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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6406846" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This just pushes back the question one step - what does <em>better</em> mean here?</p><p></p><p>In ordinary English, "better" means "more good" (<em>good</em>, <em>better</em>, <em>best</em>). Obviously that is being ruled out in this context, given that "better" is entailing "less good".</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>From the d20SRD:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. </p><p></p><p>From Gygax's PHB and DMG (pp 33 and 23 resepectively):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[C]reatures of [chaotic good] alignment . . . place value on life and the welfare of each individual. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[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. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[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. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[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.</p><p></p><p>From the 2nd ed AD&D PHB (p 46):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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).</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This goes back to [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION]'s contrast between personality and metaphysics.</p><p></p><p>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)?</p><p></p><p>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 <em>the choice between law and chaos doesn't matter</em>.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>solidarity</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6406846, member: 42582"] This just pushes back the question one step - what does [I]better[/I] mean here? In ordinary English, "better" means "more good" ([I]good[/I], [i]better[/I], [i]best[/i]). 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? 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: [indent]"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. [/indent] From Gygax's PHB and DMG (pp 33 and 23 resepectively): [indent][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.[/indent] From the 2nd ed AD&D PHB (p 46): [indent]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).[/indent] 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! 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 [I]the choice between law and chaos doesn't matter[/I]. 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 [I]solidarity[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top