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

[Imaro]

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point? Or your eyes just go red when anyone dares to question you? It would be helpful if you could refer to the previous post of mine you have in mind. You seem to think that I'm saying two different things here:

Don't even try it... I know exactly what I'm arguing, it's been consistent throughout the thread and if I make a mistake I own up to it. You claimed the book said a particular thing that it did not in fact say... don't try to turn the tables and make it seem that I am being unreasonable... there is no mention whatsoever in the passage you cited about LE being a metaphysical reality... of the planes or of alignment... whichever one you actually mean.

So are you interested in a conversation or are you just deadset in insisting that I'm wrong?

Are you interested in admitting that what you originally posted (and what I put in bold) was not in fact in the book and was made up and added by you? If not, no I'm not interested in conversing with you anymore.

 

[Parmandur]

While the book does not use the word "metaphysical," it is pretty clear that it is, in fact, speaking of Devils in ontological terms. They *are* Lawful Evil, by essence, in their being. These are metaphysical terms.

 

[Imaro]

Well, yeah. It doesn't make any sense (frankly, neither does "absolutely evil").

As a platonic idea and even a personified force I think it makes perfect sense... especially in the type of fantasy cosmology I am interested in emulating with D&D mainly that of Moorcockian-esque sword and sorcery and weird-fantasy... I could honestly care less how "realistic" it is compared to our own real-world cosmologies. However I'd rather not get into another long back and forth since I think [MENTION=71756]Nivenus[/MENTION] is right... this is way off-topic and I think he summed up in post 740 the main crux of what I have been trying to convey for numerous pages now.

 

[Elderbrain]

Elderbrain,





To be fair, 4E is also somewhat "off" still, but in brief:





Treating "Evil" and "Chaos" as equal opposing metaphysical principles to "Good" and "Law" is like treating cold as an equal opposite physical force to heat, or treating darkness as a physical opposite force to light. Mind you, people thought both of those examples to be true, and dualism is a thing, but still essentializing "Evil" or "Chaos" is nonsensical as they are basically by definition the lack of goodness or order, respectively.





From another angle, as transcendent principles, treating "Law" and "Good" as different is like trying to say that "True" is different from "Good": if you are going to have a Realist metaphysics, doesn't make much sense.

- But Law and Good ARE DIFFERENT. Otherwise, you'd have to say that Asmodeus and his Devils were shining examples of virtue... to say nothing of real-world baddies like the Nazis, who had a rigid, orderly society. If this is what Realist metaphysics says, so much the worse for Realist metaphysics, no matter how many learned doctors of the Church accept it. I think Gygax got it right! (And incidentally, something CAN be both true and not good at the same time... think about it!)

 

[Elderbrain]

I'm not @Parmandur, but I think that nine-point alignment is untenable.

There was a long alignment thread earlier this year that went over this in a lot of detail. MY TL;DR version is:

Once you contrast good and evil, it makes no sense to have commitments to law and chaos as independent elments. For instance, a LG person is meant to judge that a CG is both fully good (contrast a CN person, who is sometimes or partly good) yet morally flawed. That makes no sense.

You'd be right, if the Paladin thought that way. But he shouldn't, because Law and Chaos HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY... let me repeat, being a good person has nothing to do with how many laws you follow, nor does breaking a law necessarily make you evil. Consider the officials who upheld racist laws in the past. They were lawful, yes, but also evil, since the laws they chose to uphold were morally wrong. Now, consider the demonstrators like MLK who engaged in civil disobedience. Were they good people? Yes. Were they fighting on the side of right? Yes. Were they lawbreakers? Yes, they were...and that didn't make them evil.

 

[Parmandur]

Ah, Elderbtain, but insofar as a thing is true, it is good; that's how transcendentals work in a Realist framework (which if we are talking about faux Medieval faux NeoPlatonism, what else is there?).

The"Lawful Evilness" of the D&D Devils is absurd, because they are in fact more Good than the Demons: they can be dealt with rationally, and follow rules.

The point for an actually Medieval-esque system, is that evil doesn't have "Thingy-ness," but is the lack of good. For a Medieval, this is how you can talk about a "lesser evil" to choose over a greater evil.

"Say what you will the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it was an Ethos!"

All this said, I'll use D&D-isms in a game anytime. Doesn't make 'em non-silly if you think about them too hard.

 

[Aldarc]

Don't even try it... I know exactly what I'm arguing, it's been consistent throughout the thread and if I make a mistake I own up to it. You claimed the book said a particular thing that it did not in fact say... don't try to turn the tables and make it seem that I am being unreasonable... there is no mention whatsoever in the passage you cited about LE being a metaphysical reality... of the planes or of alignment... whichever one you actually mean.

Are you interested in admitting that what you originally posted (and what I put in bold) was not in fact in the book and was made up and added by you? If not, no I'm not interested in conversing with you anymore.

I have no error to admit. I quoted what the book says. It's talking about the essential ontological nature of devils that's intrinsically tied in with their LE alignment. Just because the writers do not use the term 'metaphysical' does not mean that is what they are not talking about. How can a devil cease being a devil if it ventured outside of a Lawful Evil alignment unless that was a metaphysical reality?

- But Law and Good ARE DIFFERENT. Otherwise, you'd have to say that Asmodeus and his Devils were shining examples of virtue... to say nothing of real-world baddies like the Nazis, who had a rigid, orderly society. If this is what Realist metaphysics says, so much the worse for Realist metaphysics, no matter how many learned doctors of the Church accept it. I think Gygax got it right! (And incidentally, something CAN be both true and not good at the same time... think about it!)

Clearly Our Blessed Gary Gygax solved the moral quandaries that thousands of years of prior human philosophy could not. May His Truth never be questioned. Hallelujah! Amen!

 

[Elderbrain]

Ah, Elderbtain, but insofar as a thing is true, it is good; that's how transcendentals work in a Realist framework (which if we are talking about faux Medieval faux NeoPlatonism, what else is there?).

- I believe I just mentioned that that philosophy was garbage.

The"Lawful Evilness" of the D&D Devils is absurd, because they are in fact more Good than the Demons: they can be dealt with rationally, and follow rules.

It's not absurd, because I can point to countless examples of Lawful Evil societies in the real world! And being logical and rule-abiding has exactly zip to do with being a good person... are the Borg good? Ask survivors of the concentration camps how relieved they are that Hitler wasn't an anarchist. Tyrannies not only aren't more good than anarchies, they tend to do far more harm (since, being organised, they last longer.)

I think many of the problems humanity face stem DIRECTLY from the failure of people to recognize a difference between Law and Good on the one hand, and Chaos and Evil on the other. By equating the non - Lawful with the evil, crusades and jihad can be justified, and oneself wrapped in a (false) mantle of righteousness.

 

[Parmandur]

Gygax divided "morality" (Good-Evil) and "Ethics" (Law-Chaos). This is muddy, since the words mean the same thing, one is Latin (Mos-Mores) the other is Greek (Ethos). Both mean the set of habits and behaviors of a given person.

 

[Parmandur]

Also, Gygax himself seems to have preferred a basic Law-Chaos dychotomy, the Good-Evil was as I understand it popular demand. And the Law-Chaos divide has to do with, as permerton says, finding the "Golden Mean" between two errors.