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.
THE FORUM
I have been following the current ?good?
discussion with some curiosity
of late. It seems
that the two groups discussing
the topic are either
of the opinion that there
is only one ?good?
which is a definition of
moralistic and ethical
actions and behavior, or
that ?good? is relative to
the individual involved.
I hold the opinion of the
former group, where
?good? defines a certain
means of acting in
relationship to all others,
in that killing is evil
unless it prevents the occurrence
of further evil,
where honesty and integrity
are important, where
the swing of preference
is based more on the
group, as opposed to the
individual (although this
is contained somewhat in
law and chaos, I think
it does find some association
with good and evil
as well).
However, one has to remember
that killing any
creature that stands in
one?s way just to derive
the benefit of a few gold
coins, or the boost of the
ego that killing might provide,
may be right as far
as the creature concerned
goes. It isn?t good;
such an action definitely
is an evil one in regards
to both the creature involved
(let us suppose, for
example, an orc) and a good
creature viewing the
same situation (perhaps
a paladin or ranger). The
orc knows his actions are
evil, but by the same
token, they are also right
and further the ends
that the orc wishes to obtain
(even if those ends
are based largely on instinct
and fear as opposed
to intelligent decision).
In the same manner is the
case [of] a paladin who
is about to deliver the
death blow to, say, a chaotic
neutral thief, who
might have been attempting
to steal items from
the paladin, or trying to
backstab him (or her) to
steal items from him. Combat
might be necessary
for self-defense and should
the paladin get to a
situation where the thief
surrenders, the paladin
may well let the thief go
as long as his safety were
not in jeopardy. This is
a fundamentally good act,
as the paladin is sparing
the life of another creature,
and this being may well
appreciate the
doings of the paladin and
in turn begin to embrace
the lawful good ethos due
to its good treatment
of the thief. However, to
an evil demon, this
would be a wrong act. It
would be proper to kill
the thief, since he cannot
be trusted, and it helps
clear the demon?s mind about
paltry backstabbers
like this (even if the demon
is one himself . . . .).
What I?m basically trying
to say, perhaps, is
that we should try to distinguish
?right? and
?wrong? from ?good? and
?evil.? They are not
necessarily the same, even
though they could be.
Good and evil are predefined
standards by which
all other creatures are
measured; right and
wrong, descriptors which
vary from individual to
individual. It?s important
to keep this in mind, as
it appears this discussion
is becoming fairly
heated and has probably
stirred the thoughts of
many a group of campaigners.
Jim MacKenzie
Regina,
Sask.
(Dragon #108)