Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daedrova" data-source="post: 890131" data-attributes="member: 11835">Thank you kindly for the welcome FireLance. ::bows::Yes, I must apologize for the lengthy post, as it may have been too in depth and wordy (but I hope you enjoy it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )To proceed any further here we must agree on some terms and definitions, so we may also establish some premises.  Then we can then attempt to come to a final conclusion. Foremost, when one says that a thing, or rather a decision, can be either "right" or "wrong", he implies that there would be a standard against which the affect the decision should be judged. As we know it, “good” would be that which is within/not below the standard.  This is of course thrown into question once more if there is not absolute authority.  If there is not absolute authority, then there is no absolute standard, and thus absolutely no good or evil.  Our entire conclusion would fall not only to “right and wrong do not only apply to good and evil…”, but, again, there is no right and wrong at all.Now, in the dualistic philosophy of D&D, this simply could not be.  To say the good and evil are equal but opposing forces (as it does), right and wrong could only be said to be subjective.  You can not say then, absolutely, that evil decisions are wrong, and good decisions are right, but merely the choices that we make would fall into one category or the other.  We could say that if I hold my standard to, or judge my decisions against "the force of good", that force would say this: (what we know as) evil decisions would be wrong, and good decisions would be right.   From the other side, if I hold my standard, or judge my decisions against "the force of evil", than any decision the would bear the results of a "good" work would be wrong, and "evil" decisions would be right.  Even still, how are we to know which decisions fall into the category of “good”, and which into “evil”.  Furthermore, the two forces being equal, the names should be interchangeable, where now the same set of decisions that would have applied to evil now (not otherwise changing) are said to be good, and vice versa.  The same statements would hold true for "law" and "chaos".  This philosophy then does raise some interesting questions though.We know that characters can also be “neutral”.  If there is also a force of “neutrality”, then what is right or wrong to neutrality?  The system seems to indicate that neutrality is not a force, (there is not opposing force to neutrality, spells and enchantments do not harm or benefit anything “neutral”, but tend to ignore the very “thing” outright) but rather a state of existence that must be for “balance”… (as though something disastrous would somehow happen if “good” or “evil” became to strong… somehow).   This would indicate that characters don’t “follow” neutrality, since it is not a force that exists, just a concept of balance.  Indeed, if it were, that would mean decisions could also fall into this “neutral” category.A societal standard could also be this: You should do what you think is best, and should not be held to what others tell you is best.  Then that standard seems to be along the lines of what the PHB would say is chaotic.  What then, is a characters alignment if he feels, makes decisions that oppose that society?  Perhaps his motives and beliefs are that society should uphold like and orderly standards.  His ideas then would be lawful, but that very idea would throw itself against the only standard that society has.  Does society then determine what is lawful, and is he chaotic for opposing the “standard” of that society?Do you see the contradiction in a society uniformly believing that their decisions should not be held to the standards of society?  (lets all believe that we should not all believe the same thing... thus creating a standard that holds each person to it, but tells them not to hold themselves to such standards)This is not a problem with anything other than the concept of chaos, which doesn’t actually exist (we call things “random” because we do not see what the result will be.  For us to know a future result, we must be able to account for all possible factors). Society, conceptually, must adhere to the ideas of law, because (logically, not idealistically) there can not be a society without order, or defining what that society is.  The best we can do for argument within D&D is to use the specific information within the “religion” heading inside the PHB pages (which certainly limit’s the possibilities J).  That leaves us only with finding and choosing  from those guidelines the description within that system which would best suit our desires for a character's overall outlook, and is therefore impossible to argue from the other direction.edit: philisophical comparison to non-D&D religion was deleted.  Hopefully people can respond to this post with logical thoughts/arguments of their own without worry of getting into "real world religion."</blockquote>

Verification