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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 6405558" data-attributes="member: 71756"><p>So is your usage. The fact that you use one meaning of the words ethics and morality does not contradict the fact that other people do not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you? In my own experience with philosophy I've observed the same distinction between morals and ethics. And I've already pointed to several examples of other cases where a distinction is made.</p><p></p><p>You're stating a matter of semantics - a matter already shown to be a matter of debate - as though it were objective truth and it simply isn't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a feature of both 3e and 5e. And the 1e quote which you lifted doesn't actually contradict the 3e quote. Indeed, it's quite a bit vaguer in its meaning. The 3e PHB's meaning is much more explicit. The 3e spell still detects the degree of evil... but the degree is determined by its supernatural strength, not by the moral character of the creature being examined. And nowhere in the 1e DMG does it say that the moral worth of the creature is what is being evaluated (I know, I've checked).</p><p></p><p>While I think you may have a point that the definitions of D&D's alignments have shifted overtime, I also think you're reading far too much of your own impressions about what the spell's relatively vague description into an explicit definition. Presumably the designers of 3e and 5e are just as capable of interpreting what it says as you are and they chose not to read it as you do.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see why that must be the case. The point of the nine-alignment system is that law and chaos aren't opposed to either good or evil. The fact that a classical LG paladin must balance his or her interests in good and law doesn't mean that by doing something lawful that isn't good they're also doing something evil. Law in the D&D sense is it's own value system. The lawful good paladin doesn't just believe in doing good: they also believe in the value of law for it's own sake.</p><p></p><p>Semantics becomes something of an issue here because one could argue that if a paladin values law they necessarily see it as "good." But good in D&D actually means something very specific: it means acts of kindness, mercy, hope, and charity. Law, on the other head, represents a very different set of virtues, which the paladin finds equally valuable, even if they aren't "good:" stability, discipline, honor, and duty. A lawful good paladin isn't interesting in promoting pure good; they're interested in promoting both law and good, because they believe both are valuable. Likewise, a chaotic good character believes freedom is a worthwhile value in of itself, separate from kindness (but often in combination with it).</p><p></p><p>LG paladins aren't even necessarily required to worship LG gods. Some paladins serve lawful neutral deities. Others serve neutral good deities. The exact degree to which a LG character favors law or good varies on a case by case basis. Some feel duty is more important than being kind. Others feel it's better to break the law than let an innocent die. Each paladin has to navigate that road by themselves, by their own conscience. Some paladins are undoubtedly more good than some neutral good characters; alignment isn't a straight-jacket for PCs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again law and chaos are their own separate ends, independent of good and evil in the D&D alignment system. Law is "good" from the perspective of a LG paladin because it promotes stability and harmony, but it's a separate value from what D&D calls "good" (which might be more specifically termed "charity" or "benevolence"). A LN character feels the same way (as do some LE characters). Law is valuable to lawful characters not because it is good, but because it is law. Chaos is valuable to chaotic characters because it represents freedom and innovation, not because it is good.</p><p></p><p>When it comes right down to it, the typical LG character would feel just as comfortable living in a well-ordered, benign dictatorship as they would a liberal democracy, because both are within their "comfort zone" of law and good. A chaotic good character would, on the other hand, feel just at home in a lawless frontier as they would in a democratic state (and indeed, more so if the state was highly centralized). This is regardless of whether or not either setting naturally promotes goodwill among its inhabitants; a chaotic good character would recoil at the thought of living in a state-run utopia, even if most people were relatively well-off, while a lawful good character would similarly feel deeply uncomfortable at the idea of living in a stateless anarchy where anyone could do anything (even if most people chose to do good).</p><p></p><p>From our perspective, where values are not so easily defined, either character could be considered to be right. But from the perspective of D&D's alignment system, where good is defined in very simple terms as that which is done selflessly for others or which inspires hope, both sets of characters are letting their antipathy for law or chaos get in the way of enjoying what might be a relatively "good" situation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's supernatural evil, what do you want? It to be <em>non-magical</em>?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it's not, not in real-life. As I said, D&D's interpretation of good and evil is <em>very</em> idealistic. But that's only natural when the cosmology is itself very idealistic (ideas become reality, literally). While many philosophers might disagree with D&D's definition of despair as a greater evil than death, others wouldn't. It's all very subjective... except in the rules themselves.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, my impression of devils is that their first priority is to corrupt mortals, not to cause them pain or misery. I mean, that's pretty much the core of the devil's interactions with mortals in D&D (and popular literature before hand): to tempt them to sin and then acquire their soul for the purpose of building an army (against demons and celestials in D&D, against heaven in most other variations). Devils want to bring you over to their side. They might torture you in the meantime (indeed, it'd be kind of expected) but it's not their end goal. Likewise, demons just want to kill and destroy.</p><p></p><p>Yugoloths, on the other hand, are more sadistic than either devils or demons. They don't want to corrupt your <em>or</em> kill you. They want to cause you misery and pain. According to <em>The Planewalker's Handbook</em> they treat mortal interlopers as "lab animals at best."</p><p></p><p>It's probably worth mentioning that according to most sources, yugoloths don't actually derive any of their number from mortals. Mortals can become lemures which becomes devils or manes which become demons, but no yugoloths (or at least very few) are born of mortal souls. They have nothing to gain from keeping mortal souls, other than to torment them (or sell them to demons or devils).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's where naivete comes in as a potential flaw for neutral good characters (since D&D good, after all, is defined largely as selflessness, hope, and charity, which all lend themselves to being taken advantage of).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nivenus, post: 6405558, member: 71756"] So is your usage. The fact that you use one meaning of the words ethics and morality does not contradict the fact that other people do not. Can you? In my own experience with philosophy I've observed the same distinction between morals and ethics. And I've already pointed to several examples of other cases where a distinction is made. You're stating a matter of semantics - a matter already shown to be a matter of debate - as though it were objective truth and it simply isn't. It's a feature of both 3e and 5e. And the 1e quote which you lifted doesn't actually contradict the 3e quote. Indeed, it's quite a bit vaguer in its meaning. The 3e PHB's meaning is much more explicit. The 3e spell still detects the degree of evil... but the degree is determined by its supernatural strength, not by the moral character of the creature being examined. And nowhere in the 1e DMG does it say that the moral worth of the creature is what is being evaluated (I know, I've checked). While I think you may have a point that the definitions of D&D's alignments have shifted overtime, I also think you're reading far too much of your own impressions about what the spell's relatively vague description into an explicit definition. Presumably the designers of 3e and 5e are just as capable of interpreting what it says as you are and they chose not to read it as you do. I don't see why that must be the case. The point of the nine-alignment system is that law and chaos aren't opposed to either good or evil. The fact that a classical LG paladin must balance his or her interests in good and law doesn't mean that by doing something lawful that isn't good they're also doing something evil. Law in the D&D sense is it's own value system. The lawful good paladin doesn't just believe in doing good: they also believe in the value of law for it's own sake. Semantics becomes something of an issue here because one could argue that if a paladin values law they necessarily see it as "good." But good in D&D actually means something very specific: it means acts of kindness, mercy, hope, and charity. Law, on the other head, represents a very different set of virtues, which the paladin finds equally valuable, even if they aren't "good:" stability, discipline, honor, and duty. A lawful good paladin isn't interesting in promoting pure good; they're interested in promoting both law and good, because they believe both are valuable. Likewise, a chaotic good character believes freedom is a worthwhile value in of itself, separate from kindness (but often in combination with it). LG paladins aren't even necessarily required to worship LG gods. Some paladins serve lawful neutral deities. Others serve neutral good deities. The exact degree to which a LG character favors law or good varies on a case by case basis. Some feel duty is more important than being kind. Others feel it's better to break the law than let an innocent die. Each paladin has to navigate that road by themselves, by their own conscience. Some paladins are undoubtedly more good than some neutral good characters; alignment isn't a straight-jacket for PCs. Again law and chaos are their own separate ends, independent of good and evil in the D&D alignment system. Law is "good" from the perspective of a LG paladin because it promotes stability and harmony, but it's a separate value from what D&D calls "good" (which might be more specifically termed "charity" or "benevolence"). A LN character feels the same way (as do some LE characters). Law is valuable to lawful characters not because it is good, but because it is law. Chaos is valuable to chaotic characters because it represents freedom and innovation, not because it is good. When it comes right down to it, the typical LG character would feel just as comfortable living in a well-ordered, benign dictatorship as they would a liberal democracy, because both are within their "comfort zone" of law and good. A chaotic good character would, on the other hand, feel just at home in a lawless frontier as they would in a democratic state (and indeed, more so if the state was highly centralized). This is regardless of whether or not either setting naturally promotes goodwill among its inhabitants; a chaotic good character would recoil at the thought of living in a state-run utopia, even if most people were relatively well-off, while a lawful good character would similarly feel deeply uncomfortable at the idea of living in a stateless anarchy where anyone could do anything (even if most people chose to do good). From our perspective, where values are not so easily defined, either character could be considered to be right. But from the perspective of D&D's alignment system, where good is defined in very simple terms as that which is done selflessly for others or which inspires hope, both sets of characters are letting their antipathy for law or chaos get in the way of enjoying what might be a relatively "good" situation. It's supernatural evil, what do you want? It to be [I]non-magical[/I]? No, it's not, not in real-life. As I said, D&D's interpretation of good and evil is [I]very[/I] idealistic. But that's only natural when the cosmology is itself very idealistic (ideas become reality, literally). While many philosophers might disagree with D&D's definition of despair as a greater evil than death, others wouldn't. It's all very subjective... except in the rules themselves. Actually, my impression of devils is that their first priority is to corrupt mortals, not to cause them pain or misery. I mean, that's pretty much the core of the devil's interactions with mortals in D&D (and popular literature before hand): to tempt them to sin and then acquire their soul for the purpose of building an army (against demons and celestials in D&D, against heaven in most other variations). Devils want to bring you over to their side. They might torture you in the meantime (indeed, it'd be kind of expected) but it's not their end goal. Likewise, demons just want to kill and destroy. Yugoloths, on the other hand, are more sadistic than either devils or demons. They don't want to corrupt your [I]or[/I] kill you. They want to cause you misery and pain. According to [I]The Planewalker's Handbook[/I] they treat mortal interlopers as "lab animals at best." It's probably worth mentioning that according to most sources, yugoloths don't actually derive any of their number from mortals. Mortals can become lemures which becomes devils or manes which become demons, but no yugoloths (or at least very few) are born of mortal souls. They have nothing to gain from keeping mortal souls, other than to torment them (or sell them to demons or devils). That's where naivete comes in as a potential flaw for neutral good characters (since D&D good, after all, is defined largely as selflessness, hope, and charity, which all lend themselves to being taken advantage of). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top