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: 5919166" data-attributes="member: 42582">Gygax is unequivocal about this in the AD&D books.From the 3E SRD:"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.</blockquote> The definition of "good" suggests to me the basic outlook of contemporary liberal, egalitarian, human rights morality. By that definition, Lancelot is not good - he casually takes the lives of his friends - and nor are many D&D PCs - they casually take the lives of their enemies, without any concern for the dignity of those enemies. I think there is a basic incoherence in trying to apply this contemporary moral outlook to a game that presupposes tropes - like knights, castles, more-or-less absolute monarchies, the divine right of rulership etc - which it was the whole point of the enlightenment outlook to overthrow! Again from the SRD: "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. So are Hayek and Nozick Lawful Good? What is the relationship, for a Lawful Good person, between need, charity and justice? In his famous paper on "Famine, Affluence and Morality" Peter Singer invokes Aquinas, but in his citation of Aquinas leaves out what I think is the most important bit (from Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 66, Article 7): But because there are many in necessity, and they cannot all be helped from the same source, it is left to the initiative of individuals to make provision from their own wealth, for the assistance of those in need. If, however, there is such urgent and evident necessity that there is clearly an immediate need of necessary sustenance – if, for example, a person is in immediate danger of physical privation, and there is no other way of satisfying his need – then he may take what is necessary from another person’s goods, either openly or by stealth. Nor is this, strictly speaking, fraud or robbery. So does a Lawful Good PC condone robbery and self help? Normally I would have though that's the domain of Chaotic Good. Which is to say, in my view, alignment is hopeless! The only use I can see for alignment is to contribute to colour and setting. Which means that B/X and 4e alignment, which do just this, are tolerable at least. Whereas AD&D/3E alignment, which purports to be a comprehensive scheme of moral classification, is useless.[/QUOTE]

Verification