Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!

[Spell]

In fact people think it sensible that paladins and devils go to war against elves who've teamed up with demons because the former team is lawful and the other is chaotic.

who are these people, anyway? given that the paladins are first and foremost a force of good, i would find them quite misguided to think that they would go to war against an overall good race... especially if they would have to team up with some evil devils to do so!!!

if it was a case of chaotic elven empire against lawful human empire, then i would agree that there is possibility for conflict... but people don't just take on allies at random just because they are waging a war, do they?

 

[Spell]

There is nothing immoral about good because as soon as it becomes so it is no longer good.

i wish i could state my view on the subject, but doing so would break *several* rules on conduct of the board about religion and politics... and i am not prepared to do this.

i will, then ask you a couple of questions.

do you think that people truly, honestly believing that they are doing something good should get away with any damage they caused, because their intentions are or were good?

do you think that it's impossible that a objectively good action can cause a lot of bad consequences, in the long, or even the short run?

do you think that something is good when it responds to the letter of some philosophical or religious convention, or when it has good effects on the society at large? or do you think that both these conditions have to be fulfilled for an action, or a man, or whatever, to be dimmed "good"?

what happens when there is more than a philosophical/ religious set of conventions active at the same time in the same society? what if the idea of what is "good" for one conflicts with the other? who decides what is good?



maybe i can do an example about this last questions that won't offend anyone. you will excuse me if i use some italian names, but i have no clue of the english equivalent (i'm italian).

the dulcinians, a religious sect active between 1300 and 1307, believed that christians should refuse any gerarchical order, because all men are equal in front of god. they also believed that good christians should be poor, because rich men have a much more difficult time to attain eternal salvation, according to a very famous passage in the bible (the one about the eye of the needle and the camel... "è più difficile per un ricco arrivare in paradiso che per un cammello passare attraverso la cruna di un ago" in italian. you figure out the english equivalent. ). finally, they decided to put the preaching into practice by... ehm... challenging the social status quo and robbing the nobles of their riches.

notice that this was a good act.
the nobles did not deserve their riches. the nobles used their power to cause sufferings for the poor part of the population. most of the church, and certainly pretty much the whole clergy in rome (which ran the show) was corrupted. in the end, after a short period of adjustment, everyone would have been on a much better position to receive eternal life, AND the social organization of the world would have been much fairer.

pope clemente V (clemens?), called a *crusade* against the duclinians.
they were killed by the hundreds, tortured, burned alive, and so on. they went properly "medieval" on borther Dolcino and the other heretics, if you wish.

now, that is also a good act.
the entire social structure was in dange of collapsing, leaving entire regions into chaos. the dulcinians might (or might not) have had good ideas, but they did rob and kill to enforce them. finally, one might argue that one that is forced into "salvation" has not really been rescued from evil at all. the whole deal was simply killing people, stealing their riches and get in their position of power, with Dolcino being the new pope and his trusted men running the show.

who was right and who was wrong? were they all wrong? and why can you tell with any certainty?

 

[Spell]

Alignment as it stands needs to die because it doesn't make any sense. This is apparent via the fact that people have probably been arguing about this stuff for 30yrs.

in fact, they've been arguing for much much more time than that. people have been arguing about morals for, what, 5 thousand years? or is it more?

 

[Orius]

Replying to the entire thread as a whole:

Personally, I like the alignment system. I suspect most of the people who hate it either are moral relativists to begin with who reject the idea of good and evil, or they're people who got rule-stomped by a DM over alignment issues. The second group I understand; back in the old days, the paladin was an overpowered class balanced only by the rarity of random dice rolls, and when one did appear it was still unbalanced. Bad DMs would rule-stomp the paladin often on alignment ground, because then the paladin would be nothing more than a fighter. There was other rule-stompings going on, but paladin seems to be the most common anecdote in alignment rule-stomping. Unless someone is playing a paladin or cleric, the DM doesn't need to rule-stomp on alignment anyway.

As for seeing it as a matter of morality; I'm not a moral relativist, I view things as good and evil, but I'm also mature enough to understand all the shades of gray in between. I can accept law and chaos in D&D, because I also view things in terms of order or chaos. Law and chaos isn't just funny names Moorcock used for good and evil; it's part of human culture as well, even if we don't recognize it. Ancient myths are much more about order vs. chaos than good and evil, the world is created from the nothingness of chaos, the gods defeat ancient being that represent the chaos, bring order to the universe, and impose their laws upon it. I see it as a reflection of the rise of civilization; humans becoming less at the mercy of natural forces and being able to shape the world around them. I also see it as part of human nature, as we're tempted by our instincts while being aware of the consequences of our actions, basically Freud's idea of the id vs. the superego.

But like Dausuul said, law vs. chaos is more complex and abstract than good vs. evil, and I think it makes them harder to understand. Even when people do understand them, there's conflicting ideas on how to interpret them. And even though I don't really agree with Wyrmshadows, he's right that balancing law and chaos is more sensible that balancing good and evil. It's kind of hard for me to put it into words exactly. Maybe because I think humans do have an innate tendancy towards good, since it benefits us more as social animals, but law and chaos can be equally beneficial in their own ways, and so we're always choosing between the two.

Another problem is viewing them as absolutes WRT mortal humanoid races in the game. A race that tends towards chaotic won't necessarily have no laws at all, they'll just have the fewest the need to function as a society and they'll resist more. OTOH, a lawful race won't be totally conformist, there'll still be individuals, even if they're not as free-spirited or spontaneous as a chaotic society. It's the races that embod the alignments themselves, like modrons or slaadi that are going to be the extreme cases.

The biggest problem goes back to conflicting views of alignment between players and DMs. Most of the time, it's really a matter of a bad DM using alignment against the player. Some old-school players might not like it, but WotC looks like they're trying to make the rules as concise as possible to prevent DMs from using the rules against the players, since that harms the hobby over the long run. Subjective rules like alignment have to be reined in to do this properly.

So while law and chaos or alignment as a whole doesn't bother me in the game, I can understand de-empasizing the rules, since they have always been rather subjective and a source of conflict for too many players. I would probably keep it in my campaign; I like having it, and I've never used it to rule-stomp.

 

[Orius]

i wish i could state my view on the subject, but doing so would break *several* rules on conduct of the board about religion and politics

I know what you mean. My views on this matter tend to reflect my presonal moral views which are all very closely intertwined with religious AND political matters. Trying to circumlocute around the ban against such topics isn't always easy (well, I like a challenge. ), especially since I prefer things that are plain and to the point.

I don't mind the ban, because I can still enjoy discussing things with people who I'd probably otherwise consider utter idiots because I disagree with them on issues of morality and ethics.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

i wish i could state my view on the subject, but doing so would break *several* rules on conduct of the board about religion and politics... and i am not prepared to do this.

i will, then ask you a couple of questions.

do you think that people truly, honestly believing that they are doing something good should get away with any damage they caused, because their intentions are or were good?

do you think that it's impossible that a objectively good action can cause a lot of bad consequences, in the long, or even the short run?

do you think that something is good when it responds to the letter of some philosophical or religious convention, or when it has good effects on the society at large? or do you think that both these conditions have to be fulfilled for an action, or a man, or whatever, to be dimmed "good"?

what happens when there is more than a philosophical/ religious set of conventions active at the same time in the same society? what if the idea of what is "good" for one conflicts with the other? who decides what is good?



maybe i can do an example about this last questions that won't offend anyone. you will excuse me if i use some italian names, but i have no clue of the english equivalent (i'm italian).

the dulcinians, a religious sect active between 1300 and 1307, believed that christians should refuse any gerarchical order, because all men are equal in front of god. they also believed that good christians should be poor, because rich men have a much more difficult time to attain eternal salvation, according to a very famous passage in the bible (the one about the eye of the needle and the camel... "è più difficile per un ricco arrivare in paradiso che per un cammello passare attraverso la cruna di un ago" in italian. you figure out the english equivalent. ). finally, they decided to put the preaching into practice by... ehm... challenging the social status quo and robbing the nobles of their riches.

notice that this was a good act.
the nobles did not deserve their riches. the nobles used their power to cause sufferings for the poor part of the population. most of the church, and certainly pretty much the whole clergy in rome (which ran the show) was corrupted. in the end, after a short period of adjustment, everyone would have been on a much better position to receive eternal life, AND the social organization of the world would have been much fairer.

pope clemente V (clemens?), called a *crusade* against the duclinians.
they were killed by the hundreds, tortured, burned alive, and so on. they went properly "medieval" on borther Dolcino and the other heretics, if you wish.

now, that is also a good act.
the entire social structure was in dange of collapsing, leaving entire regions into chaos. the dulcinians might (or might not) have had good ideas, but they did rob and kill to enforce them. finally, one might argue that one that is forced into "salvation" has not really been rescued from evil at all. the whole deal was simply killing people, stealing their riches and get in their position of power, with Dolcino being the new pope and his trusted men running the show.

who was right and who was wrong? were they all wrong? and why can you tell with any certainty?

I think it is important to differ between goals and actions.
If your goals are good (freedom, food for everyone and so on), but your actions are evil (hurting or even killing people), this means you're not good - at least not purely so.
Your example might be a good example where someone neutral could intervene to stop clemente from slaughtering everyone and stopping the dulnicians from provoking others - and attempting to achieve a fair compromise. Which might mean giving up the "order" of things, in place of a new one. Neither group's action were good (because robbing someone puts at minimum great emotional strain on a person, and we don't even have to discuss "going medieval" on someone).

But the example of the Neutral Wizard whathisname (Mordekainen?) was very different from your example. It assumed that good was "winning" and everybody would turn out happy and joyful - leading Mordekainen to intervene to ensure that the evil empire would gain some ground again. That's not a sensible and - in my 21th century concepts of moral - not even good.

There is also a different view on good and evil, which can also be found in Christian history (and apparently also in Starwars ), and being inspired from the Greek concept of "ideals".
Good and evil are not opposites. God equals good, and the farther away from god you are, the more evil you'll see (or be). There is no "balance" between good and evil. The only healthy state is pure good.

---
On a related note: I've heard that discussions concentrating on politics/religions should go to the Circus Maximus. I haven't tried it yet, but maybe we should...

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Evil doesn't exist


;p

Ah but in D&D, it DOES!
Folk need to remember, it's fantasy.

Having the Multiverse driven by vast unknowable forces of Good and Evil, Chaos and Law (and unspeakable madness and Evil: the Far Realm), is actually, a good thing for the game.

Once you start *by default* assuming it's all moral grey, ugh, it goes bad, because that, folks is playing "Papers & Paychecks", which is what I play D&D to get the hell away from!

I'm quite happy playing games where it's not morally clear, be it D&D settings like Dark Sun, or various CRPGs etc. But I seriously like playing "good guys" or rooting for them as the DM, in D&D, 'cause it's what I love about fantasy: no damned, lying, two-faced gits getting away with heinous crimes by shyster laywers, cover ups etc.
Nah, heroes go in and chop 'em to bits or the Forces of Good roast 'em and send their stinky souls ot Hell! Boo yah!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

There is also a different view on good and evil, which can also be found in Christian history (and apparently also in Starwars ), and being inspired from the Greek concept of "ideals".
Good and evil are not opposites. God equals good, and the farther away from god you are, the more evil you'll see (or be). There is no "balance" between good and evil. The only healthy state is pure good.

This is indeed a different view - and trying to use it in dealing with D&D cosmology/alignment is, imo, where the problem comes from. Saying "this D&D iconic character's philosophy makes no sense based on what I perceive as correct cosmology" doesn't make any more sense to me than saying "this spell makes no sense based on my perception of correct physics." Even less, perhaps, because the underlying cosmology that explains the philosophy is spelled out in a way that the magical exceptions to physics are not.

I am not tied to a particular cosmology or alignment mechanic, but I enjoy looking at them and how they (must) interact. D&D alignment, including the existence of "Radical Balance" as a valid philosophy, works fairly well within it's cosmology, imo. If you want a different view of good and evil to be the more consistent one, homebrew the cosmology more to your liking. I do it all the time to change assumptions of personal vs cosmological alignment, divine magic mechanics, etc. But then, I have a certain philosophical advantage in dealing with invented cosmologies.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I would prefer alignment be exactly what it says: a declaration of what side you're aligned with. Having "Alignment: Good" would mean you were literally on the side of the angels; it would not mean that you were necessarily a very good person. You might be too judgmental, prone to being doctrinaire, and/or overzealous; hell, you might be a right bastard. Alignment would just be a cosmic badge attached to your soul, effectively; it doesn't necessarily say anything about who you really are.

To some extent this is part of the current rules - the whole "neutral clerics of evil gods detect as strongly evil" bit - but it would be interesting to make it the default mechanic. In my mind, I tend to distinguish between "cosmological alignment" and "personal alignment" and enjoy exploring scenarios where they differ in one way or another, and how they might influence each other. Under your suggestion, official alignment would be what I think of as the cosmological, and what I would describe as personal alignment would be part of your character description. One wacky side effect of such a system to me is that I would be willing to allow Evil characters - but all characters would need to have cooperative and empathetic personality traits.

 

[Dragonblade]

who was right and who was wrong? were they all wrong? and why can you tell with any certainty?

Nothing in your post really disputes what wyrmshadows (or myself) have said. The dulcinians, or the nobles claiming to be good, does not in fact make either of them good.

I would further argue that both sides were also wrong in a biblical sense and the dulcinians believing that stealing from the rich was excusable was pure sophistry. However, that gets too close to the religious ban here.

In D&D, good can be objectively determined and something can be good or bad regardless of perspective. I believe this is somewhat true in the real world as well, but that again gets us into religious territory.

I believe your position is that good should be balanced because the definition of good changes based on perception. Therefore you believe that this concept of "balance" or "neutrality" is important to keep the current prevailing version of "good" in check.

However, my position is that when something is good, it is good objectively, regardless of prevailing opinion. Just because a church hierarchy deems something as good, does not necessarily make it so. My approach is that good is not in fact relative and thus no balancing mechanism is necessary. When viewed objectively, neither the dulcinians nor the corrupt nobles were good. Their claims to the contrary are irrelevant in reaching this objective determination.

Now, the process of objectively determining what is "good" is an interesting discussion all on its own. A complex philosophical topic that has been ongoing for thousands of years.