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

[Imaro]

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

Dude how about you cool it with the backhanded insults.

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

What does this have to do with anything I've said... And as many have said before all the tools necessary for any particular DM to make the Law/Chaos conflict primary are there in the game (and I'd argue Planescape as a setting does bring the Law/Chaos conflict just as center as good and evil)... but ultimately good and evil are easier for most people to relate to, and thus sell better.

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.

There are still a ton of grays between all these things you are listing and thus again an alignment encompases a multitude of behaviors, personalities, codes, etc... You haven't dis-proven what I stated... just danced around it.

Quick question... How is a vengeance killing evaluated? Is it a good act? An evil act? What if I derive satisfaction from it as opposed to fun? what if you have fun but it saves countless lives? I mean if these things are defined in the rigidly absolute ways you claimed earlier these should be pretty easy questions to answer and not only should you be able to cite from the book to back the answer up... but if alignment is how you claim it is... I'm at a loss as to why people had so many alignment arguments, it should have been pretty clear right??

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).

Wait what? So you're citing an optional piece of advice to track alignment in the DMG... but it didn't give you the rules to do so which were later found in campaign supplements (which the majority of groups don't use)? I don't understand this at all... You presented this like it was an actual rule in 1e... was it or wasn't it?

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)

I'm really trying to find your point here but I'm not seeing it... what is your point in referencing this? If anything the fact that there are "transition points" would work against rigidly defined alignments... transition points speak to grey areas.

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"...

You're still missing my point... LG is not an absolute it is varying shades within boundaries..which is my point. As I said earlier LG actions fall under very broad and very general guidelines but they are nothing like the inflexible, rigidly defined boxes that you seemed to claim they were in your earlier post...

I fail to see how it becomes a failure if it epitomizes LG and LG, being a broad category, encompasses a multitude of behaviors, attitudes, personality types, methods, etc that are all found upon the plane (in some capacity)... then what is the failure here? there is room on an infinite plane for those who believe that evil must be violently (if necessary) and within the letter of the law (because they are lawful) defeated... and those who want to stop suffering and disorder (see if he wasn't focused on stopping disorder (lawful alignment) he could devote some more of that energy to vanquishing evil)... I'm just not getting where the failure kicks in...

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

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".

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?

good in D&D parlance translates to charity, mercy, or selflessness (though these aren't totally appropriate either).

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.

From the d20SRD:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.​

From Gygax's PHB and DMG (pp 33 and 23 resepectively):

[C]reatures of [chaotic good] alignment . . . place value on life and the welfare of each individual. . .

[C]haracters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. . . . [T]ruth is of highest value, and ife and beauty are of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. . . .

[C]reatures of neutral good believe [snip details] if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular. . . .

[T]he tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creatures is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.​

From the 2nd ed AD&D PHB (p 46):

Good characters are just that. They try to be honest, charitable and forthright. . . . [M]any things are commony accepted as gooed (helping those in need, protecting the weak).​

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!

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.

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

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."

This goes back to [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION]'s contrast between personality and metaphysics.

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. 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.

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.

Because of this difference in opinion on the value of solidarity, they can look at different societies, agree roughy on the facts, yet disagree on their moral value - because for the French revolutionary the existence of solidarity is a marker of human wellbeing, whereas for the libertarian it is irrelevant.

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.

Hence, 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.

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. Of course, you're still left with the question that I have never seen answered - are enlightenment republicans like the authors of the US Constitution, who believed in achieving democratic government aimed at conferring the benefits of a universal citizenship by way of the rule of law, chaotic or lawful?

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!

But as this incoherence in the alignment system isn't related to the cosmology, and rather to the inadequacy of law and chaos as terms for serious political moral inquiry (as shown by the fact that they see no use outside the context of fantasy adventure gaming), I won't press it in this thread.

 

[Elderbrain]

May I point out that some people might value order (Law) or freedom (Chaos) as ends in themselves, rather than as means to achieve Good? If the question be asked "Why value Law or Chaos in themselves?", I note that exactly the same question might be asked with regards to Good and Evil. A Modron, for instance, couldn't see what added value being Lawful Good would be over just being Lawful Neutral, since for a Modron Law effectively IS its "Good" and Chaos IS its "Evil"...

 

[Imaro]

May I point out that some people might value order (Law) or freedom (Chaos) as ends in themselves, rather than as means to achieve Good? If the question be asked "Why value Law or Chaos in themselves?", I note that exactly the same question might be asked with regards to Good and Evil. A Modron, for instance, couldn't see what added value being Lawful Good would be over just being Lawful Neutral, since for a Modron Law effectively IS its "Good" and Chaos IS its "Evil"...

Yeah "historical" and "realistic" moral frameworks didn't have to consider things like Modrons, definite proof of deities, or numerous other things in default D&D ... it's why I find that particular argument silly to say the least...

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

One of the reasons that I like Planescape, and especially Sigil, so much as a campaign setting is because it pushes the Law/Chaos axis into the forefront. Every game I run in Planescape is full or gray areas. What is the right thing to do? Where do my allegiances lie and why? What is the point of it all and what does it say I need to do? These are all questions that don't have correct answers. Or, more correctly, in Planescape, they are questions that you answer in order to find your own correct path.

I was talking earlier about my Harmonium working with a Guvner on missions. I left out the alignments because inevitably alignments muddy waters. But, it seems like its come up now. My character was a LG paladin. He worked with a LE kobold. How did it work? Because our commitment to Law kept us on the same side, regardless of how we wanted to go about things. And, when we came into conflict, there was always a resolution that could be found within that guideline of Law. Playing evil characters is tricky. Playing them alongside good characters is even more tricky. But, it can work, and it can work very very well at least in Sigil. Other campaign settings... maybe not. But, that's one thing that makes Planescape so unique and so wonderful in my mind.

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".

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?

I find that a really odd way of looking at it. Yes, "better" means "more good" - but only insofar as good means something subjectively desirable. So I can say that this hamburger is better than another. That doesn't mean that the hamburger has a moral outlook. That's because when we say a character is of the good alignment, we're obviously talking about a completely different definition. A definition that is put forward in the game. So, a goal can be more desirable without following the good alignment.

So, a paladin's concern for good is most definitely affected by his concern for law. If he is presented with a choice that is kind of good but chaotic or not good but lawful, he might go with the latter choice, depending on the character's motivations, moral outlook, and history. Whereas a "more good" person (NG) might be more likely to choose the former option. So, yes, I would 100% say that for a paladin doing lawful good is better than just doing good, and sometimes that is going to affect the outcome of his decisions. And, the paladin is okay with that. Because law is important too.

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. 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.

As someone who plays Planescape, I would say that this is a somewhat a misunderstanding of the planes. Elysium can be corrupted, and its a terribly dangerous thing. Because when areas of Elysium are corrupted (say become too lawful) they will actually fall into a different plane of existence! Planar inhabitants as well as planewalkers have to be on the lookout for this. Corruption is a very real danger, which physical effects.

In other words, just because you see something happening in Elysium it doesn't mean it is of the purest good. You have to be wary, because it might be corruptive, and if it is you need to do something (or run away) before you get drawn into the mess.

Hence, 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.

I don't know. Humans don't tend to act like that. "Oh, you register as good on my spell. I think what you're doing is reprehensible, but carry on." No way! The LG character is going to think that the CG character has good intentions sure. But, he's just inviting trouble. Maybe the CG character is trying to overthrow the LG character's government. Maybe the LG character is imprisoning the CG character's brother for crimes he believes are unjust. Take that on a cosmological scale and the NG plane becomes a battleground of ideology as exemplars of Law and Chaos battle for the hearts and minds of those who are "undecided" in their eyes. Entire communities/organizations are insulted, maligned, and at odds. Who cares if everybody wants "good" as an end goal if the methods are different. Wars have been fought over less. Much less.

 

[pemerton]

double post deleted

 

[pemerton]

I find that a really odd way of looking at it. Yes, "better" means "more good" - but only insofar as good means something subjectively desirable.

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.

May I point out that some people might value order (Law) or freedom (Chaos) as ends in themselves, rather than as means to achieve Good? If the question be asked "Why value Law or Chaos in themselves?", I note that exactly the same question might be asked with regards to Good and Evil.

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

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.

a paladin's concern for good is most definitely affected by his concern for law. If he is presented with a choice that is kind of good but chaotic or not good but lawful, he might go with the latter choice, depending on the character's motivations, moral outlook, and history. Whereas a "more good" person (NG) might be more likely to choose the former option.

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.

In a different cosmology - eg one which didn't present Olympus and the Seven Heavens as equally reaslising the very same value (ie human welfare, labelled as "Good") - then the paladin's outlook would make sense (subject to other doubts I have about the coherence of the Law/Chaos contrast). This is why I and others in this thread have contrasted the utility of alignment as a way of framing personal beliefs and frameworks for personal choice, with the disutility of alignment as a cosmological framework expressive of objective truths.

a goal can be more desirable without following the good alignment.

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.

Humans don't tend to act like that. "Oh, you register as good on my spell. I think what you're doing is reprehensible, but carry on." No way! The LG character is going to think that the CG character has good intentions sure. But, he's just inviting trouble. Maybe the CG character is trying to overthrow the LG character's government. Maybe the LG character is imprisoning the CG character's brother for crimes he believes are unjust.

I just think this is more evidence of the incoherence. The rulebooks tell us that the CG character is as good as the LG character, and ingame the characters work this out via spellcasting, but as players and collective authors of the ingame fiction we disregard all that and return to frameworks of evaluation that acutally make sense.

Elysium can be corrupted, and its a terribly dangerous thing. Because when areas of Elysium are corrupted (say become too lawful) they will actually fall into a different plane of [/SIZE]existence! Planar inhabitants as well as planewalkers have to be on the lookout for this. Corruption is a very real danger, which physical effects.

This has nothing to do with the post I replied to.

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!

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.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know. Humans don't tend to act like that. "Oh, you register as good on my spell. I think what you're doing is reprehensible, but carry on." No way! The LG character is going to think that the CG character has good intentions sure. But, he's just inviting trouble. Maybe the CG character is trying to overthrow the LG character's government. Maybe the LG character is imprisoning the CG character's brother for crimes he believes are unjust. Take that on a cosmological scale and the NG plane becomes a battleground of ideology as exemplars of Law and Chaos battle for the hearts and minds of those who are "undecided" in their eyes. Entire communities/organizations are insulted, maligned, and at odds. Who cares if everybody wants "good" as an end goal if the methods are different. Wars have been fought over less. Much less.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356422-The-Multiverse-is-back/page82#ixzz3G5NFTWNa

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.

The idea that angels and archons fight wars is pretty far removed from the setting. There is no Blood War between LG and CG after all. The idea that the NG plane becomes a mirror of the NE plane, if that's what Planescape means, pretty much proves how incoherent the setting really is.

I guess that's my basic issue with Planescape at the end of day. That I just cannot see how objective alignment, with moral forces being an ontological truth, can possibly result in a setting where people can disagree over the nature of those forces.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I don't personally see this as untenable.

There are those who find that order and cooperation and external principles bring about the well-being for the most number of people. Occasionally this may mean giving up some degree of independence, which one gladly gives up for the "greater good" if one adheres to that belief. The Most Perfect World is one where everyone voluntarily agrees to help everyone else, thus leading to a universe were all people would be willing to sacrifice their own needs for the good of society. These folks may be described as LG, believing that the well-being of people is contingent upon adhering to external order and society.

There are those who believe that independence and self-determination is what truly brings about well-being. Occasionally, this may mean isolation and social disintegration and a lack of structure, all of which one would rightfully see as an infringement upon the "greater good," even if they gave some other benefit. The Most Perfect World here is one where everyone voluntarily agrees to pursue their own path to others' well-being, thus leading to a universe where people are willing to sacrifice things like massive cities for the good of the individuals that would make up those cities. These folks may be described as CG, believing that the well-being of people is contingent upon those people being allowed to express their desire for others' well being without obligation or interference.

There are those who believe that true well being requires both an occasional sacrifice of individual liberty, and an occasional sacrifice of social order. Both of these are sacrifices one makes for the "greater good," in order to have the benefits both afford. The extremes are mutually exclusive, and only a blending of the two, using one or the other where appropriate, can lead to the greatest good. The Most Perfect World here is one where everyone acknowledges that both society and the individual must bend to the other, in a give-and-take relationship that ideological purity will only destroy. These folks make be described as NG, believing that both individual expression and external obligation, each in moderation, produce the greatest well-being. The LG people and the CG people both view this as an impediment to greater well-being, and the NG person believes both the LG and the CG person are being too strict in their application.

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).

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.

I don't see things that way at all. A CG revolutionary overthrows an LG society by civil disobedience, by mass migration, by open defiance of authority. Sure, the authority might be objectively Good -- they're concerned with the welfare of the people -- but the authority is also objectively Lawful, so it's willing to trod on the desires and freedoms of an individual to achieve a greater society. The CG character believes that this is a lesser form of good, that by forcing those people to adhere to the laws, they are not being as good as they could be by simply trusting people to pursue their individual goals for goodness. The CG character wouldn't just chafe, settling for this lesser good, they'd openly recruit, foment disquiet, and advocate for a peaceful -- though thorough -- dismantling of the government. If the government is LG, this should be intolerable hearsay and sedition, though since they are Good, simply executing and ostracizing the heretic isn't acceptable, they need to convince the heretic of the flaw in her heresy (which, of course, is only a flaw as far as the LG society is concerned).

They both want people to have the greatest well-being possible, but they disagree fundamentally on what one requires to have the greatest well-being possible.

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).

I guess that's my basic issue with Planescape at the end of day. That I just cannot see how objective alignment, with moral forces being an ontological truth, can possibly result in a setting where people can disagree over the nature of those forces.

PS is interested in exploring questions like "what does it mean to be truly Good?"

For instance, giving up your individual desires to further a collective goal is Lawful Good, isn't any opposition to the Harmonium's reprogramming initiative working against Good and Order? Kind of yes, but kind of also no (there's a reason they're set up as antagonists). Another example: if it is Good to fight Evil, then is can it be said to be Good to prolong and encourage a war that leaves innocents dead if it keeps evil weak? Would it be Evil to seek peace here, though you'd be ending a bloody and violent conflict that claims countless lives and souls?

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." And they go on to determine it for a multiverse.

Which means that PS is fairly explicitly a setting of subjectivity. Those LG people who believe that order is required for the greatest well-being are right...and the CG people who believe that personal independence is required for the greatest well-being are right...and the NG people who believe that both are required for the greatest well-being are right...and in PS, the PC's get to be right, whatever they believe, and they shape the multiverse in that image.

 

[Elderbrain]

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!