Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5918377" data-attributes="member: 42582">A couple of comments.First, in my view Wittgenstein and Putnam have fairly convincingly shown that common usage doesn't depend on shared definitions. In the case of "chivalry", I think we rely heavily on shared paradigms. For posters on this board, I would think that Aragorn from the LotR would be one of those paradigms. Perhaps also Arthruian romances, but different people have come to those through many differing paths.Second, that anthropology and history are possible shows that modern people can grasp, to some extent at least, values they don't share. And I also think that some values can change register - I don't think chivalry is an ethical value for many modern people, but the current fondness for fantasy and mediaeval romance suggests that it has some role as a type of aesthetic value. This may be related to nostalgia and anti-modern reaction, but I'm not sure that's all that it is.I don't think it's seen as especially ugly by its proponents. Aristotle happily argued that many people - including but not limited to women and non-Greeks - are slaves by nature. Roman law takes for granted that justice is each getting his/her due, and that what is due to one of the worthy is quite different from what is due to a slave.One characteristic of the meek is that they lack honour. Although they may exhibit a certain dignity fitting their station. (In AD&D's UA, this is displayed by the prohibition on leather armour, polearms etc that cavaliers are subject to. Most samurai gaming systems with some sort of honour mechanic will likewise reflect this eg your samurai will lose honour if s/he ends up doing manual labour.)But this already reframes the issue. The chivalrous person is not disdainful of the weak. S/he gives them their due. It's just that what they're due is different from what an honourable person is due.The basic issue, as I see it, is this. Chivalry is not an egalitarian code. And Lawful Good, in D&D, is defined in egalitarian terms. (Although exactly what is to be equal is obscure - sometimes welfare, sometimes rights, sometimes regard, sometimes more than one of these at the same time.)Again, part of the issue here is that part of being a chivalrous person is honouring one's duty to oneself, and that includes a certain sort of duty of glory. It is not befitting an honourble, chivalrous person to hang back and live in the shadow.A character like Galahad might perhaps be seen as a limit on this - but even Galahad is in fact glorious in what he does.Anyway, I still don't see what the alignment classification is adding to our characterisation of the chivalrous knight. All we get is the risk of the chivalrous Lancelot being deemed evil and chaotic because he killed 10 knights, including friedns, without good reason, on something of a sudden whim. Either we gerrymander LG to include this - which is silly - or we let chivalry be our ideal and drop the alignment nonsense.Also - a monk is necessarily Lawful in D&D, and yet pursues a type of personal glory/self-realisation. So your contrast of duty vs self is already under pressure within the game system itself. As it happens, he question of individual vs society, and the proper role of the monastic pursuit of enlightenment (is it selfish?), is a real issue in Buddhist philosophy - it underlies, in part, the notion of the Bodhisattva, and a good discussion of it can be found in Ken Jones, "The Social Fact of Buddhism". You can't make what is a live question for serious practitioners of and thinkers about the doctrine go away just by slapping the "lawful" label on the monk. Either you just ignore it (as in a light superhero game), or you make it a serious focs of play, in which case the alignment labels add nothing.Alignment in that sense is harmless enough, although you'll get the odd weird thing like an angel and a PC sharing some common vulnerability to a demon's attack, despite seeming pretty different in the way their moral life plays out.But that is not how the game presents alignment - especially not classic D&D, where alignment is part of the constraints on good RPGing of one's PC, and even in contemporary D&D, which tends to assume that the PCs are all of good alignment or good-inclined (but also ready to kill at the slightest provocation!), as if that actually meant something.</blockquote>

Verification