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: 9367828" data-attributes="member: 42582">Nor did I say that they must keep their word and abide by contracts.Here is Gygax on LE (DMG p 23, PHB p 33):Obviously, all order is not good, nor are all laws beneficial. Lawful evil creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable, while lawful evilness allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker. 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. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.There is nothing here about keeping one's word, nor even abiding by contracts. Law and order are not exhausted by contracts. What we do see is the aspiration to "impose one's yoke upon the world' by way of "law and strict order". We also see what is a rather common refrain from real world political discourse, namely, that acknowledging moral restraints is foolish weakness ("an excuse to promote . . . mediocrity . . . and suppress the better and more capable").As I posted upthread, I don't know where the trope of "LE = binding contracts" came into D&D, but I can't find it in these alignment descriptions.But are devils truthful when they make and agree to bargains? Or are they deceiving? Generally the latter, is my understanding.The rules state that paladins will not associate with evil people. So they are unlikely to associate with habitual liars.Whether permitting someone else to be deceived by one's associate's actions is an evil act seems likely to depend on context, but it seems quite possible that it might count as evil. So a paladin wouldn't do it. This is probably why paladins won't readily associate with lying types!It's not as if the idea that lying is evil is something Gygax made up. Kant takes the same view. So do some religious systems of morality.There are different versions of Robin Hood, and different understandings of the nature and extent of his deceit.There is also plenty to be said about different modes of deceit, such as telling lies, travelling in disguise, concealing one's tracks, etc. I know Kant's view on lying, but I don't know what if anything he said about the use of disguise.Also, just for the sake of clarity, I have not asserted, in my own voice, that lying is evil. I've pointed out that Gygax identifies truth as a value that the good therefore affirm, and notes that evil people tend to scorn it. And have pointed out that this is consistent with some major traditions in moral thought. (But not all of them.)Which system? I'm talking about AD&D alignment as presented in Gygax's PHB and DMG. I have been clear about that for the whole of this discussion.And it is largely self-evident that valuable things are good. I mean, that verges (or perhaps is) tautology. What would it mean to say that something is valuable but not good or valuable but evil? What example do you have in mind? The rulebooks I'm referring to do not insist that LG is the only real alignment of any value. They are neutral on whether LG or CG is correct. Which is part of the point - if we knew that one or the other was correct, then we would know that the other was an error little different from LN or CN.Then they would have proved that LG is correct and CG mistaken.No I don't. What I do think is that if you assert that something is true, without argument; and if Plato presented an argument that it is not true; then I am not inclined to take your word for it.I mean, what's your argument that murderers, habitual liars, fetishists of order or of freedom, etc, have coherent and logical positions? You've asserted it, but nothing more. Kant has an argument that lying is irrational (roughly, that the principle of communicate falsehoods can't be willed as universal by a rational communicator). Plato argues that no one can knowingly do evil, because evil is contrary to reason, roughly because evil is contrary to the true nature of things. There is plenty of argument against these rationalist positions, but you've not presented any of it. Nor have you shown that rebutting rationalism shows evil to be rational!The notion that evil is valuable is not nuanced. On its face, it's just contradictory.</blockquote>

Verification