D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[I'm A Banana]

Permeton, I know of quite a few instances where individuals (if not groups) have behaved in a "Lawful Neutral" manner in the real world, without regards to the good or evil consequences of their actions. Two cases to digest: First, the case of a little boy expelled from his school for bringing a gun to school, which the rules forbid. Open and shut case, right? Wrong... the "gun" in question was a tiny piece of plastic made to fit in a Star Wars action figure's hand! Common sense would say the rule wasn't meant to apply to such, right? But the principal steadfastly held that 'a rule is a rule' and wouldn't be talked out of his literal is interpretation of the rule. Another case involved a pre-teen girl who took a nude photo of herself and posted it... "sexting". Now, the child pornography laws were made to protect children from predators, not to punish a kid stupid enough to plaster her nude image on the internet. But that didn't stop a 'law and order' prosecutor from trying to bring her up on charges, despite the fact that she herself was the only 'victim' of her actions. I could point out other examples, but the point here is that the "Lawful Neutral" mentality doesn't just exist in games!

Let this serve as the first and hopefully only necessary warning: do NOT discuss real-world issues in terms of D&D alignment. Real life isn't D&D-land, and the alignment terms lose meaning when applied to real-world decisions made by actual people outside of the context of the fantasy game. It inevitably devolves into people bickering about politics, and doesn't serve much useful in actually illuminating things. Feel free to use Batman examples instead.

 

[Elderbrain]

Apologies, KM. I mistakenly thought that leaving names off would be sufficient... got it, no more real-world analogies/examples. (I don't read enough Batman to think of an example from there, but I do read and watch a lot of news.)

 

[Elderbrain]

Apologies, KM. I mistakenly thought that leaving names off would be sufficient... got it, no more real-world analogies/examples. (I don't read enough Batman to think of an example from there, but I do read and watch a lot of news.) I don't think I've got anything else to add on this particular thread, anyway... just keeps going over the same dead horse(s).

 

[Nivenus]

This just pushes back the question one step - what does better mean here?In ordinary English, "better" means "more good" (good, better, best). Obviously that is being ruled out in this context, given that "better" is entailing "less good".

I agree with ThirdWizard, you're being semantically obtuse here, whether unintentionally or not. To say a pie tastes better is not the same as to say someone is a better person, which is not the same as to say they're better at math. In all three contexts, better means "more good" but only in one does it have any kind of moral value.

What value is the paladin, or bard, committed to that makes achieving human well-being less important? How is it rational for a human being to pursue that value? How does this relate to any actual, historically realised form of human aspiration or moral framework?

They have differing views of what defines human well-being. In the case of a lawful person (I'm going to speak broadly to law and chaos here rather than LG and CG specifically) discipline, honor, and obedience to lawful authority are the marks of what defines a "moral" person, perhaps even more so than kindness or forgiveness. To a chaotic person individuality, personal liberty, and self-reliance serve an equivalent role and again, may actually be valued more than what D&D defines as "good" values.

These aren't actually very unusual ideological conflicts, historically speaking. Given forum policies I can't go into too much detail but there are real-world philosophies where adherence to tradition and discipline are more important than the suffering of the individual and others where liberty is put above the life of a human.

Leaving asie the fact that I find it hard to believe that a paladin thinks there can be too much charity or selflessness (mercy might be another matter), this is not the canonical meaning of "good" in D&D.

<snip>

Nowhere in these passages is "good" defind by reference to charity, mercy and selflessness. It's defined by reference to human wellbeing in general - life, happiness, dignity, etc. How can a paladin think there is too much of that. Or, to reference the 2nd ed AD&D definition, how can a paladin think that there is too much helping of those in need, and too much protecting of the weak? Those are the very raison d'etre of the paladin!

I actually see nothing in any of the sources you've posted which conflicts with the definition of good I've described. All of the good alignments value altruism (charity), life (mercy), and a concern for the dignity of sapients (compassion). Yep, that sounds about right!

The difference is whether they think other values are equally or even more important. Lawful good characters value all of those things, but they also think the values of law are just as important. Chaotic good characters think altruism, mercy, and compassion are all well and good but they also think it's important to be self-reliant and free. As a result, whereas neutral good characters (at their most pure, which let's face it few are) may be relatively unfettered in their zeal for spreading compassion and bringing hope to the hopeless the lawful good character might ask "yeah, but is that honorable?" or "does that seem decent?" whereas the chaotic good character might ask "yeah, but is that self-fulfilling?" or "is that too restrictive?"

Both might also look at a neutral good character's unrestrained compassion as kind of naive and blind to the world's realities: sometimes doing the right thing (whether it's the "good" thing or not) means telling a harsh truth or doing something apparently cruel that in the long-term actually might benefit the recipient. A neutral good character would generally oppose the death penalty, but a lawful good character might consider it necessary. Similarly, a chaotic good character might feel freedom of speech outweighs the potential harm done by hate speech, whereas a neutral good character might feel it's never right to spread hatred or hurt another person's feelings. And so on.

In any case, since we're defining the values of D&D good, here's what the Book of Exalted Deeds (the book on 3.5 D&D good) says are good's virtues:

• Helping others (p. 5)
• Charity (p. 6)
• Healing (p. 6)
• Sacrifice (p. 6)
• Worshiping good deities (p. 6-7)
• Casting good spells (p. 7)
• Mercy (p. 7-8)
• Forgiveness (p. 8)
• Bringing hope (p. 8)
• Redeeming evil (p. 8)

None of those include the "lawful" values of a LG character or the "chaotic" values of a CG character. Instead, it's all about altruism, kindness to others, and spreading good feelings about. A LG or CG character do not disagree with these values (they are, after all good), but they share their attention with other principles that can be of greater, lesser, or equal importance.

But in a cosmological framework like the Great Wheel, all such doubt is eroded. What does it mean, for instance, to worry that the unadulterated goodness of Elysium is vulnerable to corrupting infuences? The game rules already tell us that it is uncorrupted. The game rules similarly tell us that both Celestia and Olympus are good, and hence that when it comes to achieving human wellbeing the choice between law and chaos doesn't matter.

That's kind of cheating though, isn't it? Most of the debate over how to best promote good in real-life stems from the fact that we must account for the existence of evil and how best to combat it. In Elysium, however, evil is an extreme rarity. Everyone (well most people) in Elysium are essentially good (and have access to about as much as they could need/want), so there's no reason to concern oneself with the argument over whether order or liberty best serves the public good: all of the evil has been filtered out already.

More to the point, you're still kind of overlooking the fact there are real-life value systems where certain principles of law (such as honor) and certain principles of chaos (e.g., freedom) are considered to be as worthwhile as the principles of D&D good (e.g., altruism).

Another factor in the real world, which relates to political debates, is that political opponents have differing conceptions of the good. For instance, the French revolutionaries regarded solidarity as a key civic virtue, and so does Rawls. Libertarians tend to doubt that solidarity has value - they favour strictly voluntary relationships between human beings.

A good example of D&D law and D&D chaos in action against one another.

There shoud be no conflict between law and chaos: the game's cosmology defines them as equally permissibe, equally effective modes of realising human well-being.

Only if your definition of human/sapient well-being is the same as a neutral good character's. Which a lawful neutral and chaotic neutral character would not agree with.

Even Gygax was contradictory on this point, building the American constitutional notion of freedom not just into some of his ideas about chaos but also into his definition of goodness, as quoted above!

That's arguably because Gygax perceived the American idea of freedom as essentially chaotic good in nature (favoring liberty about equally with compassion and both over duty or tradition). You may agree or disagree with that assessment, but it seems like what he was going for.

I don't understand how I am meant to fit this into a D&D framework, which regards good (ie human/creature wellbeing) as something objectively desirable.

Actually, good is somewhere between objectively and subjectively desirable in-universe. It's definitely superior to evil, but a modron and a slaad would strongly disagree that it's better than pure law or pure chaos.

Why value human well-being? For a human being, the question answers itself, at least in the self-regarding case!

Not all humans agree, interestingly enough.

In the real world, there aren't any significant political or social movements that value order or anarchy as ends in themselves. Anarchism, libertarianism, rule-of-law republicanism, etc, are all views about human well-being and how it might be secured.

Ah, but their definition of what constitutes human well-being differs. A Buddhist thinks a person's ultimate well-being lies in letting go of their ego; an anarchist beliefs a human will find happiness most easily when unrestrained by rules or laws; a Daoist believes that a human's well-being comes from doing as little as possible as effortlessly and without intention as possible. None of these conceptions of well-being are particularly compatible with one another (and none of them match up with D&D's precise description of good either).

So while good characters are concerned with human well-being, I'd say most neutral characters (and even some evil ones) are too. It's just that their interpretation of what that qualifies as differs from a good character (and perhaps just as importantly, their actions differ as well).

But this is because the paladin thinks that the chaotic choice will undermine human wellbeing. Which in and of itself is completely rational, but which is apparently contradicted by the cosmology, which tells us - via the existence of Olympus - that it is possible to be chaotic and yet realise human wellbeing.

Not really; modrons, inevitables, and formians (as well as LN petitioners) are arguably more at home in Mechanus than they would be in Elysium. They prefer a world of uncompromising order. Similarly, the slaadi and CN petitioners largely prefer the transformative and untamed fluidity of Limbo to the relatively stable peacefulness of Elysium. Individual preferences vary and that is one of several points the nine-alignment system takes into account. Not everyone wants the same thing from their afterlife (or their mortal existence for that matter). Some people want to go live a more peaceful version of their own lives, alongside their loved ones. Others desire a sense of purpose, to serve the forces of law and good. Others want the freedom to do whatever they want. Only evil characters in the cosmology really lose out and even they get an opportunity to snatch incredible power since even a lemure might one day become a pit fiend and a lucky or clever enough mane can become a demon lord.

In the real world, or the fiction of the real world, the paladin and monk don't think that law and good are independent axes. They think that discipine, adequate self-resepct, honour, etc are part and parcel of human well-being. It is the contradiction between this competely reasonable outlook, and the dictates of the cosmology (ie its dictates that you can be good indepdently of law and chaos) that I am pointing to, as a reason for regardiing that aspect of the cosmology as untenable.

Correct. But law, good, and chaos all define sapient well-being differently. LG paladins and monks believe a person's well-being incorporates the values of law alongside those of good. CG bards (and paladins for that matter, after 4e and 5e) believe a person's well-being incorporates the values of chaos.

The post I replied to presented the paladin's rejection of Elysium's pure good as a response to the threat of corruption. Obviously the paladin doesn't regard law as a corruption of good!

No, but the hypothetical CG bard would. And likewise the paladin would see chaos as a corruption of good. And both the bard and the paladin would likely see any corruption of Elysium from evil (toward neutrality) as corruption as well. You're not really refuting the argument, you're just looking at it from one side (law).

The argument you present here seems much closer to the Moorcockian argument that law and chaos, taken too far, can be dangerous. But a paladin can't embrace that argument; rather, if it is true, then the paladin's outlook is basically false.

It's false (or rather, partially incorrect) from the point of view of neutral good or chaotic good. It's not false from the point of view of lawful good.

But, these wars would never be fought by those who register as "good". A good character who imprisons someone, does so with mercy and respect. There can't really be a CG revolutionary overthrow of a LG society. That wouldn't make any sense.

Actually, I'm afraid it really does happen in real-life (putting aside the subjective values of good and evil for a moment). Because of forum rules I can't really go into specifics, but needless to say there's been several cases of real-life groups that were well-intentioned and even relatively altruistic, but who ended up sabotaging one another or even fighting one another because of their own distrust in one another.

That being said, you're correct that there is no Blood War in the celestial planes. After all, celestials are as close to pure good as you get and one of good's key features in D&D is the ability to show tolerance (through forgiveness and mercy). Celestials aren't terribly likely to wage war on one another, because they're more willing to forgive one another's "faults" and try to work things out peacefully... but that doesn't rule out the possibility entirely (particularly if a chaotic good celestial comes to believe a lawful good entity is erring too close to lawful neutral - or vice versa).

 

[I'm A Banana]

None of those include the "lawful" values of a LG character or the "chaotic" values of a CG character. Instead, it's all about altruism, kindness to others, and spreading good feelings about. A LG or CG character do not disagree with these values (they are, after all good), but they share their attention with other principles that can be of greater, lesser, or equal importance.

Just a subtle point here: it's also possible that those other principles are, for Lawful or Chaotic characters, prerequisites for those traits agreed upon as Good. An LG character might see the true benefit of Charity as being impossible to realize without organized, systemic, procedural elimination of poverty by well-proven methods applied fairly and equitably to all. A CG char might look at the same principle of Charity and say that without that gift being voluntary and personal, it has little meaning or relevance to the giver. An NG character might say that Charity is Charity, and it doesn't depend on any other traits to be truly realized, that both instances are good and that neither should be eliminated (even if that sounds like milquetoast concessionism to the LG and CG folks).

That's not necessarily the view, but it's another possibility, alongside "of equal or greater importance."

That being said, you're correct that there is no Blood War in the celestial planes. After all, celestials are as close to pure good as you get and one of good's key features in D&D is the ability to show tolerance (through forgiveness and mercy). Celestials aren't terribly likely to wage war on one another, because they're more willing to forgive one another's "faults" and try to work things out peacefully... but that doesn't rule out the possibility entirely (particularly if a chaotic good celestial comes to believe a lawful good entity is erring too close to lawful neutral - or vice versa).

It might be argued that the non-violence of the good planes is as much a cold war as the Blood War is a hot war. The Archons ("stuffy elitists") and the Eladrin ("hedonistic children") and the Guardinals ("dudley do-nothings") and even perhaps the Animal Lords ("self-interested beasts, really") really do hate each other, but they work against each other by highlighting the flaws of the other, not willing to risk all those good lives in outright violence. Where a tyrant rears its head, an Eladrin might be present for revolution...and an Archon might be present for a new king. And both recognize that either one of them is better than that devil the vizier has been talking to.

But this is because the paladin thinks that the chaotic choice will undermine human wellbeing. Which in and of itself is completely rational, but which is apparently contradicted by the cosmology, which tells us - via the existence of Olympus - that it is possible to be chaotic and yet realise human wellbeing.

I don't think a paladin would agree that Olympus is truly a realization of human wellbeing. Olympus is fine, sure, but it could be better. Its embrace of Chaos is a flaw, something that stops it from achieving the true goodness of somewhere like Celestia. And even Celestia exists in a world where it is still struggling against evil (it hasn't won yet!), and some of that evil is caused by those who embrace Chaos as well. Hell may be cruel, but better laws can fix those who exploit order for their own gain.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Here's a caveat: PS is the only place where I've ever used the Great Wheel as a cosmological framework. I don't think the GW is that important to PS, really--one could easily replace it with a different setup, as long as it features Outer Planes as Shaped by Mortal Belief. But I can't really comment on Nine-Point-Alignment-as-Cosmology outside of that context.

In the real world, policy making is plagued by doubt. Does a generous welfare system uphold human dignity and wellbeing (as eg European social democrats believe) or does it undermine productivity and generate dignity-eroding welfare dependency (as both US conservatives and the famous liberal philosopher John Rawls believed)?

But in a cosmological framework like the Great Wheel, all such doubt is eroded.

[-snip-]

Another factor in the real world, which relates to political debates, is that political opponents have differing conceptions of the good.

[-snip-]

But the framework and cosmology of 9-point alignment rule this out too. Because each axis is treated as orthogonal to the other, we cannot say that Olympus and Celestia are realising different values (and are potentialy opposed in that respect). Rather, they are realising the very same value - that of "human weal", as set out in the game texts I quoted upthread and detectable via a Detect Good or Know Alignment spell- via different means.

[-snip-]

If you drop the cosmology, of course, and treat the law/chaos divide as reflecting differeing beliefs about the pathway to, and/or different belliefs about the content of, human welfare, then this particular incoherence goes away....

When I've used alignment (non-cosmically), it's always been as political/value shorthand, and in PS I extended that directly to the Outer Planes. The belief comes first, shaping/creating the Outer Planes, so a LG plane exists only because enough mortals belief that LG is Best--enough people "vote" LG. To the LG voters, this is the ultimate good independent of the NG alignment--the NG attitude represents nothing to them, except maybe a different political/ethical viewpoint. If nobody believed in LG, there would be no LG outer plane. There being a LG plane isn't a cosmological given--it's just how things have evolved.

Also, it must be considered how PS treats the Outer Planes not as monolithic entities, but more like cosmological solar systems. Each layer (satellite) of an outer plane (solar system) represents a slightly different viewpoint of the same idealized vision (the star). They are close enough to each other in their foundational beliefs that travel between them is easy, effectively creating a Mega-Plane. Philosophical nuances create layers.

Basically, in the context of PS, I think you're viewing this upside down. Elysium does not dictate what Good represents to people--people dictate what Elysium represents, even though they may oblivious to the fact.

This may strike you as nihilistic (which I get but disagree with) and modernistic (which it is), but that's not a problem for me as I like my D&D firmly anachronistic (it's part of the charm).

.

Taking this further, while PS remains mum on the greater history of the planes (something I understand bothers you), I've never taken the GW as having always been, it is merely the current status quo, one that has persisted as a stalemate for a Very Long Time, longer than any mortal can remember. My personal "fanon" is that the Basic D&D cosmology represents an older version of the same multiverse, one where the multitude of Outer Planes are less firmly formed and have not coalesced into the Mega-Planes of the GW.

With 4e, I entertained the idea (though it never came into play in any way) that it represented the eventual evolution of the multiverse after my PS game blew it up.

.

Some further personal context:

• I have always treated Law vs. Chaos as the Big Ideals in D&D (and PS), with Good and Evil splintering away from that, not the other way around. This is probably partly because of RL personal values/views and partly because of my entry point to D&D being BECMI/RC, with it's Law vs. Chaos alignment structure.
• I just find it a lot easier to 'grog' Law and Chaos than I do Good and Evil--which I tend to treat as Altruism vs. Selfishness--but for the most part I don't really know what to do with Good vs. Evil as a cosmic thing, partly because I don't like absolutes and partly because I cannot properly imagine them as idealized forces. I have always struggled with western duality as a concept. But alas, all attempts so far to put this properly into words have bumped up against board policy.
• And I don't care much for romantic fantasy, at least not in D&D, nor have any of my players ever noticeably gravitated towards it (there has, as far as I can recall, never been a paladin PC at my table... but oh-so-many rogues).

 

[pemerton]

Permeton, I know of quite a few instances where individuals (if not groups) have behaved in a "Lawful Neutral" manner in the real world, without regards to the good or evil consequences of their actions. Two cases to digest

If [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] thinks the rest of this paragraph is in breach of his mod warning, he should delete it. Here is a schematic take on the standard version of real-world conformity to the law by office-bearers (and superheroes, where apposite): the people in question accept that (i) the legal system is contributing to human wellbeing, (ii) the functioning of the legal system depends upon those with allocated roles sticking to those roles, and (iii) the people in question then carry out their roles.That is, the suggestion is that the officials in question do not think that adherence to the law is good in itself. They have a view as to the role that the law confers upon various office-bearers, and takes the view that adhering to those roles will best promote human wellbeing.

It's hard to develop examples like this within the framework of D&D, because very few D&D settings have sufficiently well-defined social roles or social systems, and hence D&D generally doesn't have the sophistication of social or moral resources to support such an analysis.

There are those who find that order and cooperation and external principles bring about the well-being for the most number of people.

<snip>

There are those who believe that independence and self-determination is what truly brings about well-being.

Of course. This isn't contentious. My point is that, in a world in which both are correct - which is the world of the Great Wheel cosmology - then their disagreement is silly, or at best a disagreement of taste/style.

Alternatively, if you take the view that human wellbeing is best realised on Elysium - a view of the planes that I do not think is canonical, but I can see how some disagree - then both the LG and the CG person should recognise their error, and join Moorcock in affirming that too much order, and too much chaos, are both inimical to human wellbeing.

The issue I'm point too is that the Great Wheel, in its standard presentation, wants to affirm that both Law and Chaos can be good, and also affirm that the disagreement between LG and CG is well-founded. That's the bit that I regard as untenable.

I don't think a paladin would agree that Olympus is truly a realization of human wellbeing. Olympus is fine, sure, but it could be better. Its embrace of Chaos is a flaw, something that stops it from achieving the true goodness of somewhere like Celestia.

Who is right? Well, they all have about equal claim to it. Just as in the real world, what brings the greatest benefit to the most people is not a settled topic (and in the real world, it cannot be).

But the canonical D&D cosmology does dictate an answer: both the Seven Heavens and Olympus test positive to a Detect Good spell. Neither is less good than the other in virtue of affirming the wrong method of aiming at goodness, nor in virtue of affirming the wrong conception of goodness.

PS's perspective is that there's no real objectively correct answer here (objectivity being something that PS is really about challenging), the setting and the cosmology can't tell you what the right course of action is, what the truth is. The choice is the player's. Play determines what is worth saving and what must be destroyed. Players determine what it means to be "good" or "evil."

My view is that the cosmology of the D&D alignment system is not a very satisfactory vehicle for this. I find it awkward, at best, to have to treat as open questions such things as "Is the Abyss really evil?" or "Is Mt Celestia really good?" The alignment system has already purported to answer those questions. That's its function.

I don't think it's a worthwhile function. But treating the planar alignments not as moral classifications but as personality descriptors for the inhabitants of those planes is a pretty big departure from how alignment has been presented in any version of the game. For instance, it doesn't fit with the idea that "alignment is determined by action" - ie that alignment is an objective property based on the conformity of a being's behaviour to the demands of morality.

If I've understood [MENTION=509]Viking Bastard[/MENTION]'s most recent post properly (and if I've got it wrong, please correct me!), he (?) is going down the pathway I just described: treating the alignment lables as personality/outlook descriptors for the planes, as they can be for individuals.

That's a way of avoiding the cosmolgoical incoherence I've been talking about (I think there are other probems with law/chaos, but that's a separate issue for an alignment thread). But it makes me curious: for instance, it seems to abandon the idea of good and evil, law and chaos as objective cosmological forces. Viking Bastard, in your campaign that you're describing, did you drop objective/cosmological alignment altogether?

 

[Viking Bastard]

If I've understood [MENTION=509]Viking Bastard[/MENTION]'s most recent post properly (and if I've got it wrong, please correct me!), he (?) is going down the pathway I just described: treating the alignment lables as personality/outlook descriptors for the planes, as they can be for individuals.

That's a way of avoiding the cosmolgoical incoherence I've been talking about (I think there are other probems with law/chaos, but that's a separate issue for an alignment thread). But it makes me curious: for instance, it seems to abandon the idea of good and evil, law and chaos as objective cosmological forces. Viking Bastard, in your campaign that you're describing, did you drop objective/cosmological alignment altogether?

I didn't drop them, as this was PS, where they aren't objective. Which I think I and other posters keep trying to explain. PS makes a big deal out of Primers being wrong and pig-headed in their objective thinking.

In PS, that it's all relative, is the point.

.

EDIT: I think a large part of the cyclical nature of this discussion, is that you are arguing a problem with the 1e setup of the planes (which was, as previously stated, a compromise between Gygax's views and popular demand), while your dissenters are trying to explain it from the point of view of PS, which is not the same POV, despite being based on the already established planar framework.

Now, I wouldn't be shocked if some of PS's relativistic philosophy is born from making sense of the GW, but it was also the zeitgeist of the time--Sandman and Mage et al.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course. This isn't contentious. My point is that, in a world in which both are correct - which is the world of the Great Wheel cosmology - then their disagreement is silly, or at best a disagreement of taste/style.

Alternatively, if you take the view that human wellbeing is best realised on Elysium - a view of the planes that I do not think is canonical, but I can see how some disagree - then both the LG and the CG person should recognise their error, and join Moorcock in affirming that too much order, and too much chaos, are both inimical to human wellbeing.

The issue I'm point too is that the Great Wheel, in its standard presentation, wants to affirm that both Law and Chaos can be good, and also affirm that the disagreement between LG and CG is well-founded. That's the bit that I regard as untenable.

I still don't see what's untenable about it. Some view order as a thing that produces good, some view liberty as a thing that produces good, and, depending on what a PS character who is LG or CG believes, that can be the case. I don't see the disagreement as "silly," anymore than any tension between personal freedom and external responsibility is "silly." Both can be said to produce good. Both can also be said to not perfectly produce well-being for all, and both can easily be turned to evil ends. Is that a flaw in execution, or in fundamentals? That's up to the PC's.

But the canonical D&D cosmology does dictate an answer: both the Seven Heavens and Olympus test positive to a Detect Good spell. Neither is less good than the other in virtue of affirming the wrong method of aiming at goodness, nor in virtue of affirming the wrong conception of goodness.

My view is that the cosmology of the D&D alignment system is not a very satisfactory vehicle for this. I find it awkward, at best, to have to treat as open questions such things as "Is the Abyss really evil?" or "Is Mt Celestia really good?" The alignment system has already purported to answer those questions. That's its function.


I don't think it's a worthwhile function. But treating the planar alignments not as moral classifications but as personality descriptors for the inhabitants of those planes is a pretty big departure from how alignment has been presented in any version of the game. For instance, it doesn't fit with the idea that "alignment is determined by action" - ie that alignment is an objective property based on the conformity of a being's behaviour to the demands of morality.

Both can produce good. But what that spell doesn't tell you is which good is the BETTER good, which one will more properly eradicate evil, which one is more sustainable or effective, which one is higher than the other. Since evil exists in the multiverse, good hasn't "won," so they're clearly imperfect in some way. Both strive for well-being, sure, but that's one lonely little point of agreement. If the multiverse is to become a better place, good must be more perfect.

The function of the alignment system as an arbiter of cosmological truth is part of what PS explicitly calls into question (along with most other arbiters of cosmological truth). "Good is good because it's good" is fine for a lot of fantasy settings, but PS wants to know what MAKES it good, and asking that question shakes the foundational assumption. PS's answer to that (a sort of "because most people agree on that being the case" democracy) makes it clear that those who shape others' beliefs shape the reality they inhabit. Celestia is only "lawful good" by general agreement. Paladins only detect as good because of that agreement. If a PC decides that all this purity and virtue isn't so good after all, they change the planes via their actions in convincing others of the truth of their beliefs. A PS player can literally strip every paladin in existence of their claims to righteousness if they decide that such righteousness is fundamentally flawed and prove it through play. Which is something, of course, that every paladin would fight.

 

[SkidAce]

It might be argued that the non-violence of the good planes is as much a cold war as the Blood War is a hot war. The Archons ("stuffy elitists") and the Eladrin ("hedonistic children") and the Guardinals ("dudley do-nothings") and even perhaps the Animal Lords ("self-interested beasts, really") really do hate each other, but they work against each other by highlighting the flaws of the other, not willing to risk all those good lives in outright violence. Where a tyrant rears its head, an Eladrin might be present for revolution...and an Archon might be present for a new king. And both recognize that either one of them is better than that devil the vizier has been talking to.

IMO, if the relationships have degenerated to "hate", than the creatures involved are not that good.

 

[The Shadow]

Sheesh, I leave you guys alone for a week and you turn a moderately interesting thread into yet another endless alignment pit!

My take: Alignment is virtually useless as a categorization of characters, and uninteresting and overdone as a determinant of cosmology. The game would be better off without it, and I welcome 5e's downplaying of it.

A large part of the reason of its uselessness for categorization is that the Law/Chaos axis has always been utterly incoherent, with no two gamers and no two game texts agreeing on just what it means. And then there's the added absurdity, as Pemerton has ably argued, of pretending it is equivalent and orthogonal to the Good/Evil axis.

You disagree that the Law/Chaos axis is incoherent? Well then. Describe for me, let's say, "a chaotic act" (which paladins used to be penalized for, recall) without any reference to good or evil. No fair smuggling in words like 'ought'! That's a moral category, after all, that's used precisely to delineate goodness!

In essence, one has to tell the paladin, "You ought not to do 'chaotic' things." Which is simply to say that those 'chaotic' things are actually evil. Which means that 'Chaos' is just a word for a particular subset of 'Evil'. And in fairness, one could doubtless say that it might be a word for a particular subset of 'Good' too... but in that case, how is one justified in saying that one ought not to do those particular 'Chaotic' acts, since they are in fact good?

In the end, 'Law' and 'Chaos' are a grab-bag of unrelated concepts that are lumped together Because Gary Said So, and because Gamer Tradition Hath Hallowed Them. Like, 'entropy' and 'love of liberty' are both associated with 'Chaos' in different degrees by different people, even though they have nothing at all to do with each other!

Just consider the fact that in real life, 'love of liberty' generally reaches whatever fulfillment it can find in 'the rule of law'...

EDIT: And here's another example. Robin Hood is pretty much the archetypical example of 'Chaotic Good', right? What is it that makes him Chaotic? Apparently that he's a rebel against the established social order.

Yet why is he a rebel against the established social order? In the story, it's because King John is a wicked king who has unjustly dispossessed him, outlawed him, and oppressed the people. Robin isn't hanging out in the woods because he likes the free country life, that's for sure! (I doubt most peasants feel very 'free' in their subsistence farming, either...)

In other words, he's a rebel only because the established social order is evil. Given the chance, he'd be happy to be a baron again under good King Richard. Is he still Chaotic Good if that happens?

If he is, if you define 'Chaotic Goodness' as 'being willing to rebel against evil', then you've just subordinated 'Chaotic' to 'Goodness'. And pretty much made hash of any coherent attempt to then turn around and describe 'Chaotic Evil' as 'Chaotic' in the same sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course. This isn't contentious. My point is that, in a world in which both are correct - which is the world of the Great Wheel cosmology - then their disagreement is silly, or at best a disagreement of taste/style.

Alternatively, if you take the view that human wellbeing is best realised on Elysium - a view of the planes that I do not think is canonical, but I can see how some disagree - then both the LG and the CG person should recognise their error, and join Moorcock in affirming that too much order, and too much chaos, are both inimical to human wellbeing.

The issue I'm point too is that the Great Wheel, in its standard presentation, wants to affirm that both Law and Chaos can be good, and also affirm that the disagreement between LG and CG is well-founded. That's the bit that I regard as untenable.

I still don't see what's untenable about it. Some view order as a thing that produces good, some view liberty as a thing that produces good, and, depending on what a PS character who is LG or CG believes, that can be the case. I don't see the disagreement as "silly," anymore than any tension between personal freedom and external responsibility is "silly." Both can be said to produce good. Both can also be said to not perfectly produce well-being for all, and both can easily be turned to evil ends. Is that a flaw in execution, or in fundamentals? That's up to the PC's.

But the canonical D&D cosmology does dictate an answer: both the Seven Heavens and Olympus test positive to a Detect Good spell. Neither is less good than the other in virtue of affirming the wrong method of aiming at goodness, nor in virtue of affirming the wrong conception of goodness.

My view is that the cosmology of the D&D alignment system is not a very satisfactory vehicle for this. I find it awkward, at best, to have to treat as open questions such things as "Is the Abyss really evil?" or "Is Mt Celestia really good?" The alignment system has already purported to answer those questions. That's its function.


I don't think it's a worthwhile function. But treating the planar alignments not as moral classifications but as personality descriptors for the inhabitants of those planes is a pretty big departure from how alignment has been presented in any version of the game. For instance, it doesn't fit with the idea that "alignment is determined by action" - ie that alignment is an objective property based on the conformity of a being's behaviour to the demands of morality.

Both can produce good. But what that spell doesn't tell you is which good is the BETTER good, which one will more properly eradicate evil, which one is more sustainable or effective, which one is higher than the other. Since evil exists in the multiverse, good hasn't "won," so they're clearly imperfect in some way, each promising a paradise for all beings that they have been unable to deliver on. Hence the need for the PC's, in Planescape. Both strive for well-being, sure, but that's one lonely little point of agreement. If the multiverse is to become a better place, good must be more perfect.

The function of the alignment system as an arbiter of cosmological truth is part of what PS explicitly calls into question (along with most other arbiters of cosmological truth). "Good is good because it's good" is fine for a lot of fantasy settings, but PS wants to know what MAKES it good, and asking that question shakes the foundational assumption. PS's answer to that (a sort of "because most people agree on that being the case" democracy) makes it clear that those who shape others' beliefs shape the reality they inhabit. Celestia is only "lawful good" by general agreement. Paladins only detect as good because of that agreement. If a PC decides that all this purity and virtue isn't so good after all, they change the planes via their actions in convincing others of the truth of their beliefs. A PS player can literally strip every paladin in existence of their claims to righteousness if they decide that such righteousness is fundamentally flawed and prove it through play. Which is something, of course, that every paladin would fight.

 

[Imaro]

You disagree that the Law/Chaos axis is incoherent? Well then. Describe for me, let's say, "a chaotic act" (which paladins used to be penalized for, recall) without any reference to good or evil. No fair smuggling in words like 'ought'! That's a moral category, after all, that's used precisely to delineate goodness!

Again, speaking mainly to 3.x here (thought I think it might apply across editions)... but if a paladin decided not to follow his code?

Having a code in and of itself isn't good or evil... it's lawful, centered around order, obedience and tradition (none of which are good or evil in and of themselves)... and it doesn't matter whether the breaking of the code was for a good or an evil purpose... he falls because he has forsaken his adherence to law through said actions... regardless of whether it is or isn't an evil act or results in a good or evil outcome.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't understand how I am meant to fit this into a D&D framework, which regards good (ie human/creature wellbeing) as something objectively desirable.

Good is not something objectively desirable. Otherwise, everyone would want to be Good, and that obviously isn't the case in D&D. That's like saying Law is objectively desirable. For a paladin, yes, Good is objectively desirable. But, you might as well say that for Deanna Troi Chocolate is inherently desirable. Saying that doesn't really mean much outside of an individual's desires, which is subjective.

And, going beyond that, there isn't a spell that tells you if it is more or less objectively Good to save the school bus of nuns or try to deactivate the bomb knowing you may not succeed. Decisions must be made based on the character, their beliefs, their history, and their goals. The Lawful character may say it is better to go for the sure thing saving the nuns. The Chaotic character may say that no, taking the chance to save the most people and risking your own life to defuse the bomb is the better choice. There's no spell that will say who is right. There's no way to know for sure which will be the right thing. You can't say one is objectively more Good than the other, and any attempt to do so will just lead to argument with those who have the opposite L/C mindset as you.

So, it is indeed subjective. The game is built off decision points that cannot predict the future, that cannot tell you if it is better to save Person A or Person B. If it is right to overthrow a tyrant and throw the world into chaos, or try to subvert their monarchy and hope that you can turn everything around without bloodshed. To work with a demon to kill a devil, or to work with a devil to kill a demon. Who can say what the right choices are? Not some spell. Not some angel. Only the player character can decide for themselves which is the correct choice. For them, and no one else.

In the real world, there aren't any significant political or social movements that value order or anarchy as ends in themselves. Anarchism, libertarianism, rule-of-law republicanism, etc, are all views about human well-being and how it might be secured.

Not so in Planescape, though, where we have the Revolutionary League that has Good characters working alongside Evil characters to overthrow the social order. Why? Well, they have their own reasons. There are Good Harmonium and Evil Harmonium. Who are you going to focus on. Who would you work with? What would you do to achieve your end goals?

Indeed, you might be Evil but work toward Good ends. Maybe you want to kill every last Evil Harmonium, but you aren't too concerned with killing some Good Harmonium along the way. You assassinate person after person after person with no heed to anything but the "greater good." In fact, my Evil games generally revolve around this sort of thing, with the protagonists as well as the antagonists being Evil. I can't remember the last time an Evil character in one of my games put themselves at odds with a Good character. It's just a bad idea in general.

But this is because the paladin thinks that the chaotic choice will undermine human wellbeing. Which in and of itself is completely rational, but which is apparently contradicted by the cosmology, which tells us - via the existence of Olympus - that it is possible to be chaotic and yet realise human wellbeing.

Perhaps. Of course, a Lawful character might look at Olympus and see suffering where there need not be any. Just because a plane is Good doesn't mean that there is a lack of suffering, after all. It just means that there the land hasn't moved away from its given alignment enough to slip into another plane yet. The Planes aren't this place that perfectly exemplifies the ideals of their alignments so much as a battleground where that alignment is currently the victor.

You cannot, therefore, look at Olympus and say that Good is doing well because of Chaos if you are a Lawful character. Instead, you say it is still Good despite the inherent Chaos.

As I've said upthread, asserting this doesn't make it so. That's not meant to be snide - it's sincere! As I also posted upthread, it's like telling me that in some campaign world the geometry is Euclidean and the circles all have ratios of diameter to circumfrence of exactly 22:7. The words can be written down, but I don't understand what it is that I'm being asked to imagine as being true.

The good alignment is defined (as per the quotes I posted upthread) as being the pursuit of human well-being. Gygax, at least - I can provide more quotes if desired - presented the dispute between LG and CG as primarily a disupte over the efficacy of means, rather than a pursuit over the desirability of ends.

What does it mean to say that a rational person thinks that order, or disorder, is important not because it contributes to well-being, but independently of its contribution to well-being? That is not a moral opinion (on any standard meaning of "morality"), nor an ethical one (on any standard meaning of "ethics"). It might be an aesthetic one, but are we saying then that the dispute between law and chaos is a dispute about aesthetics? That would make it an odd thing to fight and kill over. It also would sit oddly with the paladin and monk, who seem to treat matters of discipline, honour etc not as matters of aesthetic sensibility but rather as matters of obligation (ie morality and/or ethics).

In the real world, or the fiction of the real world, the paladin and monk don't think that law and good are independent axes. They think that discipine, adequate self-resepct, honour, etc are part and parcel of human well-being. It is the contradiction between this competely reasonable outlook, and the dictates of the cosmology (ie its dictates that you can be good indepdently of law and chaos) that I am pointing to, as a reason for regardiing that aspect of the cosmology as untenable.

This is a strange line of thought for me, seeing as how I played a Sigil-based Harmonium paladin who was more concerned with Law than Good, in general.

I guess you can flip it. What if you see Good as necessary to keep a Lawful society going? That an Evil end is ultimately selfish and undermines the Lawful order for the desires of the leaders, and therefore Good is the only tenable way for Law to successfully operate. Could you see a Lawful Good character with that mentality? If not, then I suspect that we're operating under completely different sets of understanding of the D&D alignment system.

The argument you present here seems much closer to the Moorcockian argument that law and chaos, taken too far, can be dangerous. But a paladin can't embrace that argument; rather, if it is true, then the paladin's outlook is basically false. (Notice that Moorcock has no paladin heroes - the contrast with Tolkien is obvious. The same is true of REH.) For me, this is how I have tended to regard Planescape, and is a quite different reason for my personal dislike of the setting - it exhibits a modernistic nihiism that makes romantic fantasy irrational, whereas I have a very soft spot for romantic fantasy.

For the record, I've never read Moorcock, and my knowledge of his works are probably confined to the generalities I've read in this and other similar threads. All of my above thoughts and opinions are derived from reading Planescape material. For what its worth, the paladin probably see the corruption of Elysium as a good (if not Good) thing, and therefore would work toward moving as much of that plane into Celestia as possible. This is how you might get "wars" between Good characters.

But, these wars would never be fought by those who register as "good". A good character who imprisons someone, does so with mercy and respect. There can't really be a CG revolutionary overthrow of a LG society. That wouldn't make any sense. The worst thing the CG character is going to do is chafe at the restrictions, but, since those restrictions are objectively good, he won't act against them. Why would he? To do so would actively act in an evil manner.

That doesn't track with me. I can completely see Good characters coming to blows over all kinds of things. Lets say CG guy's brother is doing something non-harmful, but deemed possibly harmful by the LG establishment. He's arrested and thrown in jail for life. CG guy then attempts to break into prison to get his brother out. Along the way LG guy and he meet. At that point, they aren't going to talk it out. Swords will be drawn. Blood will be spilled. That's how it has to be at that point.

At least, that's the kind of game I run. Moral grays. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong isn't necessarily associated with some letters written down on your character sheet. Decisions aren't always clear cut, and you can't always be sure what you're doing is the "right" thing. I know it isn't for everyone, but that's my preferred method of play.

I agree with ThirdWizard, you're being semantically obtuse here, whether unintentionally or not. To say a pie tastes better is not the same as to say someone is a better person, which is not the same as to say they're better at math. In all three contexts, better means "more good" but only in one does it have any kind of moral value.

This right here!! That's perhaps a better way of saying it than I tried to.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Good is not something objectively desirable. Otherwise, everyone would want to be Good, and that obviously isn't the case in D&D.

Worth repeating! At least in PS, all of these things have their origins in some validity. I am fond, for instance, of this interpretation of how each alignment sees itself. While I wouldn't necessarily claim it is authentic or canon or anything, I find it very much informs how I approach the alignments in D&D, and is a very thoughtful treatment on how one would "realistically" play these alignments (which are little more than short-hand for heroic and villainous archetypes, functionally).

Perhaps. Of course, a Lawful character might look at Olympus and see suffering where there need not be any. Just because a plane is Good doesn't mean that there is a lack of suffering, after all. It just means that there the land hasn't moved away from its given alignment enough to slip into another plane yet. The Planes aren't this place that perfectly exemplifies the ideals of their alignments so much as a battleground where that alignment is currently the victor.

This is something that PS introduces into the system, I think, but it is something that really makes me enjoy the setting. Someone might describe Elysium as the Plane of Perfect Good, but that says more about the describer than it does the plane. It's certainly peaceful. But so's a graveyard.

I guess you can flip it. What if you see Good as necessary to keep a Lawful society going? That an Evil end is ultimately selfish and undermines the Lawful order for the desires of the leaders, and therefore Good is the only tenable way for Law to successfully operate.

The flip side of that: someone who believes that the only way for them to truly get what they want out of life and maximize their personal pleasure is for them to have the autonomy to do so. Such a Chaotic Evil person might burn Rome to the ground to make the hills fertile and ready as their personal playground, with no one standing in their way, their own pleasure paramount, enabled only by the personal freedom of others. Such a character might never set up their own warlordship, knowing that the head that bears the crown is heavy -- they'd rather chop off any head that tries to wear the crown, since kings have a tendency to try and tell them what they can and cannot do.

That doesn't track with me. I can completely see Good characters coming to blows over all kinds of things. Lets say CG guy's brother is doing something non-harmful, but deemed possibly harmful by the LG establishment. He's arrested and thrown in jail for life. CG guy then attempts to break into prison to get his brother out. Along the way LG guy and he meet. At that point, they aren't going to talk it out. Swords will be drawn. Blood will be spilled. That's how it has to be at that point.


At least, that's the kind of game I run. Moral grays. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong isn't necessarily associated with some letters written down on your character sheet. Decisions aren't always clear cut, and you can't always be sure what you're doing is the "right" thing. I know it isn't for everyone, but that's my preferred method of play.

"Your brother was spreading vicious rumor about the king, weakening the peoples' confidence, and must be made an example of!"
"So he's guilty of running his mouth. It's HIS mouth. You don't get to tell him what can come out of it. I'm not leaving here without him."
*gets out manacles* "Have it your way."
*gets out sword* "That's all I ever wanted."
**FIGHT!**

Part of what I really like about PS is that it takes the black-and-white, red-vs-blue, moustache-twirling ugly evil vs. pretty white glowing sparkly good that D&D is kind of made for (what with alignments and demons and all) and turns it right on its ear. It could abandon alignment, sure. It doesn't NEED to, and it actually USES alignment to help cement one of its big themes. When someone tells you that something is Good, it is up to the heroic PC character to understand that Good means different things to different people, and the glowing sparkles with the blue lasers doesn't mean that the person is RIGHT. The Ultimate Home of Justice And Good ain't all it's claiming to be, and only a fool would swallow the brand without question.

 

[Quickleaf]

Diverging from the alignment discussion...

One of the criticisms of Planescape's interpretation of the D&D Multiverse, which [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION] gave well thought out voice to, is that there is a jaded attitude implicit and encouraged in its approach to the wonders of the planes.

While that element is certainly there in the core books, I don't think it is meant to sacrifice the players' sense of wonder on the altar of aesthetics/high concept. Recently I ran a poll in which 66% of respondents (43/65) voted that sense of wonder and majesty of the planes is integral to the Planescape "feel."

So clearly there's more going on than meets the eye.

 

[Imaro]

Diverging from the alignment discussion...

One of the criticisms of Planescape's interpretation of the D&D Multiverse, which @The Shadow gave well thought out voice to, is that there is a jaded attitude implicit and encouraged in its approach to the wonders of the planes.

While that element is certainly there in the core books, I don't think it is meant to sacrifice the players' sense of wonder on the altar of aesthetics/high concept. Recently I ran a poll in which 66% of respondents (43/65) voted that sense of wonder and majesty of the planes is integral to the Planescape "feel."

So clearly there's more going on than meets the eye.

A couple of things I was thinking after I read this...

Even though the PC's might be jaded or cynical, the players themselves could still find wonder on the planes.

I also think that whether one's PC's have a cynical and jaded outlook about the nature of the planes is heavily dependent upon whether they are planar or prime. Stepping away from Planescape for a minute and looking at the setting of London Below in Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere, which I think is quite similar in feel and projects some of that same attitude about what should be a "mythical" place... First I'll say regardless of the cynisism of many of the inhabitants of London Below there is still a sense of wonder for the reader who is experiencing it for the first time...

Second, just like the divide in Planescape between planars and primes... there are the character's such as Hunter, The Marquis de Carabas and Door who exhibit the cynicism and jaded outlook of having lived their entire life in London Below (though even they can stumble upon an extremely rare thing here or there that inspires wonder, awe, or fear) and there is Richard Mayhew who, though he is surrounded by the cynical and jaded still experiences wonder, awe, confusion, etc. when confronted by the things London Below has to offer... I think PS leaves it in the hands of the groups what type of characters (prime or planar) and thus what type of view they want their character to experience when confronted with the planes...

 

[I'm A Banana]

One of the criticisms of Planescape's interpretation of the D&D Multiverse, which [MENTION=16760]The Shadow[/MENTION] gave well thought out voice to, is that there is a jaded attitude implicit and encouraged in its approach to the wonders of the planes.

While that element is certainly there in the core books, I don't think it is meant to sacrifice the players' sense of wonder on the altar of aesthetics/high concept. Recently I ran a poll in which 66% of respondents (43/65) voted that sense of wonder and majesty of the planes is integral to the Planescape "feel."

So clearly there's more going on than meets the eye.

Yeah, it's not simple. But I think the rub is this: what do people functionally mean in play by a "sense of wonder and majesty of the planes"? I mean, what mechanics or events in play convey that sense of wonder and majesty?

When I think about that, I think about things like, say, the fact that the PC's can go explore the husks of dead gods. There's majesty (DEAD. FRICKIN. GODS.), there's wonder (they leave bodies just drifting around?! What is?!), it's not something that is easily possible in other settings.

But exploring a dead god is also irreverent and jaded at the same time. You are trodding on the corpse of some once-valued divinity with your soiled boots, you are adventuring on the physical embodiment of the fact that hopes and dreams can die, abandoned and forgotten.

So I think Imaro's got something of the right of it with his character/audience distinction. The audience is just like "woah, I get to go visit dead gods!", and the characters are all, "Gods die. It happens. Move on with your life." The Clueless character indeed plays the most direct role of first-time audience member, all starry-eyed, but part of the appeal is also in playing characters that treat this sort of thing as everyday, as an element of awe, as in, "wow, dead gods don't even phase my planewalker, she's seen it all!" Y'know, not EVERYONE is Luke Skywalker, Moisture Farmer from a tiny little podunk village who is in awe at Mos Eisley. Han Solo isn't in awe at the alien life around him. That's part of what makes him a competent bad-ass in his first appearance -- the audience is in awe and wonder, and Han is just like "Pssh, Greedo owes me some change, I ain't here to stare at Hammerhead Bartender all day."

PS characters as largely planar natives are more Han Solos, but there's a role to be played for our Lukes as well, and in both cases, the player can still be like "Woah."

Another element of that majesty and awe is that PS characters shift planes with their beliefs. Being able to redefine reality is a "woah" moment, but it is an expected and well-known thing on the planes, so your characters are generally characters who are aware of and use this to their advantage. They're not by and large Alice in wonderland, inquisitive and curious (though a Clueless could be!), they're more like the Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, imagining six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[Hussar]

And, of course, in PS, these societies are not monolithic. An LG society might achieve that by brainwashing and re-conditioning everyone who enters to believe as they do -- any nonconformity risks the purity of this Utopia. A CG society might let people starve in the streets rather than institute a tax that takes care of them, as any authority dictating behavior is a price that one pays in ultimate human well-being. An NG society might suffer from either of these problems, or they might suffer from being, say, highly exclusionary, unable to admit anyone outside, limiting the good they can create. Can any of these be said to be truly Good? Well, what do the PC's say? Do they designate that LG utopia an enemy and seek to destroy it while seeking succor in the CG society? Do they try to spread the NG society further, knowing it will collapse, believing it might be strong enough to last? The Unity of Rings dictates that one is connected to one's opposite, so all areas are rife with potential conflict that the PCs can resolve (and in so doing, decide for themselves what creates the most well-being...and be right about it).

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356422-The-Multiverse-is-back/page82#ixzz3GA7PIbnV

See, this is the problem I'm having here.

A good society would never do any of these things because these things are evil. Charity is an integral part of good - it's called out as such - so letting people starve wouldn't happen in a good society. Forced coercion in the form of brainwashing and re-conditioning are evil acts. Hardly acts of mercy or forgiveness or even justice if we get right down to it.

If there's no difference in the actions between opposite alignments, then what's the point of having opposite alignments? To me, this is incoherent. You can't have good societies that mind wipe people who disagree with you - that's evil. You can't have good societies that allow people to starve in the streets - that's evil. And, the thing is, even if you do have a society that does do these things, it's fairly easy to check if they are good or evil. If the acts are good, then, it should always be good to mind wipe people to believe what you believe. Why wouldn't chaotic good societies start doing the same? After all, these are good acts so, why would a CG society not also do them?

 

[Savage Wombat]

A good society would never do any of these things because these things are evil. Charity is an integral part of good - it's called out as such - so letting people starve wouldn't happen in a good society. Forced coercion in the form of brainwashing and re-conditioning are evil acts. Hardly acts of mercy or forgiveness or even justice if we get right down to it.

What if we make it a LG society that "reeducates" (brainwashes) those convicted of repeated criminal acts? And a CG society that gives citizens every opportunity to gainfully employ themselves, but won't help you one cent if you don't take those opportunities? Those societies would be good-ish. At least they'd consider themselves so. Certainly they'd seem way to extreme in the L-C axis to be borne by those on the other end.