Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6619775" data-attributes="member: 42582">For my purposes - that is, outlining a feasible scheme for narrativist play based on 9-point alignment - I think it is more helpful to look at all the definitions, and from those to construct a general notion of good. I think the focus on rights in the abstract account of good is therefore only one part of the overall picture that is painted: I think the general notion in play is wellbeing, with Benthamite/hedonistic, rights-based, dignity-based, autonomy-based ("self-realisation", DMG p 22) ideas of wellbeing all falling under the broad umbrella of good.The PHB, p 33, says that the LG aim "to improve the common weal." To me that sounds less like rights-maximisation and more like increasing aggregate welfare, just as the Benthamite formula suggests.I think your approach instrumentalises truth and beauty; whereas Gygax says that, for the LG, "truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance" (PHB p 33; the same page tells us that "life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless" by the LE, "or at least scorned").There are certainly strong meritocratic views out there which would reject the idea that goodness consists in universal wellbeing, or that everyone is entitled to rights and the prospects of happiness. Historically, those sorts of views were associated with the justifications of slavery and of aristocracy. Today they have different connotations, which in light of board rules I will leave as an exercise for the reader!But I think once you set up a framework that defines good and evil, you've settled the question as to what the proper end of human striving is. If we want the sort of radically anti-egalitarian meritocracy that NE advocates to be on the table as a candidate for moral truth in our game, then we shouldn't start by labelling it evil. Whereas what I'm trying to do is outline an approach to alignment that accepts 9-point alignment as a starting point, including the fact that NE has been labelled as evil and hence already has its moral character settled.I'm not 100% sure how to take this - I can see two slightly different readings, and so will respond to each.If the point is that some people might think that the aspirations of LE are in fact desirable (maybe the classical Spartans, or at least a certain stereotyped conception, would be an instance?), and hence will disagree that goodness as defined above (by me, drawing on Gygax) exhausts the permissible ends of human striving, then I agree. But for the reasons I just stated to Hriston, I don't think that you can raise this question within a framework that has already defined those ends as evil. A campaign that explores whether or not "rights" are mere sentimentality that get in the way of effective government could be fun, but you wouldn't use the 9-point alignment system to tackle it, given that it already tells you that respecting rights is not only non-sentimental but is in fact a mark of being a good person.If the point is that some behaviour is challenging to identify as good or evil because these notions are vague, and the characterisations are relatively simplistic relative to the complexities of real-world situations and motivations, that's true too. But I don't think the question "Should we label this as good or evil?" makes for very productive play. It's sounds rather taxonomic, and if (some of) the players disagree with the GM, it can be a recipe for game-ending arguments. In the campaign framework I am suggesting in my OP, I am assuming that the sorts of consequences that are the focus of play will be fairly readily identifiable as instances of, or failures of, wellbeing. And hence that the question about the efficacy of means will be thrown into sharp relief.</blockquote>

Verification