Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 965759" data-attributes="member: 3146">Well, first things first, this has been a good conversation and I'd be happy to continue it over email. (One of the things I've loved about ENWorld it's a place where one can sometimes have philosophical discussions without them being moderated out of existence or degenerating into flamewars). It sounds to me like what you're looking for is a brand of ethical objectivism that is neither absolutist nor relativistic. (And I agree, it's rather difficult to come up with such a system although it may be possible if you posit a shared human nature.I would say rather that the example of Animate Dead demonstrates that D&D's description of its presumed ethical system is somewhat confused (or at least open to misinterpretation--your above "acid test for evil" could label paladins as evil (since their main business is often killing evil creatures and people) if it were taken as a comprehensive statement about the nature of evil) and that the handbooks don't adequately communicate the underlying metaphysics of D&D's magic system. The assertion that Animate Dead is [evil] can be rescued if one presumes either a metaphysical system in which the casting of Animate Dead somehow damages or binds the soul (one possible explanation for why a person whose body has been animated cannot be Raised but must be Resurrected).  It would also potentially be rescued by a model of magic which is not entirely technological but required the invocation (and consequent strengthening or increased influence) ol evil powers. It can also be rescued by expanding and slightly revising the D&D ethical system to incorporate an assumption of a "natural" order that is violated by [evil] acts. (And I think that some expansion/revision of the D&D ethical system is necessary for its in game application no matter what).If one interprets the alignment descriptions as giving the whole story about the D&D ethic, then some expansions of that system will contradict other ethical assertions (such as the [good] or [evil] descriptors) of the rulebooks. Those expansions are not the only ways to understand the D&D alignment system, however, nor are they the way that allows the most consistency to the ethical assertions of the rulebooks.</blockquote>

Verification