Portraying fantasy societies realistically instead of on the evil/good axis

[Meatboy]

[MENTION=3649]WayneLigon[/MENTION]

i'd say that taken to a logical end any society in dnd would quickly learn that given the amount of training needed to produce either a fighter or wizard is roughly equal yet what you get out that training is not. Would soon lead to races abandoning non casters in favour of casters.
You can see it in society today as we have lots of very learned scholars and scientist and very few warrior elite.

Dnd generally takes place in a transitional time of rising or falling empires where magic is usually lost or hoarded. Once the infrastructure is in place casters who can make golems would become much more common.

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D has hundreds of creatures, maybe thousands, and of those a good number are intelligent, mass society producing species. Other creatures attack those homes and families as their way to live. And they can become quite intelligent in their doing so. Good and Evil here are relative. Kobolds might call Halflings evil and themselves good and feel just and righteous when those hobbit holes are annihilated and ugly hairy-foots enslaved or even killed. (Ugly = bad is relative too, not a bias per your OP).

Both kobolds and halflings are humanoids even if not labelled demi-humans (a term I take to mean relatives to humans). However, there are plenty of Giant Owls, Ropers, and Ixitxichtls in D&D, as or more intelligent than humans, and spanning the breath of Alignment. So I don't take not human-like = ugly and therefore evil as part of D&D either.

 

[WayneLigon]

If golems are productive enough, they would be used. If not, then further research is needed. And as magic improved production, a greater surplus is generated, allowing for greater salaries. Rising salaries in turn make autogoleming more and more competitive, further increasing productivity and creating room for further increase in profitability and salaries...

[Insert random text about how industrialization brought on the amazing modern world, and simply exchange all tech words for magic words.]

If you have a world like Eberron with those concepts in place, perhaps, but in most traditional D&D worlds magic isn't science with the serial numbers filed off. Magic doesn't really deal in research, experiments or breakthroughs, despite the game language usually used in creating new spells. And that's assuming the prevailing governmental types allow things like profitability - most likely the King takes over an operation like that, or some noble does.

 

[WayneLigon]

2. On the other hand humans and their social norms, at least according to science*, all byproducts of evolution. Everything we do is because at some point in the past it gave our ancestors an advantage when mating.

Evolution works on such an extended time scale that human social norms have no affect on it. Entire civilizations would rise and fall and each play host to dozens if not dozens of dozens of changes in social norm in that time scale. And it's far from 'everything'; evolution is an incredibly resilient system. It can support a huge number of 'unproductive' behaviors as long as the huge overarching cycle of birth and death isn't tinkered with. You'd need some apocalyptic behavior change, like 'we kill all kids at age ten', to percolate through the entire species. Thankfully, foolishness like that tends to burn itself out very quickly before it can 'infect' the rest of the species.

 

[Celebrim]

Good and Evil here are relative.

Well, in a sense. Good and Evil in D&D are not relative. Whether you think this is 'realistic' depends on whether you think good and evil in the real world are relative or not.

The real question is, "If Good and Evil in D&D are not relative, can we still have a realistic debate over what is right and wrong."

People who view the real world as not have absolute right and wrong tend to reflexively answer, "No, and that's bad. Wrong even."

People who view the real world as having absolute good and evil tend to answer, "Well, of course, I mean, look at the real world. It has absolute good and evil, and people argue over right and wrong all the time."

For me, the trick is to realize that the people who are Lawful Evil don't view themselves as in the wrong and worthy of condemnation. They believe that they are in the right, and to the extent that there is any real righteousness in the world it is Order and Might. Isn't perfectly clear - they would say - that the greater good, the needs of the many, comes before the needs of the one? Isn't it perfectly clear that protection of Us comes before any consideration or duty to Them? Isn't it perfectly clear that the 'white hats' are just protecting their own tribe, and are no better than any one else? Or that peace and justice is predicated on assimilation? If the ends don't justify the means, then what does? Good and freedom are delusions, and the real 'sinners', the real inexcusable wrongness in the world, is those dastardly Chaotic Good people. Likewise, the people who are Chaotic Evil don't see themselves as being in the wrong. They believe that they are in the right, and its those awful Lawful Good people with their suppression of individuality and taking from the strong to give to the weak who are really the problem. And so on and so forth. It's perfectly reasonable for the in game inhabitants of the world to say, "What you call Good, I say is evil. And what you say is Evil, I say is good."

You can make a strong and believable (though maybe not convincing) argument on behalf of each alignment being right. And because the alignments are laid on a wheel like peers at a round table, the system doesn't really tell you what to believe.

 

[howandwhy99]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], that sounds good for the 9 Alignment D&D system. If you are going to use Alignment as a mechanic, you'll want all of those defined in game terms relating to game structures. AD&D defined stuff as Evil and Good without relation to Law or Chaos. So you could get absolute good and absolute evil definitions for the game, while still not claiming what alignment is "right" (as if D&D is a commentary on our world).

My use of Alignment and good and evil previously was according the 3-Alignment system. Good and Evil are defined in that system too, but only relative to one of the other 3 alignments. What's good for the lawful is different for the neutral as well as the chaotic.

In either case, I agree with you that D&D Alignment is not about telling players what is right and wrong actually, if someone were even to accept those things.

 

[frankthedm]

explaining how they can raise their own children without eating them.

Pure hyperbole. One's own children are an extension of self. Protecting your own children is a neutral act, not good, just as bettering your child's lot in life at another's detriment is an evil act. Evil beings corrupt their own children and raise them to thrive in their society. Just because Evil beings will kill children, does not mean they kill any children that blip on the radar. Any 'society' that believes all children must die will be a self correcting problem.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

All people, of any race, gender, etc are "evil" to some degree. They may not consciously recognize it, but everyone does something evil, like not giving to charity, not helping the jobless get jobs, abusing their bodies for pleasure, or wasting their lives on sex/religion/video games/reality TV when they could be focusing on improving humanity as whole and ending all suffering. We can't all be Jesus, but we can't all be Satan either.

Really? Practicing religion is evil?

 

[pemerton]

humans and their social norms, at least according to science*, all byproducts of evolution. Everything we do is because at some point in the past it gave our ancestors an advantage when mating.

Evolution works on such an extended time scale that human social norms have no affect on it. Entire civilizations would rise and fall and each play host to dozens if not dozens of dozens of changes in social norm in that time scale. And it's far from 'everything'; evolution is an incredibly resilient system. It can support a huge number of 'unproductive' behaviors as long as the huge overarching cycle of birth and death isn't tinkered with.

On this I tend to agree with WayneLigon. I am rather sceptical of evolutionary sociology, whether the old-fashioned 19th century versions which posited a non-biological domain of social evolution, or the more contemporary versions that try to link social norms to literal biological evolution.

Culture and society tend to have their own very interesting dynamics, with history, anthropology and sociology being the most useful domains of inquiry for understanding them.

 

[Meatboy]

On this I tend to agree with WayneLigon. I am rather sceptical of evolutionary sociology, whether the old-fashioned 19th century versions which posited a non-biological domain of social evolution, or the more contemporary versions that try to link social norms to literal biological evolution.

Culture and society tend to have their own very interesting dynamics, with history, anthropology and sociology being the most useful domains of inquiry for understanding them.

Fair point. Having only read a few books on the subject, not that recently either, it's not a topic I am overly familiar with.