Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2055830" data-attributes="member: 23094">I think the real problem (which is exacerbated by the D&D rulebooks) is that, in any given alignment discussion, someone will refer to Lawful as being equivalent to legal, and Chaotic as being equivalent to illegal.In other words, they purport that breaking a legal law is a Chaotic act.This is a view that cannot be supported so long as alignments are objective (and they are - it says so right in the rules).Moreover, those who argue against the D&D alignment system get caught up in the definition of acts - doing X is a Lawful act, doing Y is a Chaotic act, V is a Good act except when it contradicts Q (and becomes an Evil act), etc.I think stepping away from that point of view, and realizing that, on the whole, there are very, very few "aligned acts" and most of them are magical in nature (i.e., animating the dead is Evil,  casting Dictum is Lawful, etc.), and that the true alignment discussion occurs when you ask not "What?" but "Why?," the alignment system makes much more sense.In other words, suppose Bob kills an old woman as she is crossing the street.  Is that an Evil act?The answer is, "You're asking the wrong question.  Why did Bob kill the old woman?"  Vengeance? A desire to see her blood glisten on his blade? A case of mistaken identity?Furthermore, "How does Bob feel about killing the old woman?"Finally, I believe an almost-as-big problem with alignment is in the supposed superiority of Good and Law.  There are two reasons for this, to my mind.  First is the Paladin class.  They are billed as the ultimate Good Guys, and must be Lawful Good, so therefore Lawful Good is the ultimate Good.I disagree with this entirely.More deeply, however, I think that this occurs because the history of moral philosophy has been largely dedicated to discovering that which is good, so that more people may ... be enlightened, for lack of a better term.  Therefore, people assume that Good is the best alignment.The flaw with this, I believe, is that human morality isn't so much about what is Good as it is about what is good.  "Little g" good, in other words, is that which is desirable.For the slave owner, it is good to keep his or her slaves in line and productive.  It is good for the serial killer to have a victim at his or her mercy so that horrible things can be done.  For the ruthless merchant, it is good to drive all competition out of business using whatever means are necessary.In no way, however, would the people doing most of these things be Good.Evil is an objective philosophical force of the D&D universe equally as powerful as Good.  There are, therefore, two possiblities:  1) Anyone who believes in the power of Evil (i.e., worships an Evil god) over Good is merely insane; or, 2) There are valid philosophical reasons to believe in Evil over Good.I believe that 2) must be the case, because I prefer a D&D cosmology where everything that the PCs must war against is not consumed with cacklingly mad schemes.Thus, a servant of a god of Tyrrany (LE, in D&D terms) actually believes that there is moral good (little g) in the oppression of the slave-serf class, and can construct a valid philosophical proof to demonstrate it.  Perhaps he or she will cite the dangers of banditry and crime were they not socially constrained "for their own good," but in any case he or she will have a reason for his or her beliefs.Well, that turned out a little longer than I expected.  Oh well. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification