Truth and the Ethical Alignment Axis

[Segev]

Last night, I got to thinking about a hypothetical god of truth and his clergy. Being a god of truth, this deity would not support out-and-out lies, but may well support control of information. Never lying to you, his clergy may well still refuse to share information.

And that got me to thinking about the alignment of such a deity. Would it be LN? LN would definitely support the idea of always obeying a code of truthfulness. But even TN can be dedicated to a specific cause, and the truth is, itself, neutral: it's how things are, not how you'd like them to be.

One could even argue for a CN god of truth: his clergy support the idea that information wants to be free, and seek to spread knowledge that it might be used.

The other side of the argument is...would a god of truth actually support the "Aes Seddai" truth? The idea of telling nothing but the truth and yet deceiving with what you choose to say, what you choose to conceal, and how you choose to do both?

I have a hard time accepting that as a god of truth, but I could see LN support for such a position: you've followed the letter of the rule; the law is satisfied. I could see a CN justification: tricksters who never lie are a trope, after all. I have a harder time seeing a TN justification for a "god of truth" and his clergy doing that, oddly enough.

What do you guys think? How does truth, honesty, information control, and the use and manipulation of all three fit into the ethical alignment axis? Is "honesty" almost its own axis, independent of good/evil or law/chaos, or is it tied to one of the axes such that it influences where you lie on it (even if, as with most things, it is not enough to push you to or from an extreme by itself)?

[Grek]

There is a difference between telling the truth (never saying anything that you know to be inaccurate) and being honest (earnestly trying to communicate accurate views to others). You can tell a dishonest truth (lies by omission or other 'exact words' sorts of truths) and you can tell an honest lie (see the concept of lies-to-children and other instructional simplifications) and a god of 'truth' might have any opinion on either practice. You could have a pedantic god who is all about accuracy, even at the expense of clarity. You could have a forthright god who just wants people to say what they really mean. You could have a justice-oriented god that holds intentional deception to be a mortal sin. All of those are gods of 'truth' and they have wildly different views on what sort of statements are true enough to be allowed. Figure out what the god actually stands for, and the question resolves itself.

As far as alignment goes, keep in mind that law and chaos are meaningless and that any action can be justified under any alignment. Insert pithy batman meme here and stop worrying about alignment.

[Segev]

I fundamentally disagree that Law/Chaos are meaningless. Though, more to the point, a significant part of the point of this thread is to discuss the concept of truth, honesty, and information control wrt that ethical alignment axis, so throwing out the concept kind-of defeats the point. ^^;


Agreed, the exact nature of the god would influence it. I am not sure a god of justice is really a god of truth - though I agree he'd value it and could consider deliberate deception to be a mortal sin.

Perhaps a better exercise would be to try to construct gods of Truth for as many alignment positions as possible, and see where we wind up with multiple different-concept gods for the same alignment, vs. any alignments which seem not to support such things.

Vecna, for instance, probably doesn't qualify. As a god of secrets, he potentially could, but I believe he's also very comfortable with lies and deception.

Where would you place a god of truth whose focus was on collecting and disseminating it...but not freely? A clergy of information brokers: they value truth and even honesty, and will not lie nor deliberately deceive with conveniently-told truths...but they will refuse to tell you anything if they don't want you to have the information, and have a tendency to demand payment or information in return for useful or valuable truths and secrets.

This, again, seems either LN or TN to me, though I'm hard-pressed to say which. As a deity, I'd probably put it LN, just based on the fact that clergy can go one step removed from their god. And while I can see LN, TN, and LE worshippers of such a deity, I am hard-pressed to see NG or NE ones. CN ones...hrm. Would there be room for CN in such a religion?

[Seto]

I'm giving a possible (the most all-encompassing I could think of) approach : Truth is not only a matter of words. It's a way of life. Speaking true may designate a relation between what you say and what is real, but being truthful is the sign of a more profound harmonic relation between how you behave and who you are. If all your actions and words are illuminated by truth, only then will you truly be yourself and find your place in the universe.

I'm thinking such a God would be TN, because being true to yourself would encompass lifestyles and actions of pretty much any alignment. Besides, harmony (between your soul, your behaviour and your words) and balance fit well with TN. There's a caveat though : "being a liar", or "a deceptive being", is never part of who you are. It's just a corruption of your inner self that prevents it from appearing and being part of the universe ; it's a disease, a prison that prevents you from truly being free. Therefore, saying "I'm true to myself through behavior such as lying about myself" is theologically impossible, it's heresy.

Now, about withholding information, there's one good reason why this God and his priests would condone it. Sharing information is all good and well, it's even one of the primordial tenets of this faith ; but all the information in the world cannot give you the truth about yourself and the universe. Because that's something you have to quest for, to personally come to discover, or else your possession of truth would be imperfect and superficial. Truth is not merely knowledge, it's an epiphany.
Thus, without lying or actually telling only part of the truth, priests might refuse to answer questions and speak with paradoxes, aphorisms or sutras, to show you the path and ignite your thought.

[goto124]

I thought this was 'is lying a Good, Evil, or Neutral act, or somewhere in between?' question. Less about how gods relate to truth, lies and deception, and more about mortals handling that sort of thing.

Also, about priest speaking in tongues- I figured they were trying to communicate concepts, stuff that you can't really 'tell' someone else about. You could try, but actually understanding the concept requires something deeper. So paradoxes, aphorisms and sutras are better at conveying the information, and you have to take the time to chew over it anyway.

[Seto]

Also, about priest speaking in tongues- I figured they were trying to communicate concepts, stuff that you can't really 'tell' someone else about. You could try, but actually understanding the concept requires something deeper. So paradoxes, aphorisms and sutras are better at conveying the information, and you have to take the time to chew over it anyway.

This obviously refers to my last sentence, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying exactly. It looks like you're rephrasing what I said, but did I miss a point you were trying to make ?

EDIT : I realize that I sound sarcastic ; I'm not.

[VincentTakeda]

What really makes it brutal is that even today, for a lot of people, truth and facts are still subjective.

The difference between firm belief and objective reality is still the widest gap on the planet.

ymmv.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Truth is being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.


1) Truth is the basis of reason. A is A. Without distinction between true and false, there's no logic, mathematics or coherent thought.
2) Truth is the basis of awareness. That observation can reveal fact and reality. Without it, there's no sentience, let alone science.
3) Truth is the basis of knowledge. The sharing, recording and accumulation of information between individuals. Languages are one method of such expression.

As such, Truth is Law.




Lying is a minor chaotic act. Why? Because when you do it, you willingly create beliefs in others that aren't logical, factual and in accord with reality. You're fabricating information that has no fidelity to the original. And such beliefs and information can be countered by observation and logic, just as much as the insane ramblings of a madman or the baseless beliefs of primitives can be.

Witholding information is a neutral act. You refuse to reveal to others facts in accord with reality, to get them to share in on the original standard and ideal. You deny learning and knowledge.

[Satinavian]

I would see a god of truth as most likely LN. If the main principle of a god is a rule for people to adhere to, it should be a Lawful god.

Aes Sedai truths... i wouldn't see the classical god of truth liking them. Maybe they would be minor offenses compared to real lies, but still, actively promoting falsehood is not an acceptable behavior of followers of a god of truth.
There might be a twist, if this god is not only a god of truth, but also of riddles, secrets and enlightenment, which is not that uncommon a combination. In that case, misleading might be allowed and people being deceived should pay better attention.
But for the classical triuh-based god i can't see that as a legitimate action.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

A deity of truth has no reason to manipulate others with lies or withholding information. They know how someone would react to information, thus they reveal the truth about a subject that has the desired outcome. If information would be harmful, they can tell anybody asking just that, informing them they'll regret knowing - then asking whether they'd like to know anyway.

One of the scariest NPCs I ever used in a game was a herald of such a deity. She had the power when speaking the truth to have others recognize it as the truth. Neither lie nor ignorance nor madness nor belief or emotion would bar the herald from her appointed task.

Want to topple a king? Tell people about him being illegitimate or incompetent.
Want to punish someone for his crimes? Simply announce them to the city.
Want to destroy an entire medieval country? Tell the populace the truth about nobility and feudalism.
Want to have someone commit suicide? Reveal to him some stuff about the Old Ones.

[Satinavian]

Want to topple a king? Tell people about him being illegitimate or incompetent.
Want to punish someone for his crimes? Simply announce them to the city.This would require the herold to know this stuff in the first place. And only works, if there are such compelling reasons. You wouldn't be able to topple a competent and legitimate king this way.

Want to destroy an entire medieval country? Tell the populace the truth about nobility and feudalism.Why would that topple anything ? Feudalism evolved because it works pretty well for a low tech society. It is the best availible option under such circumstands.

Want to have someone commit suicide? Reveal to him some stuff about the Old Ones.why doesn't the herold commit suicide then, if the stuff is so dangerous ?

[Tragak]

The way I see alignment:

If two people feel that it's their duty to lie but they want to tell the truth, then the extremely Lawful person would do his duty and the extreme Chaotic would do what he wants.

If two people feel that it's their duty to tell the truth but they want to lie, then the same principle applies. "Truth" isn't Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic, so a single, overarching god of Truth would be True Neutral.

Although, if there's an entire pantheon and several of it's gods share dominion over "Truth," then there might be a LG, a CN, and a NE who's followers value "Truth" for different reasons: the LG would be a god of Accountability ("Good people have nothing to hide from Good leaders"), the CN would be a god of Access ("Anybody should be able to find anything"), and the NE would be a god of Blackmail ("If you learn a person's secrets, you own him").

[Darth Ultron]

Truth is one of those vague things: What is the Truth?

It kind sounds easy: the truth is simply not telling any lies. And that works if you live a simple life. Anything else gets complicated.

Who gets to decide if something is true or not? Fred knows Bob and answers that Bob is a good guy, as far as he knows. If Bob is in fact a crazy killer, did Bob tell a lie or an untruth? Even if he did not know?

If an elf says ''all orcs are dumb'' it's not the truth, right? Even if the elf could produce a library of studies that all said orcs are dumb. But if you were to set a standard, if you can't pass the math test then your dumb...it would be the truth to call someone who failed that test dumb.....at least according to that single test.

Oddly, D&D only has two gods that have Truth: Berronar Truesilver of the dwarves and Cyrrollalee of the halflings. Both are Lawful Good.

[Jay R]

Somebody who always tells the exact truth, no matter who it hurts?

He's Chaotic Evil.

[veti]

My first instinct is that a God of Truth would most likely be LN. They would care about both literal accuracy and honesty. Refusing point-blank to answer a question would be acceptable, but answering in a deliberately misleading way would not.

A God of Secrets is not the same thing at all. "Secrets" are tidbits of information - which may or may not have any assessable truth-value - that are fragmented and revealed only sparingly and in predefined chunks. That's a very different thing from "Truth", which is an integrated, coherent whole. I would expect a God of Secrets to be non-Lawful, most likely even Chaotic (because "secrets" are, by nature, fragmented and incoherent). I'm thinking of Hermaeus Mora here.

A God of Knowledge would be closer to Truth, because Knowledge is also a coherent and integrated whole. But not all Knowledge is Truth or vice-versa. For instance, knowing the lyrics of the Beatles song "All You Need is Love" - that's Knowledge, but it's not necessarily Truth, except in the tautological sense that "it's true that these are the lyrics of the song".


Want to topple a king? Tell people about him being illegitimate or incompetent.

Hah. The people who matter, already know that. If they haven't acted before now, it's because they like things the way they are.

What difference would "truth" make in this case, anyway? If you want to depose a king, just make up whatever evidence you need! Goodness knows it's been done often enough before, and I'm sure it still goes on to this day. If you don't want to depose him, because you're doing very nicely thank you under his illegitimate or corrupt regime, then why would "knowing the truth" change your mind?


Want to punish someone for his crimes? Simply announce them to the city.

This one might work. If the person is in a position for the city to punish him, and if the crimes are such that the city disapproves.


Want to destroy an entire medieval country? Tell the populace the truth about nobility and feudalism.

That might cause some chaos/unrest, but it'd be very limited. Most people learn to live with whatever their circumstances are, and unless those circumstances are - in their own opinion - unspeakably horrible, forcing them to uproot from that certainty is one of the cruellest things you can do to them. "The truth" about feudalism is that it gives you a guaranteed, permanent place to live and role to fill. In a word, it gives you a home. And until technology has reached a certain point, there's just no point in abandoning that.

"Truth" is often a surprisingly unhelpful thing to learn. Even when it is directly relevant to your own life and environment.

[goto124]

the CN would be a god of Access ("Anybody should be able to find anything"

One of my PCs would worship such a god since she grew up in a world of secrets, where knowledge was difficult to access due to the royals actively hoarding them. Is there such a god, I wonder? And why Neutral, not Good? Can it be a case of 'thinks she's Good but actually Neutral'?

[Vitruviansquid]

You've chosen to tackle this problem by first making observations about the nature of truth, and then positing a deity who would fit these observations. The other way is to fabricate your deity of truth, and then posit the nature of truth in your setting from your deity.

You might have an ugly God of Truth that nobody else in the pantheon likes - then the people of your setting thinks of Truth as something unpleasant, taking a "no news is good news" attitude. If your God of Truth is handsome, then "Truth is Beauty" might be a more common attitude. Maybe your God of Truth does or did something to produce truth, or maybe he is just the opponent of somebody who produces lies. What would the implications of that be? Is your God of Truth married? What Goddess is he married to, and what does that cause people to think differently about the nature of truth?

[Lord Raziere]

depends on what you think truth is, and whether you associate it with something else.

LG: The Truth is justice and the criminal's act coming to light.
NG: The Truth is showing that you really care about others
CG: The Truth is something tyrants will always try to suppress
LN: The Truth is what meets certain criteria according to certain processes.
TN: The Truth has no biases
CN: The Truth is what the man doesn't want you to know
LE: The Truth is whatever I make it.
NE: The Truth is just another tool.
CE: The Truth is whatever dark thing people are unwilling to accept.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

In my setting, Truth is too beautiful and too terrible for words.


Turns out, knowing all things at all times is the worst thing and the best thing one could imagine. Knowing all the evil done by any beings in every corner of creation? Bad. Knowing all the evil it's possible to do? Worse. Knowing all the evil the dark powers can imagine and attempt to make possible? Worst. Ditto for good.

[SiuiS]

Interesting.

You cannot divine the deity's alignment from their portfolio, but you could pick up the portfolio from their alignment though.

If truth is the communication of the real and the true, then they would likely be good/neutral. If the truth is just technically accurate factual statements (which is, generally, not the truth even if it's true) then neutral/evil.

If you say god of truth though, then I would say they despise deceptions, not just falsehoods. After all, gods of death want you inanimate (dead) not just in corpse mode (undead).

[goto124]

depends on what you think truth is, and whether you associate it with something else.

LG: The Truth is justice and the criminal's act coming to light.
NG: The Truth is showing that you really care about others
CG: The Truth is something tyrants will always try to suppress
LN: The Truth is what meets certain criteria according to certain processes.
TN: The Truth has no biases
CN: The Truth is what the man doesn't want you to know
LE: The Truth is whatever I make it.
NE: The Truth is just another tool.
CE: The Truth is whatever dark thing people are unwilling to accept.

That's 9 gods of truth! 0-0

Also, I should get round to finding/homebrewing a CG God of Truth for my char.

[Angel Bob]

All I can offer is that this Truth God would certainly not be a fan of illusions.

[BootStrapTommy]

Can't help but think of the Inheritance Cycle and the elves' ancient tongue. You can't lie when you speak it. But you can skirt the truth with subtle language. I do believe Eragon even picks up on this, effectively lying on a few occasions without uttering an untruth, merely being selective with his words.

[Gritmonger]

Depends on their higher principles - do they record truth as it is now and try to preserve it? Are they mere observers, and track the truth as it may change through the years? So, are they archivists or recordkeepers? Do they have any desire to see the truth come out, or do they desire to keep it safe from those who are not meant to know?

Lawful Neutral would probably (in my mind) be in the archivist camp, and might be loathe for the truth to change, where the True Neutral would have no feelings either way other than to adhere to truth, as it is right now, and so might be more the recordkeepers.

If they had Oracles, I think a Lawful Neutral would require a lot of parsing to get a definite truth (very specific wording, library-like, hope you have an index), where a True Neutral might deliver what the person probably wants to know, but without clarification might get it wrong.

[goto124]

do they desire to keep it safe from those who are not meant to know?

I imagine people who believe in the power of truth, also do not believe in the Lovecraftian 'man is not meant to know' concept. They would say 'people going crazy from the truth? What kind of nonsense thing is that?'

A person on these forums posted in a thread (in the Roleplaying section) about eldritch adominations, how a scientist is still human and not crazy even when he seeks, finds and understands the truth. If only I can find it...

There's also the woman who commited suicide after learning the truth that her husband died. I'm sure a truth-seeker-and-giver can come up with an argument for that one.

[SiuiS]

I imagine people who believe in the power of truth, also do not believe in the Lovecraftian 'man is not meant to know' concept. They would say 'people going crazy from the truth? What kind of nonsense thing is that?'

A person on these forums posted in a thread (in the Roleplaying section) about eldritch adominations, how a scientist is still human and not crazy even when he seeks, finds and understands the truth. If only I can find it...

There's also the woman who commited suicide after learning the truth that her husband died. I'm sure a truth-seeker-and-giver can come up with an argument for that one.

I don't know. In a world where knowing the wrong thing alters your soul, maybe they would. Scientists don't think everyone should know the formula for, say, C-4. Authorization has always been a thing. So has conscientious discovery. Unfortunately, so has hubris.

The danger of truth and the gate keeping to make sure only the worthy learn or discover it is the entire point of the wizard and apprentice trope, even. It shouldn't be discarded so quickly. The folks who advocate free knowledge forget what happened to Marie curie. It's not all just discovery.

[goto124]

Point there. How truth is approached can differ from setting to setting. A world where all knowledge is hoarded at the expense of the community? Or a world where people abuse knowledge, leading to the situation you describe?'

[Agrippa]

Actually Lord Raziere, I'd alter the Lawful Evil entry a little bit: "The Truth is whatever serves the Party best."

[goto124]

Or The Truth is whatever serves Me best.

[Lord Raziere]

Actually Lord Raziere, I'd alter the Lawful Evil entry a little bit: "The Truth is whatever serves the Party best."

There is no difference when your in the Party and your the only one in it. After all, whether or not there are people in the Party aside from myself is also another truth to make whatever I want of it, as well as whomever I choose gets to believe that they are in it, whether that is true or not.

[Satinavian]

I would really keep the distinction between truth and knowledge.

Truth is about not lying alone. A rule of interaction. A rule about sharing information, if this occurs.

[NichG]

There's a lot being said here about 'what', and about the specific way that adherents of the deity are supposed to behave. What hasn't received much attention is the 'why?'. Why does each particular truth god care about Truth, to the extent of making it their defining characteristic? While by-the-book alignment specifically cares about actions, the mythology of the god is going to be something that the adherents are aware of and it's going to shape the logic of their decision-making process. Especially if we want to consider neutral and chaotic gods, then interpretation will inevitably be part of the structure of their religion, and so it's important to consider.

Anyhow, here's my attempt at a 3x3:

Lawful Good: "Deception hinders the ability of people to work together and to trust each-other.

Lawful Neutral: "Things either are or they are not. To hold that something is when it is not, or that something is not when it is, is to embrace contradiction. From contradiction, all things become un-knowable. Therefore, we must strive to always serve truth above convenience, lest we lose the ability to know the world at all."

Lawful Evil: "Mortals seek the warmth and comfort of self-deception. They clothe themselves in lies because they are weak, to protect themselves from the harsh realities of the world. My faithful are not permitted such weakness! Once you have embraced the sharp edges of truth, only then can you learn to wield it as a weapon. Learn to recognize the truths that others fear, and use it against them!"

Neutral Good: "To truly balance the good of all, one must see clearly. A lie told for the best intentions of the moment remains there long after its time has passed. It sits there, ill-remembered, but waiting for its chance to cause harm. We each act for the good of ourselves and of others, but if our perceptions of that good are altered, then we may find ourselves accidentally doing evil with our actions."

True Neutral: "Unlike the unbounded nature of excess, balance is unique. There is always but one point which is at perfect balance - one weighting of the scales. An untruth distorts one's perception, it hinders the attainment of balance. Such a flaw may corrupt whatever greater thing it is a part of, preventing it from ever achieving its true potential. If we seek balance, we must also be honest with ourselves. We must not hide our distortions, for should we do so we will render ourselves unable to ever correct them or accept them."

Neutral Evil: "The thing about lies is, they get you killed. You want to murder someone for someone else? Take care of some lucrative and not-at-all-above-board opportunities? That's great and all, but you know what that makes you? A loose end. Unless you've got your professionalism: your Word. Once you're caught in a lie, just once, your Word is worthless. And that means your life is too. But with us, followers of the Truth of the Shadows, we're a known quantity. We can have a reputation without being a liability. And that means that we can be the best."

Chaotic Good: "Deception is a way for one being to exert their will upon another from the shadows. The deceived do not know that their world is being shaped by others, their will to act eroded by falsehood and mis-perception. To lie to someone, to control their information, is to seize their very will in such a subtle way that they do not even know that their freedom has been lost."

Chaotic Neutral: "Reality is a really bizarre and wonderful place. There are so many things that don't make sense. You know how sometimes when you're telling someone a story, you fill in the gaps with what seems logical to you? Stop doing that! How dare you pave over the beauty and wonder and sheer insanity of life with nicely ordered thoughts just because they make more sense to you than what really happened. The world doesn't have to listen to what anyone wants it to be, it just is."

Chaotic Evil: "You want to lie? Go right ahead, if you think you have to. Me, I'll be sitting here watching their dumb-founded looks when they realize I didn't have to play into their stereotypes to crush 'em. We're 'evil'. We lie, we deceive, we kick puppies. Whatever. You know what's better than crushing a person? Crushing an idea. Crushing a philosophy. Crushing a belief. And that means being a higher truth than the other guy. Finding every hole in his beliefs, every doubt, every question, and using the truth to punch through and break them down. When we're done, there won't be any truth but us."

[Satinavian]

I was always of the opinion that alignments should not be a very important characteristic of gods. As with mortals and everyone else, one should befine ideals, principles, behaviors and so on and only after finishing to build a complete being one should look over it and decide which alignment matches the best.

Thus i would not try to fit a concept like "truth" to the existing 9 alignments. Sure, you can try to bend it until it fits, but this is as reosonable as with other concepts or portfolios, like "water", "plants", "strength", "loyalty", "tradition", "murder", "healing", "gifts". You always can do it, but often it will look pretty contrieved.

[NichG]

I was always of the opinion that alignments should not be a very important characteristic of gods. As with mortals and everyone else, one should befine ideals, principles, behaviors and so on and only after finishing to build a complete being one should look over it and decide which alignment matches the best.

Thus i would not try to fit a concept like "truth" to the existing 9 alignments. Sure, you can try to bend it until it fits, but this is as reosonable as with other concepts or portfolios, like "water", "plants", "strength", "loyalty", "tradition", "murder", "healing", "gifts". You always can do it, but often it will look pretty contrieved.

The point was more, if truth is conceptually independent of alignment, it should be possible to make ideologies that both center around the idea of 'truth' and also are consistent with any of the alignments. That is to say, if it was impossible to do a reasonable 3x3 spread, that would directly imply some inherent correlation between alignment and the idea of 'truth'.

[Seto]

The point was more, if truth is conceptually independent of alignment, it should be possible to make ideologies that both center around the idea of 'truth' and also are consistent with any of the alignments. That is to say, if it was impossible to do a reasonable 3x3 spread, that would directly imply some inherent correlation between alignment and the idea of 'truth'.

That's reasonable. I'd just object that "consistent with" isn't the same as "based on" : just because being of a certain alignment doesn't contradict the concept of truth and the possibility of your own interpretation of it, doesn't mean that it would make sense for a God of truth and nothing but truth, specifically, to be of that alignment. I get the feeling that most of your 3x3 creeds would be a lot more appropriate for a CE God (for example) talking about truth, that for a CE God of Truth.

(Which is why I've tried to present a TN creed compatible with every alignment in the previous page).

[NichG]

That's reasonable. I'd just object that "consistent with" isn't the same as "based on" : just because being of a certain alignment doesn't contradict the concept of truth and the possibility of your own interpretation of it, doesn't mean that it would make sense for a God of truth and nothing but truth, specifically, to be of that alignment. I get the feeling that most of your 3x3 creeds would be a lot more appropriate for a CE God (for example) talking about truth, that for a CE God of Truth.

(Which is why I've tried to present a TN creed compatible with every alignment in the previous page).

Well, most any "God of Truth" is going to have some reason for it, beyond just "When they were handing out portfolios I thought to my self 'hey, Truth sounds pretty cosmic, lets go with that one'!". Those reasons are what end up having moral, ethical, philosophical, etc implications.

[Seto]

Well, most any "God of Truth" is going to have some reason for it, beyond just "When they were handing out portfolios I thought to my self 'hey, Truth sounds pretty cosmic, lets go with that one'!". Those reasons are what end up having moral, ethical, philosophical, etc implications.

I laughed at your God of truth impersonation, good one :smallbiggrin: You may be right, but there's still a subtle thing that bugs me (it may be just me). For a God of truth, I think that Truth should have moral implications, not be an implication of a preexisting moral stance. The thing is, the alignments in your grid as you formulated them, that seem believable to me with truth as a primary and fundamental concept, are : LG, LN, LE, TN, CG. (And among them, LE and CG got me only half-convinced). The rest look like truth is a secondary or instrumental concept to them, at best. It's kinda like a God of Earth that would say "I primarily care about travel. And Earth is useful, because, well... I don't always walk, but when I do, I like to have something under my feet". (as opposed to one that would say "Earth is the mother of all, all was created from it and returns unto it, etc.")

[NichG]

I laughed at your God of truth impersonation, good one :smallbiggrin: You may be right, but there's still a subtle thing that bugs me (it may be just me). For a God of truth, I think that Truth should have moral implications, not be an implication of a preexisting moral stance. The thing is, the alignments in your grid as you formulated them, that seem believable to me with truth as a primary and fundamental concept, are : LG, LN, LE, TN, CG. (And among them, LE and CG got me only half-convinced). The rest look like truth is a secondary or instrumental concept to them, at best. It's kinda like a God of Earth that would say "I primarily care about travel. And Earth is useful, because, well... I don't always walk, but when I do, I like to have something under my feet". (as opposed to one that would say "Earth is the mother of all, all was created from it and returns unto it, etc.")

Thats fair. So how do we improve the focus of the NG, NE, CN, and CE guys?

For the NG guy at least, the focus I had there was on the sorts of things that happen in Shakespearean tragedies where characters, due to incomplete knowledge or misapprehension, take actions with the best of intentions but the worst of results. They're very human tragedies rather than social instability, but they're also not strongly individualistic, so I felt that fit as NG. Is the issue that the stance is too reactive against deception or untruth rather than being proactive about truth?

For CN, I'll admit I went a bit with the zany/crazy take to amp it up, but the basic idea I was going for there is the whole 'truth is beauty, beauty truth' ideal.

The CE guy is a bit tricky because he has the most convoluted viewpoint of the 3x3 set. The idea there is sort of to treat truth as a treasure and not let anyone but him and his followers possess it. But on top of that there's the idea of specifically rendering those things other people consider true to be false, to basically force everyone else to be liars even if they don't wish to be, so that it's okay to dehumanize and degrade them. However this is all tied in with a very abstract perspective treating ideas and beliefs as entities which can be directly attacked, so its somewhat hard to untangle.

NE was the hardest to write. I don't know how to save that one without completely changing the angle.

[Segev]

Thats fair. So how do we improve the focus of the NG, NE, CN, and CE guys?

For the NG guy at least, the focus I had there was on the sorts of things that happen in Shakespearean tragedies where characters, due to incomplete knowledge or misapprehension, take actions with the best of intentions but the worst of results. They're very human tragedies rather than social instability, but they're also not strongly individualistic, so I felt that fit as NG. Is the issue that the stance is too reactive against deception or untruth rather than being proactive about truth? NG is oddly a hard one, because I keep finding my designs on an NG God of Truth's philosophy slipping towards either LG or CG: "Deception ruins trust" or "deception denies others their right to self-determination." Perhaps that's why NG would value truth, for both of those reasons. An NG God of Truth would then feel that the truth is the only way to both foster the trust and brotherhood that all Good people should seek, while also respecting the individual rights of everybody to make their own choices unhindered by false beliefs.

That is, don't lie, because a lie both damages your ability to help others by damaging their trust in you (more lawful), and because it's not YOUR choice to control others' decisions by deceiving them (more chaotic). The NG position on the issue is thus the parts of each of LG and CG which are compatible (and leaves by the wayside any which would conflict as unimportant).


For CN, I'll admit I went a bit with the zany/crazy take to amp it up, but the basic idea I was going for there is the whole 'truth is beauty, beauty truth' ideal. The ideal here sounds more TN, to me. "Truth is what is; don't let your moral or ethical bias try to change your perception of it, for that is, itself, untruth."

CN really does strike me as the "information wants to be free!" angle. A god of anti-secrets, perhaps. Never deceive, never conceal. Discover and reveal, and let everybody judge things for themselves based on the most truth that you can present them.


The CE guy is a bit tricky because he has the most convoluted viewpoint of the 3x3 set. The idea there is sort of to treat truth as a treasure and not let anyone but him and his followers possess it. This is the God of Secrets approach, I think.


But on top of that there's the idea of specifically rendering those things other people consider true to be false, to basically force everyone else to be liars even if they don't wish to be, so that it's okay to dehumanize and degrade them. However this is all tied in with a very abstract perspective treating ideas and beliefs as entities which can be directly attacked, so its somewhat hard to untangle.This is not really a god of truth anymore, is I think the problem.

A CE god of truth would likely be all about the hurtful truths. Revel in revealing little white lies to be false. Find truths and reveal them as hurtfully as possible. Sure, hold those truths hostage - blackmail the heck out of people - but back them into a corner until they're unable to pay, specifically so you can reveal their painful truth. The only reason this CE truth god doesn't blackmail and then reveal anyway is because that would be a lie (I won't tell...oh, wait, I did). He doesn't care about honor or reputation the way an LE or NE type might. So that's not what stops him. Just "truth means no lying," so he can't make and break an outright promise.


NE was the hardest to write. I don't know how to save that one without completely changing the angle.Then maybe change the angle, I suppose.

NE can also go the "god of secrets" route, and could also play the blackmailer. But he doesn't do it to spread misery; that's a consequence in which he neither revels nor sorrows. He does it because truth is a powerful tool, and he who has it has already won. Being a god of truth, he does not condone deception. Deception is a sign of weakness, a poison knife that cuts both ways. Obfuscation should be done by denying knowledge, not by providing false knowledge. One never knows when false knowledge will come back to bite its creator. Kill to keep secrets. But never lie. And above all, be honest to yourself. NEver deceive yourself about what you want; if you do, it will be used against you.

[Seto]

Thats fair. So how do we improve the focus of the NG, NE, CN, and CE guys?

For the NG guy at least, the focus I had there was on the sorts of things that happen in Shakespearean tragedies where characters, due to incomplete knowledge or misapprehension, take actions with the best of intentions but the worst of results. They're very human tragedies rather than social instability, but they're also not strongly individualistic, so I felt that fit as NG. Is the issue that the stance is too reactive against deception or untruth rather than being proactive about truth?

For CN, I'll admit I went a bit with the zany/crazy take to amp it up, but the basic idea I was going for there is the whole 'truth is beauty, beauty truth' ideal.

The CE guy is a bit tricky because he has the most convoluted viewpoint of the 3x3 set. The idea there is sort of to treat truth as a treasure and not let anyone but him and his followers possess it. But on top of that there's the idea of specifically rendering those things other people consider true to be false, to basically force everyone else to be liars even if they don't wish to be, so that it's okay to dehumanize and degrade them. However this is all tied in with a very abstract perspective treating ideas and beliefs as entities which can be directly attacked, so its somewhat hard to untangle.

NE was the hardest to write. I don't know how to save that one without completely changing the angle.

NG : I kind of conflate this one with LG. The idea that a lie eventually always comes to light when you expect it the least, and both hurts cooperations and destroys trust, thus harming people. Another, different idea could be that lying (to someone else and especially to yourself) is hiding your flaws and thus impeding your desire to become a better person. Only by being completely honest does one find their true path to Goodness. So it'd be more focused on honesty as an aspect of truth, than abstract truth itself.
We have two ideas : lies hurt trust, and lies hurt your striving towards goodness. Both seem to me like they could be NG, both seem like they could be LG. Let's say that whatever seems the most lawful is LG and the other one is NG.

CN, I think, should have a focus on relativism (I'm changing your angle). Truth is personal and existential, and everyone has to find their own truth. Truth is not theoretical : it's in action. You have a lot of theoretical options and contents, but they're not inherently true : what makes them true is the act by which you accept it and make it yours. Truth is choices, and only through choices does one come to uncover their truth.

CE could rely on a fundamentally pessimistic view of nature/society. Basically, morality, social rules etc. are social constructs (and thus illusions and lies) made up to hide what the world truly is : a jungle. The only intuitive thing we know, we experience, to be immediately true ? Our nasty urges. To accept truth is to do away with all illusions and self-restraint, and revel in our instincts. This one I think works well because it lets you both be Chaotic Evil and look down on Lawful or Good folk because they're clinging to their lies, either hypocrites or mistaken about the world.

NE : Yeah, that one is hard. Probably also a pessimistic view, combined with human determinism and impotency. Truth is sad and inhumane, but it must be swallowed because lucidity is more important than happiness. It would be more gloomy than really Evil. ...Until the deity starts jumping to conclusions and says : "well, if truth is such a sad necessary thing, what we do doesn't matter anymore and we might as well act as opportunistic as possible". In the words of Christian Kane describing his character on Angel : "I think he sees the glass as half-empty... and, hell, I'm gonna drink the rest of the water."

[Karl Aegis]

Lies are a sign of incompetence. If you don't have a truth to tell someone, you haven't prepared enough. Lies are detectable. If there is a chance for failure, the competent person would take the path most likely to succeed. The truth is less likely to fail than a lie.

Always tell the truth. You'll live longer.

[goto124]

*attempts to figure out Karl's alignment*

[Segev]

Lies are a sign of incompetence. If you don't have a truth to tell someone, you haven't prepared enough. Lies are detectable. If there is a chance for failure, the competent person would take the path most likely to succeed. The truth is less likely to fail than a lie.

Always tell the truth. You'll live longer.


*attempts to figure out Karl's alignment*

This sounds definitely Neutral on the ethical axis, and while argument could be made for any of the moral alignments, the attitude expressed suggests non-good, since it contains no reference to the impact on others save for how it reflects back on you. It's harder to judge the lack of explicit statement that others can be used or abused as suggesting non-evil, but there's nothing to specifically suggest "evil." So I'd peg this as a pretty TN thought process, usable by good or evil (though likely not the first thought or motive for a good person).

[Lord Raziere]

Lies are a sign of incompetence. If you don't have a truth to tell someone, you haven't prepared enough. Lies are detectable. If there is a chance for failure, the competent person would take the path most likely to succeed. The truth is less likely to fail than a lie.

Always tell the truth. You'll live longer.

Tyrant: Will you stand against me?
Truth Teller: Yes!
Liar: No.
*Truth Teller dies*
Liar then sneaks up in the night and kills the tyrant in its sleep

LIAR WINS!

[hamishspence]

Demon Leader: Will you stand against me?
Truth Teller: Yes!
Liar: No.
*Truth Teller dies*
Liar then sneaks up in the night and kills the demon in its sleep

LIAR WINS!

That might apply to other villains - but not demons generally - as Outsiders without the Native subtype - they don't need to sleep :smallbiggrin: :

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType

[Lord Raziere]

That might apply to other villains - but not demons generally - as Outsiders without the Native subtype - they don't need to sleep :smallbiggrin: :

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType

change it to "tyrant" then.

[Knaight]

There is a difference between telling the truth (never saying anything that you know to be inaccurate) and being honest (earnestly trying to communicate accurate views to others). You can tell a dishonest truth (lies by omission or other 'exact words' sorts of truths) and you can tell an honest lie (see the concept of lies-to-children and other instructional simplifications).

I'd contest the honest lie here. You can present a simplified model knowing that you're doing so, but the only way there is lying involved is if you pretend you're doing something else - this is where most instructional simplifications come in. Dishonest truth telling on the other hand is a point of complete agreement - lies by omission, deliberately implying something you know to be false without actually saying it, systematically making true observations about part of something while totally ignoring another part and encouraging a warped interpretation, so on and so forth.

This isn't getting into the ethics of when dishonesty is acceptable, though I think we can all agree that there are at least some circumstances where it is - even if fairly extreme examples (e.g. protecting people from totalitarian states inciting pogroms, large scale ethnic cleansing, the systematic imprisonment and murder of intellectuals, or whatever else).

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Demon Leader: Will you stand against me?
Truth Teller: Yes!
Liar: No.
*Both die*
Demon Leader: That's what happens when you expect Chaos to be logical.

[Segev]

Well, by a twisted form of logic, the truth-teller just illustrated that he was NOT competent enough. If he were, it would go something like this:

<Tyrant> Will you stand against me?
<Truth-teller> Yes.
<Liar> No.
* Truth-teller destroys the tyrant.


Obviously, this is not always a viable solution, but if your philosophy is that lies are a sign of weakness...

[NichG]

Why assume that the tyrant cannot detect a lie?

Tyrant: Will you stand against me?
Liar: No.
Truth Teller: Yes
*Tyrant kills both*

Instead, a more interesting situation, trying to be fair to the competencies of both the liar and the truth teller, might be:

Tyrant: Will you stand against me?
Liar: No, I want to see this world you're going to create.
Truth Teller: Not until I'm powerful enough to win.

[goto124]

Well, by a twisted form of logic, the truth-teller just illustrated that he was NOT competent enough. If he were, it would go something like this:

<Tyrant> Will you stand against me?
<Truth-teller> Yes.
<Liar> No.
* Truth-teller destroys the tyrant.


Obviously, this is not always a viable solution, but if your philosophy is that lies are a sign of weakness...

It should be other other way round!

<Tyrant> Will you stand against me?
<Liar> No.
*Truth-teller destroys the tyrant*
<Truth-teller> Already did.

[Segev]

It should be other other way round!

<Tyrant> Will you stand against me?
<Liar> No.
*Truth-teller destroys the tyrant*
<Truth-teller> Already did.

That works, too. It's a matter of taste: do you like your one-liners Pre- (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PreAssKickingOneLiner) or Post-Asskicking? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BondOneLiner)

[Angel Bob]

I like the direction this thread is going. :smalltongue:

[goto124]

Pre-asskicking lines just give your enemies a chance to save themselves. Post-asskicking lines are far more pragmatic and make sure the victim's already down before you gloat.

[Grek]

NG: "It is said that all war is based in deception. Yet, it is the very opposite that is true. All deception is war. To tell someone a lie is just as wicked as it is lead them blind into the bog like a traitorous will-o-wisp. Both are acts of subtle violence. To hoard a secret from an eager pupil is just as wicked as to hoard bread from a starving beggar. Both are acts of callous neglect. Only the honest teacher may truly claim to be peaceful and kind."

CN: "Truths are beautiful and terrible things, oft maligned by courts and kings. A law which cannot protect the freedom of the bard to tell his tale, of the preacher to spread his gospel, of the poet to offer his verse, it is not a law at all, but merely a weapon for those who would coerce you. This is why our priesthood burns not books, but rather fills our holy censers with the ashes of the censor."

NE: "The first discoveries of your kind were knapping, firestarting and the spear - proof that progress always springs first from destruction. My offer here is no different. I shall reveal hidden truths of nature and science, making your tribe wise beyond its years. All I ask is that you obey these three simple rules: Make nothing but weapons, offer nothing but blood and leave nothing but ashes."

CE: "Polite society is based on little white lies, minor omissions and all manner of unchallenged assumptions. If a man looked upon his neighbor as he truly was, he would be disgusted with his deceit and horrified with his wickedness! By revealing the truth to our faithful, we empower them to recognize the fundamental ugliness of 'civilized' social order and empower them to bring it all toppling down, returning the world to a contest of might against might, will against will, frank, honest and pure."