Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6405030" data-attributes="member: 71756"><p>I think you're missing my main point, which is that which is worse of the three evils (or best of the three goods) is a matter largely of perspective... which <em>is</em> in the sourcebooks.</p><p></p><p>Specifically, these descriptions of the evil alignments in the 3rd edition <em>Player's Handbook</em>:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which matches the description offered for good alignments:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In all six cases (as well as the other three cases for LN, N, and CN), the book deliberately leaves which is the best form of good or the worst form of evil in the eye of the beholder. Which is what I said.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I said that yugoloths/daemons are <em>closer</em> to being unadulterated evil, but that doesn't necessarily make them worse (from the perspective of a LG or CG character). And that matches pretty closely with the above descriptions where, <em>when NE is described as the most evil</em>, it is because it is the least distracted by other motivations besides pure selfishness.</p><p></p><p>That being said, the idea that yugoloths are even more evil than demons and devils isn't actually without basis. Here's a relevant excerpt from <em>Planes of Conflict</em>, a 2nd edition Planescape supplement:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's also worth noting that in the 2nd edition <em>Player's Handbook</em>, alignments such as LG, CG, LE, and CE are explicitly labeled "combinations," where loyalty is divided between the interests law/chaos and good/evil. When discussing the basis of alignment, the book talks primarily in terms of law vs. chaos and good vs. evil, rather than the specific nine alignments.</p><p></p><p>A lawful good character is a good character who acts lawfully and believes order is the best way to promote good. A chaotic good character, conversely, is a good character who acts freely and believes that if people are free to do what they want everyone will be better off. A lawful evil character is a character who enjoys controlling and dominating others and who use social structures and complicated schemes to torment others. A chaotic evil character, conversely, is one who not only believes they should be able to do whatever they want but does so in such a way that actively (and purposefully) brings misery to others.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've already addressed this above, but it's interesting you should make this claim when you were earlier arguing that chaotic evil characters were <em>obviously</em> more evil than lawful evil characters. That seems an inconsistent claim to me. At the very least, by your logic, a nycaloth should be <em>more</em> evil than a pit fiend.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Firstly, appealing to the original meaning of either word is an "etymological fallacy." Words' meaning change over time and the fact that morals and ethics both have a fairly identical meaning in their original language doesn't actually guarantee their meaning today should be identical. Cow and beef both originally meant "cow" (in Old English and Old French respectively) but only one of them has that precise meaning today.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, I never said the words were universally held to have disparate meanings. But I've definitely seen the debate over how ethics differs from morality outside of discussions of D&D (quite frequently actually). The words are sometimes synonymous, sometimes they aren't. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy notes that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality'... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual." The truth is that, as with a lot of near-synonyms, the two terms often mean subtly different things depending on the context. <a href="http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=46121" target="_blank">Here's another discussion of how the two terms relate to one another (and how they are often distinguished).</a></p><p></p><p>Thirdly, it was never my point that D&D's usage of the terms corresponded directly to these distinctions. Merely it was that the distinction between ethics and morality is not, in of itself, an innovation of the game's.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nivenus, post: 6405030, member: 71756"] I think you're missing my main point, which is that which is worse of the three evils (or best of the three goods) is a matter largely of perspective... which [I]is[/I] in the sourcebooks. Specifically, these descriptions of the evil alignments in the 3rd edition [I]Player's Handbook[/I]: Which matches the description offered for good alignments: In all six cases (as well as the other three cases for LN, N, and CN), the book deliberately leaves which is the best form of good or the worst form of evil in the eye of the beholder. Which is what I said. I said that yugoloths/daemons are [I]closer[/I] to being unadulterated evil, but that doesn't necessarily make them worse (from the perspective of a LG or CG character). And that matches pretty closely with the above descriptions where, [I]when NE is described as the most evil[/I], it is because it is the least distracted by other motivations besides pure selfishness. That being said, the idea that yugoloths are even more evil than demons and devils isn't actually without basis. Here's a relevant excerpt from [I]Planes of Conflict[/I], a 2nd edition Planescape supplement: It's also worth noting that in the 2nd edition [I]Player's Handbook[/I], alignments such as LG, CG, LE, and CE are explicitly labeled "combinations," where loyalty is divided between the interests law/chaos and good/evil. When discussing the basis of alignment, the book talks primarily in terms of law vs. chaos and good vs. evil, rather than the specific nine alignments. A lawful good character is a good character who acts lawfully and believes order is the best way to promote good. A chaotic good character, conversely, is a good character who acts freely and believes that if people are free to do what they want everyone will be better off. A lawful evil character is a character who enjoys controlling and dominating others and who use social structures and complicated schemes to torment others. A chaotic evil character, conversely, is one who not only believes they should be able to do whatever they want but does so in such a way that actively (and purposefully) brings misery to others. I've already addressed this above, but it's interesting you should make this claim when you were earlier arguing that chaotic evil characters were [I]obviously[/I] more evil than lawful evil characters. That seems an inconsistent claim to me. At the very least, by your logic, a nycaloth should be [I]more[/I] evil than a pit fiend. Firstly, appealing to the original meaning of either word is an "etymological fallacy." Words' meaning change over time and the fact that morals and ethics both have a fairly identical meaning in their original language doesn't actually guarantee their meaning today should be identical. Cow and beef both originally meant "cow" (in Old English and Old French respectively) but only one of them has that precise meaning today. Secondly, I never said the words were universally held to have disparate meanings. But I've definitely seen the debate over how ethics differs from morality outside of discussions of D&D (quite frequently actually). The words are sometimes synonymous, sometimes they aren't. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy notes that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality'... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual." The truth is that, as with a lot of near-synonyms, the two terms often mean subtly different things depending on the context. [URL="http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=46121"]Here's another discussion of how the two terms relate to one another (and how they are often distinguished).[/URL] Thirdly, it was never my point that D&D's usage of the terms corresponded directly to these distinctions. Merely it was that the distinction between ethics and morality is not, in of itself, an innovation of the game's. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top