Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Here are some of the relevant bits from Complete Adventurer:
>
> SHADOWBANE INQUISITOR
>
> (...) Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own
> righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly,
> even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral
> doubt that other knights might feel. The Order of Illumination expounds
> that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon
> than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread.
> Although inquisitors remain devoted to the cause of good, this
> conviction allows them to use their abilities against enemies
> regardless of their alignment.
>
> Requirements:
> -------------
> Alignment: Lawful good.
> Special: Detect evil class feature or ability to cast detect evil as a
> divine spell
>
> Laszlo
There is a problem of conflicting goals in designing a moral/ethical
yardstick for roleplaying. On one hand you want it to be simple and not
interfere with the flow of the game, on the other hand you want it to
be able to handle difficult moral issues.
Any storytelling involves conflict of good and evil, (explicit or
implied) it's the fundamental issue that makes stories stories, that
makes them interesting. Everything else is technical literature. D&D
cranks it up a notch by offering a lawful/chaotic dicotomy.
But people are more complex than that. There are dozens of parameters
that can be used to describe you, and you can be tested for each of
them. They will affect the way you think and act and how you relate to
others. You probably do not want to deal with this level of complexity
every time you roleplay (although there are systems that try, to some
degree, Twilight 2000 and AD 2300 come to mind.)
This means that the roleplaying moral system will not adequately cover
every moral dilemma that you can conceive of.
Back to the topic at hand:
> SHADOWBANE INQUISITOR
>
> ... Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own
> righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly,
> even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral
> doubt that other knights might feel. ...
I don't like this person. I do not see them as good. In real life, this
is an in-your-face self-righteous fundamentalist with no concept of his
own flawed nature. YMMV. (Delay criticism of "In real life" for a bit.)
> ... The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice
> a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the
> demon escape or the evil spread. ...
Too simplistic. Too many unanswered questions. Why is the village
hiding the demon. Is the village evil? Are there other options, rather
than slay them all? Are there time constraints? Essentially, we have a
strawman.
> ... Although inquisitors remain devoted to the cause of good, this
> conviction allows them to use their abilities against enemies
> regardless of their alignment. ...
That is the central dilemma for any good character; all this is saying
is the inquisitors don't think about it; in other words don't reflect
on their decisions; in other words are more likely to screw up. That
sounds like less good to me. Maybe we need a thoughtful/thoughtless
axis? (not really, I hope.)
Off on a bit of another tangent, what exactly is "good" in terms of the
game. Yes, yes, we've seen the definition:
> "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters
> and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or
> profit .... Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others
> and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient"
> (SRD, "Description"). This is the very definition of good and evil.
(Sorry, I forget who's post I am quoting.)
Does that make cougars intrinsically evil? Well, no, the game has an
"animal alignment" to cover that.
So why are kobolds and orcs intrinsically evil? It's a very
humanocentric point of view. While this was adequate when the embryonic
D&D was enjoyed by a handful of guys as an extension of their wargames,
it is inadequate in terms of the modern storytelling with it's complex
cultures that D&D has become.
Does it cover all the ground that "Good" and "Evil" need to cover? What
about treachery and betrayal? Is this evil in game terms? Is it
covered? Lies and deception? Greed? "Debase" is pretty open-ended, so
maybe, but certainly not in a specific sense in the quoted definition.
I'll get back to this in a moment.
Next clip is out of context, refers to some statement about alignment:
> Cite? Really, where did you get this from? (Your own moral code doesn't
> count, since this is a discussion about D&D and not the real world).
(Sorry, another clip I cannot properly attribute. Poor planning on my
part.)
Focus on the "Your own moral code doesn't count," part. It's both a
good point and not; a good point because this is at its core a
discussion of The Game, not Real Life, but wrong because you can not
discuss moral code in a vacuum; it just doesn't happen. It's like
Heisenberg uncertainty, looking at it affects the measurement. You
grade the moral code of the game against what you believe to be right
and wrong. You evaluate the in-game evaluation. It is not enough to
say, "Does it match the written criteria." The criteria are themselves
evolving (hence 3.5 ed) and each evaluation of the criteria is based on
the evaluator's internal moral compass. You are in the bubble, you
can't step outside to look at it.
If you disagree, let me ask you this: Are cows innocent life? Is your
character evil if he/she follows the customs of his/her society and
eats a roast? I don't think very many of us would say the character was
evil, but by the letter of the rules they are. We have made an
intrinsic evalution that the rules did not intend this to be the case.
Is the definition of good and evil quoted above at all ambiguous? I
think it is pretty clear that, yes, it is. There will be cases that
arise where players will disagree on the application of the definition.
The DM & players will fall back on what they know of good and evil in
the real world.
So, D&D says animals have an animal alignment. Essentially, they are
not self reflective, and are innocent of their behavior. So a cougar or
python is not evil for killing innocent bunnies for its own benefit.
Does this apply to humans with and Int of 3? At what point of self
awareness does alignment kick in?
Back to kobolds and orcs - so, they are self aware enough to be held
accountable for their actions, but why should a kobold give a rat's
hind end about a human? Shouldn't they be evaluated in terms of their
own culture? "Good" adventurers slay plenty of orcs and kobolds. It
seems to me that kobolds and orcs are more hostile in alignment than
evil in alignment.
Even then, we are on shakey ground. We aren't part of their culture.
Our evaluation of the evaluation criteria is doomed to be weak. Is
treachery evil? Is it evil in all cultures? Is treachery toward
outsiders an evil trait, or just within treachery the culture? To my
mind, this yardstick has not been established.
Would a dracocentric definition allow a highly intelligent creature
that discounts the value of various lesser beings to harvest a few of
them for a snack without incurring a moral deficit? I think it might.
"There's plenty more where those came from; it's not like we have a
shortage."
Because if "Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in
their own righteousness" allows Shadowbane Inquisitors to be good "even
if it costs the lives of a few good creatures", in other words, without
regard to consequences, then almost everyone on the planet is good.
Because few people believe themselves and their own actions to be evil.
"Why did you do that?" "He did this to me first." or "She's planning on
doing this." not "Because I'm an evil bastard."
And that applies to various creatures and their cultures, too, in my
estimation. A few may revel in their evilness, most will be
self-righteous, like the rest of us. A kobold will believe that it is
good to be a kobold.
In fact, if anything, the alignments in the Monster Manual smack of
warfare propaganda, where the goal is to dehumanize the enemy.
Consider a human culture that is lawful good, but xenophobic toward
outsiders. Hey, that describes most real cultures! How will it treat a
stranger? Will the constabulary be as scrutinizing of the thief who
exclusively robs outsiders? Will the merchants offer the same deals
toward outsiders? When does this sort of discrimination become evil?
Only when you openly slay them, per the previously quoted definition?
My point is, you cannot hope to encode every moral dilema within a
game's moral system. It is foolish to get hung up about it. Roleplay
the ones that present themselves, enjoy, and move on.
MadKaugh
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram