D&D General Deleted

[briggart]

The issue of what it means for things to be "objectively evil" is a fairly complicated one in metaphysics and philosophy of language. I'm going to try and keep out of it in this thread!

But the idea that putting milk in tea in Tuesday in July might be the epitome of evil seems ridiculous to me. Evil isn't an arbitrary notion, an empty vessel into which anything can be poured. Good is connected to values, to human interests (and rights, if such things exist), to the wellbeing of others. Evil is the opposite of these things - indifference to value and the interests of others, in pursuit of self-interest.

It has nothing to do with putting milk in tea as such. For whatever reason, there might be a taboo against doing such a thing. But if it's evil to do that, that would be because of a promise or an obligation imposed by someone else - maybe a god. The god, in turn, presumably would have a reason for imposing such an obligation. The wrongdoing wouldn't be the putting of the milk in the tea, but the breaking of the promise or the disobedience to authority.

I was responding to @Clint_L who, if I understood correctly, stated we can not have objective morals in game, because morals in the real world are ultimately subjective. I was pointing out that, even if the latter is true, it does not necessarily imply you can not explore a fiction in which objective morals exist, by providing a prescription for what Good, Evil, etc. mean within the context of that fiction.

You seem to hold to an objective description of good, evil, etc., and disagree with the hyperbolic example I gave. Which, fine, I'm not trying to suggest a universal alignment system for D&D. Rather I was trying to express something similar to your last paragraph. In D&D we do have absolute authority figures, the DM and, to some extent, the players who are the ones that get to say what constitutes good and evil.

I agree with @Crimson Longinus on this. It makes no sense. It's like positing that, in my fantasy world, some circles are square.

But is exactly what we can do in fiction. A large part of scifi basically boils down to saying some circles are squares*. Proximity to a nuclear detonation gives you cancer, not make you transform into an invulnerable giant when you get angry. Mutations in your DNA are unlikely to make you able to control weather. It's clearly a matter of personal taste, but to me being on board with these is no different than being on board with ad-hoc definition of alignments.



*The Orthogonal trilogy of novels by Greg Egan is IMO one of the most well-executed examples of this. The everyday laws of nature in that universe are so fundamentally different from those of our own reality to the point that he wrote several dozen pages working out how physics would change in that universe.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I was responding to @Clint_L who, if I understood correctly, stated we can not have objective morals in game, because morals in the real world are ultimately subjective. I was pointing out that, even if the latter is true, it does not necessarily imply you can not explore a fiction in which objective morals exist, by providing a prescription for what Good, Evil, etc. mean within the context of that fiction.

You seem to hold to an objective description of good, evil, etc., and disagree with the hyperbolic example I gave. Which, fine, I'm not trying to suggest a universal alignment system for D&D. Rather I was trying to express something similar to your last paragraph. In D&D we do have absolute authority figures, the DM and, to some extent, the players who are the ones that get to say what constitutes good and evil.


But is exactly what we can do in fiction. A large part of scifi basically boils down to saying some circles are squares*. Proximity to a nuclear detonation gives you cancer, not make you transform into an invulnerable giant when you get angry. Mutations in your DNA are unlikely to make you able to control weather. It's clearly a matter of personal taste, but to me being on board with these is no different than being on board with ad-hoc definition of alignments.



*The Orthogonal trilogy of novels by Greg Egan is IMO one of the most well-executed examples of this. The everyday laws of nature in that universe are so fundamentally different from those of our own reality to the point that he wrote several dozen pages working out how physics would change in that universe.

This is my view and I think when it comes to fantasy, it is even more the case. In Science fiction you may at least expect the author to have the several dozen page physics explanation you describe (it might not be in the book itself but science fiction usually, or at least often, explores its ideas at the scientific level). But fantasy isn't hinged to reality like that at all. This is why Gilliam can have a nonsensical sense of continuity in Baron Munchausen.

Also on the subject of imagining a square circle, that is obviously a hard thing to do, but one of the great things about art is it has permission to try. Even if you are being forced to hold two irreconcilable ideas in your head at once, that is the beauty of imagination. Fantasy is all about imagination, myth, legend, symbolic meaning, and even things that are just outisde the cusp of our ability to imagine them. If a GM makes a world where the Abyss was formed by the thoughts of a primordial evil god, and the abyss itself is evil and gives rise to evil, I can visualize that, I can understand its effect on the fantasy setting. You aren't being asked to justify it under a microscope because it is fantasy. Could you? Sure, some writers and designers are skillful enough to tackle that. But that isn't the point. It doesn't have to make sense in the real world

 

[Yaarel]

The Astral plane is a realm of thought, ideals.

For alignment planes, the premise is, one reaps what one sows.

If a Good Humanoid spends ones life mostly doing Good actions, then in the Astral realm one attunes and adheres with others who also do Good actions. Thus this Humanoid continues to do Good for them as well, but is also benefiting from the Good actions that they do for each other. Together, the community of Good-doers make a heaven out of their mutual activity.

Oppositely, if an Evil Humanoid spends ones life mostly doing Evil actions, then in the Astral realm one adheres with others who also do Evil actions. They continue to harm each other, and make a hell out of their mutual activity.


It relates to sympathetic magic, and the classical concept of like-attracts-like. The aligned Astral beings participate in the same shared paradigms, whether constructive or destructive.


The Golden Rule applies to the alignment planes.

• That which is hateful to be done to you, dont do to others.

• That which you want done for you, do for others.

The modern concept of human rights is essentially the negative formulation of the Golden Rule. Dont do hateful things against others.

In the Celestial Astral realms, everyone who avoids hatespeech and hatecrimes, enjoys each others company.

In the Fiend Astral realms, everyone who hatespeaks and does hatecrimes, suffers each others company.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah I see the Paladin more rooted in this and things like Arthurian legend (that is well before the crusades).

My advice to read Three Hearts and Three Lions wasn't meant as a refutation of the (+) thread's premise. (I see @Jolly Ruby was the first to mention the novel in this thread.) I think it's plausible or even likely the knight-errant of chivalric romance could have been influenced to some extent by the Crusades as a cultural event. It was meant as an answer to the questions posed by the OP:

So, any suggestions? How can you have a holy warrior knight-in-shining-armor class without this connection to the Crusades and similar real world atrocities? Is the problem mainly with the paladin, or Gygax's version of always-evil races? How might Paladins be changed to make them feel less gross.

I think the idea of a paladin presented in the novel, with its emphasis on purity, chastity, and heroism in a fantasy Abrahamic religious context is fairly well divorced from concepts of religious war. The main conflict in the novel is between Law, jointly represented by the human realms of Islam and Christendom, and the surrounding lands of Chaos, populated chiefly by fairies, trolls, giants, etc. Conflict between Christians and Muslims is seen in the novel as undesirable because it aids the goals of Chaos, and, as the story progresses,

Spoiler

the protagonist, Holger, who discovers he is the legendary paladin of Charlemagne, Ogier the Dane, and a champion of Law, is befriended by Carahue, a Saracen, whose friendship with Ogier goes back to the chanson de geste La Chevalerie Ogier de Danemarche (written c. 1200–1215) and who helps Holger on his quest to retrieve the legendary sword Cortana with which he is able to defeat the forces of Chaos.

So although paladins are presented in the chansons de geste, in part, in the context of religious war, or at least war in which Christians and Muslims are mostly on opposite sides, Anderson's novel chooses to emphasize elements of the story that subvert that context, which I think is a good way to go when representing a fantasy paladin, and focuses on his alignment with the morality of a (in this case) fantasy Christianity as an expression of Law and the source of the paladin's power against Chaos, which I think is something on which Gary Gygax picked up in his design of the class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sorry, but dedication to the cause isn't supposed to be easy or convenient. If you want easy and convenient, go be a thief, or a fighter. Swing a sword and stab people. Sneak around and kill from behind. Anyone can do that. Even filthy goblins can stab someone in the back and take their purse to line their own pocket. That's not what it means to be a Paladin.



No. They understood that what they were asking for was difficult. They understood that it made things hard. The fact that it was a pain in the tuchus was the point.

The idea is personal sacrifice as a source of power. It isn't a sacrifice if it can be done in passing, so you barely notice that you've done it. You don't come by the ability to smite evil, even where deities cannot go, by taking an easy or convenient road. Your aura of righteousness does not carry the glory to protect you and others, even in the Abyss itself, if you are just some other shlub. The Paladin is the best of the best of the best, sir! And they have to be that best, in word, thought, and deed, every day. Because Evil won't be held at bay by anything less.

(Not that I agree with this as a game design element, mind you. But that's the idea.)

I was recently reading a Superhero comic with a character named "Even Steven". Even Steven is a strange character, but he follows a very strict moral outlook. He believes that in a fair fight, Good will always beat evil, because Evil generally cheats instead of fighting fair. His power set allows him to copy another person's abilities, matching them exactly in strength and ability. You are fighting a goon with a chain? You form a chain that matches it exactly. Another goon drives a semi into the fight? You summon a semi to drive into that semi. Even Steven.

In the climatic fight of the arc, the villain has a magical power-up McGuffin and starts ripping through the city with blizzard powers and causing a lot of harm to a lot of people. The good guys start fighting him, and are getting wrecked, one character loses her (mechanical) legs. Even Steven appears, saying the fight was fair before, but now that they are injured it isn't fair, and he will take over. He starts fighting the villain on equal terms... still devastating the city, still putting people's lives at risk. The other heroes regroup, and come up with a plan. They slip into the fight, steal the McGuffin, and weaken the villain to the point he gets knocked out by Even Steven.

Even Steven FREAKS OUT. The fight was not fair. He did not win fairly, or honorably. He won because of deceit. The fact that the villain was stopped, that people were not injured, that people did not die.... does not matter to him. What matters is he was not able to prove good was superior in a fair fight.


This, to me, illustrates the issue with something like stating that "Doing good must be difficult, therefore stealth is a last resort". Because it places personal honor above the health and safety of others. The rest of the party did not take an oath, they are not paladins, but when the paladin boldly walks up to the bandit fort, declares their intentions, and challenges the leader to a duel because it is the right and honorable way to attempt to rescue the captives... what the paladin has effectively done is put their desires for "Fairness" over the safety and well-being of those captives.

And it bothers me to call this out as the ideal of good. Being good shouldn't be about making sure you appear good and honorable. And doing something that actively harms others just to make sure you aren't "cheating" while you rescue people from death... is just about appearing good.

 

[Clint_L]

I am no professor but I seem to recall that things like suffering and pain could be regarded as evils. I suppose there is a degree of relation there, someone has to be suffering. But there are worldviews that regard the material world as evil for this sort of reason. I am not endorsing that view, but my point is one can imagine it in a fantasy setting.

Sure, you can assume some premises and then make them the basis for a coherent ethics. That's what all ethics do. That's why all of them have a degree of circularity, and why there is no universally agreed upon set of ethical laws. A notion like "suffering," for example, is inherently subjective.

This doesn't seem accurate to me. Again, not an expert, it is too big a topic for this thread I am sure, but when I was a student and minored in philosophy, I recall objective morality not being dismissed in this way at all.

It's not dismissed because some of the attempts to come up with objective morality are brilliant, fascinating, and often have practical usefulness. A lot of our legal frameworks are based upon them. I'm a fairly utilitarian person myself, though I recognize the limitations, and there are times when a categorical imperative might come in handy.

Either way though, all you are being asked to do is imagine a world where a particular moral system is real. You aren't being asked to endorse or agree with it. It is a fantasy world and a thought experiment. Surely, even if you reject morality grounded in some ultimate ought, you can imagine a world where something like a cosmic ought exists?

I can imagine a world in which a powerful entity (basically, the DM) expresses their subjective moral framework as a cosmic ought, and coerces their players to agree, yes. I cannot imagine a universe in which morality exists as a substance or law absent some sort of authority, no. Furthermore, I don't think it is possible to imagine such. I think that it is possible to tell yourself that that's what you are doing, but when you look closer you will see that it relies upon an assumed authority.

I'm not just tilting at windmills. I think the alignment system creates a lot of arguments and is fated to always create a lot of arguments, because it rests upon very shaky foundations. It's basically a system of virtues ethics, disguised as cosmic forces. If it works within a copacetic group, then awesome. I personally feel that it only adds confusion to the game (see many examples in this thread). Most RPGs don't have an alignment system, and don't miss it; had D&D never had a formalized alignment system, we wouldn't miss it. Writers don't use an alignment system to depict realistic characters and moral conflicts; to the contrary, it is hard to imagine any writer worth their salt going anywhere near an alignment system.

 

[Yaarel]

Lawfulness and Chaoticness are strictly Neutral. They are tools whether groupism or individualism, respectively.

Groups can do Good or Evil. Individuals can do Good or Evil. If prioritizing either the group (including reputation, honor, obligation, expectation, shame, fear, and tradition) or the individual, above Good, then the Law or Chaos can interfere and comprise the amount of Good.

That is why Neutral Good is "True Good". It optimizes between Law and Chaos, whichever happens to do more Good whenever. True Good prioritizes Good over other considerations, as much as is reasonably possible and sustainable. Sometimes True Good is a judgment call in situational circumstances, but it is an ongoing and self-correcting effort.


The nomenclature for True Neutral (namely Neutral Neutral), applies usefully for True Good and True Evil as well. This True way, is analogous to a "Dao", and is a third way between Law and Chaos, to optimize, juggle, and balance these opposites.

 

[pemerton]

You seem to hold to an objective description of good, evil, etc.

Well, I didn't say that. I just pointed out that, among academic moral philosophers in mainstream English language philosophy departments, that seems to be the most common view.

l have my own views on this, but this thread isn't the place for them.

and disagree with the hyperbolic example I gave. Which, fine, I'm not trying to suggest a universal alignment system for D&D. Rather I was trying to express something similar to your last paragraph. In D&D we do have absolute authority figures, the DM and, to some extent, the players who are the ones that get to say what constitutes good and evil.

The absolute authority would have to be in the fiction, giving a command to the fictional characters, so that disobedience to that command was a wrongful act.

But the command has to be rational in some sense (maybe a Job-like story puts pressure on this? but I don't see much like that in people's accounts of their FRPGing).

A large part of scifi basically boils down to saying some circles are squares*. Proximity to a nuclear detonation gives you cancer, not make you transform into an invulnerable giant when you get angry. Mutations in your DNA are unlikely to make you able to control weather.

I think there's a difference between imagining nonsense, like the Hulk or Storm, and asserting an immediate contradiction like that the circle is square. You can go a long way with Hulk or Storm without having to ask the questions about their biochemistry which have no sensible answer; you can't get very far with a square circle, though!

The equivalent of the Hulk or Storm in FRPG morality, I think, is stuff like relaxing the moral constraints on permissible violence. Or placing more weight on the importance of personal honour than is really plausible, while at the same time turning a blind eye to social hierarchies which very few contemporary people would argue are morally defensible. (We see all these things with the classic paladin.)

 

[pemerton]

This, to me, illustrates the issue with something like stating that "Doing good must be difficult, therefore stealth is a last resort". Because it places personal honor above the health and safety of others. The rest of the party did not take an oath, they are not paladins, but when the paladin boldly walks up to the bandit fort, declares their intentions, and challenges the leader to a duel because it is the right and honorable way to attempt to rescue the captives... what the paladin has effectively done is put their desires for "Fairness" over the safety and well-being of those captives.

And it bothers me to call this out as the ideal of good. Being good shouldn't be about making sure you appear good and honorable. And doing something that actively harms others just to make sure you aren't "cheating" while you rescue people from death... is just about appearing good.

This sort of objection to paladinhood is like criticising the X-Men because instead of doing useful things, like (say) using eye-blasts to drill bores, and using weather-control to alleviate famine, they waste their time fighting Arcade and Dr Doom. What that criticism really is is a rejection of the genre (qv Watchmen).

A paladin only makes sense within a providential conception of the world - where personal honour is part of what is demanded/expected of human beings as part of the divine plan. When, in Excalibur, Arthur proclaims that no knight who is false can win, in single combat, against a knight who is true he is not making a prediction about prowess: he is affirming his faith in the workings of providence.

In the context of FRPGing, a lot of this is up to the GM, insofar as the GM controls consequences. If the GM frames consequences in such a way that knights who are true lose, rather than prevail - or cause a lot of harm to innocents as a result of their fighting - then the GM is presenting a world in which paladins have no place. That's fine if that's what you want - there's no room for paladins in the world of REH's Conan - but I think it helps to be clear about what's going on.

 

[pemerton]

Lawfulness and Chaoticness are strictly Neutral. They are tools whether groupism or individualism, respectively.

This assertion is directly contrary to AD&D's alignment system (found in Gygax's PHB and DMG). If it is true, then the 9-point alignment system is silly and pointless (qv Planescape!).