Good isn't stupid,
Paladins & Rangers,
a n d
Female dwarves do
have beards!

Gary Gygax©

 

-	-	-	-	-
Dragon 38	-	Best of Dragon, Vol. II	-	Dragon

There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding amongst a
segment of  Advanced D&D  players as to what the term ?good?
actually means. This problem does cut both ways, of course, for if
good is not clearly defined, how can evil be known? Moral and
ethical precepts are based on religious doctrines, secular laws, family
teachings, and individual perceptions of these combined tenets. It
might be disturbing if one reflected deeply upon the whys and
wherefores of the singular inability of so many players to determine
for themselves the rights and wrongs of good behavior?unless one
related this inability to the fact that the game is fantasy and therefore
realized (rationalized?) that this curious lack must stem from the
inability to draw a parallel between daily life and the imagined
milieu. In order to clear the record immediately, then, and define the
term ?good? for all participants, it means everything defined in the
dictionary as augmented and modified by one?s moral and ethical
upbringing and the laws of the land!

Gentle Reader, if you are in doubt about a certain action, and this
applies particularly to all who play Rangers and Paladins, relate it to
your real life. It is most probable that what is considered ?good? in
reality can be ?good? in fantasy. The reverse is not quite so true, so
I?ll quantify things a bit.

Good does not mean stupid, even if your DM tries to force that
concept upon you. Such assertions are themselves asinine, and
those who accept such dictates are stupid. To quantify ?good,?
however, we must also consider the three modifiers in AD&D:
1) lawful, 2) neutral,  3)  chaotic.

1) The lawful perception of good dictates that the order which
promotes the greatest good for the greatest number is best. It further
postulates that disorder brings results which erode the capability of
bestowing good to the majority. Therefore, without law and order,
good pales into nothingness.

2) Good from the  neutral  perception is perhaps the purest sort,
in that it cares not for order or individual freedom above overall
good, so there are no constraints upon the definition of what is good.
Whatever accomplishes the good result is acceptable, and the means
used should not be so fixed as to bring bad to any creature if an
alternative way exists which accomplishes the desired good without
bringing ill to others?or better still, brings good to all in one degree
or another.

3) The  chaotic  views good from an individual standpoint, of
necessity. The very stuff of chaos is individual volition, freedom from
all constraints, the right of person above all else. Good is first and
foremost applied to self; thereafter to those surrounding self; lastly to
those furthest removed from self?a ripple effect, if you will. It is
important to understand that ?good? for self must not mean ?bad?
for others, although the ?good? for self might not bring like benefits
to others-or any benefit at all, for that matter. However, the latter
case is justifiable as ?good? only if it enables the individual to be in a
better position to bring real ?good? to others within the foreseeable
future.

One of the advantages of  AD&D  over the real world is that we do
have pretty clear definitions of good and evil?if not conceptually (as
is evident from the necessity of this article), at least nominally.
Characters and monsters alike bear handy labels to allow for easy
identification of their moral and ethical standing. Black is black, gray
is gray, white is white. There are intensities of black, degrees of
grayness, and shades of white, of course; but the big tags are there to
read nonetheless.

The final arbiter in any campaign is the DM, the
person who figuratively puts in the fine print on these alignment
labels, but he or she must follow the general outlines of the rule book
or else face the fact that his or her campaign is not  AD&D.  Furthermore, participants in such a campaign can cease playing. That is the
surest and most vocal manner in which to evidence displeasure with
the conduct of a referee. In effect, the labels and their general
meanings are defined in  AD&D,  and the details must be scribed by
the  group  participating.

Perceptions of good vary according to age, culture, and theological training. A child sees no good in punishment meted out by
parents-let us say for playing with matches. Cultural definitions of
good might call for a loud belch after eating, or the sacrifice of any
person who performs some taboo act. Theological definitions of
good are as varied as cultural definitions, and then some, for culture
is affected by and affects religion, and there are more distinct religious beliefs than there are distinct cultures. It is impossible, then, for
one work to be absolute in its delineation of good and evil, law and
chaos, and the middle ground between (if such can exist in reality).
This does not, however, mean that ?good? can be anything desired,
and anyone who tells you, in effect, that good means stupid, deserves a derisive jeer (at least).

The "Sage Advice" column in  The Dragon #36  (Vol. IV, No. 10,
April 1980) contained some interesting questions and answers regarding ?good? as related to Paladins and Rangers. Let us examine
these in light of the foregoing.

A player with a Paladin character asks if this character can "put
someone to death (who) is severely scarred and doesn?t want to
live." Although the  Sage Advice  reply was a strong negative, the
actual truth of the matter might lie somewhere else. The player does
not give the name of the deity served by the Paladin. This is the key
to lawful good behavior in AD&D  terms. Remember that ?good?
can be related to reality ofttimes, but not always. It might also relate
to good as perceived in the past, actual or mythical. In the latter case,
a Paladin could well force conversion at swordpoint, and, once
acceptance of ?the true way? was expressed, dispatch the new
convert on the spot. This assures that the prodigal will not return to
the former evil ways, sends the now-saved spirit on to a  better  place,
and incidentally rids the world of a potential troublemaker. Such
actions are "good," in these ways:

1. Evil is abridged (by at least one creature).
2. Good has gained a convert.
3 . The convert now has hope for rewards (rather than torment)
in the afterlife.
4. The good populace is safer (by a factor of at least 1).

It is therefore possible for a Paladin to, in fact, actually perform a
"mercy killing" such as the inquiring player asked about, provided
the tenets of his or her theology permitted it. While unlikely, it  is
possible.

Another case in point was that of a player with a Paladin character who wishes to marry and begin a lineage.
Again, our "Sage Advisor" suggests a negative. While many religions forbid wedlock
and demand celibacy, this is by no means universal. The key is again
the deity served, of course. DMs not using specific deities will harken
back to the origin of the term Paladin and realize that celibacy is not a
condition of that sort of Paladinhood. Also, although the Roman
Catholic church demands celibacy of its priests, the doctrines of
Judeo-Christianity hold matrimony and child bearing and rearing as
holy and proper, i.e. "good." So unless a particular deity demands
celibacy of its fighter-minions, there is no conceivable reason for a
Paladin not to marry and raise children. This is a matter for common
sense--and the DM, who, if not arbitrary, will probably agree with
the spirit of  AD&D  and allow marriage and children (This must be a
long-range campaign, or else its participants are preoccupied with
unusual aspects of the game. No matter . . .)

The third inquiry concerned a Ranger character. The writer
claimed that his or her DM combined with a lawful good Ranger to
insist that a wounded Wyvern was to be protected, not slain, unless it
attacked the party. Here is a classic case of players being told that
(lawful) good equates with stupidity. To assert that a man-killing
monster with evil tendencies should be protected by a lawful good
Ranger is pure insanity. How many lives does this risk immediately?
How many victims are condemned to death later? In short, this is not
"good" by any accepted standards! It is much the same as sparing a
rabid dog or a rogue elephant or a man-eating tiger.

If good is carefully considered, compared to and contrasted with
evil, then common sense will enable most, if not all, questions
regarding the behavior of Paladins and Rangers to be settled on the
spot. Consideration of the character?s deity is of principal merit after
arriving at an understanding of good. Thereafter, campaign ?world?
moral and ethical teachings on a cultural basis must rule. These
concepts might be drawn from myth or some other source. What
matters is that a definition of ?good? is established upon intelligent
and reasonable grounds. Viewpoints do differ, so absolutes (especially in a  game)  are both undesirable and impossible.

OUT ON A LIMB
The discussion of Goodness and intelligence
in the Sorcerer’s Scroll underlines the
need for every campaign to have a mythos, a
set of Gods, a set of religions—something for
the clerics and paladins to worship and serve.
But the Gods and the mythos should be cut
from whole cloth. Craig Bakey did an excellent
job of this in his article “Of the Gods”
(TD-29). Using real-world religions and
Gods gets the real-world worshippers very
upset (as well it should!) and warps and limits
the campaign.

Erol K. Bayburt
Troy, Mich.
(Dragon #41)

* * *

There are areas where AD&D  can be absolute, places where
statements can be accepted as gospel. One such is that of the facial
hirsuteness of female dwarves. Can any Good Reader cite a single
classical or medieval mention of even one Female dwarf? Can they
locate one mention of a female dwarf in any meritorious work of
heroic fantasy (save  AD&D,  naturally)? I think not! The answer is so
simple, so obvious, that the truth has been long overlooked. Knowing the intelligence of  AD&D  players, there can be no doubt that all
will instantly grasp the revealed truth, once it is presented, and extol
its virtue.

Female dwarves are neglected not because of male chauvinism
or any slight. Observers failed to mention them because they failed
to recognize them when they saw them. How so? Because the
bearded female dwarves were mistaken for younger males, obviously!
It is well known that dwarves are egalitarian. They do not discriminate against their womenfolk or regard them as lesser creatures,
and this is undeniable. Furthermore, dwarves do not relegate females to minor roles. There can be no doubt that during any important activity or function, female dwarves were present. An untrained eye would easily mistake the heavily garbed, armored, shortbearded females for adolescent males. So happened the dearth of
information pertaining to the fairer sex of dwarvenkind. Now, do
female dwarves have beards? Certainly! And male dwarves are darn
glad of it, for they  do  love to run their fingers through the long, soft
growth of a comely dwarven lass.