerous. For one, the environment appropriately represents the depravity and corruption of demons and devils. They are also constantly at war not just with celestials, but also with each other -- the Blood War, which has been waged for as long as any can remember. Hellish battlegrounds old and new are simply a byproduct. And probably most importantly, Hell and the Abyss are places of torment, where the wicked reap their just rewards. Whatever force created these planes designed these environments to be a punishment, not a reward both for the souls that end up there and for the denizens who inhabit them.

 

[klofft]

Farcaster, I'm not convinced that the Blood War is essential for "core" D&D, so that explanation won't necessarily work for me. (Really, I think I'd rather the demons and devils ultimately work in a very uneasy union, with just radically different ways of effecting evil, but that's very secondary to the discussion at hand).

Griffith, I respectfully disagree. The fact is that core D&D does posit "heaven and hell," and a presumed afterlife of sorts for all intelligent races. Therefore, questions of ultimate good and evil should be easy to fit. An implied metaphysical relativism is too unwieldy to consider for me. As for "offending anyone," our group combined has six degrees in Roman Catholic theology, so I'm not too worried about that!

 

[Shemeska]

As to the hostile nature of the Hells, the reasons are probably numerous. For one, the environment appropriately represents the depravity and corruption of demons and devils. They are also constantly at war not just with celestials, but also with each other -- the Blood War, which has been waged for as long as any can remember. Hellish battlegrounds old and new are simply a byproduct. And probably most importantly, Hell and the Abyss are places of torment, where the wicked reap their just rewards. Whatever force created these planes designed these environments to be a punishment, not a reward both for the souls that end up there and for the denizens who inhabit them.

Though to be fair, I should point out that in the D&D core cosmology, the celestials are not involved in any active war with the fiends, and the upper planes collectively stay as far away from the Blood War as possible (and they have for a very long time).

And it's also worth pointing out that the same cosmology isn't based around any idea of "rewards" or "punishment" for Good or Evil actions in life, or for the denizens of those planes that embody those concepts. The planes are simply layers of reality that embody a pure concept, and beings living there are extensions of that abstract, and mortal souls are attracted there because their beliefs are most commonly aligned with a particular plane. Any notion of a plane being a 'hell' or a 'paradise' is entirely subjective in the eyes of the mortal or outsider making that judgement, because they're all equal, rather than being judged by a dualism of monolithic Good = proper and Evil = bad wrong.

But I'm straying from the OP's topic, mea culpa.

Getting back to the OP, you can still use virtually all aspects of the D&D/Planescape cosmology that come along with its moral relativism, even using the OP's notion of Evil being a willing seperation from Good. The lower planes are still not a "punishment" not in the 'wrath of an angry god' sort of way, but in the sense I'd alluded to earlier about those lower planes being an environment made manifest by its inhabitants distance from and withdrawl from Good/grace etc. It retains the landscape of moral relativism in some ways, but since it's not externally decreed punishment from on high, but self-imposed by choice, you retain the free-will aspect of it all and the two mesh rather nicely.

 

[Farcaster]

I'm curious, what are you considering core to the D&D cosmology? I admit, that I am drawing slightly on elements presented in Forgotten Realms, but I'm pretty certain much of the dynamics of the planes that I am speaking of are presented in the Manual of the Planes, which is D&D's generic/default cosmology.

I do wonder though how souls would willing choose to become petitioners in Hell, considering what happens to petitioners there.

 

[Shemeska]

I'm curious, what are you considering core to the D&D cosmology?

The Great Wheel / D&D cosmology, from the 3e MotP, 3.5 DMG, slowly built up through 1e/2e/now in 3e.

I do wonder though how souls would willing choose to become petitioners in Hell, considering what happens to petitioners there.

If they're LE in life, they'll be drawn to Baator because they metaphysically resemble it most. Once there, congrats they'll become a lemure, but they have the potential to be promoted to higher forms, and in theory an LE petitioner might become a Pit Fiend, potentially something higher. [Given that Baalzebul was originaly mortal, became an archon, then fell from LG to LE and eventually ended up one of the Lords of the 9. He's a twisted sort of success story]. In the Abyss it's a similar thing, though power is gained by different means [And Orcus for instance was once a mortal before his death and rise to become one of the most powerful beings in the Abyss].

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Griffith, I respectfully disagree. The fact is that core D&D does posit "heaven and hell," and a presumed afterlife of sorts for all intelligent races. Therefore, questions of ultimate good and evil should be easy to fit. An implied metaphysical relativism is too unwieldy to consider for me. As for "offending anyone," our group combined has six degrees in Roman Catholic theology, so I'm not too worried about that!

Wow! Given the expertise of your group, I'm a little confused as to why you're raising these questions. But I'll respond as best as I can….

Core D&D posits multiple afterlifes tied directly to alignment. While only one alignment considers itself Neutral/Good, all alignments consider themselves best (per the core rules). AFAIK, core D&D does not designate the Abyss, 9 Hells, etc. as a place of eternal punishment but simply locations of extraplanar outsiders seeking new recruits on the prime material plane.

Nothing is stopping you from junking the whole planar system and imposing a Heaven, Purgatory (and Limbo), and Hell. If you go that far, I think it is better to use an Allegiance system from d20 Modern rather than the D&D Alignment system.

As to the orthogonal nature of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, I don't think there would be alignments of LG, CG, CE, and LE if these alignments were truly orthogonal. The 7 Heavens is not an afterlife of both Law and Good rather it is Lawful Good.

In summary I argue 1) there is no "most good" alignment since the RAW states that each alignment thinks it is the best alignment as do the planar powers that embody these alignments. 2) Since each plane is an embodiment of its alignment (and think that it's best) it should come as no surprise that one alignment looks at another and thinks 'Wow, what a craphole you live in!'. 3) Moral relativism in the sense that every alignment and plane thinks that it is Good does not exist in D&D. However Moral Relativism in the sense that each plane is the ideal home for that alignment and that that particular alignment is best is prevalent throughout D&D. 4) One of the core assumptions in D&D is that the 9 planes are equal in power and influence and use the prime material plane as a battlefield.

On a personal note, I think a world based on Mediæval Roman Catholic theology would be very interesting to play in. But as I mentioned above, I think the alignment system should be ditched in favour of an Allegiance system. For that matter, I would enjoy a game based on a Celtic, Germanic, Græco-Roman, or Egyptian world-view. I actually dislike the whole planar theology precisely for the reasons listed above.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Without first reaching an agreement on the definitions of the concepts involved, there is no way that questions such as this one can be asked with any realistic expectation of a useful answer.

So, as always, it comes down to the nature of good and evil.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I find your theory of the badness of the lower planes to be very illuminating. In fact, it is sig-worthy. My hat is off to you!

I think that the environment of the planes represents a value judgment about the whole of creation. A fiend looks at the world and sees it to be a place of violence, pain and treachery. Lo and behold- that's what it becomes. A celestial looks at the world and sees a place of harmony and beauty. Lo and behold- that's what it becomes.

 

[arscott]

If goodness is a matter of confirming to divine order, then perhaps the inhospitable conditions of the lower planes are a direct result of the demon's attempts to change their surroundings.

Assume that the lower planes were initially paradises--exemplars of the divine order. What would happen if the fiends and evil gods tried to enforce their will over the environment, eitheir by divinely morphing, or by by mundane means?

Because good is derived from compliance to the divine order, then any change, no matter how beneficial it seems, is ultimately corrupt. Thus, the environment itself becomes corrupted and inhospitable as a result of the changes imposed upon it. So while a few lakes of fire are the result of evil beings intentionally creating hazardous territory, most are created when a misguided demon lord tries to turn up the temperature in his realm by a few degrees.

 

[klofft]

Wow! I'm sig worthy! Thanks a lot! I appreciate it!

Griffith, the reason I have questions is because I AM using a polytheistic world. I assure you, if I was making a world with a fundamentally Christian worldview, I wouldn't have so many questions.

Instead, I have an unknown creator God. Actually, he (it?) is less "unknown," and more distant like Tolkien's god - whose cosmology I'm heavily borrowing from. In fact, it's because I'm borrowing from Tolkien so much that I am convinced that the worldview I'm trying to sort out here can work.

This God sent lots and lots of "gods" to create the universe through his power. Thus, technically, the gods are not gods, but rather "super-angels," if you will. However, the intelligent races don't know of "God"; all they know of is the gods and a force in the universe that they just refer to as "providence." For a lawful and/or good person, providence is a benevolent force that assures one that the universe is a good and orderly place. Because that is fundamentally true, a chaotic and/or evil person views providence as a cruel fate.

I am using the D&D core pantheon, the rest of the Greyhawk gods, a random few from FR and Eberron that have made it into other core supplements, the demon princes and arch-devils as lesser gods, and various other factions (e.g., the three factions from BoED, the warrior pantheon from Complete Warrior, etc.). All told, I have about 300 gods. Gods do not gain power from the worship of mortals, nor can a mortal become a god.

Among all these, the intelligent races generally acknowledge Pelor as the sort of good Father-god figure, and Nerull as the evil, satanic, anti-life figure. I've never really decided whether or not they are equal in actual power to one another, but they are more powerful than the other gods in general.

Having created the universe in (the over-)God's power, the gods now just "run their portfolios," if you will, hoping that people will comply. If people are good, the world is a good place; however, in my world, people have become lazy, selfish, and most especially scared of the world around them, which has led to a rise in the power of evil and death in the world. Meanwhile, providence continues to work some unknown cosmic plan, which innocent good-hearted mortals hope is for the best.

That's way more than I intended to write, and I'm threatening to get away from my original questions with all this. However, I wanted to explain the situation I'm working with, and why I might be concerned about an objective good and the possibility of evil being understood as its absence. I realize that this cosmology is way too black and white for many groups, but again, this is the way our highly religious group likes our fantasy.

OK. I'll be quiet now and continue to read these extremely interesting perspectives people are putting forth.

Thanks!
C