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

[pemerton]

In English, especially in formal academic settings, they are not quite synonyms.

<snip>

Ethics generally refers to required behaviors as set by some outside force. What is allowed or not.
Morals generally refers to internally held beliefs of what is right. What is Right or Wrong, usually without regard to whether it's allowed or not, especially when contrasted with Ethics.

This is not canonical. It is one usage.

Especially because a standard synonym for "wrong all things considered" is "not morally permitted". And "permitted" is, in turn, a synonym for "allowed".

In D&D, too, "lawfulness" doesn't equate to "upholds an externally-imposed code", because monks, honourable knights etc are all paladins even though their sense of discipline comes from within.

Nor, in D&D, does "good" or "evil" refer to an internally held belief about what is right. (What woud "evil" mean, then? A lack of such belief? Or a belief that it is right to murder? Or . . . ?) They refer, in a rough-and-ready way, to actions which promote or undermine human wellbeing, somewhat amorphously defined.

I can tell you, as a matter of brute fact, that in the bulk of conversation that occurs between Engish-speaking philosophers, "ethical" and "moral" are treated as synonyms. And debates about promise-keeping would most typically be described using the language of "the morality of promising", not "the ethics of promising" - because most contemporary philosophers would regard the obiglation to keep promises being an other-regarding duty (about upholding the interests of the promisee), not a self-regarding duty (about upholding the honour of the promiser).

the spell distinguishes the degree of evil not by the actual moral weight of the individual in question but rather by how supernatural that evil is

This may be a feature of 3E. It is not a feature of Gygax's AD&D, which is where my quote was taken from.

Actually, unless the paladin is delusional they likely realize they're less than fully good by their very nature as a mortal, regardless of their specific alignment.

This doesn't speak to my point. Sure, the paladin recognises that s/he, as a mortal, may be flawed. But s/he doesn't regard her commitment to law as a flaw, or as sullying his/her commitment to good. Hence, s/he cannot agree with the descriptions of Elysium that you posted.

Pure neutral good is more good than pure lawful good and pure lawful neutral is more lawful than pure lawful good; that's how the cosmology works.

I'm not confused. I'm pointing out an incoherence. If what you say is correct, then every paladin who goes to cosmology school should immediately repudiate lawfulness, because acknowlding that it dilutes good. Which is absurd: the paladin thinks that his/her adherence to law promotes good, not that it sullies it.

The conflict between the priorities of law and good actually is a canonical feature of lawful good characters

It's canonical from the point of view of authors and readers of fiction. It's not canonical within the fiction, though: paladins don't regard law and good as competing priorities. As others posted upthread, they regard law as a necessary condition of realising the good. (Others within the fiction may disagree - eg the bard who mocks the paladin - but they are not canonically correct within the fiction, either. Within the fiction we have a dispute between protagonists over what is the best way to live one's life, which is a staple of pretty much every story ever.)

This is why alignment can, perhaps, work as a personality descriptor - the paladin thinks law is a necessary condition of good, and hence insists upon honour and discipline; the bard thinks this is all stick-in-the-mud nonsense and advocates anarchical liberty - but it can't work as a coherent cosmology: both the paladin and the bard can't be correct at the same time, yet the cosmology tells us that both Olympus and Celestia are equally good. Furthermore, it tells us that in a sense the bard and paladin are both wrong - neither law nor chaos promotes goodness, but rather both of them sully it.

A person kept alive but in a state of constant misery and despair suffers more in this view than one who dies quickly but with a shred of hope that evil will fail. From that perspective, the glooms of Hades, which literally sap a good character's capacity of hope from them, is worse than the Abyss or the Hells.

This is odd too. A person who is stuck in Hades might, as a result of a magical effect, form the beief that evil will triumph. But there is no basis for the belief - it is just a charm effect - so I'm not sure where the extreme evil consists in.

I mean, the idea that it is more evil to make someone miserable than to kill someone isn't obviously true - and in the Nine Hells at least I imagine that they torture their enemies, which not only makes the miserable and hopeless but perhaps worse than would be the case on Hades.

As a literary trope, a place that reduces all who enter it to despair is interesting. But I don't think it works very well as a contribution to a theory of evil. Particularly if we flip it around - a character who went around casting charm spells on everyone to make them romantically optimistic woudn't be our paradigm of a good character, would s/he?

 

[pemerton]

The Chaotic Good Guy is going to ignore his oath if he thinks it's to general benefit

Here is a further oddity: you are characterising the CG outlook as consequentialist.

But in his AD&D books Gygax characterises Lawful Good as concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Who is correct?

(This isn't particularly an issue about cosmology; it's about the widespread difference of opinion among D&Ders as to what the law/chaos distinction is meant to capture, which is in part a resut of the incoherent attempt to present it as orthogonal, rather than a component of, good and evil.)

 

[Nivenus]

This is not canonical. It is one usage.

So is your usage. The fact that you use one meaning of the words ethics and morality does not contradict the fact that other people do not.

I can tell you, as a matter of brute fact, that in the bulk of conversation that occurs between Engish-speaking philosophers, "ethical" and "moral" are treated as synonyms.

Can you? In my own experience with philosophy I've observed the same distinction between morals and ethics. And I've already pointed to several examples of other cases where a distinction is made.

You're stating a matter of semantics - a matter already shown to be a matter of debate - as though it were objective truth and it simply isn't.

This may be a feature of 3E. It is not a feature of Gygax's AD&D, which is where my quote was taken from.

It's a feature of both 3e and 5e. And the 1e quote which you lifted doesn't actually contradict the 3e quote. Indeed, it's quite a bit vaguer in its meaning. The 3e PHB's meaning is much more explicit. The 3e spell still detects the degree of evil... but the degree is determined by its supernatural strength, not by the moral character of the creature being examined. And nowhere in the 1e DMG does it say that the moral worth of the creature is what is being evaluated (I know, I've checked).

While I think you may have a point that the definitions of D&D's alignments have shifted overtime, I also think you're reading far too much of your own impressions about what the spell's relatively vague description into an explicit definition. Presumably the designers of 3e and 5e are just as capable of interpreting what it says as you are and they chose not to read it as you do.

This doesn't speak to my point. Sure, the paladin recognises that s/he, as a mortal, may be flawed. But s/he doesn't regard her commitment to law as a flaw, or as sullying his/her commitment to good. Hence, s/he cannot agree with the descriptions of Elysium that you posted.

I'm not confused. I'm pointing out an incoherence. If what you say is correct, then every paladin who goes to cosmology school should immediately repudiate lawfulness, because acknowlding that it dilutes good. Which is absurd: the paladin thinks that his/her adherence to law promotes good, not that it sullies it.

I don't see why that must be the case. The point of the nine-alignment system is that law and chaos aren't opposed to either good or evil. The fact that a classical LG paladin must balance his or her interests in good and law doesn't mean that by doing something lawful that isn't good they're also doing something evil. Law in the D&D sense is it's own value system. The lawful good paladin doesn't just believe in doing good: they also believe in the value of law for it's own sake.

Semantics becomes something of an issue here because one could argue that if a paladin values law they necessarily see it as "good." But good in D&D actually means something very specific: it means acts of kindness, mercy, hope, and charity. Law, on the other head, represents a very different set of virtues, which the paladin finds equally valuable, even if they aren't "good:" stability, discipline, honor, and duty. A lawful good paladin isn't interesting in promoting pure good; they're interested in promoting both law and good, because they believe both are valuable. Likewise, a chaotic good character believes freedom is a worthwhile value in of itself, separate from kindness (but often in combination with it).

LG paladins aren't even necessarily required to worship LG gods. Some paladins serve lawful neutral deities. Others serve neutral good deities. The exact degree to which a LG character favors law or good varies on a case by case basis. Some feel duty is more important than being kind. Others feel it's better to break the law than let an innocent die. Each paladin has to navigate that road by themselves, by their own conscience. Some paladins are undoubtedly more good than some neutral good characters; alignment isn't a straight-jacket for PCs.

It's canonical from the point of view of authors and readers of fiction. It's not canonical within the fiction, though: paladins don't regard law and good as competing priorities. As others posted upthread, they regard law as a necessary condition of realising the good.

Again law and chaos are their own separate ends, independent of good and evil in the D&D alignment system. Law is "good" from the perspective of a LG paladin because it promotes stability and harmony, but it's a separate value from what D&D calls "good" (which might be more specifically termed "charity" or "benevolence"). A LN character feels the same way (as do some LE characters). Law is valuable to lawful characters not because it is good, but because it is law. Chaos is valuable to chaotic characters because it represents freedom and innovation, not because it is good.

When it comes right down to it, the typical LG character would feel just as comfortable living in a well-ordered, benign dictatorship as they would a liberal democracy, because both are within their "comfort zone" of law and good. A chaotic good character would, on the other hand, feel just at home in a lawless frontier as they would in a democratic state (and indeed, more so if the state was highly centralized). This is regardless of whether or not either setting naturally promotes goodwill among its inhabitants; a chaotic good character would recoil at the thought of living in a state-run utopia, even if most people were relatively well-off, while a lawful good character would similarly feel deeply uncomfortable at the idea of living in a stateless anarchy where anyone could do anything (even if most people chose to do good).

From our perspective, where values are not so easily defined, either character could be considered to be right. But from the perspective of D&D's alignment system, where good is defined in very simple terms as that which is done selflessly for others or which inspires hope, both sets of characters are letting their antipathy for law or chaos get in the way of enjoying what might be a relatively "good" situation.

This is odd too. A person who is stuck in Hades might, as a result of a magical effect, form the beief that evil will triumph. But there is no basis for the belief - it is just a charm effect - so I'm not sure where the extreme evil consists in.

It's supernatural evil, what do you want? It to be non-magical?

I mean, the idea that it is more evil to make someone miserable than to kill someone isn't obviously true

No, it's not, not in real-life. As I said, D&D's interpretation of good and evil is very idealistic. But that's only natural when the cosmology is itself very idealistic (ideas become reality, literally). While many philosophers might disagree with D&D's definition of despair as a greater evil than death, others wouldn't. It's all very subjective... except in the rules themselves.

...and in the Nine Hells at least I imagine that they torture their enemies, which not only makes the miserable and hopeless but perhaps worse than would be the case on Hades.

Actually, my impression of devils is that their first priority is to corrupt mortals, not to cause them pain or misery. I mean, that's pretty much the core of the devil's interactions with mortals in D&D (and popular literature before hand): to tempt them to sin and then acquire their soul for the purpose of building an army (against demons and celestials in D&D, against heaven in most other variations). Devils want to bring you over to their side. They might torture you in the meantime (indeed, it'd be kind of expected) but it's not their end goal. Likewise, demons just want to kill and destroy.

Yugoloths, on the other hand, are more sadistic than either devils or demons. They don't want to corrupt your or kill you. They want to cause you misery and pain. According to The Planewalker's Handbook they treat mortal interlopers as "lab animals at best."

It's probably worth mentioning that according to most sources, yugoloths don't actually derive any of their number from mortals. Mortals can become lemures which becomes devils or manes which become demons, but no yugoloths (or at least very few) are born of mortal souls. They have nothing to gain from keeping mortal souls, other than to torment them (or sell them to demons or devils).

As a literary trope, a place that reduces all who enter it to despair is interesting. But I don't think it works very well as a contribution to a theory of evil. Particularly if we flip it around - a character who went around casting charm spells on everyone to make them romantically optimistic woudn't be our paradigm of a good character, would s/he?

That's where naivete comes in as a potential flaw for neutral good characters (since D&D good, after all, is defined largely as selflessness, hope, and charity, which all lend themselves to being taken advantage of).

 

[Imaro]

AD&D (both 1E and 2E) defined the alignments in an absolute, 3rd person way. A LN character might consider himself "good", but for mechanics purposes, it was very much an absolutist approach.

The ultimate expression of this was the charting of alignment in certain setting books... every session, the DM would move your position on a big grid, and if you stayed across the line for so many sessions, you had changed alignment, which itself had penalties.

I don't think you're fully grasping the context or meaning of my statements, which is understandable if you haven't followed the multiple page back and forth going on. When I say alignment isn't absolute, I am saying that being LG, CG, LE, etc. does not in and of itself constitute an absolute, there are variations among LN, CG, and LE and this is backed up by the description of alignment in all editions I am familiar with... even if the detect alignment spell doesn't make that differentiation apparent because the information it gives is not granular enough. As an example of some of this granularity that is missing does a detect alignment spell tell you whether a LG character is alignned more with law or more with good? Or another way of putting it is that within certain boundaries two characters of the same alignment can differ in their behaviors and even their devotion to the cosmological force(s) they are aligned with

The Dragonlance Adventures book for 1e emphasized Good/Evil, downplaying the law/chaos axis.
Greyhawk Adventures (late 1e) has a system for 0-level PC's... and in it, a method of developing alignment based upon actions at 0-level. The charting and definition, however, is pretty concrete, and very absolutist. (Having used it, certain players were VERY surprised at what they came out as.)

So are you saying these alignments were specifically defined so as all LG characters wsere exactly the same? If not then they are not absolutist in the sense I am speaking to.

As for detection, if Alignment is relativistic, detection spells are an absurdity.

I didn't say it was relativistic... I said alignment was not defined in absolutes, they aren't the same thing. Alignments are large umbrellas with certain parameters under which various behaviors, personalities, codes, moral outlooks reside. But they are not defined in absolute terms...

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think you're fully grasping the context or meaning of my statements, which is understandable if you haven't followed the multiple page back and forth going on. When I say alignment isn't absolute, I am saying that being LG, CG, LE, etc. does not in and of itself constitute an absolute, there are variations among LN, CG, and LE and this is backed up by the description of alignment in all editions I am familiar with... even if the detect alignment spell doesn't make that differentiation apparent because the information it gives is not granular enough. As an example of some of this granularity that is missing does a detect alignment spell tell you whether a LG character is alignned more with law or more with good? Or another way of putting it is that within certain boundaries two characters of the same alignment can differ in their behaviors and even their devotion to the cosmological force(s) they are aligned with



So are you saying these alignments were specifically defined so as all LG characters wsere exactly the same? If not then they are not absolutist in the sense I am speaking to.



I didn't say it was relativistic... I said alignment was not defined in absolutes, they aren't the same thing. Alignments are large umbrellas with certain parameters under which various behaviors, personalities, codes, moral outlooks reside. But they are not defined in absolute terms...

I've followed it, but you've mad4 not a whit of sense during it.

The definitions were absolute in the sense that they are external, inflexible, and the personal perceptions of the character/monster have nothing to do with what their assigned alignment is; one can change alignment and not even know one has until an alignment-related spell goes off. (See 1E Greyhawk adventures and Dragonlance Adventures).

Yes, there's some slop in the alignment graph - but when the rules called for tracking it, it was pretty easy to wind up in the corners (LG, CG, LE, CE), and damnably hard to stay in the center.

It was, mechanically, reduced to certain behaviors, without regard to motive behind those behaviors, being movement towards an edge.

 

[Imaro]

I've followed it, but you've mad4 not a whit of sense during it.

If that is true then why engage me... if nothing I've said has made sense throughout this conversation why waste the time replying?

The definitions were absolute in the sense that they are external, inflexible, and the personal perceptions of the character/monster have nothing to do with what their assigned alignment is; one can change alignment and not even know one has until an alignment-related spell goes off. (See 1E Greyhawk adventures and Dragonlance Adventures).

But alignments, at least in the editions I have discussed have clearly been defined as flexible, both internal and external( a monk's discipline vs. a Paladin with an ancient code he follows), and flexible... I would think inflexible rigidly designed alignments would make it very clear without a spell going off exactly where you were... so no, I don't agree with the premise you set forth here because most of your assertions about alignment don't hold up when examined, again insofar as the editions I have been discussing.

Yes, there's some slop in the alignment graph - but when the rules called for tracking it, it was pretty easy to wind up in the corners (LG, CG, LE, CE), and damnably hard to stay in the center.

It was, mechanically, reduced to certain behaviors, without regard to motive behind those behaviors, being movement towards an edge.

Hmm, do you think this was a flaw in the rules or in the way people played/judged alignment? (were these 1e D&D rules or are you speaking to another edition??)? I'm asking because I have relatively little knowledge of AD&D 1e and am genuinely curious... of course I've limited my discussion to the editions I know best and they all state outright that alignment is not this rigid inflexible thing you claim it is... furthermore there is no chart that it is tracked on and the description goes through great lengths to state that alignments are just broad guidelines inside of which are different personalities, interpretations devotions and so on... so I'm wondering are you speaking to a specific or a couple of specific editions, and if so could you name them so we can be on the same page?

 

[Aldarc]

At this point it seems to be over whether or not cosmological absolutes of law, chaos, good, and evil make any sense in D&D. I've tried to keep my comments as strongly focused on cosmology as possible, but there has definitely been some digression.

To be fair, cosmology and alignment are intricately tied together in the framework of D&D.

 

[Nivenus]

To be fair, cosmology and alignment are intricately tied together in the framework of D&D.

True enough. It's probably about as relevant as the earlier discussions about kobolds.

 

[Mirtek]

Hence, a LG or CG person must believe that the best way to achieved goodness is not via unadulterated goodness, but rather by diluting the goodness with a bit of law or chaos. Which only has to be stated for its absurdity to become apparent.

It's not absurdity, because he is not interested in promoting [Good] but rather his own ideal of a blend of L&G or C&G. To him both unadulterated goodness and unadulterated chaos/law are flawed and only if tempered with by each other you have a mix that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes, for him good needs to be diluted beause good is not the goal in itself. It's only an absurdity is you are too set on the E/G conflict and forget that L/C is an equally important conflict that is not playing second fiddle to E/G.

 

[Aldarc]

It's not absurdity, because he is not interested in promoting [Good] but rather his own ideal of a blend of L&G or C&G. To him both unadulterated goodness and unadulterated chaos/law are flawed and only if tempered with by each other you have a mix that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes, for him good needs to be diluted beause good is not the goal in itself. It's only an absurdity is you are too set on the E/G conflict and forget that L/C is an equally important conflict that is not playing second fiddle to E/G.

Except L/C consistently plays second-fiddle to E/G in D&D, especially when the game frequently involves defeating great evils and not great chaoses or great laws of the universe. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has said, L/C often plays out in character alignment more like a minor note of personality temperament as opposed to a great cosmological force on the scales of Good vs. Evil.