[poll] Is it better to use an overarching cosmology?

[snakefing]

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.

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.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

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.

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.

[LordVreeg]

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!

 

[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.  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.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

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.

[LordVreeg]

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.

[Slapzilla]

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.

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.