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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jack Chick Passes Away
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7702459" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I think this is a text book example of why D&D alignment's problem is the people, and not concept itself. We can't come to any agreement, even when to me something seems obvious. This doesn't mean that the idea of alignments is necessarily flawed; just that we are.</p><p></p><p>For example, if someone engages in slanderous accusations, that to me seems obviously wrong. In some religions, slander is considered morally equivalent to murder. But it would seem to me to be obviously mitigating if the person believed what they were saying was true, and was motivated out of the belief that they were correcting and chastising a legitimate problem with the intention of helping those so chastised. They might still be wrong on several levels, because they were acting on false information, or false reasoning, and perhaps not acting as kindly as they believed that they were, but at least we might see the person as "merely" wrong. </p><p></p><p>He'd still be wrong, but we won't necessarily believe that he was acting out of a wholly depraved mind. I'm not even sure we can go beyond calling him hurtful, rather than hateful without having some instrument that can read the human heart. The action might be wrong, but he wouldn't necessarily be acting out of an evil mind.</p><p></p><p>But now someone comes along and says, "But, if when he slandered, he knew he was lying and just desired a profit, this actually mitigates rather than compounds the evil." Not only in this case is his action slanderous and hurtful, but having seen into his heart and mind we find it is motivated by nothing more than complete disregard for the consequences of his action. He doesn't care who he hurts, as long as he profits from it. Now, it's less bad?</p><p></p><p>Side note, but the vast majority of racism, sexism, or other treatment of people as contemptible and worth less than yourself, isn't motivated by hate and it would be wrong to teach that it is, both because it stokes hatred and because it prevents effecting a cure. Growing up in the South, I observed racism of many different sorts, and rarely was hatred at the root of it. There was a small storm of controversy sometime back regarding to the release of a sequel to 'To Kill a Mockingbird', in that when examining the heart of that book's protagonist Atticus Finch, he was found not to be the moral paragon some imagined, but a more flawed and realistic person. In turns out, Atticus was conceived quite like too many of the older Southern gentlemen that I met. They would never knowingly act wrathfully, or hatefully, or unkindly, or unjustly toward any black, but not because they believed the black man to be their brother, their equal, and having equal worth, but rather solely because they felt it beneath their own dignity to behave in that manner, even to someone who they thought their inferior. When accused of hatred, they were baffled, as no such emotion as we think of as hate animated their being. Accusing them of hatred in the traditional sense was not only unhelpful, but possibly unjust. But that didn't make them right. If you want to cure an illness, you have to understand what it is. Too often screaming "hater" at someone, is just validating your own hatred - an acceptable form of hatred if you will.</p><p></p><p>Final side note, I have encountered something like the quoted moral analysis before. One example was in the Kama Sutra of all places, which as a guide to moral behavior asserted that it was ok to break any of the taboos asserted by the text, if your motivation in doing so was self-interest or vengeance on an enemy. For example, adultery was considered wrong, but a specific exemption was made for committing adultery with someone's wife, if in doing so you avenged yourself on a husband that had wronged you. In that case, what had been wrong was made right by the self-interest. The number of specifically called out self-interest exemptions was so great in the text, that I wondered by the end of it if there was a case that couldn't be excused by at least one of them. Another example is in the writings of Ayn Rand. Whether self-interest exists as a virtue in and of itself, we probably should leave to another thread.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7702459, member: 4937"] I think this is a text book example of why D&D alignment's problem is the people, and not concept itself. We can't come to any agreement, even when to me something seems obvious. This doesn't mean that the idea of alignments is necessarily flawed; just that we are. For example, if someone engages in slanderous accusations, that to me seems obviously wrong. In some religions, slander is considered morally equivalent to murder. But it would seem to me to be obviously mitigating if the person believed what they were saying was true, and was motivated out of the belief that they were correcting and chastising a legitimate problem with the intention of helping those so chastised. They might still be wrong on several levels, because they were acting on false information, or false reasoning, and perhaps not acting as kindly as they believed that they were, but at least we might see the person as "merely" wrong. He'd still be wrong, but we won't necessarily believe that he was acting out of a wholly depraved mind. I'm not even sure we can go beyond calling him hurtful, rather than hateful without having some instrument that can read the human heart. The action might be wrong, but he wouldn't necessarily be acting out of an evil mind. But now someone comes along and says, "But, if when he slandered, he knew he was lying and just desired a profit, this actually mitigates rather than compounds the evil." Not only in this case is his action slanderous and hurtful, but having seen into his heart and mind we find it is motivated by nothing more than complete disregard for the consequences of his action. He doesn't care who he hurts, as long as he profits from it. Now, it's less bad? Side note, but the vast majority of racism, sexism, or other treatment of people as contemptible and worth less than yourself, isn't motivated by hate and it would be wrong to teach that it is, both because it stokes hatred and because it prevents effecting a cure. Growing up in the South, I observed racism of many different sorts, and rarely was hatred at the root of it. There was a small storm of controversy sometime back regarding to the release of a sequel to 'To Kill a Mockingbird', in that when examining the heart of that book's protagonist Atticus Finch, he was found not to be the moral paragon some imagined, but a more flawed and realistic person. In turns out, Atticus was conceived quite like too many of the older Southern gentlemen that I met. They would never knowingly act wrathfully, or hatefully, or unkindly, or unjustly toward any black, but not because they believed the black man to be their brother, their equal, and having equal worth, but rather solely because they felt it beneath their own dignity to behave in that manner, even to someone who they thought their inferior. When accused of hatred, they were baffled, as no such emotion as we think of as hate animated their being. Accusing them of hatred in the traditional sense was not only unhelpful, but possibly unjust. But that didn't make them right. If you want to cure an illness, you have to understand what it is. Too often screaming "hater" at someone, is just validating your own hatred - an acceptable form of hatred if you will. Final side note, I have encountered something like the quoted moral analysis before. One example was in the Kama Sutra of all places, which as a guide to moral behavior asserted that it was ok to break any of the taboos asserted by the text, if your motivation in doing so was self-interest or vengeance on an enemy. For example, adultery was considered wrong, but a specific exemption was made for committing adultery with someone's wife, if in doing so you avenged yourself on a husband that had wronged you. In that case, what had been wrong was made right by the self-interest. The number of specifically called out self-interest exemptions was so great in the text, that I wondered by the end of it if there was a case that couldn't be excused by at least one of them. Another example is in the writings of Ayn Rand. Whether self-interest exists as a virtue in and of itself, we probably should leave to another thread. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jack Chick Passes Away
Top