D&D General Deleted

[Vaalingrade]

The fun part--and I'm trying desperately to find the article in the dumpster fire of what Google has become-- but I'm pretty sure the ability to lie is a sign of self-awareness.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Sure, that's fine. We all need hobbies. But there's a quote from the PHB above that I'm referencing. I'm not just making this up whole cloth.

Yes. I saw it.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Yes. I saw it.

Right on. So why are you calling shenanigans at me and then suggesting you'll check a completely different book for validation? Maybe the 1e DMG says something different — Gygax was not in the habit of being tremendously consistent — but within the rubric that's been provided, lying as evil rather than chaotic makes sense. Anyhow, I await the results of your research with bated breath, "Baron" Opal II.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Right on. So why are you calling shenanigans at me and then suggesting you'll check a completely different book for validation? Maybe the 1e DMG says something different — Gygax was not in the habit of being tremendously consistent — but within the rubric that's been provided, lying as evil rather than chaotic makes sense. Anyhow, I await the results of your research with bated breath, "Baron" Opal II.

Not you, pemerton. And I'm going to look up the other alignments in the stated tome, the 1e DMG, specifically chaotic good and chaotic neutral, and see what they state about lying, deception, and similar activities. I hope I shan't keep you waiting overlong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But there are plenty of people who do believe those things on the worlds of D&D. And act on them. Therefore, that is part of the world. While the gods may not be omniscient from an "outside looking in" perspective, for many/most of their followers, they probably are, and their actions are influenced by that belief. Ignoring the in-universe point of view doesn't seem right to me.

In a world where someone believes Providence is on their side, but Providence doesn't exist... then it isn't on their side. The internal belief of people does not matter one iota to the discussion of tropes, archetypes, and narrative. That is like saying there is nothing strange going on in the X-Files, because there are people who do not believe in aliens in the setting of the X-Files. That has literally no bearing on the structure of the narrative.

 

[Cadence]

Lying is evil, not chaotic, in AD&D. From the PHB p 33:

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. . . .​

​

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.[/indent[​

​

This is consistent with the overall tenor of Gygax's alignment: all value falls within the domain of good, and what characterises evil is scorn for value, and disregard of moral constraints on action.​

I always assumed that the Lawful would not lie - in the sense of following a contract; so a deal made with a devil, would be a deal, even though they were evil. In campaigns where I have a divine arbiter of contracts, they would be lawful, but neither good nor evil. I read the "truth" in the list from the PHB with life, beauty, and freedom as the virtue of truth - hence going beyond just not breaking ones word.

Dragon #28 by Gygax isn't helping me. What does it mean to adhere to the letter of a thing while also lying? Does it mean they only do it in oaths (giving their word?).

Dragon #26 by Carl Parlagreco goes with:

Is there anything good philosophically out there on the idea of lying vs. breaking ones word?

-----

In terms of alignment in general...

Lawrence Schick has an article in Dragon #24 entitled "Choir Practice at the First Church of Lawful Evil (Orthodox): The Ramifications of Alignment":

He then decides to go with just Law, Neutrality, and Chaos and makes a set of six deities for each one to form a Pantheon.


Other extensive musings on alignment by @Snarf Zagyg are at:

D&D General - The Birth Of Alignment: The Rise of the Nine-Point System

With some trepidation, I have been following a little bit of the thread about alignment. And it's gone off the rails a bit ... you can almost say that it's out of, um, alignment. Anyway, since past is prologue, I thought I'd go into a little bit of the history of the alignment system we have in...

www.enworld.org

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. This is why, upthread, I posted that you are making assumptions about how action resolution has to work in a RPG that are not correct.

If a knight loses in single combat, maybe this shows that in fact they are false - perhaps they harbour some sin in their heart, or some dark secret.

You are also assuming that the reference to a knight makes no difference, and generalises to all characters. But this is not obvious to me at all. Different people can be held to different moral requirements - this is a fairly basic feature of a moral universe that includes knights, monks, oath-swearers, etc.

Except that isn't what is happening in a DnD game. The DM isn't determining that the knight character has a sin or dark secret that is holding them back. They just rolled poorly. We know the resolution mechanic, so we know the narrative layered on top being that it was an internal failing of the character is not true. Because we also know that a knight who is full of sin can win all the battles, regardless of their opponent, if they roll well. Even if they aren't even keeping their darkness a secret.

If the morality of the character does not alter their dice rolls, then the morality of the character has not made it so they would lose or win, and therefore, it does not apply in the same way that it was a fundamental law for those Chivalric Knights.

And while you can say that this only applies to knights... well a Rogue's moral requirement is to never have a fair fight, and that is how they win. So if a knight who must win because they do not cheat even if their foe does faces a rogue who must win because they cheat... one of those sets of natural moral laws must take precedence, and if it isn't the Knights, then their code is fairly well ruined.

Again, you are making assumptions about action resolution. Yes, in the real world we roll a die. That doesn't mean that, in the fiction, the outcome is a product of random chance.

But it does mean that, in the fiction, the result is not consistent. You can't just declare that David's faith wasn't strong enough when the dice say he needed to roll an 18 and he rolled a 15. David's faith is an aspect of his character in the complete and utter control of the Player, there are no dice involved in that. So if you say he failed this round because his faith wasn't strong enough, but he succeeds next round because his faith is strong enough... that's inconsistent and nonsensical. What is actually happening is luck, the character isn't changing.

You can make up that they are changing, you can try and make it fit, but it is a lie. It is a lie because the force controlling the resolution is not the hand of the author which will guarantee rewards fall upon the worthy. It is blind chance, which could not care less about your worthiness.

No I didn't. You used the word "valid", and I repeated it in inverted commas - "Of course they're not 'valid'" (post 330). When I was using my own terminology, I said "We already know that LN and CN people are not good. So what is their opinion worth?"

Ah, my mistake.

Their opinion is worth objective reality within the DnD system capable of cosmic miracles. The same as good.

Of course people can be LN or CN. People can be mass murderers too. That doesn't make any of those viewpoints and associated behaviours morally worthy, or "valid". It just means that some people don't affirm value, respect human life, and act as morality demands.

And people can believe that saving the Sea Turtles is a good life goal. That doesn't make them morally worthy or valid either. After all, that has nothing to do with human life nor any demand of morality.

Sure, people who are good are good, but you keep stating that that is the only thing that matters. But DnD TELLS US, point-blank, that there is an objective power, equally as strong as Good, equally as important as good, equally as capable of miracles and granting life as good, called Chaos. Now, you can think that outside of DnD, that is nonsense. Which hey, fine, but within the context of DnD the universe itself recognizes Chaos as a worthy goal in and of itself, and that is something we need to tackle within the context of DnD, not by comparing people to mass murderers. Which first off, would make them evil, and second off, could make all humans mass murderers if it turns out the Universe cares more about broccoli than humans.

Is it? Kant doesn't think so. Plato doesn't think so. Peter Singer doesn't think so. Now maybe those philosophers are wrong - this thread isn't really the place to go into the details - but that is not self-evident.

If their views were not coherent or logical, then Kant, Plato and Singer wouldn't have even had anything to argue against. You can't argue against an incoherent argument that lacks logic. Besides, doesn't every single one of them have a contemporary who thought they were wrong and stupid?

In the alignment system presented in Gygax's PHB and DMG, LG believe that social order and external constraint will produce good - human wellbeing, happiness, truth and beauty. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong - the alignment system raises that question but doesn't answer it.

LN people, on the other hand, are order fetishists - they are committed to upholding order whether or not it conduces to good.

Those are fundamentally different positions. One is committed to good, and has a firm view about the means. The other have mistaken the means for an end.

This is a moral failing one can also see in the real world, quite often, although board rules preclude me nominating examples.

Did you catch Twosix's earlier post? I see you did, because you liked it.

But the oath IS the right and good thing. Who's deciding the "right and good" thing here if not the paladin's deity, the one who prescribed the oaths?

If the paladin is deciding what's right and good, and placing their own judgment AHEAD of the judgment that their deity has rendered already (by creating the oath), that's the chaotic act of pride that requires the paladin to atone.

Look man, I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or even the better way to play a paladin. I'm just saying that it's the thinking behind the AD&D paladin mechanics that you can use to make their limitations coherent. If you want the AD&D paladin to just be WRONG, that's fine with me.

Would the "order fetishist" not say that the supposed LG character is doing exactly that? That by deciding which laws to follow, they are pridefully placing their own judgement as superior to that of the proper law-making procedure? What is the difference between the LG Paladin who must follow their Oath, even if it appears to not be Good, lest they succumb to pride and the "Order Fetishist" who must follow the Laws, even if it appears to not be Good?

After all, there are many things involving Good and Evil that have nothing to do with Law. That can even work against the Law, and so if someone believes that Social Order is good, would they not focus on that Social Order, even if it seems to be working to non-good ends, because who are they to pridefully judge the system?

It is literally the same argument, but one is being done about LG following a divine oath, and the other is LN following the Law.

 

[GrimCo]

First of all, you can do evil acts for good cause.

On top of my head. Drug cartel leader who uses drug money to help his community by building infrastructure (roads, pluming, electricity, schools, hospitals), hiring and paying living wages to needed professionals ( teachers, doctors, technicians, engineers), giving no interest loans to start small businesses, investing in farmers that grow crops etc. You still do evil things (produce and sell drugs, bribe officials, kill competitors), still have selfish motivation (money and power). For your people, you are saint and savior ( there is a reason why many people in Medellin supported Escobar). For others, you are horrible murderer and death dealer.

We can ramble on and on, but D&D alignment system was there to reinforce specific narrative of good heroes fighting evil monsters. Very black and white, very surface level. Game wasn't about reflecting on morality and ethics, players weren't supposed to into deep end and ask why some monsters are evil. It was always- they are evil cause they are evil. Don't ask silly questions, it's just a game. Go on, kill them, take their stuff, so you can be more powerful, kill more evil monsters, take more of their stuff. For f**k sake, it's a game where player can kill Gods. Where mere mortals become Gods. FR official lore has it. Cyric was mortal. He killed god. He became one. He then killed some more gods and took their portofolios.

Even game like V:tM, a game with strong themes around morality, ethics, self reflection etc, usually ended up played like Supers with Fangs.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In Gygax's PHB (p 33) and DMG (p 23), True Neutral is very similar to some real world orientations (eg some approaches to Stoicism and Daoism):

The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary port or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this naturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. Absolute neutrality is in the central or fulcrum position quite logically, as the neutral sees all other alignments as parts of a necessary whole. This alignment is the narrowest in scope.​

It is a "naturalistic" ethos, that is, it holds that "nature will prevail" and ensure the status quo, which cannot be improved upon: the intentional action of "human and other intelligent creatures" will just unbalance what was "meant to be". This sort of person therefore regards paladins as a risk - they engage in a lot of intentional action, trying to achieve righteous things and defeat evil!

I think it's interesting that Gygax describes TN as "the narrowest in scope" of his nine alignments, whereas the tendency probably since the mid-80s or even earlier has been to treat true neutral as very capacious. I associate this change with the more general tendency away from the approach to alignment that Gygax sets out, to instead seeing it as a set of personality or value descriptors unmoored from actual ideas of good and evil and their relationship to human action.

 

[pemerton]

Chivalric Knight stories assuming Providence assume an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god who is inevitably defeating evil, and all you must do to defeat evil is believe in that god and follow his teachings, and evil will inevitably lose.

I don't think this is correct at all. Defeating evil may, and indeed likely will, require human action. Human inaction may well permit evil to prevail.

JRRT's work is a clear example of this.

rolling dice to see if you succeed or fail, instead of succeeding because you are a person with a pure heart, has existed since 1e.

You again are assuming that because it is random at the table, it must be random in the fiction. That's not an assumption that I adhere to in my RPGing.