Philosophy in the Den

[Kalos Mer]

This is a revival of the old thread from the former Dragon's Den.

For those of you unfamiliar with how it works, we simply discuss one philosohpical or political issue (mostly in the abstract rather than handling one specific current event / person) until we are bored or say all that we have to say, whereupon we move on to the next issue, either gradually or at the direct suggestion of one participant.

I'll open it up with an issue that came up over on another board here.  Is it possible to maintain a lawful good government?  (In fantasy, in the real world, whatever tack you want to take.)

[Elven Doritos]

I believe that in fantasy, anything can happen if you put some thought into why and how it does so. For instance, I have no problem with justifying the existance of a LG theocracy in D&D: In the fantasy world, there are distinct lines between good and evil, law and chaos. And you can maintain order and the best interest of the people at the same time. Why? Serving two ideological masters (as Cymmie put it) may be difficult, but LG people do it all the time. Otherwise, why would the alignment exist at all?

-Elven Doritos
Master of Dungeons

[Kalos Mer]

Absolutely.  I believe that there is very little room for debate of the issue in fantasy settings.  If people can accept fire-breathing dragons, is it that hard to accept that there may be a land where there are plentiful good people in government?

I mean, surely it's more interesting in a game of political intrigue to operate in a morally grey environment, but I personally find it dull (and characteristic of a strongly anti-establishment DM) when EVERY lawful good society you come across is on the verge of tyranny.

The question becomes more interesting when brought into the real world, though.

[CYMRO]

I mean, surely it's more interesting in a game of political intrigue to operate in a morally grey environment, but I personally find it dull (and characteristic of a strongly anti-establishment DM) when EVERY lawful good society you come across is on the verge of tyranny.

The question becomes more interesting when brought into the real world, though.

But every LG society is on the verge of tyranny, just as every AA member is on the verge of a binge.  One step away from that fragile restraint(the good descriptor in the alignment) and you have tyranny.  That is half of the fun, from my perspective.  Though, I doubt anyone would call me anti-establishment.  !lol


When it comes to RL,  give me an example of a good government.  
Good in the accepted D&D definition.

[Kalos Mer]

Well, on the verge is the wrong term.  I meant "actually beginning to collapse into tyranny" as opposed to "could collapse into tyranny."  What term would be used in that case?

As far as the real world, it doesn't exist.  Of course, I don't think good PEOPLE exist.

[Elven Doritos]

Converting RL to D&D provides no real benefit, other than huffy opinions that cannot be justified. ;)

As for a LG society being on the verge of tyranny...

You describe a LN society, really. A LG society would accomplish good through operation of its own legal system, and work systematically and wholly to accomplish the betterment and enlightenment of all. A NG society would likely be similar, sure. But a NG society would accomplish its own agenda differently-- possibly taking a more personal and relative approach.

I see NG and NE as being rather murky territory, anyhow. They are gray between the cardinals, after all.

-Elven Doritos
Forensic Evidence

[Kalos Mer]

Ordinals, apparently, is the term that Cymro uses for LG/LE/CG/CE.  Cardinals are the NE/NG/LN/CN.

It makes sense, I suppose.  The Cardinal directions on a compass are purely in one direction, like the 'cardinal' alignments are purely in one moral/ethical direction.

[Elven Doritos]

I suppose that's another method of contention:
Are the "neutral" alignments the pure ones, or are Cymro's "ordinals" the true purities of philosophical devotion?

-Elven Doritos
They're both valid, really.

[Kalos Mer]

Well as I indicated before, I tend to view LG not as 'serving two masters', but serving a different sort of master than NG and a different one again than CG.

They share certain similar characteristics (general intention, certain limitations on behavior, etc.) but neither CG nor LG are simply a matter of mixing NG with CN/LN.

[CYMRO]

I suppose that's another method of contention:
Are the "neutral" alignments the pure ones, or are Cymro's "ordinals" the true purities of philosophical devotion?

-Elven Doritos
They're both valid, really.

The ordinals, or the corners, are not pure, they are alloys.  And uneven alloys at that.
Take the ever-suffering paladin.  If he goes too far one way(evil act), he suffers loss of powers.  If he goes too far the other way(chaotic act), the circumstances are much less severe, if even existent, by RAW.

[Kalos Mer]

Again, please correct me if I am the only person in the world who has viewed the alignments in this manner, but I've always seen each of the nine alignments as a 'pure' one.  To be sure, LG has some similarities to LN and others to NG, but not in such a manner as to be an 'alloy' of the two.  It has characteristics all its own, rather than being a 'slave of two masters'.

[Elven Doritos]

This is exactly how I have viewed alignments. Nine different representations of nine different ideologies. Some bear a resemblance to one another, and drawing even more abstract philosophies from it (Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos) is certainly possible, but it doesn't represent the actual alignments.

-Elven Doritos
Morally Questioned

[Kalos Mer]

This has the advantage of making paladins less abused by their DMs.  They never have to choose between the Lawful and the Good, they have to choose between the Lawful Good and the not Lawful Good.  There are still some moral ambiguities here and there (at least in my games), but it's rarely a form of player-abuse.

[Túrin]

Getting back to societies (just for a sec), I'd like to state that there have not been any societies in real life that were not neutral on the moral axis (i.e. I state that LG, NG, CG, LE, NE and CE societies have no precedence in real life) though I'm not saying it is impossible for such societies to be founded in the future (after all, who am I to predict the future?). One might in fact argue that all societies so far have been true neutral, but I argue that at the very least there have been societies that tended to law and societies that tended to chaos (whether or not they tended enough to actually obtain the appropriate alignment I consider irrelevant). IMHO (very humble in this case, as this is hard to prove) the communist states tended to lawfulness, while many modern western societies (based in liberal ideologies) have chaotic tendencies (at least, relatively speaking, for I also think that societies on the whole tend to be more lawful than the individuals in them).

I plan to repost my book reviews here, as well as a new one: Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Anyone got a new subject to discuss in the meantime?

;) Túrin

[CYMRO]

Again, please correct me if I am the only person in the world who has viewed the alignments in this manner, but I've always seen each of the nine alignments as a 'pure' one.  To be sure, LG has some similarities to LN and others to NG, but not in such a manner as to be an 'alloy' of the two.  It has characteristics all its own, rather than being a 'slave of two masters'.

Yours is a valid way of looking at alignments, but not one that experience has shown me to be prevalent.  Or to work.  I have yet to see a player with a LG character not slide one way or the other.  And the slide is almost always into NG, and rarely LN.  This is why I opened up the rhokeon(paladin) in Altvogge to either LG or NG.