Intelligence vs. Wisdom in D&D

To start off, an article on the subject posted here: http://www.gamegrene.com/node/385
The article describes a situation (a trap) encountered by a party of four characters with varying Intelligence and Wisdom scores. Some of what it states I agree with, but other points I find lacking.

Now, I do think that the Cleric in the example is showing signs of intelligence by reasoning. However, the waters are further muddied by the idea that 'common sense' is simply a different level of reasoning. You aren't going to take a knife and stab yourself in the foot, because common sense dictates that it isn't going to feel good. Yet, you're showing reasoning abilities by understanding the effect of the action before you do it. Some people consider it to be something you know without having to reason, yet 'common sense' is learned just like anything else. A child under a certain age doesn't necessarily see this connection until it is taught, so we can't say that it requires no reasoning ability.

As far as aphorisms go, I've also heard, "Intelligence is the knowledge you possess. Wisdom tells you how and when to apply that knowledge."

You can therefore show intelligence by realizing that stabbing yourself in the foot is going to hurt. You show wisdom, then, by deciding not to stab yourself in the foot.

A Wizard with high Intelligence and low Wisdom may have at his disposal a wide array of highly destructive spells... but he doesn't necessarily take into consideration whether or not a maximized, heightened fireball is the best spell to use in a 20x20 room against a fire elemental.

In contrast, a Cleric with a high Wisdom but a low Intelligence may be well aware that something needs to be done, but may not know enough to do anything. They're not likely to act without knowing the full situation, and they may even realize that they simply don't have the knowledge necessary to enact any sort of plan.

The Cleric, in the example above, showed Wisdom by realizing that others in the party had more knowledge of the situation, and let those with the appropriate knowledge deal with the situation. Yes, sometimes the wisest action is to not take action.

It's also possible for someone to recognize that something needs to be done, and for them to try and do something despite having insufficient knowledge of the best path, which can cause problems on its own. This could be seen as someone succeeding at one wisdom check while failing the next, or even as a median level between 'average' and 'high' wisdom.

A person with low Intelligence and low Wisdom likely would react similarly to the fighter in the example: If they even recognize the problem, chances are good they only have a limited scope of how to deal with it, and they are likely to implement a solution without realizing (or caring) what the full effects would be.

A person with both high Intelligence and high Wisdom is the sort of person who can argue with himself endlessly, proposing argument and counter-argument, eventually making himself dizzy with circular logic.

Probably my favorite quote upon the topic, however, comes from an old movie, "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao":

"Do you know what wisdom is?"
"No."
"Wise answer."

No longer using Orble

For a while I was cross-posting both here and on my former Orble blog, Gamer Bard. However, Orble decided I didn't post frequently enough and handed over my domain to someone else.

I understand that's part of their policy, and that new bloggers are encouraged to choose a "dead" domain from their list. And I will admit I'd somewhat expected it, since I hadn't posted there since February. The redistribution wasn't recent, though. It was taken over back in April, a mere 2 months past my last post

Now, in the competitive blogging world, I suppose that's a freakishly long time. But every time previously that I'd taken a while to post, I'd gotten an email telling me so. This time, no email, no warning, nothing saying "we have someone who wants to take over your blog, post now or else".

So, whatever. Just bear in mind, if you happen across that site, that anything past February of '09 isn't mine.

Lying, and its place in the D&D Alignment Table

Before we get into this, a quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds:

Ends and Means: When do good means justify evil ends to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information to prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing a thousand deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and the neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe? In the D&D Universe the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good it may achieve. A Paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. ... Whether or not the good ends can justify the means they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.

Several years ago, this quote was used to express the idea that lying is, according to D&D rules, an Evil act and would therefore be anathema to Paladins and anyone else wishing to keep a Good alignment.

So the Gods of Goodness would rather have you tell a demilich where the last sanctuary of all that is Good is, truthfully, rather than lie and throw it off course, thereby saving the world (not to mention all of their worshipers, that, y'know, give them their power by worshiping them...).

Or, you could just not talk to the demilich at all, despite being tortured a million ways till Sunday. That's *perfectly* alright, because simply not revealing information, rather than lying, is listed as Good. Never mind that it means the demilich is going to kill you slowly and painfully. If you'd lied, there might have been a better chance of escape, but no... That would be Evil.

Because, of course, if you can't have a world without lies, you might as well not have a world at all...

Nice to know how much the Gods of Good love their worshipers. Veritable suicide is not the best way to serve one's deity. If nothing else, it means you can't serve any more.

As a side note, I have a history of disregarding things that WotC tries to pass off, and using my own common sense instead. Not just here, but in all the games they've produced that I've played, because WotC has a history of making some rather ridiculous rulings in the past. These are the same people that spent months playtesting their cardgames, only to ban a large number of those cards they produced from tournaments they sponsor.

One of the things I specifically remember from the old, 1st Edition AD&D books was the disclaimer that the handbooks were all meant as an aide to the creative process, and were not necessarily to be taken as the end-all, be-all of how things are. They had that, as I recall, in the introduction page at the front of the Player's Handbook. Seems to be lacking in 3rd Edition, strangely enough.

Lying is capable of hurting people, yes. So is telling the truth.

One of the first lessons given in first aid training is to reassure the patient. No matter what their condition is, you always tell them they're going to make it. It's called psychological first aid. Why is this done? Because if the person believes they'll pull through, they have a better chance of doing so. If the person knows they're likely to die, they may give up hope, losing the will to live, when they could have been saved. To say to them, "Hey man, this looks pretty bad. I don't think you're gonna make it." can be lethal.

I personally believe that lying should not be considered Evil. If it has to be aligned to any extreme, I think it should be considered a Chaotic act. Even that, though, I disagree with. It may not be lawful according to the laws of a nation, but I don't consider a person's Lawfulness, as it applies to the game, to be based upon their adherence to the laws of a nation. Lawfulness, to me, is simply adherence to a set of rules/laws or a code, which may be based upon the laws of the character's environment, or may be a personal code they developed. As long as they stick to it, I consider them Lawful. If there's nothing in their code which prohibits lying, then lying is not unlawful.

Personally, I see the act of lying as akin to a tool. A hammer is not in itself lawful, chaotic, good, or evil. It is the purpose to which that tool is put, the effect it causes, and the intent of its use which determine the alignment of the action taken. At that point it is not the tool which is attributed with the alignment, but the person who used it.

Unless the Paladin had taken an oath never to tell a lie, or unless their deity had lying as a particularly abhorred act (up there in the Unforgivable Deeds list), I don't see that a Paladin telling a lie should cause them to Fall. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any Paladins, or at least not for long.

If there is a particular deity that specifically has a problem with lying, fine. Paladins of that deity should get penalized for lying. But that's why there are other deities. Just because one God says that lying is bad, doesn't mean another does, despite having many of the same goals and possibly the same alignment. Don't confine all Lawful Good characters to the dictates and dogma of one deity, especially when it may not be that character's deity.

Further, any deity that has War as one of their domains cannot honestly claim to be free of lies.
Misdirection is a part of combat. Any time a person makes a feint to throw off the enemy, they're lying. Should people who are Good (or Lawful, if you prefer) start calling out their shots to the enemy?

"I'm aiming for your head now! ... Good block! Now I'm going for your right leg..."

Quite honestly, without some measure of misdirection and deception in combat, a person's moves become predictable to a fault, and they are going to fail. But... at least they won't be lying to their enemy.

That's the type of thinking that gave rise to the term 'Lawful Stupid'. You don't have to fight your enemy on their terms.

Indiana Jones. You know the scene. The burly guy with the scimitar spends a good minute showing off. Rather than take out his whip and get into a contest of skill based upon the enemy's groundrules, Indy whipped out his gun and shot him. When that movie showed for the first time, theater audiences cheered.

You don't think of Indiana Jones as a Paladin type? *shrugs* He had his faith, and it protected him. The Ark didn't kill him. He was crusading for goodness, and for his code of law, putting holy relics and artifacts where they belonged, "in a museum," rather than leaving them in the hands of the thieves and murderers that stole them.

At any rate, feinting in combat, whether it's a one-on-one duel or the tactical false retreat of an army, is lying. I'm not arguing that violence itself is evil, although there are enough arguments out there for that. What I'm saying is that using misdirectional tactics is lying. Acting is lying. Roleplaying is lying.

Actually, as for violence, the Book of Exalted Deeds actually tackles that quandary, stating that it is the intent of violence that determines whether it is a Good or Evil act. Yet, lying is not given the same relativistic treatment?

Yes, D&D is a game originally based on moral absolutes. Yet, it's a game which gets constantly criticized and remodeled in order to make it 'more real'. Well, if we want to make it 'more real', we're going to have to realize that the original black & white ground-rules may be in need of some Crayolas.

I'm not asking for the system of alignments to be thrown out. All I'm saying is that I believe lying, in itself, is not inherently of any given alignment. I'm asking that people, from DMs to Players, have an open mind and allow for a wider interpretation of the alignments, especially when considering extenuating circumstances.