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

[Elderbrain]

Pemerton wrote: "You can assert this stuff, but it doesn't make it true (putting to one side that few D&Ders define "lawful" as "following laws.""

- Give me a break! Why on earth do you think the alignment is called "Lawful"?!? In the D&D game, "Lawful" refers to any person who subscribes to the belief in creating and/or maintaining an orderly, hierarchical society with rules, regulations and laws. That is all that is required to make someone "Lawful" in the game. It is NOT the same as being "Good", nor is being good in any way a requirement or necessary component of being lawful. (It is possible to be truthful, and abide by your word, for instance, and still be evil. For that matter, Chaotics can do either of those things as well!) The Devils have a rigid, hierarchical society bound by rules, hence they are lawful. Period.

Yes, early in the game's history, it used a Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic line, but that was rightly abandoned as being too simplistic and not being able to properly represent certain common archetypes (such as a good but freedom loving rogue, or an evil tyrant who enforces rigid laws.)

And besides you, where are these alleged players and dms who think that "Lawful" has nothing to do with obeying rules and laws...?

 

[pemerton]

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

What does it even mean to think that unadulterated goodness is flawed? That's like saying that unaduterated sweetness is bitter - it's incoherent.

 

[Viking Bastard]

What does it even mean to think that unadulterated goodness is flawed? That's like saying that unaduterated sweetness is bitter - it's incoherent.

I see it more as saying unadulterated sweetness is too sweet. As in, "Can't build a society on nothing but goodness, you need structure and law—otherwise it's vulnerable to corrupting influences."

 

[Nivenus]

I see it more as saying unadulterated sweetness is too sweet. As in, "Can't build a society on nothing but goodness, you need structure and law—otherwise it's vulnerable to corrupting influences."

Not exactly a perfect analogy, but it more or less gets the point across. Good (by which I mean the D&D definition of good) without law or chaos may be more "pure" but that doesn't necessarily mean the paladin or the bard thinks it's better. From their perspectives, good (or "niceness" if you prefer) is something you can have in excess.

To a lawful good character, good/niceness is best tempered with law and law is best when it promotes good. To a chaotic good character, good/niceness is best when it embraces individualism and diversity while chaos is at its best when people are free to be good. The neutral good character looks at both kinds of people and thinks they're missing the point: that good/niceness is best when it neither favors order nor individualism over the other. Good/niceness doesn't need either to be perfect (whereas LG and CG characters disagree).

 

[Mirtek]

What does it even mean to think that unadulterated goodness is flawed? That's like saying that unaduterated sweetness is bitter - it's incoherent.

Only if sweetness is your goal intiself, which it isn't. If your goal is to bake the sweetest cake it's incoherent to say that unaduterated sweetness is not the best.

If your goal is to bake the best tasting cake rather than the sweetest cake, then saying that unaduterated sweetness is not best tasting is not incoherent.

 

[Mr Fixit]

Seems to me that terms like "good" and "evil" add to the confusion. Hence pemerton's problem with the notion that goodness can be flawed. How can unadulterated good be flawed? If it's flawed, it isn't good, at least not "unadulteratedly" so, right?

However, good in D&D parlance translates to charity, mercy, or selflessness (though these aren't totally appropriate either). Viewed in this fashion, I believe that there indeed is such a thing as too much mercy, or selflessness for that matter. There is some truth to that old bit of wisdom that you need to love yourself before loving another. I have trouble imagining an absolutely selfless person that's not... damaged/traumatised in a way. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who is totally and unreservedly committed to me beyond any other consideration. In fact, it would creep me out and make me think there are some deeper issues there to be resolved.

So, law/order vs chaos/individualism and charity/mercy/selflessness vs malevolence/selfishness. Yeah, I can easily buy into the notion that there can be too much/too little of either and that a lawful good character, for instance, isn't necessarily "gooder" than a neutral good character and can in fact be less so. His goodness is tempered by his lawfulness as good aims (mercy, charity, well-being) should only in his view be achieved by lawful measures. His lawfulness is also tempered by his goodness as he believes that order and stability should only be achieved by charitable and merciful means. This view, i think, by necessity, as pemerton would say, sullies (I'd prefer tempers) paladin's dedication to either.

 

[Imaro]

Seems to me that terms like "good" and "evil" add to the confusion. Hence pemerton's problem with the notion that goodness can be flawed. How can unadulterated good be flawed? If it's flawed, it isn't good, at least not "unadulteratedly" so, right?

However, good in D&D parlance translates to charity, mercy, or selflessness (though these aren't totally appropriate either). Viewed in this fashion, I believe that there indeed is such a thing as too much mercy, or selflessness for that matter. There is some truth to that old bit of wisdom that you need to love yourself before loving another. I have trouble imagining an absolutely selfless person that's not... damaged/traumatised in a way. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who is totally and unreservedly committed to me beyond any other consideration. In fact, it would creep me out and make me think there are some deeper issues there to be resolved.

So, law/order vs chaos/individualism and charity/mercy/selflessness vs malevolence/selfishness. Yeah, I can easily buy into the notion that there can be too much/too little of either and that a lawful good character, for instance, isn't necessarily "gooder" than a neutral good character and can in fact be less so. His goodness is tempered by his lawfulness as good aims (mercy, charity, well-being) should only in his view be achieved by lawful measures. His lawfulness is also tempered by his goodness as he believes that order and stability should only be achieved by charitable and merciful means. This view, i think, by necessity, as pemerton would say, sullies (I'd prefer tempers) paladin's dedication to either.

Yes the problem with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's assertion is that he believes one can be absolute good but serve 2 masters (both good and law/chaos)... Which I asserted earlier in the thread was impossible... thus why I said only NG could attain an absolute good (since it is unconcerned with law or chaos only good) the "incoherence" he keeps talking about seems to arise not because law and chaos are treated separately from good and evil in D&D... but because he refuses to recognize law and chaos as separate cosmological forces from good and evil...

He also seems to assume that anyone who has a good alignment (LG, NG, CG) believes themselves to be absolutely good or has absolute good as their goal... which isn't true.

 

[Nivenus]

Seems to me that terms like "good" and "evil" add to the confusion. Hence pemerton's problem with the notion that goodness can be flawed. How can unadulterated good be flawed? If it's flawed, it isn't good, at least not "unadulteratedly" so, right?

I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head. Good and evil, as most people use the words, are inherently quite contentious and subjective in meaning, and basically everyone can and will differ over what they regard as "absolute good." However, for the terms to have any meaning in the context of D&D's rules, the terms have to be assigned more concrete meanings. According to D&D mercy, compassion, selflessness, and hope are good while severity, cruelty, selfishness, and despair are evil. Law and chaos, meanwhile, represent an entirely different set of values, which good or evil characters might exhibit alongside their (good) virtues and (evil) vices.

The other thing is that pemerton does have a point insofar as part of the confusion also derives from several authors' unequal treatment of the law/chaos divide in respect to the good/evil one. While I think in certain respects it makes sense that good characters will band together for common cause regardless of law or chaos (because tolerance is essentially a "good" value in D&D), the fact of the matter is that a lot of authors (and designers) lean on the conflict between good and evil because it's easier to understand within the context of our culture (what with its background in Abrahamic mythology), often to the expense of law and chaos.

That being said, I think the law and chaos conflict is largely more interesting, because it's actually more common (in my experience) and because it allows for more nuance in storytelling. A lawful good character is clearly superior to a chaotic evil one, but are they really morally superior to a chaotic neutral one? What about a lawful neutral character and a chaotic good one? Which you believe to be superior depends to a large extent on your own personal beliefs, which is something the simple dualism of good vs. evil doesn't allow (or even law and chaos by itself, if law is presumed good and chaos presumed evil). I like then that a lot of early sourcebooks (Planescape included but not alone) put an emphasis on the law vs. chaos conflict and didn't let it get totally subsumed by good vs. evil. For similar reasons I kind of wish WotC had put out a Book of Impeccable Honor and Book of Boundless Liberty (or some such thing) alongside the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness, to encourage more sophisticated play of the lawful and chaotic alignments in the same way those books encourage a more sophisticated consideration of D&D's conceptions of good and evil.

That WotC (and TSR) have in the past often failed to do this however is not because law vs. chaos is a meaningless conflict; the rules and the lore both explicitly state its equal importance to good vs. evil. Rather, it's because good vs. evil is more popular and easier to understand.

 

[aramis erak]

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

Because it's obvious you're trying to get information. Then again, I have spent time chatting with actively hallucinating schizhophrenia patients...

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.

3E explicitly made good/evil alignments relative to one's culture or code. LG following a particular code, for example. The law/chaos was downplayed.

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?

AD&D1E made them external per the rules. The D&D cosmology is built with that inherent sense of "there is a universal good and a universal evil", and the AD&D 1E DMG makes it quite clear that causing suffering is evil, as is killing for fun; by the same token, reducing suffering is good. Promoting organizational structures and/or laws is lawful. Promoting decentralization, individuality, and anarchy is chaotic.

Note that the tracking was optional, but a recurrent theme in AD&D as played. It's advised to do so in the DMG, but the actual mechanics for doing so don't appear until supplements (Greyhawk Adventures, Dragonlance Adventures).

The "Great Wheel" appears in rectangular form in the AD&D 1E PHB; as a wheel in Deities and Demigods, Manual of the Planes, and at least one other location in AD&D 1E. It's always been such that the outer planes are tied to the alignments... the 8 circumferential alignments (LG, LN, LE, NE, CE, CN, CG, NG) and the 8 transition points (LG/LN, LN/LE, LE/NE, NE/CE, CE/CN, CN/CG, CG/NG, NG/LG)

Once you get to the cosmological stage, the relativism of 3E becomes a failure. You can't epitomize Lawful Good if Fred's Lawful Good is based upon "smashing orc skulls to prevent orcs from eating real people in their cities", while Joe's is based upon "Saving all thinking beings from disorder and suffering." The two would expect very different eternal rewards, and per the mechanics of AD&D and the D&D-wide definitions of the outer planes, they are the places of "eternal reward"...

 

[Mr Fixit]

That being said, I think the law and chaos conflict is largely more interesting, because it's actually more common (in my experience) and because it allows for more nuance in storytelling.

I agree and I've posted similar thoughts. If we look at contemporary domestic politics in the West, I'd say that the main divide is on a law/chaos axis: things like conservativism vs liberalism, state vs individual, and similar contentious topics. Foreign policy isn't any different. Major powers frequently prefer stability ahead of any other consideration when they opt for one side in a conflict or another and institutions will generally assign the highest priority to preserving the status quo.

Good vs Evil is definitely easier to depict and pretty straightforward. Law vs Chaos is inherently more political and shades-of-grey. It's also more difficult to successfully pull off.