Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dragonlance Adventure & Prelude Details Revealed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8842167" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This seems a non-sequitur to me.</p><p></p><p>According to Gygax's PHB (p 33) and DMG (p 23), the following things are valued by Good:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[C]reatures of [chaotic good] alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Creatures of [neutral good] alignment see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness, and prosperity to all deserving creatures.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[C]haracters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts [of law and order] to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Creatures of lawful good alignment . . . are convinced that . . . good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.</p><p></p><p>We can see that there is a range of viewpoints here, about the permissibility of social/interpersonal trade-offs in welfare (LG accepts these, CG doesn't), and also about how to rank the values. But there is unanimity that life, wellbeing and happiness are important. Truth is also important, especially to the LG. There is a notion of "decent" or "deserving" creatures having entitlements that others don't - this is where the scope exists in Good alignment for inflicting punishment, and/or for using violence in self-defence and defence of others.</p><p></p><p>Notice that <em>knowledge</em> is not mentioned here at all, but <em>freedom</em> is. Even the LG don't reject freedom as a value; they just rank it differently from the CG.</p><p></p><p>In the PHB (p 33) and DMG (pp 23-24) we are also told that Evil rejects these values:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained [by the chaotic evil].</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The chaotic evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[Neutral evil] holds that . . . whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[L]ife, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned [by lawful evil creatures].</p><p></p><p>The Evil reject other-regard as any constraint on their own conduct. Kindness and good deeds are disdained. Freedom of others is unimportant. They scorn beauty and truth, and lack concern for anything beyond themselves.</p><p></p><p>In the mythology of DL, it is the Neutral gods who bestowed free will on mortals (DL Adventures, p 8). But that does not mean it is not a good thing.</p><p></p><p>This is not the only treatment, and probably not the standard one. I don't think any of the mainstream theorists of punishment - Von Hirsch, Hampton, Duff, etc - take the view that physical detention of a person takes away their free will. Nor does US criminal law, which does not treat <em>being imprisoned</em> as sufficient evidence of a lack of voluntariness in conduct. </p><p></p><p>The existentialists, whose account of free will is quite different from the contemporary mainstream punishment theorists, also don't hold that physical detention removes free will.</p><p></p><p>Off the top of my head I can't think of a philosopher who has defended the view you set out in your post.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Both your (1) and (2) are highly contentious.</p><p></p><p>Plato set out to refute your (1) in the Euthyphro. The only major philosopher I know who disagrees, and thinks that God has authority to define good and evil, is Hobbes.</p><p></p><p>As far as your (2) is concerned, the mainstream view in contemporary English-language philosophy is that value is objective, and that this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God exists. There are significant proponents of the contrary view, but it turns out to face many technical challenges that are not trivial to deal with (eg if value is not objective, then it seems to follow that statements about what is good or bad are neither true nor false. But statements about what is good or bad can figure in sentences containing truth-conditional operators like <em>or</em> and <em>and</em>, and can figure in inferences and arguments that seem to be valid in just the same way as ordinary inferences and arguments, involving truth-valued statements, are).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8842167, member: 42582"] This seems a non-sequitur to me. According to Gygax's PHB (p 33) and DMG (p 23), the following things are valued by Good: [indent][T]he tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. [C]reatures of [chaotic good] alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great. To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. Creatures of [neutral good] alignment see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness, and prosperity to all deserving creatures. [C]haracters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts [of law and order] to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. Creatures of lawful good alignment . . . are convinced that . . . good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.[/indent] We can see that there is a range of viewpoints here, about the permissibility of social/interpersonal trade-offs in welfare (LG accepts these, CG doesn't), and also about how to rank the values. But there is unanimity that life, wellbeing and happiness are important. Truth is also important, especially to the LG. There is a notion of "decent" or "deserving" creatures having entitlements that others don't - this is where the scope exists in Good alignment for inflicting punishment, and/or for using violence in self-defence and defence of others. Notice that [I]knowledge[/I] is not mentioned here at all, but [I]freedom[/I] is. Even the LG don't reject freedom as a value; they just rank it differently from the CG. In the PHB (p 33) and DMG (pp 23-24) we are also told that Evil rejects these values: [indent]Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness . . . Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained [by the chaotic evil]. The chaotic evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit. [Neutral evil] holds that . . . whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything. [L]ife, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned [by lawful evil creatures].[/indent] The Evil reject other-regard as any constraint on their own conduct. Kindness and good deeds are disdained. Freedom of others is unimportant. They scorn beauty and truth, and lack concern for anything beyond themselves. In the mythology of DL, it is the Neutral gods who bestowed free will on mortals (DL Adventures, p 8). But that does not mean it is not a good thing. This is not the only treatment, and probably not the standard one. I don't think any of the mainstream theorists of punishment - Von Hirsch, Hampton, Duff, etc - take the view that physical detention of a person takes away their free will. Nor does US criminal law, which does not treat [i]being imprisoned[/i] as sufficient evidence of a lack of voluntariness in conduct. The existentialists, whose account of free will is quite different from the contemporary mainstream punishment theorists, also don't hold that physical detention removes free will. Off the top of my head I can't think of a philosopher who has defended the view you set out in your post. Both your (1) and (2) are highly contentious. Plato set out to refute your (1) in the Euthyphro. The only major philosopher I know who disagrees, and thinks that God has authority to define good and evil, is Hobbes. As far as your (2) is concerned, the mainstream view in contemporary English-language philosophy is that value is objective, and that this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God exists. There are significant proponents of the contrary view, but it turns out to face many technical challenges that are not trivial to deal with (eg if value is not objective, then it seems to follow that statements about what is good or bad are neither true nor false. But statements about what is good or bad can figure in sentences containing truth-conditional operators like [I]or[/I] and [I]and[/I], and can figure in inferences and arguments that seem to be valid in just the same way as ordinary inferences and arguments, involving truth-valued statements, are). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dragonlance Adventure & Prelude Details Revealed
Top