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

[Thanael]

He's not being tormented anymore.

I disagree. He is being tormented.

IMO it hinges on explaining inhowfar the Evil highups (Orcus, Asmodeus, etc) - even though they exult in their evil and power - are still being tormented. Just because they are very powerful does not mean that they are not also very damned and tormented. By being the pinnacle of their own alignment they also reap the pinnacle of what they deserve. Demogorgon for example is howling mad. The Lords of the Nine will always have to look over their shoulder and are being tyrannized by Asmodeus. Some say Asmodeus created his own prison. Yes they are being "rewarded", but rewarded means they get what they deserve. Do you actually imagine any of them being happy with their lots?

 

[Felix]

They are called good and evil on the Great Wheel, not as judgements, but as descriptors.

If calling something "Evil" isn't a moral judgment, then what happened to:

e-vil
-adjective
1. Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked​

If you decide to strip "evil" of its meaning, don't blame the game for being "relativistic", because you're the one that made it that way. There is nothing inherent to the Great Wheel that makes it morally relativistic; but if you decide that it must be relativistic, which is exactly what you're doing, then voila! it's going to be.

Don't like the idea? So get rid of that assertion that "Evil" is simply a descriptor, that it is an actual moral judgment, and you'll have an absolutist cosmology so you may move on with your gaming.

 

[Slapzilla]

It does seem silly that every soul in the multiverse fits one of nine profiles.
Those who study such things say that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. It cannot be argued that he is the perfect example of evil in the real world. He had no idea. The moral relativist philosophically understands that. The moral absolutist just sees evil. The Great Wheel would have a spot for him because he fit a profile. Would the devils reward him for rising to heights of LE-ness not seen in centuries, or would they punish him for his life's work? The answer is, of course, completely dependent upon your relativist/absolutist point of view. Removing our own sense of morality requires us to not see things as rewards or punishments, but rather as something earned.
I've stated before that good, evil, law and chaos are quantifiable, measurable things to be smited and protected from. In DnD, these things do exist as absolutes. Orcus is fulfilling his destiny his way because he is CE, and for no other reason. Bahamut is what he is because he is LG.
It gets sticky when you start thinking about why the Solars don't try to stop the senseless killing and suffering caused by the Blood War. Letting evil kill each other over an ethical squabble is still letting redeemable souls kill and die in a senseless, savage conflict. Is it because that campaign is not yet winnable and the risk of losing is to leave the multiverse with out it's bastion of good protectors? I could call that a cop-out. I could be wrong. The point is that, yes, moral relativism exists in the world but it is a philosophical exercise that has nothing to do with the nine spots on the Great Wheel...which judges all according to what they've earned.

 

[Yair]

It does seem silly that every soul in the multiverse fits one of nine profiles.

On FR, all dead souls go to the Fugue Plane to be judged. I've had them "weighted" there. Those that fit the mold rather well were "purified" (in a sort of purgatory) for a while, then sent to their designated place. Those who didn't fit any particular mold very well were eternally interned behind the Wall of the Faithless (a kind of Tarterus). The molds were the deity's in this setting, not the nine alignments, but the same principle could work well for the alignments too.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It gets sticky when you start thinking about why the Solars don't try to stop the senseless killing and suffering caused by the Blood War. Letting evil kill each other over an ethical squabble is still letting redeemable souls kill and die in a senseless, savage conflict. Is it because that campaign is not yet winnable and the risk of losing is to leave the multiverse with out it's bastion of good protectors? I could call that a cop-out. I could be wrong. The point is that, yes, moral relativism exists in the world but it is a philosophical exercise that has nothing to do with the nine spots on the Great Wheel...which judges all according to what they've earned.

Letting evil kill each other over ethics is good, because interfering would bring more evil instead. The fiends are so powerful that if they ever stopped fighting, and demon, devils and yugoloths agreed to work together and attack the upper planes, all the celestials would be completely screwed.

 

[Felix]

Those who study such things say that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. It cannot be argued that he is the perfect example of evil in the real world. He had no idea.

So as long as you think you're justified, you are? So if out of an earnest desire to ease suffering I went around to nursing homes and children's hospitals and slew everyone, hey, I'd have no idea that I was doing evil. After all, I think I'm doing the right thing.

Moral relativism strips "Good" and "Evil" of their meaning; they cease being any kind of useful, and become nothing. Moral relativism means the non-existence of "Good" and "Evil". They don't exist because they become anything to anyone. The moral absolutist understands this.

 

[Tarek]

Here's another thing... the "Blood War" is solely a construct of the Planescape setting. It didn't exist in 1e, it didn't exist in Basic, it didn't exist in 2nd edition products prior to the Planescape setting.

The only reason the "blood war" exists is as a consequence of the Planescape setting, which had to justify the changes it made to the number of outer planes and the way they interact and had to come up with a reason that the good aligned planes weren't constantly at war with the evil aligned planes.

Devils in 1st edition are limited to the Astral, the Nine Hells, Acheron, and Gehenna. Demons are limited to the Astral, the Abyss, Pandemonium and Tarterus. Neither of them can reach Hades; the Blood War is impossible under 1st edition "Great Wheel" cosmology, as Demons and Devils in the Astral cannot slay each other permanently. The permanent destruction of the "opposing side" is the entire reason Planescape says drives the Blood War.

In addition, the claim is made by some that if the Demons and Devils ganged up on the Solars, Archons, Devas, etc, that somehow the forces of Good would be overwhelmed. This is patently false, since the planes of Good also have an infinite amount of "angels" to match the infinite amount of "demons and devils".

Then we throw in the fact that more deities dwell in the Upper planes than the Lower ones...

 

[Klaus]

... and you are wrong, because "Blood War" debuted in the Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix, a few years before Planescape.

 

[Psion]

... and you are wrong, because "Blood War" debuted in the Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix, a few years before Planescape.

Klaus beat me to it...

Yeah, Tarek. Blood war existed in 2e clearly before Planescape.

Emnity between demons and devils was alluded to in creature descriptions in the 1e monster books as well, but no blood war per se.

Finally, a little philosophy 101 for those who are using the term "absolutist". You are probably using it wrong.

Belief that there is a true meaning behind the existence of moral right and wrong is not absolutism. It's moral realism. Moral absolutism is a subset of moral realism, and described moral theories that have at least one undefeasable principle (i.e., principles without exceptions.) But realist moral theories do not need undefeasible principles.

Anyway, to the OP... and this has been covered in various ways but it bears repeating... realism does not require that the moral theory state that "good will prevail", only that a true moral right exists. It's clear in the D&D metasetting that it does.

 

[Tarek]

Really? That's bizarre.

Of course, I didn't pick up most of the MC series at the time, so I missed that.

I still don't see it making sense, what with the fact that the demons and devils couldn't get to the plane where they were supposed to be fighting.

As for the fact that demons and devils don't like each other and fight it out... well, yes. The battleground is the Prime Material and the pawns/footsoldiers are mortals and the currency funding the war is their souls. I see the conflict between devils and demons as being more like a game of "Monopoly."

Demons and devils don't need a "Blood War". I see it as antithetical to their actual role, at best a distraction from the "real work."