Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 2187958" data-attributes="member: 463">I can't imagine running a regular multi-pantheon open-cosmos fantasy game like D&amp;D's standard set-up without using 'beliefs define reality'.&nbsp; The only alternative would be a closed cosmos setup as in Tolkien or Midnight.&nbsp; Of course in reality I hate moral relativism and arguments that there is no absolute empirically ascertainable truth - but unless I'm running a hard-sf or real-world-modern game there needs to be room for &quot;weird made-up stuff&quot;; and belief-defines-reality is to me the only reasonable justification for that.What I find distasteful is the insistence in D&amp;D texts on Alignment that &quot;Good is not a philosophical concept, it's an absolute force - and here's the definition of Good you are to use in your game&quot; - much worse in 3e than 1e, the 1e definitions were so muddy they were practically meaningless, which left a lot more scope.&nbsp; The text definitions change hugely over time, and often conradict each other - eg they'll both say that Lawful Good is (1) &quot;Human Rights/Creature Rights&quot; and that Lawful Good is (2) &quot;Greatest Good of the Greatest Number&quot; - but Kantian absolute individual human rights (1) is wholly incompatible with Benthamite Utilitarianism (2).&nbsp; Utilitarianism is (I think) a good definition of Neutral Good in D&amp;D terms - an attempt to achieve highst good without deferring to other factors.&nbsp; Rights-based approaches don't easily fit into Alignment at all, it really depends what 'absolute' Rights you think trump other 'absolute' Rights.&nbsp;&nbsp; My 1981 Moldvay Basic D&amp;D set even says that emphasising Individual Human Rights is Chaotic (and Chaotic = Evil!).&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 2187958, member: 463"] I can't imagine running a regular multi-pantheon open-cosmos fantasy game like D&D's standard set-up without using 'beliefs define reality'. The only alternative would be a closed cosmos setup as in Tolkien or Midnight. Of course in reality I hate moral relativism and arguments that there is no absolute empirically ascertainable truth - but unless I'm running a hard-sf or real-world-modern game there needs to be room for "weird made-up stuff"; and belief-defines-reality is to me the only reasonable justification for that. What I find distasteful is the insistence in D&D texts on Alignment that "Good is not a philosophical concept, it's an absolute force - and here's the definition of Good you are to use in your game" - much worse in 3e than 1e, the 1e definitions were so muddy they were practically meaningless, which left a lot more scope. The text definitions change hugely over time, and often conradict each other - eg they'll both say that Lawful Good is (1) "Human Rights/Creature Rights" and that Lawful Good is (2) "Greatest Good of the Greatest Number" - but Kantian absolute individual human rights (1) is wholly incompatible with Benthamite Utilitarianism (2). Utilitarianism is (I think) a good definition of Neutral Good in D&D terms - an attempt to achieve highst good without deferring to other factors. Rights-based approaches don't easily fit into Alignment at all, it really depends what 'absolute' Rights you think trump other 'absolute' Rights. My 1981 Moldvay Basic D&D set even says that emphasising Individual Human Rights is Chaotic (and Chaotic = Evil!). :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification