Is D&D a Moral Universe?

[fusangite]

In the thread on shilsen's weird paladin, the issue came up (at least for me) of whether the D&D universe is an intrinsically moral one. Is the D&D universe one whose nature is intrinsically good, one in which evil doers are ultimately punished and those who do good, ultimately rewarded? Or is D&D's a universe in which life is not fair, in which evil has just as good a chance of triumphing as good and whose natural laws are ultimately indifferent?

From reading the core rules, I'm not sure of which model I favour. So, what do people think? Is D&D like the universe the existentialists believe in, one in which you can be good but the universe is not on your side? Or one in which most theistic people believe in, one in which although things are often unfair, in the end the intrinsically good nature of the universe will result in justice ultimately prevailing? Does D&D occupy a single position on this issue or is it incoherent? Does D&D give you the option of running things either way or does it force you to share its position?

 

[frankthedm]

The multiverse is neutral on the good / evil scheme of things, with both sides trying to tip the balance.

The first sane gods forged the world from Chaos with Law, if the older mad gods win, those entities would melt reality into soup ill suited to the life forms that currently inhabit it.

 

[Shemeska]

It's a balancing act between good and evil, and between law and chaos. Each side intrinsically opposed to the other, with neutrality trying to keep them all balanced with one another. And it's been that way since the start when the planes emerged out of the raw embodiment of the alignments, the gods coming much much later. On what emerged there's been a tense but cool law/chaos split amongst good, a genocidal war along the law/chaos split amongst evil, and good trying to stay out of the way and let evil consume itself.

 

[Yair]

I believe that the world borne by the D&D rules is not inherently good or evil, and allows you to mold it into whatever form you prefer. There is nothing in the core rules to suggest good will ultimately triumph or that the just will be rewarded or the evil suffer for their sins or anything like that. There is also notihng to suggest otherwise.
Even if using the Petitioners and planar elements (that I wouldn't strictly say is "core" D&D) the DM still has a free hand to describe all the petitoners in Hell suffering and all those in Heaven in bliss or vice versa or do any other thing he wants.
Likewise, both evil and good (and law and chaos and nature and whatever) can win at the end.

That said, the possiblity of soul-destruction does lead to the collapse of the univerality of "just rewards" paradigm, as some good/evil deeds will not get their rightful reward.

Most crafted worlds do tend towards the Good Universe or at least Balanced Universe vibe (i.e. evil must exist in balance to prevent a greater evil such as the universe collapsing on itself).

Well, that's how I see it anyways.

 

[lotuseater]

i'm sure you're going to hear a lot of different responses to this thread, but ultimately, you're the one that's going to decide. that's what's great about d&d. it's whatever you want it to be.

 

[GlassJaw]

At it simplest, I think the "concept" of D&D is that the players are supposed to battle the bad guys. The players are the heroes trying to save the world. This implies that ultimately, in the end, good will triumph over evil. Most modules and adventures written assume the players are going to help someone and defeat the bad guys. The monster manuals have baddies to challenge the PC's, etc. The generalizations pretty much end there though.

 

[Turanil]

So, what do people think? Is D&D like the universe the existentialists believe in, one in which you can be good but the universe is not on your side?

Of course this is so, otherwise the PCs wouldn't have any challenge. They would have no reason to go adventuring, and... horrible... they would have to work like anyone else to make a living, not slaying trolls and vampire to become fabulously rich in a matter of days.

Good, evil, what is it? To answer tis question, a full philosophical debate involving wise and elder thinkers will have to be held for months, and then we can go to the question on "how about it in D&D".

Just let say that others being evil you can kill them and be rewarded with Heavens upon your death. Isn't that cool?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I was the one who originally posed the question on the paladin thread.
My thought is that 3/3.5 tries very hard to make the universe so symmetrical as to be amoral. If Good has Holy Word, Evil should have Blasphemy. If Good has paladins, Evil should have blackguards. If Good has holy swords, Evil should have unholy ones. The two sides are equally powerful. Is the universe operating on a kind of Manichean idea? I don't know my history of philosophy well enough.

Personally, I think you can have balance (favoring neither Good nor Evil) without having all this mirror-imaging. Good could have fewer but more elite forces, while Evil is numerous, ruthless, but not quite as capable. That isn't the direction they chose.

 

[Stormborn]

I suppose its all the ethics and philosophy courses, but to me "moral" suggests that there is some standard or pattern of behavior intrinsic to the universe, at the very least as a guide line for measuring behavior. Using the core rules the answer to that is obviously "yes" or there could be no alignments of people, spells, or objects. Much less outsiders.

"Amoral" suggests no standards, not simply that the competing standards are balanced.

In DnD everything falls on some part of the moral spectrum. There is very little in the universe that is purely neutral on both the Good-Evil and the Law-Chaos axies. Even the standard weather pattern has gods motivating it that have an adgenda.

Now, if you are talking about in some ultimate sense, beyond gods and magic all that things with minds can know, it does seem that there is both a tendency toward neutrality and also a tendency to promote conflict that creates a dynamic neutrality in which the various components are overtime in balance but at any given time one factor or combination of factors may be dominant over the opposites.


Overall I think the intrinsic nature of alignments in the core rules forces it to be played with moral issues in mind. Whether good or evil or law or chaos dominates is at the descretion of the GM, but I do think that the PCs are assumed to be XG in alignment and their foes, which are made to be beaten, are XE.

 

[jayaint]

I think that it should NOT be surprising that there is such a strict symmetry between the Good and the Evil in DnD. If one side or the other had a vast advantage, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, as it would have conquered the other side.

Also, it seems to me that the DnD mulitverse allows for constant struggle, a gentle tug-of-war over moral grounds. That way there are challenges to be met, and heroes who step forth and write their names in the annals of legend. Both good and evil will emerge when needed to keep the balance, which seems to indicate a third "force" of neutrality. But I believe it is the uneasy balance between the two extremes that keeps the multiverse in check.

It is in that gap, the fought over ground in between good and evil where our DnD games and characters emerge.