| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
Here is a Q&A from the Icewind Dale II forum.
Answering some Q's about lawfull good
Q: This is a very important point. However, in this context we are taking about "relative" concepts of "right" not the "absolute" concept of Lawful Good.
A: There is no absolute concept of anything, even if it's written in plain text. Perhaps I put too much stock in post-modern philosophy. We can only see through our own heads.
Q: Within the context of the game the term "Lawful Good" is an "Absolute", whereas the term "right" is "relative". Each character sees himself as "right" within the constraints of his alignment, but only one alignment is Lawful Good per the rules.
A: Hardly. "Lawful good" is defined through a paragraph of text that describes an attitude towards the world. How you and I intepret that paragraph is determined by our own subjective take on it.
Q: If we argue that all alignments are Lawful Good in their own eyes then what's the point of defining Lawful Good as an alignment in the first place because then everyone is Lawful Good, and therefore the other alignments don't(can't) exist.
A: That's not what I'm arguing; I'm arguing that this:
"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."
can be satisfied to different people in different ways. "speaks out against injustice" What is justice? College kids studying the Republic still can't answer this damned question, and an armchair DM-philosopher is supposed to be able to wing it and define, "objectively" when a character is really being lawful good for reals?
Q: We define alignments from a "Morally Absolute" perspective and then define character options from a "Morally Relative" perspective. Which is it? We can't have it both ways.
A: There is only moral relativism. That's why I dislike alignment. It tries to make concrete that which is inherently subjective.
Q: Like I said before each group has their own, yet different, definition of what lawful and what good mean. At this point we don't have a common definition of either lawful, or good, or right.
A: Sure we do; it's in the Player's Handbook, and listed above. Of course, that doesn't handle the paladin of Tyr/paladin of Ilmater agony. If I spare the murderer, I am showing kindness and compassion. Perhaps this individual will see the error of his ways and become a helpful member of society. If I kill this murderer, I am being just, and protecting the community from a dangerous individual. Both actions can be lawful and good according to the vague paragraph of text above.
Q: For Judeo-Christians, salvation lies in the "belief" that Christ sacrificed Himself for our sins. This is a "faith" based concept.
A: Christ taught his own soteriology. Without the Gospels, you have Paul. However, even Paul tells one of his communities that one cannot simply believe in Christ and commit sin, "letting grace abound". Various Christian sects will say "acts", others will say, "faith" and even more will say, "faith and acts". Obviously, faith is the root of all belief systems, by definition.
Q: In the Qu'ran, (Sura 9:5 if interested), it talks about it being right to kill and enslave non-believers if they do not convert to Islam. In the Bible killing and enslaving non-believers is wrong, unless they try and kill you first and even then it may still be wrong.
A: The Bible also tells Jews to kill priests that shave. However, the New Testament makes clear that Christianity is a new covenant, and that slavish dedication to old laws is unnecessary. But... in other places, the Bible clearly states that it is okay to follow some of the old laws, as long as they don't conflict with the new ones. Hmm. Interpreting text is a funny thing.
Q: Yes, because their beliefs and definition of right and wrong are different. We can not say that Lawful Good means the same in both instances. And, this is exactly the point I am trying to bring out. Again, in your example Lawful Good is defined in a "Relative" manner not an "Absolute" manner.
A: All text is relative, because it must be personally interpreted.
Q: Okay, now we're talking apple and oranges. Forgotten Realms fantasy novels vs. D&D. The Forgotten Realms Novels take great creative license. I am talking about the D&D rules that define the alingments as "Moral Absolutes."
A: Actually, I'm talking about the rulebooks for FR. All FR paladins must have a deity; they can't simply be "lawful good", primarily because that's such a flaccid basis for character behavior. One paragraph is hardly the foundation for unending zeal. Hell, even hardcore members of individual religions can't agree on the best way to follow their faith. "thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church." WOW, talk about the worst pun in Christian history. Ask learned Lutherans and Catholics how that line (Mat 16:18) should be interpreted, and watch the fun begin.
Q: Within the context of the game the term "Lawful Good" is an "Absolute", whereas the term "right" is "relative". Each character sees himself as "right" within the constraints of his alignment, but only one alignment is Lawful Good per the rules.
A: Yes, but we still have to interpret that as DMs and players on a case by case basis. Any given piece of behavior may or may not be lawful good to our understanding of the definition.
Q: If we argue that all alignments are Lawful Good in their own eyes then what's the point of defining Lawful Good as an alignment in the first place because then everyone is Lawful Good, and therefore the other alignments don't(can't) exist.
A: They work decently as guidelines. Generally, DMs don't put their players in agonizing situations that grind those flimsy definitions up (Harold the paladin in IWD:TotL is a stupid, but effective, example).
Q: Is the Paladin Just and Merciful, or only Just, or only Merciful? If both Paladins are working together and one wants to be only Just and the other only Merciful they would then fight each other over whether to be Just, or Merciful, or both. If both Paladins are of the same alignment then they would automatically agree.
A: The paladin strives to be just and merciful, but agonizing situations do arise. Each paladin may believe that he or she is serving the community best, in the way defined in that one short paragraph. Sometimes killing is merciful, sometimes it is just, sometimes it is neither, and sometimes it is both. The way in which you interpret it is ultimately what is important.
Ever read Orestes?
Apollo: "You have to kill your mother, because she killed your father."
Furies: "You can't kill your mother, because you have a duty to your family and the greater community."
Q: In reality both Paladins are acting in a manner they believe to be correct base on their relative definition of right and wrong, but only the paladin following the "absolute" definition of Lawful Good is being Lawful Good.
A: Okay, so tell me whether the paladin of Tyr is lawful good or the paladin of Ilmater is lawful good.
Q: The Paladins we have now are just Zeallots fighting blindly for their one narrow view (with their own specific yet different definition) of right and wrong.
A: If you and I were put in a world, and told to behave in accordance with the paragraph of text defining "lawful good", I believe you and I would behave differently, despite seeing the same words in front of us.
Q: This is not a Paladin. A Paladin is a defender and protector, not a holy jihad warrior. A Paladin would fight for anyone of any alignment because of this Lawful Good ideals of Honor, Duty, and Selfless Service as long as the overall result is within the constraints of the Lawful Good Alignment. Selflessly fighting for the benefit of Humanity in general, not just for the benefit of their deity.
A: Okay, so tell me again: is justice or mercy more important for the preservation of humanity?
Q: Also, don't try and tell me an LG Paladin would follow an non-LG Deity. This is some kind of perverted Forgotten Realms novel thing (or perverted 3e rules thing) that defies logic and common sense.
A: Some Christians are pacifists that face down opposition with stoic resolve. Others blow up abortion clinics and hold up signs that say, "GOD HATES FAGS". You tell me how this happens.
Q: If we say that any character of any alignment, not just Paladins, can follow a deity of another alignment then we might as well just hang-it-up, throw out all the rules, close-up-shop, and go home!
A: I'm sure most Christians believe they act in accordance with what Christ would want, but I have a feeling Christ might disagree with them.
Q: Does anyone else not see this glaring contradiction in trying to apply "absolute" concepts in a "relative" manner?
A: Of course; it's all relative. At a fundamental level, even those stupid blocks of text in the PHB are interpreted in a subjective manner. Thus, given that, I think it's easy to have two characters that players and DM see as "lawful good" being at odds with each other. I don't think a very selfish thief would consider himself or herself to be "lawful good" if you put the definition in front of them; but I could be wrong.
"Tell me, Artemis Entreri, do you believe that you tell the truth, keep your word, help those in need, and speak out against injustice?" |
|
|
Icewind Dale II Forum Update
