Good, Evil, or Gray

I'm in agreement with Lord Pendragon and Elder-Basilisk this time around. Good and Evil aren't just fantasy concepts, or even complicated in and of themselves. They seem complicated because they only become useful when we try to apply them to the world ... which is more complicated than any of us can truly even imagine. And a D&D world runs into that too -- the more complicated the world becomes, the more complicated any simple concept's application becomes as it interacts with all the other concepts. The Law of Supply and Demand, for example, which is economic, not ethical, is easy to understand but not easy to implement in your D&D world realisticly, so most DMs do a lot of hand-waving when it becomes an issue.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Make me another of the alignment is downplayed crowd, in my campaign things like the use of slaves is common and there are a lot of areas where the default alignment is something like LE.
 

AIM-54 said:
Too simplistic for my taste.

My current DM has done a good job creating some very interesting situations involving moral quandaries and the nature of good and evil.
It really depends.

Too often have I seen a "morally ambiguous" game foster juvenile there-is-no-God-so-I-can-do-everything-I-want mentality, with "shades of grey" being no more than shades of black.
 


LizardWizard said:
Too often have I seen a "morally ambiguous" game foster juvenile there-is-no-God-so-I-can-do-everything-I-want mentality, with "shades of grey" being no more than shades of black.
True. I guess I took it for granted, perhaps without a good basis for doing so, that we were talking about mature players.
 

And yet, in the real world, they very rarely are. Most so-called differences come down to different interpretations of in-group vs. out-group.
Compare modern America with modern China. Or ancient England to ancient Egypt. Or Italy to South Africa.

The differences in social morays arn't hard to spot, and to a member of any of those societies their version is what's right, normal, and acceptable.
 

They're harder to spot if you take the time to examine actual beliefs rather than simply their outworkings in social practices. Cultural relativism is often overstated.

Differing non-moral beliefs often play a large part in radically divergent cultural practices than differing moral beliefs do. For instance, the morality of eating meat is a much discussed topic in certain circles. One could well discuss the difference in social mores (morays are a type of eel, BTW) between vegetarian and nonvegetarian communities in modern America but often, the key difference is not over moral questions of whether pain is bad or murder is bad but rather over the non-moral questions of whether animals feel pain, how cruel farming practices are, and whether or not there is a morally significant difference between humans and animals. Observing me fanatical PETA members in what we eat, wear, and honor, you would observe a distinct difference in our mores but the questions at the root of our differences might well be non-moral in nature.

To provide another example, a certain polynesian tribe was known to kill their elders when they reached a certain age or were otherwise clearly ready to die by casting coconuts or some other fruit at them. There is a clear difference between their mores which obviously commended this practice and mine which would condemn it. However, it turns out that the difference here is a result not of moral beliefs but of non-moral, metaphysical beliefs. They believed that their behavior guaranteed safe passage into the afterlife for their elders. I believe it has nothing to do with the eternal fate of their parents.

For yet another example, compare Aristotle's philosophy about slavery and the position of men and women with modern American beliefs. If we believed, as Aristotle did, that certain people, by nature, were suited to be slaves and that the highest good they could achieve was in that role or that there were morally significant differences in the kinds of goods possible for men and for women, his acceptance of slavery and his apparent sexism would be defensible. However, due to a difference in non-moral belief we reach dramatically different judgements from Aristotle.

Now, differences in non-moral belief don't unambiguously account for all differences in perceived social mores but if you peel the effects of different situations and non-moral beliefs away, you find a good deal more similarity between various cultures' ethical beliefs than you would find simply by observing the surface.

And if you're willing to flat-out say "the ancient Babylonians were evil" (something positively encouraged by the alignment system) then there's no difficulty explaining why they enjoyed playing catch with babies on spears.

Sejs said:
Compare modern America with modern China. Or ancient England to ancient Egypt. Or Italy to South Africa.

The differences in social morays arn't hard to spot, and to a member of any of those societies their version is what's right, normal, and acceptable.
 

Elder-Basilisk said:
They're harder to spot if you take the time to examine actual beliefs rather than simply their outworkings in social practices. Cultural relativism is often overstated.

(snip for brevity)...

And if you're willing to flat-out say "the ancient Babylonians were evil" (something positively encouraged by the alignment system) then there's no difficulty explaining why they enjoyed playing catch with babies on spears.

Actually a lot of your argument rests on how you define and differenciate (sp) between morals and ethics. That is an argument that has been thrown back and forth between philosophers for ages. I tend to disagree with your theory that these "non-moral" questions are the only real difference and somehow that makes all cultures less "fundamentally" different. I agree that there are certain beliefs that cultures share. In general murder is wrong, in general child molestation is wrong and in general necrophilia is wrong. The problem arises when we start to try and define those terms in a mutually agreed upon way. It just doesn't work. We would call the act of going out to kill every member of the man's family who killed your brother murder. After all, the whole family didn't kill your brother, but the way the nords looked at it they all carried the responsibility. We would call having sex with 11 year olds child molestation, whereas some societies when you turn 11 you are considered marriage age and an adult. You may say these are not "moral" questions but I beg to differ, many people see murder, molestation/rape, and similar things as *evil* which denotes a *moral* value. I do not, myself, I see them as *wrong* which is a completely different system and falls under ethics. You are making large sweeping judgments based on a grey area that no one agrees on. If you notice, I have been careful to use the 'some people' and 'some cultures' because I realize how grey this area truly is.

Cultural relativism is very real, if you want to say it is based on ethics rather than morals then I, personally, agree with you. The outcome, however, is the same and is just as deeply rooted. The only reason I tend to agree with your reasoning (if, in fact you are talking ethics versus morals) is that I am amoral and see the only reason for ethics is to control groups of people in order to have society and civilization. People who belive in good and evil would look at your argument and some of them would think you are naive and that even though say the culture that stones (fruits?) their elderly to ensure them a place in heaven is *evil* because it is "murder" just as many religions (remember morals are a religious thing for most philosophers, or at least a spiritual thing for decante (i think is who I am thinking of) and a few like him) see suicide as murder.

I have my degree in asian philosophy and can say without doubt that what most people define as *morals* are different between cultures just as *ethics* are. But I think I have rambled enough and hope I did not offend anyone, it was not my desire. I just wished to give a counterpoint to our friend Basilisk, whom I do feel is extremely intelligent and respect.

that's my .012 cents (guess I'm slipping, it used to be worth a full .02)

P.S. Historically speaking the Babylonians were one fot he easiest cultures to get along with as long as you were respectful and did not try to rebel. They gave you a lot of respect and when most cultures would have destroyed the hebrews for inciting revolution the Babylonian just brought them into their capitol to watch over them, giving them free reign within the city. "Babylonian Captivity" is only spoken of as a horendous thing in the Bible, other sources look at it almost as an honor since the hebrews got a lot more respect and "modern" conveniences within the city and could even buy themselves citizenship. I would say the babylonians were a Lawful-Neutral society.
 
Last edited:

"Now, differences in non-moral belief don't unambiguously account for all differences in perceived social mores but if you peel the effects of different situations and non-moral beliefs away, you find a good deal more similarity between various cultures' ethical beliefs than you would find simply by observing the surface."

I just reread this bit, maybe I am confused, I thought you were pointing out the differences between morals and ethics, but this comment sounds like you are saying they are the same thing? Please clarify.
 

I guess I did say Babylonians didn't I? I was actually thinking of the Assyrians who were rather significantly different. (Though I'm sure they too have their apologists in modern academia).

Kaleon Moonshae said:
P.S. Historically speaking the Babylonians were one fot he easiest cultures to get along with as long as you were respectful and did not try to rebel. They gave you a lot of respect and when most cultures would have destroyed the hebrews for inciting revolution the Babylonian just brought them into their capitol to watch over them, giving them free reign within the city. "Babylonian Captivity" is only spoken of as a horendous thing in the Bible, other sources look at it almost as an honor since the hebrews got a lot more respect and "modern" conveniences within the city and could even buy themselves citizenship. I would say the babylonians were a Lawful-Neutral society.
 

Remove ads

Top