Philisophical alignment question

[hong]

I would disagree. Considering that dispel evil cast by both good and evil clerics affects the same creatures, it's difficult to believe that they could make do with lexical differences. An evil cleric casting detect evil knows that a demon, a devil and himself all detect as the same. I doubt he could/would argue that a demon is "good". Maybe it's powerful, intelligent, and a much better ally than those stupid, stuck-up, do-gooder celestials, but good? I don't think so.

Why not?


Hong "you think I'm joking, don't you?" Ooi

 

[shilsen]

Why not?


Hong "you think I'm joking, don't you?" Ooi

Because until language in D&D comes up with a different lexicon, good still means the same things as it does in English. Think of it applying to an evil cleric like with the vampires in Buffy. The latter know they are evil, and revel in it.

After all, good in English has a moral meaning, and an evaluative angle. Or, to put it another way, an evil cleric may think that it is good (evaluative) to be evil, but he won't think that he is being good (morally). If you know what I mean, and I think you do

 

[hong]

Because until language in D&D comes up with a different lexicon, good still means the same things as it does in English.

Pshaw. If multiplication can mean a different thing in D&D to what it does in English, the same can hold for words like "good" and "evil".

In terms of the D&D rules, "good" and "evil" are descriptors. They serve as labels for opposing sides in a cosmology, like "law" and "chaos", or "fire" and "water", or whatever. It just so happens that the words "good" and "evil" also happen to have English meanings, and these meanings are used to describe, in very broad terms, what the respective descriptors stand for. Life gets complicated when you start delving into the complex philosophical issues surrounding real-life good and evil, and then attempting to apply the results of this inquiry to D&D good and evil.

The problem essentially is that good and evil are highly emotive terms, whence have come uncounted alignment wars. Life would be a lot simpler if we replaced "good" and "evil" with "light" and "dark", or any other pair of opposing terms that weren't as emotive. Even "rare" and "well-done" could do.

After all, good in English has a moral meaning, and an evaluative angle. Or, to put it another way, an evil cleric may think that it is good (evaluative) to be evil, but he won't think that he is being good (morally).

It's quite possible to have someone in D&D who has an evil alignment (has the "evil" descriptor), and yet firmly believes he's good. As far as he's concerned, the fact that he detects as "evil" (due to his alignment) is neither here nor there, because it's just a descriptor -- an empty word, without any moral connotations. From his point of view, the only difference between his side and the "good" side is that he spells "evil" as "good", and vice-versa.


Hong "very close to mentioning Hitler" Ooi

 

[shilsen]

It's quite possible to have someone in D&D who has an evil alignment (has the "evil" descriptor), and yet firmly believes he's good. As far as he's concerned, the fact that he detects as "evil" (due to his alignment) is neither here nor there, because it's just a descriptor -- an empty word, without any moral connotations. From his point of view, the only difference between his side and the "good" side is that he spells "evil" as "good", and vice-versa.

Hong "very close to mentioning Hitler" Ooi

I'd agree with you completely except for one thing. The point about sides becomes important in this case because the character knows that his side (creatures that detect as he does) includes creatures like ghouls, demons, devils, red dragons, mindflayers, etc. The grounds of our disagreement (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to be that I think this character would himself regard the above creatures as morally evil, even if he was more comfortable working with them than with good characters/creatures. And it seems you think that to him, a ghoul or a demon is a good creature, because evil and good mean different things to him. If I'm right, there's not much likelihood of us agreeing, so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

 

[hong]

I'd agree with you completely except for one thing. The point about sides becomes important in this case because the character knows that his side (creatures that detect as he does) includes creatures like ghouls, demons, devils, red dragons, mindflayers, etc. The grounds of our disagreement (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to be that I think this character would himself regard the above creatures as morally evil, even if he was more comfortable working with them than with good characters/creatures. And it seems you think that to him, a ghoul or a demon is a good creature, because evil and good mean different things to him. If I'm right, there's not much likelihood of us agreeing, so maybe we can just agree to disagree.

I'm not so much holding one position, as pointing out that both could be consistent with D&D. D&D doesn't mandate what position characters in-game have to take vis-a-vis what's morally good or evil, only that they behave in a consistent manner with some pretty broad guidelines. This allows a whole range of possibilities.

You could have a game where Evil people (those who have the Evil descriptor) consider ghouls and demons to be allies like any other. They may be distasteful to some, but you could say the same of any creature. In such a game, the "Evil" descriptor has no place in-game (although it would still exist as part of the rules) -- such characters might consider themselves to serve "Darkness", or some other more morally neutral word. Examples of such people can easily be found in high fantasy, such as the Southrons or Black Numenoreans in Tolkien. They were clearly serving the Evil cause, but probably believed that what they were doing was right (ie, they did not consider themselves as "evil").

You could also have a game where Evil people consider such creatures to be morally dubious, but still useful servants nonetheless. They believe that they're doing the right thing, although their actions may be unacceptable to many. No doubt they would use reasoning along the lines of "the end justifies the means" to excuse their dealing with demons and etc. Such a game would be a bit darker and more morally ambiguous than the black-and-white situation in Tolkien, but it's still possible with D&D. It's the default setup in Rokugan, for instance -- you have Evil clans like the Scorpion who are ultimately on the same side as the Good clans, because they're all part of the same empire and fighting the Shadowlands.

Finally, you could have a game where Evil characters know that they're doing things that are morally wrong, but revel in it nonetheless. Here, it's possible for the Evil descriptor to exist in-game -- these characters would know they're "evil", and are proud of it. I'm not sure what precedent this has in history, legend or fantasy, though, unless you're talking about psychotic killers and madmen.

Not that there's anything wrong with having madmen as villains, of course.


Hong "just mentioned Hitler" Ooi

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"It's the default setup in Rokugan, for instance -- you have Evil clans like the Scorpion who are ultimately on the same side as the Good clans, because they're all part of the same empire and fighting the Shadowlands." -Hong

And in Rokugan, they mention getting rid of alignment altogether, which is a neat thing.

Although, in Rokugan, I would argue that Honor/Dishonor is an absolute. It is dictated by the Celestial Order.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess it all depends on how you see the "DnD reality" for your campaign.

I think the reason why there is a tendency to have Good/Evil be absolute is because that makes for an efficient game where everyone knows where they stand.

The problem with the relativistic morality can be summed up by this example:

An Evil Demon casts Detect Good on another Demon. What happens?

Does the Demon register Good or Evil?

If it registers Good, then the "Good" Demon has traits in common with the other "Good" Demon and they have certain traits with everyone else in the Lower Planes.

To that Demon, everything else is "Evil".

And if you want, it doesn't even have to be two sides. It could be an infinite number of groups of people who all think they are "Good" and everyone else is "Evil".

Which is where I think hong was heading. Correct me if I'm wrong hong.

The Detect spells turn into "Detect My Morals" and "Detect Everyone Else's Morals"

Two ways of looking at it:

1) Two opposing sides. (Absolute Good and Evil, Law and Chaos)

2) Infinite number of conflicting, not necessarily opposing sides. (Moral Relativism)

Both make for interesting gameplay. The only reason why I believe #1 is the default for DnD is because of classes like the Paladin and Monk, the entire alignment system and the way they have the Planes set up.

But if you like #2, go nuts, just make some spells have the "us" descriptor and make the rest of the spells have the "them" descriptor.