The Campaign Builder's Guild

I work my CS into the Great Wheel (specifically, DF's Great Wheel) because it gives me the ability to be creative with my world while simultaneously getting to reuse significant amounts of material produced by others. But I also like the idea of putting my world at the center of a unique set of planes which obviously revolve around what happens in that world. If my game doesn't put an emphasis on crossover ability, is it better to go with or without unique planes? What are the pros and cons?

The Great Wheel is my primary concern, but thoughts on big multiverses in general could be useful too.

Hey Mythmage,
Good to see you around.  Just to let you know, polls in threads currently aren't working (that will be updated in CBG 2.0), so you may want to get just everyone to explicitly state in the thread how they do things.
Cheers!
[/end thread hi-jacking]

All my worlds are at the center of their own unique cosmology. I get away with that because I tend to use only the scantest of cosmologies (meaning 1 or 2 other planes) rather than something like the Great Wheel with, what, 30 planes?

I never liked the idea of going from setting to setting unless I was doing something akin to Planescape, ie traveling from plane to plane, exploring the multiverse. To me, there are enough stories to weave and tell with in one world. When you get bored, its better to make a new setting than haphazardly string divergent settings together.

I like the Great Wheel well enough, but it doesn't fit with what I want for my own world. This is pretty much my standard response, and you can replace "Great Wheel" with the multiverse conception of your choice, and that sentence is still true for me.

If you want to think in terms of pros and cons, I see three pros, two of which you have already mentioned: 1.) crossover or travel between worlds, 2.) reusing existing material, and 3.) player familiarity with existing cosmologies. Crossover doesn't really appeal to me for a variety of reasons, and I am not aware of any existing material I particularly want to use. For really complex cosmologies, using a system that is familiar to players can be a huge advantage, because there is much less of a learning curve. (I would venture to guess that most seasoned D&D players are at least passing-familiar with the concept of the Great Wheel and how it works.) But unless you're running the sort of campaign where cross-dimensional travel is a big feature, it probably doesn't matter whether players understand the cosmology or not, since it doesn't have to see any use.

Drawbacks (con time!) include built-in assumptions you're forced to work around, primarily. For example, the Great Wheel makes a lot of statements about death, resurrection, and the afterlife, since it's full of planes that are various destinations for the souls of the dead, and descriptions of what might happen to characters after they die. If I wanted to use the Great Wheel and I also wanted different ideas about death and the afterlife (say, a different kind of heaven or hell, or an afterlife that is totally mysterious if it exists at all), I'd have to rig up a workaround (which would contradict player expectations about how the Great Wheel is supposed to work, and negate Pro #3 to using it in the first place.) I consider using these kinds of pre-made elements advantageous only if I am going to use them without any changes; if I am planning on changing details, I might as well start from scratch, because it's easier for me in the long run.

I have a concrete cosmology in mind for my setting, and I understand how it works in great detail. The world sits in the middle of a bubble of Ether, floating in a vast sea of Void. My cosmology accounts for things like why characters observe stars and the movement of the sun, and accounts for the singular instance of trans-world travel that is important for the world's history. It avoids getting overly complex, and it avoids answering questions I don't want answered (such as: "What happens to me when I die?") If I really wanted to do a crossover, I could, and if I want things to remain isolated and mysterious, I can do that, too. It may not be enough material to fill multiple books like the Great Wheel can, but it suits my purposes much better.

This is a good question, and I thank you for posting it. And since I haven't seen you around before, I'll take this opportunity to welcome you to our merry band.

:yumm:

Quote from: Luminous CrayonDrawbacks (con time!) include built-in assumptions you're forced to work around, primarily. For example, the Great Wheel makes a lot of statements about death, resurrection, and the afterlife, since it's full of planes that are various destinations for the souls of the dead, and descriptions of what might happen to characters after they die. If I wanted to use the Great Wheel and I also wanted different ideas about death and the afterlife (say, a different kind of heaven or hell, or an afterlife that is totally mysterious if it exists at all), I'd have to rig up a workaround (which would contradict player expectations about how the Great Wheel is supposed to work, and negate Pro #3 to using it in the first place.) I consider using these kinds of pre-made elements advantageous only if I am going to use them without any changes; if I am planning on changing details, I might as well start from scratch, because it's easier for me in the long run.

So now, this begs the COMPLETELY loaded question, do you have moral relativism in your world and if so, how do you handle the (DnD) absolutes of 'good', 'evil', 'law' and 'chaos'?  The Great Wheel effectively destroys moral relativism and makes morality and ethics absolutes.  A Blackguard is never 'misunderstood'.  The Great Wheel is what makes alignment possible.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled thread topic.

I think it is better to use an overarching deity scheme but adjust for each culture.  Would a warrior culture worship Athene or Ares?  Are they different faces of the same deity?  Would elves worship Demeter and would that be a third face of the warrior deity adjusted for race/culture?  It seems to me to be easiest to create different personages.  Recreating Deities and Demigods and Manual of the Planes could be entertaining, but I don't have that kind of time.

Ease and playability count for a lot, but so does the satisfaction of creating your own stuff.  I'm running a Faerun campaign right now just for playability's sake while I try to coalesce my own world.  Both have overarching cosmologies, so that's my vote!    

Quote from: SlapzillaSo now, this begs the COMPLETELY loaded question, do you have moral relativism in your world and if so, how do you handle the (DnD) absolutes of 'good', 'evil', 'law' and 'chaos'?  The Great Wheel effectively destroys moral relativism and makes morality and ethics absolutes.  A Blackguard is never 'misunderstood'.  The Great Wheel is what makes alignment possible.

Recreating Deities and Demigods and Manual of the Planes could be entertaining, but I don't have that kind of time.[/quote]quite[/i] that much time and effort on these facets of a world (multiple 300-page books' worth of material?) unless travel among the planes and up-close-and-personal teatime with gods is a major focus of your gaming style and a vital part of your setting (in which case I'd probably want to use my own, personalized material anyway.)

I think we have neatly split the thread into a discussion of two separate but related questions at this point: 1.) "Do you use existing published material for cosmology?" and 2.) "Does your cosmology allow for your world to be connected to others?" I think that they are both fascinating and entirely worthwhile questions to discuss.

Yet another thread that I have started a response to and not had time to answer to my liking.

And as is his wont, the Master of Meta threads has thrown some curves in.  So my answers have also morphed accordingly, while still answering the original query as to what we do with multiple planes.

I will go out of order and start answering where it makes the most sense.  As to the use of other peoples works or cosmologies, I think it can be useful to save time or as LC mentioned to take advantage of the familiarity effect.  Even saying that, I will say I look down on it, honestly.  Not on the people or the users, but this is the Campaign Builders Guild, a workshop for Creators of Settings (caps intentional), not a site for just gamers.  We create here.

Now, my cosmology of the Void, the Houses, Stations, and the 'Waking Dream' that is Celtricia allows for some planar travel, but I have to be honest and say I really did not need to.  The House of Earth has been visited twice by my PC's in the really long history of the setting.  If you build the setting well enough, the crossover is not needed.  It can be fun, especially for those setting that go into epic scale, but it can also be viewed as a crutch for a game whose prime dynamics are not deep enough to keep the PCs interested.

I, like LC, do not have 'alignment' per se in my setting.  I do have a graph I keep that I score all the PC's on, with law and choas on one continuum and Woe and Weal on the other, that I use myself, but the PC's don't see it.  I use a classless, faction-oriented skill based system, so there are no 'class-alignment' restrictions.  Sometimes a faction finds out that a PC has been doing stuff they don't like, and they boot him out, so they have to deal with the realistic consequences of their actions.  But just as often, the PC's can hide stuff...which is realistic.
As LC said so well, and as has been mentioned is so many other threads, it is the human elements of behavior that makes the game so much more interesting.  I find a system that respects the character that has fate has thrown down and rises from face down in the mud to be be more enjoyable than one that expects moral perfection or sets absolue guidelines.  My world is hard and death comes fast, people make decisions as best they can.

So if a GM is going to create a cosmology, make sure that it doesn't step on the foot of your alignment system, morality system or lack thereof.

I hope that manages to answer the originl post while accounting for some great discussion.

 

 

Quote from: LVAS LC said so well, and as has been mentioned is so many other threads, it is the human elements of behavior that makes the game so much more interesting.

So if a GM is going to create a cosmology, make sure that it doesn't step on the foot of your alignment system or lack thereof.[/quote]I think the reason the two issues are so intertwined is the idea that afterlife is a consequence of your behavior in life, and that you can earn yourself a heaven or a hell through your pre-death actions. This is a comfortable idea to most of us because of real-world religions we are all familiar with (whether or not we follow those religions ourselves.) But again, that's not necessarily something that has to be a given, either.

Regarding Panisadore I would have to answer "Maybe."

The pantheon is clearly rather unique which necessitates some degree of insularity. Nevertheless, rather than entirely reinventing the Wheel, I perceive it interacting with the  Great Wheel pretty much iaw the RAW. Particularly in that Jessanak is in fact the Grand Sultan of the Efreet in the City of Brass on the Elemental Plane of Fire (accessing one of the binary suns in my setting via portal) masquerading very successfully as a god. So successfully that he has gained sufficient worshipers to function as a god in this particular patch of the Prime Material Plane. It follows then that planar travel is possible, and at least for now, I'm not making any significant changes to the structure or function of the Great Wheel. Published setting have already set a precedent by which local changes to planar geography/topography are possible without altering those of other settings - the natural conclusion being that the GW as rendered in the DMG is essentially the structure directly accessed from the 3rd ed. default setting of Greyhawk. The Planar topography as accessed directly from Faerun, while similar, displays some variant characteristics. Nevertheless, it has always been held as possible to travel from one setting to another - this is an inherent necessity in explaining the migration of such things as the various Bigby's Hand spells (by name) from one setting to another.

As a fan of the old Spelljammer setting (somewhat flawed but flavorful) I've viewed Panisadore as accessible from other setting via the Flow without planar travel. I have not at this point tried to outline further bodies whithin its Crystal Sphere however - leaving actual spelljamming as a potential element to be developed further should players desire to explore it. Certain deities could well be viewed as cognates to some appearing in other setting (Salistreah and Sune come most immediately to mind). In such an expanded setting I view Panisadore as the Homeworld ofmost, if not all major races. In this case the Elven Imperial Navy would be at great pains to keep it hidden, especially in light of the existence of a race of orcs which coexist rather peacefully with elves and were in fact originally their allies until they tried to enslave them in the distant pass. This last - the "true cause" of elven-orccish racial hatred is something they cannot afford to have discovered by the cosmos at large. . . Since no one would believe it until they saw it first hand, spelljamming access to Panisadore is of course proscribed to as great an extant as the Imperial Navy can possibly accomplish.

As for alignment, I use it pretty much iaw the RAW as well, but deliberately blur the lines - its perception with regard to any individual is very much subject to "spin" and few beings display any rigid dedication to any particular alignment. Such absolutes are relegated to the manifestation of abstract concepts giving rise to the various planes. On the Prime Material neutrality tends to be the order of the day, but is generally perceived and interpreted (i.e., projected upon others) from any individual's viewpoint in terms of supposed personal benefit.  

I think the Great Wheel (or it's reasonable facsimile) must exist for Protection from Evil or Smite Good, etc, to also exist.  No alignments, to my mind, disallows demons and angels and makes the saints and sinners very Material.  Just my opinion but this makes Paladins a fairy tale.  Turning or Commanding undead just becomes another exercise in energy channeling.  Relying on the players to live out the expanse of good and evil, law and chaos seems like it's missing something.  Certainly not a criticism but I just don't get the lack of empirical G/E/L/C axis.  DnD, at least, needs it to function as it does.  They are Things that Exist, like elves or dwarves.  

Looking forward to the communal wisdom on this.  

[blockquote=Slapzilla]Certainly not a criticism but I just don't get the lack of empirical G/E/L/C axis. DnD, at least, needs it to function as it does. They are Things that Exist, like elves or dwarves. [/blockquote]
Certainly honest and to-the-point.
Many games thrive on the existence of absolutes and boundaries.  It makes it easier to delineate evil and good, and makes it easier for PC's to know what to do.  I also think that some people like to roleplay to get away from certain facets of the mundane world, and one of those they might want to retreat from is the moral relativism we often face in everyday living, or at least on the BBC.

This is certainly an easy game to play.
"Look, it's an orc.  It's evil, so we can kill it!"

Easier than this.
"What do you mean, we have to take the coins and artifacts back to the tomb?  So what if it was a tomb of a good bugbear priest, we didn't know...Oh, COME ON!!!  You're really going to make me do this, aren't you?"

Choices are easier, as well.  Characters try hard not to lose their alignment status, and so many situations which may be morally difficult through the lens of any realistic prism are made easier.
[blockquote=Slapzilla]Just my opinion but this makes Paladins a fairy tale[/blockquote] No, in my eyes, it makes them more heroic.  In some games, a paladin does the right thing because he has to, or he loses his Paladin-hood.  
*Yawn*  That sure takes some role-playing...
In a world where the shades of grey lick at the heels of every action a PC makes, I find it more heroic when a Knight ignores greater gain to perform an act of good because he is role playing the character, not because some rulebook says he has to or he loses his nifty powers.

SO there is nothing wrong with the Great Wheel or any other system that abets and alignemnt system.  And certainly, many great fantasy books lose a lot without their true evil villains.  The Lord of the Rings is little without Sauron, and that is a great example that favors true alignment systems.
But I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.  

In general, the over-arching cosmology has a big impact on what things are possible or reasonable in your game world. So from a world-building standpoint, the cosmology has a pretty big impact, and at least you need to have a handle on that. But what is important to the other players is a good idea of what is possible and reasonable for them to expect - they don't really need a lot of detail on the cosmology most of the time.

As a world-builder, you may start from the kind of world you want and build a very rough idea of a cosmology that supports it. But you can easily get away without a lot of details if your campaign won't require them.

Quote from: SlapzillaI think the Great Wheel (or it's reasonable facsimile) must exist for Protection from Evil or Smite Good, etc, to also exist.  No alignments, to my mind, disallows demons and angels and makes the saints and sinners very Material.  Just my opinion but this makes Paladins a fairy tale.  Turning or Commanding undead just becomes another exercise in energy channeling.  Relying on the players to live out the expanse of good and evil, law and chaos seems like it's missing something.  Certainly not a criticism but I just don't get the lack of empirical G/E/L/C axis.  DnD, at least, needs it to function as it does.  They are Things that Exist, like elves or dwarves.  

Looking forward to the communal wisdom on this.  

I definitely agree that the existence of things like Protection from Evil, etc. can create problems with certain types of cosmology. In such cases, you'll probably need to re-interpret them. But you'd probably have to do that for any type of campaign that deals with moral complexity anyway. Plot lines that involve religious conflict, schisms, shifting alliances, or any kind of moral ambiguity are enormously constrained if you assume that alignment-based magic can give a clear, simple result. If you want to run those kinds of plot lines, you need to modify your approach to alignment a bit anyway, or at least be prepared to retcon some justifications for when you need to ignore them.

One thing I've toyed with from time to time is treating alignment as a supernatural, spiritual attribute, not a behavioral trait. So you can't really tell with alignment magic whether a person or monster is prone to evil deeds, only whether they are somehow tainted with a supernatural form of evil. Thus, a priest, blackguard, or paladin would have a defined alignment due to their supernatural affinities. Maybe a few others too. Most other types would not, unless they specifically do something (take a vow, enter a pact with a demon) to get themselves aligned. This supports a campaign in which there can be both ambiguity in day-to-day affairs, and still have some kind of over-arching alignment conflict.

Of course, this leads back to having a cosmology that supports the existence of supernatural evil and good.

Without alignments, a Paladin simply has a strong moral compass, and in a world fully shaded in grey, (s)he would definitely stand out as a paragon of virtue.  Would Detect Evil be the same in such a world or would every Big Baddie with a somewhat radical New World Order vision get surprised with a Smite?

Not to be too argumentative LordVreeg, but I do think that having a debate on whether or not to ambush some sleeping Gnolls has no place at my gaming table.  The Gnolls would have no compunction about ambushing you.  They're Gnolls.  They're evil.  Kill them.  Nothing is ever quite that simplistic, of course and yes, I would expect the Paladin to participate.

Once you get down to parsing deeds vs nature, I'm out.  I realize that alignments are an imperfect system and PLENTY of games manage without them just fine, but I like them as it adds an element that in a DnD fantasy context, makes sense.  Evil is EVIL and Good is GOOD.

Of course, this leads back to having a cosmology that supports the existence of supernatural evil and good.  I agree with snakefing.

I certainly like Snakefing's take on moral taint, as a possible outcome of a cosmology, and can agree with the comment's made that the complexity of the cosmology, or at least the level of detail, has much to do with the player's interaction with it.
I also agree that typical alignment systems need to be modified if the game that is being played deals with the more adult themes of 'religious conflict, schisms, shifting alliances, or any kind of moral ambiguity', to paraphrse Snakefing.

[blockquote=Slapzilla]Not to be too argumentative LordVreeg, but I do think that having a debate on whether or not to ambush some sleeping Gnolls has no place at my gaming table. The Gnolls would have no compunction about ambushing you. They're Gnolls. They're evil. Kill them. Nothing is ever quite that simplistic, of course and yes, I would expect the Paladin to participate.[/blockquote]  It's not argumentative.  It's just stating how your game would run. And I respect that.
  Since creatures with any intellect in my setting might be good or evil, no knight with a moral code could ever attack sleeping gnolls.  They have a brain, so they might be good or evil.  And randomly attacking anything without knowing that would be against their moral code.
Please, don't ever worry about arguing with me.  I'm old, rotten, arrogant and set in my ways.
The above example might have no place on your gaming table now.  But it might some day.

Either approach can work well or come across as very artificial and contrived in game depending on the DM's handling of them. The alignment axes always seemed too absolute to be realistic. (esp. in the original DnD form with only Law vs Chaos as stand-ins for Good vs Evil; throw in the "alignment languages" which everyone of a given alignment was somehow inherently fluent in and it seemed absurd.) The biggest problem in applying them as descriptors to complete, rounded characters is that they simply don't cover enough real variation. My biggest problem in handling Law & Chaos has been the possibilities of distinctly opposing applications with regard to personal and societal ethics and mores. It is quite possible for say, a dedicated political/social anarchist (chaotic) to adamantly adhere to a very rigid code of personal ethics and conduct (lawful) without any real contradiction in their viewpoints. (A monk's dedication to personal attainment with little concern for social structures or codes is a good example of this.) It is also possible to value the function of law/order in society on the grounds that it is believed to provide the greatest range and degree of freedom of personal action by limiting the possibilities of external interference to certain fixed conditions.

How active the gods are (and how distinctly alignment polarities manifest in the world) will have different effects on questions of ethics/morality in game. Where these things are clearly manifest, issues of faith may be less problematic to individuals, as there is a distinct body of divine precedence to provide a basis of comparison. This I think will produce less intense fanaticism than the opposite. When someone does not have such external proof of the operational validity of their beliefs, when experience appears to challenge them - cases of moral ambiguity - one response is to actually relax the logical standards/criteria used to justify/uphold the beliefs in order to preserve the person's psychological construct/model of reality. The greatest extremes of fanaticism can only occur when the foundation of belief is irrational, as this is needed to motivate the desperate clinging to a belief structure in the face of rational evidence which, if not to the contrary, at least clearly denies the possibility of establishing rational certainty because ultimately the alternative is a radical tear-down and rebuilding of the belief structure - something many with an intense, longterm psychological investment in its maintenance are rarely willing to undertake.

The flip side is that more extreme acts are more easily carried out as the actors are free of a great deal of uncertainty. When there is a clear model of functional evil active in the cosmos - which obviously is able to remain active in spite of opposition, someone desiring the same things then has a definite role model to emulate providing the certainty that it is at least not only possible to get away with evil, but to actually benefit from it. Introducing moral/ethical dilemmas then becomes a matter of incorporating differences of interpretation of many of the examples of the various alignments. e.g., the LE god of tyranny in my setting is actually worshiped by an entire nation as a LN god of authority. The fact that some of his clergy can be revealed as evil isn't necessarily indicative of his true nature - after all many of his clergy can likewise be revealed as good - and both have rational (if different) reasons to support the LN ethos proposed as a desirable social model. Likewise the LN god of time and entropy is perceived by his few worshipers as a LE god of forces of destruction - he simply doesn't care. Regardless, many of his direct actions in the world would clearly reflect his LN nature, again creating cases of ambiguity for those who think they oppose him (when they really only oppose his worshipers,) when confronted with clear evidence of common goals and a definite need to cooperate with him in attaining them. The simple fact that good and evil are detectable and quantifiable in certain ways does not ensure that someone attempting to do so will actually understand what is really going on. Instead they will be faced with unique dilemmas which can only arise from rational certainty when factual evidence appears contradictory.

Clear as mud yet?  :explode:

Yup, clear as mud to this old crank-a-saurous too.

I do know why attacking creatures with brains is reprehensible and I do understand why deities of tyranny could be viewed differently in different cultures.

Lots to respond to but no time now.  See y'all this weekend.  

An additional consideration comes to mind regarding how such metaconcepts are incorporated into actual setting and play. Usually for a character to state, "I have a Strength of 17," or, "My alignment is Chaotic Good," is considered an absurdity within the conceptual structure of the world as perceived by the characters in it - such statements make absolutely no sense to those hearing them. However when the concepts are incorporated into the consciousness of the milieu's inhabitants this can change things radically. Some form of common quantifiable testing (say physical tests of military inducties) would make the first example analogous to a player stating "I have an IQ of xxx." Given that the various alignment terms are explicitly incorporated into most settings at least via spell names, (otherwise making "I cast Detect/Protection From x Alignment" non-sequitors requiring the renaming of a number of spells,) they can readily be used as abstract philosophical or theological concepts of significance to the world's inhabitants. Debates as to their meanings/classifications could even be the cause of wide schisms among some of the world's academics and/or churches. This of course doesn't mean that the concepts need reflect any functional aspect of the setting's "reality." The concepts could just as readily be nothing more than abstract formulations/projections of a world's inhabitants with no function at all in the game mechanics - alignments and related spells/abilities being dispensed with by the DM (with the resulting fanaticism I've previously described arising among adherents to the various schools of thought). . .

Quote from: LordVreegBut I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.

In my opinion, if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism, you aren't using the absolute scale correctly. Liches are always evil, perhaps, but they are also magnificent, rare examples of intelligent, willing, and complete depravity. A paladin doesn't deserve the title if the only reason he won't do evil is to keep his nifty powers; he could be just as powerful without relying on his morality if he'd just taken fighter levels. The alignment scale is best used as a descriptive tool, not as a limitation.

Of course, some people do use the alignment scale as a crutch, and I think they're doing themselves a disservice by doing so.

We live in a world in which large numbers of people (claim to) believe in moral absolutism. But the nature of our world is that the moral absolutes are hidden from us, and we need to discover them. (Either that, or there are no moral absolutes.)

There's nothing inherently paradoxical about the existence of moral absolutes and the existence of debate about what those absolutes are - and therefore, the existence of real hard choices where people have difficult decisions to make.

The paradox comes in only when you make the assumption that simple alignment magic provides a readily available, infallible guide to the moral absolutes. In such a cosmology, questions like, "Is it okay to slaughter a bunch of sleeping gnolls?" would long ago have been answered to everyone's satisfaction.

But you could still have a world where the moral absolutes are complicated and highly situational. Then a question like that would always have a definite answer, but the answer is complicated and very context dependent - only an ascetic who had a lifelong dedication to the study of morality could answer the question in context without a Commune spell. In such a cosmology, the alignment spells could provide general guidelines but only the higher level spells could reliably deal with specific situations. For example, King Wenceslaus is Good (simple detect spells are reliable for this) but that doesn't mean he can't perform an evil deed or issue a wrong order from time to time. A paladin does his best to follow the ways of Good, but being a man of action rather than a scholar, at times he is forced to go with his gut instead of a clear-cut answer.

I think something like that works best if the supernatural manifestations for True Evil and True Good are rare enough to preserve the amibiguities. For example, that LE god of tyranny won't be mistaken for LN for long once someone gets close enough to cast Detect Evil on the god (or his direct works or close minions). People would notice that, you know, every time he sends aid to his people, it always turns out to be evil.

Quote from: MythMage

Quote from: LordVreegBut I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.

In my opinion, if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism, you aren't using the absolute scale correctly. Liches are always evil, perhaps, but they are also magnificent, rare examples of intelligent, willing, and complete depravity. A paladin doesn't deserve the title if the only reason he won't do evil is to keep his nifty powers; he could be just as powerful without relying on his morality if he'd just taken fighter levels. The alignment scale is best used as a descriptive tool, not as a limitation.

Of course, some people do use the alignment scale as a crutch, and I think they're doing themselves a disservice by doing so.

No, not incorrectly.  AS I said, it fits in some games, but not in mine.
You actually provide a glowing example, as in my setting their is a certain chickenshit, non-evil lich.  He was scared to die, and was pretty baneful while lioving, but he changed as he got older and more scared.  

and I understand it is best used as a descriptive tool.  But I will stand by the fact you can have a good game with it or without it; and a bad game with and without it.  But you can only use it as a crutch for role playing if you use it.

Ultimately this really comes down to a matter of DM style and ability. Either choice in setting development has its merits and potential difficulties and it ultimately becomes a question handling. The concept of alignment in DnD has been a constant topic of intense debate and interpretation since it was first introduced.

Quote from: snakefingFor example, that LE god of tyranny won't be mistaken for LN for long once someone gets close enough to cast Detect Evil on the god (or his direct works or close minions). People would notice that, you know, every time he sends aid to his people, it always turns out to be evil.

Not necessarily, though this might be a commonly accepted generality (within the inherent perceptions of the setting's inhabitants). Actual opportunities do do so would be exceedingly rare with regard to the god. Anyone attempting to cast a spell in the presence of his avatar, the Emperor, without his explicit permission would be immediately killed by his body guards and no one would consider this odd or even evil. The specific example I've constructed here Malenorian Empire (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Panisadore:Geopolitics_and_Societies%3BMalenorian_Empire) arises from very long consideration regarding the possibilities of successful, intelligent evil in reality and how this might  manifest in game settings along with the exploration of its ramifications should it do so. I'm afraid the comprehensive exposition of my proposed solution to that question and its facets is quite long and detailed. To attempt to summarize the basic concept, it is developed from the premise that even a being of absolute evil will act in ways commonly viewed as good when they are the most practical and efficient means of achieving its goals. Having successfully enslaved an entire nation (a goal of absolute evil), Jessanak has then acted upon the obvious principal that relatively content, well-maintained and gainfully occupied, i.e., prosperous (means of good) slaves are inherently far more tractable, productive and ultimately profitable (in terms of power gained from their devotion) as well as far less inclined to rebellion than otherwise. Preventing them from recognizing their state of slavery has been by far the most potent factor in achieving and maintaining it. This has been accomplished by establishing the concepts of social order and (respect for/obedience to) the properly exercised (varying levels of) institutional authority as the preeminent and overriding cultural values of the nation's people so that they will actually endeavor to support and preserve this very condition! Taxation and public works are instituted and carried out in such a fashion as to be clearly seen as beneficial to everyone's welfare. At that point a very lawful neutral society will concern itself primarily with the very visible, concrete, material aspects of and challenges to the order of its social construct rather than more abstract questions of the relative good or evil of its individual members. Regarding the latter, personal assumptions will freely dominate any consideration which will be viewed as of little import. The populace will generally assume that most citizens are inherently good and while personal evil is sure to exist as well, so long as such individuals don't violate the primary value and function of social order this is inconsequential and therefore tolerable. ("Yes, the minister is a cruel, perverted asshole, but he performs his duties to the Empire well and so benefits those for whom he is responsible in the ways which actually matter, regardless.") Consequently an absolutely totalitarian, fascist theocracy not only exists successfully, but is considered desirable by its citizens. Therefore, ultimately the question of the good or evil nature of the god who has instituted it is inherently assumed to be pointless and irrelevant and his facade remains intact regarding his unquestioning worshipers. (Anyone else trying to convince the populace prospering under his rule that he is evil will at best be dismissed out of hand as proposing something obviously preposterous out of envy of their evident good fortune.)

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: MythMage

Quote from: LordVreegBut I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.

In my opinion, if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism, you aren't using the absolute scale correctly. Liches are always evil, perhaps, but they are also magnificent, rare examples of intelligent, willing, and complete depravity. [~snip~]

No, not incorrectly.  AS I said, it fits in some games, but not in mine.

I think you misunderstand me. Note I said "if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism", not "if you recognize the possibility and choose not to use it", as these are two entirely different things. You don't understand the alignment scale if you don't recognize it is possible to run it in a manner other than limitation on actions. If you choose to use it as a limitation because that's what suits your game best that's one thing; using it as a limitation because you don't realize it's possible to run it otherwise is something else, a trap that DMs should be careful to avoid falling into.

QuoteYou actually provide a glowing example, as in my setting their is a certain chickenshit, non-evil lich.  He was scared to die, and was pretty baneful while lioving, but he changed as he got older and more scared.

A glowing example of what? Is this lich one of those one-in-a-million exceptions to the "always" alignment rule, or are you using a nonstandard lich?

I never liked the way planescape had FR and DS and all those all in one setting. So I guess I would have to say, "No."

I am a big proponent of KISS. The Great Wheel was a tool used to wrap practically every real-world myth and TSR campaign world gods into one nice, succinct package. And frankly, I HATED it.

Whenever I wrote my campaign world, the first thing I did was dump the entire D&D cosmology. I instituted one, and only other one, plane beyond man's reach that was an imperfect echo of the world they lived within. There is no heaven, there is no hell. There simply is the Well of Souls, and each faith and religion interprets it differently. Some saw it as a place of salvation, whereas others saw it as a place of eternal torment. Some speak of it as the wellspring of all life, and others as a decrepit sinkhole of evil. Either way, it in itself is undefined and cannot be traversed into, but it *can* and often does spill out into the world, thus corrupting the land, the people, etc...in many different ways. It makes things more..."divine", so to speak. Not divine as in goodly, but simply otherworldly - without morality, without human emotion, without a sense of time and mortality. It cannot be understood as it manifests itself in many different ways.

That's how I handle my players whenever we first made the jog to my homebrewed campaign world. By eliminating the extraplanar vistas and making them mutable and approachable within the material realm, there no longer was a need to Star Trek the party around the unknown universe via Planeshift.

MM, I did understand exactly what you wrote. I did not misunderstand or misread your words.  I understood the alignment scale and argued about it back in the late 1970's, used it and variations on it through all of the 1980's, and still score my players (for my own dm purpose) on a behavior graph every session on their major actions.  There are  Celestial Planars in my setting that still demand more lawful behavior, or churches that teach a strict moral code of behavior.  There is actually 'Moral Absolutism' within my game as there are religions and sects that demand certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances.  
And I never used the alignment system or moral/ethical absolutism incorrectly.  Sure, when I was younger, It was a little extreme, but by the 80's I was, I think, creating a game with as much role playing as possible, which suits my game-style preference.  and I dumped it very consiously based on decreasing level of positive effects it has on a game as the game moves past simplistic 'good vs evil'.
The Gnoll example made earlier decribes the problems clearly.  And the problem is not just 'within game' morality, it's the fact that using that crutch in the rules, a player did not have to think, because 'gnolls are evil'.
Snagash's Malinorean Empire example, while a very complete and worthy story in and of itself, also exemplifies the decreasing utility of the aformentioned alignment scale in a game moving towards the moral complications often needed to create a more complete setting for a game or a book.  Is an act evil if it makes people happy?  Is an act chaotic if it brings about greater order?  Capital punishment...Good or evil on the alignment scale?  Can a man keeping slaves in a country that most of the upper class keeps slaves be considered a good man?  In my game, I want these questions and questions like them to enhance the experience.  My days of playing with 'Standard Lichs', or a standard anything, are long past.
The Good Cap'n Xeviat brought up another great example in the recent 'myth' thread about a wonderful game he ran with a group of adventurers being hired to track down a group of orcs whe captured the mayor's daughter.  At the last second, it was discovered that the daughter ran away with the orcs of her own accord.  

I answered originally from the office, so I was somewhat brief, and perhaps slightly oblique.  Let me clarify.  I do not find it Absolutely Impossible to have a game with talented role playing and a frequency distribution of extreme examples of personality types with a big bulge in the middle and very long tails while playing with a traditional, D20/Ad&D/WoTC alignment scale.  I understand very well the machinations and permutations needed to make this fly, or, to 'play it correctly', in your words.  

I declared it could be used as an excuse for role playing in some games, and that it can only be used as a crutch if it is instituted.  It's a decent descriptive tool and guidline, I admit freely.  But it is far easier and more natural to have a game with adult moral ambiguity, to have valorous orcs and timid, not-evil lichs, in a game without arbitrary moral absolutes.  
I guess this thread is being shanghaid away from the question about an overarching cosmology into one of the alignment system, or at least partially, and for that I apologize, Mythmage.

But I think, at least in my experience, that what I am really answering is how much realism and complication a GM wants to have in their game.  Moral Absolutism (and moral relativism) have been argued in the philosophical arena for millenia, and are the subject of more books and debates than you or I could read in a lifetime.  Even if I ascribed to the philospophical belief of moral absolutism (and I do not; I am more of a 'moral realist' with some 'moral skepticism' thrown in), I think I would still have to have some understanding of the complexity of morality.  As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.

But I also think an overarching cosmology gifts the foundation of your setting with originality annd the flavor you want from the beginning.  I think whatever system or game is played, this is important.


 

I think that the question would be better defined as to the desirable extent of an overarching cosmology - as the existence of one is inherent barring a world in which there is no afterlife and the gods (if any) dwell solely within the physical parameters of the setting. Once you introduce the existence of anything outside of those parameters you have created a larger cosmology encompassing more than a single plane. In this regard the Great Wheel may be needlessly complicated, especially if the setting doesn't require the concrete manifestation of such abstract principals as the alignments. Including access to the physical planes of other settings seems even more unnecessary unless the principal play setting is the realm connecting them (e.g., Spelljammer and Planescape). Personally I incorporate the Great Wheel as cannon primarily so that I can focus my creative efforts on Panisadore itself without have to also build from scratch the domains of gods and other extraplanar beings active in the setting. This also relieves the players from having to comprehend even more unfamiliar setting material which, for the most part, they will never actually visit.

Personally, I feel the Great Wheel is truly great if you're a Planescape fan and have all the old 2E Planescape material. I really liked Planescape: Torment, and it wouldn't have been the same without the Great Wheel.

On the other hand, I find the Great Wheel to be too big and complicated for standard games. I'm a big fan of the simplicity of 4E's cosmology (and, interestingly enough, you can retain all of the great wheel planes as divine realms on the Astral Sea if you really want to).

To answer the OP's question, I do not think the capacity for having crossover worlds to be a big enough perk to using a preconstructed cosmology. The best defense of using one is that players can bring in their current knowledge and not have to learn anything new about the planes before jumping into things. That's really it.

Originality is great, but being too original can be confusing.

Quote from: MonikerI am a big proponent of KISS. The Great Wheel was a tool used to wrap practically every real-world myth and TSR campaign world gods into one nice, succinct package. And frankly, I HATED it.

Ah, to each his own I suppose. That succinct package is one of the things I adore about the Great Wheel. (Considering my username, are you surprised? :P )

Quote from: LordVreegMM, I did understand exactly what you wrote. I did not misunderstand or misread your words.  I understood the alignment scale and argued about it back in the late 1970's, used it and variations on it through all of the 1980's, and still score my players (for my own dm purpose) on a behavior graph every session on their major actions.  There are  Celestial Planars in my setting that still demand more lawful behavior, or churches that teach a strict moral code of behavior.  There is actually 'Moral Absolutism' within my game as there are religions and sects that demand certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances.
And I never used the alignment system or moral/ethical absolutism incorrectly.  Sure, when I was younger, It was a little extreme, but by the 80's I was, I think, creating a game with as much role playing as possible, which suits my game-style preference.  and I dumped it very consiously based on decreasing level of positive effects it has on a game as the game moves past simplistic 'good vs evil'.

Just so we're clear, I never meant to imply that you didn't understand the alignment system - I used the word "you" in the hypothetical sense, which was why I was throwing around so many "if" statements. I'll try to stick to "one" instead in the future to make sure it's clear.

QuoteThe Gnoll example made earlier decribes the problems clearly.  And the problem is not just 'within game' morality, it's the fact that using that crutch in the rules, a player did not have to think, because 'gnolls are evil'.

Snagash's Malinorean Empire example, while a very complete and worthy story in and of itself, also exemplifies the decreasing utility of the aformentioned alignment scale in a game moving towards the moral complications often needed to create a more complete setting for a game or a book.  Is an act evil if it makes people happy?  Is an act chaotic if it brings about greater order?  Capital punishment...Good or evil on the alignment scale?[/quote]The Good Cap'n Xeviat brought up another great example in the recent 'myth' thread about a wonderful game he ran with a group of adventurers being hired to track down a group of orcs whe captured the mayor's daughter.  At the last second, it was discovered that the daughter ran away with the orcs of her own accord.[/quote]I do not find it Absolutely Impossible to have a game with talented role playing and a frequency distribution of extreme examples of personality types with a big bulge in the middle and very long tails while playing with a traditional, D20/Ad&D/WoTC alignment scale.[/quote]But I think, at least in my experience, that what I am really answering is how much realism and complication a GM wants to have in their game.  Moral Absolutism (and moral relativism) have been argued in the philosophical arena for millenia, and are the subject of more books and debates than you or I could read in a lifetime.  Even if I ascribed to the philospophical belief of moral absolutism (and I do not; I am more of a 'moral realist' with some 'moral skepticism' thrown in), I think I would still have to have some understanding of the complexity of morality.  As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.[/quote]I guess this thread is being shanghaid away from the question about an overarching cosmology into one of the alignment system, or at least partially, and for that I apologize, Mythmage. [/quote]
I think this is relevant. The question of alignment is inextricably linked to one's cosmology, due to its importance in the afterlife.

Actually, there is an alignment scale for actions, if we want to get "technical". The Phylactery of Faithfulness, an item in the DMG, will tell a character if an action will be against their alignment, a useful item for a cleric, paladin, monk, or any other devout character trying to hold to a difficult alignment.

Alignment is very important to a setting, and it IS related to the cosmology. 4E appears to be changing alignment so that it is Good, Evil, and Unaligned. A character who is Good or Evil is someone who is sworn to that alignment, not just your every day nice guy or jerk. When someone detects as evil (which apparently there will not be detect spells), you can surely know that they're evil to the core.

Really, I think the largest issue in 3E was that many people did forget the definitions of "Always Evil", "Usually Evil", and "Sometimes Evil". Demons and Chromatic Dragons were largely unredeemable, while Orcs were.

[blockquote=MM][blockquote=hIS cRABBINESS]MM, I did understand exactly what you wrote. I did not misunderstand or misread your words. I understood the alignment scale and argued about it back in the late 1970's, used it and variations on it through all of the 1980's, and still score my players (for my own dm purpose) on a behavior graph every session on their major actions. There are Celestial Planars in my setting that still demand more lawful behavior, or churches that teach a strict moral code of behavior. There is actually 'Moral Absolutism' within my game as there are religions and sects that demand certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances.
And I never used the alignment system or moral/ethical absolutism incorrectly. Sure, when I was younger, It was a little extreme, but by the 80's I was, I think, creating a game with as much role playing as possible, which suits my game-style preference. and I dumped it very consiously based on decreasing level of positive effects it has on a game as the game moves past simplistic 'good vs evil'.[/blockquote]
Just so we're clear, I never meant to imply that you didn't understand the alignment system - I used the word "you" in the hypothetical sense, which was why I was throwing around so many "if" statements. I'll try to stick to "one" instead in the future to make sure it's clear.[/blockquote]
Yeah.  Well I'm glad you made that clear, because I did take that the wrong way, as you probably could tell.  I'll try to reel in my crankiness before I am sure of that next time.  I'd like to pretend that this is some abberation, if the rest of you will go along with that.


[blockquote=MM][blockquote=LV]The Gnoll example made earlier decribes the problems clearly. And the problem is not just 'within game' morality, it's the fact that using that crutch in the rules, a player did not have to think, because 'gnolls are evil'.[/blockquote]

Of course you have to think. You can't go around killing random gnolls in their sleep - there's nothing inherently evil about gnolls, and plenty of gnolls are non-evil in a normal morally-absolute D&D world (their alignment line says "usually", not "always"). "Always evil" does have its uses - it's nice to have a villain such as a demon who's plainly evil sometimes - but it certainly isn't something that has to pop up much in a D&D game. Just sticking to mortal foes gets rid of most of the offenders there. The hypothetical act is usually going to be clear-cut "evil act" murder under the alignment system described in the PHB.[/blockquote]  I know that, and I know you know that.  But my point was that not everyone uses it the same way, which is why I brought up the gnolls.
e.g.
[blockquote=Slapzilla]Not to be too argumentative LordVreeg, but I do think that having a debate on whether or not to ambush some sleeping Gnolls has no place at my gaming table. The Gnolls would have no compunction about ambushing you. They're Gnolls. They're evil. Kill them. Nothing is ever quite that simplistic, of course and yes, I would expect the Paladin to participate.

Once you get down to parsing deeds vs nature, I'm out. I realize that alignments are an imperfect system and PLENTY of games manage without them just fine, but I like them as it adds an element that in a DnD fantasy context, makes sense. Evil is EVIL and Good is GOOD.[/blockquote]
The gnoll example was there not because I thought you did not understand my point but as an object example of a different GM seeing the game quite differently through the alignment lens. Everyone's game is different, and you can say 'Of Course you have to think', but in many of the games I have seen and read threads on in many sites, alignment is often used to garner the exact opposite value judgement of what you are calling clear cut.  Hence my opinion that alignment is a crutch.



Now we get to the meat of the issue...
[blockquote=MM, from 2 posts in this thread]There is no "detect alignment" for actions, and this is why. Because it's not supposed to be clear sometimes. While the alignment scale is absolute and fixed, circumstance varies enough and is often complex enough to make that absolute scale be of little help to those who hope to live by it.

I think you misunderstand me. Note I said "if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism", [/blockquote]
My friend, this is obviously part of the problem we are having.  You talk about moral absolutism, then mention it being affected by circumstance.  You probably notated that I mentioned moral relativism and moral skeptisism, as well.  These are not loose, self-descriptive terms I am throwing around.  These are philosophical schools of thought with clear-cut definitions, like Moral Absolutism.   Probably the biggest issue I was having was trying to figure where you were coming from mentioning 'Moral/ethical absolutism' and an 'absolute scale', and then talking about the morality of an action being affected by the context or circumstance.
[ic=Moral Absolutism, as defined by Wikipedia]
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.[/ic]

so commments like these are difficult.
[blockquote=MM]There is no "detect alignment" for actions, and this is why. Because it's not supposed to be clear sometimes. While the alignment scale is absolute and fixed, circumstance varies enough and is often complex enough to make that absolute scale be of little help to those who hope to live by it.

As you admit that moral absolutism has generally been considered a valid possible morality in real life, do you agree that it is completely workable in a game setting, and that your perception of it as unrealistic is based at least partially on your own personal preferences for a relatively subjective moral system?
[/blockquote]  
MM, these are your posts, and by the very definition of the Moral Absolutism you mention, they are each internally incompatable.  You actually could have a 'detect alignment' for actions if you also have an absolute scale for morality. That's what Moral Absoluteness is.


[blockquote=mm][blockquote=LV]'¦But I think, at least in my experience, that what I am really answering is how much realism and complication a GM wants to have in their game. Moral Absolutism (and moral relativism) have been argued in the philosophical arena for millenia, and are the subject of more books and debates than you or I could read in a lifetime. Even if I ascribed to the philospophical belief of moral absolutism (and I do not; I am more of a 'moral realist' with some 'moral skepticism' thrown in), I think I would still have to have some understanding of the complexity of morality. As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.[/blockquote]

As you admit that moral absolutism has generally been considered a valid possible morality in real life, do you agree that it is completely workable in a game setting, and that your perception of it as unrealistic is based at least partially on your own personal preferences for a relatively subjective moral system?[/blockquote]  Yes.  I agree with your statement, that it is workable and that my perception is based on my personal preference. And I stand by this just as strongly.

[blockquote=LV]As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.[/blockquote]

[blockquote=mm]I think this is relevant. The question of alignment is inextricably linked to one's cosmology, due to its importance in the afterlife.[/blockquote]  And I agree, and appreciate your openmindedness on this thread.

[blockquote=The Good Kap'n]Originality is great, but being too original can be confusing.[/blockquote]  Story of my life, my friend.

Quote from: Lord VreegProbably the biggest issue I was having was trying to figure where you were coming from mentioning 'Moral/ethical absolutism' and an 'absolute scale', and then talking about the morality of an action being affected by the context or circumstance.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur... This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism'"the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.[/quote]situational ethics[/i]. The position that moral judgments are always relative to a particular social or cultural viewpoint is moral relativism. Situational ethics is consistent with some kinds of moral absolutism. Moral relativism is mostly the opposite of moral absolutism.

[/pedant]

These terms are often bandied about in casual conversation with a certain amount of imprecision. Inevitably this leads to some kinds of misunderstandings as people start using the same words while intending quite different concepts.

Quote from: snakefing

Quote from: Snargash MoonclawI think that the question would be better defined as to the desirable extent of an overarching cosmology - as the existence of one is inherent barring a world in which there is no afterlife and the gods (if any) dwell solely within the physical parameters of the setting.

Please note my use of the word "overarching" - as it prevents any conflict of terminology. As you have pointed out - if you have a game setting you have a cosmology. In fact a poorly considered, overly vague and inherently contradictory cosmology is still a cosmology and the total absence of any cosmology is inherently impossible. My restatement of the question's definition was specifically regarding the scope of the overarching nature of most cosmologies as any cosmology which includes more than one plane/state of existence is by definition, "overarching," while the rare cosmologies with only a single plane/state of existence and lacking any (functional) metaphysics whatsoever (and only those cosmologies) are not.

Beyond the question of its desirable scope and complexity (or lack thereof) I would agree that the degree of clarity and consistency is also a concern. Sloppy design tends to lose people's interest.

Snakefing, I tried to stick with the actual definition, not the stipulative and pursuasive definition added in the tertiary paragraph of the entry, which you so helpfully added.  You can normally tell a pursuasive definition easily if it partially contradicts the actual definition.  (i.e., defining something as condition 'A', then later defining it as 'only partially condition 'A')
Kind of like saying,
"Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "
then later contradicting it with
"In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur... "

I'll let you parse that one.  (though I am surprised how long that particular persuasive definition has survived on the page.  I thank you for bringing it up, time to 'discuss'...)

But I  agree with you, and actually amplify that Moral Relativism is mostly the opposite of Moral Absolutism, and I am certainly agreeing with this!

[blockquote=Snakefing]These terms are often bandied about in casual conversation with a certain amount of imprecision. Inevitably this leads to some kinds of misunderstandings as people start using the same words while intending quite different concepts.[/blockquote]
Whether I agree with you or not, I have to say you got this right!

 

Does moral relativism have any room in DnD RAW?  I don't think so as the system is set up to be fantasy... simpler than reality.  Shades of grey are good for story but a demon is made of the essence of Evil.  Even if it becomes Chaotic Good, it still is warded by Protection From Evil spells as it's very make-up is the physical property of evil.  Seems to lean towards Absolute to me.

How would a pantheon handle itself if the deities are in flux morally?  I suppose it would be fine if the DM was willing to be flexible and it wouldn't be too much extra work to do, but in my view alignments add something to the game and has value.  The Great Wheel cosmology has value as a backdrop.  I am creating my own set of deities to fill it and it provides a framework to work within that doesn't require that much retrofitting the RAW to make work.

Of course, games would work just fine without this framework and it would lend itself to Good vs Good conflict and Good and Evil team-ups to fight a greater threat stuff.  Harder to do with moral absolutism but not out of the question entirely.

I think Moral Absolutism is how the DnD system was built and straying too far from that removes elements from the playing.  Overarching cosmologies support that even if there are multiple, overlapping ones per race and/or culture.

I think the original game was built upon a sense of moral absolutism - one of the things about the stuff which Gygax had a hand in which irked a lot of people, myself included. (His take on paladins in particular seemed overly simple to the point of absurdity at times.) His fantasy story preferences seemed to be very much on a clear and simple determination of good and evil. If we look at comics we see a long-standing trend of this nature as well - however somewhere in the late 70s (as Iron Man became an alcoholic for instance) the stories in the comic book world began to reflect a change in the audience, with the characters becoming less clearly defined until after a decade or so we began to see dark, brooding anti-heroes, Batman started displaying how truly disturbed an individual he really is, we even had "evil" characters clearly and consciously choose to side with good. Protection from Evil would repel Spawn in D&D mechanics - that's actually one of the challenges which could make the character interesting. . . There is a greater ambiguity as to what the terms "Good" and "Evil" actually mean. In a world where moral absolutes are reflected in the laws of (meta)physics and magical dynamics there is still room for the possibility that the "poles" which have been labeled "good and evil" and "law and chaos" are not really fully comprehended by the philosophers, metaphysicians and theologians of that world who have coined the terms. Yes - running even that much variance in a world is extra work and requires flexibility as a DM - I'm one who doesn't mind and even prefers it for storytelling purposes. I can still enjoy (creating and telling character story in) a game with a more rigid "old school" DM setting/style provided that the DM is good, it just doesn't suit the stories I wish to tell in the setting I envision.

In terms of tossing in one's 2 cents, I am somewhere in the $3.19 range in this thread already...
So you'd think I'd let well enough alone.  But noooo....


I actually have to thank MythMage for this thread, as there has been a lot of real thought put into many of the answers, as well as an intersting cross-section of what kind of play different world builders are looking for.
Because even more than the overarching question that was originally asked, this thread has been more of an exercise in the different way GM's want to use or not use the moral scales in their games.

[blockquote=slapzilla]Does moral relativism have any room in DnD RAW? I don't think so as the system is set up to be fantasy... simpler than reality.[/blockquote]  IS this supposed to mean that all fantasy is simpler than reality?  I can't agree with that.  Something being fantastic may mean that is wildly different, but not always simpler.  

I do agree that the orignal D&D game was built with that in mind.  The afor-mentioned 'detect evil', or 'Protection from evil' etc, is certainly direct evidence that the original game was more of direct morality play.  But much like many other folks have tried their hands at improving and changing those rules (or writing their own) to fit their setting, such is the case here, as well.  and where a hit location chart may make the game more realistic and more enjoayble for some folk, a more ambiguous alignment/morality system does the same thing for other GM's.

Quote from: LordVreegIS this supposed to mean that all fantasy is simpler than reality?  I can't agree with that.  Something being fantastic may mean that is wildly different, but not always simpler.

Of course fantasy can be just as simple or complex as any real life situation depending on the author.  Apparently I wasn't as clear as I could have been.  The point (valid or not) I was trying to set up is that DnD as it is supports an overarching cosmology as it's own cosmology is The Great Wheel.  The Great Wheel, full of the homes of the deities of all races and cultures, requires moral absolutism.  Shades of grey still exist in moral absolutism to be sure, but they are lightly grey and few and far between.  This boxing and measuring of morality and ethics is all of life's complexities boiled down into a neat, labeled and tidy system for our convenience.  I call that simplified.  For Demonhammer, the +3 Evil Chaotic Outsider Bane weapon to function, you need a measurable, absolute quantity that is both evil and chaotic and from another plane for it to work.  

Of course not all fantasy is like that.  I'm only referring to DnD and an overarching cosmology.  Of course DnD has room for cosmologies that aren't overarching and that have no place for moral absolutism.  Seems that the CBG would be the place to find one.  In these cases, I would love to know how alignment issues were handled.  My opinion is that they can't be ignored without ignoring details about the game.  Change what you need changed and again, The CBG seems the place to find these changes.  Now, Rokugan was a game setting that did not adhere to alignment but, in essense, replaced it with an honor system.  Worked just fine and I enjoyed my time with it.  They changed the names of a few things (alignment changed to honor and taint) but the functionality of these things didn't change.  The flavor did though, and it was great.

It required an overhaul to be sure but that is just the kind of mental exercise that makes games fun and interesting.

BTW, Personally I loathe hit location charts.  It just bogs things down with unimportant information.  But I understand why many folks like them.  Just my 2 cents.