The D&D Great Wheel of the Planes and Moral Ethical Relativism

[Arkhandus]

But even the Neutrals prefer Good over Evil (except for Rilmani or something, perhaps, who specifically strive for a balance). Doesn't that lend itself to Good being the 'right' alignment? Most Neutral critters/NPCs want to enjoy life and be successful. And don't particularly feel the need to oppress/ruin other people to get it. They just don't particularly feel like spreading the Good to others, especially not at their own expense. Only the especially virtuous, relatively-selfless people are Good, but the Neutrals aren't too bad either, just not up to par.

The critters of the Lower Planes aren't 'right' in any way just because they have their own couple of planes. Every mythology or religion has some place where the evil dead go. D&D's great wheel just has a handful of different ones to accomodate the different kinds of evil.

They aren't 'right' in any way just because the evil dead get turned into fiends after some time spent in suffering on the Lower Planes. Even the fiends get tortured by each other.

 

[Sundragon2012]

But even the Neutrals prefer Good over Evil (except for Rilmani or something, perhaps, who specifically strive for a balance). Doesn't that lend itself to Good being the 'right' alignment? Most Neutral critters/NPCs want to enjoy life and be successful. And don't particularly feel the need to oppress/ruin other people to get it. They just don't particularly feel like spreading the Good to others, especially not at their own expense. Only the especially virtuous, relatively-selfless people are Good, but the Neutrals aren't too bad either, just not up to par.

The critters of the Lower Planes aren't 'right' in any way just because they have their own couple of planes. Every mythology or religion has some place where the evil dead go. D&D's great wheel just has a handful of different ones to accomodate the different kinds of evil.

They aren't 'right' in any way just because the evil dead get turned into fiends after some time spent in suffering on the Lower Planes. Even the fiends get tortured by each other.

You have stated the neutral position in regards to good and evil better than I have seen in a long time. Of course, neutral people would prefer to life with and near good people (not good religious zealots) because for the most part good people would leave them be so long as they don't act in ways that cause harm. Good people would treat them well because they are good. A neutral individual can easily find a pleasant life among good folk. This happens in the real world all the time.

On the other hand, much of what evil stand for would be unpleasant for anyone except the most mercenary neutral individual. Most neutrals want to live in peace and relative comfort and have some happiness. Evil just doesn't support this broadly speaking.



Sundragon

 

[Sundragon2012]

I really have to agree with Sundragon here. I never liked the great wheel cosmology. It seems to presuppose that good and evil are two equal opposing forces. In my campaigns I prefer a more quasi-Judeo-Christian view that has evil as the result of a corruption of the original good order of things.

Even though I am not Chriatian myself, I find that a quasi-Judeo Christian idea of evil as a corruption of good much more resonant than the counterintuitive idea of evil being a morally equal position to that of good. I think that a quick look at human spiritual traditions would demonstrate that the idea of evil as a corruption is quite common even in non-christian faiths.


Sundragon

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'd have to disagree. The Great Wheel cosmology doesn't support moral/ethical relativism unless you want it to support it. There's no objective force in that system looking down at the alignments and declaring them all equal and equivalent, just different points on a map. That's silly to me.

The point I think you're missing, or overlooking, is that the alignments -although at present their relative strength within the planes is somewhat equal- are in a constant state of conflict both among themselves, and in terms of influencing the rest of the cosmos. They've been in conflict since the first primordial forms of the planes precipitated out of nothingness, and each of them views it as a winner takes all game. Good seeks to enlighten everything, law seeks to organize and codify, chaos seeks freedom and flux, and evil seeks a universe devoid of mercy. It's not about them being equal and static, it's about them seeking supremacy for their respective alignments precisely because there is no objective force making them equal and equivalent from on high.

There's a very real threat that Evil could win and it puts everyone seeking to promote Good into having to actually truly struggle without the knowledge that they'll succeed ultimately. Good in such a universe faces actual struggle, rather than a sure knowledge that Good is destined to win because it's right and correct and will always win over Evil. Good in the Great Wheel, both celestials and good mortals, struggle and truly work for each triumph they gain, like a saint struggling and persevering even through and despite the profound, harrowing silence of God. Their success is earned, and it's more poignant because of that. Each success is more tangible, more meaningful, and dare I say more heroic.

QFT.

Edit: I totally misread the OP's post and follow ups, but I still disagree with that viewpoint. I'm a fan of moral relativism in the D&D world because it makes (IMO) for a more interesting game. By having one side be right and the other wrong, you lose the fascinating middle ground that makes for great stories.

 

[Slapzilla]

Good, evil, lawful and chaotic are physical qualities in DnD. They are NOT abstracts and there is nothing relative about it. A paladin smites evil because he/she IS good and fiends smite good because they ARE evil.
The stops on The Great Wheel reflect the personality of the denizens and the denizens reflect the personality of those attracted to them. Bahamut lives in the Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia because there is no other place for him, just as there is no other place for Lolth than the Abyss. The idea that they are somehow rendered...what, impotent or neutered somehow because of the fact that there is no "Absolute Authority" to objectively judge 'right' and 'wrong' is completely missing the point.
The fact that there is no "Supreme Being" is what makes the game high fantasy. Cleaving yourself to a higher ideal, whether participating in Chivalry or fighting Genocide, it is the very fodder for the fantastic. It is what makes it a game. If you somehow were able to equate Hades with Bytopia on a moral level, or Mechanus with Limbo on an ethical level, you are just being pedantic. There are moral and ethical differences between them and one is definable as good and one as evil, one is lawful and the last is chaotic. Just because there is room to argue the points on a philosophical basis doesn't make my statement wrong.
The middle ground can make great stories but all too often the drama of choosing between lesser evils (never lesser goods, lawfuls or chaotics) is limited in scope to lesser evils and those decisions, in time, are understood by the wise.
I guess I don't agree with the concept that the planes are somehow equal and independant, therefore morally relative. Their positions on The Wheel are as immutable as anything could be. They are not the souce of their alignment, but the embodiment of it.

 

[S'mon]

I think you have a good point. Looking at the Gord novels, Gygax seems to be coming from an avowedly Neutral perspective, so it's perhaps unsurprising that the non-Neutral alignments are all seen as much of a muchness in the Great Wheel setup.
A further problem is that the Alignments are supposed to be absolutes, yet their content - what is Good (etc) - changes as game authors (and the mores of our own society) change.

Personally I prefer, and use, the Moorcockian Law-Neutral-Chaos system of OD&D and Classic D&D, which I find makes much more sense.

 

[S'mon]

You have stated the neutral position in regards to good and evil better than I have seen in a long time. Of course, neutral people would prefer to life with and near good people (not good religious zealots) because for the most part good people would leave them be so long as they don't act in ways that cause harm. Good people would treat them well because they are good. A neutral individual can easily find a pleasant life among good folk. This happens in the real world all the time.

I dunno, I can think of many Neutrals who'd rather live in chaotic-evil Washington DC than in lawful-good Hicksville, where you can't buy an alcoholic drink and the only store is a Wal-Mart. Personally I live in London, which is mostly not a very nice place. I sometimes visit (eg) the Scottish highlands, which are full of nice places and nice people, but it might be a bit dull living there.

 

[Slapzilla]

And yet the core definitions of good, evil, lawful and chaotic don't change, in any real sense, at all. The examples may change over time. Look at The Knights of the Round Table and, say Batman. Can't argue that all are 'good guys' even though Batman has no problem with trespassing, breaking and entering, assault and battery etc. The examples change, but the core definition does not and cannot without such a major shift in the society as to not be the same society any more. Does that mean that 'good' etc is relative? To that society, well, if you pull your point of view out and get it big enough, everything is relative but that is the pedantic arguement. There is an absolute and The Great Wheel reflects that. It is what makes it work.

 

[S'mon]

And yet the core definitions of good, evil, lawful and chaotic don't change, in any real sense, at all. The examples may change over time. Look at The Knights of the Round Table and, say Batman. Can't argue that all are 'good guys' even though Batman has no problem with trespassing, breaking and entering, assault and battery etc.

I've seen Batman defined as everything from LG to CN to insane, though.

 

[Slapzilla]

Author Interpretation at work. His fight to keep the city and it's residents safe is the core and his means, however goofy (dressing up like a human bat!?!) achieve his ends. Two levels at work here.