Philosophy in the Den

[Kalos Mer]

One could make an argument at least that there have been governments that were evil, Turin - Hitler's comes to mind most immediately, but any of the great genocidal dictatorships of the 20th and 21st centuries certainly would count.

I acknowledge, Cym, that my experience in D&D is only 10 years in comparison to what is more than likely double that in your case, but I've only ever seen paladins, for instance, fall towards one or the other when they are put into artificially complicated dilemmas by DMs who insist on "testing" them.  In most other cases, they can find a way to represent the Lawful Good view.  (I also have seen my view of alignment as the 'prevalent' one, but that's because somebody in my first major group taught it to me and I subsequently taught most of the people I ever played with.)

Further, recall that (at least from what my experience is), with the possible exception of Paladins, and Exalted characters, who are supposed to have strict moral codes, and certain types of Outsiders, who are supposed to be unreal exemplars, alignment doesn't dictate your every action - it indicates general (usually strong) tendencies.  Thus, yes, a lawful good character may occasionally choose a decision which benefits abstract Law or abstract Good instead of their harmonious unified incarnation, but this doesn't shift their alignment from the abstract absolute "lawful good" to the the equally abstract absolutes "neutral good" or "lawful neutral".

[Túrin]

People such as Hitler and Stalin were arguably evil, but I'm not sure the societies they ruled were. Sure, they facilitated "hurting, oppressing and killing others" (the PHB's definition of evil, pg. 104), but the societies themselves didn't do so. Did, for example, German society suddenly shift alignment after the war? Is such a shift even possible?

I suppose this will just become a "yes-no" debate if we continue like this. Perhaps we should define society first. When speaking of the alignment of a society, do we mean the alignment of the majority of its people, the alignment that speaks from its laws or the alignment of (the people in) its government?

I will refrain from getting involved in the other debate for now.

;) Túrin

[CYMRO]

People such as Hitler and Stalin were arguably evil, but I'm not sure the societies they ruled were. Sure, they facilitated "hurting, oppressing and killing others" (the PHB's definition of evil, pg. 104), but the societies themselves didn't do so. Did, for example, German society suddenly shift alignment after the war? Is such a shift even possible?

I suppose this will just become a "yes-no" debate if we continue like this. Perhaps we should define society first. When speaking of the alignment of a society, do we mean the alignment of the majority of its people, the alignment that speaks from its laws or the alignment of (the people in) its government?

I will refrain from getting involved in the other debate for now.

;) Túrin

OED defines society as people living together in an ordered community.

I would think we mean the alignment of a society when we speak of the alignment inherent in its laws.

[Kalos Mer]

Since the thread which spawned this topic was a discussion about a theocratic government, I assumed that by 'society' we were talking about the 'powers that be'.  Of course I did not mean to say that the whole of Germany underwent a wide number of alignment swings, but I think it clear that the laws/regime in power did.

Call me a pessimist, but I can't think of a society that has been Good.

[Túrin]

I would call you a pessimist but then I would be one too.

Cymro, what's OED?

[CYMRO]

Oxford English Dictionary.

[Túrin]

So we're looking at the laws. Could any of you, then, give me an example of a German law that stands out as particularly evil? A Russian one perhaps?

[CYMRO]

So we're looking at the laws. Could any of you, then, give me an example of a German law that stands out as particularly evil? A Russian one perhaps?

I would regard as evil any law curbing free speech or freedom of religion.  Both the Soviets and the Nazis were guilty of this.  But so was the state of Pennsylvania during the American Revolution.  

[Túrin]

But did Germany and Russia actually have such laws (which is why I'm asking for specific examples)?

[CYMRO]

But did Germany and Russia actually have such laws (which is why I'm asking for specific examples)?

Well, I know it was illegal in Soviet Russia for the ROC to hold Mass.
And in Nazi Germany, Jewish religious observances were outlawed.

Both governments banned the expression of free speech.  Both destroyed books that were of forbidden topics.

[Kalos Mer]

It needn't be in the law itself if it is in the policy of the ones in power.  At least, that's my perspective.  Granted that actual laws tend to produce lengthier alignment tendencies than individual regimes can.

As far as limiting free speech or free expression of religion, on what grounds do you consider such a law to be evil?

[CYMRO]

As far as limiting free speech or free expression of religion, on what grounds do you consider such a law to be evil?

On the grounds that in my soul I am a Lockesian idealist.

[Túrin]

But seriously, we were discussing D&D alignment, not Lockesian ethics. Any reason you think those laws are evil in that context?

Have any of you read Thomas Hobbes? I've been reading some of his Leviathan, anyone interested in discussing that?

[Polycarp]

The Leviathan is one of my favorite political texts.  It's worth a good read.

[Kalos Mer]

As a general rule, usually any text written after 476 AD (and most CERTAINLY any text written after 1453 AD) is not particularly interesting to me, but I make an exception for philosophers.  Hobbes is a fun dude.