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

[klofft]

Note to the moderators: My request for philosophical opinions here borders vaguely on the religious. My intention is not to violate the code here; let me know if I've stepped over the line.

I have two related points of a philosophical nature that I'm seeking opinions on.

I am trying to construct the fundamental elements of the cosmology of my homebrew. I think that I want to run a world in which the universe is a fundamentally ordered place and a good place. I am appealing here to the Augustinian notion that what "is" is good, and that what is called "evil" is such because it lacks goodness, not that evil has substance in itself.

Based on this, I'm wondering: which of the three good alignments is, if you will, the "goodest of the good"? Subjectively, one can make a case for each. However, as CG prioritizes individual freedom so highly, it seems like it couldn't qualify according to my metaphysical description above.

LG would seem to be the answer, as it appeals to both benevolent action and a respect for order and structure.

However, NG seems to recognize that appeals to order and/or law can lead to a misplaced notion of good. After all, a law isn't inherently good simply because it's a law, and that's true whether you're talking about a civil law or a divine law.

So...if you were playing a really, really, truly good character, what alignment would he or she be?

In contrast, why do demons, devils, and evil gods live in such crap-holes? Especially for beings capable of divinely morphing their environment, why would they continue to live in such inhospitable "places"? Sure, one can argue that a devil (e.g.) is immune to most of the hazards of Hell, but not all of them. Furthermore, many of the "lower" planes such as the Abyss are not even all that stable. How to plot the destruction of the cosmos if you can't even be sure your own house will hold together long enough?

It would seem that, based on the cosmological premise I began with above, that it is their lack of goodness that creates an inhospitable environment. They can't help but make this environment what it is, because their own will over all others (a decent enough definition of evil) prevents them from accepting the benevolence of an order that exists beyond them. The conflict between their will and the ultimate benevolence of creation results in a misery of their own making.

I'm confident this made more sense in my head before I started typing. I'm hoping it's clear enough and perhaps compelling enough to begin a conversation.

Thoughts?
C

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

N
In contrast, why do demons, devils, and evil gods live in such crap-holes? Especially for beings capable of divinely morphing their environment, why would they continue to live in such inhospitable "places"? Sure, one can argue that a devil (e.g.) is immune to most of the hazards of Hell, but not all of them. Furthermore, many of the "lower" planes such as the Abyss are not even all that stable. How to plot the destruction of the cosmos if you can't even be sure your own house will hold together long enough?

Personally, I'd say that's because you have different types of evolution for Good and Evil.

For Good, you have "Evolution of the Fittest" - "fit" meaning that those who are able to integrate themselves into their communities prosper, and the community as a whole prospers with them. Altruism is a powerful force in human society, and Good is all about altruism.

For Good, you have "Evolution of the Strongest" - only the toughest, meanest beings make it to the top, and they crush anyone who gets in the way. The forces of Evil make their domains hellish (pun intended) because this fosters evil. The entities living there soon will do anything to improve their lot, and they have nothing to loose - and everything to win. All they have to do is scheme, backstab, and bully their way to the top.

If they lived in green and pleasant lands, then they would have much less of an impetus to commit evil...

 

[WayneLigon]

So...if you were playing a really, really, truly good character, what alignment would he or she be?

Neutral Good

In contrast, why do demons, devils, and evil gods live in such crap-holes? Especially for beings capable of divinely morphing their environment, why would they continue to live in such inhospitable "places"?

Who says they live in crapholes? They are beings of a totally different aesthetic than we have. To them, rivers of flaming acid might be just the thing, and they hate being summoned to our world of disgusting oxygen and revolting carbon-based life. Beings who are, in part, the very personification of chaos are probably not going to like stable geography and such, either.

Demons and devils shouldn't only be evil, they should be pretty alien as well.

Really, though, it has more to do with the perception of the lower planes as places of punishment for souls that didn't measure up. Prisons are almost universaly unpleasent, but to me that perception of the hells shouldn't be entirely correct.

 

[Nifft]

Remember: Hell is other people. Why is there a river of liquid magma right outside the castle? Because a mere moat didn't do the job.

The hostile environment is thought to give its creator some sort of advantage. "It doesn't matter if it hurts me, just so long as it hurts you lot more."

Stoic + evil = brutal landscape.

-- N

 

[Umbran]

Which good is most good? Seems to me that the answer in general is " None of them".

Chaotic Good sometimes puts the needs of the individual above the masses, which isn't good.

Lawful Good sometimes goes the other way, infinging on the individual in the name of the comfort of others - and that way lay tyrrany.

Neutral Good can go in either of these directions at any time.

My point - the Law/Chaos axis is orthoganal to Good/Evil. Level of Goodness in an individual is completely independent of their position on the Law/Chaos line.

 

[delericho]

According to the structure you're suggesting, Lawful Good would indeed be "the goodest of the good". Note that this differs slightly from the 'standard' alignment arrangement, where all three have claim to the role, but none is actually the 'goodest'.

As for why the demons and devils live in such frightful places: choice. The lower planes may well have been bright and wonderful at one time, but the demons and devils have corrupted them over the millennia into what they are now. Where the fiends leave their planes and seek out new places to live, the effect is not that the fiends then live in nice places, but rather that those places are gradually blighted and corrupted by the fiends until they slide into what is currently called the Lower Planes.

(To model this, though, you should probably have some areas of the Lower Planes that are actually quite pleasant, but manifestly getting worse, and some places in the Planes of Conflict (or is it Middle Planes, or...?) where the fiends are starting to encroach, and which are therefore starting to slide.)

 

[Aaron L]

If you wanted to know what alignment is more concerned with Good than anything else, it's the Good alignment. (Neutral) Good. Good is the only thing they care about, as far as morality goes. Law and Chaos are nothing more than tools to be used to promote well being for all, and if either becomes a hindrance it can be ignored. Lawful Good and Chaotic Good have biases other than the concern for Good in their outlooks.

 

[greywulf]

Good question.

By your definition, Lawful Good would epitomise the natural state, so that could be viewed at the utmost pinnacle of perfection. It's possible to be "more Good" (Neutral Good) but ignoring the word of the law carries it's own punishment. Similarly, Law without goodness (Lawful Neutral) is meaningless.

Putting this into context;

If you save the princess and bring the Evil Villain to trial, you're Lawful Good, the emitome of virtue.
Saving the princess and killing the Evil Villain is good, but you'll stand trial for his murder to justify your actions. That's Neutral Good.
If you bring the Evil Villain to trial but the princess dies because of your actions (blowing up the castle, going straight for the Villain before looking for her, etc), that's Lawful Neutral.

Chaotic Good would be viewed as anathema. Someone who does good deeds on a whim is no better than someone who bends the law to their own ends (Lawful Evil). Neither are to be trusted.

By your definition of the world order, of course.

On the "Hell is a bad place" thing; we've only got the priests and demon's word that Hell is bad, and neither are to be trusted to give a truthful answer to this question

That said, if the environment is shaped by the deeds of those living inside it (the Amityville Theorem) then Hell isn't going to be particularly pleasant, I'd guess.

 

[klofft]

Thanks for all the replies so far, and I hope there are more. I know some DMs relegate cosmological questions to part of the background, but me and my players are rather obsessed with knowing how the world works, not in a physical sense (we'll do plenty of magical handwaving to deal with that), but rather in a metaphysical sense (where we search for something that works for us). It's interesting to read positions that build on or respectfully disagree with what I have posited, which, BTW, is not at all set in stone for my game. This thread is intended to get viewpoints that bring up things I have not yet thought of so I can adjust accordingly.

So far, I will admit that my own slight bias is towards LG as "goodest of the good," but I think the alignment rules in the PHB would probably favor NG slightly in that regard. I disagree that CG would be anathema in such a universe, but with a qualifier. I don't hold both axes of alignment to be equal; I weigh the good-evil spectrum far more heavily. As chaotic is thus just a modifer for good, a way of doing good, I would see such an individual as occasionally annoying to society, but also occasionally essential to society. (As a bit of a tangent, the idea of a "CG society" seems pretty odd to me, except in terms of a very small community, but for the elves, I work around it by remembering that when you live for 500 years, you see things a little differently).

Thanks everyone!
C

 

[Umbran]

Who says they live in crapholes?

I'm currently house-hunting, and I have to back you up here - even among simple humans, desired esthetics vary wildly. Really. Some of th houses I've seen while well-maintained, have been... really interesting...

Maybe fiends enjoy seared, desolate, and blasted landscapes.