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: 6407665" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Of course they would.</p><p></p><p>The Aztecs considered themselves to be good, too. Nearly every organised human social system regards itself as good. In D&D, orcs and goblins regard their brutal social structures as good.</p><p></p><p>But D&D, in its default form, takes the view that thinking you are doing the right thing doesn't make it so.</p><p></p><p>I can run this scenario in any fantasy RPG I want to. All I have to do is leave the players free to make their own choices for their PCs, and not use a GM-arbitrated alignment system. I don't see how Planescape especially facilitates this.</p><p></p><p>As I said, if this is the promise of Planescape then no wonder I don't get it! I could just abandon alignment mechanics, as I've done ever since reading "For King and Country" in Dragon 101 (1985).</p><p></p><p>Then I don't have to puzzle over what "Detect Good" is actually detecting: not actual goodness (because on this approach people who are not good can still end up in charge of Celestia or Olympus), nor any distinctive value commitment (because the LG and CG people are committed to different value schemes). I can replace it with something like "Detect Religion" or "Detect Enemy", or just ignore it altogether.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My point is that the canonical D&D text leave no room for such differing views. Those texts define human well-being as consisting in life, relative freedom and the prospect of happiness. (Gygax's version of the Declaration of Independence.) In 3E, echoing Gygax's reference to human rights, the reference is to life and dignity.</p><p></p><p>This is an argument, though, that refraining from telling the harsh truth isn't actually good at all.</p><p></p><p>In D&D, why can't I just use a simple divination spell to find out which behaviour is better: telling the harsh truth, or telling the white lie? And if in fact there is nothing to choose between them - if they are both good, but just in different ways - then why would I have any grounds for serious fighting with someone who woud take the different approach from me?</p><p></p><p>But all this tells us is that the alignment scheme has broken down. In Nirvana, human dignity and welfare are acknowledged, and there is no needless or pointless suffering. It's hard to explain, then, when we have regard to the relevant definitions, why Nirvana is not a good place.</p><p></p><p>But not in a coherent fashion. If we're going for "liberalism for the liberals, cannibalism for the cannibals" then why isn't Limbo a good plane - after all, it fully realises the wellbeing of its inhabitants?</p><p></p><p>The standard answer, within the alignment system, is that both Nirvana and Limbo fail to realise the wellbeing of their inhabitants, even if those inhabitants don't notice, because there is an objective dimension to wellbeing. (Qv JS Mill's well-known remark that it's better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied - the modrons and slaadie are like pigs.) But then that objective meaure of goodness is then what makes the LG/CG dispute inocherent - either they are objectively equivalent (value pluralism), in which case there is no bais for deep dispute, or one is objectively inferior to the other and hence not fully good.</p><p></p><p>If Olymus is about to verge into Limbo, that means that it is not as good as it might be. Which would mean that chaos and good aren't as compatible as (say) law and good. Which would be an interesting result, but not one that I think the canonical D&D cosmology contemplates.</p><p></p><p>"Altruism" - regard for others - is not a synonym for charity. Nor is respect for life synonymous with mercy. For instance, my treating you as an end in yourself and not a mere means (to borrow the Kantian framing) isn't an issue of mercy, it's an issue of justce.</p><p></p><p>This is not a correct description of those vaue systems. Systems that value freedom - ie liberal and other enlightenment systems - value freedom because it is part of human dignity, and proper altruism (ie proper regard for others) demands respect for their dignity. Kant and Rawls, for instance, don't regard respect for freedom as orthogonal to morality - respect for free equaity is, for both, the core moral principle.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, pre-enlightenment systems based on ideas of honour don't regard the requirements of honour as independent of treating others, and onself, with dignity. They are inherent to the proper conception of dignity. Of course, the conception of human wellbeing that underpins pre-modern systems is not compatible with Gygax's Declaration of Independence definition of good, but that just means that, in D&D as defined, such systems aren't really good at all. The fact that this arguably makes the paladin, samurai and monk unplayable within the framework of D&D alignment - because the value system that is central to those archetypes has been ruled out of bounds from the start - is another probem for D&D alignment, but not one that is connected to the cosmology.</p><p></p><p>I don't see how this bears on my contention. If the members of the Revolutinary League want to overthrow the social order just for a lark, then they are basically nuts! (Or evil, if the lark is a self-serving one.) But in so far as they have serious reasons, those reasons almost certainy relate to conceptions of human well-being. Which is to say, they don't regard questions of social order as orthogonal to questions of good and evil.</p><p></p><p>Which is to say, they disagree with the cardinal premise of 9-point, two-axis alignment.</p><p></p><p>My point is that, in a definition of goodness that is meant to make it permissible to be both LG and CG, it is somewhat contradictory to build in the value of freedom. Which I see as running my way - even Gygax, who was purporting to present the G/E axis and L/C axis as orthogonal, wasn't able to maintain the distinction. In setting out a conception of human wellbeing, he couldn't help but incorporate elements that, notionally, are meant to be part of L/C and hence orthogonal to the concept of wellbeing defined on the G/E axis.</p><p></p><p>At this point I've competely lost track. Upthread, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] suggested that this would be LG-type behaviour, eliminating all the trouble-makers for the greater good. And now you're telling me that eleminating all the trouble-makers for the greater good is evil behaviour. What useful role is the alignment system playing at this point?</p><p></p><p>I think everyone posting in this thread, at this point, is familiar with and capable of running sophisticated games. My question is more narrow - how is a 9-point alignment + cosmology helping with this? How does is the question of "who's right and who's wrong?" opened up by using good and evil as defined scriptors for certain characters and their home bases?</p><p></p><p>Prima facie, at least, those descriptors answer the question before we even sit down to play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6407665, member: 42582"] Of course they would. The Aztecs considered themselves to be good, too. Nearly every organised human social system regards itself as good. In D&D, orcs and goblins regard their brutal social structures as good. But D&D, in its default form, takes the view that thinking you are doing the right thing doesn't make it so. I can run this scenario in any fantasy RPG I want to. All I have to do is leave the players free to make their own choices for their PCs, and not use a GM-arbitrated alignment system. I don't see how Planescape especially facilitates this. As I said, if this is the promise of Planescape then no wonder I don't get it! I could just abandon alignment mechanics, as I've done ever since reading "For King and Country" in Dragon 101 (1985). Then I don't have to puzzle over what "Detect Good" is actually detecting: not actual goodness (because on this approach people who are not good can still end up in charge of Celestia or Olympus), nor any distinctive value commitment (because the LG and CG people are committed to different value schemes). I can replace it with something like "Detect Religion" or "Detect Enemy", or just ignore it altogether. My point is that the canonical D&D text leave no room for such differing views. Those texts define human well-being as consisting in life, relative freedom and the prospect of happiness. (Gygax's version of the Declaration of Independence.) In 3E, echoing Gygax's reference to human rights, the reference is to life and dignity. This is an argument, though, that refraining from telling the harsh truth isn't actually good at all. In D&D, why can't I just use a simple divination spell to find out which behaviour is better: telling the harsh truth, or telling the white lie? And if in fact there is nothing to choose between them - if they are both good, but just in different ways - then why would I have any grounds for serious fighting with someone who woud take the different approach from me? But all this tells us is that the alignment scheme has broken down. In Nirvana, human dignity and welfare are acknowledged, and there is no needless or pointless suffering. It's hard to explain, then, when we have regard to the relevant definitions, why Nirvana is not a good place. But not in a coherent fashion. If we're going for "liberalism for the liberals, cannibalism for the cannibals" then why isn't Limbo a good plane - after all, it fully realises the wellbeing of its inhabitants? The standard answer, within the alignment system, is that both Nirvana and Limbo fail to realise the wellbeing of their inhabitants, even if those inhabitants don't notice, because there is an objective dimension to wellbeing. (Qv JS Mill's well-known remark that it's better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied - the modrons and slaadie are like pigs.) But then that objective meaure of goodness is then what makes the LG/CG dispute inocherent - either they are objectively equivalent (value pluralism), in which case there is no bais for deep dispute, or one is objectively inferior to the other and hence not fully good. If Olymus is about to verge into Limbo, that means that it is not as good as it might be. Which would mean that chaos and good aren't as compatible as (say) law and good. Which would be an interesting result, but not one that I think the canonical D&D cosmology contemplates. "Altruism" - regard for others - is not a synonym for charity. Nor is respect for life synonymous with mercy. For instance, my treating you as an end in yourself and not a mere means (to borrow the Kantian framing) isn't an issue of mercy, it's an issue of justce. This is not a correct description of those vaue systems. Systems that value freedom - ie liberal and other enlightenment systems - value freedom because it is part of human dignity, and proper altruism (ie proper regard for others) demands respect for their dignity. Kant and Rawls, for instance, don't regard respect for freedom as orthogonal to morality - respect for free equaity is, for both, the core moral principle. Similarly, pre-enlightenment systems based on ideas of honour don't regard the requirements of honour as independent of treating others, and onself, with dignity. They are inherent to the proper conception of dignity. Of course, the conception of human wellbeing that underpins pre-modern systems is not compatible with Gygax's Declaration of Independence definition of good, but that just means that, in D&D as defined, such systems aren't really good at all. The fact that this arguably makes the paladin, samurai and monk unplayable within the framework of D&D alignment - because the value system that is central to those archetypes has been ruled out of bounds from the start - is another probem for D&D alignment, but not one that is connected to the cosmology. I don't see how this bears on my contention. If the members of the Revolutinary League want to overthrow the social order just for a lark, then they are basically nuts! (Or evil, if the lark is a self-serving one.) But in so far as they have serious reasons, those reasons almost certainy relate to conceptions of human well-being. Which is to say, they don't regard questions of social order as orthogonal to questions of good and evil. Which is to say, they disagree with the cardinal premise of 9-point, two-axis alignment. My point is that, in a definition of goodness that is meant to make it permissible to be both LG and CG, it is somewhat contradictory to build in the value of freedom. Which I see as running my way - even Gygax, who was purporting to present the G/E axis and L/C axis as orthogonal, wasn't able to maintain the distinction. In setting out a conception of human wellbeing, he couldn't help but incorporate elements that, notionally, are meant to be part of L/C and hence orthogonal to the concept of wellbeing defined on the G/E axis. At this point I've competely lost track. Upthread, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] suggested that this would be LG-type behaviour, eliminating all the trouble-makers for the greater good. And now you're telling me that eleminating all the trouble-makers for the greater good is evil behaviour. What useful role is the alignment system playing at this point? I think everyone posting in this thread, at this point, is familiar with and capable of running sophisticated games. My question is more narrow - how is a 9-point alignment + cosmology helping with this? How does is the question of "who's right and who's wrong?" opened up by using good and evil as defined scriptors for certain characters and their home bases? Prima facie, at least, those descriptors answer the question before we even sit down to play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top