D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[The Shadow]

Sheesh, I leave you guys alone for a week and you turn a moderately interesting thread into yet another endless alignment pit!

My take: Alignment is virtually useless as a categorization of characters, and uninteresting and overdone as a determinant of cosmology. The game would be better off without it, and I welcome 5e's downplaying of it.

A large part of the reason of its uselessness for categorization is that the Law/Chaos axis has always been utterly incoherent, with no two gamers and no two game texts agreeing on just what it means. And then there's the added absurdity, as Pemerton has ably argued, of pretending it is equivalent and orthogonal to the Good/Evil axis.

You disagree that the Law/Chaos axis is incoherent? Well then. Describe for me, let's say, "a chaotic act" (which paladins used to be penalized for, recall) without any reference to good or evil. No fair smuggling in words like 'ought'! That's a moral category, after all, that's used precisely to delineate goodness!

In essence, one has to tell the paladin, "You ought not to do 'chaotic' things." Which is simply to say that those 'chaotic' things are actually evil. Which means that 'Chaos' is just a word for a particular subset of 'Evil'. And in fairness, one could doubtless say that it might be a word for a particular subset of 'Good' too... but in that case, how is one justified in saying that one ought not to do those particular 'Chaotic' acts, since they are in fact good?

In the end, 'Law' and 'Chaos' are a grab-bag of unrelated concepts that are lumped together Because Gary Said So, and because Gamer Tradition Hath Hallowed Them. Like, 'entropy' and 'love of liberty' are both associated with 'Chaos' in different degrees by different people, even though they have nothing at all to do with each other!

Just consider the fact that in real life, 'love of liberty' generally reaches whatever fulfillment it can find in 'the rule of law'...

EDIT: And here's another example. Robin Hood is pretty much the archetypical example of 'Chaotic Good', right? What is it that makes him Chaotic? Apparently that he's a rebel against the established social order.

Yet why is he a rebel against the established social order? In the story, it's because King John is a wicked king who has unjustly dispossessed him, outlawed him, and oppressed the people. Robin isn't hanging out in the woods because he likes the free country life, that's for sure! (I doubt most peasants feel very 'free' in their subsistence farming, either...)

In other words, he's a rebel only because the established social order is evil. Given the chance, he'd be happy to be a baron again under good King Richard. Is he still Chaotic Good if that happens?

If he is, if you define 'Chaotic Goodness' as 'being willing to rebel against evil', then you've just subordinated 'Chaotic' to 'Goodness'. And pretty much made hash of any coherent attempt to then turn around and describe 'Chaotic Evil' as 'Chaotic' in the same sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course. This isn't contentious. My point is that, in a world in which both are correct - which is the world of the Great Wheel cosmology - then their disagreement is silly, or at best a disagreement of taste/style.

Alternatively, if you take the view that human wellbeing is best realised on Elysium - a view of the planes that I do not think is canonical, but I can see how some disagree - then both the LG and the CG person should recognise their error, and join Moorcock in affirming that too much order, and too much chaos, are both inimical to human wellbeing.

The issue I'm point too is that the Great Wheel, in its standard presentation, wants to affirm that both Law and Chaos can be good, and also affirm that the disagreement between LG and CG is well-founded. That's the bit that I regard as untenable.

I still don't see what's untenable about it. Some view order as a thing that produces good, some view liberty as a thing that produces good, and, depending on what a PS character who is LG or CG believes, that can be the case. I don't see the disagreement as "silly," anymore than any tension between personal freedom and external responsibility is "silly." Both can be said to produce good. Both can also be said to not perfectly produce well-being for all, and both can easily be turned to evil ends. Is that a flaw in execution, or in fundamentals? That's up to the PC's.

But the canonical D&D cosmology does dictate an answer: both the Seven Heavens and Olympus test positive to a Detect Good spell. Neither is less good than the other in virtue of affirming the wrong method of aiming at goodness, nor in virtue of affirming the wrong conception of goodness.

My view is that the cosmology of the D&D alignment system is not a very satisfactory vehicle for this. I find it awkward, at best, to have to treat as open questions such things as "Is the Abyss really evil?" or "Is Mt Celestia really good?" The alignment system has already purported to answer those questions. That's its function.


I don't think it's a worthwhile function. But treating the planar alignments not as moral classifications but as personality descriptors for the inhabitants of those planes is a pretty big departure from how alignment has been presented in any version of the game. For instance, it doesn't fit with the idea that "alignment is determined by action" - ie that alignment is an objective property based on the conformity of a being's behaviour to the demands of morality.

Both can produce good. But what that spell doesn't tell you is which good is the BETTER good, which one will more properly eradicate evil, which one is more sustainable or effective, which one is higher than the other. Since evil exists in the multiverse, good hasn't "won," so they're clearly imperfect in some way, each promising a paradise for all beings that they have been unable to deliver on. Hence the need for the PC's, in Planescape. Both strive for well-being, sure, but that's one lonely little point of agreement. If the multiverse is to become a better place, good must be more perfect.

The function of the alignment system as an arbiter of cosmological truth is part of what PS explicitly calls into question (along with most other arbiters of cosmological truth). "Good is good because it's good" is fine for a lot of fantasy settings, but PS wants to know what MAKES it good, and asking that question shakes the foundational assumption. PS's answer to that (a sort of "because most people agree on that being the case" democracy) makes it clear that those who shape others' beliefs shape the reality they inhabit. Celestia is only "lawful good" by general agreement. Paladins only detect as good because of that agreement. If a PC decides that all this purity and virtue isn't so good after all, they change the planes via their actions in convincing others of the truth of their beliefs. A PS player can literally strip every paladin in existence of their claims to righteousness if they decide that such righteousness is fundamentally flawed and prove it through play. Which is something, of course, that every paladin would fight.

 

[Imaro]

You disagree that the Law/Chaos axis is incoherent? Well then. Describe for me, let's say, "a chaotic act" (which paladins used to be penalized for, recall) without any reference to good or evil. No fair smuggling in words like 'ought'! That's a moral category, after all, that's used precisely to delineate goodness!

Again, speaking mainly to 3.x here (thought I think it might apply across editions)... but if a paladin decided not to follow his code?

Having a code in and of itself isn't good or evil... it's lawful, centered around order, obedience and tradition (none of which are good or evil in and of themselves)... and it doesn't matter whether the breaking of the code was for a good or an evil purpose... he falls because he has forsaken his adherence to law through said actions... regardless of whether it is or isn't an evil act or results in a good or evil outcome.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't understand how I am meant to fit this into a D&D framework, which regards good (ie human/creature wellbeing) as something objectively desirable.

Good is not something objectively desirable. Otherwise, everyone would want to be Good, and that obviously isn't the case in D&D. That's like saying Law is objectively desirable. For a paladin, yes, Good is objectively desirable. But, you might as well say that for Deanna Troi Chocolate is inherently desirable. Saying that doesn't really mean much outside of an individual's desires, which is subjective.

And, going beyond that, there isn't a spell that tells you if it is more or less objectively Good to save the school bus of nuns or try to deactivate the bomb knowing you may not succeed. Decisions must be made based on the character, their beliefs, their history, and their goals. The Lawful character may say it is better to go for the sure thing saving the nuns. The Chaotic character may say that no, taking the chance to save the most people and risking your own life to defuse the bomb is the better choice. There's no spell that will say who is right. There's no way to know for sure which will be the right thing. You can't say one is objectively more Good than the other, and any attempt to do so will just lead to argument with those who have the opposite L/C mindset as you.

So, it is indeed subjective. The game is built off decision points that cannot predict the future, that cannot tell you if it is better to save Person A or Person B. If it is right to overthrow a tyrant and throw the world into chaos, or try to subvert their monarchy and hope that you can turn everything around without bloodshed. To work with a demon to kill a devil, or to work with a devil to kill a demon. Who can say what the right choices are? Not some spell. Not some angel. Only the player character can decide for themselves which is the correct choice. For them, and no one else.

In the real world, there aren't any significant political or social movements that value order or anarchy as ends in themselves. Anarchism, libertarianism, rule-of-law republicanism, etc, are all views about human well-being and how it might be secured.

Not so in Planescape, though, where we have the Revolutionary League that has Good characters working alongside Evil characters to overthrow the social order. Why? Well, they have their own reasons. There are Good Harmonium and Evil Harmonium. Who are you going to focus on. Who would you work with? What would you do to achieve your end goals?

Indeed, you might be Evil but work toward Good ends. Maybe you want to kill every last Evil Harmonium, but you aren't too concerned with killing some Good Harmonium along the way. You assassinate person after person after person with no heed to anything but the "greater good." In fact, my Evil games generally revolve around this sort of thing, with the protagonists as well as the antagonists being Evil. I can't remember the last time an Evil character in one of my games put themselves at odds with a Good character. It's just a bad idea in general.

But this is because the paladin thinks that the chaotic choice will undermine human wellbeing. Which in and of itself is completely rational, but which is apparently contradicted by the cosmology, which tells us - via the existence of Olympus - that it is possible to be chaotic and yet realise human wellbeing.

Perhaps. Of course, a Lawful character might look at Olympus and see suffering where there need not be any. Just because a plane is Good doesn't mean that there is a lack of suffering, after all. It just means that there the land hasn't moved away from its given alignment enough to slip into another plane yet. The Planes aren't this place that perfectly exemplifies the ideals of their alignments so much as a battleground where that alignment is currently the victor.

You cannot, therefore, look at Olympus and say that Good is doing well because of Chaos if you are a Lawful character. Instead, you say it is still Good despite the inherent Chaos.

As I've said upthread, asserting this doesn't make it so. That's not meant to be snide - it's sincere! As I also posted upthread, it's like telling me that in some campaign world the geometry is Euclidean and the circles all have ratios of diameter to circumfrence of exactly 22:7. The words can be written down, but I don't understand what it is that I'm being asked to imagine as being true.

The good alignment is defined (as per the quotes I posted upthread) as being the pursuit of human well-being. Gygax, at least - I can provide more quotes if desired - presented the dispute between LG and CG as primarily a disupte over the efficacy of means, rather than a pursuit over the desirability of ends.

What does it mean to say that a rational person thinks that order, or disorder, is important not because it contributes to well-being, but independently of its contribution to well-being? That is not a moral opinion (on any standard meaning of "morality"), nor an ethical one (on any standard meaning of "ethics"). It might be an aesthetic one, but are we saying then that the dispute between law and chaos is a dispute about aesthetics? That would make it an odd thing to fight and kill over. It also would sit oddly with the paladin and monk, who seem to treat matters of discipline, honour etc not as matters of aesthetic sensibility but rather as matters of obligation (ie morality and/or ethics).

In the real world, or the fiction of the real world, the paladin and monk don't think that law and good are independent axes. They think that discipine, adequate self-resepct, honour, etc are part and parcel of human well-being. It is the contradiction between this competely reasonable outlook, and the dictates of the cosmology (ie its dictates that you can be good indepdently of law and chaos) that I am pointing to, as a reason for regardiing that aspect of the cosmology as untenable.

This is a strange line of thought for me, seeing as how I played a Sigil-based Harmonium paladin who was more concerned with Law than Good, in general.

I guess you can flip it. What if you see Good as necessary to keep a Lawful society going? That an Evil end is ultimately selfish and undermines the Lawful order for the desires of the leaders, and therefore Good is the only tenable way for Law to successfully operate. Could you see a Lawful Good character with that mentality? If not, then I suspect that we're operating under completely different sets of understanding of the D&D alignment system.

The argument you present here seems much closer to the Moorcockian argument that law and chaos, taken too far, can be dangerous. But a paladin can't embrace that argument; rather, if it is true, then the paladin's outlook is basically false. (Notice that Moorcock has no paladin heroes - the contrast with Tolkien is obvious. The same is true of REH.) For me, this is how I have tended to regard Planescape, and is a quite different reason for my personal dislike of the setting - it exhibits a modernistic nihiism that makes romantic fantasy irrational, whereas I have a very soft spot for romantic fantasy.

For the record, I've never read Moorcock, and my knowledge of his works are probably confined to the generalities I've read in this and other similar threads. All of my above thoughts and opinions are derived from reading Planescape material. For what its worth, the paladin probably see the corruption of Elysium as a good (if not Good) thing, and therefore would work toward moving as much of that plane into Celestia as possible. This is how you might get "wars" between Good characters.

But, these wars would never be fought by those who register as "good". A good character who imprisons someone, does so with mercy and respect. There can't really be a CG revolutionary overthrow of a LG society. That wouldn't make any sense. The worst thing the CG character is going to do is chafe at the restrictions, but, since those restrictions are objectively good, he won't act against them. Why would he? To do so would actively act in an evil manner.

That doesn't track with me. I can completely see Good characters coming to blows over all kinds of things. Lets say CG guy's brother is doing something non-harmful, but deemed possibly harmful by the LG establishment. He's arrested and thrown in jail for life. CG guy then attempts to break into prison to get his brother out. Along the way LG guy and he meet. At that point, they aren't going to talk it out. Swords will be drawn. Blood will be spilled. That's how it has to be at that point.

At least, that's the kind of game I run. Moral grays. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong isn't necessarily associated with some letters written down on your character sheet. Decisions aren't always clear cut, and you can't always be sure what you're doing is the "right" thing. I know it isn't for everyone, but that's my preferred method of play.

I agree with ThirdWizard, you're being semantically obtuse here, whether unintentionally or not. To say a pie tastes better is not the same as to say someone is a better person, which is not the same as to say they're better at math. In all three contexts, better means "more good" but only in one does it have any kind of moral value.

This right here!! That's perhaps a better way of saying it than I tried to.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Good is not something objectively desirable. Otherwise, everyone would want to be Good, and that obviously isn't the case in D&D.

Worth repeating! At least in PS, all of these things have their origins in some validity. I am fond, for instance, of this interpretation of how each alignment sees itself. While I wouldn't necessarily claim it is authentic or canon or anything, I find it very much informs how I approach the alignments in D&D, and is a very thoughtful treatment on how one would "realistically" play these alignments (which are little more than short-hand for heroic and villainous archetypes, functionally).

Perhaps. Of course, a Lawful character might look at Olympus and see suffering where there need not be any. Just because a plane is Good doesn't mean that there is a lack of suffering, after all. It just means that there the land hasn't moved away from its given alignment enough to slip into another plane yet. The Planes aren't this place that perfectly exemplifies the ideals of their alignments so much as a battleground where that alignment is currently the victor.

This is something that PS introduces into the system, I think, but it is something that really makes me enjoy the setting. Someone might describe Elysium as the Plane of Perfect Good, but that says more about the describer than it does the plane. It's certainly peaceful. But so's a graveyard.

I guess you can flip it. What if you see Good as necessary to keep a Lawful society going? That an Evil end is ultimately selfish and undermines the Lawful order for the desires of the leaders, and therefore Good is the only tenable way for Law to successfully operate.

The flip side of that: someone who believes that the only way for them to truly get what they want out of life and maximize their personal pleasure is for them to have the autonomy to do so. Such a Chaotic Evil person might burn Rome to the ground to make the hills fertile and ready as their personal playground, with no one standing in their way, their own pleasure paramount, enabled only by the personal freedom of others. Such a character might never set up their own warlordship, knowing that the head that bears the crown is heavy -- they'd rather chop off any head that tries to wear the crown, since kings have a tendency to try and tell them what they can and cannot do.

That doesn't track with me. I can completely see Good characters coming to blows over all kinds of things. Lets say CG guy's brother is doing something non-harmful, but deemed possibly harmful by the LG establishment. He's arrested and thrown in jail for life. CG guy then attempts to break into prison to get his brother out. Along the way LG guy and he meet. At that point, they aren't going to talk it out. Swords will be drawn. Blood will be spilled. That's how it has to be at that point.


At least, that's the kind of game I run. Moral grays. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong isn't necessarily associated with some letters written down on your character sheet. Decisions aren't always clear cut, and you can't always be sure what you're doing is the "right" thing. I know it isn't for everyone, but that's my preferred method of play.

"Your brother was spreading vicious rumor about the king, weakening the peoples' confidence, and must be made an example of!"
"So he's guilty of running his mouth. It's HIS mouth. You don't get to tell him what can come out of it. I'm not leaving here without him."
*gets out manacles* "Have it your way."
*gets out sword* "That's all I ever wanted."
**FIGHT!**

Part of what I really like about PS is that it takes the black-and-white, red-vs-blue, moustache-twirling ugly evil vs. pretty white glowing sparkly good that D&D is kind of made for (what with alignments and demons and all) and turns it right on its ear. It could abandon alignment, sure. It doesn't NEED to, and it actually USES alignment to help cement one of its big themes. When someone tells you that something is Good, it is up to the heroic PC character to understand that Good means different things to different people, and the glowing sparkles with the blue lasers doesn't mean that the person is RIGHT. The Ultimate Home of Justice And Good ain't all it's claiming to be, and only a fool would swallow the brand without question.

 

[Quickleaf]

Diverging from the alignment discussion...

One of the criticisms of Planescape's interpretation of the D&D Multiverse, which [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION] gave well thought out voice to, is that there is a jaded attitude implicit and encouraged in its approach to the wonders of the planes.

While that element is certainly there in the core books, I don't think it is meant to sacrifice the players' sense of wonder on the altar of aesthetics/high concept. Recently I ran a poll in which 66% of respondents (43/65) voted that sense of wonder and majesty of the planes is integral to the Planescape "feel."

So clearly there's more going on than meets the eye.

 

[Imaro]

Diverging from the alignment discussion...

One of the criticisms of Planescape's interpretation of the D&D Multiverse, which @The Shadow gave well thought out voice to, is that there is a jaded attitude implicit and encouraged in its approach to the wonders of the planes.

While that element is certainly there in the core books, I don't think it is meant to sacrifice the players' sense of wonder on the altar of aesthetics/high concept. Recently I ran a poll in which 66% of respondents (43/65) voted that sense of wonder and majesty of the planes is integral to the Planescape "feel."

So clearly there's more going on than meets the eye.

A couple of things I was thinking after I read this...

Even though the PC's might be jaded or cynical, the players themselves could still find wonder on the planes.

I also think that whether one's PC's have a cynical and jaded outlook about the nature of the planes is heavily dependent upon whether they are planar or prime. Stepping away from Planescape for a minute and looking at the setting of London Below in Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere, which I think is quite similar in feel and projects some of that same attitude about what should be a "mythical" place... First I'll say regardless of the cynisism of many of the inhabitants of London Below there is still a sense of wonder for the reader who is experiencing it for the first time...

Second, just like the divide in Planescape between planars and primes... there are the character's such as Hunter, The Marquis de Carabas and Door who exhibit the cynicism and jaded outlook of having lived their entire life in London Below (though even they can stumble upon an extremely rare thing here or there that inspires wonder, awe, or fear) and there is Richard Mayhew who, though he is surrounded by the cynical and jaded still experiences wonder, awe, confusion, etc. when confronted by the things London Below has to offer... I think PS leaves it in the hands of the groups what type of characters (prime or planar) and thus what type of view they want their character to experience when confronted with the planes...

 

[I'm A Banana]

One of the criticisms of Planescape's interpretation of the D&D Multiverse, which [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION] gave well thought out voice to, is that there is a jaded attitude implicit and encouraged in its approach to the wonders of the planes.

While that element is certainly there in the core books, I don't think it is meant to sacrifice the players' sense of wonder on the altar of aesthetics/high concept. Recently I ran a poll in which 66% of respondents (43/65) voted that sense of wonder and majesty of the planes is integral to the Planescape "feel."

So clearly there's more going on than meets the eye.

Yeah, it's not simple. But I think the rub is this: what do people functionally mean in play by a "sense of wonder and majesty of the planes"? I mean, what mechanics or events in play convey that sense of wonder and majesty?

When I think about that, I think about things like, say, the fact that the PC's can go explore the husks of dead gods. There's majesty (DEAD. FRICKIN. GODS.), there's wonder (they leave bodies just drifting around?! What is?!), it's not something that is easily possible in other settings.

But exploring a dead god is also irreverent and jaded at the same time. You are trodding on the corpse of some once-valued divinity with your soiled boots, you are adventuring on the physical embodiment of the fact that hopes and dreams can die, abandoned and forgotten.

So I think Imaro's got something of the right of it with his character/audience distinction. The audience is just like "woah, I get to go visit dead gods!", and the characters are all, "Gods die. It happens. Move on with your life." The Clueless character indeed plays the most direct role of first-time audience member, all starry-eyed, but part of the appeal is also in playing characters that treat this sort of thing as everyday, as an element of awe, as in, "wow, dead gods don't even phase my planewalker, she's seen it all!" Y'know, not EVERYONE is Luke Skywalker, Moisture Farmer from a tiny little podunk village who is in awe at Mos Eisley. Han Solo isn't in awe at the alien life around him. That's part of what makes him a competent bad-ass in his first appearance -- the audience is in awe and wonder, and Han is just like "Pssh, Greedo owes me some change, I ain't here to stare at Hammerhead Bartender all day."

PS characters as largely planar natives are more Han Solos, but there's a role to be played for our Lukes as well, and in both cases, the player can still be like "Woah."

Another element of that majesty and awe is that PS characters shift planes with their beliefs. Being able to redefine reality is a "woah" moment, but it is an expected and well-known thing on the planes, so your characters are generally characters who are aware of and use this to their advantage. They're not by and large Alice in wonderland, inquisitive and curious (though a Clueless could be!), they're more like the Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, imagining six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[Hussar]

And, of course, in PS, these societies are not monolithic. An LG society might achieve that by brainwashing and re-conditioning everyone who enters to believe as they do -- any nonconformity risks the purity of this Utopia. A CG society might let people starve in the streets rather than institute a tax that takes care of them, as any authority dictating behavior is a price that one pays in ultimate human well-being. An NG society might suffer from either of these problems, or they might suffer from being, say, highly exclusionary, unable to admit anyone outside, limiting the good they can create. Can any of these be said to be truly Good? Well, what do the PC's say? Do they designate that LG utopia an enemy and seek to destroy it while seeking succor in the CG society? Do they try to spread the NG society further, knowing it will collapse, believing it might be strong enough to last? The Unity of Rings dictates that one is connected to one's opposite, so all areas are rife with potential conflict that the PCs can resolve (and in so doing, decide for themselves what creates the most well-being...and be right about it).

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356422-The-Multiverse-is-back/page82#ixzz3GA7PIbnV

See, this is the problem I'm having here.

A good society would never do any of these things because these things are evil. Charity is an integral part of good - it's called out as such - so letting people starve wouldn't happen in a good society. Forced coercion in the form of brainwashing and re-conditioning are evil acts. Hardly acts of mercy or forgiveness or even justice if we get right down to it.

If there's no difference in the actions between opposite alignments, then what's the point of having opposite alignments? To me, this is incoherent. You can't have good societies that mind wipe people who disagree with you - that's evil. You can't have good societies that allow people to starve in the streets - that's evil. And, the thing is, even if you do have a society that does do these things, it's fairly easy to check if they are good or evil. If the acts are good, then, it should always be good to mind wipe people to believe what you believe. Why wouldn't chaotic good societies start doing the same? After all, these are good acts so, why would a CG society not also do them?

 

[Savage Wombat]

A good society would never do any of these things because these things are evil. Charity is an integral part of good - it's called out as such - so letting people starve wouldn't happen in a good society. Forced coercion in the form of brainwashing and re-conditioning are evil acts. Hardly acts of mercy or forgiveness or even justice if we get right down to it.

What if we make it a LG society that "reeducates" (brainwashes) those convicted of repeated criminal acts? And a CG society that gives citizens every opportunity to gainfully employ themselves, but won't help you one cent if you don't take those opportunities? Those societies would be good-ish. At least they'd consider themselves so. Certainly they'd seem way to extreme in the L-C axis to be borne by those on the other end.