Why exactly does the lawful good afterlife offer unlimited sex and booze? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why exactly does the lawful good afterlife offer unlimited sex and booze?

Pages : [1] 2 3

paladinofshojo

2009-01-22, 11:37 PM

The Demented One

2009-01-22, 11:54 PM

Why wouldn't it? Nothing about sex or drinking is inherently chaotic or evil, it's in the way you use it. Miko's view of LG certainly wouldn't include any worldly pleasures, but a more balanced view of it could easily have room for them, just as long as it's moderated by each individual's morality.

Zevox

2009-01-22, 11:57 PM

Perhaps the Giant simply does not see enjoying sexual promiscuity or booze as being in any way related to alignment. Ever consider that?

Simply put, it sounds like you're looking at the Lawful Good alignment with the assumption that it corresponds to the real-world beliefs of major religions, with the emphasis being on the spiritual to the point of excluding the physical. Considering that those religions don't exist in the OotS world, and that alignments are not based on religions anyway, that's a fundamentally flawed assumption. There's no reason why the Lawful Good alignment has to value spirituality over the physical that way. Hell, just look at the Dwarves. Generally Lawful Good, and boy do they love their booze. And sex, apparently, since Durkon had no problem with his little one-night-stand with Hilgya until he learned she was married.

Zevox

Jayngfet

2009-01-22, 11:59 PM

Because the general idea is that people expect good afterlife's to be good to be in. No one would put their life on the line fighting for good or show restraint if everything was completely sterile with only a 20 mile hike.

Kish

2009-01-23, 12:04 AM

I can't believe I just noticed this, but why would there be a Hall of Infinite One Night Stands be made in a place that is reserved for [...] generally holier-than-thou pricks? Doesn't that go against their principles?
There wouldn't be one in a place reserved for holier-than-thou pricks.

I liked the Xykon threads better...

TheSummoner

2009-01-23, 12:22 AM

Berserk Monk

2009-01-23, 12:34 AM

I don't know why, but this thread made me think of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrW5YyonS0k)

amuletts

2009-01-23, 12:34 AM

Well since it's labeled as 'Infinate one night stands' no-one is being deceitful and pretending it is anything else. So it's honest - that's a LG attribute, is it not? And yes it is pleasurable, but is there something wrong with that? People coming together and making each other happy seems pretty 'good' to me.

I'm poly and a hippy. Judge me not...

Zevox

2009-01-23, 12:42 AM

As you've all said, theres nothing wrong with sex or alcohol in moderation, but I really doubt "infinate one night stands" has anything to do with moderation. Maybe a place for the dead to "mingle" would be one thing, but I'd really like to hear someone try to preach the virtues of slutty behavior in either gender.
Try asking the reverse question: what's wrong with it? Remember, for something to be AOK for someone of the Lawful Good alignment, it doesn't have to be a "virtue," as you say. It just can't be evil or excessively chaotic. I could see someone arguing it as being too chaotic, but really, it is going to be an arguable point. But then again, all such points are.

Hell, if anything, I'd be more curious about why any good afterlife has a Dungeon of Monsters That Are Just Strong Enough to Really Challenge You. Unnecessary violence much?

Zevox

LurkerInPlayground

2009-01-23, 12:47 AM

It's written off almost as an absurdly illusory comfort. That's pretty much the joke. Every reward in the afterlife is absolutely surreal and lacks any internal consistency. It's always perfect and is always isolated from any realworld consequences.

That is, the people in the Lawful Good afterlife can indulge in as much sex and booze that they want until they get bored of it and decide that they want to journey further up the mountain to a more nebulous spirituality.

They're drowned in everything that they would have found fulfilling in their mortal lives that they never would have otherwise obtained. But it's as much a process designed to jade the inhabitants of the afterlife as it is to reward them.

Zeful

2009-01-23, 12:53 AM

LurkerInPlayground

2009-01-23, 12:55 AM

Heck, there's no reason to assume that going up the mountain creates a mandate of chastity, you could be having sex the entire way up the mountain.
You're assuming that they'd want to.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-23, 01:03 AM

Maybe a place for the dead to "mingle" would be one thing, but I'd really like to hear someone try to preach the virtues of slutty behavior in either gender.

If there is no harm to either party involved, why would there be anything wrong with it? STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and broken hearts are stuff of the Material Plane; I highly doubt they are on the LG plane. I include broken hearts since the tavern is up front about exactly what one can expect. Infinite, well, they there for the rest of their eternal existences! I really doubt most LG folks will be going there every night, but as they now have no duties or responsibilities to which to attend (which is the main reason why moderation is important- so that you don't let overindulgence distract you from things you should be doing), there's no reason they couldn't go there every night if they so please.

Charles Phipps

2009-01-23, 01:48 AM

Actually, I think the question is somewhat interesting and should be treated fairly. Basically, Lawful Good types are meant to be individuals that tend to value stability and order to their lives. I don't see anything wrong incompatible about one night stands and unlimited booze with Lawful Good but it seems a bit strange that EVERYONE Lawful Good would have it. In fact, I more wonder if this isn't stuff that ROY would be interested in that they were showing him.

Maybe Grandpa would have been shown directly to his wife's house or his fishing hole.

On a related note, if Elan dies, will he go immediately to a Chaotic Good afterlife filled with stimulating intellectual conversation and sublime meditation?

Ganurath

2009-01-23, 01:55 AM

In their defense, a one-night stand in the afterlife could last as long as a lifetime of devoted matrimony, and since you're a spiritual being the entirely physical alcohol won't influence your judgement. Mind you, the latter part of that is purely speculative. Roy's mom has proven the first half, though. :smallamused:

Golden-Esque

2009-01-23, 02:05 AM

I can't believe I just noticed this, but why would there be a Hall of Infinite One Night Stands be made in a place that is reserved for (usually) the righteous, the "pure-hearted", and generally holier-than-thou pricks? Doesn't that go against their principles? Apparently they aren't disgusted or even confused that they "ascended" into an afterlife for the "lawful good" that offers unlimited endulgance of "worldly pleasures" which were apparently beneath them back on the mortal plane. I understand that they can climb the mountain to higher, more spiritual planes but why exactly is there unlimited ecstacy on the bottom of the mountain?

Your argument is flawed in several places.

#1 - Your overall assessment of Lawful Good leaves a lot to be desired. Pure-Hearted and "Holier-Then-You" pricks are two completely different extremes for Lawful Good. Someone who's truly pure hearted isn't going to run around and belittle people for not having the same moral standards as them. Take Miko versus Roy versus Hijo. They're all Lawful Good, yet they have completely different personalities. Your first Flaw is the idea that you seemingly convey that all Lawful Good people act, think, and like the same things.

#2 - Indulgence of "Worldly Pleasures" as you call it isn't against the Lawful Good code. If sex was, then Lawful Good parents wouldn't have babies, meaning that for someone to be Lawful Good, they'd have to come to that conclusion themselves instead of being raised with Lawful Good ideals.

#3 - The reason there are things like the "Bar of Infinite One-Night Stands" and "The Dungeon of Just Challenging Enough Creatures" exist because people don't go from the mortal mindset to the celestial mindset as fast as they die. It takes time to adjust. We see this in Roy, who is not adjusted to the Plane's lack of reminders of night and day. Some things happen with experience, and when you get whatever you want, whenever you want it, you're going to bore of it eventually. It takes some time to shed the mortal mindset.

#4 - Alcohol isn't inherently bad and sex isn't inherently wrong. That's mostly a Christian mindset (don't take offense, I'm Catholic :P). Drinking Alcohol to get drunk isn't a particularly good thing, since you loose control of yourself and might do something not lawful and / or not good, but drinking to celebrate isn't a bad thing. Same thing with sex. If you're having sex to cheat on a boyfriend or out of lust, then that's bad. But having sex as an act of love to your husband / wife / elf-mate or to procreate isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, the phrase "one night stands" isn't a good-inducing image, but there's nothing wrong with it. Unless ... there's ... rape ... in a ... Lawful Good Plane.

Huh.

factotum

2009-01-23, 02:26 AM

I don't see anything wrong incompatible about one night stands and unlimited booze with Lawful Good but it seems a bit strange that EVERYONE Lawful Good would have it. In fact, I more wonder if this isn't stuff that ROY would be interested in that they were showing him.

Whoever said everyone Lawful Good would want it? Just because it's there doesn't mean it has to be used. Someone who wasn't an adventurer would be very unlikely to visit the Dungeon of Monsters Just Strong Enough to Challenge You, for instance, but it's there should they feel the need.

The one thing I think most people can agree on is that the Lawful Good afterlife must cater for the needs and desires of ALL Lawful Good people, or else it wouldn't be much of a paradise, would it?

Finwe

2009-01-23, 02:28 AM

LuisDantas

2009-01-23, 04:28 AM

Celestia, or whatever that realm turns out to be, does not conform to the usual cause-and-effect rules.

Its very nature allows one to enjoy mundane pleasures without the usual consequences. No hangover, no loss of mental balance, no emotional attachments, no heart sorrows, no STD, no unplanned pregnancies.

Without the usual risks, the acts of drinking and having purely recreative sex are not in themselves unlawful nor "not good".

Come to think of it, it is pretty much impossible to actually have an alignment while in that realm. Without dilemmas and consequences there is no moral choice to speak of.

David Argall

2009-01-23, 04:38 AM

By the D&D alignment definitions, there's nothing inherently Evil or Chaotic about one-night stands

A one-night stand, by definition, is chaotic. You are changing partners frequently, an obviously chaotic practice.

lord_khaine

2009-01-23, 04:44 AM

A one-night stand, by definition, is chaotic. You are changing partners frequently, an obviously chaotic practice

that doesnt make sense, why the heck should that be chaotic?

Reluctance

2009-01-23, 05:38 AM

Because Law, as a rule, tends to prioritize stability and predictability. Chaos, as a rule, is where you go for variety for variety's sake.

And to the discussion as a whole, it wouldn't hurt to re-read 492 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html) again. Particularly the last panel. And the bottom of the first panel of 493, too. If escalator plans were scrapped due to protest, the surprise is really that the ToIONS hasn't been picketed out of existence yet.

WarriorTribble

2009-01-23, 06:24 AM

Because Law, as a rule, tends to prioritize stability and predictability. Chaos, as a rule, is where you go for variety for variety's sake.Well yes, but there is the theory that this tier of the afterlife is a place where one can indulge their worldly desires, and eventually develop a longing to ascend to a higher state. No human is completely LG, we all have our chaotic and evil sides. If you can make someone happy, while slowly removing their attachments to baser desires, then why not do it?
And to the discussion as a whole, it wouldn't hurt to re-read 492 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html) again. Particularly the last panel. And the bottom of the first panel of 493, too. If escalator plans were scrapped due to protest, the surprise is really that the ToIONS hasn't been picketed out of existence yet.Seems to me that the LG in OOTS world simply care more about working hard to get something worthwhile, than sex with random people.

King of Nowhere

2009-01-23, 06:29 AM

Roy's Archon explicitly said that people were expected to feel guilty about free sex. So on a certain level the autorities of that plane disapprove sex.
But I have to agree that lawful doesn't mean bigot or self righteous, in the same way that chaotic doesn't mean anarchic or unstable (all these things are an extremization of the alignment).

MickJay

2009-01-23, 06:38 AM

People who are Lawful Good obey their moral code and try to be good in general. In LG heaven, there are no more codes to adhere to, since all these codes, without exception, are to prevent harm to others (or are aimed at helping others); since nobody can get hurt anymore (and people don't need help anymore, either), such limitations are removed. This is supposed to be a reward for living a life of restraint and self-sacrifice. People who want to do so, may finally enjoy what they want doing without guilt and bad consequences because, again, there's no way anyone may get hurt because of it. Ultimately, deeds are Lawful or Chaotic because of the consequences, and when the consequences can't be bad, the distinctions stops making sense.

Analysing it more deeply would probably end up being a generic alignment discussion conclusion: "D&D alignments don't really make much sense if you really think about it/they're simplified to a degree where, at some point of analysis, paradoxes start to break the whole system"... :smalltongue:

SmartAlec

2009-01-23, 07:04 AM

The first level of Celestia seemed like a rather more benevolent version of Purgatory - the idea being that you will eventually decide to move on up the mountain after coming to the conclusion that you're ready for a more spiritual existence. And that makes sense, because if there's multiple afterlives, having one Purgatory would be awkward. It could take almost forever - but there's no rush, after all. Given that the inhabitants of the Plane are all Lawful Good, one gets the impression that all of them will eventually decide to move on.

Nimrod's Son

2009-01-23, 08:02 AM

Roy's Archon explicitly said that people were expected to feel guilty about free sex. So on a certain level the autorities of that plane disapprove sex.
The archon doesn't say that at all. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html) It says that lawful good people themselves usually expect to be made to feel guilty about sex. It is neither mentioned nor implied that they actually should feel guilty.

Enlong

2009-01-24, 12:00 AM

Elfey

2009-01-24, 12:39 AM

The whole idea is that the lower levels are where people's material urges are fulfilled. Or something like that: the Tavern, the Debate Hall, the Dungeon, all of those are on the lowest level of the Mountain. There's no punishment for staying there, a soul can stay there forever if they never feel the need for something... more. The whole point of Celestia, it seems, is to eventually learn to move past physical pleasure and to take active steps to better yourself. The souls that learn this lesson are spiritually richer for doing so.

Bingo! The idea is these are worldly pleasures. They are inherently neutral. Sex, food, even booze are fine in a lawful good world as they are things with no morals. The Sex, Combat, and debating seems to be done with illusions. They are baser pleasures, sure. And caring too much for them isn't good due to the problems they tend to create. But on the other hand, this is the afterlife of the good where the problems don't exist anymore. The physical needs that sex, food, and drugs satisfied no longer exist. Over time as the desire fades, people will go up the mountain for enlightenment.

Besides, good does not mean sober or chaste. There are several faiths that don't support drinking at all. But several, even some that are strict on many things, have nothing but good to say about Wine. Others say no-sex outside of marriages and marriages only last till death. But within a marriage it's time to get busy. Or the classic example of Islam and 72 virgins.

We don't know the details of most of the faiths beyond the Alignment system and a general idea of the three sets of gods. And going by them the definitions shift much further than Westerners are used to. Northerners like most of our party are under an Asgardish faith. Durkon's a priest of Thor even with that bit about Thor understanding pregnancy outside marriage. And Drinking. And Fighting. The LG afterlife is definitely consistent with their faith.

TheSummoner

2009-01-24, 12:42 AM

If you're having sex to cheat on a boyfriend or out of lust, then that's bad. But having sex as an act of love to your husband / wife / elf-mate or to procreate isn't a bad thing.

But in a tavern of infinate one night stands, there is no husband/wife/elf-mate. Only you and some random whore willing to pleasure you. There is no love, no procreation (atleast not intentionally... and I doubt the dead can have children so that kind've rules this out in the afterlife anyways). Roy is in a fairly stable relationship, and although many of us aren't entirely happy with Celia at the moment, had he indulged in such acts, I would've lost all respect for him. His mom on the other hand was miserable with Eugene. Had she found a new man and been in a relationship it would've been perfectly fine, but as the oracle said, shes out there whoreing up the afterlife. Theres no saying she would've had to been bound to the same man for her entire afterlife either, but once again, whoreing up the afterlife...

A one-night stand, by definition, is chaotic. You are changing partners frequently, an obviously chaotic practice.

Spot on, I couldnt've said it better myself.

Theres nothing evil about consentual sex, its a basic desire that is either neutral or good (when for love for example). But without being in a relationship, it can't be lawful... its neutral at best, and chaotic if you're a slut or man-slut.

David Argall

2009-01-24, 12:50 AM

Well yes, but there is the theory that this tier of the afterlife is a place where one can indulge their worldly desires, and eventually develop a longing to ascend to a higher state. No human is completely LG, we all have our chaotic and evil sides. If you can make someone happy, while slowly removing their attachments to baser desires, then why not do it?
Well, it is unlikely such a theory is correct [A drunk faced with an infinite supply of booze does not get bored with the stuff.], and unlikely our writer is using such a theory. A LG heaven should be using LG methods, not CG.

Seems to me that the LG in OOTS world simply care more about working hard to get something worthwhile, than sex with random people.
Which of course suggests a limited interest in one night stands.

However, we should note that the listed locations are not random locations. They are places of particular interest to Roy, a young unmarried [almost unattached. Roy & Celia may be a couple, but neither has grounds for claiming betrayal if the other left.] male. So this is a biased sample of our LG heaven.

Fawkes

2009-01-24, 01:17 AM

But in a tavern of infinate one night stands, there is no husband/wife/elf-mate. Only you and some random whore willing to pleasure you.

Wow, that's a little misogynistic. :smalleek:

TheSummoner

2009-01-24, 01:24 AM

Oh, I assure you, it isn't misogynistic at all, I have as much contempt for the man in that scenerio as I do for the woman.

Raging Gene Ray

2009-01-24, 02:22 AM

...because it's probably Rich's idea of heaven.

Elana

2009-01-24, 03:56 AM

What if you were a worshipper of some fertility god and had a rule to have sex with someone different each night.

Now there is clearly a law stating that you should do so, so it must be lawful behaviour.

(Isn't it nice how everythin imaginable can be lawful?)

Now if the character in question only decides on the spur of the moment to have some free sex, things would be different.
But as long as they set themselfs up some rules for when to do it, everything is fine.

(And of course even a lawful character is allowed to have the occasional chaotic impulse)

Oxymoron

2009-01-24, 05:39 AM

Why wouldn't the LG afterlife offer random sex and booze? LG is not about denying yourself the pleasures of the flesh, but doing it responibly. Why can't two responsible ADULTS have a good time together?

Too many of you argue that this is not very lawful behavior. Well, how about good behavior? This is afterall a good place to be. Do not confuse LG with LN.

WarriorTribble

2009-01-24, 06:16 AM

Well, it is unlikely such a theory is correct [A drunk faced with an infinite supply of booze does not get bored with the stuff.], and unlikely our writer is using such a theory. A LG heaven should be using LG methods, not CG.Well, I'd think no matter how good something is or feels, you'll eventually get bored with it after the first few eons. Course this is speculation on our part.

This is a paradise created for sentients who all have traces of chaos and evil. How would you cater to their still somewhat base desires without any of the two "bad" alignments short of altering consciousness?

MickJay

2009-01-24, 06:45 AM

Again, I don't think earthly morals are still valid after person dies. They're to make people live "better" (whatever that means) lives, once they're dead, these morals don't matter anymore. If a person, in the name of their morality, avoided doing something during their life, they'll still be reluctant to indulge in different pleasures, but there is no real reason why they shouldn't be able to do so. Doing things that can harm others is evil (and against good person's internal rules); if you can't harm others - a lawful good person can do absolutely anything and won't get any less good or lawful because of it.

Johnny Blade

2009-01-24, 06:49 AM

...because it's probably Rich's idea of heaven.
Unlimited sex and alcohol are every sane person's idea of heaven.

MattR

2009-01-24, 06:51 AM

This is a paradise created for sentients who all have traces of chaos and evil. How would you cater to their still somewhat base desires without any of the two "bad" alignments short of altering consciousness?

I think the idea, supported by the mountain, is that they are supposed to strive to be better then the smaller chaotic or evil parts of their personalities.

Why wouldn't the LG afterlife offer random sex and booze?

Like someone else said, its chaotic not lawful. The only thing that makes sense is that it's a test. Taking part in the activities instead of moving further up the moutain presumably means youre not the ideal that a true lawful good person could be.

Frankly once you reach this afterlife theres no one to save or help it seems, so to continue to reinforce your alignment the only option you have is to improve yourself.

If when Roy was alive all he'd done was spend time having one night stands or drinking instead of out there trying to save people itd be harder to argue that he was lawful good. Likewise if a lawful good person stops saving people and spends all their time drinking and having one night stands what in their behaviour backs up the alignment 'lawful good'.

WarriorTribble

2009-01-24, 07:49 AM

I think the idea, supported by the mountain, is that they are supposed to strive to be better then the smaller chaotic or evil parts of their personalities.Yes, but we're past that. I, and others speculate the whole point this area of the afterlife is to bore people of their unwanted traits, and make them want to ascend to a higher state. Simply altering people so they no longer have chaotic and evil traits would hardly be either good or lawful afterall, but you can't let such things remain in a persons soul either.

MickJay

2009-01-24, 08:16 AM

It's not even so much speculating as elaborating the concept. The whole "mountain" thing (achieving higher "level" of consciousness) and what archon told Roy are rather straightforward about it. Once people get satiated or bored of what was attractive, yet base, in life, they move on (or rather up).

MattR

2009-01-24, 08:17 AM

Iranon

2009-01-24, 08:38 AM

The way it was treated is rather consistent with Lawful...

these earthly desires are treated as something one needs to 'get out of one's system' so one can seek more spiritual pleasures without being distracted by one's base urges.
The debate hall where you're always right is apparently supposed to do the same things for a desire to be appreciated, rather than simply to be the best you can be.

Both sound rather demeaning to me and I'd avoid them like the plague... both because it's a cheap substitute and because I see no reason to shed the more basic drives and desires.
I'd probably try to get into an argument with the archon who's responsible for the debate hall and sexually harass the one who came up with the stupid tavern until I get kicked out of LG heaven and assigned to a more fitting afterlife.

Hey, maybe the place where the CGs/CNs party has something similar that's supposed to help you shed your earthly self-restraint and desire to conform... which would probably make the Lawfuls as incredulous as the locations in LG heaven make me.

Evaine

2009-01-24, 08:46 AM

I think the whole point of this is that this is the afterlife i.e. heaven. It's supposed to be enjoyable, a reward for people after they die. So it makes sense that the activities available there are ones the inhabitants would find pleasurable.

On another point, I'm sure all of the activities available there are optional. No one has to partake of them if that's not something they enjoy. For example, I'm sure not every inhabitant of the LG afterlife spends weeks playing with building blocks like Eric.

On a third point, I don't think it says anywhere that anyone *must* eventually ascend the mountain. If someone wanted to stay on the lowest level for all eternity, I don't think there would be a problem with that. However, I know I'd eventually get curious about what is further up the mountain and want to ascend. Judging from Roy's grandfather, you could always come back down again if you wanted to. :smallsmile:

Azazel

2009-01-24, 11:14 AM

Sex isn't evil. It's Good because it makes people happy.
Same with booze. Unless you're an aggrodrunk who always wants to "take it outside".

Enlong

2009-01-24, 11:20 AM

Bore people out of their bad traits? that seems.. a stupid plan. In light of the fact that noone is forced to take part in any of the activities constantly theres nothing to stop them taking breaks from it and avoiding becoming bored.

For example: you like cherry pie, youve had it every day for 2 weeks, sure you might get sick of having it and want a break... but it sure as hell aint likely to make you want to never have it again.

Well, if they never yearn for something... more than physical pleasure, then they may well stay there forever. Those that do feel the need for a more spiritually enriching fare climb the mountain further, eventually reaching true enlightenment. Anyone who stays stuck at the bottom of the mountain doesn't get that.

accountingninja

2009-01-24, 12:07 PM

Shatteredtower

2009-01-24, 12:27 PM

It's first year university. You've already made it in and suddenly seem to have a lot more freedom. You no longer have to worry about what you owe your parents, children, master, mate(s), or community. Better yet, you're in on an unconditional scholarship and can't flunk out. (Expulsion is another matter.)

The first stage serves as notice that the time for judgments is past. All those things you needed to deny or use moderately in life? The reasons you had for that no longer apply. When you find new ones, you'll move on. It may take centuries, but you have those. Since medical research indicates that the percentage of addicts that abandon the addiction is consistent regardless of method of treatment, the best approach now that health risks are no longer a factor would likely be to let you work it out yourself on your own schedule.

Janmorel

2009-01-24, 12:52 PM

Sex and booze are not, in and of themselves, Unlawful in most places, including the afterlife. And if one follows the Northern Gods, then sex and booze are Good (See Thor).

The worst that can be said of these activities, based on the societal constructs in which OotS takes place, is that they're shallow. That's why they're at the lower levels of the mountain and you need to move past them to reach enlightenment.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-24, 12:53 PM

Sex and booze are not in and of themselves evil, but often going to excess in real life means lots of pain.
BUT, here, no one dies of liver failure. No one has unwanted babies. Heck, no one even ages.
It's completely harmless here.

Actually, I did point that out earlier. :smalltongue: You are entirely correct though!

I'd like to address the "This is chaotic" claim:

Chaos involves unpredictability. The tavern is very clear and predictable in what it offers.
Chaotic people can place emotional value on different acts, such as sex, just like lawful characters. They, too, can put a very high value on loyalty and connection with others. Therefore, the argument that lawful characters as a whole would reject one-night stands is not particularly sound. I would agree that it is more likely that a lawful character than a chaotic character would turn down a single night stand, but a lot of that is because of the possible earthly consequences mentioned above (not relevent here) and the lack of predictability (which we've already covered- not the case here).
Switch this around: A dating service in the CG afterlife where you can go to find a meaningful, deep, long-term connection to another individual. I would argue that there is nothing wrong with that at all, since (as mentioned in the previous point), chaotic characters are also capable of loyalty and attachment. Assigning one type of sexual/romantic/physical relationship, in the absense of earthly consequences, as the only option for a certain alignment is too restricting and denies the diversity within alignments.
Yes, some LG characters would choose not to go to the tavern. This is because different characters act upon their alignment differently (compare Miko and Roy). However, unless there is a strong argument that something is chaotic or evil (such as a tavern of rape or a very unpredictable place of "Maybe hook-ups, maybe long-term-relationships!") there's no reason why it should not be an option in the LG afterlife.

accountingninja

2009-01-24, 01:08 PM

Sorry, Queenfange, looks like you've uncovered by subpar thread-skimming skills. :smallwink:

Trying to apply living morality to the world of the dead is like comparing apples and oranges. Morality evolves as society's attempt to lessen the destructive effects of hedonism. Death and pain are very real consequences in the living world. But afterlife is timeless and without repercussions. Even if you decided to go around stabbing everyone just because you could, no one could die anyway, so there's no real need for morality as we see here on earth.

Vorpal word

2009-01-24, 01:11 PM

TheSummoner

2009-01-24, 01:27 PM

Sorry to barge in here, but no one brought up this point: These people are dead. In life, there are consequences to these behaviors. Drunks get cirrhosis of the liver and destroy their families and careers with their love of booze over all else. Promiscuous people have unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and broken hearts and marriages through infidelity.
Sex and booze are not in and of themselves evil, but often going to excess in real life means lots of pain.
BUT, here, no one dies of liver failure. No one has unwanted babies. Heck, no one even ages.

I noticed you left out the broken hearts part. The dead have been shown to have the same interactions with eachother as the living do, which means such shameful behavior has the same results.

It's first year university. You've already made it in and suddenly seem to have a lot more freedom. You no longer have to worry about what you owe your parents, children, master, mate(s), or community. Better yet, you're in on an unconditional scholarship and can't flunk out. (Expulsion is another matter.)

Yes, and several idiots give in to temptations and end up drinking themselves to death or ruining their lives by ending up with a child. Why does this happen? Because as you said, its there and many people are such animals that they can't exercise the most basic self control. The question is WHY are such things available in such excess in a LAWFUL GOOD afterlife? Alcohol and sex are fine in moderation, sex is perfectly natural both in practice and desire, whereas alcohol only causes problems when you drink too much of it. However anything and everything is bad if you have too much of it, so WHY is there a damn tavern of infinate one night stands?

Personally, I'd probably be more interested in a "Debate Hall Where Everyone has a Fairly Intelligent Point and is Willing to Accept your Viewpoint as Correct if You Can Make a Convincing Arguement"

hamishspence

2009-01-24, 01:30 PM

Draconomicon- Gold Dragons, despite being Always Lawful good, allow themselves considerable freedom. Some mate for life, others for only a short time, some are monogamous, others polygamous.

While Chaos tends to be associated with moving around, that doesn't mean Lawfuls can't do it.

kpenguin

2009-01-24, 01:41 PM

*stuff*

I was always under the assumption that the people in the debate hall and the tavern as well as the monsters in the dungeon are all simulacrum or illusions or something. Otherwise, we're talking about people being magically compelled in order to satisfy those in Celestia.

hamishspence

2009-01-24, 01:43 PM

Sounds a lot like a Star Trek holodeck if it worked like that.

Interesting way of doing it.

Sinewmire

2009-01-24, 01:46 PM

Why exactly does the lawful good afterlife offer unlimited sex and booze?

So that the holier-than-thou jerks can get their denial jollies, of course!

David Argall

2009-01-24, 01:55 PM

These people are dead. In life, there are consequences to these behaviors.
It's completely harmless here. It's like a game.
Games have rules. On the face of it, this is a violation of those rules.

I think the whole point of this is that this is the afterlife i.e. heaven. It's supposed to be enjoyable, a reward for people after they die. So it makes sense that the activities available there are ones the inhabitants would find pleasurable.
But why should we expect LG souls to deem these activities pleasurable? They have spent a lifetime rejecting them. If they had deemed these things desirable, they would not be LG.

On another point, I'm sure all of the activities available there are optional.
We are dealing with LAWFUL Good heaven here. The ultimate definition of lawful is "whatever is not forbidden is mandatory." Presumably LG souls are eager to obey and so the distinction is rather trivial to them, but that anything is actually optional seems suspect at best.

hamishspence

2009-01-24, 02:03 PM

Since when? LG does not mean total self-repression.

See BoED- certain actvities, as long as they involve treating the other people with respect, are, if anything, encouraged, for all Good characters, not excluding LG.

Some Vows involved the giving up of alcohol or coffee, but they aren't compulsary to be LG.

Roy's mother certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with these activities. (SoD shows her and Eugene meeting in a tavern)

"anything that is not forbidden is mandatory" is called out as a tribal mindset in The Science of Discworld. The writers point out that civilization combines both tribal and barbaric social models.

EDIT: Roys archon refers to it as "sorting out the messed-up urges of a lifetime."

Rotipher

2009-01-24, 04:55 PM

Does permitting one-night-stands in a LG afterlife undermine the Lawful Good agenda, by promoting souls' chaotic behavior?

Turn it around: would not permitting such things as one-night-stands undermine the LG agenda, by making souls regret their prior lack of pleasure-seeking behavior?

Consider a highly Lawful Good person who's lived strictly within "the rules", all his life. He's been sorely tempted at times -- every human being is -- but he has adhered to LG standards nevertheless, taking it on trust that his spirit will be duly enlightened, with the reasons for all those rules, upon his death.

Then he dies, and his spirit goes to LG afterlife ... but he's not yet ready to grasp the enlightenment he's been waiting for. He's still caught up in mortal thought-processes, with the residual potential for doubt and regret. Wiping those lingering traces away in an instant isn't an option, because that would extinguish his individual identity; he needs time to grow beyond them. Until he's ready to progress farther, he's still capable of regretting his mistakes and lapses from life.

So ... what if it's the fact that he never did give in to his urges -- a lot of which, he now realizes, were never really Evil, just morally gray -- that he most comes to regret? What if he's angry that not all of "the rules" had been as crucial as he'd been led to believe? Isn't that going to impede his further development as a spiritual entity, if he can't get past the feeling that he'd been cheated out of life's benign pleasures?

Give the guy a break. Let him work out that regret in a harmless context, so he satisfies his stymied desires. Either he'll enjoy them thoroughly, and no longer feel like he'd missed out on something, or he'll find they're not really all they're cracked up to be, and be content to know he'd not let them distract him in life. Either way, eventually he'll grow beyond interest in old corporeal temptations ... and without being frustrated that he'd died a stoic.

FatJose

2009-01-24, 05:02 PM

I was always under the assumption that the people in the debate hall and the tavern as well as the monsters in the dungeon are all simulacrum or illusions or something. Otherwise, we're talking about people being magically compelled in order to satisfy those in Celestia.

I'm believe the same. I don't think a woman in a bar would want to hear about you all day or that in a debate hall someone would purposely be wrong in a place that guarantees everyone wins the argument so that you can be right. And I very much doubt those Trolls are LG and allowing themselves to be hacked to bits by adventurers looking for a cheap thrill. I think those attractions are just the ultimate simulation of people's fantasies and desires.

You never had luck with the ladies? Here, now you can catch up on what you missed.
You weren't that bright and were picked on for being a dimwit? Now people adore and respect your opinion.
You were commoner who always dreamed of being a hero or You were an adventurer that was cut down in your prime? Now you can be a hero...and win.

I also think the LG souls know that one-night stands are a little chaotic and hypocritical. Which explains:

:roy: So...I could have all the one-night stands I want, but I'd have to have them at my Mom's house? Are you trying to make people feel guilty about sex?

Archon: Actually, yes. We've found that our Lawful patrons generally expect it that way.

MattR

2009-01-24, 05:03 PM

The characters in LG heaven have been obedient, strict, courageous, and regimented for all their mortal life (in most cases). Once you're IN a heaven, you can't really be expelled because it's a reward for what you did in life, not in the afterlife. Thus, these somewhat chaotic pleasures are a payment for your abstinence as a mortal, and are a perfectly lawful reward.

And thats the head scratching part, it has to be a trap/test rather then a straightforward reward because rewarding being lawful and strict, courageous etc with something chaotic would be ridiculous.

If it was a real reward it's as good as saying: ''Hey guess what! Doing this is in no way wrong at all hahaha bet youd been doing it while you were still alive huh.''

BRC

2009-01-24, 05:07 PM

Drinking is neither Chaotic nor Evil. Think about it, what society is highly lawful: Dwarves. What society drinks one beer for each number in the countdown whenever somebody starts counting? Dwarves.

Same with the Tavern of Infinite one-night stands, everything goes as expected according to plan, (meet at the tavern, get to know each other, then head home and have some fun) which is lawful, and both parties get some risk-free enjoyment out of it (I don't think petitioners can get pregnant or pick up STD's) which is good.

Now, your argument would have some merit if there was "The Bank that you can steal money from all you want", but it appears to be based off the western cultural idea that sex is inheriently, in some way, sinful.

Rotipher

2009-01-24, 05:15 PM

If it was a real reward it's as good as saying: ''Hey guess what! Doing this is in no way wrong at all hahaha bet youd been doing it while you were still alive huh.''

Souls who had been strictly abstinent would feel that same way, the moment they met someone who had engaged in one-night-stands, yet were let into the LG afterlife regardless. Which is the crueler taunt: to learn that you could've been fooling around sooner, or to learn that you could've been fooling around and now you'll never get the chance?

MattR

2009-01-24, 05:20 PM

Drinking is neither Chaotic nor Evil. Think about it, what society is highly lawful: Dwarves. What society drinks one beer for each number in the countdown whenever somebody starts counting? Dwarves.

Drinking and drink itself is not chaotic, the people who do get drunk ARE chaotic in their behaviour though. If drink there has no effect on anyone its pointless, if it mimics its living world counterpart though it cant avoid being a chaotic element.

I pity any recovered alcoholic who gets there, can you imagien how crushing it woudl be to live a lawful good life to find your reward is unlimited booze. I reckon it'd seem a cheap joke.

Same with the Tavern of Infinite one-night stands, everything goes as expected according to plan, (meet at the tavern, get to know each other, then head home and have some fun) which is lawful, and both parties get some risk-free enjoyment out of it (I don't think petitioners can get pregnant or pick up STD's) which is good.

The argument that its aok since there are no longer any consequences doesnt sound lawful good it sounds freespirited.

but it appears to be based off the western cultural idea that sex is inheriently, in some way, sinful.

I'm not sure that id agree most people in the West believe sex itself is sinful, though there are plenty that say it's sinful outside of marriage or at the very least a stable relationship *shrug*.

BRC

2009-01-24, 05:23 PM

Drinking and drink itself is not chaotic, the people who do get drunk ARE chaotic in their behaviour though. If drink there has no effect on anyone its pointless, if it mimics its living world counterpart though it cant avoid being a chaotic element.

Who says it does, celestia is supposed to be paradise for lawful good types. They no longer really have bodily functions, they don't need to eat, but they can enjoy the sensation of eating. I would assume they can also enjoy the sensation of drinking without getting violently drunk.

MattR

2009-01-24, 05:26 PM

Souls who had been strictly abstinent would feel that same way, the moment they met someone who had engaged in one-night-stands, yet were let into the LG afterlife regardless. Which is the crueler taunt: to learn that you could've been fooling around sooner, or to learn that you could've been fooling around and now you'll never get the chance?

The way youre talking it is ok to just have hookups, but thats not the impression we get from the Archon.

Ideally people who had been fooling around and those who chose abstinence would end up with their own heaven so no taunting for either one would happen, i mean it cant do anything but foster badwill between people.

Maybe those that were into the strict abstinence would end up starting their afterlife further up the mountain since they were more spiritually minded anyway, theyve already decided not to pursue throwaway relationships when alive so why would they be bothering with it in the afterlife.

Optimystik

2009-01-24, 05:27 PM

Heaven is patient.

On one hand, Roy's Archon explains that Paradise means activity. They don't expect you to consider eternity of nothingness satisfying, and rightfully so. They thus provide you with things to do that your mortal self would have considered entertaining - sex, debate, and battle.

On the other, the Archon considers such desires to be "messed up." As he is a native, his attitude reflects that of the plane as a whole. But rather than slap you on the wrist after having fought so hard through life to get there, they take a far more heavenly approach; letting you act on those base impulses until they are thoroughly worked out of your system, even if it takes decades.

The end result is subtle, but inevitable; complete transformation. The idea is for you to get bored with such fleshly pleasures, and all souls in Celestia eventually will. If you're the kind of soul that finds an eternity of sex and battle spiritually satisfying, by definition you don't belong in Celestia to begin with. And that handles the irredeemable drunks, sexaholics etc.

MattR

2009-01-24, 05:27 PM

Who says it does, celestia is supposed to be paradise for lawful good types. They no longer really have bodily functions, they don't need to eat, but they can enjoy the sensation of eating. I would assume they can also enjoy the sensation of drinking without getting violently drunk.

*snicker* poor dwarves, no being violently drunk. That must be hell :)

maxon

2009-01-24, 05:36 PM

Oh, I assure you, it isn't misogynistic at all, I have as much contempt for the man in that scenerio as I do for the woman.

You disappoint me. My response to your remark was there was no reason to assume the use of the word whore meant a woman. There are plenty of men who sell their bodies for sex even if they aren't the majority (the socio-economics of the situation being what it is). I was thinking that if a woman used the Tavern of One Night Stands (like me, say) that she'd have a nice young random man-whore who couldn't wait to hear all about me her.

Rotipher

2009-01-24, 05:46 PM

Maybe those that were into the strict abstinence would end up starting their afterlife further up the mountain since they were more spiritually minded anyway, they've already decided not to pursue throwaway relationships when alive so why would they be bothering with it in the afterlife.

And if a LG person is spiritually advanced in every facet of their mortal life except for a history of promiscuity, would they then be forced to wait downslope with the just-barely-qualified souls, lest the abstinent ones learn that casual sex wasn't an automatic ticket to the Abyss, after all? Systematically concealing the truth from souls in order to preserve their prudish attitude doesn't seem like a very honest (i.e. Lawful) method of encouraging their growth. They ought to be learning that physical desires are ephemeral and irrelevant, not evil per se.

MattR

2009-01-24, 06:52 PM

And if a LG person is spiritually advanced in every facet of their mortal life except for a history of promiscuity, would they then be forced to wait downslope with the just-barely-qualified souls, lest the abstinent ones learn that casual sex wasn't an automatic ticket to the Abyss, after all? Systematically concealing the truth from souls in order to preserve their prudish attitude doesn't seem like a very honest (i.e. Lawful) method of encouraging their growth. They ought to be learning that physical desires are ephemeral and irrelevant, not evil per se.

It's almost as if youre implying abstinence is wrong, which is silly becuase its just a a lifestyle choice. Stooping to insults (the way youre using 'prudish' sure looks like youre trying to be insulting beyond hte meaning of hte word) just detracts from the strength of youre argument.

Where in the living side of the comic has it been said that casual sex sends you to the abyss? i cant remember it, so im not sure where youre drawing the conclusion from that people in the comic believe it and that it influences their decisions while alive. Frankly, you seem overly defensive about your view point on the matter, i hope youre not letting your personal real-life philosphy get in the way observations about events in the comic.

The implication of the comic is that in lawful good heaven one night stands are tolerated but not overall a desirable quality. More then one person on the board has suggested that the tavern etc are an opportunity to get it out of their system, which appears to have been backed up by things the Archon has said to Roy.

I never said anything should be concealed, but if someone has already made the decision to pursue abstinence they probably have no interest in being at that stage of the mountain.

Would the people who are enjoying casual sex want someone around telling them that they need to get over their physical desires and move on?

''a history of promiscuity'' If theyre no longer sleeping around i dont think theyd be held back at all because they dont desire it any longer. If they are still interested in one night stands i doubt theyll mind being forced to stay downslope. However the fact is that the only person impeding movement up the slope is themselves.

Zeful

2009-01-24, 07:00 PM

I noticed you left out the broken hearts part. The dead have been shown to have the same interactions with eachother as the living do, which means such shameful behavior has the same results.What shameful behavior? It's a tavern of infinite one-night stands. The only thing shameful about it is the name, because there is no night on Celestia.

Yes, and several idiots give in to temptations and end up drinking themselves to death or ruining their lives by ending up with a child. Why does this happen? Because as you said, its there and many people are such animals that they can't exercise the most basic self control. The question is WHY are such things available in such excess in a LAWFUL GOOD afterlife? Alcohol and sex are fine in moderation, sex is perfectly natural both in practice and desire, whereas alcohol only causes problems when you drink too much of it. However anything and everything is bad if you have too much of it, so WHY is there a damn tavern of infinite one night stands?Because the Afterlife is also infinite. When you have infinite time for anything, the concept of exceeds goes out the window. There are no consequences. One can not get pregnant, get drunk, get sick. How can there be excess when no matter how long you do anything, you have lost no time.

Personally, I'd probably be more interested in a "Debate Hall Where Everyone has a Fairly Intelligent Point and is Willing to Accept your Viewpoint as Correct if You Can Make a Convincing Arguement"Remeber what Roy's Archon said. "I taken the liberty of preparing a map with a few attractions that might appeal to you." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html) Based on that sentence alone, I can say with reasonable certainty that you would find such a debate hall as you described, as well as never come across the tavern of infinite one night stands, because your guide Archon will pick attractions that appeal to you, and not mention the others unless you ask.

Quorothorn

2009-01-24, 07:19 PM

Unlimited sex and alcohol are every sane person's idea of heaven.

That's not true at all. My idea of heaven is very dif--wait, nevermind, I'm not sane. :smallbiggrin: Seriously, though, that's just not true. Keep in mind that a solid 1% of the population actually has no interest in sex at all, and I suspect a considerably greater percentage has no interest in alcohol.

Rotipher

2009-01-24, 07:54 PM

Where in the living side of the comic has it been said that casual sex sends you to the abyss? i cant remember it, so im not sure where youre drawing the conclusion from that people in the comic believe it and that it influences their decisions while alive.

That's what I'm assuming some 100% abstinent-in-life people (not all of them, but some) could had believed. The archon actually states that many souls which reach the LG afterlife expect sex to be condemned there. Is it unreasonable to assume that some of those LG souls had been extreme in their views -- more so than the afterlife's own admissions officers -- and believed that such behavior was a damning offense?

Obviously, if that were true, then Roy's mother wouldn't be there. (Nor would Roy himself have been admitted, assuming the Trouser Titan ever lived up to its title.) I never said that promiscuity was good or bad, in-comic or IRL; I only meant that the Lawful Good OotS afterlife which Roy encounters isn't necessarily so strict about sexuality as, say, a Miko-type extremist will expect it to be.

That's whose "prudish" attitude I was referring to: that of the fanatic who instantly condemns anything that makes life pleasureable, as he or she is too hyper-judgemental to forgive human lapses. Such a person needs to learn mercy just as badly as their overindulgent counterparts need to learn self-control, and catering to their intolerance by pretending that there's no sex allowed won't teach them that.

The implication of the comic is that in lawful good heaven one night stands are tolerated but not overall a desirable quality. More then one person on the board has suggested that the tavern etc are an opportunity to get it out of their system, which appears to have been backed up by things the Archon has said to Roy.

True. Lingering at the mountain's base to indulge in one-night-stands isn't an ideal outcome, at least not in the opinion of the (asexual) Archon. But by implying that nobody who's still promiscuous can ever move farther up the mountain, on the basis of their other virtues, makes it seem like you're singling out sexual gratification as a lapse that can't be counterbalanced by any measure of honor, compassion, grace, etc.

MickJay

2009-01-24, 08:02 PM

This thread is getting silly, by now, basically the same arguments got stated, restated, repeated and rephrased... main problem with reaching any sort of agreement, I think, is with different views on what exactly "lawful" means (interestingly enough, nobody seems to think that good/evil is of any importance here :smallwink: ).

For me, being "lawful" is primarily obeying inner moral code, when the code itself makes sense in the surrounding reality; or rather, when the most basic principles on which my moral code is based apply. Some people would probably classify this as chaotic (since there is a degree of flexibility) - but on the other hand, absolute adherence to immutable code ("lawful stupid"?) can lead to rather absurd situations. Slightly silly example: if I'd been raised in a community where fruits are scarce, I might decide that daily I'll be eating no more fruit than would fit in my hand, so there would be more left for others; if I then moved to area where there was overabundance of fruits, blindly following my earlier decision would simply make no sense.

Here the situation is similar: whatever right and good restrictions people obeyed while alive, they simply don't apply anymore, because no matter what reason was behind them, that reason does not exist anymore. Laws that are good exist for the sole purpose of welfare of the people and society. If everyone can have everything they want and cannot be hurt in any way, what point is there in adhering to codes that exist only to promote well-being of others? Ultimately, I can climb higher, closer to perfection, but why should I deny myself pleasures even when indulging in them can have absolutely no negative consequences? Sure, doing so might delay me from attaining perfection; with literally whole eternity to attain that perfection, it doesn't seem that bad :smallwink:

Which leads me to a conclusion that the LG afterlife is probably very similar to other good afterlifes; the only distinction between them could be, perhaps, the way people got there, but I think that speculating any further would go beyond the topic :smalltongue:

Shpadoinkle

2009-01-24, 09:42 PM

Seems like the biggest problem is that some people equate the phrase "Lawful Good" with "Cannot have ANY fun EVER." Which is stupid and just flat wrong.

Optimystik

2009-01-24, 09:48 PM

amuletts

2009-01-24, 10:59 PM

For me, being "lawful" is primarily obeying inner moral code, when the code itself makes sense in the surrounding reality; or rather, when the most basic principles on which my moral code is based apply.
Very good point. My Paladin once came across a closed society that basically consisted of theives. They just took what they wanted from their surroundings and from each other. My Paladin tried to explain that it was wrong, but they lived in a 'paradise' essentially, where all their needs were fulfilled. So taking something from someone else did not actually hurt anyone, it was just a game. In their society it was not unlawful, but in the outside word it would be. Circumstance is everything.

David Argall

2009-01-25, 12:05 AM

For me, being "lawful" is primarily obeying inner moral code, when the code itself makes sense in the surrounding reality; or rather, when the most basic principles on which my moral code is based apply.
Now what does this really mean? Remember, we have 9 alignments, which are supposed to be more or less equal in size [the exception being pure neutral, which can be much larger than the others.] Our lawfuls should only be 1/3 of the total population, which means your definition needs to exclude 2/3 of the population. But how does this definition exclude anybody.

Some people would probably classify this as chaotic
Which seems good enough grounds for rejecting the definition offered.

Laws that are good exist for the sole purpose of welfare of the people and society.
This is not a theory that any lawful can accept. Laws are good in and of themselves. They provide a necessary order to life and society. So a law is good unless it actively hurts the welfare of people and society.

If everyone can have everything they want and cannot be hurt in any way, what point is there in adhering to codes that exist only to promote well-being of others?
But it is rather obvious that people can be hurt. A minor point here is Roy discovering his mother has sexual feelings. More seriously would be two men wanting his mother at the same time. [...well, maybe Sara wouldn't consider that a problem, but the men could.]

Which leads me to a conclusion that the LG afterlife is probably very similar to other good afterlifes;

Which leads to the conclusion there is some flaw in the logic here. The difference between Law and Chaos is not supposed to be just a matter of flavor. We are talking the corners of a square here.

JonestheSpy

2009-01-25, 03:26 AM

Just to throw this into the mix, there are real-world religions that teach that sex is an actively GOOD act. Not merely fun hedonism that shouldn't be punished as the more puritanical religions do, but is a postive path toward spiritual enlightenment and love for all creation. I'm thinking of the Tantrists, certain Sufi Muslim sects, and there are also theories about Gnostic Christians and others having such teachings. It should be said that some of those paths lean heavily toward monogamy and using love for a cherished partner as a stepping stone for more universal caritas, but still worth mentioning.

MickJay

2009-01-25, 08:57 AM

Now what does this really mean? Remember, we have 9 alignments, which are supposed to be more or less equal in size [the exception being pure neutral, which can be much larger than the others.] Our lawfuls should only be 1/3 of the total population, which means your definition needs to exclude 2/3 of the population. But how does this definition exclude anybody.

It excludes people who act at whim and don't care too much about consequences of their actions (chaotic) and excludes people who don't have a consistent set of rules but act each time according to what they think is the best course of action (according to the criteria they think apply at the time - neutral).

Which seems good enough grounds for rejecting the definition offered.

For people who don't necessarily agree with what I see as "lawful", yes. I think quite a few people would agree with the view I expressed as well, seeing as some already did in the course of discussion :smallbiggrin:

This is not a theory that any lawful can accept. Laws are good in and of themselves. They provide a necessary order to life and society. So a law is good unless it actively hurts the welfare of people and society.

This is your approach to the question and I respect it, but I have a different view on the matter. All laws have positive and negative effects (it's the ratio of good to bad that counts). Seeing every law as good as long as it does not actively hurt people seems to me like a strong case of Lawful (Neutral) view. Laws may become obsolete or not applicable due to circumstances, or they might balance positive and negative effects; in such cases, even though they might not be actively hurting anyone, I wouldn't call them "good in and of themselves"; for me, that term is reserved for something always positive and immutable, regardless of circumstances (i.e. very few things, if anything at all). Having rather strong utilitarian views I can't really agree with the idea that anything that's not harmful has to be good.

Also, I think you made here a point that fully agrees with my position about the nature of laws - "they provide necessary order to life and society". People in afterlife are not "alive" anymore, nor do they function in a society that is governed by the same general rules as when they were alive (i.e. getting drunk or casual approach to sleeping with others will never have negative consequences). Sure, there might be some "laws" that souls still might need to obey, but even if I was to make such (not based on anything) assumption, I think these laws would be quite different from the ones that limited them in their mortal lives.

But it is rather obvious that people can be hurt. A minor point here is Roy discovering his mother has sexual feelings. More seriously would be two men wanting his mother at the same time. [...well, maybe Sara wouldn't consider that a problem, but the men could.]

Roy wasn't exactly "hurt", I think; surprised, slightly shocked maybe, but it's not like it really had any serious impact on him. "Getting hurt" implies negative consequences, and after initial surprise Roy didn't really have a problem with what happened.

I don't think that either Roy's mom or the two men would have any problem with that (as I see it, the main reason for male jealousy ultimately comes down to the fear of having to put years of effort in raising other guy's kids; thus the laws preventing marital infidelity reduce the tensions between people and allow for smoother functioning of society). It's afterlife, it can't be treated in terms of what's good or bad in purely mortal terms.

Which leads to the conclusion there is some flaw in the logic here. The difference between Law and Chaos is not supposed to be just a matter of flavor. We are talking the corners of a square here.

If you start with assumptions and preconceptions different from mine, of course you are right. That's why I said in the earlier post that the answer lies in how people see "lawful". If I start with ideas that Lawful is "A+B+C+D" and you start with "A+B+D+E", and the possible (none of them more or less valid) views on what's Lawful can be described in terms from A to G, some of them exclusive, then there are always going to be some disagreements. :smallwink:

LuisDantas

2009-01-25, 10:32 AM

In Real Life (TM), lawful thinking is a consequence of social groups desiring a degree of safety. Its popularity is directly determined by how healthy and scared a society is.

Is there any canonical source that claims that Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic occur roughly equally in D&D? I would expect Lawful to be much more prevalent, myself. The medieval template that D&D worlds are cut tends to make things so.

hamishspence

2009-01-25, 11:54 AM

Depends on how you interpret the Power Centers tables.

If you interpret them as a good guideline to the most common alignment, and general outlook, of the town in question, then Lawful is significantly more prevalent in humans.

Races of the Dragon, Races of Stone, and Races of the Wild provide corresponding tables for dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, kobolds, and (except for gnomes) the Power Center Alignment corresponds well to the most common alignment of the creature, being 50% X alignment for dwarves, elves, and halflings. 65% X alignment for Kobolds.

Even if you assume Power Center doesn't describe the general populace all that well, Cityscape has General Population Alignment, to represent the possibility of population being ruled by a ruler of diferent alignment to them. And again, the bias is strongly toward Lawful alignments. (doesn't account for places smaller than towns though)

Maybe this is because Chaotic humans are rarer, or just because having them in power or contributing to general outlook of population is rarer.

Regardless, the "every alignment is evenly represented" hypothesis has these table, in both DMG and Cityscape, to suggest that it may be wrong, that Chaos is not as dominating of a human population as Law.

noncaloric

2009-01-25, 05:51 PM

Visiting the Tavern of Infinite One Night Stands in the LG afterlife is about as chaotic as looking at pornography in mortal life. From the strip in question, I got the idea that the hook-ups in the tavern, as well as the debaters in the forum and the monsters in the dungeon, aren't the same kind as being as the souls of recently dead LG folk who might visit the tavern. Maybe they're illusions, maybe archons at a higher level of enlightenment who are leaning a bit too far to the LN side are assigned to give pity-sex to those who need it to work on the whole compassion thing a bit. It's still porn, but this is a higher plane, so it's better porn.

Assassin89

2009-01-25, 08:20 PM

Apparently, the afterlife carries some remnants of one's mortal life. Each the lower level carries the basic functions of adventures (drinking, eating, sex, etc.).

Island Gorilla

2009-01-25, 08:26 PM

The question is WHY are such things available in such excess in a LAWFUL GOOD afterlife? Alcohol and sex are fine in moderation, sex is perfectly natural both in practice and desire, whereas alcohol only causes problems when you drink too much of it. However anything and everything is bad if you have too much of it, so WHY is there a damn tavern of infinate one night stands?

Because it's a non-material realm where the principles of scarcity do not exist. There are as many one-night stands as you need to be satisfied. Just like there are just enough monsters to challenge you in the dungeon.

You're confusing availability of 'resources' with an invitation to overindulge. You'll note it's called the Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands, not the Tavern of Come Here And Drink And Shag Until Your Genitals Are Worn Down To Fleshy Nubs And Your Liver Turns Into Some Kind Of Alcohol Elemental.

You're also allowing your real-world preconceptions about sex to colour your understanding of sex in Rich's world. This is a world where even lawful clerics freely engage in casual sex, the most sanctimonious of paladins will sincerely bless the union of a lesbian couple, and sylphs do the no-pants dance on the first date.

If there is one thing we can take from this, it's that in Rich's world, sexuality is an aspect of a character entirely divorced from alignment -- like stats, or trained skills. A promiscuous character needn't be Chaotic Evil any more than a physically feeble character need be Neutral Good or a character trained in Acrobatics need be Lawful Neutral.

A one-night stand, by definition, is chaotic. You are changing partners frequently, an obviously chaotic practice.

BOG AM CHAOTIC ADVENTURER. BOG AM TRAVEL FROM TOWN TO TOWN FREQUENTLY, AN OBVIOUSLY CHAOTIC PRACTICE.

David Argall

2009-01-25, 10:24 PM

It excludes people who act at whim and don't care too much about consequences of their actions (chaotic) and excludes people who don't have a consistent set of rules but act each time according to what they think is the best course of action (according to the criteria they think apply at the time - neutral).
And these are supposed to be anything close to 2/3 of the population?

Nor can we really say that chaotics don't care about consequences compared to lawfuls. Now we can say that chaotics are not as concerned abut many long term results because they may have changed their minds by then, but this merely means they are concerned with making sure the consequences are tolerable no matter what the long term situation is.
The lawful, by contrast, is in favor of obeying the law, no matter what the consequences.

All laws have positive and negative effects (it's the ratio of good to bad that counts). Seeing every law as good as long as it does not actively hurt people seems to me like a strong case of Lawful (Neutral) view.
LN deems a law good, whether or not it hurts people.

Laws may become obsolete or not applicable due to circumstances, or they might balance positive and negative effects; in such cases, even though they might not be actively hurting anyone, I wouldn't call them "good in and of themselves";
The Lawful does tho. That is why they are called lawfuls.

Having rather strong utilitarian views I can't really agree with the idea that anything that's not harmful has to be good.
But we are not talking about what your views are. We are talking about LG views are. The logic "I approve of this. Therefore it is LG." is simply wrong.

the nature of laws - "they provide necessary order to life and society". People in afterlife are not "alive" anymore, nor do they function in a society that is governed by the same general rules as when they were alive
Our available evidence is the reverse. 492 has Roy's archeon confirm they are trying to make people feel guilty about sex, and that is what the LG souls expect.
Our LG souls come to heaven with certain expectations, and that means they will be continuing to obey the same sort of laws they did in life.

Roy wasn't exactly "hurt", I think; surprised, slightly shocked maybe, but it's not like it really had any serious impact on him. "Getting hurt" implies negative consequences, and after initial surprise Roy didn't really have a problem with what happened.
Roy shows no signs of adjusting to the situation. He is pretty much horrified by the idea that mom is a swinger. And a small hurt is still a hurt.

as I see it, the main reason for male jealousy ultimately comes down to the fear of having to put years of effort in raising other guy's kids;
Now the reason for something is often not the reason for something. Imagine here that it is absolutely proved that Joe is sterile. This does not stop you from screaming when you find him in bed with your wife. While proving ancestry may have been the original cause, the reason has now become divorced from the required action and it is a law because it is the law. For our lawful, this would be particularly true. He does not really care why the law says what it says. He mere obeys that law.

In Real Life (TM), lawful thinking is a consequence of social groups desiring a degree of safety.
No...Lawful thinking is the result of the most powerful thug wanting to expand his power. In the simple society, this is just impossible. If he gets too obnoxious, people just move away. But in a larger, more complex, society, one can't put the house in a back pack and leave. So when the thug comes around and demands your son as a slave and your daughter as a toy, you don't have much choice but to smile and pretend you like it.

Is there any canonical source that claims that Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic occur roughly equally in D&D?
The very idea of an alignment system argues for equality. These are forces in balance. The world is not becoming evil/good/lawful/chaotic. There may be movement in any direction at any time, but in the wider view, there is balance.

I would expect Lawful to be much more prevalent, myself. The medieval template that D&D worlds are cut tends to make things so.

The medieval world we picture as having vast areas outside of government control. And medieval governments were quite small affairs. That hardly shows any lawful bias.

sum1won

2009-01-25, 11:10 PM

And these are supposed to be anything close to 2/3 of the population?

Not this crap again.

There is no reason to assume that the alignment system works that way, despite your repeated claims that it does.

Nimrod's Son

2009-01-26, 12:24 AM

But it is rather obvious that people can be hurt. A minor point here is Roy discovering his mother has sexual feelings. More seriously would be two men wanting his mother at the same time. [...well, maybe Sara wouldn't consider that a problem, but the men could.]
We're talking here about why the afterlife provides a Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands. You appear to be talking about the complications of relationships in general. Should we just have a separate heaven for every individual, so they can all wander around on their own and never hurt anyone else's feelings?

David Argall

2009-01-26, 03:29 AM

There is no reason to assume that the alignment system works that way, despite your repeated claims that it does.

Would you care to provide an alternative arrangement? And why D&D would adopt it?

Lacking such information, an arrangement of each alignment being of the same size seems to be the default.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-26, 03:32 AM

I would seem that the simplest way to examine the question would involve first examining the traits of law and good.

Law:
I have always viewed Law in the D&D system as having 4 basic, though not always co-present aspects:
1) A high valuation of an ordered society in general: the belief that structure is necessary for society to function is the way I generally see this portrayed.
2) A predisposition to work within the system's prescribed methods where possible. This implies a default to trust of the system and the authority figures therein.
3) Adherence to a specific, well defined moral or behavioral code.

One-nighters do not contradict 1 or 2 at all, especially when there is a place clearly designated for it. It would only violate 3 for specific moral codes (mostly based on specific real world religious morality codes).

An aversion to change in general can be a trait that of a lawful society or individual, but is is not a necessary trait for that society or person to be lawful. Functioning democratic societies are generally lawful, and they generally change governments in an orderly fashion at regular intervals. Chaos implies change, but change does not necessarily imply chaos.

Assuming that the behavioral code Roy adheres to has no rule prohibiting one night stands or requireing him to remain faithful to his girlfriend after death, I see no reason he cannot continue to be lawful while in an orderly fashion hooking up with a different person each night from now till the end of time.

Good
I have generally viewed good as:
1) A strong predilection to altruism towards fellow sentients.
2) A willingness for self-sacrifice to aid others even when not motivated by personal relationships.

Under these (admittedly limited) prescripts, Roy having one night stands would only fail to be good if one-nighters were morally harmful to the other party (thus being selfish rather than altruistic), or if they they caused him to knowingly not aid someone in need.
Thus, the presence of this place would only cause issues if you held sex (or at least non-monogamous sex) to be inherently evil. Some religions and societies do, others do not. Judging by the prevalence of sex in the part of lawful good heaven Roy is in, I would hazard that moral structure of the comic world does not hold sex to be evil.

(It is worth noting, though, that there is strong indication that the followers of the 12 gods or at least the Azure City society holds pre-marital sex to be unlawful. But Roy clearly does not adhere to the same behavioral code as those people, and their heaven is on the other side of the mountain anyways.)

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-26, 06:48 AM

A one-night stand, by definition, is chaotic. You are changing partners frequently, an obviously chaotic practice.

...No it's not. All other comparisons aside, it is not more chaotic than to change clothes frequently.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-26, 06:50 AM

Oh, I assure you, it isn't misogynistic at all, I have as much contempt for the man in that scenerio as I do for the woman.

Stupid question, but what makes the woman a whore in this scenario?

Rotipher

2009-01-26, 09:29 AM

Lacking such information, an arrangement of each alignment being of the same size seems to be the default.

Which alignment (if any) is more heavily represented is going to depend on a lot of factors that are campaign-specific, such as "Which races are common in this game-setting?" and "How strongly do alignments correlate with species or culture?". As no two DMs' campaigns are ever going to be 100% identical -- not even if they're both using the same published game-setting -- there is no "default" answer to these questions.

FWIW, I vaguely recall a Gary Gygax article from many years ago (1E era), in which he posits that the total Hit Dice of creatures of a give alignment might determine how powerful that alignment is, on any given world. Four hundred LE 1/2 HD kobolds would therefore only 'weigh' as much, in terms of any hypothetical balance of alignments, as a hundred 2nd-level CG elves. It was assumed at the dawn of the game -- the era of Tolkienesque orc hordes and "elite handful of heroes vs. squalid legions of darkness" scenarios -- that Evil went in for quantity while Good went in for quality.

NikkTheTrick

2009-01-26, 10:31 AM

Roy's archon answered the question:

"At any rate, we are headed to the first round of attractions right now - those that deal with sorting out all the messed-up urges you people have left over after having your soul stuck in a glorified sausage all your life."

Basically, provide them with sex, let them satisfy their desires and once they are done, they will not be distracted by urges while looking for enlightment.

sum1won

2009-01-26, 10:38 AM

Would you care to provide an alternative arrangement? And why D&D would adopt it?

Lacking such information, an arrangement of each alignment being of the same size seems to be the default.

I'm not sure you are aware of this, but when you make a claim, you have to actually prove it with supporting evidence. For example, a quote from the rulebooks would work just fine.

The world does not default to your beliefs. D&D only defaults to David Argall's ideas when David Argall wrote that module and is running the campaign.

hamishspence

2009-01-26, 11:23 AM

closest thing to evidence is "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" in PHB. Contradicted numerous times in later material, including DMG, if you treat "generic towns" the same way as you treat Elven, Dwarven, Halfling, etc. ones.

If you take DMG and Cityscape as valid, there is a bias toward Law. Not enough for any of the Lawful alignments to be "Often X alignment" but enough to say "a random human community is more likely to be Lawful than Chaotic or Neutral."

TheSummoner

2009-01-26, 01:19 PM

Stupid question, but what makes the woman a whore in this scenario?

The word whore is more often than not associated with women, I suppose society as a whole thinks its perfectly fine for a man to behave in a the same shameful way that would label a woman with one of the many fun words we have for such people... or did you mean what makes a woman who is willing to sleep with a guy shes only known for less than a day a whore, in which case I think that should be a sufficient answer.

In either case, the man is no better in my eyes... they're both whores. Theres no respect for the other person, no concern for their wants and needs (in the case that one might've been stupid enough to think that the other was actually a good person who was actually interested in him or her). Its completly ridiculous to even suggest that a one night stand could be lawful. Maybe people feel tempted to defend the practice out of their own urges or perhaps experiances, I don't really know. I'm not saying that its an evil practice, but its really the kind of thing that would be more suited for a chaotic afterlife, possibly all three.

Optimystik

2009-01-26, 01:23 PM

Stupid question, but what makes the woman a whore in this scenario?

The definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=whore&search=search), unfortunately.

closest thing to evidence is "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" in PHB. Contradicted numerous times in later material, including DMG, if you treat "generic towns" the same way as you treat Elven, Dwarven, Halfling, etc. ones.

If you take DMG and Cityscape as valid, there is a bias toward Law. Not enough for any of the Lawful alignments to be "Often X alignment" but enough to say "a random human community is more likely to be Lawful than Chaotic or Neutral."

Lawful, eh? So if an average human in one of those towns found a bag of gold on the ground, they'd immediately set about finding the rightful owner? Turn it over to the guards? How about if a shopkeeper accidentally gave them extra goods or change?

I can't think of many (or even any) human settlements where the average citizen would be likely to do those things.

MickJay

2009-01-26, 01:33 PM

492 has Roy's archeon confirm they are trying to make people feel guilty about sex, and that is what the LG souls expect.

It's the other way round, LG souls expect to feel guilty about casual sex, so the LG afterlife provides this for them. That's pretty clear from the last panel.

"Lawful" describes someone who values rules and obeys them, but that doesn't mean he has to obey laws; 3rd edition goes along the lines of honour, reliability, trustworthiness and obedience to authority (which may or may not be in the form of codified laws).

Just a few other points: I don't really think that a typical LN considers any law "good", that's more like lawful-extremely-stupid - someone makes a law, hurray, I'll obey it because it has to be good. Because it's a law. Sure, there are people like that, but I don't think that's a good example of LN. Again, D&D-wise, obeying codified laws is not the only aspect of being lawful, and perhaps not even the most important one.

Similarly, I don't consider being lawful the same as abandoning one's judgement in favor of rules dictated by someone else (and considering them good just because they're there). Paladins, of all the people are supposed to break the laws if obeying them wouldn't be as good as breaking them. Sure, they're lawful, but that doesn't prevent them from thinking and being lawful in that they are obeying their own inner code.

I think I have the right to state my opinion from time to time, especially since the whole thread is discussing people's opinions on what is "lawful" and to what extent their opinions on lawful fit into OOTS world. I'm not trying to prove that what I think is the only right way of thinking, I simply want to make it clear on what I'm basing my interpretation of "lawful".

Roy's reaction to seeing his mom with another guy can hardly be described as "being horrified", surprised fits much better... he's had the same expression when he saw his grandpa for the first time. :smalltongue:

Zeful

2009-01-26, 01:57 PM

There's no respect for the other person, no concern for their wants and needs
Prove it. Prove that the biological imperative to breed suddenly makes it impossible for two humans to respect each other.Because your definition of what a whore is includes a very large number of otherwise stable relationships, as very few men of the current generation are taught respect of women (as much of the current media emphasizes casual sex, as well as the overall depreciation of the act in general by the selfsame media), or are even aware that people other than them have wants and needs. On the other hand women aren't really allowed to protest their treatment or they are verbally abused (the most common insult for a self-assured and confident woman rhymes with witch, for instance) or worse.

BRC

2009-01-26, 02:07 PM

Lawful, eh? So if an average human in one of those towns found a bag of gold on the ground, they'd immediately set about finding the rightful owner? Turn it over to the guards? How about if a shopkeeper accidentally gave them extra goods or change?

I can't think of many (or even any) human settlements where the average citizen would be likely to do those things.
Yes, because that behavior is both lawful and good. Therfore, LN, LG, NG,CG, and maybe even LE people will be inclined to perform it.

However, you must remember that an alignment is not the way somebody always acts, it's the way somebody usually acts. Okay so taking the money they find on the ground is chaotic, that dosn't mean the person is chaotically or even neutrally aligned.

The fact is that stable society, as a whole, is by definition lawful. Therefore, people raised in a stable society (as most people are) are more likely to be Lawfully aligned. Now, this does not mean that everybody raised in a stable society is lawful, just that the chance is skewed in favor of lawfulness.

TheSummoner

2009-01-26, 02:31 PM

Prove it. Prove that the biological imperative to breed suddenly makes it impossible for two humans to respect each other.Because your definition of what a whore is includes a very large number of otherwise stable relationships, as very few men of the current generation are taught respect of women (as much of the current media emphasizes casual sex, as well as the overall depreciation of the act in general by the selfsame media), or are even aware that people other than them have wants and needs. On the other hand women aren't really allowed to protest their treatment or they are verbally abused (the most common insult for a self-assured and confident woman rhymes with witch, for instance) or worse.

Breeding? What does a one night stand have to do with procreation? The entire purpose of a one night stand is mindless pleasure. NO ONE picks a random person out of a crowd with the intent of mating and then never seeing that person again.

You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about what I consider whoreish behavior. I'm not a prude or anything, but I think bare minimum you should be in a stable relationship before sex is involved. A one night stand is not a relationship stable or otherwise, its mindless, shameless pleasure seeking. The way the media glorifies this doesn't help, you're absolutly right about that.

sum1won

2009-01-26, 02:35 PM

Breeding? What does a one night stand have to do with procreation? The entire purpose of a one night stand is mindless pleasure. NO ONE picks a random person out of a crowd with the intent of mating and then never seeing that person again.

You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about what I consider whoreish behavior. I'm not a prude or anything, but I think bare minimum you should be in a stable relationship before sex is involved. A one night stand is not a relationship stable or otherwise, its mindless, shameless pleasure seeking. The way the media glorifies this doesn't help, you're absolutly right about that.

No, I'm pretty sure that by my standards you are a prude. You have a problem with casual sex, and hold contempt for people who engage in it. That pretty much fits 'prude' to the letter.

Nothing wrong with good old mindless consensual pleasure seeking. Don't knock it till you try it.

TheSummoner

2009-01-26, 02:52 PM

Kaytara

2009-01-26, 03:11 PM

No, I'm pretty sure that by my standards you are a prude. You have a problem with casual sex, and hold contempt for people who engage in it. That pretty much fits 'prude' to the letter.

Nothing wrong with good old mindless consensual pleasure seeking. Don't knock it till you try it.

If I may contribute my humble two cents, there's certainly nothing wrong in NOT indulging in good old mindless consensual pleasure seeking, either. You may personally feel that one or the other suits you more but you're in no way in the position to claim that one is by default better than the other.
(Personally, though, I think that, from a purely practical standpoint, changing partners at the drop of the hat with all the diseases roaming wild is just asking for trouble. Having a stable partner has very definite advantages.)

Incidentally, though, mindless consensual pleasure seeking defeats the purpose. If you think about it, you'll notice that pretty much everything we do that is enjoyable to us furthers some purpose or another. Sleeping is nice because it allows the body to recover. Food is enjoyable because we need it to sustain us. Sex is very, very enjoyable because it is the single most critical factor for the survival of a species.
None of those things are meant to be indulged simply because they're pleasurable. Sex has always served the purpose of procreation, not recreation - the enjoyment factor is just Mother Nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

Of course, there seem to be no direct negative effects from indulging in sex without creating offspring. But from a purely philosophical point of view, we humans have done a great job of completely screwing with the laws of nature.

From that perspective, one could indeed argue that casual sex is "wrong".

EDIT: Also, I second TheSummoner on the notion of respecting your partner. Sex isn't just a fun activity, it's an indication of complete, absolute trust - you are, after all, in direct proximity to another person and will likely fall asleep in their arms after the fun is over. If you did a bad job on picking your partner, you could find a nasty surprise upon waking up, or not wake up at all.
So based on that, having sex with someone you don't even know when it's meant to be the culmination of an affectionate, trusting relationship just feels... wrong.

Optimystik

2009-01-26, 04:02 PM

The fact is that stable society, as a whole, is by definition lawful. Therefore, people raised in a stable society (as most people are) are more likely to be Lawfully aligned. Now, this does not mean that everybody raised in a stable society is lawful, just that the chance is skewed in favor of lawfulness.

Stable societies are lawful on the surface, but still waters run deep - beneath the glassy exterior churn invisible currents. Individual persons in their everyday lives lie repeatedly, scheme, haggle and cheat to get ahead.

My point is that I believe hamish's initial statement - that humans don't tend towards any alignment - to be correct. Even if most of us belong to lawful societies, for most it is out of a desire for predictability rather than any innate belief in the superiority of order. Children lie to their parents, while adults invariably lie to each other; very few people would return that bag of gold (LG) or even let the authorities deal with it (LN); even law-abiding citizens resent the tax collector, parking meter maid and tow-truck driver. I could go on.

hamishspence

2009-01-26, 04:47 PM

while Lying is against Paladin's Code, it isn't very clear whether it is Chaotic or not. Complete Scoundrel has Lying as a Scoundrelly tactic- even LG Scoundrels lie. BoVD has it as "Not exactly evil, but very, very easily abused to evil ends" suggesting its strongly associated with evil, even if Good characters can occasionally indulge in it.

the preponderance of Lawful power centers may be due to lawful NPCs being drawn to power and making others conform, thus leading to a much higher proportion of Lawfully directed communities. A Chaotic Authority is not a contradiction in terms, but it is rarer.

same principle can apply to Lawful population alignment in cities.

or, you could simply say that phrases like "tends toward X alignment" only apply for Often X or better- even if LG is commoner than CE, its not common enough to say "Humans tend toward LG".

Closest thing to an answer on "is Neutral more highly represented" is Fiendish Codex 2: "Most mortals are weakly aligned, they rarely take actions dramatic enough to register as Lawful, Evil, Good, or Chaotic"

how to interpret it is a tricky question. Maybe the population of the orc village is Neutral with only the leaders and soldiers being Chaotic Evil.

Simpler though, is to treat "weakly aligned" as "still aligned" so the Orc Warlord is Chaotic Evil but the ordinary civilian orcs are only chaotic evil: strong enough to register, but mild enough to have only done minor Chaotic and Evil acts.

BRC

2009-01-26, 04:54 PM

Stable societies are lawful on the surface, but still waters run deep - beneath the glassy exterior churn invisible currents. Individual persons in their everyday lives lie repeatedly, scheme, haggle and cheat to get ahead.

My point is that I believe hamish's initial statement - that humans don't tend towards any alignment - to be correct. Even if most of us belong to lawful societies, for most it is out of a desire for predictability rather than any innate belief in the superiority of order. Children lie to their parents, while adults invariably lie to each other; very few people would return that bag of gold (LG) or even let the authorities deal with it (LN); even law-abiding citizens resent the tax collector, parking meter maid and tow-truck driver. I could go on.
Okay, I conceed the point. Personally, I would say your modern human is Neutral by nature, Neutral leaning Lawful by action, because even if people don't believe that somthing being a law makes it any more important to follow, there are lots of benefits for following the laws. For example, people obeying the speed limit, they could be doing it because it's the law, they could be doing it because they don't want to risk crashing, or they could do it because they don't want to get a ticket. Only one of these motivations is Lawful (the first), but all three result in lawful behavior.

hamishspence

2009-01-26, 04:58 PM

BRC

2009-01-26, 05:10 PM

Going by Fiendish Codex 2 Obeying the law, or the rules, etc to your own detriment, or when you don't actually respect the person you're obeying, is Strong lawful behaviour.

"Yes, I know the sarge is a complete boop, but when the chain of command breaks down, everything breaks down" would be the rationalization a Lawful soldier gives for obeying sucky orders.
Exactly, the lawful solider believes that because the chain of command is an established system, it is inheriently important. He may not respect the man, but he respects the rank.

A less-lawful solider could obey the same order with the rationalization of "Yes, I know the sarge is a complete boop, but if I don't listen to him I'll get charged with insubordination".

Dixieboy

2009-01-26, 05:14 PM

holier-than-thou pricks are lawful neutral

now on to read more than the first post

hamishspence

2009-01-26, 05:25 PM

I tend to the view that, when the consequences for disobeying the rules are likely to be less bad than the cosequences of obeying them, a la The Charge of the Light Brigade, the strongly Lawful are still more likely to obey the bad orders.

Harry Flashman is an example of a more Chaotic soldier- disobeys orders whenever he thinks its the best option for him. Sharpe might fit also. You can probaby think of other similar clashes.

actual Evil orders, however, LG characters cannot get away with obeying. In fact, there is a special kind of devil in D&D that the "Only Following Orders" person gets turned into after death- the Narguzon, cavalry trooper of the nine Hells.

neriana

2009-01-26, 05:44 PM

So based on that, having sex with someone you don't even know when it's meant to be the culmination of an affectionate, trusting relationship just feels... wrong.

You're making an assumption that sex is "meant to be" anything. This is a fine assumption for you and for your life, but historically it is a VERY new one.

Sex isn't "meant for" anything. Even the fact that it feels good happens to aid in the procreation of the species, so it happens to have been selected to feel good, but that's just chance. Other species procreate just fine without that -- insects do just great, for instance.

The idea that sex should entail respect, love or monogamy is a purely cultural construct for humans, and an incredibly new one at that. The fact is that sex means different things to different people, and very often means different things to the same person depending on the context.

There is nothing unorderly in one-night stands. Think of a society that's based on everyone having a big orgy during a religious celebration so that all the babies are born at the same time. Or how about harems? Those are incredibly orderly, at least in theory. Many early (and some later) Christian groups forbade marriage and encouraged random coupling because one was not supposed to put love of a human before the love of god. Orderly as all heck!

Now, as for the "good" part. There is nothing not-good about one-night stands when everyone is honest with each other. The "but someone might get hurt" argument doesn't hold water; unquestionably there is far greater capacity to hurt someone in a long-term relationship than in a casual night of passion. People hurt each other all the time without meaning to. One's intentions may be every bit as pure during a casual sexual relationship as during a marriage, and plenty of marriages are founded and maintained with thoroughly selfish and uncaring motives. Serial monogamy can be a very, very bad thing for the welfare of everyone involved.

David Argall

2009-01-26, 05:52 PM

Law:
I have always viewed Law in the D&D system as having 4 basic, though not always co-present aspects:
You only list 3.

1) A high valuation of an ordered society in general:
2) A predisposition to work within the system's prescribed methods where possible.
3) Adherence to a specific, well defined moral or behavioral code.

One-nighters do not contradict 1 or 2 at all,
What is ordered about a one-nighter? At a whim you go to a bar. At another whim[s], you pick up a girl. That is entirely chaotic.

An aversion to change in general can be a trait that of a lawful society or individual, but is is not a necessary trait for that society or person to be lawful. Chaos implies change, but change does not necessarily imply chaos.
We have weasel words here. "necessary" and "...not necessarily..." effectively tell us it is "only" 99% true. Our lawful is averse to change and other disorder.

Assuming that the behavioral code Roy adheres to has no rule prohibiting one night stands or requireing him to remain faithful to his girlfriend after death, I see no reason he cannot continue to be lawful while in an orderly fashion hooking up with a different person each night from now till the end of time.
While the logic is questionable, the strip follows conventional morals. Roy is shocked by dead dad stepping out and Elan declines Therkla. So we can't assume any such lack of rule.

Good
I have generally viewed good as:
1) A strong predilection to altruism towards fellow sentients.
2) A willingness for self-sacrifice to aid others even when not motivated by personal relationships.

Under these (admittedly limited) prescripts, Roy having one night stands would only fail to be good if one-nighters were morally harmful to the other party (thus being selfish rather than altruistic),
You have a flaw in your logic. A one-night stand is rather obviously selfish and non-self-sacrificing [even by the logic of the more egotistical males]. So it flat out fails to meet your definition of good. We might call it neutral if it were not morally harmful to the other party, but it does not meet your criteria for good.

We're talking here about why the afterlife provides a Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands. You appear to be talking about the complications of relationships in general. Should we just have a separate heaven for every individual, so they can all wander around on their own and never hurt anyone else's feelings?

If we want to avoid the chance of A hurting B, that is what we have to do. In a heaven with A & B, A will hurt B some way, and our lawful would argue that this means there is a full law code in heaven.

it is not more chaotic than to change clothes frequently.
Now that you mention it, changing clothes is chaotic.
Your prime lawful is the army. Everybody wears identical outfits, general to private. Where there are exceptions, they are required.
You look at a bunch of civilians in different outfits, you start talking about a chaotic picture.

-- there is no "default" answer to these questions.
There is a default answer to any question, which can be known to be absolutely impossible.
There are two boxes, one of which contains $10. The other is empty. The default value of either box is $5, even tho we know that neither box has $5 in it.

when you make a claim, you have to actually prove it with supporting evidence.
This depends on the claim. The rule in question here is that you don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive. If you say "There are no elephants in this house.", it is up to me to provide proof that there is one or more present. If we change elephant to mouse, we see why. It is effectively impossible to prove there are no mice in any large area where they might exist. But if I put out a few traps, I can easily prove there are mice in the area.
Now in our case, we have the basic idea that all alignments are equal in size, which becomes no alignment is larger than another, which would be disproved by showing that one alignment is larger than another, not proved by trying to show all are of the same size.

closest thing to evidence is "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" in PHB. Contradicted numerous times in later material, including DMG, if you treat "generic towns" the same way as you treat Elven, Dwarven, Halfling, etc. ones.
Which of course tells us these tables are defective, at least for our purposes.

If you take DMG and Cityscape as valid, there is a bias toward Law. Not enough for any of the Lawful alignments to be "Often X alignment" but enough to say "a random human community is more likely to be Lawful than Chaotic or Neutral."
Now if we combine DMG, p 138, with Cityscape, p 8, we can see a trend line. The power center is 80% likely to be lawful. But the community is only 65% lawful. So that makes the figure for the average person [who is not part of a "sizable urban center"] less lawful. We generally use a figure of 10% urban, making these figures for the urban setting the most lawful 10% of the population, and giving us good reason to assuming the general distribution is far less lawful.

It's the other way round, LG souls expect to feel guilty about casual sex, so the LG afterlife provides this for them.
This seems to be a difference with no difference. Either way, we end up with a negative attitude towards casual sex.

"Lawful" describes someone who values rules and obeys them, but that doesn't mean he has to obey laws;
You are taking the exception as the rule here. That is a common flaw, but it is still a flaw. Our lawful does not have to obey every law all the time, but that is the way to strive. He does not go around looking for excuses to violate the rules. He violates the rules only when there is no other choice.

I don't really think that a typical LN considers any law "good", that's more like lawful-extremely-stupid - someone makes a law, hurray, I'll obey it because it has to be good. Because it's a law. Sure, there are people like that, but I don't think that's a good example of LN.
So can you give a better? And why shouldn't we deem such people prime cases of LN?

Again, D&D-wise, obeying codified laws is not the only aspect of being lawful, and perhaps not even the most important one.
So? What other ones matter to us more? And why?

I don't consider...
Your opinion is just your opinion. Please provide some reasons.

being lawful the same as abandoning one's judgement in favor of rules dictated by someone else (and considering them good just because they're there).
Why should you not? Only the most chaotic should deem their judgment superior to the general consensus. [We might note horse races here. You can be the world's top expert, or use a hatpin. You will end up losing about the same amount of money. The odds that the general consensus is correct and you are wrong are quite high.] And plenty of real people have this attitude.

Paladins, of all the people are supposed to break the laws if obeying them wouldn't be as good as breaking them.
Incorrect. They are to break evil laws, not just any law that is an inconvenience to them. When they can, they are there to obey.

Roy's reaction to seeing his mom with another guy can hardly be described as "being horrified", surprised fits much better... he's had the same expression when he saw his grandpa for the first time.
Which is due to the limits of stick art. But look at the larger picture. With each additional element and picture, we see positive signs for gramps, and negative signs for mom & sex. [see 499 where Roy puts hands over ears and closes his eyes when ma talks of one of her affairs.]

hamishspence

2009-01-26, 05:53 PM

Quintessenial Paladin, a 3rd party 3.5 ed source, does provide a sort-of answer, though may not be valid for all settings.

"the paladin is not required to be chaste, but must act in a moral and upright fashion"

a step below "a paladin must ensure his partners are good, and falling victim to seduction, or dalliances with the fey, are forbidden"

and two steps below "a paladin must be chaste outside of marriage"

So, even for the epitome of Lawful Good, dalliances are not forbidden, nor is being seduced grounds for a Fall.

hamishspence

2009-01-26, 06:00 PM

on the power centre bit "it need not conform to the alignment of all or even the majority of the population, though this is usually the case"

this would suggest that for any power centre, the majority of the population will "usually" be of the same alignment.

Which would therefore suggest a bias toward Law.

Interestingly, in descriptions of Bahamut, it is pointed out that Bahamut will tolerate, to a limited extent "immoral behaviour" but has absolutely no tolerance for anything Evil.

which would suggest that there is, in fact, a distinction.

and reasons cut both ways "one night stands are obviously chaotic" where is the textual evidence supporting that?

MickJay

2009-01-26, 06:55 PM

snip

Negative attitude to casual sex - it's not the LG afterlife (the whole structure, archons and so on) that has it, but just the souls. LG afterlife provides both casual sex (because the souls there enjoy it) and the guilt (because the souls "prefer it that way". In both cases, it's a "service" LG souls may enjoy in the afterlife. Why the souls prefer to feel guilty? Maybe because they still didn't adapt to different rules (if any?) of afterlife? That would indeed support your point about laws being good for lawfuls regardless of circumstances: the mortal laws don't exist anymore in afterlife, and people still insist on obeying them! I'd put it down to the force of habit, but what do I know.

All in all, the thread is about why and how LG afterlife, defined by D&D standards of "lawful" and "good" can work in the way it's seen in OOTS. Lots of people presented arguments why D&D rules support such interpretation of said afterlife.

That said, dissecting every statement from every post that does not match one's view isn't really helpful in understanding other peoples' views (unless someone considers these views wrong by default; then, indeed, "refuting" them by concentrating on individual sentences and ignoring the wider context - and making counter-arguments that ignore even what was already mentioned, including inconvenient bits from source material - is the way to go). That's just my opinion, though, so it's probably best to ignore it. :smalltongue:

The Neoclassic

2009-01-26, 07:04 PM

No one has yet explained (I apologize if I missed it) how long-term, stable, committed relationships are NOT lawful and therefore how they could be promoted in the CG afterlife, if we are to uphold this "Certain sorts of relationships invariably reflect an undeniably strong Law/Chaos inclination" argument.

Some of you are taking law to an extreme. Yes, there is an extreme of alignments, but I really doubt that their afterlifes are devoted to only demonstrating those extremes and allowing nothing else. Again, if they were, committed & stable relationships would not be endorsed/encouraged in the chaotic good afterlife.

I frankly think this comes down to people viewing their personal, religious, or cultural views about sexuality as the way it works in D&D. I mean, heck, as much as we want to argue, the Giant clearly does not think

Yes, I'm a prude because I feel the need to give a damn about someone before having sex with her. I'm a prude because I see people with so little self control or self respect that they engage in behavior that leads to unwanted children and abortion as human garbage. I see the light now. I'm a cynic, that goes without saying, but I'm not some completly anti-sex nutjob.

I'm a cynic too. I also do not partake in one-night stands or anything similar. My only physical relationships were with people I cared deeply for and knew a lot about. That said, I think your generalizations are entirely ridiculous and demeaning. I cannot comment much (lest politics/religion come up), but blaming society's problems and unwanted children on /one night stands/ as opposed to drinking, poverty, a lack of contraceptive education, or a host of other possible factors, is ludicrous. Also, as we've pointed out, even if such horrors were true, these consequences would NOT result from one night stands in the LG afterlife.

If I may contribute my humble two cents, there's certainly nothing wrong in NOT indulging in good old mindless consensual pleasure seeking, either. You may personally feel that one or the other suits you more but you're in no way in the position to claim that one is by default better than the other.
(Personally, though, I think that, from a purely practical standpoint, changing partners at the drop of the hat with all the diseases roaming wild is just asking for trouble. Having a stable partner has very definite advantages.)

I can entirely respect and understand your standpoint, and I agree that abstaining from one night stands, or even sex at all, is not in any way wrong or silly.

Sex isn't just a fun activity, it's an indication of complete, absolute trust - you are, after all, in direct proximity to another person and will likely fall asleep in their arms after the fun is over. If you did a bad job on picking your partner, you could find a nasty surprise upon waking up, or not wake up at all.
So based on that, having sex with someone you don't even know when it's meant to be the culmination of an affectionate, trusting relationship just feels... wrong.

Sorry, but it does mean different things to different people. It may mean that to you and to many others, but does that mean that everyone else must feel the same way or else have something wrong with them? Particularly if they choose to indulge in a truly consequence-free setting as an afterlife reward? Also, wrong is a judgement of good/evil, not law/chaos.

You're making an assumption that sex is "meant to be" anything. This is a fine assumption for you and for your life, but historically it is a VERY new one.

Now, as for the "good" part. There is nothing not-good about one-night stands when everyone is honest with each other. The "but someone might get hurt" argument doesn't hold water; unquestionably there is far greater capacity to hurt someone in a long-term relationship than in a casual night of passion. People hurt each other all the time without meaning to.

I rather agree with both points. Only thing is, D&D (and those of us who interpret it) usually impose our modern morality and culture on its interpretation.

Zeful

2009-01-26, 07:04 PM

Breeding? What does a one night stand have to do with procreation? The entire purpose of a one night stand is mindless pleasure. NO ONE picks a random person out of a crowd with the intent of mating and then never seeing that person again.Procreation has everything to do with sex. Even if you choose to employ birth control methods, you are still selecting a partner based on qualities one looks for in a long term mate.

You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about what I consider whoreish behavior. I'm not a prude or anything, but I think bare minimum you should be in a stable relationship before sex is involved. A one night stand is not a relationship stable or otherwise, its mindless, shameless pleasure seeking. The way the media glorifies this doesn't help, you're absolutly right about that.You gave an example of what you define as whoreish behaviour. I pointed out that according to that example and definition, that many stable relationships fall under whorish behaviour according to you.
I believe that ideally there should be some kind of emotional relationship beyond sex, but I understand that I can only apply that ideal to my own relationships.

Island Gorilla

2009-01-26, 08:06 PM

Yes, I'm a prude because I feel the need to give a damn about someone before having sex with her. I'm a prude because I see people with so little self control or self respect that they engage in behavior that leads to unwanted children and abortion as human garbage. I see the light now. I'm a cynic, that goes without saying, but I'm not some completly anti-sex nutjob.

No, you're a prude because you're denigrating the viewpoint opposite to yours as base and vulgar. You're tarring all adults who engage in casual sex with the same offensive brush. If you're not some completely anti-sex nutjob, you're doing a poor job of showing it.

You have a flaw in your logic. A one-night stand is rather obviously selfish and non-self-sacrificing [even by the logic of the more egotistical males]. So it flat out fails to meet your definition of good. We might call it neutral if it were not morally harmful to the other party, but it does not meet your criteria for good.

You also have a flaw in your logic. Just because a person is Lawful Good, it doesn't mean that every action they take has to be either Lawful or Good. Roy lays into his fellow party members and takes pleasure from insulting or undermining them. That's neither Lawful or Good, and yet it doesn't endanger his alignment.

Copulating with random strangers doesn't have to be Lawful to be worthy of inclusion in an LG afterlife. No one complains that the Debate Hall is available. Why? Debating is an activity that can be bent to any kind of alignment. If there's a Lawful way to debate with folk, there's a Lawful way to masturbate folk. Even if -- shock horror -- that's pretty much the extent of your interaction with them.

And even if there weren't, where does it say that you're not allowed to perform Chaotic or Evil acts in the LG afterlife anyway? Roy's Archon disobeyed his superiors in allowing Roy to use the staff elevator, and those evil adventurers who plane-shifted in weren't planning to bake everyone cookies. The Tavern has just as much right to be in the afterlife as Grandpa Greenhilt's sword: both can be used to Lawful or Chaotic ends.

Either way, we end up with a negative attitude towards casual sex.

A negative attitude towards exhibiting overt sexuality in an environment which is primarily the domain of a parent? Has it not occurred that said attitude is embarrassment? That doesn't strike me as Lawful or Good so much as just human nature. I'm sure Freud would have a thing or two to say about it, at the very least.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-26, 08:28 PM

You only list 3.

You are correct, the 4 was a typo.

What is ordered about a one-nighter? At a whim you go to a bar. At another whim[s], you pick up a girl. That is entirely chaotic.

How does doing so create disorder? How does it work outside society's prescriptions unless there is a specific prescription against it. I personally have a regular night (every other Friday) when I go out to a specific bar (5 minutes by cab, from the front of my door to the bouncer) with the intent find someone to go home with that night, explicitly no strings attached. The whole process is very orderly. I even have the pancakes mix measured out for the next morning in case they want to stay for breakfast.

We have weasel words here. "necessary" and "...not necessarily..." effectively tell us it is "only" 99% true. Our lawful is averse to change and other disorder.

I'll state it differently if you object to the word necessary. A dislike of change strongly implies a predilection to law, but a predilection to law only weakly implies (at best) a dislike of change. We seem to disagree on this: I find it worth noting that the 3E description of lawful only notes that such negatives with in the form "On the downside, lawfulness CAN[emphasis mine] include[...]."

You have a flaw in your logic.A one-night stand is rather obviously selfish and non-self-sacrificing [even by the logic of the more egotistical males]. So it flat out fails to meet your definition of good. We might call it neutral if it were not morally harmful to the other party, but it does not meet your criteria for good.
I agree, I should have said that it only succeeds in actively violating the tennents of good if those occur. It is a passively neutral act (which even Paladins and outsiders are not prohibited from). I disagree, however, with your assertion that it's selfish: an act is only selfish if it benefits the actor at the expense of another (acts which benefit one party without hurting another are merely self-interested, not selfish). A one night stand doesn't seem to me to qualify there.

Nimrod's Son

2009-01-27, 01:38 AM

Man, that old "I'm not a prude; I just think sex outside of a committed relationship is shameful, selfish, irresponsible and downright dangerous" schtik cracks me up. It's along the same lines as "I'm not a racist; I just think my country should be reserved for me and mine, and all immigrants should go back where they came from."

Sex has always served the purpose of procreation, not recreation - the enjoyment factor is just Mother Nature's way of encouraging us to do it.
I know of some bonobos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior) who may disagree with you there.

More to the point (and as others have stated, but it's being repeatedly ignored), it's pretty obvious that this Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands, along with the debate hall and dungeon of mildy-challenging monsters, must by definition be a construct along the lines of the Star Trek Holodeck. If it were just a place where people went to get drunk and get off with an attractive stranger, it wouldn't be called the Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands. It would be called "The Tavern".

JonestheSpy

2009-01-27, 02:04 AM

A couple more thoughts after all this rigamarole:

While it is true that some people having casual sex don't give a damn about their partner, they are just selfishly concerned with their own desire to get off, it is also quite possible to meet someone, think they're incredibly neat, cool, attractive people and have great sex all in the space of a few hours. And hey, sometimes that can lead to a long term relationship, and sometimes it doesn't. And if it doesn't, that doesn't mean it was a selfish, immoral experience.

Also it's very interesting that Roy's Archon mentions that 'Our Lawful patrons expect [to be made to feel guilty about sex]'. To me, that indicates that heaven is really one big place for all good people, and that they all meld at the higher levels, while the lower levels are more concerned with the foibles of the individual souls. I know that's not canonical DnD, but it certainly makes a lot of sense. The archon's comments wouldn't make any sense otherwise. and really, does it make any sense that '"paradise" would involve eternal seperation from your loved ones if they aren't exactly on the same lawful/chaotic point on the axis as you?

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-27, 03:08 AM

The word whore is more often than not associated with women, I suppose society as a whole thinks its perfectly fine for a man to behave in a the same shameful way that would label a woman with one of the many fun words we have for such people... or did you mean what makes a woman who is willing to sleep with a guy shes only known for less than a day a whore, in which case I think that should be a sufficient answer.

In either case, the man is no better in my eyes... they're both whores. Theres no respect for the other person, no concern for their wants and needs (in the case that one might've been stupid enough to think that the other was actually a good person who was actually interested in him or her). Its completly ridiculous to even suggest that a one night stand could be lawful. Maybe people feel tempted to defend the practice out of their own urges or perhaps experiances, I don't really know. I'm not saying that its an evil practice, but its really the kind of thing that would be more suited for a chaotic afterlife, possibly all three.

It sounds to me that you have very strong moral views, that does not correspond with mine nor with a few other people on this board. It also sounds like those views to a point blocks your ability to imagine someone not having your views.

1) I definitely disagree with you about the women being "whores" for enjoying casual sex. In fact, my definition of a whore is prostitute, period.
(Besides, women in the real world have enough problems with men calling them whores for actually having sexual desires, period, and that might be a reason your comments irks me)

2) Casual sex is not chaotic. There is no reason it would be chaotic. You might deem it wrong for other reasons (but that would be your personal moral code), but it is no more chaotic than to eat a lot or change clothes often

3) "Theres no respect for the other person, no concern for their wants and needs"
This is almost funny. You own moral code is blocking you from the possibility that both might want a one-night-stand. If the "other person" has the wants and needs of "I'm in the mood! Let's do it" then I say the "first person" is definitely fulfilling the "other person's" wants and needs. Even more so if he or she is a skilled lover.
As for "no respect": It's funny, but it tends to be the people that do not approve of one-night-stands that lacks respect in these scenarios. You are calling them "whores", which shows no respect at all. I am sure they respect eachother, I can't see why they would not, and I especially fail to see why the default during a brief sexual encounter would be "no respect".

You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about what I consider whoreish behavior. I'm not a prude or anything, but I think bare minimum you should be in a stable relationship before sex is involved. A one night stand is not a relationship stable or otherwise, its mindless, shameless pleasure seeking. The way the media glorifies this doesn't help, you're absolutly right about that.

You ARE a prude, and a very judgmental person. You look down on people who fail to agree to your moral ideals, you adopt a preaching tone when describing them in insulting terms for no reason, and you assume your moral code is the one and only that is correct.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-27, 03:16 AM

Incidentally, though, mindless consensual pleasure seeking defeats the purpose. If you think about it, you'll notice that pretty much everything we do that is enjoyable to us furthers some purpose or another. Sleeping is nice because it allows the body to recover. Food is enjoyable because we need it to sustain us. Sex is very, very enjoyable because it is the single most critical factor for the survival of a species.
None of those things are meant to be indulged simply because they're pleasurable. Sex has always served the purpose of procreation, not recreation - the enjoyment factor is just Mother Nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

This is wrong.
Our closest relatives (Bonobos) uses sex as a bond, not only for procreation. As does dolphins. Basically, just like humans, those species uses sex for fun and profit: For forging relationships (both long- and short term), for play, and for procreation.

sum1won

2009-01-27, 11:26 AM

This is wrong.
Our closest relatives (Bonobos) uses sex as a bond, not only for procreation. As does dolphins. Basically, just like humans, those species uses sex for fun and profit: For forging relationships (both long- and short term), for play, and for procreation.

Bonobos are really not our closest relatives. They are equally related to us as chimps, and chimps and bonobos are far more closely related to eachother than to us.

To be fair, chimps also use sex for fun, but less often (bonobos have sex around once every 90 minutes, chimps not much more often than we do), as do dolphins, etc.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-27, 01:04 PM

Reluctance

2009-01-27, 03:36 PM

Because in the afterlife there are no consequences. Drinking to excess and sleeping around while you are alive can be hurtful to yourself or others, but once you are dead those considerations disappear.

It's a little disconcerting seeing this train of thought. I wonder if I'd get the same support for "the afterlife is consequence-free" and "your reward for resisting temptation in life is the ability to indulge freely after death" if I postulated a dungeon where I could go to torture unwilling victims instead.

And while others have covered what Roy's Archon said in 493 (that body-based urges like "sex and food and such" are distractions that should be worked out of your system in the earliest levels), I do wonder how it would work from the opposite end. Judgmentalism can be at least as much of a stumbling block towards spiritual growth as a strongly physically-focused outlook*. I wonder what attractions the lower levels have to take care of that sort of issue.

*(If you think spiritual growth and physical revelry go hand-in-hand, another paradise might be more your speed.)

MickJay

2009-01-27, 03:59 PM

It might be a little disconcerting, but that's very similar to the idea many people have about heaven anyway.

Now if someone's greatest dream, when alive, was not sex&booze but torturing people, they probably wouldn't end up in a "good" heaven anyway; probably in some hell in which they could indulge in causing suffering to others (as reward for being a "good" lawful evil, or whatever they were). That's pure speculation, of course, think of it what you will :smallwink:

As for judgementalism, I think the discussion hall would be perfect. Each and every opinion offered by the soul would be accepted as good and just, until they got bored due to lack of opposition and decided to move on. They'd probably move up even before the more physically-oriented souls (physical pleasure has some value in itself, convincing simulacra/beings that always agree with you anyway is just pointless).

sum1won

2009-01-27, 05:37 PM

It's a little disconcerting seeing this train of thought. I wonder if I'd get the same support for "the afterlife is consequence-free" and "your reward for resisting temptation in life is the ability to indulge freely after death" if I postulated a dungeon where I could go to torture unwilling victims instead.

And while others have covered what Roy's Archon said in 493 (that body-based urges like "sex and food and such" are distractions that should be worked out of your system in the earliest levels), I do wonder how it would work from the opposite end. Judgmentalism can be at least as much of a stumbling block towards spiritual growth as a strongly physically-focused outlook*. I wonder what attractions the lower levels have to take care of that sort of issue.

*(If you think spiritual growth and physical revelry go hand-in-hand, another paradise might be more your speed.)

Where did you get the idea that not having sex or drinking was a Good act and rewarded in the afterlife? I'm pretty certain that the alignment system has nothing to say about that...

MickJay

2009-01-27, 06:44 PM

My guess is Reluctance was referring to all those situations where it would be possible for LG characters to do what they desired, but they resisted those temptations to avoid doing evil as consequence of those actions. Avoiding sex and alcohol isn't good in itself, but avoiding getting drunk while guarding the town/doing anything else that requires clear mind, not having sex with ten different people a week when the person in question is married, these kind of thing are good (and often lawful at the same time).

"Temptation - act of tempting, especially to evil" and "something tempting". (following merriam-webster (http://www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/temptation) definition).

galdon

2009-01-27, 07:06 PM

it actually is explained; that those are the pleasures of the real world, and that as you get over them you can ascend to a higher level, like roy's grandfather did.

Reluctance

2009-01-27, 07:22 PM

sum1won, there were people arguing upthread that the reward for a lifetime of lawful behavior was the freedom to indulge in chaotic behavior in the afterlife. Which especially considering that there are eternal rewards for chaotic good people seems kind of silly.

As for my personal stance? One-night stands are inherently chaotic. Not necessarily fallworthy or evil, but by no means lawful. Other forms of sex, including casual sex amongst friends, are too much of a real case vs. ideal case issue for there to be much productive discussion.

MickJay: If you desire to do evil and you do evil, you're obviously evil. If you desire to do evil and yet you restrain yourself to avoid harming others, I can't see those desires counting against you as much. So I can't see somebody who resists evil desires being sent straight to hell.

My point there was basically to ask, if people were quick to embrace reasons for chaotic behavior as being Lawful Good , to what degree they'd be okay using the same reasons for evil behavior being Lawful Good

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-27, 07:41 PM

It's a little disconcerting seeing this train of thought.Why is it disconcerting? It's absolutely and demonstrably true. Perhaps you're limiting the concept of "consequences" to only one person engaged in an act. But that's an artificial limitation, and I can see where you might be confused if this is how you are looking at it. If person A tortures person B, but only person A has "no consequences", the act is not one without consequence.

If an act, any act at all, even your proposed "torture chamber in the heaven of LG", has no harmful consequences at all, then there can be nothing evil in that act. Things are primarily judged to be not-good or "evil" acts for one of two reasons: Harmful consequences, and an abstract value system. And most if not all of the abstract value systems out there draw very heavily on the first reason as the basis for assigning a value to some act.

As an example of an abstract value system, a religion which forbids premarital sex does so not because premarital sex is, on its own, an act with a harmful consequence, but because it is an act which could have, and has had in the past harmful consequences. And so they forbid it on the virtue that the risk is not worth the deed. That's a heavily shortened example, but you can apply it accurately to almost any belief system. The only reason this truism needs to have the caveat of "primarily" is that there are some exceptions to the rule, mostly existing within more primitive cultures.

It's only evil to torture someone, because you are torturing someone. They suffer, they feel pain, they bear wounds both physical and emotional. If they can feel no pain and will not be wounded and will suffer no scars either mentally or physically, then torture does not exist and attempting it can not be said to be evil. So while you might find a torture chamber in the heaven of LG, there won't be any torturing going on in there. Or any other evil act. Because there are no consequences.

Xianio

2009-01-27, 08:46 PM

Well this thread is to funny to ignore any longer. I suppose I'll try to actively take part as otherwise this is just spam.

First lets look at each term and decide upon the definition shall we?

Lawful: I would define this as a desire to follow a code, stay within the rules of said code and respect the codes of others. This increases predictability yet by no means forces all variables within said code to remain permanently static (otherwise you have no development and cannot learn at all should something within your code fail). There is more that could be written but that's a nice base to start from.

Good: Actions which are good must first be good (obviously) and secondly be not-not good. For an action to be not good within the DnD universe it must (among other things) not damage/hurt/destroy others or arguably the property of others. Furthermore good actions should attempt to benefit others when possible. It is not a requirement by any means to aid others at the expense of yourself but to do so is often considered a good act...if the action done by such self-sacrifice is intended to be good.

Those seem like half decent definitions of law and good so lets work from there.

Now lets look to this tavern of sexual fun thing from each perspective.

The Question of Law
As we have stipulated something must follow a code to be lawful. So therefore this tavern is chaotic if there is no code followed.

Well lets look at the dynamics of this tavern. First and foremost a clear and definitive purpose is given for this tavern. It is for, clearly, having sex without attachments. It is meant to be for 1 "night" and then both parties go there separate ways.
It seems to me that this is pretty lawful. A code is followed, presumably strictly, and as long as said code remains being followed partaking in the activities explicitly provided by the tavern is not chaotic.

Now something must be made clear. Yes, there is a variable to the person which you are taking home and therefore one could argue that this is chaotic. However to do so would be to argue that any act which contains within it a variable action is chaotic. That would make anything which wasn't 100% predictable a chaotic action. In dnd chance does indeed suggest chaos but "some chance" is just "some chaos" and as we can all pretty easily agree everyone, even dnd folks have "some chaos" within them even if they're mostly lawful.

Not the trickier of the two,

The Question of Good

Going with our definition of Good an act must not hurt/damage/destroy anything of another persons and would be beneficial to another.

So we must now look at first if taking someone home randomly is a not-good act. First we must make some presumptions; that it is consensual and secondly that no negative consequences will befall the people partaking in the act. If either are true then the act cannot be good. So now we have the first 3 things covered as nobody and nothing is getting hurt, damaged or destroyed. Now as a side benefit we must look to see if it beneficial to another. This should be self-evident to anyone who has had good or even ok sex before. Sex is not a 1 way action, after all it takes two to tango or so the old adage says. So therefore nobody is hurt, others benefit and as such the act can be considered good.

Conclusion

First tavern is clearly a place which adheres to a principled code and does not deviate significantly with its expectations or change its code for no apparent reason. Second the action of taking someone home in the attempt to benefit both parties, through the act of giving pleasure, without causing damage or hurt to the other allows for this place to both Lawful in nature and Good in its moral outlook.

Counter-arguments

To name something as "not good" it must be proven to be damaging to others or potentially yourself. We've established that there are no negative consequences to the act of sex and that real life concerns do not come into play as potential negatives.

Morally wrong "just because." - This is impossible to prove. To do so you would need to prove that some sort of universal moral truth can be said across all humanity. This has never been accomplished as not one act can be said to universally true within all societies (from theft to cannibalism this has never been shown). While your opinion is completely valid it simply means YOU would not partake in the activities not that they are inherently evil or chaotic.

It makes you a whore! - Well this is wrong based upon definition alone. At most it makes them a slut not a whore as that would require a cash transaction (but that's just me being a smart-ass). This is a value statement which reflects, again, something not universally held true. While this may be true where you are from or within your circles it isn't in and of itself a truth which can be applied to all - once again it is nothing but opinion created most likely by religious outlook or societal suggestion.

Edit: Forgot one.
It needs to be a long-term relationship to be good/lawful - How long? What if the relationship is failing? What if one party isn't happy within the relationship? Why can't someone care about anthers feelings within 2 seconds of meeting them? Why is time a pre-req to sex? --- What you are arguing here are norms. Most of the time what you are saying is right but only due to consequences. Most often someone should trust someone else first, even just for safeties sake, but why can't someone trust someone who they know is lawful and good? If this is purely a time based dilemma then you must be able to prove first how long constitutes "long-term" within a reality which has no measure of time and secondly that short term relationships are objectively worse.

End

Reluctance

2009-01-27, 10:43 PM

Why is it disconcerting? It's absolutely and demonstrably true. Perhaps you're limiting the concept of "consequences" to only one person engaged in an act. But that's an artificial limitation, and I can see where you might be confused if this is how you are looking at it. If person A tortures person B, but only person A has "no consequences", the act is not one without consequence.*snip*

Y'know, I wonder if we're using different meanings of the word "consequence" here.

I raise a child well, he grows into a happy and well-adjusted individual. I build a house, and somebody gets to live more comfortably than they would exposed to the elements. I kill the demon terrorizing the countryside, and people experience peace and prosperity.

These are all cause-effect relationships.

And for my choices to have meaning, I have to have the ability to make different ones. I neglect or even abuse my child. I refuse to build a house, or even burn some down. I let the demon continue to rampage, or even join it on its crusade of terror. If all choices end in the same results, you've taken away any reason I have to strive. Indeed, you've stripped my actions of any meaning whatsoever. That sounds incredibly bleak to me.

I'm leaving sex and the TOIONS out of this right now. Thinking about it, there could easily also be a gambling hall with the same "get these chaotic urges out of your system harmlessly" idea behind it, and that sounds perfectly in keeping with first-layer Celestia. This is half me wondering why people think that "no consequences" is really a desirable state of being, and half me wondering why people think such disregard for causation is at the heart of how a lawfully aligned plane works.

Rotipher

2009-01-27, 11:17 PM

One-night stands are inherently chaotic. Not necessarily fallworthy or evil, but by no means lawful.

Tell that to Huxley. In Brave New World, having meaningless sex with anyone and everyone was an authoritarian mandate: an excuse to criminalize humans' tendency to form emotional ties with one another, that might run contrary to their loyalty to the state. Promiscuity only seems Chaotic if the society as a whole encourages familial commitments; if they're illegal instead, then it's falling in love that's unLawful.

David Argall

2009-01-28, 12:46 AM

In Brave New World, having meaningless sex with anyone and everyone was an authoritarian mandate: an excuse to criminalize humans' tendency to form emotional ties with one another, that might run contrary to their loyalty to the state. Promiscuity only seems Chaotic if the society as a whole encourages familial commitments; if they're illegal instead, then it's falling in love that's unLawful.

Comparing system A with different system B causes problems. Since BNW is a completely different moral system, we have to be rather suspicious of D&D conclusions based on it.
But the conclusion here is D&D to judge D&D, and casual sex is rather obviously chaotic by definition. It is an event that may or may not happen and may or may not involve certain people and may or may not involve certain events.
Your chaotic event is a die roll. You can't predict what will happen. Your lawful event is fixed. It will happen, at a certain time and involving certain people in certain ways. That simply does not fit casual sex.

Finwe

2009-01-28, 01:47 AM

Arrests are rather obviously chaotic by definition. They are an event that may or may not happen and may or may not involve certain people and may or may not involve certain events.

Is that so?

The Neoclassic

2009-01-28, 02:00 AM

But the conclusion here is D&D to judge D&D, and casual sex is rather obviously chaotic by definition.

By your definition then, committed relationships should be a lawful event that do not appear in any endorsed form in chaotic afterlifes.

Your chaotic event is a die roll. You can't predict what will happen. Your lawful event is fixed. It will happen, at a certain time and involving certain people in certain ways. That simply does not fit casual sex.

So... a hook-up in a very clearly labeled tavern with creations designed just for the purpose of mingling with the dead folks who've come there for a reward has a strong element of unpredicatibility? While all the roller-coaster-ride fun of the turmoil of emotions and desire when a couple first falls in love in a committed relationship is predictable? :smallconfused:

Also, frankly, shouldn't all adventurers be chaotic then? All of their outcomes are determined by dice rolls. They never know precisely or often even close to what will actually happen. They go into a dungeon: Will they beat up a bunch of drow, make friends with the kobolds, or start a party with some mindflayers? Going into the dungeon, it's likely they don't know.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-28, 02:09 AM

Bonobos are really not our closest relatives. They are equally related to us as chimps, and chimps and bonobos are far more closely related to eachother than to us.

Of course they are more closely related to eachother than to us. As for them not being our closest (living) relative; I think the jury is still out on that one, and as you said even if they are "just" as close as chimps, it doesn't really matter for this argument's sake.

Oracle_Hunter

2009-01-28, 02:13 AM

Because I love referring to text:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Casual Sex, for example, can be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic.
- Lawful Sex follows the mores of society when possible, and if it cannot, at least the Lawful person will be sure to call his or her partner later (out of respect).
- Chaotic Sex is done because the character wants to (convention be damned!) and may end up with little regard for "morning after" social conventions.
- Neutral Sex is... well, pretty normal. He may call back if he remembers. :smalltongue:

Remember: alignment is about the thought process, not the action.

Re: OP
Not much new to say. A quick look at the definition of LG may be illustrative.

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Nowhere in there does it mention anything about sexual practices, dietary restrictions, or anything of the like. These are, by and large, cultural - not moral - decisions and therefore are not tied to a single alignment. Innocent pleasures like always winning a debate or having an infinite number of mutually satisfactory one-night-stands both respects the well being of others and violates no tradition that matters in the afterlife.

If a person is tied to a system of traditions that prohibit one-night-stands (or sexual contact altogether) then they are allowed to ignore these pleasures of the flesh entirely.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-28, 02:16 AM

Ozymandias9

2009-01-28, 02:22 AM

Comparing system A with different system B causes problems. Since BNW is a completely different moral system, we have to be rather suspicious of D&D conclusions based on it.

I disagree. One could easily craft a society in the D&D framework that had the moral system of BNW. In doing so, one would clearly have a situation where casual sex is lawful (to the extreme that not having casual sex would be chaotic).

Clearly, that is not the moral system in which OotS operates. However, no convincing evidence has yet been presented that the moral system in which OotS does operate would place a lawful value on not having casual sex.

That is not to say that there aren't arguments to be made from the body of the comic that would support such a position. Sabine notes that she's the incarnation of illicit sex, which implies strongly a fixed connection to real world sexual mores.

Not everyone in the world (or even in this thread), however, shares the same sexual mores. Some moral systems have strong prescripts against pre-marital sex, some do not. Historically, some have even had prescripts against post-marital sex for widows and/or widowers.

But the conclusion here is D&D to judge D&D, and casual sex is rather obviously chaotic by definition. It is an event that may or may not happen and may or may not involve certain people and may or may not involve certain events.
Your chaotic event is a die roll. You can't predict what will happen. Your lawful event is fixed. It will happen, at a certain time and involving certain people in certain ways. That simply does not fit casual sex.

Your definition of chaotic events and lawful events is untenable. By that measure, going out to buy a new, white, long-sleeve shirt would be chaotic if you didn't know at which store you would be buying a specific brand at a specific price. If such an event were placed in a campaign (substitute a rapier for the shirt if you prefer), I doubt it would be called chaotic.

Your picture of casual sex as entirely random is also less than convincing. Even if we limit ourselves to American Culture, there are plenty of places people go with the explicit intent of casual sex. Singles bars are probably the most tame example (though I by no means intend to imply that no one at a single's bar is looking for something other than one night stands). People go to that specific place with the specific goal of getting laid. They have a specific set of qualities that they will look for in the person or persons who they will approach. The only random element is the chance of failure that occurs if none of the people with the set of qualities is interested. You have the same chance of not finding an acceptable shirt within your set budget.

Remember: alignment is about the thought process, not the action.

I disagree. Well, rather I disagree in the context of the comics (though I personally prefer teleological morality in real life). Roy's postmortem placement interview clearly indicated that the outcome and method of your actions had moral weight in addition to your intentions. Not necessarily equal weight (though there is no indication to the contrary either), but weight none the less.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-28, 02:25 AM

But the conclusion here is D&D to judge D&D, and casual sex is rather obviously chaotic by definition. It is an event that may or may not happen and may or may not involve certain people and may or may not involve certain events.

You have just proved that nobody can be Lawful in D&D unless you are dead, since life is not predictable.

Simanos

2009-01-28, 05:39 PM

You have a flaw in your logic. A one-night stand is rather obviously selfish and non-self-sacrificing [even by the logic of the more egotistical males]. So it flat out fails to meet your definition of good. We might call it neutral if it were not morally harmful to the other party, but it does not meet your criteria for good.
So a man giving pleasure to a woman he barely knows (and himself) at no cost is bad? I thought Jesus said to love one another and what was the whole point of the "good Samaritan" parable?
Consensual sex is the simple act of two person doing pleasurable things to one another. Only foolish religions and ideologies assign negativity or sin to that.
Sex is even less problematic when you remove all the living possible negatives of it that aren't possible in the afterlife.
To be fair I can't imagine of sex playing role (or existing) in any spiritual afterlife, if there's no procreation going on there. Then again I don't believe in any afterlife at all.

You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about what I consider whoreish behavior. I'm not a prude or anything, but I think bare minimum you should be in a stable relationship before sex is involved. A one night stand is not a relationship stable or otherwise, its mindless, shameless pleasure seeking. The way the media glorifies this doesn't help, you're absolutly right about that.
Why do you say mindless and shameless? It's just pleasure seeking. It's not any more mindless than a lot of things in (your) life and it's not shameless except in some people's and group's warped minds.
I'm pretty surprised that no one has reported your posts and your rants about whores and stuff have remained in this thread, escaping deletion.
The only reason I don't report you is that I believe that nothing should be deleted. The errors of a person should remain there for all to see and scorn said individual for it.

David Argall

2009-01-28, 10:31 PM

One could easily craft a society in the D&D framework that had the moral system of BNW. In doing so, one would clearly have a situation where casual sex is lawful (to the extreme that not having casual sex would be chaotic).
When one says "could" in such a case, one is pretty much acknowledging the reverse is the norm. While casual sex can be lawful under certain conditions, it is normally not.

Clearly, that is not the moral system in which OotS operates. However, no convincing evidence has yet been presented that the moral system in which OotS does operate would place a lawful value on not having casual sex.
"...no convincing evidence..." Again this is the sort of language one uses when there is a definite candidate. It's a "He is guilty, but we lack the evidence to convict" phrase.
And while we may lack convincing evidence, what evidence we have argues for it being chaotic.

Not everyone in the world (or even in this thread), however, shares the same sexual mores. Some moral systems have strong prescripts against pre-marital sex, some do not. Historically, some have even had prescripts against post-marital sex for widows and/or widowers.
Which gives us the same conclusion. The more casual the sex, the less likely it is to be deemed lawful.

By that measure, going out to buy a new, white, long-sleeve shirt would be chaotic if you didn't know at which store you would be buying a specific brand at a specific price. If such an event were placed in a campaign (substitute a rapier for the shirt if you prefer), I doubt it would be called chaotic.
I doubt it would be worth noting, but buying the shirt is indeed chaotic. The proper lawful way would be to be issued the shirt, and ordered to wear it.

there are plenty of places people go with the explicit intent of casual sex. Singles bars are probably the most tame example The only random element is the chance of failure that occurs if none of the people with the set of qualities is interested.
There is also the random elements of choosing a particular bar, a particular time, going at all, ...

However, let us try reversing the question. If we say going to the single's bar is lawful, what is chaotic? Remember, there are supposed to be large numbers of chaotics. We can't say everything good is LG. A lot of good must not be LG, but rather CG. So just what is chaotic sex?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
You have a flaw in your logic. A one-night stand is rather obviously selfish and non-self-sacrificing [even by the logic of the more egotistical males]. So it flat out fails to meet your definition of good. We might call it neutral if it were not morally harmful to the other party, but it does not meet your criteria for good.

So a man giving pleasure to a woman he barely knows (and himself) at no cost is bad?

As noted before, just how often is the man intent on giving pleasure to the woman? Particularly if we disallow giving pleasure for the purpose of getting his own pleasure? The definition of "good" offered said self-sacrificing and that is not what you are doing when you go out cruising. So by the definition offered, it is not good. One can argue the definition is wrong and the action is good, but that rejects the definition, not argues with me.

By your definition then, committed relationships should be a lawful event that do not appear in any endorsed form in chaotic afterlifes.
That is the way to bet, at least in tendency. Now "endorsed" is of itself a distinctly lawful word. It implies some authority figure with the duty of saying yes or no. So the very idea of an endorsed form in chaotic afterlifes is already suspect. But chaotic means unordered, not anti-ordered. So we would assume the committed relationship that would be the norm in lawful afterlives would be present in chaotic as well [just a good deal less common.]

So... a hook-up in a very clearly labeled tavern with creations designed just for the purpose of
Now this is entirely speculation on the board here. We have no evidence the other parties at the inn are any less real than the patrons, or are anything except additional patrons.

While all the roller-coaster-ride fun of the turmoil of emotions and desire when a couple first falls in love in a committed relationship is predictable?
A couple falling in love is a very clearly chaotic situation. How else do you want to describe Lancelot and the Queen? The committed relationship, the marriage, is the lawful element.

Also, frankly, shouldn't all adventurers be chaotic then?
Very likely. Few have any seriously lawful reasons for their behavior.

But again, to repeat. There is a major difference between lawful and chaotic, and there are a lot of both. So how else can you split sex except to put the more casual and temporary cases under chaotic? And the more permanent under lawful?

The Neoclassic

2009-01-28, 10:56 PM

Now this is entirely speculation on the board here. We have no evidence the other parties at the inn are any less real than the patrons, or are anything except additional patrons.

It is, but it seems by far the most sensible way for it to be run. I doubt there's tons of souls of mortals running around in the tavern looking to display their serious and total interest in others.

But again, to repeat. There is a major difference between lawful and chaotic, and there are a lot of both. So how else can you split sex except to put the more casual and temporary cases under chaotic? And the more permanent under lawful?

Predictable, orderly, and society-approved versus nontraditional, unpredictable, and unclear? That seems a fairly rational split to me, and is more flexible than "short-term" versus "long-term." If you are in a roller-coaster of a long-term relationship or one of a sort not approved by society (say a gay one in a heterosexual-biased society), your relationship leans towards chaotic. If it is clear and endorsed by society, such as "We are going to hook up tonight, and it's going to be just a one-time thing because I leave town tomorrow" (in a society where this is not frowned upon) or a traditional, government-approved marriage, it leans towards lawful. I don't see why this split, while less drastic, should be less reasonable. :smallconfused: More importantly, if all acts which leaned one way or the other were forbidden in the afterlifes.... That would be rather ridiculous, not to mention possibly interfering with free will (assuming souls have that to some extent after death).

Ozymandias9

2009-01-29, 03:05 AM

"...no convincing evidence..." Again this is the sort of language one uses when there is a definite candidate. It's a "He is guilty, but we lack the evidence to convict" phrase.
And while we may lack convincing evidence, what evidence we have argues for it being chaotic.

For me, it's the sort of language I use when the argument has not been made to satisfaction, without comment on the acceptance or refutal thereof. Please take it as such.

And, to be clear, my argument isn't that it's lawful, but merely neutral.

As for evidence against it being chaotic, the presence institutionalized one night stand option in LG heaven is itself one example. Another would be that fact that we know that guilt is assigned because the "lawful patrons expect it," not because the action itself is deemed to be worthy of guilt by the structured higher powers of the plane.

Which gives us the same conclusion. The more casual the sex, the less likely it is to be deemed lawful.
I can also cite historical examples if institutionalized prostitution, formal systems for marriage by kidnapping, and structured state-sponsored marriage by lottery. In fact, its only in recent history that such systems became truly rare. (Well, the lottery one is actually, to my knowledge,a single case. But its presented as the most extreme example I could think of.)

I doubt it would be worth noting, but buying the shirt is indeed chaotic. The proper lawful way would be to be issued the shirt, and ordered to wear it.
I never claimed that the pattern of buying the shirt thus would be lawful. I merely implied that it would be non-chaotic. I would place it as neutral. My measure of chaotic for the same analogy would be deciding to go out shopping without plan or need and buying a shirt on a whim without consideration of cost relative to budget.
Actually, that example isn't very chaotic. Getting distracted from an assigned (or self-assigned) task by a shirt in a store window and buying it despite breaking a budget by doing so would be a better example.

However, let us try reversing the question. If we say going to the single's bar is lawful, what is chaotic? Remember, there are supposed to be large numbers of chaotics. We can't say everything good is LG. A lot of good must not be LG, but rather CG. So just what is chaotic sex?
Actually, I'm of the opinion that a majority of it is neutral good. But, apropos your reversed question, I can think of several examples.

Rape is chaotic evil sex (for the most part-- examples like the Rape of the Sabine Women could be taken as lawful evil sex).
Extramarital sex in a formally monogamous marriage is chaotic, and probably evil (though clearly at a lesser point on the G-E spectrum than rape).
Homosexual sex in a society with prescripts against it is chaotic.
Picking up a prostitute because you happen to see one on the street is chaotic sex.
One night stands can be chaotic too if they are, for example, the result of intoxicated indiscretion rather than an active intent to get laid.

But again, to repeat. There is a major difference between lawful and chaotic, and there are a lot of both. So how else can you split sex except to put the more casual and temporary cases under chaotic? And the more permanent under lawful?

What, then, do you leave for the neutral case? I find Queenfange's split a far more reasonable option.

TheSummoner

2009-01-29, 03:27 AM

Finwe

2009-01-29, 03:57 AM

I agree on most of your allignment assessments, but unfortunatly not the one the thread is about...

Rape - Obviously chaotic evil
Cheating on a partner - chaotic evil, the more intimate the relationship the more evil, though nothing compared to rape.
Hiring a prostitute - Either chaotic neutral or chaotic evil depending on the circumstances.
Consentual sex within a relationship - Lawful neutral or lawful good depending on circumstances (out of love would be a good thing, but mere physical pleasure would be more neutral)
One night stands - True neutral at best... that assumes a fairly routine procedure as well as both parties being of sound mind and giving consent. More evil of one party takes advantage of the other being intoxicated/etc and more chaotic if more sporatic. Obviously the degree of chaos or evil would be determined by the individual circumstances.

Going by the way that these actions tend to occur in modern western society, your descriptions are probably pretty close. However, I submit the following counter-examples:

Rape: in an evil society, could be a government sanctioned punishment. Lawful Evil.

Hiring a prostitute: Firstly, this is most definitely a lawful or neutral act in places where it is legally sanctioned. Secondly, if you're in such a society, and you hire a prostitute for a friend with a terminal illness, it could even be considered a lawful good act.

Consensual sex within a relationship: Chaotic, if you've taken a vow of chastity. Probably a neutral action in general, too.

One night stands: take the case of a religious ceremony, wherein the couple spends a night having sex, each dedicated towards helping the other achieve spiritual enlightenment. Probably a good act. In the case of sanctioned prostitution, one-night stands can be lawful on the prostitute's side.

Circumstances, culture, and laws can vary so greatly that I think it's not possible to place an explicit alignment on one-night stands. In the case of two consenting adults randomly meeting in a bar, my personal opinion is that it's neutral, but nearer to chaotic than lawful. It's not really increasing the disorder in the universe enough for it to be chaotic, but it's certainly not lawful.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-29, 05:10 AM

I agree on most of your allignment assessments, but unfortunatly not the one the thread is about...

Rape - Obviously chaotic evil
Cheating on a partner - chaotic evil, the more intimate the relationship the more evil, though nothing compared to rape.
Hiring a prostitute - Either chaotic neutral or chaotic evil depending on the circumstances.
Consentual sex within a relationship - Lawful neutral or lawful good depending on circumstances (out of love would be a good thing, but mere physical pleasure would be more neutral)
One night stands - True neutral at best... that assumes a fairly routine procedure as well as both parties being of sound mind and giving consent. More evil of one party takes advantage of the other being intoxicated/etc and more chaotic if more sporatic. Obviously the degree of chaos or evil would be determined by the individual circumstances.

Hiring a prostitute in a place where prostitution is illegal is clearly chaotic, but there are counter-examples. In classical Greece, the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth housed hundreds of highly respected priestesses who had sex with men for money. Rather than being considered illegal or immoral, partaking of the temple's services was considered a sacred act.

Cheating in a committed relationship is clearly chaotic, but it being evil implies certain assumptions beyond commitment. While betraying a loved one thus would clearly be evil, doing so in a loveless marriage where neither partner really cares after the fact would merely be chaotic neutral. It would be hard to view as evil, for example, Louis XV's relationship with the Madame de Pompadour when Queen Marie Leczinska seemed to accept the situation with little concern other than propriety. Leaving an abusive marriage without divorce and pursuing a healthy relationship would probably be lawful good.

On the one night stand issue, the question of it being evil only comes up if you bring in the aspects of consent and capacity thereto. That moves it to a discussion of rape (non-violent though it may be), which is another, more black and white issue.

On the Law-Chaos front, the regularity wouldn't seem to me to imply any notable weight: it could happen every few days or once every couple of months. It's chaotic value (or at least that facet separate from an active deviation from law) would be viewed as a comment on deviation from your preferred sexual activity. If you did it every few days despite it preventing you from pursuing another form of relationship you would prefer, it would be chaotic. If you did it only semi-regularly as an intentional servicing of your sex drive, it would not.

Weiser_Cain

2009-01-29, 06:42 AM

Rich's fantasy fulfillment.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-29, 07:37 AM

Hiring a prostitute in a place where prostitution is illegal is clearly chaotic, but there are counter-examples. In classical Greece, the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth housed hundreds of highly respected priestesses who had sex with men for money. Rather than being considered illegal or immoral, partaking of the temple's services was considered a sacred act.

This is what I was thinking about (among other things) when I mentioned the Paladin Order that serves a Goddess of Love (other thread, long ago). (Someone else's idea from the beginning, but I have thought about it a lot and if I ever design a D&D game world it will definitely be in there)...
All money earned goes (after basic upkeep) to the poor and sick, you don't have to worry about STDs, everyone's safe etc etc.
(also, compare the D&D gameworld where all Casinos and Gambling is run by a specific Paladin order, to avoid any suspicion of cheating and corruption).

Nimrod's Son

2009-01-29, 09:08 AM

A few people keep saying that the only "lawful good" form of sex is within a committed relationship, but it's worth noting that technically Celia has not seen Roy (other than his corpse) at all since the morning after they first had sex, which in turn happened very shortly after they got to know each other. Not exactly your typical committed relationship, that.

Zbyhnev

2009-01-29, 09:12 AM

From the instant I set my eyes on it, I knew this was bound to be a popular topic :smallamused:

Before giving my point of view, I have taken the liberty of picking the most interesting quotes from the last one or two pages of the discussion, to address some of the more physically painful fallacies, deductive inconsistencies, and even some deliberate attempts at sophistry. I omit the names of their authors to protect their reputations, and not at all due to my unwillingness to look them all up :smallwink:

Also, be warned that this post has grown quite huge. :vaarsuvius:

I'm not a prude or anything (...) A one night stand is not a relationship stable or otherwise, its mindless, shameless pleasure seeking.

Now let's not get the facts mixed up with perceptions and prejudices. A one night stand is pleasure seeking for sure, and that's that.

Explain where that "mindless", much less "shameless" part came from, apart from your own interpretation of the facts themselves. Also, be aware that interpretations invariably vary, and only the act itself really exists.

Sleeping is nice because it allows the body to recover. Food is enjoyable because we need it to sustain us. Sex is very, very enjoyable because it is the single most critical factor for the survival of a species.
None of those things are meant to be indulged simply because they're pleasurable.

One of the things this discussion reveals for sure is mortals' preoccupation with sex, and its very special status. For instance, in the quote above, the opinion seems to be that indulging in vital needs for their own sakes is somehow sinful, against nature, or at the very least, against their original purpose. But why single sex out?

Apply the same standards to everything else listed above, and you will see either the absurdity of this view, or the inherent sinfulness of just about everything people do. I choose the former.
No indulgence for the sake of pleasure?

I bid you eat nothing but bread and drink nothing but water, then, and never partake of this infernal art of cooking, or divinity forbid, brewing. It is sufficient to keep your physical body alive.

I bid you sleep for the 4 or 5 hours a night that your body really, indisputably, positively needs to maintain basic functioning. No lazy sunday mornings in bed for you.

If you refuse the wrongness of a good beef stew, I refuse the wrongness of recreational sex on the same grounds.

Without the possible negative consequences of one night stands present in terrestrial life, there is no difference on Mount Celestia between a friendly game of chess and a week of sodomy. Both are pleasurable and harmless activities two individuals can share together. I would be interested in hearing any counterargument that wouldn't be based on leftover limited earth perspective and the morality of premodern desert nomads.

If anyone should object that the danger of "broken hearts" is still present, I reply that such would be the very own fault of the receiver of such a "broken heart"- implying a level of neediness, selfishness and particularised affection not at home in the celestial realm, where your love should be universal and your longing singlemindedly focused on the divine.

Also, the fact that something is originally intended to be used in some way does not in any way imply that using it in novel ways is somehow wrong.

The mammalian frontal lobes have evolved to calculate ballistic curves of thrown rocks, and keep track of complex monkey social hierarchies. Is using them for the creation of works of art and the building of cities somehow wrong or unnatural? Only by a very self-defeating and frankly quite dimwitted definition.

So based on that, having sex with someone you don't even know when it's meant to be the culmination of an affectionate, trusting relationship just feels... wrong.

And again, we run into the pitfall of "meant to be...". By whom? Where is this written? What god uttered it from amidst a billowing storm cloud laced with tongues of fire?

Remember that in Celestia, sex is comparable in consequence to playing cards or monopoly, except it is a lot more fun.

What is ordered about a one-nighter? At a whim you go to a bar. At another whim[s], you pick up a girl. That is entirely chaotic.

This statements is loaded with assumptions that practically beg for only a single answer. Nevertheless, I shall not grant that plea.

Where did that "whim" part come from? Suppose I go to a bar with the clear, ordered intention of picking up a girl. Suppose I have a clear preference for a particular type, and I act on it. This one night stand rampancy can be an entire ordered, disciplined lifestyle- I don't see a possible contradiction here.
The fact that somebody does something else than you, regularly, doesn't make it somehow irregular. This is much the same line of thought as when members of an advanced culture encounter another, and not understanding their language, suppose they have no speech, because they're just making some weird noises with their mouths that make no sense.

You may find it interesting that the word "barbarian" derives from the greeks' impression of other people just making a "bar bar bar bar" sound instead of properly speaking (that is, speaking greek), making the rough modern day equivalent something like "blahblahian".

The point? An order different from yours is not chaos.

Now that you mention it, changing clothes is chaotic.
Your prime lawful is the army. Everybody wears identical outfits, general to private.

If I were the poster of this quote, I would slowly start worrying about my inability to distinguish different meaning of the same word. The original idea here was that you change your dirty clothes for clean ones. It wasn't an excursion into fashion design.

The soldiers in the above example, of course, change their clothes too. The fact that the new set looks identical to the old set is completely irrelevant. If this act is not chaotic, then obviously, neither is a chain of one night stands of any length.

There are two boxes, one of which contains $10. The other is empty. The default value of either box is $5, even tho we know that neither box has $5 in it.

100% pure undiluted error ©. Either box has a value of 10 and 0 both at once, until we open it. This isn't the same by any stretch.

This depends on the claim. The rule in question here is that you don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive. If you say "There are no elephants in this house.", it is up to me to provide proof that there is one or more present.

A very true utterance. Which would almost, but only almost, conceal the fact that you were indeed the first one making a positive claim here, and upon horrifiedly realizing that there isn't any good supporting evidence, resorted to attempt to shift the burden of proof.

On to the Brave New World:

A with different system B causes problems. Since BNW is a completely different moral system, we have to be rather suspicious of D&D conclusions based on it.

Very true, and had the original post ended here, it would have been a shining spark of understanding.
Unfortunately, it was put out shortly thereafter by this statement:

"But the conclusion here is D&D to judge D&D, and casual sex is rather obviously chaotic by definition."

It saddens the heart to see understanding dawn, only to be swallowed by the night again almost immediately. A single further step was needed:

To realise that just as you can't base moral conclusions about the world of D&D on Huxley's BNW, you also cannot base moral conclusions about D&D on this world we inhabit.

If you cant judge A by B, of course you can't judge it by C either.

A couple falling in love is a very clearly chaotic situation. How else do you want to describe Lancelot and the Queen?

I do think the word "clearly" was used here in the rhetorical sense, that is, as a reinforcer for a claim that is by itself quite wobbly. This is supported by the baffling inclusion of a very, very extreme example (it was worth writing down for 1200 years or so, so its obviously not such a representative example, is it now). I am very skeptical that basing general assumptions on a single extreme example is such a sound and honest inductive method.

Why not look at it this way instead: while the particular ways that some couples fall in love are sometimes chaotic, the fact that human couples in general do and will fall in love is absolutely, entirely and perfectly lawful, to the same degree that gravity and the course of seasons is.

Some quick notes on alignments, and what it means for them to be in balance:

For one, has anyone considered the very real possibility that the powers of alignments don't have to have anything to do with the number of beings subscribing to them? As metaphysical concepts, they are by definition constant.

Further points for consideration:

1) even if the power of adherents was a decisive factor, numbers wouldn't be- two or three lawful evil ancient dragons can easily outweight a million-strong population of jolly chaotic good halflings. This means that due to the presence of immensely powerful beings such as, you know, gods, in your typical D&D world, the numbers of simple people adhering to different alignments are more or less irelevant.

2) if they all need to be of equal strength, the act of killing a single orc would essentially topple the universe. In practice, if a balance of numbers was necessary, nothing could be born or die, because the addition or substraction of a single being would upset the balance.

3) if it is more about an equilibrum than exact equivalence, then-
3a) for an equilibrum, a single lawful good and a single chaotic evil being would suffice. Again, the logistics of mantaining a balance with significant populations and ecosystems would become an issue.
3b) for an equilibrum, all beings being true neutral would suffice. Alternately, with a strong enough population around the alignment center (such as, well, humanity), the more extreme outskirts wouldn't matter much.

From this, it follows that the actual "power balance" of the alignments is most likely (for who on earth can claim certainity in those matters?) metaphysical, and the exact numbers of creatures belonging to them are secondary, if relevant at all.

Let's end where we have started.

The fact that this thread got started, and threads about the debate hall and dungeon didn't, alone gives us a good idea of why the tavern is there in the first place.

It is established in perfectly clear language in the comic that these pasttimes are there to be enjoyed freely, until the souls get tired of them and decide to move on. The theory that it would be a reward for a lifetime of restraint would imply a degree of hypocrisy and schizophrenia I don't see fitting well into anything even remotely lawful good, and the notion of it being a test goes against the explicit meaning in the comic, not to mention expecting a lot more douchebaggery and guile in heaven than what would be pious. How this discussion even managed to reach six pages is beyond my comprehension, but it speaks volumes about people's refusal to see a clear meaning whenever it goes against their own preconceptions, and the meaning they would like to see there instead. The interesting part is how this even happens with two or three perfectly transparent and unequivocal sentences in a webcomic. Small wonder humanity so often throws its reason down the outhouse when it comes to, you know, actual real world religious and philosophical works.

This only became a topic because sexuality is a huge deal for everybody. It is not, however, so for the archons and other natives of the celestial plane- for them, human sexuality is no more prominent or noteworthy an inclination than somebody's hobby of making model boats. Ascribing to it any higher status and being offended at its presence in heaven is the same fallacy that plagues prudes in the real world- the assumption that their mortal mindsets and abritrary moralities based for the most part on the accidental circumstances of their physical existence and worse, the physical existences of hallucinating sunburnt desert prophets, are somehow representative of the universe as a whole. Bovine excrementum.

The archons aren't making a big deal out of it, because unlike repressed prudes, the archons see things in due perspective.

Also, they see that a base urge acted upon to the point boredom is simply gone, whereas a base urge repressed simply transforms into a host of monstrous "I missed out" style neuroses. And since you want purified souls rather than bitter bastards further up the mountain (unlike real world religious institutions), the first level is there.

Heaven is wise.

Nimrod's Son

2009-01-29, 09:31 AM

I very nearly dismissed Zbyhnev's post above as TL:DR, but I'm glad I didn't, as it's one of the better posts I've read on any forum full stop. It's beautifully written and makes a host of excellent points.

Also, the phrase "a week of sodomy" has amused me no end. There should be a band called that.

Zbyhnev

2009-01-29, 09:42 AM

Thanks :smallredface:

Also, apologies for the perhaps excessive verbosity.

hamishspence

2009-01-29, 10:47 AM

it may be verbose, but is split up well, not too much text in a block at once, not too many quotes.

I'm inclined to agree with it in general, and would point out- when one wishes to assess D&D morals, one should look at the sources.

There is a slight bias toward chaos (the deities of pleasure- Sharess, Sune, Lastai, are mostly chaotic) but a strong bias toward Good (one of the deities is in BoED, one has an Exalted prestige class in Player's Guide to Faerun)

BoED points out "there is nothing inherently evil about sexuality" and goes into some depth on how it is only exploitative or coersive realtionships that are evil.

definition of exploitative is not detailed, but it suggests that intimacy with prostitutes, slaves or children, or any without the power to enter the relationship freely, counts.

Inyssius Tor

2009-01-29, 11:15 AM

Thanks :smallredface:

Also, apologies for the perhaps excessive verbosity.

I wish I could match your sheer brilliance enough so that my compliment of your post would be eloquent enough to be worthy of being applied to said post. Unfortunately, I'm just not a good enough writer to do that.

I think you'll go far here.

TheSummoner

2009-01-29, 12:33 PM

Mindless and shameless came from my own views and opinions, just as most of what was said in this thread came from the views and opinions of the posters.

A few people keep saying that the only "lawful good" form of sex is within a committed relationship, but it's worth noting that technically Celia has not seen Roy (other than his corpse) at all since the morning after they first had sex, which in turn happened very shortly after they got to know each other. Not exactly your typical committed relationship, that.

And as we all know, Roy has a chaotic streak despite his overall Lawful Good allignment. Jumping into a relationship with someone he barely knows has ended up with him being in a relationship with the fictional offspring of Gandhi and Miko. I'm kinda curious if Roy's opinion of Celia will change due to all the trouble shes made for Haley...

Roy is human, hes not immune to temptation and hes not bound to follow his allignment with every action he takes. Celestia on the other hand is a plane of pure law and pure good. As said before, sex is a basic human desire (I won't call it a need because though procreation is necessary for a species to survive, no one has ever died from lack of sex so it isn't necessary on an individual basis). Theres no reason someone whose indulged in chaotic acts (such as a one night stand) shouldn't be allowed in Celestia so long as their overall allignment remains lawful good, but in a plane of pure law, there should be a better way to satisfy basic needs or desires without resorting to chaotic methods.

Optimystik

2009-01-29, 12:46 PM

This only became a topic because sexuality is a huge deal for everybody. It is not, however, so for the archons and other natives of the celestial plane- for them, human sexuality is no more prominent or noteworthy an inclination than somebody's hobby of making model boats. Ascribing to it any higher status and being offended at its presence in heaven is the same fallacy that plagues prudes in the real world- the assumption that their mortal mindsets and abritrary moralities based for the most part on the accidental circumstances of their physical existence and worse, the physical existences of hallucinating sunburnt desert prophets, are somehow representative of the universe as a whole. Bovine excrementum.

The archons aren't making a big deal out of it, because unlike repressed prudes, the archons see things in due perspective.

Also, they see that a base urge acted upon to the point boredom is simply gone, whereas a base urge repressed simply transforms into a host of monstrous "I missed out" style neuroses. And since you want purified souls rather than bitter bastards further up the mountain (unlike real world religious institutions), the first level is there.

Heaven is wise.

I posted this exact same argument (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5691603&postcount=69) 3 pages back. I should have made it longer so the flamers would have seen it.

But since you agree with me, I'll let it slide :smallwink:

Island Gorilla

2009-01-29, 12:49 PM

To Simanos - Have you considered that maybe no one reported my posts because even if they disagree with my views they realize I have as much right to discuss it as they do? Perhaps my rants have "escaped deletion" because I make a fairly valid point on my viewpoint? Why are my posts errors? Am I wrong simply because I disagree with you? Who are you to make that descision? Fact of the matter is my posts CAN'T be errors because they're OPINIONS.

It's not your views that are offensive, champ, it's the way you express them. Are you feigning ignorance of the fact, or is it sheer bloody-mindedness?

As said before, sex is a basic human desire (I won't call it a need because though procreation is necessary for a species to survive, no one has ever died from lack of sex so it isn't necessary on an individual basis).

It is however a basic genetic imperative. One can argue that abstaining and ignoring one's imperatives is sending a big 'up yours' to natural law. Chaotic, n'est pas?

TheSummoner

2009-01-29, 01:31 PM

It's not your views that are offensive, champ, it's the way you express them. Are you feigning ignorance of the fact, or is it sheer bloody-mindedness?

It is however a basic genetic imperative. One can argue that abstaining and ignoring one's imperatives is sending a big 'up yours' to natural law. Chaotic, n'est pas?

I'd call it the fact that I call it as I see it and I really don't care if I offend someone. I never directly insulted anyone and if they take offence to my words, they're the one associating themselves with my contempt for certain actions or choices. As I see it, one night stands are an offensive and distasteful thing. I'm not going to sugarcoat my views.

I don't play, but I've heard talk of something some paladins do called a vow of chastity... It might just be my ignorance of the game, but don't paladins have to be lawful good? ^_^. It was a simple aside that on an individual basis, sex isn't required for survival, even if on the larger scale it is, not worth putting too much thought into, but whatever.

Lissou

2009-01-29, 01:36 PM

It is however a basic genetic imperative. One can argue that abstaining and ignoring one's imperatives is sending a big 'up yours' to natural law. Chaotic, n'est pas?

It's "n'est-ce pas".
Yes, I quoted you only for that. Sorry.

Nobody has died from lack of sex, perhaps, but lack of sex has been linked with depression, and depression has been linked with suicide. Very, very roundabout, but still.
I'd like to point out that I am not saying not having sex causes depression in 100% of cases, or that having sex with suddenly cure your depression in 100% of cases. But you know, that comment made me think about it.

Anyway, now that I'm writing in this thread, I might as well point out my opinion.

First, chaotic people and lawful people can have consensual sex together. If chaotic people could only have one-night-stands and lawful people could only have committed relationships, I fail to see how it could be possible.

Committed relationships are possible for chaotic individuals. Take Elan and Haley. They're committed to each other. They wouldn't cheat on each other, because that would hurt each other, and therefore not be good, which they are.
However, they might not get married, for instance. Marriage is a legal contract, after all, and a chaotic couple might not feel the need for it. Or they might do it anyway. It's not like the absolutely can't.

Following the same logic, if a chaotic person can have a committed relationship, why couldn't a lawful person have a one night-stand? The good person will make sure everything is clear and nobody gets hurt, while the evil person might not care that much.
A clearly labeled one night stand actually seems rather lawful to me. I mean, a chaotic person would be more likely to have sex without knowing if it's going to be a one-night stand or a lifetime relationship. I really don't know how anyone can tell the difference before it even happen.

And finally, to directly answer the OP...
It is the afterlife, which is infinite. As a result, anything it offers is unlimited.
So, you're really asking why it would offer one night stands and alcohol at all.
And I'm wondering why, even if one-night stands were chaotic, lawful people wouldn't be allowed to have even a single one in all eternity.
Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to go there. Just because you go once and it's unlimited doesn't mean you have to ever go again.

If the people don't have an interest for it, then they won't go there. And once it a while, someone will give it a try. That is, of course, if it really was chaotic. I personally don't think sex has an alignment, no more than love.
Saying sex in a committed relationship is lawful good is saying that Elan and Haley making love is lawful, and Redcloak with a wife, if he had one and they were strongly in love, would be good.

Evil people have friendships, love, devotion. Chaotic and lawful both can experience love. As a result, they can both have sex combined with love. And if they can have that, I don't see why they couldn't both have sex without love, or love without sex as well. Love and desire don't listen to alignments. They are not rational. They don't follow dice rolls.

I hope the lawful good afterlife has nice restaurants that serve good food. And since dead people don't need to eat, and good food even less, it's really the same as an inn of one-night stands.

Oh, and finally... I do think the people in the inn aren't real. Just like I don't think the people you convince in the debate hall are real, or the monsters you kill. It really wouldn't be good if you just killed random innocent monsters for the sake of challenge. But fighting against nobody? I don't see a problem with that. It's like playing videogames.

Island Gorilla

2009-01-29, 02:45 PM

I'd call it the fact that I call it as I see it and I really don't care if I offend someone.

So it *is* bloody-mindedness. Fair enough, just curious.

I don't play, but I've heard talk of something some paladins do called a vow of chastity... It might just be my ignorance of the game, but don't paladins have to be lawful good? ^_^.

I'm unfamiliar with that part of paladin lore. (Given that paladins are yucky and boring and who'd want to play a paladin moar like dorkful good amirite...) Regardless, it's supremely irrelevant to the discussion. Sexual abstinence isn't a good act any more than abstaining from eating carrots is. They're both morally neutral. It's arguable that they're lawful acts, seeing as you're moderating your behaviour according to a code of conduct you subscribe to. But that doesn't make *not* signing up to the no-carrot club chaotic.

It's "n'est-ce pas".
Yes, I quoted you only for that. Sorry.

Merde. -_-; Ma française n'est pas forte aujourd'hui. Schoolboy error. :smallwink:

Also, Zbyhnev: I lol'd. Good show sir, good show.

Carnivorous_Bea

2009-01-29, 03:20 PM

It sure does seem mighty weird that lawful people would become advocates of "free love" after they croak. You'd think that marital fidelity and all that would be the order of the day, and not some kind of "Infinite Whorehouse." :smalleek:

In fact, since I'm a monogamous person who drinks only very little, I'd have to say that an afterlife that offered promiscuous sex and boozing as its main attractions to be pretty useless .... :smallconfused:

Edna

2009-01-29, 03:22 PM

I don't have a reference handy, but I believe that in the context of D&D, "lawful" means adhering to a moral code of some sort. Not necessarily an early-twenty-first-century-American moral code.

People in the real world can't even agree on what's moral and what's not in regards to sex (polygamy is the norm in some countries, and in others it's perfectly legal to marry off ten-year-old girls), so how can any of us judge what's lawful and what isn't in a fantasy world?

Edna

Kish

2009-01-29, 04:23 PM

In fact, since I'm a monogamous person who drinks only very little, I'd have to say that an afterlife that offered promiscuous sex and boozing as its main attractions to be pretty useless .... :smallconfused:
And so, if you went to the Lawful Good afterlife in OotS, your Archon would presumably not highlight the Tavern of Infinite One Night Stands for you.

Unless you're an adventurer, it would probably also give the dungeon with the challenging monsters a miss.

hamishspence

2009-01-29, 04:29 PM

on the subject of paladins and abstinence, it depends on the setting. The two paladins in War & XPs hadn't been in a relationship long (minutes at most) and they were making out enthusiastically. Miko pointe out that she would not be averse to starting a relationship with Roy if approached right. Lien admitted to being definitely not a virgin.

The only evidence of intimacy outside of marriage being a bit iffy was the suggestion that Hinjo might be a bit disappointed. And that could just be Hinjo.

Optimystik

2009-01-29, 07:20 PM

In fact, since I'm a monogamous person who drinks only very little, I'd have to say that an afterlife that offered promiscuous sex and boozing as its main attractions to be pretty useless .... :smallconfused:

You missed the point completely... the "main attraction" is at the TOP of the mountain. The tavern and other stuff on level 1 are distractions, nothing more.

TheSummoner

2009-01-29, 07:54 PM

Lawful people are capable of chaotic acts. Chaotic people are capable of lawful acts. The defining factor of their allignment is what they tend to do more. Yes, it is completly possible for a chaotic person to be in a comitted relationship (fine comic example of Elan and Haley, both of which are chaotic good), but that doesn't change the nature of the act. Using the same example, the Elan/Haley relationship is quite lawful... both are loyal to eachother, neither cheats on the other, they certainly had time to get to know eachother before doing anything... but both are still chaotic because the majority of their acts have chaotic intentions or results.

By that same logic, a mostly lawful person, eg someone capable of getting into a lawful afterlife like celestia might take some chaotic actions during their lives, such as having a one night stand. However, as I've said before, Celestia is pure law and good.

MickJay

2009-01-29, 07:56 PM

You'd think that marital fidelity and all that would be the order of the day

Most marital oaths do tend to include that little clause "until death do us part" :smallwink:

David Argall

2009-01-29, 11:04 PM

Predictable, orderly, and society-approved versus nontraditional, unpredictable, and unclear?
And how does our casual sex qualify as predictable or orderly? You go, or don't go, at your whim, and you pick up random female there.
Now you seem to have the idea that since it is a regular business, it is ok, but such a business should not appear in the first place if its product was not acceptable.

If you are in a roller-coaster of a long-term relationship or one of a sort not approved by society, your relationship leans towards chaotic. If it is clear and endorsed by society, such as "We are going to hook up tonight, and it's going to be just a one-time thing because I leave town tomorrow" (in a society where this is not frowned upon) or a traditional, government-approved marriage, it leans towards lawful. I don't see why this split, while less drastic, should be less reasonable.
To start with, because it is less drastic. The outside observer has more trouble deciding if it is lawful or chaotic. The judge and the jury, not to mention police and public, need clear standards to enforce. When we start talking about these less drastic standards, we come to "I will just do as I please because nobody can really tell if I am sinning or not, unless I anger somebody powerful who will use the gray area to ruin me for innocent actions."
Lawful is firm, definite, permanent. Chaotic is change. Much of what you are talking about is a mix of chaotic and lawful.

if all acts which leaned one way or the other were forbidden in the afterlifes.... That would be rather ridiculous, not to mention possibly interfering with free will
"Free", by its very nature, is a chaotic term. The lawful deem it a sin. You have a duty to do something, or not to do it. There is no choice involved.
As to the basic point, our alignments here are opposites. So yes there is a distinct tendency for what is unacceptable in one to be rejected in others. We can't expect a 100-0 split, but that is the tendency.

As for evidence against it being chaotic, the presence institutionalized one night stand option in LG heaven is itself one example.
An invalid one. The basic objection is that it should not be there. Saying it is there is not grounds for saying it should be there.

we know that guilt is assigned because the "lawful patrons expect it," not because the action itself is deemed to be worthy of guilt by the structured higher powers of the plane.
The not because is not valid here. The listing of one reason, in this case what the LG souls expect, does not preclude the existence of additional reasons. The one listed is merely sufficient for the purpose of the conversation.
Here too, the LG soul and the LG heaven are deemed to be in accord. So what the soul wants is heavily what the powers of the plane want as well.

My measure of chaotic for the same analogy would be deciding to go out shopping without plan or need and buying a shirt on a whim without consideration of cost relative to budget.
Actually, that example isn't very chaotic. Getting distracted from an assigned (or self-assigned) task by a shirt in a store window and buying it despite breaking a budget by doing so would be a better example.
A better example of showing bias, yes. But rather clearly, chaotic does not mean destructive in the game. The example is of course chaotic, but then we have to describe lawful as buying the planned shirt despite a better one being on sale for a lower price.

* Picking up a prostitute because you happen to see one on the street is chaotic sex.
* One night stands can be chaotic too if they are, for example, the result of intoxicated indiscretion rather than an active intent to get laid.
Now here you are saying that yes, these are chaotic, but they are not Chaotic. Already, this makes it questionable whether they should be in a LG heaven.
If we say, like these two standards, that it's not chaotic unless it is entirely unplanned, we then have to say it is not lawful unless it is entirely planned and scripted from the start. You would not have a bar of one night stands, you would have a service center where you are required to go and are issued a girl, along with a set of instructions, to be followed in full.
These standards are clearly too strict, and so we have to allow more flex to them, which moves that prostitute and one night stand into chaotic.
Again, we note the issue of enforcement. I just happened to see a prostitute? I just happened to be driving thru the wrong section of town where I had no business? That sort of standard makes it just about impossible for the DM to say "you have been doing chaotic deeds and must atone."

What, then, do you leave for the neutral case?
Quite possibly some of both lawful and chaotic.

If you refuse the wrongness of a good beef stew, I refuse the wrongness of recreational sex on the same grounds.
The parallel is not precise. The beef stew is of definite benefit. [While the veggie nuts insist one can survive without meat, this is an act of considerable difficulty in any world where food is not in oversupply. When mankind switched to agriculture, the average heath of humans went way down.] By the very act of limiting the claim to recreational sex, we are talking about a lack of benefit.
Now we should note here there is the well known sin of gluttony, which does condemn certain kinds of eating. So we do expect there to be acceptable and unacceptable forms of both eating and sex.

Without the possible negative consequences of one night stands present in terrestrial life, there is no difference on Mount Celestia between a friendly game of chess and a week of sodomy. I would be interested in hearing any counterargument that wouldn't be based on leftover limited earth perspective
But the whole of this heaven is heavily based on leftover limited earth perspective. So arguments based on that can not be rejected on that basis.
Our LG people would arrive with a massive bias against a variety of sexual practices, including one-night stands, and their heaven would reflect that bias.

and the morality of premodern desert nomads.
Moralists have been urban for several thousand years now.

If anyone should object that the danger of "broken hearts" is still present, I reply that such would be the very own fault of the receiver of such a "broken heart"- implying a level of neediness, selfishness and particularised affection not at home in the celestial realm, where your love should be universal and your longing singlemindedly focused on the divine.
This argument proves entirely too much. It makes all sorts of sex sinful, no exceptions.

Also, the fact that something is originally intended to be used in some way does not in any way imply that using it in novel ways is somehow wrong.
We are talking lawful here. That means that there is a suspicion against change of any sort. So these novel ways are guilty until proven innocent.

Where did that "whim" part come from? Suppose I go to a bar with the clear, ordered intention of picking up a girl. Suppose I have a clear preference for a particular type, and I act on it.
Suppose...suppose... This is simply trying to make the exception the rule. One is saying "Well, it's only a sin 99% of the time. There are these rare exceptions..." We don't make law [good law anyway] based on these rare exceptions.

The fact that somebody does something else than you, regularly, doesn't make it somehow irregular.
Yet where do we actually see this regularity? It is claimed around here a fair amount, but there is none of it in the comic. No requirement the patron have any sort of schedule, regular or not, no limit on what sort of girl[s] you can try to pick up...
The very name argues against any regularity.

The original idea here was that you change your dirty clothes for clean ones. It wasn't an excursion into fashion design.
There is no reference to dirty in the original statement. Rather it is a general statement about changing clothes, which can be for matters of fashion or cleanliness or other reasons. Since one of these reasons is distinctly chaotic, the basic claim becomes defective.

100% pure undiluted error ©. Either box has a value of 10 and 0 both at once, until we open it. This isn't the same by any stretch.
If you wish to think it so, but if I offer you $4 for one of the boxes, you are distinctly likely to decline, and to accept when I offer $6, the same as if you knew each box had $5 in it. [Of course, if $4 means you eat tonight, you might consider this superior to a 50-50 chance of eating well, or if Big Tony is going to beat you up if you don't pay him a full $10, you might make a different decision, but our base case remains that you treat those boxes as if they each had $5 in them, even tho you know neither does.]

A very true utterance. Which would almost, but only almost, conceal the fact that you were indeed the first one making a positive claim here, and upon horrifiedly realizing that there isn't any good supporting evidence, resorted to attempt to shift the burden of proof.
"All cases are equal" has the same meaning as "No case is larger than another". Both are refuted by "Case A is larger than case B." So no, yours is the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof.

To realise that just as you can't base moral conclusions about the world of D&D on Huxley's BNW, you also cannot base moral conclusions about D&D on this world we inhabit.

If you cant judge A by B, of course you can't judge it by C either.
Does not follow. C is untyped here. It has no known relationship to B and so may be very good or very bad at judging A.
In the case at hand, C would be the real world and both A & B are variants thereof. C is thus used to judge both A & B, but since both A & B are changed from C in different ways, trying to judge A by B or B by A is a much more difficult task with much greater chance of error.

the baffling inclusion of a very, very extreme example (it was worth writing down for 1200 years or so, so its obviously not such a representative example, is it now). I am very skeptical that basing general assumptions on a single extreme example is such a sound and honest inductive method.
It has not even been 850 years yet. And it is a rather representative example of the view of the time. Marriage was a political or business partnership, not a love match. So when your partner or you got the hots for somebody else, the partnership was in terrible danger. Love was very much a chaotic force that can break up the lawful partnership. It often still is.

while the particular ways that some couples fall in love are sometimes chaotic, the fact that human couples in general do and will fall in love is absolutely, entirely and perfectly lawful, to the same degree that gravity and the course of seasons is.
Now you are already acknowledging chaotic elements, so let's look some more. Which is chaotic? "I love her, I hate her, I can't stand her, I can't stand to be away from her?", or "I am her friend, I am her friend, I am her friend...."
Intense emotion of any type is routinely classified as chaotic. With good reason. We rarely can maintain that intensity and so we are changing our mind

For one, has anyone considered the very real possibility that the powers of alignments don't have to have anything to do with the number of beings subscribing to them? As metaphysical concepts, they are by definition constant.
Of course, but we have seen no reason that this is correct.

D&D is strongly influenced by Jack Vance and his idea that Law & Chaos are at permanent war. While there may be overall balance, there is substantial flux at any given location or time.

Further points for consideration:

1) even if the power of adherents was a decisive factor, numbers wouldn't be- due to the presence of immensely powerful beings such as, you know, gods, in your typical D&D world, the numbers of simple people adhering to different alignments are more or less irelevant.
The individual person would be pretty much irrelevant. The total is another story. [As I recall, there is a greater mass of ants than humans.] So there is no particular reason to deem the power of the great are of overwhelming importance. Nor is there reason to assume any sort of imbalance among the powerful.

2) if they all need to be of equal strength, the act of killing a single orc would essentially topple the universe. In practice, if a balance of numbers was necessary, nothing could be born or die, because the addition or substraction of a single being would upset the balance.
You are assuming an absurdly delicate balance. But we routinely use the term "balance of nature", which routinely features deaths of large numbers. So we have to reject this idea.

3) if it is more about an equilibrum than exact equivalence, then-
3a) for an equilibrum, a single lawful good and a single chaotic evil being would suffice. Again, the logistics of mantaining a balance with significant populations and ecosystems would become an issue.
Not really. Even a small neutral force dedicated to preserving the balance can successfully do so. [Diplomacy is a seven-player game, but it can be played as a 3-player game, where 2 players get to run 3 countries instead of just one. Despite this, the player of 1 country often wins because it can play with the balance.]

3b) for an equilibrum, all beings being true neutral would suffice. Alternately, with a strong enough population around the alignment center (such as, well, humanity), the more extreme outskirts wouldn't matter much.
Irrelevant for our purposes. We could have 20% in each corner and the rest scattered, or 5% in each corner and the rest much larger, and we still have the same result for our purposes. There are the same number of lawful and chaotic, and we must assign a lot of behaviors to each.

From this, it follows that the actual "power balance" of the alignments is most likely (for who on earth can claim certainity in those matters?) metaphysical, and the exact numbers of creatures belonging to them are secondary, if relevant at all.
And you still have no evidence that disturbs our initial point. We still have no reason not to deem the alignments equal, and thus that we need to assign a lot of types of behavior to being chaotic.

It is established in perfectly clear language in the comic that these pasttimes are there to be enjoyed freely, until the souls get tired of them and decide to move on.
Which misses the point. The question is why these particular things are being offered if the LG considers them sins in the first place.
Every so often our writer gets the wrong number on the page. We accept that is his error, not a different numbering system. So with casual sex in heaven, has he made another error? Or does it belong there?

The theory that it would be a reward for a lifetime of restraint would imply a degree of hypocrisy and schizophrenia I don't see fitting well into anything even remotely lawful good,...

they see that a base urge acted upon to the point boredom is simply gone, whereas a base urge repressed simply transforms into a host of monstrous "I missed out" style neuroses. And since you want purified souls rather than bitter bastards further up the mountain the first level is there.
There is a degree of contradiction here. We are still saying what was sinful is now fine. In the first case, you reject the idea. In the 2nd, you accept it. You can plea the contradiction is not absolute, but it still requires some tricky reasoning.
And of course, much of the theory presented is speculation based on little or nothing.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-29, 11:37 PM

David Argall, your sense of a LG afterlife seems to have no room for any lesser pleasures or recreation. While that may be the ultimate of LG, at the top of the mountain, the archon seems to be saying that the lower levels are for more earthly/petty things, which will almost invariably contain touches of chaos (and neutrality, on the good-evil axis).

And how does our casual sex qualify as predictable or orderly?

You walk into a tavern knowing you will get a person whom you find attractice and is intensely interested in you in the case of the tavern. That is very predictable.

You go, or don't go, at your whim, and you pick up random female there.

Or man, I'd like to add. And random... Any person or event you happen to encounter in the plane has some element of randomness, unless all souls know exactly whom they will meet and what will happen when? Also, the "Go or don't go" could apply to ANY place on the plane. You go or don't go to the top of the mountain; all souls will end up their eventually, but their exact timing and process does not seem to be known (at least, there was no indication of such), which is an element of randomness.

Lawful is firm, definite, permanent. Chaotic is change. Much of what you are talking about is a mix of chaotic and lawful.

Everything involves some level of change. If the LG afterlife was therefore purged of all chaos, it would be unchanging. :smallconfused:

"Free", by its very nature, is a chaotic term.

As Roy clearly gets some level of choice (free reign on what to do) in the LG afterlife, this looks to suggest that there is in fact this "chaotic concept" of freedom in the LG afterlife.

The lawful deem it a sin. You have a duty to do something, or not to do it. There is no choice involved.

You have a duty to prefer red over blue? They have no choices? Even if you are referring to sex, there is still no clear D&D-based reasoning as to why in the universal cosmological D&D force that is law, all sex outside of our current society's definition of religious marriage must be deemed "sinful."

We can't expect a 100-0 split, but that is the tendency.

However, you seem to be advocating a 100-0 split, or something close to it, considering how much you keep saying "That argument involves something related to chaos and so is not valid."

Now we should note here there is the well known sin of gluttony, which does condemn certain kinds of eating. So we do expect there to be acceptable and unacceptable forms of both eating and sex.

Nowhere does D&D (at least in the core rules) say that enjoying things is inherently wrong. Certain types of eating or sex are bad because of the consequences. The acceptability you have here is not only based on a real-world religious interpretation, but also on applying mortal standards to heavenly acts which lack the same consequences. Acceptable and unacceptable (which are terms that suggest good and evil, by the way, hence me going to that rather than chaos or law for this segment of the argument) are based on the principle of harm. If anyone can find me something in D&D that involves an evil where no harm is inflicted upon others directly or indirectly, let me know. However, since eating tons of fatty food or hooking up with people has no consequences and will not hurt yourself or others in the afterlife, it does not harm anyone. Therefore, it should not be deemed "unacceptable."

But the whole of this heaven is heavily based on leftover limited earth perspective. So arguments based on that can not be rejected on that basis.

Which is why many people still feel guilty about it (a leftover earth feeling), and the archons seem to be letting people work their way out of it. Just because the archons acknowledge that people are used to leftover earthly standards and help people work them out of their systems doesn't mean that they ignore the differences in consequences on earth versus in Celestia.

Our LG people would arrive with a massive bias against a variety of sexual practices, including one-night stands, and their heaven would reflect that bias.

I thought that mortal law and good were a reflection of the cosmological forces, rather than vice versa? Again, their heaven reflects that leftover biased based on earthly consequences, but it would be illogical for their heaven to be structured on a morality system that is identical in rules but very different in effect. The letter of the law remains, but the spirit of it has died, as many of these remaining taboos would have no purpose (they would not prevent harm to any creature). Being lawful isn't just about following it to the letter, but going with the ideas behind it. Earthly laws and mores are also imperfect; they reflect the cosmological force of law through a mortal, slightly flawed, cultural, and earthly-consequence-driven take.

Love was very much a chaotic force that can break up the lawful partnership. It often still is.

So, love should not exist in the lawful good afterlife? Or only in the sense of love for the divine, since other forms are unpredictable to at least a small degree?

Intense emotion of any type is routinely classified as chaotic. With good reason. We rarely can maintain that intensity and so we are changing our mind.

No intense emotion either? So, Roy shouldn't have gotten anything more than mildly annoyed when the evil adventurers popped into his family's house in the LG afterlife?

Fitzclowningham

2009-01-29, 11:49 PM

Because in the D&D milieu. booze is valuable and good, and because they're lawful good, not Catholic. Sex is Good. You just have to follow the rules, which are less restrictive than what we demand of our public officials.

TheSummoner

2009-01-29, 11:55 PM

What makes booze valuable and good? People enjoy it, they use it to satisfy a need to drink something for survival... seems pretty neutral in itself, but easily crossing the boarder into chaotic when one becomes intoxicated. Why is sex good? Because it feels good? Because procreation is necessary for a species to survive? Once again, incredibly neutral in itself.

People have a bad habit of thinking good and not evil are one in the same...

Da'Shain

2009-01-30, 12:32 AM

People also have a bad habit of thinking not lawful and chaotic are one and the same.

Avilan the Grey

2009-01-30, 04:46 AM

I don't have a reference handy, but I believe that in the context of D&D, "lawful" means adhering to a moral code of some sort. Not necessarily an early-twenty-first-century-American moral code.

QFT.

On top of that, "Good" does not mean that you have to follow an early-twenty-first-century-American moral code either. Easiest example (although of a Chaotic Good) is Robin Hood, who steals (which is clearly against early-twenty-first-century-American moral code but is very Good.

Lissou

2009-01-30, 06:17 AM

The only evidence of intimacy outside of marriage being a bit iffy was the suggestion that Hinjo might be a bit disappointed. And that could just be Hinjo.

AND it could be a pregnancy thing.
I mean, I've known people who have absolutely nothing against sex before marriage, but still think pregnancy should only happen in a marriage. It's possible that a paladin with a strong code would think that a baby should be raised by married parents, and being pregnant before being married would violate that code.

The reasoning behind that would probably be along the lines of "it's your responsibility to make sure you don't get pregnant before you are able to properly care for a child" with "being married" as one of the requirement for "being able to properly care for a child" in this case.

As a result, that whole think may or may not have anything to do with having sex in the first place. After all, Hinjo obviously respects Lien greatly, and yet she is unmarried and not a virgin (and doesn't seem to hide that or be ashamed of it in any way).

And it could also be that Daigo and Kazumi are a bit paranoid about what paladins might agree or disagree with, or that Rich just wanted to make the joke.

Milandros

2009-01-30, 07:01 AM

Sex in itself is a neutral, if pleasureable, act. Or perhaps "unaligned" would be better - it is the reason and motivations that give an alignment to otherwise natural actions such as eating, sleeping, sex, etc. Thus a loving couple sharing intimacy is a good action, regardless of any specific actual sexual activity, and forcible domination and degredation is evil, whether or not forced sex is used in the process.

As for the "multiple partners is chaotic" argument, there might be some small point there - but only if you also consider having something different to eat each night for dinner as chaotic, too. Or listening to lots of different pieces of music. Each is an enjoyment of diversity in a sensual experience.

I don't think it's worth trying to put an alignment on everything. Standing up should not be subject to alignment debates, nor should going to the toilet, nor sex.

One last point to remember: This is the tavern of one-night stands in Celestia. Everyone you might meet there is a decent, honourable person. They're all good people who will try not to hurt you and be honest with you. You might not like all of them, but knowing with absolute certainty that the guy/girl you're talking to is decent , honourable and good has to make things a lot, lot nicer.

Simanos

2009-01-30, 10:14 AM

As noted before, just how often is the man intent on giving pleasure to the woman? Particularly if we disallow giving pleasure for the purpose of getting his own pleasure? The definition of "good" offered said self-sacrificing and that is not what you are doing when you go out cruising. So by the definition offered, it is not good. One can argue the definition is wrong and the action is good, but that rejects the definition, not argues with me.
Since this is the good afterlife and good people have the intention of doing good stuff to each other I would say very often (always). Both parties want to give and receive pleasure. And it doesn't have to be woman and man. It can be 2 women or 2 men, or any combination, transgender people, more than 2, etc.
Your argument fails again.
You're just letting your own prejudices about sex in the real world affect you. The real world is more complex than your sexist simplifications.

To Simanos - Have you considered that maybe no one reported my posts because even if they disagree with my views they realize I have as much right to discuss it as they do? Perhaps my rants have "escaped deletion" because I make a fairly valid point on my viewpoint? Why are my posts errors? Am I wrong simply because I disagree with you? Who are you to make that descision? Fact of the matter is my posts CAN'T be errors because they're OPINIONS.
Clearly the problem is not only your view, but the way you choose to express it. I will say no more, because maybe it's a handicap of your ability to judge your own shortcomings.
You do not make a fairly valid point. I trashed your argument. You did not counter my points in post #149.

What makes booze valuable and good? People enjoy it, they use it to satisfy a need to drink something for survival... seems pretty neutral in itself, but easily crossing the boarder into chaotic when one becomes intoxicated. Why is sex good? Because it feels good? Because procreation is necessary for a species to survive? Once again, incredibly neutral in itself.

People have a bad habit of thinking good and not evil are one in the same...
People have a bad habit of thinking evil and not good are one in the same...
And more than that. Sharing pleasure with another person for free IS good. Just because you treat sex as a weapon and you are incapable of true intimacy with your woman doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. Why is sex good? Why is sex bad? It's just a pleasure like a massage. Is a massage bad? Remember we're not talking about money transactions here. We're talking about 2 consensual adults sharing (giving and receiving) pleasure for free (with no drawbacks in this case of heaven too).
Maybe that's incredibly neutral to you. But that's a selfish opinion and nothing more.

Edanor

2009-01-30, 10:55 AM

This thread is quite interesting, but I don't belive I've seen one very important point brought up: The afterlife is shaped upon beliefs. The archon himself says that belief plays an extremely important role. Roy believed in life that sex, fighting, being right, ecetera, were all enjoyable things. Now, considering that belief has been shown to be important enough to shape real, (meta)physical things like bodies, and objects, it seems foolish to suggest that the afterlife wouldn't work like that. Roy's Archon suggests that an individuals desires and wants are taken into a rather large consideration in the afterlife. Others would most likely have different values; Hayley might have the Bank of Just Challenging Breakins, or something of the sort.

In Short, if you want sex, you'll clearly get sex. If you don't expect sex in the afterlife, then you'll get something else.

hamishspence

2009-01-30, 11:02 AM

Scarlet Knight

2009-01-30, 11:14 AM

I wonder ... when Durkon gets to heaven, will he see a penetent Hilgya in the Temple of Challenging Conversions, who has changed her ways for him and can be his lawful wife. Or would Durkon only find her in the Inn of Endless One Night Stands? Would it be heaven for Durkon without her?

When Hilgya dies, and goes to her chaotic resting place, will she find a Durkon there, who has tossed aside his rules because of his love for her?

Can both exist?

Zbyhnev

2009-01-30, 12:16 PM

Sex in itself is a neutral, if pleasureable, act. Or perhaps "unaligned" would be better - it is the reason and motivations that give an alignment to otherwise natural actions such as eating, sleeping, sex, etc.

A very good point. It is people's own habitual associations and the resulting biases that sometimes infect their perceptions.
I do think the ability to separate hard facts from the narratives attached to them is absolutely paramount.

A piss poor marxist will probably have a wholly different idea of money than a wall street broker (that would be a very 2007 example) Richard Branson or the emir of Dubai. But by itself, money is merely a value virtualised, means to a transaction. There's nothing more to it.

Similarly, a buddhist, perceiving physical existence as by definition a source of suffering, will feel differently about reincarnation than some flower power THC elemental, for whom, reincarnation is an awesome way to keep reaping the fruits of generative nature without any lasting consequences.
But the core itself, the idea of souls returning to new bodies, is neither of these things- it simply is.

In Celestia, the accidental (as opposed to essential) circumstances, and hence consequences of acts like, well, prolonged sexual intercourse with a variety of partners (of different races, I might add), differ greatly from the circumstances and consequences of the same thing in
a) a college dorm
b) Saudi Arabia
c) disease ridden subsaharan Africa.

Failure to adjust perceptions of the things in themselves to the actual circumstances is just that, a failure.

And as has been stated here before by multiple people, the presence of the tavern of infinite one night stands in celestia is explainable by:

a) the broad assortment of belief systems that qualify as lawful good, many with wildly different values and morales from your typical christianity-inspired idea of lawful good, while still all being perfectly lawful good.
b) the fact that everybody needs to be catered to, otherwise it wouldn't be a heaven for all, IE it would be partisan rathern than universal.
c) the fact that sexuality is, once particular perspectives are shed and the ding an sich is seen (which is the perspective of native celestials), simply another funny inclination leftover from the glorified sausages the souls inhabited, on par with a liking for early morning hikes in the mountains, and enjoyment of a good cup of coffee.

Seems to me that the concept that is so hard to stomach for some is the fact that there could be space for variety in lawful good.

However, lawful good does not equal bigotry.

MattR

2009-01-30, 12:28 PM

Be interesting to see how far the variety of activities would stretch...

Maybe a Waffle Hut of Bondage?

or ....

The Gallery of Erotically Posed Animals

hmm...

Would they even make a specific building just for Objectophiles to hump? or would they be allowed to choose whichever takes their fancy.

AND

Necrophiles! ... *ponders*

Optimystik

2009-01-30, 01:37 PM

BoED- "Vows of celibacy are similar to vows of poverty and vows of abstinence- rooted in the belief that giving up a good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits."

Emphasis on the word Good. Not Neutral. It can be made neutral or evil by abusing it, but it defaults to Good.

I think you're misplacing that emphasis. BoED seems to be using good in that quote as a synonym for "meaningful and pleasurable" rather than "morally upright." In fact, the sentence right before the one you quoted seems to see sex as being neutral:

There is nothing inherently evil about human (or humanoid) sexuality, and being a good character doesn’t necessarily mean remaining a virgin.

The tone of that sentence, and the fact that they have to clarify sexuality as not being evil, implies that they don't consider it to be an especially good or holy act either. It's simply neutral or unaligned.

hamishspence

2009-01-30, 02:49 PM

True- though D&D doesn't seem to subscribe to "flesh is inherently evil" either.

I think that, when you think about it as essential to life, across the population as a whole, seeing it as closer to Good than Evil is easier- Neutral, but a very benevolent Neutral. Without it, species go extinct.

it's good in the sense that Eating is good- for the creature, not necessarily for the Universe.

TheSummoner

2009-01-30, 02:57 PM

One last point to remember: This is the tavern of one-night stands in Celestia. Everyone you might meet there is a decent, honourable person. They're all good people who will try not to hurt you and be honest with you. You might not like all of them, but knowing with absolute certainty that the guy/girl you're talking to is decent , honourable and good has to make things a lot, lot nicer.

True, by definiton, everyone in Celestia is a lawful good person, and therefore should be decent and honorable. However, that doesn't change the nature of the act itself. Theres nothing decent or honorable about a one night stand.

Clearly the problem is not only your view, but the way you choose to express it. I will say no more, because maybe it's a handicap of your ability to judge your own shortcomings.
You do not make a fairly valid point. I trashed your argument. You did not counter my points in post #149.

Heh, you think you "trashed my arguement" and made points, thats funny ^_^.

No... all you did was insinuate my arguement was an error to be scorned because you don't agree with it and that your high and mighty opinion is somehow more valid than mine.

People have a bad habit of thinking evil and not good are one in the same...
And more than that. Sharing pleasure with another person for free IS good. Just because you treat sex as a weapon and you are incapable of true intimacy with your woman doesn't mean the rest of us aren't. Why is sex good? Why is sex bad? It's just a pleasure like a massage. Is a massage bad? Remember we're not talking about money transactions here. We're talking about 2 consensual adults sharing (giving and receiving) pleasure for free (with no drawbacks in this case of heaven too).
Maybe that's incredibly neutral to you. But that's a selfish opinion and nothing more.

When have I ever said sex was, in itself, evil? From the beginning, I've said its neutral. I've been quite objective about sex in itself, only being subjective when the circumstances of the act are considered. When have I ever treated sex as a weapon? Is it a weapon because I view sex as something intimate that should be between two people who know and trust eachother? According to you, I'm incapable of true intimacy with my woman because I think I should have respect for her and care about her. I suppose I would be more capable of true intimacy if I went to a bar, picked out a random girl who I thought was enough of a slut that she would pleasure me without knowing me, and then threw her away the day after? No thank you, I think I'd rather be with someone worth my respect.

I've never claimed sex in itself was good or evil, most actions are neutral without the motivations and results taken into consideration, so let me throw the same question back at you... What makes sex good? Because it feels good it must be a good thing? How about revenge? Would it be a good thing if I brutally and mercilessly murdered someone who wronged me just because I get a great sence of satisfaction from it? Depending on situation, the person might deserve it, but that is almost always going to be an evil act.

And your last statement... I'm selfish because I look at sex in itself objectively and consider it neutral (as said before, that objectivity is gone when the circumstances are thrown in). Yes, I'm selfish because I consider sex neutral. This coming from someone who considers it perfectly lawful and good for someone to go to a bar with the sole motivation of finding someone to give them sexual pleasure and then never talk to that person again, with no concern for what happens to that person afterwards. Nothing selfish about that I suppose.

THAT is how you trash an arguement.

Scarlet Knight

2009-01-30, 03:37 PM

AND

Necrophiles! ... *ponders*

But...aren't they ALL necrophiles? :smallredface:

The Neoclassic

2009-01-30, 03:43 PM

True, by definiton, everyone in Celestia is a lawful good person, and therefore should be decent and honorable. However, that doesn't change the nature of the act itself. Theres nothing decent or honorable about a one night stand.

But under these circumstances, there's nothing indecent or dishonorable about it either, I'd like to point out.

No... all you did was insinuate my arguement was an error to be scorned because you don't agree with it and that your high and mighty opinion is somehow more valid than mine.

Frankly, you are both being less than fair and civil. If I recall correctly (if I'm wrong, my apologies), you were the person who called one night stands a "mindless" and "shameless" activity.

I suppose I would be more capable of true intimacy if I went to a bar, picked out a random girl who I thought was enough of a slut that she would pleasure me without knowing me, and then threw her away the day after? No thank you, I think I'd rather be with someone worth my respect.

If the individuals in the taven of one night stands are simulacrums (sorry for the awful spelling), as seems most likely, then this respect issue is entirely irrelevent. Also, why does having sex with someone with a clear understanding of the situation (a one-time hook-up) inherently mean that you are disrespecting them? It's entirely fine to be uncomfortable with such hook-ups or not want to enter them yourself, but to say that the inherent nature of the act is disrespectful seems mindboggling. Either the women are also taking advantage of you and treating you without respect, or else they are all foolish, shameless, and unable to make educated decisions about their own sexuality. Unless I am missing a third option, of course; I would not want to present a false dilemma.

This coming from someone who considers it perfectly lawful and good for someone to go to a bar with the sole motivation of finding someone to give them sexual pleasure and then never talk to that person again, with no concern for what happens to that person afterwards. Nothing selfish about that I suppose.

If they had a good time and you had a good time, yes you are both acting in a self-centered way, but if neither of you was harmed at the other's expense (which would almost certainly be the case in the Celestial tavern, and this is again ignoring our assertation that the people you hook up with there are probably actually magical simulacrum instead of other soulds), how is it any more selfish than having a game of chess with someone you just met? The only difference is that culturally we attach more intimacy to sex because of the physical aspects and because on earth, we can get STDs from sex but not from chess games.

THAT is how you trash an arguement.

Look, he approached you disrespectfully, but you are doing no one (including yourself) any favors by stooping to his level.

hamishspence

2009-01-30, 04:05 PM

Another possibility is its a bit of a misnomer- that yes, if the person wants, it can be a one off, and if not, it can involve meeting again and again.

the sample phrase was "I'm really interested in hearing you talk about yourself" It could be, that the souls present are real, they are simply interested in passing time with someone who thinks in a similar, but not identical way.

Would Sara Greenhilt have met Enrique at the tavern, and if so, would he have been real or a simulcrum?

multilis

2009-01-30, 04:16 PM

...The only difference is that culturally we attach more intimacy to sex because of the physical aspects and because on earth, we can get STDs from sex but not from chess games...
There are lots of songs around theme of bonding on first love being strong/strongest "first cut is the deepest", "never going to love you, 2 out of 3 aint bad", "like a virgin". Single parent families and divorce appear to be higher among those who do one night stands rather than the old style marry first.

In turn kids of families without 2 parents who love each other tend to be less lawful/more likely sucked into crime, etc.

Similarly excessive consumption of alcohol tends to reduce lawful behavour. (reduces inhibitions against unlawful acts)

Ozymandias9

2009-01-30, 05:23 PM

To start with, because it is less drastic. The outside observer has more trouble deciding if it is lawful or chaotic. The judge and the jury, not to mention police and public, need clear standards to enforce. When we start talking about these less drastic standards, we come to "I will just do as I please because nobody can really tell if I am sinning or not, unless I anger somebody powerful who will use the gray area to ruin me for innocent actions."

The measurment of morality is not necessarily easy. Except in extreme or explicitly defined cases, players should sometimes agonize over whether or not their action fits their morality, just as people often do in real life.

And incidentally, your "I will just..." statement is a good description of neutrality.

An invalid one. The basic objection is that it should not be there. Saying it is there is not grounds for saying it should be there.
I am aware of the tautology, thank you. However, just as easily as one might ask the question of whether it should be there, one might also question what its presence implies about the moral system of the Roy's society in the comic world. The assumption that it is an error is an indication of bias to a specific view of casual sex.

The not because is not valid here. The listing of one reason, in this case what the LG souls expect, does not preclude the existence of additional reasons. The one listed is merely sufficient for the purpose of the conversation. And yet Roy finds it noteworthy, and somewhat surprising, that they would try to make people guilty about sex. The tone of the conversation does not indicate on either side the presumption that sex is something that a LG character SHOULD feel guilty for.

Here too, the LG soul and the LG heaven are deemed to be in accord. So what the soul wants is heavily what the powers of the plane want as well.

This is a clearly not the case in the comic: one of the main features of the afterlife as presented is spiritual growth in the path up the mountain. This implies that the LG soul is not yet enlightened by LG standards upon entry, and thus probably not fully in accord with the plane itself.

Now here you are saying that yes, these are chaotic, but they are not Chaotic. Already, this makes it questionable whether they should be in a LG heaven.
No, I'm saying that situation can make them chaotic. Note the word indiscretion, which implies an active lapse of judgment.

If we say, like these two standards, that it's not chaotic unless it is entirely unplanned, we then have to say it is not lawful unless it is entirely planned and scripted from the start.
My measure wouldn't be entirely. For lawful, it would be whether the pursuance of the act, taken as a whole, was carried in a planned and orderly manner. For chaotic it would be that the action, taken as a whole, was carried out in an unplanned, chaotic manner.

Really, this brings to a head how you use the word "whim." You seem to apply it to any urge. While this is a valid use of the word, it is not the primary use given in most dictionaries. The primary definitions given tend to use words like "sudden," "passing," "capricious," etc. to differentiate whimsy from desires and urges in general.

Quite possibly some of both lawful and chaotic.
This seems to be at the heart of the difference between our outlooks. I view it as notable when an act inherently fails to be neutral. Most banal acts only cary moral leaning in how we carry them out, not in the act itself.

But the whole of this heaven is heavily based on leftover limited earth perspective. So arguments based on that can not be rejected on that basis. Our LG people would arrive with a massive bias against a variety of sexual practices, including one-night stands, and their heaven would reflect that bias.
The system clearly is ripe with higher powers of a moral nature. That practically screams a divine mandate morality system, at least in the administration and structure of the afterlife. And as the ultimate judges of of lawfulness, those beings would not be bound by mortal bias. Thus, while such an may would be chaotic for an individual, it may also not be so for the plane as a whole.

We are talking lawful here. That means that there is a suspicion against change of any sort. So these novel ways are guilty until proven innocent. Again, you need to support that fear of change is a necessary part of being lawful rather than just a flaw that lawful characters and societies tend to out of mortal failing. It is not presented as such in core descriptions of Lawfulness in 3.5 (I will admit my supplemental library has been rather sparse post 3.0), which merely list it as a possible failing of lawful characters.

Originally Posted by Zbyhnev
Where did that "whim" part come from? Suppose I go to a bar with the clear, ordered intention of picking up a girl. Suppose I have a clear preference for a particular type, and I act on it.Suppose...suppose... This is simply trying to make the exception the rule. One is saying "Well, it's only a sin 99% of the time. There are these rare exceptions..." We don't make law [good law anyway] based on these rare exceptions.
Actually, that's how most people I know go about most of their one night stands. How do you do it (or perceive others doing it)?

Yet where do we actually see this regularity? It is claimed around here a fair amount, but there is none of it in the comic. No requirement the patron have any sort of schedule, regular or not, no limit on what sort of girl[s] you can try to pick up...
The very name argues against any regularity.
Nor do we see any irregularity. You seem to assume it from the idea of one night stands. Others in the discussion do not. It's also worth noting that the requirement need not be externally sanctioned so long as it is explicit and formal. D&D allows for strong personal codes as a lawful option.

If you wish to think it so, but if I offer you $4 for one of the boxes, you are distinctly likely to decline, and to accept when I offer $6, the same as if you knew each box had $5 in it. [Of course, if $4 means you eat tonight, you might consider this superior to a 50-50 chance of eating well, or if Big Tony is going to beat you up if you don't pay him a full $10, you might make a different decision, but our base case remains that you treat those boxes as if they each had $5 in them, even tho you know neither does.]
No. Statistically, we can say that with repeated iterations the game should tend to an expected value of $5. Such a value would only be salient to a decision of whether or not to play the game. There are only two out comes of a single round of game-play (which would lack sufficient sample for statistical inference), and the expectation for neither outcome is $5. The likeliness of the player to decline the $4, absent any outside considerations, will be based on their level of risk aversion and any utility they derive from the playing of the game.

"All cases are equal" has the same meaning as "No case is larger than another". Both are refuted by "Case A is larger than case B." So no, yours is the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof.

His could also be stated as a negative if desired. But the negative claim must be proved as well. The default claim would be "We have no indication that any case is larger than any other case." It would be disproved by proof of either inequality or equality.

Of course, but we have seen no reason that this is correct.
Nor that it is incorrect. The adoption of the specific mechanical system does not indicate the adaptation of the whole of Vance's outlook. Nor has the system gone unaltered since Gary Gygax drew his inspiration from Vance's writings.

Irrelevant for our purposes. We could have 20% in each corner and the rest scattered, or 5% in each corner and the rest much larger, and we still have the same result for our purposes. There are the same number of lawful and chaotic, and we must assign a lot of behaviors to each.
No, we must assign a roughly equal lot of behaviors to each, but not all actions need be assigned to either. Or if we are truly to assume all alignments are equal, we would have to assign equal behaviors to neutrality, since the person who is neutral out of active balance is explicitly stated to be rare.

hamishspence

2009-01-30, 05:29 PM

Fiendish Codex 2 would agree with you, pointing out most people are weakly aligned and most acts are not strong enough to register as lawful, chaotic, good, or evil.

Fear of change- being reactionary- is listed as "On the downside, lawful can mean" implying its not a Good thing- its "the dark side of Law"

Mechanus, the planar embodiment of Law- still has life, and motion, and things happening, and decisions being made by formians or inevitables.

MattR

2009-01-30, 05:30 PM

But...aren't they ALL necrophiles? :smallredface:

I didnt miss the significance :) I can imagine it now:

Necrophile to object of affection - ''Would you just shut up and lie still, I'm trying to have a moment here!''

Oh oh, another idea!

Boudoir of No-longer Forbidden Incestry

...

Frankly i'm finding it hard to bar any kind of sexual *deviance?* i know that's probably not the right word...

Does the appearance of people who have died as children change in there? I pity the poor horny 14 year old stuck up there if they dont change. Imagine an eternity of being too young, or maybe because there's no laws about it and youre already dead something like age has no meaning anymore.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-30, 05:30 PM

Nothing selfish about that I suppose.

My view:
No, nothing at all. It's merely self-interested. Selfish would require that you do so at the detriment of the other person to benefit yourself.

hamishspence

2009-01-30, 05:34 PM

Some people prefer to synonymise Selfish and Self-interest, arguing that selfish acts that don't violate rights of others aren't evil.

MickJay

2009-01-30, 05:42 PM

Would Sara Greenhilt have met Enrique at the tavern, and if so, would he have been real or a simulcrum?

I'm guessing people who go to that tavern have a rather specific purpose, so even if there are divinely provided simulacra there, souls would still often end up hooking up with each other.

It fascinates me how some people treat their own opinions, prejudices and assumptions as immutable facts of life, while treating opinions of other people as wrong just because they're a little different from their own. Especially when the discussed topic is so poorly defined and broad that almost every opinion on the subject is justified.

Having said that, I can't really understand why "free will" is supposed to be chaotic (in D&D or not), and why would it have been considered sinful by any lawful people? Not everything in life is governed by some duty or other, and even picking between following the duty or not it is still a choice and an act of free will. Either that, or all lawfuls are just machines incapable of thinking and making their own choices - but then again, beings incapable of making choices and blindly following any code or law can't really be anything but true neutral, since they would just be following a compulsion, or instinct. Eliminating free will removes personal responsibility and the whole question of chaos/law (and likewise good/evil) becomes meaningless.

edit:

Does the appearance of people who have died as children change in there? I pity the poor horny 14 year old stuck up there if they dont change. Imagine an eternity of being too young, or maybe because there's no laws about it and youre already dead something like age has no meaning anymore.

In this heaven people can choose their apparent age at will, and I imagine there would be an opportunity for children to mature both physically and mentally, if they wished it. I can't really see the actual need for any laws in such afterlife, either, since all souls are quite happily following their own "lawful good" moral codes (or they wouldn't be in the heaven to begin with). Of course these codes may need to be slightly adjusted after death, as many of the reasons behind these codes no longer exist.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-30, 06:26 PM

Fear of change- being reactionary- is listed as "On the downside, lawful can mean" implying its not a Good thing- its "the dark side of Law"

Note the use of the word "can": this is a clear departure from the explicit inclusions in the prior sentence. It's presented as an optional element; a specific way in which lawfulness can manifest rather than a basic quality of the alignment.

hamishspence

2009-01-30, 06:33 PM

True- I see it as the sort of thing that manifests when the Lawful group is beginning to slide away from Good, toward Evil.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-30, 07:25 PM

The Neoclassic

2009-01-30, 08:23 PM

There are lots of songs around theme of bonding on first love being strong/strongest "first cut is the deepest", "never going to love you, 2 out of 3 aint bad", "like a virgin".

Our current popular culture views are not a good example when arguing D&D morality.

Single parent families and divorce appear to be higher among those who do one night stands rather than the old style marry first.

In turn kids of families without 2 parents who love each other tend to be less lawful/more likely sucked into crime, etc.

This is full of generalizations and a strongly biased cultural view (which is certainly tied up in religious and political views which I cannot address here). Even if these things were relevent exactly as you state in the real world, that has NO BEARING on how relationships would work in Celestia, if only because there are no unwanted pregnancies and marriages are (from what we see of Roy's parents) a thing of the mortal world.

Honestly, I hardly see how this is relevent and seems more to be a desire to blame society's ills on a certain type of relationship. I mean, we could say that married women with children are more likely than single women without children to lack successful, independent careers. Not relevent (I'm sure I could find some stats for it somewhere, but you cite no sources) and it has no bearing on the morality of certain sorts of relationships.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-30, 08:42 PM

Single parent families and divorce appear to be higher among those who do one night stands rather than the old style marry first.

In turn kids of families without 2 parents who love each other tend to be less lawful/more likely sucked into crime, etc.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. All of those things correlate more strongly with income than any sexual activity other than adultery. If kid happens to be a member of a single parent home, it is significantly more likely that they also live in poverty and have a greater exposure top crime.

Age is another stronger correlation here: people who have casual sex are more likely to be in the age range of 18-26 than any other age group. 1st marriages in that age group ends in divorce at a higher rate than other age groups.

The divorce rate for 1st marriages in the US is 50%. 2nd and 3rd marriages are 60% and 73% respectively (figures from the Forest Institute of Profesional Psychology). It would be a bit difficult to assume that 50% of people who get married in America (where marriage is viewed mostly as viewed as an expression of Love) do so without loving each other.

A more sound judgement would be that a child raised in a lawful environment by parents who entered their relationship at a mature point in their lives is more likely to be lawful.

multilis

2009-01-30, 08:50 PM

Don't confuse correlation with causation. All of those things correlate more strongly with income than any sexual activity other than adultery. If kid happens to be a member of a single parent home, it is significantly more likely that they also live in poverty and have a greater exposure top crime.
Scientific studies have been done, and both political parties of US government accept that single parent families have higher social cost.

By their nature, single parent families *lead* to more likely poverty so even by your logic is a cause. Another cause is issue of quality time with a caring parent tends to help, and with two parents this is more likely.

If you want I can search google and bring in a long list of studies/quotes.

First try with first link http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/356194.html

'"Commitment and the Modern Union: Assessing the Link Between
Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability."

The point made by the authors is that, overall, the risk of divorce
after living together is 80% higher than the risk of divorce after not
living together, which is already too high.'

The Neoclassic

2009-01-30, 08:57 PM

multilis

2009-01-30, 09:14 PM

@ Multilis: This is IRRELEVENT. People are not having kids in the afterlife and even if they did, they'd be on a plane of law and good where everyone is taken care of; there is no poverty.

You are focusing on earthly consequences. It has NO bearing on one-night stands in the afterlife.
Follow the thread to see what I replied to, a discussion of consequences on our earth, was claimed that only +lawful reason was STD in our world.

Obviously fantasy is whatever you want it to be, you can make up whether divorce rates work similar there or people rezzed are affected by their habits in previous afterlife. (Also depends on if you see marriage as more structured/less chaotic than one night stands in a fantasy setting)

The Neoclassic

2009-01-30, 09:22 PM

Follow the thread to see what I replied to, a discussion of consequences on our earth, was claimed that only +lawful reason was STD in our world.

No, I said that the only reason that we place more emphasis on sex is because of the consequences (though the emotional responses and procreation aspects I should have also mentioned). My point with it, however, was pointing out that the inherent nature of sex with casual acquantinces in the context of the tavern of one night stands is not chaotic or wrong; our reasons for attaching such stigmas to it are based on its earthly nature, not how it operates in the afterlife.

(Also depends on if you see marriage as more structured/less chaotic than one night stands in a fantasy setting)

Of course marriage is less chaotic, but that doesn't mean that any other structure must therfore be chaotic. Eating the same meal every day could qualify as "lawful" by the predictable standard, but that doesn't mean that eating something different on occasion is inherently chaotic to an extent that it would not be allowing in the LG afterlife.

multilis

2009-01-30, 09:32 PM

Assassin89

2009-01-30, 09:46 PM

Aside from the tavern, there is a cafeteria, which serves food, although it is not needed, meaning that the lower levels of Celestia are meant to fulfill the basic needs and desires of it inhabitants as if they were living.

Ozymandias9

2009-01-30, 10:09 PM

Scientific studies have been done, and both political parties of US government accept that single parent families have higher social cost.

By their nature, single parent families *lead* to more likely poverty so even by your logic is a cause. Another cause is issue of quality time with a caring parent tends to help, and with two parents this is more likely.

If you want I can search google and bring in a long list of studies/quotes.

First try with first link http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/356194.html

'"Commitment and the Modern Union: Assessing the Link Between
Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability."

The point made by the authors is that, overall, the risk of divorce
after living together is 80% higher than the risk of divorce after not
living together, which is already too high.'

I'm going to try to forget the fact that you tried to support a position by appealing to the stance of the American political parties. Doing so undermines your position.

The 1st deals with public opinion. What you're referring to is the second link, which really only comments on marital stability after cohabitation, which is again more strongly correlated to age than any sexual practice (excepting the obvious of premarital sex). Regardless, if you read the studies cited in that article (you can find 4 on lexis-nexus), you'll find that none of them take cross-sectional economic data. Moreover, the article is written by a relationship counselor, not a sociologist or a statistician.

If you care to look at the last 5 census reports (census.gov), you'll find that single parent homes only correlate to lower income per family member for already low and lower middle class households.

If you do look at studies that that examine crime rates against cross-sectional economic data, you'll find that again and again the rates are shown to not be significantly different for children from single parent households than for their peers with 2 parents in the same economic group. For such studies refer to:

Capaldi and Patterson, "Relations of Parental Transitions to Boy's Adjustment Problems: {...}", Developmental Psychology 1991
Gorman-Smith, Tolan, and Henry, "The Relation of Community and Family to Risk Among Urban Poor Adolescents", When and Where: Historical and Geographical Aspects of PsychoPathology 1999
McCord; DeKlyen, Speltz, and Greenberg, "Fathering and Early Onset Conduct Problems: Positive and Negative Parenting,{...}", Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review I, 1998
A couple dozen studies by Dr. Joan McCord, but especially: "A Longitudinal View of the Relationship between Paternal Absence and Crime", Abnormal Offenders, Delinquency and the Criminal Justice System, 1989
and (also McCord): "Family Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Criminality", Criminology, 1991

Aside: Sorry for the off-topic post, but ancillary topic seemed important.

Admiral_Kelly

2009-01-30, 10:29 PM

Folks, this is a webcomic about the characters in a tabletop game session depicted through stick figures who are aware of this. I would take the fictional theology with a grain of salt, honestly. If you find it paradoxical heaven allows free sex and unlimited booze then chalk it up to the Rule of Funny.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-30, 10:37 PM

Matter of perspective, eg some would feel that prostitution... the other party having sex for money even if not enjoying it is exploitation. (Or sex with a youth, or having multiple wives, or sex with animals, in some cultures this is acceptable, in some it is either chaotic or evil)

Sex with animals or minors involves sex with a nonconsenting party (a party not able to make a reasonable consenting decision, that is). That isn't just culture, that invokes the harm principle: Having sex with someone who is not consenting is harming them, psychologically, in dignity (having no respect for their wishes), and perhaps physically as well. One-night stands do not violate the harm principle. So, my point is that the arguments against one-night stands in heaven are entirely based on cultural/personal beliefs, whereas the harm principle is more concrete, has clearer moral implications, and is a better approach to D&D alignment questions.

Dacia Brabant

2009-01-31, 02:55 AM

Fun Fact: in Classical Greece, especially in Attic/Ionic city-states, prostitution was not only a legitimate, lawful practice but the most skilled, highest-priced courtesans were important public figures--one even is recorded debating Socrates. Demosthenes, considered by most classicists as among the greatest Athenian statesmen, once said that "we have courtesans for pleasure, prostitutes for our daily bodily needs and wives for rearing legitimate children and managing households," which was the general practice of the society and culture of his time.

Classical Athens has no bearing on Celestia in the OOTSverse of course, shoot the Snarl killed off all the Greek gods even :smallfrown: but the point is that legality, ethics, morals and cultural views of casual sex/sex outside of monogamous relationships is entirely relative.

Finwe

2009-01-31, 03:25 AM

Sex with animals or minors involves sex with a nonconsenting party

Nitpick: dolphins have been known to attempt to initiate sex with humans. :smalltongue:

imp_fireball

2009-01-31, 03:39 AM

I can't believe I just noticed this, but why would there be a Hall of Infinite One Night Stands be made in a place that is reserved for (usually) the righteous, the "pure-hearted", and generally holier-than-thou pricks? Doesn't that go against their principles? Apparently they aren't disgusted or even confused that they "ascended" into an afterlife for the "lawful good" that offers unlimited endulgance of "worldly pleasures" which were apparently beneath them back on the mortal plane. I understand that they can climb the mountain to higher, more spiritual planes but why exactly is there unlimited ecstacy on the bottom of the mountain?

The truth is, is that it is only really beneath paladins. And even then, paladins that are LG need not be beneath these things mechanically.

LG paladins only defend justice in what they belief and according to the deity they worship. LG paladins also must abide by everything in the core books, which includes defending the law, not leaning towards deception (How do they get over self deception? Does a paladin ever marry? Heck, maybe it could be illegal according to some deities...) etc.

How many LG paladins emigrate from tyrannical states every year in order to keep their alignment out of harms way? Rich should make up a statistic on that.

Anyway...

Their are fluff paladins out there, such as those that actively seek to melt down currency because it's supposedly the root of all evil (however this would make them more likely to be CG paladins or perhaps even CE if they are destroying other people's lives through stealing). Or perhaps their are those that lash themselves 18 times a day to reflect on their willpower (except that there are other fanatic classes out there too that might reflect this as well). Which brings to mention powerful deities that bear over so much that they prove difficult to interpret and as such their are many different followers following different beliefs under the same deity, but that's another story.

If the law in heaven says its ok, then paladins will go with it. They won't go with things that are not LG however.

Anti-indulgence is based on a belief system.

Greep

2009-01-31, 05:04 AM

Scarlet Knight

2009-01-31, 09:18 AM

Sex with animals or minors involves sex with a nonconsenting party (a party not able to make a reasonable consenting decision, that is). That isn't just culture, that invokes the harm principle: Having sex with someone who is not consenting is harming them, psychologically, in dignity (having no respect for their wishes), and perhaps physically as well.

You are not the first person I have heard argue that bestiality is harmful to the non-human partner. And for chickens, eels, etc, I imagine it is. Somehow, I have a hard time imagining Rex the wonder dog running away when he sees his mistress breaking out the video camera & I imagine Dolly the sheep perferring to be a love slave rather than mutton...

I'm going to regret sending this, ain't I? :smallredface:

MattR

2009-01-31, 09:23 AM

I'm sure i read somewhere that pedophilia was also acceptable in Greece, part of many teacher / student relationships?

Also, what constitutes a reasonable consenting decision?Saying yes becuase you have knowledge of sex, both the consequences and how to do the act itself?

Presumably there arent any physical limitations there since no one has a real body.

...

You know, even revenge in the form of physical assaults would be allowable up there since any damage you attempt to do to someone either is negated or heals.

How can any act be classified as evil or good if there are no consequences for doing it? they might as well house the lawful evil, neutral and good people in the same heaven becuase none of your actions result in a meaningful change to the status quo.

MattR

2009-01-31, 09:44 AM

There'll be no 'no smoking' signs in lawful good heaven AND self harm will be a fun-filled activity for all the family :)

Kish

2009-01-31, 09:49 AM

& I imagine Dolly the sheep perferring to be a love slave rather than mutton...

"Have sex with me or I'll kill AND EAT you" would still qualify as rape.

Zbyhnev

2009-01-31, 10:24 AM

I'm sure i read somewhere that pedophilia was also acceptable in Greece, part of many teacher / student relationships?

It was quite a bit more complicated than that, but yes, there was a sort of consent-based pedophilia practiced in ancient Athens (not entirely sure about the other city-states).

However, this was more of a mentor-pupil relationship, where the men would basically pass the masculine operating system© onto a chosen pupil (and mind you, there was mighty bickering over the prettiest youths), arguably along with some body fluids- the actual intercourse was, however, not a necessary part of the process, and was entirely up to the particular couple. Plato argued heavily against buggering 12 years old boys, and mantained that the relationship should be entirely...platonic. There are some, who would attribute this stance to the fact that he always wanted to be buggered by Socrates, and it never happened, because Socrated didn't want to. I refrain from passing judgement, although it does not sound entirely unlikely. :smallwink:

Scarlet Knight

2009-01-31, 11:28 AM

"Have sex with me or I'll kill AND EAT you" would still qualify as rape.

Good point.

I just think it would be sad if the world didn't allow people to have sex with animals... I mean, would we soon run out of centaurs & minotaurs & sphinxtaurs, um , sphinxes? :smallwink:

TheBST

2009-01-31, 11:45 AM

Wow, this thread went from theological to morally self-righteous to outright disturbing.

TheSummoner

2009-01-31, 12:35 PM

It was the only logical progression. Soon the thread will be completly offtopic and about a hypothetical future where robo-shark Hitler leads an army of the undead in a war against humanity.

Anyways... saying that consequences are irrelevant is entirely wrong. We can only judge a hypothetical afterlife by the standards we know in life. If there are no consequences or potential harm or good, there really could be no good or evil there, which defeats the purpose of there being seperate afterlives in the first place.

Optimystik

2009-01-31, 12:48 PM

Pardon me for not reading through EVERY page of this Neo-nazi bestiality rapefest, but nothing I've seen has refuted this basic point: the reason heaven lets you have as much sex, alcohol and battle as you want right when you get in is so that you can take your time thoroughly working those urges out of your system. Roy's archon practically spells it out and it makes perfect sense, so why is that so hard to understand? This thread should have ended on page 3.

David Argall

2009-01-31, 01:14 PM

Sex with animals or minors involves sex with a nonconsenting party (a party not able to make a reasonable consenting decision, that is).
That is in the view of some third party, known to be mortal and thus prone to error, and routinely subject to massive bias.
In the case of animals, we note that the animal is subject to being killed and eaten at the whim of the owner, or to be treated badly in almost any way. That you get several years in jail for screwing it, and only some bad looks from the neighbors for killing it shows we are not considering the interest of the animal here.
In the case of the child, we note that you can get several years when she is 17 years, 11 months and 29 days, and a few minutes later when she is 18 years, you get a high-five. Nor is it considered relevant that she was consenting for all she was worth, and had entirely justifiable reasons for being so eager. Again, we have to question any claim this is really any attempt to protect.

Consent is a major element, and to be gained when possible. It's lack is a good default that the action is not in the interest of the other party. But we routinely take action based on our guess as to what the needs and desires of the other party are, and we do not always have the ability to get the consent. Take an accident victim. He can't give consent, but he will die without treatment, and so the doctor can treat him without consent, and bill him for it. [Now billing him for a private room instead of a ward is another story.]

hamishspence

2009-01-31, 01:23 PM

if an accident victim has explicitly refused consent, or his relatives do on his behalf, treating him, even if it is in own best interests, can result in criminal charges.

Zbyhnev

2009-01-31, 02:15 PM

Anyways... saying that consequences are irrelevant is entirely wrong.

Indeed, and that is why, as far as I am able to tell, nobody meant it in this particular way.

Consequences being unknown =/= consequences being irrelevant.
Consequences being nonpresent =/= consequences being irrelevant.
Consequences being different than on earth =/= consequences being irrelevant.

You seem to be attempting to continue operating on an entirely artificial dichotomy which allows no option other than horrendous consequences, or a complete lack thereof. Maybe you should consider broader possibilities, unless it makes your head physically hurt.

We can only judge a hypothetical afterlife by the standards we know in life.

I beg to differ.

There are very defined differences known to us- and not adjusting the result of an equation when we know the numbers have changed is nothing else than plain old error.

Or, theoretically, if we accepted that point out of curiosity, and believed for a while that terrestrial standards apply in the afterlife, that would still not effect much difference- in terrestrial life, barring accidental circumstances external to the act itself such as STDs, recreational sex between consenting parties does not have any unwholesome consequences either.

What happens is Celestia is that these accidental externalities are simply not there. Ergo there is no chance for any amount of free sex to be harmful or evil in any way.

Case closed, I dare venture.

If there are no consequences or potential harm or good, there really could be no good or evil there, which defeats the purpose of there being seperate afterlives in the first place.

The point you're missing is that one of the defining characteristics of a heavenly afterlife is that you're out of harm's way for all eternity, and are therefore not hindered by those nagging sausage-related worries anymore. Yes, there is a definitive lack of the feedback you adjusted your behavior to on earth, but that's not really an issue, because another thing you carried over from your physical life is a set of habits and customs, a behavior momentum, that had to have a distinct quality to even get you to Mt.Celestia in the first place. There's no point for corrective feedback, because the behavior structure is already finished, and it is thus rendered unnecessary.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-31, 02:19 PM

Anyways... saying that consequences are irrelevant is entirely wrong. We can only judge a hypothetical afterlife by the standards we know in life. If there are no consequences or potential harm or good, there really could be no good or evil there, which defeats the purpose of there being seperate afterlives in the first place.

Actually, it is entirely right. I mean, look at Roy's mother. She is sleeping with an attractive man who is not her husband. In the mortal world, this would be wrong because of the consequences: Harming her marriage and distracting her from her responsibilities (her children which need to be taken care of). In the LG afterlife, this is perfectly fine behavior and nothing indicates this to be either evil nor chaotic because of the circumstances which the afterlife presents. Again, if we apply real-world consequences to heavenly morality, where such consequences do not exist, we are assuming that heaven is based on some mere mortals' interpretation of alignments, whereas D&D is based on cosmlogical forces of good and evil which mortals base their views off of (rather than vice versa).

That is in the view of some third party, known to be mortal and thus prone to error, and routinely subject to massive bias.

Honestly, I picked animals and children because I didn't think people would actually try to argue that sex with them is "OK" just to disprove a point. :smallannoyed: They seem pretty damn clear cut. By your logic, none of us have any opinions worth a damn because we are all mortal and thus prone to error and bias. So this entire conversation is moot.

In the case of the child, we note that you can get several years when she is 17 years, 11 months and 29 days, and a few minutes later when she is 18 years, you get a high-five.

I'm not arguing the fuzzies here, about age of consent laws; we're talking about CHILDREN not almost-adults.

Consent is a major element, and to be gained when possible. It's lack is a good default that the action is not in the interest of the other party. But we routinely take action based on our guess as to what the needs and desires of the other party are, and we do not always have the ability to get the consent.

In sex, there is NEVER an excuse for having it without consent. NEVER. Your following example is about someone whose life may need to be saved. The doctor is acting with the other person's interest in mind. Are you arguing that there is ever a circumstance under which it is reasonable to have sex with someone who is not consenting / able to consent because you think it will benefit them? In other words, in some sorts of situations, consent cannot always be gained, but in sexuality, it ALWAYS MUST be key. Having sex with a nonconsenting party can NEVER be beneficial to the nonconsenting party. Saving the life of an unconscious person is an ENTIRELY different situation.

TheSummoner

2009-01-31, 02:41 PM

Actually, it is entirely right. I mean, look at Roy's mother. She is sleeping with an attractive man who is not her husband. In the mortal world, this would be wrong because of the consequences: Harming her marriage and distracting her from her responsibilities (her children which need to be taken care of). In the LG afterlife, this is perfectly fine behavior and nothing indicates this to be either evil nor chaotic because of the circumstances which the afterlife presents. Again, if we apply real-world consequences to heavenly morality, where such consequences do not exist, we are assuming that heaven is based on some mere mortals' interpretation of alignments, whereas D&D is based on cosmlogical forces of good and evil which mortals base their views off of (rather than vice versa).

The only reason neither of Roy's parents care is because they both stopped caring about eachother. If they were a loving couple, either she wouldn't be "whoring up the afterlife" as the oracle put it, or there WOULD be consequences of her actions.

Furthermore, even in the scenerios where there is no actual harm, it doesn't make an evil or chaotic action any less evil or chaotic. What if I lived a perfectly lawful and good life, then died and went to celestia, and while there became a rapist? Would that be ok? Are there no consequences of that?

Honestly, I picked animals and children because I didn't think people would actually try to argue that sex with them is "OK" just to disprove a point. :smallannoyed: They seem pretty damn clear cut. By your logic, none of us have any opinions worth a damn because we are all mortal and thus prone to error and bias. So this entire conversation is moot.

You'd be surprised the hypothetical situations people would argue to prove a point...

I'm not arguing the fuzzies here, about age of consent laws; we're talking about CHILDREN not almost-adults.

But in a legal sence, almost-adults are still children and statutory rape is still rape. Any consent given means nothing in the eyes of the law (which... I think is a complete load if the two involved are close in age and in a relationship, but thats another story)

Zbyhnev

2009-01-31, 02:59 PM

The only reason neither of Roy's parents care is because they both stopped caring about eachother.

Or they got things put into perspective. You know, the whole institution of monogamous relationship is there just to ensure people stick together long enough to raise children and take care of each other in the chronically unpredictable conditions of that terrestrial life thing. Neither of that is an issue in Celestia. Of course it is possible to have a loving and intimate relationship with somebody while up there. But those needy scared tendrils that tend to motivate strict monogamy down here are simply gone, and the desire to have a monopoly on anyone along with them.

We are back to the fallacy of judging heaven by the standards of earth.

What if I lived a perfectly lawful and good life, then died and went to celestia, and while there became a rapist? Would that be ok? Are there no consequences of that?

If your soul had rapist tendencies, you simply wouldn't get to Celestia.

You'd be surprised the hypothetical situations people would argue to prove a point...

That much we have seen.

Optimystik

2009-01-31, 03:08 PM

But those needy scared tendrils that tend to motivate strict monogamy down here are simply gone, and the desire to have a monopoly on anyone along with them.

While I agree with the rest of your post, Violet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0486.html) would seem to refute this bit.

Kish

2009-01-31, 03:24 PM

But in a legal sence, almost-adults are still children and statutory rape is still rape. Any consent given means nothing in the eyes of the law (which... I think is a complete load if the two involved are close in age and in a relationship, but thats another story)
Not that I'm at all clear how this relates to whatever the overall point now is, but at least here in Florida, that's not true. A judge who looks at a statutory rape case and says, "One is 18, one is 17, I don't think this should be treated like child molestation" is not prevented from (say) giving the older one probation and no sex offender status, and often does. At least sometimes it makes the newspapers (which is how I know about it), but cases where the judge chooses to throw the book at the offender also make the newspapers.

TheyCallMeTim

2009-01-31, 03:26 PM

I confess that I have done little more than skim over the first and last pages of this thread, so it's possible that someone's made these points before. If so, my apologies.

First, this is a comic strip of the funny variety. I very much doubt that much thought went into the after life other than being funny, not offending people, and furthering the story, and I would be surprised to hear that the esteemed author actually believes that the afterlife will be anything much like this.

That said, D&D "morality" varies according to the gaming group, but inasmuch as there is a standard at all, it is a rough guess at what common modern morals would look like in a pseudo-medieval setting without examing the foundations upon which those morals have been built, and that is as it should be. It's just a game; the mores will change as much or more as the rest of the gameplay from group to group. The Book of Exalted Deeds is thus, as far as a guide to defining good behavior goes, not worth the money (I do enjoy some of the mechanical options, mostly the feats, but the roleplaying stuff isn't worth too much), and it CAN'T be any better, because any system based in D&D books in necessarily relative due to the nature of the game. While the morals in the Order of the Stick naturally reflect to some extent on the author, they're still basically "D&D morals" designed to appeal and be funny to as large an audience as possible. Arguments about what is good or bad in the real world (which, by the way, I would be more than happy to enter into, although that strikes me as an argument for someplace other than a comics forum) have little to do with these morals apart from the fact that D&D, being primarily a pastime of the West, is attached, however loosely (very), to the same Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian philosophical and theological roots as everything else we do.

Similarly, the afterlife is designed to be funny and appeal to as wide an audience as possible, NOT to reflect an overarching structure of real-life virtue and vice.

Reluctance

2009-01-31, 03:30 PM

Soon the thread will be completly offtopic and about a hypothetical future where robo-shark Hitler leads an army of the undead in a war against humanity.

Pardon me for not reading through EVERY page of this Neo-nazi bestiality rapefest

Eight pages. I had a feeling this was going to happen about now.

The point you're missing is that the entire point of a heavenly afterlife is that you're out of harm's way for all eternity... that had to have a distinct quality to even get you to Mt.Celestia in the first place. There's no point for corrective feedback, because the behavior structure is already finished, and it is thus rendered unnecessary.

Yes. Celestia is a place entirely without consequences. The consequences of Eugene's blood oath were entirely forgiven when he approached the mountain, the evil adventuring party was allowed to run free to "get it out of their system", and there's no point to sex because both the orgasm and the opportunity for people to bond are both consequences of the act.

Leaving sex aside for the moment, consequences are what allow actions to have any meaning whatsoever. The fact that some people's idea of paradise - never mind a Lawful Good paradise - is a place without cause and effect bothers me. Throwing that out the window is much more a Limbo sort of thing. (Edit: The outer plane, not the bit from Catholic theology.)

Fun Fact: in Classical Greece, especially in Attic/Ionic city-states, prostitution was not only a legitimate, lawful practice but the most skilled, highest-priced courtesans were important public figures

Y'know, this puts an interesting spin on things.

Specifically, this is the Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands, not the Tavern of Having Your Advances Repeatedly Laughed Off. Free-willed entities like other souls have a decent chance of being disinterested in you for one reason or another, even more so if this is a cold approach. (If they already know each other, they can probably leave the tavern out and ask each other directly.) Chaotics will tend to enjoy the gamble of seeing how well they can convince another free-willed entity to hook up, but lawfuls tend to dislike those complications. That, and nobody likes rejection.

So going under the assumption that the tavern is filled with simulacrua, the problem comes when trying to fit it into a one-night stand/hookup frame of reference. Depending on how sentient these simulacrua are, they're either sex toys or whores. (Free whores, but that's still the best word for "one who provides sex as a free service for whoever asks".) Which makes the "going to the tavern for a hookup is as chaotic as going to a store for a shirt" analogy actually fit.

hamishspence

2009-01-31, 03:33 PM

D&D has generally been better at defining evil than good- a lot of acts are Always Evil, by contrast, very few acts are Always Good, and one can generally construct a long-term, selfish, or even Evil reason to do these sort of acts (turning them into "Neutral at best")

Books of Evil: BoVD, Savage Species (only a couple of paragraphs) Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2, Exemplars of Evil.

Books of Good: BoED, Champions of Valor.

(book of Law- Fiendish Codex 2- a couple of paragraphs)
(book of Chaos: ???)

So, issues of "what is and isn't Good" are pretty scanty, limited to BoED, and some of the dogmas of D&D deities.

If a Good aligned D&D deity is basically built around it (Sharess, Deity of Pleasure) it, in the context of D&D, can't be Evil By Default, at least, even if it might be Evil In Excess.

TheyCallMeTim

2009-01-31, 03:43 PM

It's usually easiest, somewhat paradoxically, to define a thing by it's absence. For instance, we recognize intelligence most often by comparison to stupidity (that is, lack of intelligence), health by comparison to sickness, and good by comparison to evil. Even though evil, sickness, and stupidity (and to a lesser extent cold and darkness) are most easily defined as the absence of the positive quantity that is good, health, intelligence, heat, or light, it is frequently, if not always, the case that the positive force can most easily be recognized by the absence of its absence and that it can be most easily improved not by focusing on increasing it, but by focusing on reducing its absence. Thus, evil simply IS easier to define than good.

Reluctance

2009-01-31, 03:48 PM

...But those needy scared tendrils that tend to motivate strict monogamy down here are simply gone, and the desire to have a monopoly on anyone along with them.

You mean, it's one of those leftover issues from having your soul stuck in a glorified sausage?

Which would be a good argument, if resolving those issues wasn't the whole point of first-layer Celestia. Assuming that this issue would be immediately flushed from your system while the desire for limitless sex and booze takes a good while to clear up seems rather disingenuous to me.

If your soul had rapist tendencies, you simply wouldn't get to Celestia.

To take a real-world example, there are pedophiles who have never hurt a child. They have strong urges, but they avoid temptation when possible and resist when they have to because they realize that giving in will cause real harm to a real child. Are you saying that simply having these urges is enough to bar you from heaven, despite the fact that you never gave in to them?

To extend from that, take a person with strong urges to have sex with a child or a resisting nonconsenting partner. Assuming they resist these urges because they are horrified at the thought at causing harm to anybody, how would the "get it out of your system" level of Celestia process those souls?

hamishspence

2009-01-31, 04:01 PM

According to Fiendish Codex 2, while its silent on subject of Celestia- one thing is certain- failure to commit an evil act- even if you have problematic thoughts, urges, or attitudes, bars you from the Nine Hells.

MickJay

2009-01-31, 04:53 PM

This thread should have ended on page 3.

I came to the same conclusion in the middle of page 3, post 77ish I think :smalltongue:

[...]At least sometimes it makes the newspapers (which is how I know about it), but cases where the judge chooses to throw the book at the offender also make the newspapers.

Very true, I read an article about how a 25ish old woman got thrown out of her house because when she was 16 she tried to please her then-still-15 boyfriend orally, and ended up on sex offender list. Before moving to her new house with her family she checked for schools and such in the area, but there was some tiny unmarked spot with some educational purposes, so it turned out she couldn't stay with her husband and kid. Seriously, some laws+weird judges=absurd situations. And how she ended up in court for "molesting" a guy less than year younger than herself is beyond me.

Anyhow, it's just another point that blindly following laws in every situation isn't "lawful", it's "lawful stupid", being lawful doesn't mean that common sense needs to be thrown out the window.

Rotipher

2009-01-31, 05:41 PM

To take a real-world example, there are pedophiles who have never hurt a child. They have strong urges, but they avoid temptation when possible and resist when they have to because they realize that giving in will cause real harm to a real child. Are you saying that simply having these urges is enough to bar you from heaven, despite the fact that you never gave in to them?

If their urge to engage in such relations really is that contrary to their nature, then it's likely to be a product of botched neurobiology -- crossed wires in the brain, that misinterpret childlike features as sexy ones -- rather than a voluntary preference on the pedophiles' part. In such cases, their spiritual "bodies" in the afterlife could discard this biological flaw in transit, much as old age or (one can presume) physical handicaps would be shed at death. No more need to think with a defective sausage-brain = no more desires that are innately abhorrant to the soul's underlying morality.

Remember, Roy's interviewer said that making an effort was important, and refraining from evil deeds one is unwillingly compelled to consider certainly would qualify as trying to be Good. If, OTOH, they'd ever given in to temptation and hurt a child, then their souls as well as their neurons would be engaging in evil acts. In that case, they'd be denied a Good afterlife for their deeds, not just their longings, and rightly so. But the ones that held off from doing wrong should be relieved of their biologically-based torment, just as a person who dies in agony shouldn't keep hurting once their body has been left behind.

Granted, most souls' physical desires wouldn't be stripped away at one go, but allowed to fade naturally. But that's because Lawful Good entails having respect for the dignity of sentient beings, so mucking around with their minds and emotions when those emotions aren't harmful would be seen as needlessly intrusive and disdainful of their autonomy as individuals. When the soul actually wants to be freed of an abhorrant biological burden, it should be.

Rotipher

2009-01-31, 05:54 PM

Of course it is possible to have a loving and intimate relationship with somebody while up there. But those needy scared tendrils that tend to motivate strict monogamy down here are simply gone, and the desire to have a monopoly on anyone along with them.

More precisely, the desire to force one's monopoly over one's potential mate would be obsolete. If two people in heaven are content to have an exclusive relationship with the other, and they both accept this, no problem. Likewise, if each is willing to share the other. It's only when someone tries to force exclusivity on a partner who'd rather not be monogamous that there's trouble ... but then, a soul who's like that will probably wind up at the Tavern Of Love At First Sight, not the swingers' club next door. :smallwink:

MickJay

2009-01-31, 05:56 PM

At least one major world organisation of dominantly spiritual aims makes a point that people who have "unnatural" urges, but restrain themselves, are actually in a better situation when it comes to entering heaven, since they had a heavier burden to bear during their lives.

On the other hand, sex is something very biological, and if souls got rid of all of their biological aspects, they wouldn't have any glands and consequently none (or almost none) of the physical desires they had during their lives, sexual ones included. Then again it would only be fair that if someone coped during their life with something that caused them problems, biological or psychological, they'd be freed from them upon entering heaven...

The Neoclassic

2009-01-31, 06:02 PM

The only reason neither of Roy's parents care is because they both stopped caring about eachother.

The point is not about why they care, but why the afterlife deems it acceptable. If it was evil/chaotic, by the logic of many of you, it wouldn't be allowed in the afterlife. Yes, they were not a loving couple (they had some serious problems and that's why it separated), but that ignores the concrete responsibilities consequence example that I gave.

Furthermore, even in the scenerios where there is no actual harm, it doesn't make an evil or chaotic action any less evil or chaotic. What if I lived a perfectly lawful and good life, then died and went to celestia, and while there became a rapist? Would that be ok? Are there no consequences of that?

Are you saying that souls in Celestia would not be harmed by rape? :smallannoyed: Or that consent doesn't matter to souls? The point is that rape, defined as taking another sentient being against their will, IS harm. Souls lose their bodily diseases and physical needs, but retain their sense of dignity, self-worth, and autonomy. Rape strongly violates another soul's freedom to be happy; if two souls hook up consensually, neither is harmed in any way.

But in a legal sence, almost-adults are still children and statutory rape is still rape.

So? Real world politics has NO bearing on D&D morality. In the legal sense, cheating on your spouse is not a crime (though it could be grounds for divorce). That doesn't make me argue that it qualifies as good or lawful (at least, nonchaotic) in D&D, because I KNOW that the American government has no relevence to D&D morality.

Any consent given means nothing in the eyes of the law (which... I think is a complete load if the two involved are close in age and in a relationship, but thats another story)

And, yeah, no one here is arguing that a 17 and 18 year old would mean that the 17 year old could not give consent. That's ludicrous. You are trying to twist the definition of consent into some complex, messed up legal one rather than a commonsense rule of thumb. Is this because you think consent (in the commonsense way, not legal or trying to nitpick the fuzzy line way) is not necessary for sex? Or are you saying consent should be thrown out the window as a way to separate good from evil sexual activities because the American government defines it imperfectly and there are a few situations in which whether something is actually entirely consent is unclear?

Rotipher

2009-01-31, 06:04 PM

So going under the assumption that the tavern is filled with simulacrua, the problem comes when trying to fit it into a one-night stand/hookup frame of reference. Depending on how sentient these simulacrua are, they're either sex toys or whores.

Perhaps they're neither simulacra nor fellow souls. Perhaps they're celestials who've volunteered to play a role for their own purposes, e.g. to learn what this "mating" business which mortals spend so much effort on is about. They could opt to engage in sexual relations with souls as a prequal to pairing off with a living mortal, the better to maintain the population of aasimars. They might even be the afterlife's version of professional sex therapists, tasked to help mortals reconcile with, and then outgrow, their past biological drives.