Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2141242" data-attributes="member: 27012">I feel much the same way.  I think that a big part of our difference is that I'm talking about alignment in mass-market terms while you are talking about it in historical terms, though I have some differences of opinion there, too, that I'll go into below.My point is that postmodernism often tears down the boundaries created by modernism.  The alignment system is all about boundaries and categories, wether it reflects modernism or some other mindset.I know you aren't interested in games with a modern or post-modern feel.  What I'm trying to say is that I think D&D and it's alignment system, for better or worse, reflects the world view of contemporary Americans (with all of the baggage that carries, from a smattering of Judeo-Christian ethics to women's liberation) rather than any historical world view.  And because of that, I think it makes the most sense in that context and it's often counter-productive to fight it.And I disagree with the post-modernist critique in that regard.  I don't think it's all that modern, though I do think every culture puts a different spin on it.  In particular, I think the Nazis simply put a scientific veneer and larger scope on something that you can find throughout human history.  And in many other cases where killing and extermination were not justified on utilitarian grounds, it was because those cultures felt no need to justify their actions against other humans.Well, there are two aspects of this that I should address.First, most of your examples fall within a Christian ethical context while I'm considering many pre-Christian contexts since D&D is, in theory, not Christian.  Christian ethics presuppose the possibility of grace and redemption, which is why they also proved ultimately incompatible with the monarchy, slavery, and the subjugation of women.  I wouldn't use the D&D alignment system to model Christian ethics.  And, no, we probably shouldn't debate this point so we don't run afoul of the moderators.Second, yes most of those historical agressors did not deny the essential humanity of the groups they attacked or persecuted but there is a very good reason for that.  They couldn't deny their humanity because they were clearly human (more on Nazis in a moment).  The orcs and goblins and gnolls of D&D are clearly not human, nor do I think were they meant to be, nor do I think they were meant to be in Tolkien.  So the question is whether orcs, goblins, and gnolls in D&D are simply humans with a few ability adjustments and funny looks or a fundamentally different class of creature that has no humanity.  If they are a fundamentally different class of creature, then denying their humanity is simply stating the truth, not denying what they are.  And, frankly, I don't know why they need to be in the game if they aren't supposed to be monsters rather than people. So don't think of killing all the goblins as sending Jews to the gas chamber.  Think of it as killing all of the wolves in a region because they eat your sheep and endanger your children (ignoring the ecological impact).  Think of it as wiping out Small Pox.  It's just that these wolves are intelligent enough to talk to you.I think looking at what the Nazis did is helpful here so I'm not going to cry Goodwin's Law on you.  What the Nazis did was both effective and terrible.  You are looking at how terrible it was but I think you need to consider why it was terrible and why it was so effective.  They were so terrible and effective because they attacked the lynchpin that stops human being from exterminating one another like wolves or cockroaches, the humanity of others and our empathy for it.  They convinced people, aided by fear, hatred, jealousy, and a hefty dose of pseudo-science that entire classes of other human beings had no humanity.  Because once you remove that humanity, the entire moral calculus does change. In many ways, I think you are begging the question here.  You are assuming the humanity of D&D monsters and then framing morality accordingly.  I'm challenging the idea that D&D monsters have any humanity.  I'm not trying to deny them the humanity that they have in the way Nazis denied various groups of humans humanity.  I'm envisioning monsters that have no humanity to deny, such that claiming they have no humanity is simply the truth.  And, yes, that can lead one down a path of logical that has an uncomfortable resemblance to what the Nazis did.  I fully understand what the games Violence and Power Kill are trying to say, once you accept their assumption.  Change orcs or goblins into the poor residents of a modern housing development and what the typical band of D&D adventurers do is pretty ugly.  And that's why I think it's important that orcs and goblins not be the moral equivalent of the poor residents of a housing project.And for a lot of pre-modern people, they didn't need any justification for killing their enemies and taking their stuff.  But D&D is played by contemporary people (many Americans or Europeans) who have a different moral perspective. There were plenty of "in/out" concepts in ancient times, too.  I think you are being selective.  Whether it's "circumcised"/"uncircumcised" (not only the Jews but Egyptians, Muslims, and Crusaders used that distinction) or "Greek"/"Barbarian", there are plenty of other examples of "in/out" divisions out there.  Take a look at Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization for some examples.  Yes, hierarchy and distance was also commonly used.  But even within those hierarchies, there were distinct categories, be it "noble", "land owner", "serf" and "slave" or some variation with nationality included.  You were either "in" those groups or "out" of them and "in" another group.The "us" and "them" distinction is fairly common and fundamental to how poeple look at the world.  It's not only why pronouns generally distingish first, second, and third person but why some languages also have inclusive and exclusive pronouns to differentiate those who are "in" from those who are "out" in the second or third person.From a post-modernist perspective, yes.  Bear in mind that I was claiming that the alignment system is fairly incompatible with a post-modernist perspective.More accurately, I'm trying to pick a model of good and evil that allows contemporary (and likely modernist, from that perspective) people to engage in pre-modern activities that they might not find ethically palatable, in a way that's more ethically palatable to them.I doubt that many people would buy a game where you get to play a Conquistador that's on a mission to kill the Aztecs and take their gold.  Make your thinly veiled Aztecs orcs or goblins who sacrifice innocent humans or elves to their dark gods and most players would accept it.  Why?  Because we've come to accept the humanity of the Aztecs, even if we find their religious practices to be wrong.  Killing an opponent with humanity, especially to take their stuff isn't something that a lot of contemporary people are going to feel good about.  Both Power Kill and Violence attempt to illustrate this.  Killing inhuman monsters to take their stuff is morally something different to most people, because monsters are different.  The can lack humanity.So, yes, you could expect your players to adopt a 15th Century Spaniard's mindset and play a "Conquest of Mexico" game or you could turn your Aztecs into Orcs, make them inherently Evil, and eliminate the ethical heaviness and messiness of the historical treatment, making it an adventure game.  I'm not saying that the heaviness is wrong, nor am I saying that the orc version would produce an authentic and accurate dynamic.  I just don't think that heaviness is not what a lot of people want, nor is it what the alignment system seems designed to handle.I'm not seeing it.Remember that I'm not looking for the same thing that you are.  D&D is a fantasy game.  It's "Medieval" in the sense that the movie Troy ("Inspired by Homer's Illiad") was "Late Bronze Age", Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar was "Roman", or "Clan of the Cave Bear" is "Prehistoric".  If I was looking for an authentic treatment of a pre-modern setting and mindset, D&D would not be my first stop.I'm looking to emulate adventure fiction and popular mythology (through a modern lens).  So while I can imagine far more sophisticated and historically accurate ethical systems, my practical considerations are how my (unavoidably contemporary American) players are going to interpret what their characters are doing.Why would a character want to open a gate to Hell?Not at all.  It challenges the idea that all villains are Evil and that all Evil villains are rational.  One can be intelligent without being rational.  One can even be wise but not rational.Again, I think you are begging the question here.  Why must opening the Gates of Hell be "Chaotic" Evil?  What's the in-character justification for opening the Gates of Hell?Not necessarily.  I think you are making several assumptions about both here.  In particular, I think you are assuming that Intelligence is related to long-range planning and that Wisdom leads to self-discipline.  I don't think either is the case, particularly in the way that D&D uses them.  Take a look at serial killers.  They can be clever and even wise.  But they just...can't...stop...killing...people, even when they know they will eventually get caught.I don't think it is the case, though I could imagine a Lawful character making your argument.What was the in-character justification?How effective are these Communist Parties at achieving Communism and is their first objective to bring about Communism or simply the pragmatic goal of remaining a viable political party?  That, to me, is an illustration of pragmatism winning out over ideology.</blockquote>

Verification