Gobbotopia: Subjective or Objective? Alignment or Morality?

[Fyraltari]

Except... there's a CN illithid statted out in Underdark, and a Good (Exalted good, no less) illithid in BoED.

But do they state how they feed ?

[woweedd]

Evil is easy. Good is hard.

In fairness, in many settings, including both that of Milton*, and that of, say, Tolkien, Good is the default state of all conscious beings. Evil, in these settings, must be a deliberate and conscious choice. In Milton's world, there are no born demons, and in Tolkien, the Orcs aren't born, they're corrupted from Elves, because, in both of these worldviews, it is impossible for a creature to be born Evil. Evil is sterile, it cannot create, it can only destroy and pervert that which was Good. Thus it is that, in these worlds, the only way to create a Demon is to make an Angel Fall, and the only way to make an Orc is to corrupt an Elf. In these worlds, Good is the easy chcoie, the natural choice, the choice to which all are born. It's Evil that has to be conscious.

*Not sure if this counts as breaking the No Religion rule. Milton, while he covered religious subject matter, is not actual canon and D&D's Devils are pretty obviously taken from his work. Demons, on the other hand, are more like Dante's vision of Hell.

[zimmerwald1915]

In fairness, in many settings, including both that of Milton*, and that of, say, Tolkien, Good is the default state of all conscious beings. Evil, in these settings, must be a deliberate and conscious choice. In Milton's world, there are no born demons, and in Tolkien, the Orcs aren't born, they're corrupted from Elves, because, in both of these worldviews, it is impossible for a creature to be born Evil. Evil is sterile, it cannot create, it can only destroy and pervert that which was Good. Thus it is that, in these worlds, the only way to create a Demon is to make an Angel Fall, and the only way to make an Orc is to corrupt an Elf. In these worlds, Good is the easy chcoie, the natural choice, the choice to which all are born. It's Evil that has to be conscious.

*Not sure if this counts as breaking the No Religion rule. Milton, while he covered religious subject matter, is not actual canon and D&D's Devils are pretty obviously taken from his work. Demons, on the other hand, are more like Dante's vision of Hell.

Well that's fairly obvious nonsense, in both settings, inasmuch as Evil arises out of the exercise of free will, while Good is only preserved by adherence to a strict set of standards. This is justified through their respective cosmogonies: in Milton's cosmos, Evil arises out of the first exercises of free will, both angelic and human. In Arda, every material thing, including the bodies of incarnate beings, necessarily tends towards Evil.

If anything, Good and Evil should be in more of a balance in DnD, where they're at least equal and opposite forces. But everything written about it, or in its various settings, indicates that the paradigm is unchanged. Evil remains easy, and Good hard.

[Fyraltari]

In Arda, every material thing, including the bodies of incarnate beings, necessarily tends towards Evil.

Really? I don't remember reading anything from the professor stating that. Couldyou kindly give me your source?

[hamishspence]

Really I don't remember reading anything from the professor stating that. Couldyou kindly give me your source?

“Melkor ‘incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this to control the hroa, the ‘flesh’ or physical matter of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it, a vaster and more perilous procedure, though of similar sort to the operation of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all ‘matter’ was likely to have a Melkor ingredient…Sauron’s relatively small power was concentrated; Morgoth’s vast power was disseminated. The whole of Middle-earth was Morgoth’s ring…..Moreover, the final eradication of Sauron (as a power directing evil) was achievable by the destruction of the Ring. No such eradication of Morgoth was possible since this required the complete disintegration of the ‘matter’ of Arda. Sauron’s power was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a particular form or shape made of a particular portion of gold. Morgoth’s power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute (for he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent. (It was the Morgoth element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for such ’magic’ and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.”

(History Of Middle Earth Vol 10: Morgoth’s Ring- Myths Transformed – Notes on the Motives in The Silmarillion)

[Fyraltari]

Quote

Thank you. Still pissed they stopped translating after book 6.
But that only means that every mortal has some evil in them (as oppesed to Manwë) not that they naturally tends towards it.

[brian 333]

We are talking about D&D morality here, not real world morality. In D&D there is a hard, objective, discernable force associated with each alignment. This force can alter spell effects, and it can influence actions. It is not an idealized goal of behavior, it is a scientifically demonstrable energy.

It compares badly to anything in the real world.

Because we in the real world have moral ambiguity does not mean they do. We are guessing what our gods want, they know, have means to test their progress, and have the ability to analyze the results with tools more sophisticated than ours.

So the idea of objective morality works in D&D, but moral ambiguity does not. In our world we cannot know if going back in time and murdering baby Hitler would be a Good thing. In D&D we can cast Devinition and ask our god. This allows a certainty of morality we can never have in our world.

And this is the basic problem when dealing with an arbitrary system of morality designed 50 years ago by an author whose moral foundation was rooted in the age of Roy Rodgers movies. In this mindset the Good Guy wears a white hat and the Bad Guy wears a black hat. Nobody wears grey. Clarity of motives was wanted.

Justifying this game mechanic to our world's morality is interesting, but ultimately futile. Because one is an arbitrary made up system based on literature while the other is a social construct impressed upon the very young by the society around them. The first can be tested in game with a very few die rolls, the second is never really subject to testing. The system is incompatible.

And this is my primary objection to the OP premise: it presumes an in-game morality system is applicable to the real world. Stories may have lessons the author wishes to teach, and the clever can construe stories into moral lessons they want to see. But the existence of Gobbotopia does not equate to endorsement of any other military campaign.

The lesson I got from that story arc was, if you do Evil for Good reasons, eventually it will backfire. The Azurites didn't 'deserve it.' It was simply the inevitable result of their previous actions. In other words, cause and effect in a world with clear borders between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos.

[hamishspence]

So the idea of objective morality works in D&D, but moral ambiguity does not. In our world we cannot know if going back in time and murdering baby Hitler would be a Good thing. In D&D we can cast Devinition and ask our god. This allows a certainty of morality we can never have in our world.

And this is the basic problem when dealing with an arbitrary system of morality designed 50 years ago by an author whose moral foundation was rooted in the age of Roy Rodgers movies. In this mindset the Good Guy wears a white hat and the Bad Guy wears a black hat. Nobody wears grey. Clarity of motives was wanted.

Justifying this game mechanic to our world's morality is interesting, but ultimately futile.

To quote The Giant:

D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

It's tough for those who spend all their time talking about D&D to remember that most players are very casual and don't think too deeply about this stuff at all. For that sort of player, picking an alignment is a great introduction to the idea of having a group of characters with diverse motivations. We all take for granted that you have to decide what your character believes, but remember that D&D gets taught to kids who haven't even really figured out what they themselves believe yet. Left to their own devices, they're unlikely to delve deep into their fictional character's philosophies. Alignment is good for starting that conversation. It's also a good way to keep beginning players on the general sort of path of heroics without them burning down the village for kicks.

Then, once they've had a campaign or two under their belt, alignment provides an easy stepping stone for stretching their roleplaying muscles. You may have noticed that most players—especially younger players—tend to play characters that trend toward their own personal alignment, or else some sort of wish fulfillment variation thereof. But after a few different characters like that, there's a natural tendency to want to try something new. Alignment gives a great way to channel that feeling into expanding their roleplaying repetoire by giving them easy-to-understand options that they can pick from. Always played Chaotic Good? Try Lawful Good. Or Lawful Neutral. It's the sort of thing that can really push a player into trying new things, way more than a new race or class can.

Eventually, a player will master switching back and forth between all the alignments and will be a reasonably conversant roleplayer. Then they can move on to playing against alignment stereotypes, or if everyone's at the same level, they can try a more complex alignment system or even abandon the concept altogether. The exact layout and mechanics of the system is sort of beside the point. I do think that the alignment system is much more robust and flexible than most people give it credit for, which is one of the reasons that I spend so much energy dealing with it in OOTS.

But in terms of teaching how to roleplay, it's a great aid. Which is why I think published D&D should always have it; not only is it part of the culture of D&D anyway, but D&D is basically the "training wheels" of roleplaying. If there's a system that can help train new players about how to roleplay, it should be in there. More experience players can always ignore it, but new players won't know to add it in.

And then of course there's Celia's big speech here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html

To sum up - there's plenty of reason to believe that moral ambiguity is compatible with "D&D alignment" and plenty of D&D works that say so.

BoVD points out that there will always be "grey areas" and Eberron Campaign Setting 3.5 adds extra moral ambiguity to a universe that already has it.

In D&D we can cast Devinition and ask our god. This allows a certainty of morality we can never have in our world.

As for "what the gods want" - isn't the whole point of this arc - to demonstrate their fallibility and lack of "moral authority"?

[factotum]

As for "what the gods want" - isn't the whole point of this arc - to demonstrate their fallibility and lack of "moral authority"?

Yeah, I agree. What the gods want is not necessarily the same as what their worshippers want. I suspect most of the Dark One's worshippers wouldn't want him to be carrying out a plan that might involve the annihilation of them and their souls, for example.

[brian 333]

To quote The Giant:





And then of course there's Celia's big speech here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html

To sum up - there's plenty of reason to believe that moral ambiguity is compatible with "D&D alignment" and plenty of D&D works that say so.

BoVD points out that there will always be "grey areas" and Eberron Campaign Setting 3.5 adds extra moral ambiguity to a universe that already has it.




As for "what the gods want" - isn't the whole point of this arc - to demonstrate their fallibility and lack of "moral authority"?

Moral ambiguity is very possible within the alignment system. The 1st. ed. PHB had a graph. My point is that every point on that graph is arbitrary, designed and intended for a game mechanic. It has no relevance to real world morality, which is a much more nebulous issue.

The gods themselves mirror the alignment graph. Their ability to judge how well or poorly their worshippers adhere to the alignment of the faith is unquestionable. For example, Roy's Deva indicates there is a borderline beyond which his actions will result in his being deemed Neutral. (As opposed to Lawful is my presumption. I don't think the deva was referring to Goodness in that particular discussion, but I could be wrong again.)

The ability of the gods to collectively rule the cosmos in a sane manner, on the other hand, is extremely questionable.

[Fyraltari]

The gods themselves mirror the alignment graph. Their ability to judge how well or poorly their worshippers adhere to the alignment of the faith is unquestionable. For example, Roy's Deva indicates there is a borderline beyond which his actions will result in his being deemed Neutral. (As opposed to Lawful is my presumption. I don't think the deva was referring to Goodness in that particular discussion, but I could be wrong again.)

She does say that had he not relented on abandonning Elan, she would have labelled him as True Neutral so yes Goodness played a role in that discussion.

Does that Deva work for the gods though ? The Fiends don't and we see that Lee has the same job as she has.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Does that Deva work for the gods though ?

No, she works for/by the Book.

GW

[Fyraltari]

No, she works for/by the Book.

GW

Now, I wonder what Lee's book looks like.
The flames are probably redder.

[woweedd]

Moral ambiguity is very possible within the alignment system. The 1st. ed. PHB had a graph. My point is that every point on that graph is arbitrary, designed and intended for a game mechanic. It has no relevance to real world morality, which is a much more nebulous issue.

The gods themselves mirror the alignment graph. Their ability to judge how well or poorly their worshippers adhere to the alignment of the faith is unquestionable. For example, Roy's Deva indicates there is a borderline beyond which his actions will result in his being deemed Neutral. (As opposed to Lawful is my presumption. I don't think the deva was referring to Goodness in that particular discussion, but I could be wrong again.)

The ability of the gods to collectively rule the cosmos in a sane manner, on the other hand, is extremely questionable.

Keep in mind that A. Even in the black-and-white interpretation D&D, there is some Grey. That is literally why the Neutral alignment exists, and B. The Gods don't run the Alignment system. The Devas, Demons, Devils, Daemons, ETC. are embodiments of Alignment itself. The Gods don't control them. After all, the Gods themselves HAVE Alignments, and some who are Evil think they're the good guy, showing that even they are subject to this system.

[Keltest]

Now, I wonder what Lee's book looks like.
The flames are probably redder.

Lee works for "The Man"

[Lord_Drayakir]

I can make baseless assertions too. For example: "no, it is not."

Well, D&D disagrees with you.

[theNater]

Well, D&D disagrees with you.

Given that people have pointed you to official non-Evil Illithids and Demons, two of the three examples you cited of irredeemably Evil creatures, it seems more likely that D&D disagrees with you. Would you like to provide evidence that some D&D creatures are irredeemably Evil?

[Morty]

The Forgotten Realms guidebook from 3rd edition, which is about as typical a D&D setting as you can get, incudes evil people living alongside others in villages and towns, with no one rushing to burn them at the stake. How's that for D&D disagreeing or agreeing with someone?

[zimmerwald1915]

The Forgotten Realms guidebook from 3rd edition, which is about as typical a D&D setting as you can get, incudes evil people living alongside others in villages and towns, with no one rushing to burn them at the stake.

Of course not, that's the adventurers' job

[hamishspence]

Going by the DMG, 50% of "randomly generated adventurers" are Evil. Says something about the profession.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Going by the DMG, 50% of "randomly generated adventurers" are Evil. Says something about the profession.

Really? What are the chances of the others, 25% Good and 25% Neutral? That seems weirdly lopsided.

GW

[hamishspence]

Really? What are the chances of the others, 25% Good and 25% Neutral?

20% Good, 30% Neutral.

It first selects by alignment, then class and race.

I also did a detailed breakdown for humans specifically - 1 million random NPCs were generated, of which roughly 36.435% were human) - and the percentages of Evil, Neutral, and Good humans were:

Evil: 47.96%
Neutral: 32.85%
Good: 19.18%

(All these are rounded off - so the total ends up being 99.99% rather than 100%.)

[Fyraltari]

Going by the DMG, 50% of "randomly generated adventurers" are Evil. Says something about the profession.

Since the profession consists mostly of shanking sentient being it really isn't that surprising.

[Kish]

I'm pretty sure it's more a matter of "randomly generated adventurers the PCs meet should probably be adversaries."

[hamishspence]

I'm pretty sure it's more a matter of "randomly generated adventurers the PCs meet should probably be adversaries."

It's possible. The notion that 50% of people in-universe who think of themselves as adventurers, are evil, is an interesting one though.

[Lord_Drayakir]

Given that people have pointed you to official non-Evil Illithids and Demons, two of the three examples you cited of irredeemably Evil creatures, it seems more likely that D&D disagrees with you. Would you like to provide evidence that some D&D creatures are irredeemably Evil?

Since the Book of Vile Darkness/Book of Exalted Deeds are not part of the OSR, I cannot do so. But if you have access to the physical copies of the book, there is a list, with examples, of actions that are Evil, and doing those actions makes you Evil. Also, 1 illithid out of what? Millions? That's what is known as a statistical aberration (heh) and can be ignored.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Also, 1 illithid out of what? Millions? That's what is known as a statistical aberration (heh) and can be ignored.

That's not how morality works. Or the word "irredeemably". The existance of even a single redeemed individual demonstrates that the species is not irredeemable.

GW

[Lord_Drayakir]

That's not how morality works. Or the word "irredeemably". The existance of even a single redeemed individual demonstrates that the species is not irredeemable.

GW

Except it does. In modern science, if a result is not statistically significant, it is ignored, and we can confidently use the word "all."

[hamishspence]

Except it does. In modern science, if a result is not statistically significant, it is ignored, and we can confidently use the word "all."

The MM doesn't even say that Illithids are "Always evil (any)" - it says that they are usually LE.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Except it does. In modern science, if a result is not statistically significant, it is ignored, and we can confidently use the word "all."

I fail to see what science has to do with morality or language.

GW