D&D General Deleted

[M.L. Martin]

I don't know what you mean by "valid".

But it strikes me as tautological that to repudiate goodness is an error, and to embrace evil is a terrible error.

The idea of 'balance between good and evil' was floating around entertainment circles in the late 70s and early 80s, made it into the D&D game as some point (definitely by Dragonlance, but I've seen suggestions it was in Greyhawk as well) and has strongly influenced the modern game. The paladin belongs to a different tradition, which is part of why it sometimes feels like an ill fit to what the game has become.

 

[Alzrius]

The idea of 'balance between good and evil' was floating around entertainment circles in the late 70s and early 80s, made it into the D&D game as some point (definitely by Dragonlance, but I've seen suggestions it was in Greyhawk as well) and has strongly influenced the modern game. The paladin belongs to a different tradition, which is part of why it sometimes feels like an ill fit to what the game has become.

A few years ago, on another forum, I saw some posters raging about the premise of Fantasy Flight Games' Dragonstar campaign setting.

The background for the setting is that the dragons are the most powerful creatures in the galaxy, having organized themselves into ten great houses (one for each of the five metallics, and another five for the chromatics), which themselves allied into two factions (i.e. the metallic houses and the chromatic houses) which waged a massive war against each other.

The metallic dragons eventually realized that their war was not only causing massive amounts of collateral damage throughout the galaxy, but (if I recall correctly) was likely to result in the total annihilation of themselves and most other living beings in known space due to the unending arms race. Wanting to avoid such a catastrophic end, they instead proposed a compromise: the ten houses would rule the galaxy, with authority being passed sequentially, i.e. each draconic house would get to rule for one thousand years, then pass authority on to the next house.

At the start of the campaign, the five metallic houses have brought about five millennia of peace and prosperity. Now it's the red dragons' turn to rule, and they're not hesitating to head straight into totalitarianism.

Bringing that back around, the reason these posters were upset was because they found it viscerally offensive that "good" creatures would ever agree to any system whereby evil creatures were allowed to keep doing evil things. To paraphrase one poster, "good creatures shouldn't be able to abide the existence of evil; if you make deals with evil that allow it to continue victimizing innocent people, you can't, by definition, be good."

In hindsight, it was the degree of outrage and the moral certitude on display that stuck with me more than the reasoning; I've downplayed it here, but it was quite intense.

 

[M.L. Martin]

That is one understanding of balance--that you can't eliminate evil without causing greater evils. The other, and the one that informs things like Dragonlance and certain readings of the Great Wheel, is that evil is morally and metaphysically coequal with good and has just as much importance to the cosmology and as much 'right' to exist. The latter is what gets us 'paladins of every alignment.'

 

[Chaosmancer]

When you say, "do not fit with the assumptions of a DnD game", what do you mean? What do you think those assumptions are, and what do you mean when you say the unadorned "DnD"?

That the resolution of whether an action succeeds or fails is based on a die roll, random chance, not because an almighty, omniscient being of pure good is putting their thumb on the scale to ensure that those with a pure heart and pure intentions always succeed and are stronger than evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For a very long time it's been implied that Lawful Good is Correct Good.

Partially because D&D is heavily inspired by early spec-fic where Chaos was the antagonist and Law was the protagonist.

Sure, but "Correct Good" is not the same as "valid" to my understanding of things. And just because the culture was different 50 years ago, doesn't mean we must assume it remained the same to the modern presentation of the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know if it was an article in Dragon or another publication, but it was about how Lawful Good characters, Paladins included, could conduct tactical operations. They didn't have to charge straight foward, they could use feints, attack from the flank, mislead their their opponents, or even attack them via surprise. At least when it came to Paladins, they were people who understood war and knew how to conduct it.

Yeah, not familiar with the article, but I think that makes 100% sense. Which is why I initially responded to the post by Umbran where the book laid out that the paladin should consider stealth "a last resort". That very much feels like, to me, the type of thinking that is placing the emphasis on the wrong motivations. Being stealthy and tactical does not immediately make you dishonorable, but so many people decide that it must, because charging the front gates is flashy and shows off how "honorable" you are

 

[Micah Sweet]

That the resolution of whether an action succeeds or fails is based on a die roll, random chance, not because an almighty, omniscient being of pure good is putting their thumb on the scale to ensure that those with a pure heart and pure intentions always succeed and are stronger than evil.

So just about the mechanical framework then? What about the "DnD" part? Are you just talking about WotC 5e? Other versions have had different assumptions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say that. Maybe you're alluding to my reference to Arthur, in Excalibur: that no knight who is false can defeat, in single combat, one who is true?

Yes. IF you apply that to the heroes of DnD, that would mean that, 1v1 any character who uses stealth or magic (is false) would lose to a character who does not (is true). And you applied that quote to the types of stories that Paladins can be in, which in DnD are stories that include Rogues/Scoundrels, and wizards/Sorceresses both of whom are archetypes also found in Aurthurian tales.

I can't speak for those people. I've never met them. I don't know what the GMs who adjudicate their actions are doing.

But Aragorn did announce himself to Eomer on the plains of Rohan, and it didn't set him back. Eomer lent him horses!

Interesting. And Eomer was a villain who was planning on killing Aragorn and his companions? He worked for Sauron their enemy? Aragorn and his companions were trying to sneak past the guards and conceal their identities in the middle of this plain near a pile of orc corpses?

None of that sounds right to me, which makes me think this example has literally nothing in common with the one I gave, except that Aragorn (the rightful king) told the heir to his vassal state his true identity when they just happened to cross paths.

I don't know what you mean by "valid".

But it strikes me as tautological that to repudiate goodness is an error, and to embrace evil is a terrible error.

I suppose valid would mean coherent. I mean, you are the one who called them "invalid". Did you simply mean that any alignment that doesn't contain an emphasis on Good isn't Good? That is a tautology and seems to have nothing to do with the validity of the alignment, just your opinion on whether or not it is... good.

A CN Nihilist has a valid point of view. It isn't a healthy or helpful point of view, but it is valid and coherent and a point of view someone could hold.

Neither of these claims is true. Nothing presents LN as "valid" or "morally viable". Nor is it part of what it means to be LG.

I didn't say anything about who can play what. Of course people can play villains - I play a Dark Elf in my current Burning Wheel game. I just don't delude myself that the character's actions and disposition are morally defensible.

See, now you are adding all sorts of extra claims on this. Morally viable? I never said "morally viable" I said "viable" there is a difference. I never claimed evil is "morally defensible" that would entail me claiming that I could make evil good, which is nonsense.

I also find it weird that you don't think LAWFUL Neutral shares tenets with and informs aspects of LAWFUL Good. Do you think Lawful means something different for each of these terms? With no connections?

And meanwhile... yes, Lawful Neutral is presented as Valid. It is a world view in which the orders and systems of the world are paramount. Where making sure you do the proper thing in the proper way is the highest imperative. It is somewhat reminiscent of transactional religions, where it isn't about doing the "good" thing, it is about following the rules precisely and without error.

You can claim it isn't "morally viable" because it leads to evil taking place in the system... and okay, but that doesn't make it non-viable as an outlook on life. There ARE people like this, these people DO exist, their world view is coherent and logical. And beyond that, DnD presents this as a fundamental, objective force of the universe. Lawful Neutral is Mechanus, the Great Machine, and it is a valid force in the universe to objectively bind yourself to.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I find it interesting that people assumed the gods are involved at all. It never seemed that way to me.

There was a time when the party wanted to go on an assassination run for an evil warlord and were shocked when I, playing a paladin, was up for it. "But you're honorable!" "Yes, I am. And when we corner the individual that is unquestionably, even boastfully responsible for all of this suffering I will introduce myself and announce his crimes. He will taste my steel. It will be difficult to bring Justice to him if I am covered in boiling oil at the front gates." There was then about a half-hour discussion that ended with me saying something like "you seem to think that the class' name is "*hole" and not paladin. It's not. As long as I am protecting people and putting paid to the bad guys, we're good."

Things were smoother after that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is one understanding of balance--that you can't eliminate evil without causing greater evils. The other, and the one that informs things like Dragonlance and certain readings of the Great Wheel, is that evil is morally and metaphysically coequal with good and has just as much importance to the cosmology and as much 'right' to exist. The latter is what gets us 'paladins of every alignment.'

See, if I was going to step back from what DnD says is objectively true (just so I don't get called out for this) then I would say both of those are kind of nonsense, or at least mostly nonsense.

"Evil has just as much right to exist as good" - That is nonsense. It is nonsense that DnD employs, but it is nonsense none the less. IT is what Dragonlance did, and that is still stupid in my mind.

"You can't eliminate Evil without causing Greater Evil" - This is... mostly nonsense. I would also say that this isn't actually what Dragonlance did. At least, not in the way that I understand the saying to mean. Sure, if you wage a war of genocide against evil, you have created evil... because genocide is evil. It is that same idea that you go out and wage war to create peace. That just isn't how it works. However, this comes about because we personalize and make biological Evil. Evil becomes "Chromatic Dragons are born" and therefore, if that is evil, then the way to destroy evil is just to destroy those beings that are Evil. But, where I think that the truth of this statement lies, is that Evil is a choice. And therefore the only way to fully and completely remove evil from every corner of the universe... is to remove all choice. Which is a horror.

But, I am reminded of scenes from various anime and comics here as well. The sort of classic trope of a good-hearted, naive person summoning a demon who offers them a wish. Most people would make a selfish wish, which causes evil and chaos and ect. However, our naive good-hearted boy/girl instead asks for a friend. That is their wish, to have a friend. And, almost consistently, that trope works out to lessening the evil. Which makes sense, if you consider the Yin-Yang symbol. Evil is seed. It is always going to exist, but the less evil that seed has to feed upon, the smaller and less terrible it grows. So, to lessen evil... spread good. Reduce hurt and pain in the world, and fewer people will lash out and hurt others.

Sorry, bit of a ramble there.