This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures  (Read 12952 times)

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #90 on: October 10, 2021, 08:17:16 AM »
To your feminine. Family, tribe, kin. Looking at history I'd say we evolved to treat foreign feminine as more of... free game.

I think the historical norm is more like the Rape of the Sabine Women - the foreign feminine is initially free game, but is incorporated into the victorious tribe, and eventually becomes 'our feminine' and thus protected. That's particularly true when the conquerors/raiders don't have their own women with them (eg Spanish/Portuguese in Central & South America, Vikings all over) or are highly polygamous. If neither of those hold then either you get a lower class of slave concubines, as with the Arabs (since only four wives), or you get genocide (eg Anglos in North America, Nazis in eastern Europe).

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #91 on: October 10, 2021, 08:20:01 AM »
I must say SHARK "few enormous human empires" and also 2/3 of Dwarven civilisation and 3/4 of Elven civilisation sounds like terribly lot of islands of hope, in fact whole continents of hope.
I mean few is at least three - so you can easily have LG/LN Roman, Persian and Chinese Empires and that's not the end :P

Sounds like you're not familiar with SHARK World - it's enormous!  ;D ;D

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #92 on: October 16, 2021, 10:38:24 AM »
Quote
Not at all. In fact - I don't use Alignment as an overt mechanic in my games (D&D or otherwise) - but as a philosophical mechanism to explain cosmological realities in-game, I definitely use them. They're not defined by Gary Gygax as much as they are defined by the meanings of Good/Evil themselves.

I don't engage in moral relativism when the fundamental reality is that Good and Evil exists. Even metaphysical continuity does not transcend that reality - if it did, they would be rendered meaningless. If evil action is absolutely required to occur to allow reality to operate - fine. That reality is inherently evil. Your point is what? I'm not making a value judgement on the baseline of reality.

And here's where I disagree. Metaphysics is always primary to any axiology. Good and Evil have a meaning only within cosmology. If you change cosmology for fictional world - you literally change what good and evil within given system is, regardless of Good and Evil in real world (or lack of them). Therefore definition is possible only in regards of reality itself, morality is subservient to reality. In D&D cosmology you have eternal balance of Good and Evil as equal forces, in Christianity or in Tolkien universe Evil is mere deprivation of Good, anomaly without essention of it's own, in Zoroastrianism evil is equal, but anomalous to reality because it was made by Good Guy. And what actions are Good and what are Evil, changes immensly with those basic changes.

For most real life religions and philosophies - Christian like way is closest - evil is anomaly. Therefore good is define by God/Natural Law. If if invent fake setting where Aztec metaphysics is real then... yeah what Aztec Gods want DEFINE GOOD in this fictional reality - Earth 616 morality shall not apply.

This is not moral relativism - which claims morality is basically personal invention - but moral realism ergo quite widely accepted in most philosophies and religions fact that morality is subservient to reality, not other way round.

Quote
The question is whether or not you make it matter in the context of gaming. So another way of looking at it is this: what if you set your campaign in the Nine Hells? Fundamentally an axiomatic evil place. But that fact doesn't preclude the possibility that you create a culture that does not conform to that axiomatic reality. It's extremely unlikely - but it certainly has analog precedents in D&D.

If you take D&D cosmology - then all four alignments are cosmological constances, so reality is - all four are real, and their co-existence make reality, and define mortal morality by attunement to nature of cosmological constances. So existence of Nine Hells is perfectly fine as place of cosmological Law and Evil, but as neither of four is Absolute over others they cannot stop intrustions, as ultimately Nine Hells is the same reality as Mount Celestia.

That D&D cosmology however shall not apply if you make world that is based on Nahua cosmology because it defines Good and Evil well wastly differently and it will either be D&D game with Aztecs trappings merely (and morality of such religion will be fake, as people will lack knowledge of cosmic ultimates) or it can truly take all Aztec metaphysics along with necessity for different morality.

In fact D&D morality is inherently relativistic one, as you have four competing source of morality, neither of which can claim rightful authority over others.
To align with good is just as justified choice as aligning with evil, because they are equal forces constituting reality. There is no right and wrong, because basically anything you'll do will be right in one of those four books.

Quote
I think the historical norm is more like the Rape of the Sabine Women - the foreign feminine is initially free game, but is incorporated into the victorious tribe, and eventually becomes 'our feminine' and thus protected. That's particularly true when the conquerors/raiders don't have their own women with them (eg Spanish/Portuguese in Central & South America, Vikings all over) or are highly polygamous. If neither of those hold then either you get a lower class of slave concubines, as with the Arabs (since only four wives), or you get genocide (eg Anglos in North America, Nazis in eastern Europe).

Ultimately yes. You reap after you r... or something like this. But that depends. Goedelic conquest of Neolithic Ireland according to comparative genetics ended for instance with massive population replacement, not just men replacement. On the other hand in India most male bears either Aryan R1a or Dravidan H markers (both Aryans and Dravidans were originally external conquerors - Aryans from steppe, Dravidans probably either from Irano-Afghan area or even Caucasus), but female lineages based on mtDNA are like in 70% older, genetically kin to Melanesians, Papuans and Australians - descendants of earliest settlers in South Asia-Oceania.

Quote
Sounds like you're not familiar with SHARK World - it's enormous!  ;D ;D

Equoator over 100 000 miles long with Hollow Earth to much or GTFO puny worldbuilder!!!
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

Persimmon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #93 on: October 16, 2021, 11:45:23 AM »
As for slavery, it is a cost effective method of obtaining labor if the resources to retain the captives remains cheap as well.
Just make sure there are others that benefit enough to assist.
"Good"? "Evil"? We have a world to conquer!

Historically speaking, slavery generally had more to do with labor shortages rather than labor costs.  So places with huge labor pools, like China for example, did not practice slavery very much.  Yet it was common in neighboring Korea, where the population was much smaller.  And race was more often than not a non-factor.  But in the USA for example, people's perceptions are almost entirely viewed through the prism of American slavery, which was fairly exceptional in the grand scheme. 

So that can be a huge hurdle for some in having it in your game.  In my campaign setting, there are slavery rings, but none of the main states practice it in any widespread fashion.  But my players wouldn't object to me adding it because they're smart enough to realize it's a game and such a decision would be implemented for story related purposes.  You can't always find such mature players.  That's also why I seldom game with people I don;'t know well and try to avoid gaming online entirely.

dkabq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #94 on: October 16, 2021, 12:57:22 PM »
As for slavery, it is a cost effective method of obtaining labor if the resources to retain the captives remains cheap as well.
Just make sure there are others that benefit enough to assist.
"Good"? "Evil"? We have a world to conquer!

Historically speaking, slavery generally had more to do with labor shortages rather than labor costs.  So places with huge labor pools, like China for example, did not practice slavery very much.  Yet it was common in neighboring Korea, where the population was much smaller.  And race was more often than not a non-factor.  But in the USA for example, people's perceptions are almost entirely viewed through the prism of American slavery, which was fairly exceptional in the grand scheme. 

So that can be a huge hurdle for some in having it in your game.  In my campaign setting, there are slavery rings, but none of the main states practice it in any widespread fashion.  But my players wouldn't object to me adding it because they're smart enough to realize it's a game and such a decision would be implemented for story related purposes.  You can't always find such mature players.  That's also why I seldom game with people I don;'t know well and try to avoid gaming online entirely.

Slaves were also plunder.

Persimmon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #95 on: October 16, 2021, 02:36:09 PM »
As for slavery, it is a cost effective method of obtaining labor if the resources to retain the captives remains cheap as well.
Just make sure there are others that benefit enough to assist.
"Good"? "Evil"? We have a world to conquer!

Historically speaking, slavery generally had more to do with labor shortages rather than labor costs.  So places with huge labor pools, like China for example, did not practice slavery very much.  Yet it was common in neighboring Korea, where the population was much smaller.  And race was more often than not a non-factor.  But in the USA for example, people's perceptions are almost entirely viewed through the prism of American slavery, which was fairly exceptional in the grand scheme. 

So that can be a huge hurdle for some in having it in your game.  In my campaign setting, there are slavery rings, but none of the main states practice it in any widespread fashion.  But my players wouldn't object to me adding it because they're smart enough to realize it's a game and such a decision would be implemented for story related purposes.  You can't always find such mature players.  That's also why I seldom game with people I don;'t know well and try to avoid gaming online entirely.

Slaves were also plunder.

Of course.  I was speaking about societies that relied extensively upon slaves for labor for vital economic enterprises.  Serfdom also fits here in some circumstances, like imperial Russia, which bound serfs to the land to allow the nobles to meet service requirements imposed by the tsars.

GriswaldTerrastone
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • BANNED
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2021, 08:10:17 PM »
As I mentioned before, in my games, be it a standard Dungeons and Dragons game or any if-it-ever-happens Ayundell game efforts, or even writing, the concepts of good and evil are absolutely included.

Now, there are limits since the game is meant to be viewed by both adults and youngsters. For example while there may be scantily-clad slave girls (humans, elves, vulpinish, etc.) sex and rape are never even mentioned, if seen they are simply going about mundane tasks- there is no need to go into detail about what else may be happening, and even evil societies may impose limits on what one can do with them (on Ayundell females are generally non-combatants). Torture may be mentioned of course but there aren't any detailed descriptions about what is happening.

This is simply because it once was not considered necessary for good storytelling. Smeagol/Gollum was clearly tortured in Mordor; during the First Age some of the elves may have been tormented Dr. Moreau-style into orcs by Morgoth (see "The Silmarillion"), but Tolkein never gave any details because it was obvious what must have happened. Even H.P. Lovecraft never gave any real details (e.g. the creature in the pit in "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward").

In other words, everyone knows about evil and gets it.

The obvious advantage to alignments with characters and races, be it a story or game, is set boundaries are established. If someone wants to play an evil character I discourage it, but if he insists then so be it- but I expect him to play like one and to accept the consequences: for example it is unlikely any good-aligned character will even want to associate with him except under certain specific circumstances. Likewise good ones (no you can't steal those gems just because they're pretty). Of course evil can pretend to be good or neutral for a time but sooner or later it must be detected. If good and stealing those gems would feed a starving village might that not create a moral problem, even if you would compensate the victim later on?

If a game is all relative than anything goes while at the same time nothing goes. The sadistic and corrupt shadow elves cannot be called "evil?" Slavers attacking a roofolk tribe, killing all the adults and leading the cubs away for a life of toil and misery are not evil? The Peaceful Realm and The Gloomlands are really no different? Sorry, but...no. As an artist and a writer myself that is absurd, had Tolkien tried that then "The Lord of the Rings" would have been complete and total garbage. Frodo and to a lesser extent Bilbo and Sam all went through The Hero's Journey just as Luke Skywalker did in a galaxy far, far away. The entire argument against alignment is just another facet of a corrupt philosophy meant to undermine society and turn us into hedonistic savages. Without the notion of good and evil civilization, be it fantasy, science fiction, or real must collapse because what is there to build it upon? Chaos?

Fables, fairy tales, sagas like "Star Wars," the "Atlanton Earth" series, and "The Lord of the Rings," they all dealt with this struggle. In Dungeons and Dragons it was the same, heroes battling evil. How could Darth Vader have redeemed himself in the end if he was not evil before? What if soldiers of an evil overlord's army are there by threat, their wives and young hostages? Do you destroy them before they can do evil even though they themselves are not evil? Do you try to find another way, like killing the overlord? What if there is no time, either kill those soldiers (bad thing) or allow a town to be butchered (bad thing)? Without alignments, without solid good and evil, what is left? Where is the deeper conflict?

Alignments applied to societies also allow logical subcreations. On Ayundell the shadow elves (drow equivalents) once lived within The Nine Caverns of Tyranny and Torment, but being chaotic evil rather than lawful evil they were always a problem- then, long ago, they tried to usurp the ruling Archduke of that time. The Archduke and his forces proved too well-organized and powerful, so the shadow elves were almost entirely destroyed except for some that escaped to the Endless Caves of Chaos and Savagery, there establishing their own civilization deep down.

See how alignments already provided a logical basis? The shadow elves are chaotic evil so in the regimented Caverns they were always misfits. Even if they were all total more powerful their chaotic behavior proved to be a weakness as they could not organize for any length of time. Evil may consume itself but with CHAOTIC evil it does so constantly, recklessly. This prevents shadow elf society from becoming even stronger and makes their desire for revenge against the current Archduke and the Caverns an impossibility. It is even rumored that the Archdukes send agents into the Caverns to further disrupt shadow elf society, which is not overly-difficult to do.

With chaotic evil anything goes, savagery; only powerful leaders can command and organize anything for any length of time and even then it is shaky. Lawful evil would approach life in a much more logical fashion: a lesser Duke may desire the Archduke's position but since the realm is well-run and he prospers and already has great power (a smart Archduke cuts nobility some slack) he will instead support him. Lawful evil is much more likely to take the long view and resist immediate gratification for something more in the future (the idea of high and low time preferences). A lawful evil ruler is less likely to kill a subordinate for failure if that subordinate still has uses in the future, especially if unexpected circumstances (e.g. the appearance of azuralupins) caused the failure or doing so would cause terrible unrest or disruption. How well would a partnership among lawful and chaotic evil characters work- and for how long?

Lawful and chaotic good is a different story yet the basics apply. Essentially both want the same things, they just don't agree on how to go about it. Chaotics believe the best way to achieve good is through individual freedom; lawfuls believe it comes from benevolent regulation. If executing a villain should be done lawfuls insist it be done through due process; chaotics would prefer to handle it then and there- but both want the villain stopped for the same reasons. Nuances, how would a copper dragon and a bronze dragon working together want to handle something? Keeping a promise to return stolen money is good, but what if that money will be used for evil purposes? 

The ironic part about relativism is that it deprives stories and games of any grey areas. Thanos could be considered evil based on what he was doing, but there was no doubt he did it because he wanted to avert greater misery and death. How would gamers react if they discovered the tyrant they had been hired to help overthrow was in fact keeping a kingdom that would quickly revert to savagery and brutal conquest under control? A stereotypical hero defeating lawful evil Lord Nastynaughty and freeing his hapless prisoners sounds good- until you realize that even a dark lord could have legitimate reasons to put someone in prison (rapists, murderers, bandits, etc.), so if that hero isn't careful his good deed may in fact make things worse, making him an unintentional villain and peasants nostalgic for Lord Nastynaughty!

It is only because of strongly defined good and evil that grey areas and questionable characters can exist at all. That now-infamous "good guy" drow was made all the more interesting and unusual precisely because the drow ARE an evil race- what made him turn to good? What was his backstory? Why was he so different? But by making the drow no longer evil he was robbed of the very thing that made him such an interesting character. A few good exceptions out of an entire race of evil beings become tragic outcasts: hated by their own kind but not welcomed or trusted by other races- but without good and evil? Eh, so what?

Small, weak, good creatures trying to escape a terrible evil destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world. Imagine a hero among them dying as he held it off just long enough for the others to escape again (but now they are deprived of his protection). You can add dimension by making it so the force can only survive by consuming or absorbing those creatures, but while that may be understandable on the surface what if it is later revealed that by its own greed and arrogance that force became vampiric and so it became necessary to do that deed in the first place; but rather than accepting the fate it created for itself it chose to make innocents suffer.

The concept of good and evil, of alignments, add dimension and definite goals to gaming. It gives advantages and disadvantages to a character, it imposes limits, just like chess pieces- the queen can be removed by a knight she can't take but she can do things he can't. Even debating about what is good and evil must have a basis in what is considered good and evil for such a debate to exist in the first place!

The definitions can be blurred at the edges, but the basics should always apply. This is why alignments were included in Dungeons and Dragons, not just for heroic fantasy but so the game would be more multi-layered and require more thoughtful, intelligent choices.
I'm 55. My profile won't record this. It's only right younger members know how old I am.

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #97 on: October 19, 2021, 11:42:52 AM »
Small, weak, good creatures trying to escape a terrible evil destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world.
Really? How does...

Small, weak, creatures trying to escape a terrible destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world.

...not have an equal impact?

Quote
Imagine a hero among them dying as he held it off just long enough for the others to escape again (but now they are deprived of his protection).
That's the story of Horatius at the bridge. You can't honestly call the Romans "good," nor the Etruscans "evil," yet that story inspired generations of Romans and, via Thomas Macauley, of British schoolboys. The emotional impact of real people (or fictional people who are like real people) is at least as strong without adding on an artificial alignment grid.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #98 on: October 19, 2021, 01:01:32 PM »
The obvious advantage to alignments with characters and races, be it a story or game, is set boundaries are established. If someone wants to play an evil character I discourage it, but if he insists then so be it- but I expect him to play like one and to accept the consequences: for example it is unlikely any good-aligned character will even want to associate with him except under certain specific circumstances. Likewise good ones (no you can't steal those gems just because they're pretty). Of course evil can pretend to be good or neutral for a time but sooner or later it must be detected. If good and stealing those gems would feed a starving village might that not create a moral problem, even if you would compensate the victim later on?

If a game is all relative than anything goes while at the same time nothing goes. The sadistic and corrupt shadow elves cannot be called "evil?" Slavers attacking a roofolk tribe, killing all the adults and leading the cubs away for a life of toil and misery are not evil? The Peaceful Realm and The Gloomlands are really no different? Sorry, but...no. As an artist and a writer myself that is absurd, had Tolkien tried that then "The Lord of the Rings" would have been complete and total garbage. Frodo and to a lesser extent Bilbo and Sam all went through The Hero's Journey just as Luke Skywalker did in a galaxy far, far away. The entire argument against alignment is just another facet of a corrupt philosophy meant to undermine society and turn us into hedonistic savages. Without the notion of good and evil civilization, be it fantasy, science fiction, or real must collapse because what is there to build it upon? Chaos?

These examples simply don't match up to my experience. When I play games without alignment like Call of Cthulhu, or Star Wars D6, or Lord of the Rings  -- I don't find that there is a lack of judgement or moral dilemmas. There is if anything, greater room for moral complexity and conflict in those games. Not having an alignment system doesn't mean that none of the characters or societies have concepts of good and evil. They still do, but just like in the real world, different people will have differing ideas about what exactly is good and evil.

The game system doesn't demand that the GM declare one of them is right.

I've played plenty of games set in Middle Earth as well as Star Wars. My Middle Earth games including MERP, Decipher's Lord of the Rings system, and one using the Action System. None of them had alignment. (I think there is an optional rule in MERP, but I don't recall it being used.) Not having alignment rules doesn't mean that there is no good or evil in the world, just that there aren't simple convenient labels of such that can be checked. Players had to decide for themselves what was right and wrong - and there could be different judgements of such.

I just played in a Star Wars game last Saturday, and one of the features was that that this was in a "Lost Sector" where there were rival Jedi sects who all had differing practices and beliefs. My character was a nature-loving Jedi who believed in balance in all things and an appreciation of worldly experience, while my friend Lee played a Jedi who was more traditionally ascetic and light-saber-wielding.

GriswaldTerrastone
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • BANNED
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #99 on: October 19, 2021, 11:19:38 PM »
Small, weak, good creatures trying to escape a terrible evil destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world.
Really? How does...

Small, weak, creatures trying to escape a terrible destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world.

...not have an equal impact?



Because as I mentioned the force was was evil and actively hunting them. Why would your version be hunting them? If a natural phenomenon it would be no different than a tornado and is just a force. But my version has malevolence and was deliberately hunting them for evil reasons. My version also has intelligence and is hunting them because of its own self-destructive actions but is making others pay.
I'm 55. My profile won't record this. It's only right younger members know how old I am.

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #100 on: October 20, 2021, 03:14:29 PM »
Small, weak, good creatures trying to escape a terrible evil destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world.
Really? How does...

Small, weak, creatures trying to escape a terrible destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world.

...not have an equal impact?



Because as I mentioned the force was was evil and actively hunting them. Why would your version be hunting them? If a natural phenomenon it would be no different than a tornado and is just a force. But my version has malevolence and was deliberately hunting them for evil reasons. My version also has intelligence and is hunting them because of its own self-destructive actions but is making others pay.
The force in my example is other people (not necessarily human people). And those other people are actively and deliberately hunting the small, weak beings. Why? Conflict of resources, conflict of ideology, desire for plunder, fear on the part of the attackers. Any of the myriad of reasons that real people went to war against or tried to exterminate other people.

We also did that to wolves, lions, and other large predators that were seen as competition for game animals, a source of fear, and often as a way to prove one's bravery. But that seems beyond or outside of your example of the small, weak people.

I just don't see that tossing alignment into the mix does anything to enhance the moral conflict or the drama of the situation.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2021, 03:16:09 PM by Bren »
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #101 on: October 26, 2021, 09:25:11 AM »
Quote
As I mentioned before, in my games, be it a standard Dungeons and Dragons game or any if-it-ever-happens Ayundell game efforts, or even writing, the concepts of good and evil are absolutely included.

Now, there are limits since the game is meant to be viewed by both adults and youngsters. For example while there may be scantily-clad slave girls (humans, elves, vulpinish, etc.) sex and rape are never even mentioned, if seen they are simply going about mundane tasks- there is no need to go into detail about what else may be happening, and even evil societies may impose limits on what one can do with them (on Ayundell females are generally non-combatants). Torture may be mentioned of course but there aren't any detailed descriptions about what is happening.

This is simply because it once was not considered necessary for good storytelling. Smeagol/Gollum was clearly tortured in Mordor; during the First Age some of the elves may have been tormented Dr. Moreau-style into orcs by Morgoth (see "The Silmarillion"), but Tolkein never gave any details because it was obvious what must have happened. Even H.P. Lovecraft never gave any real details (e.g. the creature in the pit in "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward").

In other words, everyone knows about evil and gets it.

The obvious advantage to alignments with characters and races, be it a story or game, is set boundaries are established. If someone wants to play an evil character I discourage it, but if he insists then so be it- but I expect him to play like one and to accept the consequences: for example it is unlikely any good-aligned character will even want to associate with him except under certain specific circumstances. Likewise good ones (no you can't steal those gems just because they're pretty). Of course evil can pretend to be good or neutral for a time but sooner or later it must be detected. If good and stealing those gems would feed a starving village might that not create a moral problem, even if you would compensate the victim later on?

If a game is all relative than anything goes while at the same time nothing goes. The sadistic and corrupt shadow elves cannot be called "evil?" Slavers attacking a roofolk tribe, killing all the adults and leading the cubs away for a life of toil and misery are not evil? The Peaceful Realm and The Gloomlands are really no different? Sorry, but...no. As an artist and a writer myself that is absurd, had Tolkien tried that then "The Lord of the Rings" would have been complete and total garbage. Frodo and to a lesser extent Bilbo and Sam all went through The Hero's Journey just as Luke Skywalker did in a galaxy far, far away. The entire argument against alignment is just another facet of a corrupt philosophy meant to undermine society and turn us into hedonistic savages. Without the notion of good and evil civilization, be it fantasy, science fiction, or real must collapse because what is there to build it upon? Chaos?

Fables, fairy tales, sagas like "Star Wars," the "Atlanton Earth" series, and "The Lord of the Rings," they all dealt with this struggle. In Dungeons and Dragons it was the same, heroes battling evil. How could Darth Vader have redeemed himself in the end if he was not evil before? What if soldiers of an evil overlord's army are there by threat, their wives and young hostages? Do you destroy them before they can do evil even though they themselves are not evil? Do you try to find another way, like killing the overlord? What if there is no time, either kill those soldiers (bad thing) or allow a town to be butchered (bad thing)? Without alignments, without solid good and evil, what is left? Where is the deeper conflict?

Alignments applied to societies also allow logical subcreations. On Ayundell the shadow elves (drow equivalents) once lived within The Nine Caverns of Tyranny and Torment, but being chaotic evil rather than lawful evil they were always a problem- then, long ago, they tried to usurp the ruling Archduke of that time. The Archduke and his forces proved too well-organized and powerful, so the shadow elves were almost entirely destroyed except for some that escaped to the Endless Caves of Chaos and Savagery, there establishing their own civilization deep down.

See how alignments already provided a logical basis? The shadow elves are chaotic evil so in the regimented Caverns they were always misfits. Even if they were all total more powerful their chaotic behavior proved to be a weakness as they could not organize for any length of time. Evil may consume itself but with CHAOTIC evil it does so constantly, recklessly. This prevents shadow elf society from becoming even stronger and makes their desire for revenge against the current Archduke and the Caverns an impossibility. It is even rumored that the Archdukes send agents into the Caverns to further disrupt shadow elf society, which is not overly-difficult to do.

With chaotic evil anything goes, savagery; only powerful leaders can command and organize anything for any length of time and even then it is shaky. Lawful evil would approach life in a much more logical fashion: a lesser Duke may desire the Archduke's position but since the realm is well-run and he prospers and already has great power (a smart Archduke cuts nobility some slack) he will instead support him. Lawful evil is much more likely to take the long view and resist immediate gratification for something more in the future (the idea of high and low time preferences). A lawful evil ruler is less likely to kill a subordinate for failure if that subordinate still has uses in the future, especially if unexpected circumstances (e.g. the appearance of azuralupins) caused the failure or doing so would cause terrible unrest or disruption. How well would a partnership among lawful and chaotic evil characters work- and for how long?

Lawful and chaotic good is a different story yet the basics apply. Essentially both want the same things, they just don't agree on how to go about it. Chaotics believe the best way to achieve good is through individual freedom; lawfuls believe it comes from benevolent regulation. If executing a villain should be done lawfuls insist it be done through due process; chaotics would prefer to handle it then and there- but both want the villain stopped for the same reasons. Nuances, how would a copper dragon and a bronze dragon working together want to handle something? Keeping a promise to return stolen money is good, but what if that money will be used for evil purposes?

The ironic part about relativism is that it deprives stories and games of any grey areas. Thanos could be considered evil based on what he was doing, but there was no doubt he did it because he wanted to avert greater misery and death. How would gamers react if they discovered the tyrant they had been hired to help overthrow was in fact keeping a kingdom that would quickly revert to savagery and brutal conquest under control? A stereotypical hero defeating lawful evil Lord Nastynaughty and freeing his hapless prisoners sounds good- until you realize that even a dark lord could have legitimate reasons to put someone in prison (rapists, murderers, bandits, etc.), so if that hero isn't careful his good deed may in fact make things worse, making him an unintentional villain and peasants nostalgic for Lord Nastynaughty!

It is only because of strongly defined good and evil that grey areas and questionable characters can exist at all. That now-infamous "good guy" drow was made all the more interesting and unusual precisely because the drow ARE an evil race- what made him turn to good? What was his backstory? Why was he so different? But by making the drow no longer evil he was robbed of the very thing that made him such an interesting character. A few good exceptions out of an entire race of evil beings become tragic outcasts: hated by their own kind but not welcomed or trusted by other races- but without good and evil? Eh, so what?

Small, weak, good creatures trying to escape a terrible evil destructive force that devastated their beautiful homeland and is now hunting the survivors has an emotional impact that cannot exist in a relativistic world. Imagine a hero among them dying as he held it off just long enough for the others to escape again (but now they are deprived of his protection). You can add dimension by making it so the force can only survive by consuming or absorbing those creatures, but while that may be understandable on the surface what if it is later revealed that by its own greed and arrogance that force became vampiric and so it became necessary to do that deed in the first place; but rather than accepting the fate it created for itself it chose to make innocents suffer.

The concept of good and evil, of alignments, add dimension and definite goals to gaming. It gives advantages and disadvantages to a character, it imposes limits, just like chess pieces- the queen can be removed by a knight she can't take but she can do things he can't. Even debating about what is good and evil must have a basis in what is considered good and evil for such a debate to exist in the first place!

The definitions can be blurred at the edges, but the basics should always apply. This is why alignments were included in Dungeons and Dragons, not just for heroic fantasy but so the game would be more multi-layered and require more thoughtful, intelligent choices.



OK that's bit of over-exaggeration, but srsly dude. There's a lot of wrong here.

So first and foremost - alignement =/= objective morality. That's one thing all people screeching about how removing it leads to grey moral nihilism has to get. Tolkien has not alignment, alas he has Good and evil. So does "Wheel of Time" (though it's not my fav) and many others. Real life religions and philosophies has usually quite clear notions of right and wrong, but rarely something that would fit alignment for various reasons. First and foremost because Good-Evil/Law-Chaos cosmology of Great Wheel is utter bullshit. It's like morality chart by highly authistic kid, who tried to put all his favourite toys in afterlife. It's just against any serious philosophical and religious intuitions humanity ever discovered/created maybe aside American Moral Therapeutic Deism in the end (ergo bullshit).

So we have boring unispired cosmology that removes some serious dimensions, rather than enhancing it. Another simplificaton is on personal morality scale - most religions and believes has differentiation between good and evil, but also quite vast scope of various sins and virtues, and it's I think quite common for people to be virtuous in one area while still weak in others (then of course in D&D it's hard to treat Evil as weakness, it's perfectly acceptable moral choice of 1/4 of cosmic ultimate powers). You want interesting moral systems while keeping objective morality on level of gameplay - virtue/vice systems are way better than alignments, precisely by pinpointing characters good and bad sides, rather than trying to push them into one box. Because this box is fucking boring. But then I talk to a man who consider The Nine Caverns of Tyranny and Torment to be inspired worldbuilding choice, and apparently loves alignment so much he inflated Prime Material with Outer Planes. Yeah, very inspiring. Very meaningful. Aha.

The point is precisely real life is not like this. And vast majority of fantasy is not like this, because dividing people into clear black and whiteshirts, end usually in a procession of forgettable redshirts. The systems of psychology, personal believes, vice and virtue are way better to simulate in gameplay various moral aspects with or without objective morality (and let's remember the oldest fantasy books - whole sword and sorcery stuff was rather immoral thing, without objective outsiders to go and tell Conan robbing tombs is Chaotic Neutral behaviour) and yet Conan is still awesome rounded character, with quite clear moral code.

And third aspect close aligned to second - generally in real life and most stories we do not have AL detectors, AL spells, the gods coming to judge are rare either in real and fantasy religions. So aside of being utterly simplistic, it's also twisting gameplay into something quite utterly alien to real experience. You can do it in some specific systems - like I said IIRC there was this Arthurian game with vice and virtues (which was awesome because you can get well complicated characters without foolish discussion how to push them to alignment chart, and yet objective morality was still in place).

And Drizzt is not really interesting character. He's just good drow. Father of all snowflakes, of all wicked flumphs and tyrannical blink dogs, and lawful succubi. You don't need OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE COSMIC EVIL OF SPIDER QUEEN to create cultural strife between mainstream and dissidents who consider such culture either immoral, or overly rigid or whatever. It happens all the time in real life - you have people abandoning their people's ways for good or bad to seek something else. Usually in much more interesting fashion than Drizzt. Give me Amishes turned technocrates, Hindus turned into judaism, Seattle SJWs turning salafite Muslims. That's cool stuff.

Quote
But by making the drow no longer evil he was robbed of the very thing that made him such an interesting character. A few good exceptions out of an entire race of evil beings become tragic outcasts: hated by their own kind but not welcomed or trusted by other races- but without good and evil? Eh, so what?

Of course you don't need objective Good and Evil, not even talking about OBJECTIVELY DETECTED AND COMMONLY KNOWN Good and Evil to write such story.
You just need few cultures hating each other - like you know human cultures in real life. Like Rohingya Muslim turning Buddhist and wanting to assimilate into Burman society, or Serbian Orthodox converting to Lutheranism and embracing German culture, or like any situation when Culture A and Culture B basically hates each other, and someone from A wanna join B, or B-side at least.
Situation will be the same - A will hate you for abandoning your people and their believes, B won't trust you because you came from wicked and godless A people.

Quote
The ironic part about relativism is that it deprives stories and games of any grey areas. Thanos could be considered evil based on what he was doing, but there was no doubt he did it because he wanted to avert greater misery and death. How would gamers react if they discovered the tyrant they had been hired to help overthrow was in fact keeping a kingdom that would quickly revert to savagery and brutal conquest under control? A stereotypical hero defeating lawful evil Lord Nastynaughty and freeing his hapless prisoners sounds good- until you realize that even a dark lord could have legitimate reasons to put someone in prison (rapists, murderers, bandits, etc.), so if that hero isn't careful his good deed may in fact make things worse, making him an unintentional villain and peasants nostalgic for Lord Nastynaughty!

I don't even know what are you talking about. That's perfectly scenario that does not need objective alignment. It just needs dissidents against authoritarian government who overthrows it just to makes things worse. Thing is in D&D absolute Wheel morality it does not matter - utilitarian consequences bear no value for judgement of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos. If your Good action cause tragedy, or Lawful actions cause spread of anarchy - well that's just nature of things - you still did right according to your absolute deontological alignment.

TL;DR Alignment is stupid, and every single idea you discuss here works equally fine OR BETTER, without D&D like cosmological alignment. Duh.

Quote
Because as I mentioned the force was was evil and actively hunting them. Why would your version be hunting them? If a natural phenomenon it would be no different than a tornado and is just a force. But my version has malevolence and was deliberately hunting them for evil reasons. My version also has intelligence and is hunting them because of its own self-destructive actions but is making others pay.

The thing is for our small creatures this force will be evil whether it's willing or blind, whethers it's malevelont or cosmically uncaring. From their perspective it does not matter, and as long as story is about them - what reader care is their survival, not nature of catastrophe endangering them. That's why horror with good leads works just as well with CE slasher murderer, TN mutated bloodthirtsty dog-bears and LE demonic entity.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #102 on: October 26, 2021, 10:10:56 AM »
Greetings!

Hmmm...I think it is possible to think about "Alignments" and the traditional D&D Alignment System in a way that is entirely too serious, too philosophical, and embracing far too much intellectual baggage.

For many years, I have played with gamers that do just fine with the simple, traditional D&D Alignment System. There's no need to take the system too seriously, or attempt to map it somehow to real-world religious philosophy. It is of course fine to have some interesting and appropriate symmetries--but the analogy or the system is never going to be a perfect fit. In fact, it can never be so, and was never meant to be so. It is purposely straightforward and simplistic, for game purposes.

That's all it is. Like some have mentioned, the alignment system is a kind of shorthand, and a role-playing tool to assist the Player in playing their character, or the DM in playing various non-player characters. The system is a tool in which to assist the DM in thinking about a particular character's thinking, responses, or values at-a-glance.

That's what I have generally embraced and used the traditional D&D Alignment System for, and in my experience, it has done so well. The various cosmic forces, empowered spells, weird magic items and such other esoteric properties are simply stylistic flourishes and spiritual expressions of the larger alignment system in the game campaign in some limited, mechanical way. A Sword that has a specific alignment and some tendencies and goals, for example. Spells and effects that cause extra damage against the opposing alignment, and such like. Cool. It all works just fine.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #103 on: October 26, 2021, 10:18:25 AM »
I must say SHARK "few enormous human empires" and also 2/3 of Dwarven civilisation and 3/4 of Elven civilisation sounds like terribly lot of islands of hope, in fact whole continents of hope.
I mean few is at least three - so you can easily have LG/LN Roman, Persian and Chinese Empires and that's not the end :P

Sounds like you're not familiar with SHARK World - it's enormous!  ;D ;D

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yes, my friend, you recall how enormous the world of Thandor is!

I've always been inspired by the ancient time in history, where--as some historians have described it--was a time where the world was the most peaceful, stable, and happy. There was the Roman Empire ruling in the West; the Persian Empire/Sassanid Empire ruling in the Near East; the Kushan Empire ruling in India and Central Asia; and the Tang Empire ruling in China. All four of these enormous empires were co-existing simultaneously; and during this brief moment in time, there was more peace, stability, advancement, and prosperity going on in all of them. Economically, artistically, philosophically, the achievements and discoveries were all deeply intriguing and fascinating.

I love all that stuff. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Theory of Games

  • Disaffected Game Warrior
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Re: Good, evil, and fantasy cultures
« Reply #104 on: October 26, 2021, 12:14:54 PM »
Again, this comes back to how morality is executed within the game's rules.

You just can't throw "WTF?" out there without naming a system. You named D&D. D&D has alignment and Gods and Devils that mark characters following those alignments. Based on your views, you have an issue with how alignment works and you're trying to ride around it while keeping it in the game.

Uh. That's called Cognitive Dissonance. You have an opinion that conflicts with what you're trying to do and you're trying to rationalize the difference. It's funny because I talk to people everyday that do this exact thing.

So I sit with them and explain LOGIC and break down what they want and how it conflicts with what they believe to be true. Then I try to give them the math to get where they want to go. 1+2 will never be 10. So 1+2 = 3 and if you mean to get to 10 you need to shift the variables. Simple. Get your starting point right. Then you can go anywhere done correctly.

You want Modernity which means you MUST remove Gods & Devils because they enforce the degrees of alignment. Replace them with Philosophy like we modern human use. Philosophy allows the levels of moral variation you're looking for.
TTRPGs are just games. Friends are forever.