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: 9368775" data-attributes="member: 42582">Here is the relevant text from page 20 of the AD&D MM:Devils follow a definite order, a chain of command, which they dare not break for fear of the arch-devils. Still, there is great rivalry, even open antagonism, between the devils of the various planes and between the various arch-devils. While the lesser devils squabble, the dukes of Hell vie to usurp the throne of Asmodeus. But the Archfiend has always succeeded in playing one off against the other, and still rules from his lowest plane. . . . Devils will serve if properly commanded, but it is risky business, for an improper command will break the law which binds them to service. (It also typically requires a contract for the soul of the creature commanding the internal power to obey.) It is possible for other than lawful evil persons to invoke or otherwise treat with devils (but the long spoon, oft spoken of, had better be used when supping with such monsters). . . . Devils' Talismans: Each type of lesser devil has a special combination of inscriptions which will bind them to the wielder for the space of nine days, or at least prevent the devils of that type from harming the possessor. Greater devils can likewise be commanded for nine hours or kept at bay. Arch-devils' talismans will cause them to perform a single service, or prevent the bearer from being harmed by a particular duke of Hell, when properly used. The employment of any devil's talisman requires great care and caution. Human sacrifice is required of evil creatures using a talisman.This does not say that devils can't break their word. On the contrary, it tends to imply the opposite: being safe from a devil requires magically binding it via its talisman.I think when you refer to history and mathematics you are talking about knowledge of these things, not the things themselves. And knowledge is a good - or if it is not an unalloyed good (eg suppose someone thinks that humans would be better off without knowledge of nuclear physics) then that suggests it is not unalloyed in its value either.When you talk about tools being valuable you are referring to instrumental value - utility. I took the conversation to be about intrinsically valuable things. The LN don't assert that order is of instrumental value - that is what the LG assert. The LN treat it as an end in itself.I have not asserted that beauty or truth have intrinsic value. I have pointed out that Gygax's account of alignment assumes that they do, and incorporates them into his (capacious) notion of good. And it's not an absurd suggestion - again, Gygax is not the first person to affirm the intrinsic value of beauty (see eg GE Moore) and truth (see eg Plato).I'm not forcing the conversation to be about anything. Gygax's PHB and DMG are what I am talking about. I am explaining why, in my view, the conception of paladinhood presented in those books is coherent.If you're curious as to why I think Planescape, and the treatment of truth and honour as pertaining to Lawfulness rather than Goodness, are incoherent, I'm happy to elaborate. But explaining why Gygax's account is coherent can be done without doing this.I think playing a paladin consistently with the AD&D alignment and class descriptions does not invite "performative" good. Those descriptions, as I have said, present a coherent picture of what is good, and of why LG people see law as connected to goodness. The problems that you invoke - eg conflicts between the paladin and other PCs, or the possibility that the GM will decide the evil guards kill the orphans if the paladin doesn't lie - are products not of the way alignment and paladins are presented, but of particular approaches to how a group of PCs is put together, how scenes are framed, how consequences are adjudicated, and how the GM dictates morality to players.</blockquote>

Verification