New Rant Posted

[Wayside]

Wayside:


Evil, perhaps? Why, what say you? And you don't have to tiptoe around it. I posted it.

And I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not in your last sentence. Was it?

Not at all! I mean this in a very serious way. In the little world that is ENWorld, right and wrong are facts. Several posters, in decrying what they perceived as moral relativism in Drawmack's original rant, factually did wrong in this little ENWorld. So, I don't think they're evil, I think any kind of labeling in this context is going to be far more complex process than that.

The conflicting agendas of different groups that all hold themselves to be in the right is very much of interest to me in my game; as I said, the use of the alignment mechanic does not preclude this, but building in a spectrum where right and wrong are absolute does.

In D&D good is a principle that can be discovered and pursued, but evil is not. Hence, I prefer to have many competing goods, because this makes the game more dynamic as far as that aspect of the game is concerned (there are already many competing evils because, well, that's the nature of evil).

Also I just found it funny that the absolutists kicked themselves in their own buttocks by making those comments in a forum where it was factually wrong to do so .

 

[Felix]

Wayside:

The conflicting agendas of different groups that all hold themselves to be in the right is very much of interest to me in my game; as I said, the use of the alignment mechanic does not preclude this, but building in a spectrum where right and wrong are absolute does.

Right and wrong are not necessarily synonomous with Good and Evil. For example, a LG grocer might prosecute a street urchin for shoplifing, when actually the urchin's buddy did it. The grocer is pursuing legal action to uphold the Law, and to rid the streets of another young criminal: something Good for society. But he's still wrong.

LE folks are notorious for sounding so darned right all the time. Things they say sound very reasonable, and quite often can be right. This makes them no less Evil if they plan on using their reasonableness to create power for themselves to use as they wish.

In D&D good is a principle that can be discovered and pursued, but evil is not.

Why can't you define Evil if you can define Good?

You say there are may competing evils... I'd say that's true; evil people do fight amongst themselves [ie, blood war]. But even if they don't fight amongst themselves (although sometimes they might) Kord's free spirit would chafe if he had to abide by the strictures of Heroneious' hierarchy(sp). While on possible good terms, these guys are not one unified Good. Yesno?

Also I just found it funny that the absolutists kicked themselves in their own buttocks by making those comments in a forum where it was factually wrong to do so.

Come on... be fair to the other absolutists. They said bubkis about it.

And if you ask my DM, he'll tell you that while I am in full support of an alignment system, and a Truth for the world, I do like to kick against the system from time to time.

 

[Wayside]

Wayside:

Right and wrong are not necessarily synonomous with Good and Evil. For example, a LG grocer might prosecute a street urchin for shoplifing, when actually the urchin's buddy did it. The grocer is pursuing legal action to uphold the Law, and to rid the streets of another young criminal: something Good for society. But he's still wrong.

But it's not good for society to prosecute innocent people. The grocer only thinks he's doing the right thing, the good thing. In reality he's wrong, and doing a bad thing. Some would say that the fact that the grocer is willing to prosecute someone he didn't actually see stealing makes his action evil in this case.

Also, I think the fact that there are types of goods tempered by their proximity to law/chaos is just hillarious. The good is not just an end or a means, it is an entire system. Law, neutrality and chaos are ALL going to conflict with the good quite often.

LE folks are notorious for sounding so darned right all the time. Things they say sound very reasonable, and quite often can be right. This makes them no less Evil if they plan on using their reasonableness to create power for themselves to use as they wish.

This makes no sense to me though. They use the law, they aren't actually lawful. In the event of an apocalypse evil people aren't going to be running around trying to reestablish law and order.

Why can't you define Evil if you can define Good?

Because the good is an entire system of values. Evil is simply the absence of any value other than selfishness (I'm taking Elder-Basilisk's word for it, I haven't read the PHB since the day it came out). So evil can lead one to do much good. How much evil can good lead one to? You can define evil, you just can't pursue it as an abstract principle, in default D&D. You don't pursue selfishness, you are selfish.

You say there are may competing evils... I'd say that's true; evil people do fight amongst themselves [ie, blood war]. But even if they don't fight amongst themselves (although sometimes they might) Kord's free spirit would chafe if he had to abide by the strictures of Heroneious' hierarchy(sp). While on possible good terms, these guys are not one unified Good. Yesno?

I assume blood war is Planescape, the other gods you mention are probably the same then. If evil doesn't fight against itself it is only because it's in the potentially competing parties' best interests not to do so (i.e. it probably isn't a zero-sum competition; there are other factors). If two good nations aren't at war, it's because, well, they're good nations.

I'm not sure what your example of Kord and Heroneious is supposed to illustrate. Gods in D&D are no more than uber-men. Their relation to the good is the same as any mortal's. There is an absolute good beyond them, and the extent to which they deviate from it is the extent to which they aren't good. This is part of the inconsistency of the default D&D world.

Come on... be fair to the other absolutists. They said bubkis about it.

oh I am. I'm not criticizing anyone just for being an absolutist. That's a personal thing. And I'm not even criticizing the absolutists who commented in a manner that contradicts their own belief (though I found it funny). In fact, the complexity of the issue grabs my attention, and I want that in my game. That's all I'm saying. All those people believe that there is an absolute good, but if we sat down and hashed it out I promise you NONE of them would be able to agree on what that good was. There are countless moral dilemmas that these people would disagree on. I like that.

 

[Felix]

Wayside:

But it's not good for society to prosecute innocent people...

In which case all criminals who protest their innocence should be released because prosecuting innocents is Evil? I understand that the urchin is, in fact innocent, but the grocer thinks he's guilty. The urchin was there when it was stolen, with his friend. His friend slipped an apple into the urchin's pocket without his knowledge. The urchin had the evidence on him. What the grocer is doing isn't Evil! It's Lawful. He found evidence of a theft, and proceeded to use the Law.

Law, neutrality and chaos are ALL going to conflict with the good quite often.

No doubt. Exhibited quite well (I thought) in Sepulchrave's SH when the Lawful clerics butted heads with the Goodly Paladin. Good and Law (ie, Forgiveness and Damnnation) arn't always going to agree. [more on this later...]

In the event of an apocalypse evil people aren't going to be running around trying to reestablish law and order.

That is exactly what they are going to do. Chaotic times produce a power vaccum. They use the law to gain power... in a chaotic time they will set up laws that a) empower themselves, and b) set up order so that more power can be gotten later. Look at Devils: very Evil and very Lawful. Strict law and order in the hells. So what doesn't make sense?

[FYI, the Chinese character for "Chaos" combines the characters of "Danger" and "Opportunity". Cool, eh?]

Because the good is an entire system of values.

Good, Evil, Law, Chaos in the alignment system are what they are defined to be. That is the Truth I was talking about. You run into a problem when you define one word with a system of values. For example: in my campaign, I define Evil to be selfishness (like you said) and Good to be selflessness. There. Problem solved. This is what every DM can do with the system DnD has provided. Every DM can define their own Truth. WOTC left if vague so DM's could shift the definition of Truth as they liked. They merely provided guidelines for the Truth.

Whatever you define these things as, it's the Truth, it's absolute, and it's consistent. The code of morality in a world without a Truth might as well be writ in water.

I'm not sure what your example of Kord and Heroneious is supposed to illustrate.

You had said that, "In DnD good is a principle that can be discovered and pursued, but evil is not." The example was to show that while these two gods were both Good, they would not go about doing things the same way. Ie, their linesof pursuing Good are different.

[Consequently, you have said that Good can be discovered, then you said it's a broad value system... If by discover you mean "identify the meaning of Good" how do these jive?]

I mentioned the blood war to agree with you that evils fight against each other. Don't know if it's PS though. And Kord and Hieronious are standard Greyhawk deities. In the PHB.

This is part of the inconsistency of the default D&D world.

Law doesn't replace Good. Nor Evil replace Chaos. Someone who is LG is more likely to do a Good act than an Evil one. And more likely to do ao Lawful act than a Chaotic one. And if he's faced between a choice twixt Law and Good? If he chooses Law, it makes him no less Good. It might make him more Lawful...

So can a god be absolute Law and absolute Good at the same time? Yep. Possibly because they're gods? Not just uber-men. They become Goodness and Lawfulness. What is beyond them? Those are the kinds of gods I'm thinking of.

All those people believe that there is an absolute good, but if we sat down and hashed it out I promise you NONE of them would be able to agree on what that good was.

I have no doubt that you are totally correct that we would disagree all day. (God forbid you allow a Texan to enter a morality conversation. )

Does pi have an absolute value? Mathmaticians have been disagreeing over it for ages. I think it does have a True value.

Sages used to argue over whether the world was carried on the back of a giant turtle, or on the backs of 4 elephants. They never did come to a conclusion in their discussions. Until we found that the Truth is that the world is round!

That being said, the absence of consensus over what the Truth is in a conversation held by us benighted mortals does not preclude the existance of Truth. Yesno?

 

[Wayside]

In which case all criminals who protest their innocence should be released because prosecuting innocents is Evil? I understand that the urchin is, in fact innocent, but the grocer thinks he's guilty. The urchin was there when it was stolen, with his friend. His friend slipped an apple into the urchin's pocket without his knowledge. The urchin had the evidence on him. What the grocer is doing isn't Evil! It's Lawful. He found evidence of a theft, and proceeded to use the Law.
[/B]

In a perfect system of law (consistent with the good) it would be fine. The system would be sufficient to prove guilt or exonerate of it. Look at our own system: how many alleged criminals are found not guilty, but still have their lives ruined by the fact of having been tried? How many people have been imprisoned and even executed for crimes they didn't commit?

If you want to say acts are only evil if governed by evil intents then you can. That's an opinion. I don't share it. I take the fact that a supposedly good intent can lead to an evil act as evidence for that intent's being ill-conceived.

If I lived in a world I believed to be morally absolute, my attempt to discover that absolute would be predicated on a belief that good intents cannot lead to evil acts; hence I would find prosecution to be wrong.

In real life, of course, I'm far too vindictive a person to succeed in this endeavor .

But that's a central question to absolutists isn't it... is it good to punish evil? Of course there's no clear answer to this question.

That is exactly what they are going to do. Chaotic times produce a power vaccum. They use the law to gain power... in a chaotic time they will set up laws that a) empower themselves, and b) set up order so that more power can be gotten later. Look at Devils: very Evil and very Lawful. Strict law and order in the hells. So what doesn't make sense?

[FYI, the Chinese character for "Chaos" combines the characters of "Danger" and "Opportunity". Cool, eh?]
[/B]

Etymological fallacy

I make a distinction between establishing a law and establishing law, establishing an order and establishing order. The proper law, the proper order, ought to be discoverable according to good, neutral, or evil (in an absolute world); the law according to good, well, nobody agrees on. The law according to neutrality, surprisingly similar. The law according to evil, might makes right, or something to that effect.

The physically weak will of course exersize intellectual, manipulative, political might by trying to build power structures to support them. They are not trying to establish order though.

Good, Evil, Law, Chaos in the alignment system are what they are defined to be. That is the Truth I was talking about. You run into a problem when you define one word with a system of values. For example: in my campaign, I define Evil to be selfishness (like you said) and Good to be selflessness. There. Problem solved. This is what every DM can do with the system DnD has provided. Every DM can define their own Truth. WOTC left if vague so DM's could shift the definition of Truth as they liked. They merely provided guidelines for the Truth.
[/B]

Selflessness is an insufficient concept to attribute the good to. It certainly is held to be a virtue in most systems.

The system as it is defined is inconsistent. It isn't thought out well in the sense I would expect a book of Richard Wollheim's or Bernard Williams' to be, which is fine as this is D&D, not moral psychology.

Whatever you define these things as, it's the Truth, it's absolute, and it's consistent. The code of morality in a world without a Truth might as well be writ in water.
[/B]

There are a few things wrong with this view. Mostly, all moral codes are written in vento et rapida aqua anyway. As we've already said, nobody agrees on the right moral code, or on the good. Whether the DM invents some arbitrary absolute that he can know to be true in his world or leaves it blank, nothing changes for the PC's. They're still falling through the wind or swimming in the running water.

And chances are, the DM is not going to make his absolute absolutely consistent. If it were even possible, it would require more intense thought than anyone's going to invest. And after all that, it does nothing for the PC's, who do not need an absolute to justify their beliefs any more than the people who posted to this thread do. An absolute does not need to exist in order for it to be believed in any more than a god does.

You had said that, "In DnD good is a principle that can be discovered and pursued, but evil is not." The example was to show that while these two gods were both Good, they would not go about doing things the same way. Ie, their linesof pursuing Good are different.
[/B]

Then in an absolute system, one or both of them is/are wrong. Not very godly.

[Consequently, you have said that Good can be discovered, then you said it's a broad value system... If by discover you mean "identify the meaning of Good" how do these jive?]
[/B]

It is a system, it does not have meaning. What you discover is the system itself, not any indication drawn from it. It is not a broad value system, it is a system of values. Part of the problem of a moral absolute is that the good is defined in relation to iself. The good is good. Why is the good good? Because it is the good. Good luck getting anywhere with that.

I prefer not to look for meaning; rather appreciate the elegance of it. It's sort of like Grice's argument for speaker's meaning. Just elegant.

I mentioned the blood war to agree with you that evils fight against each other. Don't know if it's PS though. And Kord and Hieronious are standard Greyhawk deities. In the PHB.
[/B]

Yeah, I don't do the whole D&D god thing. God in my campaign is more like something out of the Upanishads: The sum of everything that is connected, not something separate. The system is no longer recognizably d20 either.

Law doesn't replace Good. Nor Evil replace Chaos. Someone who is LG is more likely to do a Good act than an Evil one. And more likely to do ao Lawful act than a Chaotic one. And if he's faced between a choice twixt Law and Good? If he chooses Law, it makes him no less Good. It might make him more Lawful...
[/B]

This looks very absurd to me. Law is defined in relation good. If you follow a law and you are good, you do so because you believe the law to be good. For a lawful good character to choose law over good is hillarious, which is part of what makes these designations inconsistent.

Sure, it makes sense on a superficial level, and I'm aware that in the real world someone can choose order over the good because they believe in the long run that the consistency of order benefits the good, but a). if the good is absolute then it has something to say factually about the order, meaning for a law to be chosen over the good makes the person not good (otherwise the law would have been chosen according to the good); and b). show me the absolute in the real world. Can't? Then why do we need it in D&D?

So can a god be absolute Law and absolute Good at the same time? Yep. Possibly because they're gods? Not just uber-men. They become Goodness and Lawfulness. What is beyond them? Those are the kinds of gods I'm thinking of.
[/B]

The 'because they're gods' line has no effect on me. The standard D&D gods are just uber-men. They aren't all-knowing or all-powerful or breathing extensions of ideas like good; they cannot reconcile concepts beyond them, like good and law when they conflict; if they were godly there would be no conflict to begin with.

Does pi have an absolute value?
[/B]

Yes.

Mathmaticians have been disagreeing over it for ages. I think it does have a True value.
[/B]

If you mean this to be pertinent somehow to your point, that's an equivocation fallacy.

That being said, the absence of consensus over what the Truth is in a conversation held by us benighted mortals does not preclude the existance of Truth. Yesno? [/B]

I never said that it did. In fact I'm trying hard to stay away from realworld arguments. Sadly, 'you have no proof that it doesn't exist' is not the proof you need to say it does. You don't hear the people from SETI saying 'the fact that we've never seen aliens isn't proof that they don't exist, so obviously they do,' and for good reason.

My point, however, was not that there is no absolute good in the real world. We're talking about D&D, hence my point was that we do not need an absolute good in D&D to be defined, just as it is not defined in the real world, where there are still all the kinds of beliefs and formulations as there are in D&D, minus the inconsistent (and inconsistantly conceived) labels that vanilla D&D uses.

 

[splitinfinitude]

Why can't you define Evil if you can define Good?

Sorry to butt in to your discussion, but this is the main problem I have w/ D&D alignment. Good is pretty well defined under the rules - you can pretty much follow the "do unto others" path and get an answer. Evil is this big morass. It includes insanity, selfishness, pathology, misguided actions, good intentions gone awry. "Selfishness" is a good try at evil(so to speak), but not very helpful in the long run. How do you even apply that to an actual person? Heck, most terrorists "selflessly" gave up jobs, money, family, everything to go blow up innocents. That was the ultimate act of selflessness - sacrificing yourself. "Selfishness" is worthless in defining evil IMO.

What I really hate about the D&D system is the concept of neutral for PC's. Lame. It's the big copout of alignments. I have yet to see a good definition of good and evil that allowed for "neutral." But that's a whole different rant.

 

[Wayside]

Sorry to butt in to your discussion, but this is the main problem I have w/ D&D alignment. Good is pretty well defined under the rules - you can pretty much follow the "do unto others" path and get an answer. Evil is this big morass. It includes insanity, selfishness, pathology, misguided actions, good intentions gone awry. "Selfishness" is a good try at evil(so to speak), but not very helpful in the long run. How do you even apply that to an actual person? Heck, most terrorists "selflessly" gave up jobs, money, family, everything to go blow up innocents. That was the ultimate act of selflessness - sacrificing yourself. "Selfishness" is worthless in defining evil IMO.

What I really hate about the D&D system is the concept of neutral for PC's. Lame. It's the big copout of alignments. I have yet to see a good definition of good and evil that allowed for "neutral." But that's a whole different rant.

Hey Split. You aren't butting in at all; that's why we have these conversations out in the open, so to speak, and not over email . Do keep in mind though, as I can see you are relatively new to the boards, that we try not bring up political/religious topics that are likely to result in flame wars and bad mannering in general.

I certainly understand the point of your example, and the difficulty this poses to absolutism, but that is probably not a good example to use here (i.e. find a real world example that is less proximate, if you need a real world example at all; Naziism or Stalinism or something, still probably a bad idea).

I realize this thread hasn't been ememplary in that regard, as several people acted out toward the beginning, so sorry for that.

 

[LostSoul]

So if you're a moral relativist, and don't like the idea of a Truth, then no wonder you won't like the alignment system.

You can be a moral relativist and believe in Truth.

 

[LostSoul]

Also, how do you prevent a PC from explaining the most depraved acts away by citing their righteous "goals and motivations"?

You don't. You don't really have to care what the PC thinks to enjoy the game. You can forget about alignment and focus on what happens, and let the PCs worry about their immortal souls.

Or you can keep alignment in the game and deal with it any way your group wishes. Maybe that means a checklist of naughty acts, or your best guess at the character's alignment.

It can be as complex or as simple as you want it to be.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I have never had any trouble with the alignment system. The system seems like a general way to determine the basic nature of your character and is not a straitjacket.

Right now, in my campaign there is a CG Ranger/Cleric of Shaundakul. She has an adventurous spirit and a strong sense of individual justice. Yet, she strongly believes in marriage, chastity until marriage, following the local laws though she doesn't like to stay confined in cities and towns, and being a good person. She follows alot of the teachings of Torm when it comes to loyalty, duty and friendship.

Why? She was raised in a family of Tormites and Tyrrans, which affected her personality, but not her general nature. She ran away from home and rebels against social convention and authority figures who try to force social convention upon her, but not necessarily laws and rightful, just authority figures.

I also have a Lawful Neutral drow Fighter/Monk in my campaign who follows a personal code strictly, yet he could care less about human laws or for the most part societies laws. He follows the laws of his own personal philosophy to the letter. He neither goes out of his way to break laws or follow them. If they get in the way, he breaks them, if they don't he follows them. You will not find him breaking his personal code which is rather rigid.

I fail to see how the alignments are anything other than the basic nature of an individual. Chaos and Law, Evil and Good are supposed to natural forces in the world of D&D, and your basic nature puts you in alignemnt with one or more of these forces which various deities and creatures embody in a purer form.

Too many folks are into moral relativism, thinking that moral absolutes do not exist. Personally, I think a great majority of people in most nations are basically good. They want to help their fellow man and want to see good done in the world.

Evil is evil because of intent, not because of action. That is where the moral relativists begin painting a false picture. They forget about intent and try to paint a simplistic picture based only on action lacking intent and motivation.

Personally, I can think of many folk who are absolutely good. They are not Paladins, but they are good people having never intentionally or willingly done harm to others and always doing their best to do what they can for the community. Most people if given the choice will do a good act over an evil one. It is the nature of man and the reason why we admire so many good people or try to paint folk in a good light. Humans prefer goodness over evil because they are good. Atrocities only happen because humans are also fearful and ignorant creatures often manipulated by the whims of madmen.