D&D General Some thoughts on Moral Philosophies in D&D

[Voadam]

Different philosophical code paladins would be kind of interesting.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Something something paladins?

?

Any consistent rule system for TTRPGs will contain rules which cannot be understood.

If all the rules of a TTRPG rule system can be understood then the system is inconsistent, and thus has rules which can be used and ignored at the same time.

Pretty pretty pretty sure that's it. Close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and TTRPG theorizing, at least.

 

[Steampunkette]

Different philosophical code paladins would be kind of interesting.

Hedonistic Paladins going around fighting Villains because it provides the greatest pain-aversion.

Virtue Ethicist Paladins helping the weak, explicitly, out of charity and compassion.

Deontological Paladins bound by the laws of their society and struggling to achieve good ends while holding to the letter, if not the intent, of the law...

 

[Voadam]

Beware the utilitarian paladins.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Beware the utilitarian paladins.

that is just every rule lawyer paladin of yesteryear.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Different philosophical code paladins would be kind of interesting.

It's literally how 5e (and 4e) works. The Oath of the Crown is not at all the Oath of Glory

 

[Voadam]

It's literally how 5e (and 4e) works. The Oath of the Crown is not at all the Oath of Glory

Different explicit real world philosophical paladin codes.

The utilitarian paladin next to the aristotelian ethicist paladin seeking the golden mean while practicing habits of virtues among uplifting friends.

 

[pemerton]

Paladins come from an actual context in real-world history. The notion of a Homeric paladin, or a Benthamite paladin, makes no sense.

A Homeric hero may, from time-to-time, be divinely inspired, but that character is not going to have the sort of attitude of chivalry towards the "innocent", or of mercy towards the "guilty", that are part of the distinct moral orientation of paladins.

 

[pemerton]

This is why I said that moral philosophy systems were a lot like formal logic - they also have axioms. These are assumed to be true. You cannot use your axioms to prove that another's are false - the logic of moral philosophy only works internally. What you consider to be "good" or "evil" or "harm" depends on your axioms, your base definitions of morality. And yours may be different someone else's, and they lead you to different results. But, yours doesn't disprove theirs logically. The logical statements we'd use for falsifiability depend on the axioms, they don't apply to the axioms.

I don't think this claim is true. It is certainly not a very good account of how moral philosophers pursue their inquiries.

For instance, when RM Hare sets out to show that utilitarianism is true as a principle to govern moral action from moment-to-moment, he presents arguments that he intends to have universal force resting on what he takes to be an unavoidable commitment to universalisability in moral judgement.

When GEM Anscombe sets out to attack "Modern Moral Philosophy", she is certainly not intending to just beg the question against her Kantian and utiltarian opponents.

Etc.

 

[Steampunkette]

Paladins come from an actual context in real-world history. The notion of a Homeric paladin, or a Benthamite paladin, makes no sense.

A Homeric hero may, from time-to-time, be divinely inspired, but that character is not going to have the sort of attitude of chivalry towards the "innocent", or of mercy towards the "guilty", that are part of the distinct moral orientation of paladins.

Like... Homeric Hero is just a template upon which you apply Medieval Romance from the Renaissance and Later periods in which knights were retroactively made into noble heroes rather than just wealthy well armed folks who were mostly bullies and brutes.

Plus, y'know, Arthurian Fantasy.