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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3526079" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't really understand this example. How does General Leo's aggressive war, which involves ethe taking of much innocent life, fit within the SRD definition of Good?Maybe you're conceding that what Leo does is an Evil act, because he is driven by other considerations (eg his devotion to the Empire). But in that case, if Leo is a paladin he has just lost his paladinhood. So I still don't really grasp the example.As you probably know, in international relations there is a reasonably popular theory of "democratic peace" - that democracies don't wage wars of aggression, and so won't come into conflict with one another. Now this theory is contentious, of course - for example, NATO waged war against Serbia when Serbia was (arguably) a democracy. Nevertheless, the theory has a certain plausiblity, and one is tempted to say that a state that wages aggressive war isn't really a democracy at all, because it is attempting to exercise power over a non-consenting population.I'm not saying that D&D Good is strictly equivalent to democracy (although Gygax hints at this in the 1st Ed rules, when he says that Good is committed to life and happiness, thus echoing the Declaration of Independence). But I don't really understand how two parties, each of whom treasures innocent life, can come into conflict with one another.To come at it another way: what makes Orcs evil, and thus legitimate targets of PC violence? *Is it that they wage aggressive war? But so does Leo. *Is it because they don't love their children? But other posters are saying that alignment is not absolute, and that Evil characters can still have friends. And anyway, even if Orcs don't love their children, how does that justify killing and robbing them (this certainly doesn't seem like it will help their children). *Is it because they worship Evil gods? But this just postpones the question of what are the criteria for being Evil, and so doesn't really resolve the matter.So however I come at it, I can't really work it out.Again, I don't really get the example. I hope I'm not breaking the Code of Conduct by characterising astrology as nonsense. The reason, therefore, that it can't muster a set of complete and accurate descriptions is that it is false. And part of how we know it to be false is that the facts of human personality far outstrip the astrological labels.Alignment, on the other hand, is meant to be true (in the gameworld). But if the moral facts outstrip the labels, then it will have been falsified (as astrology is). Thus the need (as I see it) to limit the moral facts which emerge in the gameworld, by steering clear of certain sorts of plot.There are two issues here. First, the domestic beasts presumably aren't intelligent, and thus aren't Good, and thus the commoners aren't keeping Good beings oppressed (presumably an Evil act).Second, I just came back from lunch at a place with Meat is Murder posters on the wall. Whether or not vegetarianism is a moral duty is yet a further moral question which the alignment system doesn't really handle (1st ed OA dealt with it as an element of clerical codes of conduct, without going so far as to make it part of alignment per se).Does this mean that alignment is intention and not action? Other posters on this thread have denied that claim. Further disagreement and complexity. Especially as nearly everyone, most of the time, and when acting with forethought, does what they think is best - it's just that sometimes they are wrong about it, and do a wicked thing rather than a good thing.Or do you mean that killing is not the only relevant action? Agreed, but surely it is one of the most significant - after all, it's not coincidence that nearly everyone regards murder as one of the most serious crimes that can be committed.</blockquote>

Verification