Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5365514" data-attributes="member: 4937">I get that.&nbsp; In the real world, evil might not be a force with substance in and of itself.&nbsp; Or, in the real world, all the concepts like evil, good, law, chaos, right and wrong might be man made constructs that have no actual existance outside our own imaginations.&nbsp; So, yes, I get that the real world maybe is different than the D&amp;D world. However, even the D&amp;D world requires some internally consistant description of the universe.&nbsp; One thing that we have to keep very strongly in mind then is whether in to this description we have injected features that more strongly reflect our own biases than they reflect the basic features of the D&amp;D universe.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, if we are in real life we hold some philosophy that could be deemed 'chaotic neutral' in D&amp;D, then it stands to reason that we will be strongly tempted to describe 'law' as evil.&nbsp;&nbsp; Conversely, if in real life we believe law is good, then we will be strongly tempted to describe 'lawful good' as more good than 'pure good'.&nbsp; But of course, this last case brings about an obvious contridiction, as we've said that the blend of 'law' with 'good' has more goodness than the pure thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Note that it might be the case that the blend of 'law' with 'good' is the most morally correct philosophy or the most pragmatic philosophy (which is the same thing depending on how you value 'morally correct'), but it can't be the case that lawful good is more good than good.&nbsp;&nbsp; So its these contridictions we ought to be on the look out for.&nbsp; &nbsp;Maybe.&nbsp; We should have to define justice.&nbsp; The claim that if a person deserves to die, then they should be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible is one I, the real life person, happen to agree with, but it is only an opinion and not one which proves easy to defend.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, suppose we agree that a person who commits murder deserves to die.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, we execute a man who killed his victim quickly and relatively painlessly.&nbsp;&nbsp; Then we execute a man who tortured to death his victim over several hours.&nbsp; Is it just that we execute the second man in the same fashion as the first?&nbsp; And if we don't, if we suggest that the second crime is no worse than the first, then by what right do we suggest that executing someone by torture is worse than killing them quickly?&nbsp;&nbsp; What justice demands is not always clear.&nbsp;&nbsp; If for example, a person tortured another person to death, and then, by some freak accident involving a miscalculation on his part, found himself trapped in the device and subject to the same torture he had intended for others, wouldn't we tend to say that this death was just?&nbsp; If so, exactly how is the justice lessoned if we have some agent inflict this punishment on him?&nbsp; Is not justice in fact strengthened when the punishment fits the crime?&nbsp; In fact, isn't that how we define justice?Once again, I find little cause to believe that the writers of D&amp;D have historically given nearly as much thought to this as it deserves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5365514, member: 4937"] I get that. In the real world, evil might not be a force with substance in and of itself. Or, in the real world, all the concepts like evil, good, law, chaos, right and wrong might be man made constructs that have no actual existance outside our own imaginations. So, yes, I get that the real world maybe is different than the D&D world. However, even the D&D world requires some internally consistant description of the universe. One thing that we have to keep very strongly in mind then is whether in to this description we have injected features that more strongly reflect our own biases than they reflect the basic features of the D&D universe. For example, if we are in real life we hold some philosophy that could be deemed 'chaotic neutral' in D&D, then it stands to reason that we will be strongly tempted to describe 'law' as evil. Conversely, if in real life we believe law is good, then we will be strongly tempted to describe 'lawful good' as more good than 'pure good'. But of course, this last case brings about an obvious contridiction, as we've said that the blend of 'law' with 'good' has more goodness than the pure thing. Note that it might be the case that the blend of 'law' with 'good' is the most morally correct philosophy or the most pragmatic philosophy (which is the same thing depending on how you value 'morally correct'), but it can't be the case that lawful good is more good than good. So its these contridictions we ought to be on the look out for. Maybe. We should have to define justice. The claim that if a person deserves to die, then they should be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible is one I, the real life person, happen to agree with, but it is only an opinion and not one which proves easy to defend. For example, suppose we agree that a person who commits murder deserves to die. Now, we execute a man who killed his victim quickly and relatively painlessly. Then we execute a man who tortured to death his victim over several hours. Is it just that we execute the second man in the same fashion as the first? And if we don't, if we suggest that the second crime is no worse than the first, then by what right do we suggest that executing someone by torture is worse than killing them quickly? What justice demands is not always clear. If for example, a person tortured another person to death, and then, by some freak accident involving a miscalculation on his part, found himself trapped in the device and subject to the same torture he had intended for others, wouldn't we tend to say that this death was just? If so, exactly how is the justice lessoned if we have some agent inflict this punishment on him? Is not justice in fact strengthened when the punishment fits the crime? In fact, isn't that how we define justice? Once again, I find little cause to believe that the writers of D&D have historically given nearly as much thought to this as it deserves. [/QUOTE]

Verification