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 LIVE! 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 'Wonderland'-Inspired Faces of the RAGE OF DEMONS
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: 7670794" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>They're two distinct issues.</p><p></p><p>The question of whether the cleric or paladin who tells the king that he is evil is lying, or not, is a question about testimony. It can be overcome by having the king cast the spell himself, in a self-scan.</p><p></p><p>I often see the testimony issue presented as a usable wedge, for gameplay purposes, between alignment truths and NPC self-conceptions. But the relatively easy possibility of self-scanning (especially by demons and devils, who in many editions have their own alignment-detecting magic) means that the wedge is pretty thin.</p><p></p><p>The deep source of tension is that, in the real world, we have direct epistemic access to facts of value only via our epistemic access to the non-value facts on which they supervene; but D&D posits that facts of value can be known directly and immediately (metagame, via plonking down an alignment label; ingame, via using magic to read that alignment label), without the facts on which they supervene being known.</p><p></p><p>To give a simple example, in real life the question of whether someone is or isn't "irredeemably evil" supervenes upon such facts as their disposition (if any) to be brutal to others. The question can't be answered without forming a view about this (and many other) salient facts about their actions and dispositions.</p><p></p><p>Whereas in D&D, the game posits that I can write "chaotic evil" on an NPC's character sheet, without committing myself in any detail to what exactly that NPC's behaviour and dispositions will be. In a game in which moral evaluation is not to the fore, and characterisations are expected to be pretty broad-brush, that's fairly harmless: if I need to know more about the personality of Grugnur, the frost giant Jarl of G2, I can just extrapolate from fairy tales and legends about brutish giants, ogres and the like: let's say he is greedy, cruel and likes to suck the marrow out of the bones of his captives!</p><p></p><p>But in some moods (eg Planescape; or intentionally subtle political or character-focused play), D&D first writes down alignment labels, but then treats it as a further, open question what exactly that NPC's behaviour and dispositions will be. This is where the potential for incoherence between immediately posited values, and the non-value facts on which such value actually intervenes, arises.</p><p></p><p>The idea that "good" and "evil" are purely metagame labels is a contentious interpretation in every edition of the game prior to 5e, and I suspect would be regarded as contentious by plenty of 5e players too.</p><p></p><p>For instance, the outer planes (in the standard AD&D PHB appendix 1 cosmology) are aligned, and known to be so by those who live in the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>In pre-4e editions, spells like "Detect Evil" and "Know Alignment" provide ingame information using the language of alignment. I guess a character could argue that "the cosmos" got it wrong, but it's not exactly clear what that would even mean - eg if the Abyss is not necessarily <em>evil</em>, then what property is the Detect Evil spell detecting? The property of <em>being disliked and repudiated by the cosmos</em>? From the point of view both of metaphysics of morals, <em>and</em> of gameplay, if you want to create the conceptual space for individual's to make their own moral judgements, I think it's easier just to drop alignment as a part of the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>If this path is taken, alignment might still be a useful personality shorthand in monster statblocks, which is roughly how 4e treats it, and perhaps how 5e tends to treat it (with the odd exception). But then you don't need to say that the Abyss and its inhabitants are <em>irredeemably evil</em>. It's enough to say that the Abyss is a violent and unpleasant place whose inhabitants are prone to vicious displays of cruelty and destruction. To pick up on [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s example, if the PCs then meet a demon who seems not to be prone to such displays, they (and their players) can form their own moral judgements.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7670794, member: 42582"] They're two distinct issues. The question of whether the cleric or paladin who tells the king that he is evil is lying, or not, is a question about testimony. It can be overcome by having the king cast the spell himself, in a self-scan. I often see the testimony issue presented as a usable wedge, for gameplay purposes, between alignment truths and NPC self-conceptions. But the relatively easy possibility of self-scanning (especially by demons and devils, who in many editions have their own alignment-detecting magic) means that the wedge is pretty thin. The deep source of tension is that, in the real world, we have direct epistemic access to facts of value only via our epistemic access to the non-value facts on which they supervene; but D&D posits that facts of value can be known directly and immediately (metagame, via plonking down an alignment label; ingame, via using magic to read that alignment label), without the facts on which they supervene being known. To give a simple example, in real life the question of whether someone is or isn't "irredeemably evil" supervenes upon such facts as their disposition (if any) to be brutal to others. The question can't be answered without forming a view about this (and many other) salient facts about their actions and dispositions. Whereas in D&D, the game posits that I can write "chaotic evil" on an NPC's character sheet, without committing myself in any detail to what exactly that NPC's behaviour and dispositions will be. In a game in which moral evaluation is not to the fore, and characterisations are expected to be pretty broad-brush, that's fairly harmless: if I need to know more about the personality of Grugnur, the frost giant Jarl of G2, I can just extrapolate from fairy tales and legends about brutish giants, ogres and the like: let's say he is greedy, cruel and likes to suck the marrow out of the bones of his captives! But in some moods (eg Planescape; or intentionally subtle political or character-focused play), D&D first writes down alignment labels, but then treats it as a further, open question what exactly that NPC's behaviour and dispositions will be. This is where the potential for incoherence between immediately posited values, and the non-value facts on which such value actually intervenes, arises. The idea that "good" and "evil" are purely metagame labels is a contentious interpretation in every edition of the game prior to 5e, and I suspect would be regarded as contentious by plenty of 5e players too. For instance, the outer planes (in the standard AD&D PHB appendix 1 cosmology) are aligned, and known to be so by those who live in the gameworld. In pre-4e editions, spells like "Detect Evil" and "Know Alignment" provide ingame information using the language of alignment. I guess a character could argue that "the cosmos" got it wrong, but it's not exactly clear what that would even mean - eg if the Abyss is not necessarily [I]evil[/I], then what property is the Detect Evil spell detecting? The property of [I]being disliked and repudiated by the cosmos[/I]? From the point of view both of metaphysics of morals, [I]and[/I] of gameplay, if you want to create the conceptual space for individual's to make their own moral judgements, I think it's easier just to drop alignment as a part of the gameworld. If this path is taken, alignment might still be a useful personality shorthand in monster statblocks, which is roughly how 4e treats it, and perhaps how 5e tends to treat it (with the odd exception). But then you don't need to say that the Abyss and its inhabitants are [I]irredeemably evil[/I]. It's enough to say that the Abyss is a violent and unpleasant place whose inhabitants are prone to vicious displays of cruelty and destruction. To pick up on [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s example, if the PCs then meet a demon who seems not to be prone to such displays, they (and their players) can form their own moral judgements. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The 'Wonderland'-Inspired Faces of the RAGE OF DEMONS
Top