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.