One of the major issues in D&D, or any RPG setting is the issue of alignment. While most people get the general concept, there is a lot of misunderstanding on how the system basically works. So i just wanted to show my piece about explaining what an absolute morality system is compared to a retaliative one. Check it out here (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html), sorry i can't figure out the link function properly My main thesis that while the metaphysical concepts of good and evil are absolute in the game, IE not up for interpretation, but Right and wrong are still subjective and up to personal interpretation. Enjoy
from
EE
For the link use ether [*link*]URL[*/link*] without the * Or, use [*link=URL*]Some text [*/link*] once again without the *
Just want to say I read the blog post, it was pretty funny in parts, and a good look at the alignment system. Though, as someone mentioned in the comments, you seem to have a thing for ASoIaF.
Quote from: EvilElitestOne of the major issues in D&D, or any RPG setting is the issue of alignment.
Only if the DM has an obsession with alignment or is unable to play without it. I personally don't use alignment. The closest I have ever really gotten is social charts so that I would know how an NPC might react to a player's choices.
On the matter at hand though, it was an interesting topic.
@Llum - what exactly does ASolaF mean?
I never liked Alignment the way it was presented in 3.x. Its too restrictive and too important to many abilities and classes. I much prefer 4E's method, though simplistic as it is. Honestly, I believe Exalted system of defining a character through 4 key traits is a much better system than alignment. Still, given the choice, I would remove alignment entirely and simply watch my players for out of personality actions.
Still you present a valid argument for keeping the 3.5 system, I just don't feel its entirely necessary to have a system like it rather than simply implying everything though fluff and action.
ASoIaF is "A Song of Ice and Fire," George R. R. Martin's brilliant fantasy epic.
1) Wait like this evilelitest.blogspot.com (//hyperlinkurl) ?
2) Even in games that don't have alignment, the ideal of morality still plays part, just weather its relative or absolute. For example, if i played a game based upon Beserk, that doesn't mean the alignment system has to go away, people just wouldn't be aware of it (and everybody would be evil). If you choose to not use alignment, you are still interacting with the game's morality.
3) I actually think 4E's alignment is far more restrictive, because they simplify things to the point where it doesn't make sense. Reading their descriptions, good and evil are just "Saints and Serial Killers", and cutting the Chaos/Law aspect out just makes things black and white. Unaligned is generally a crop out to avoid having to do work, but essentially, 4E's entire alignment system is a bit of a crop out, because they are just taking a system that did work, but was just badly presented (with a few exceptions like poison) and then simplified it. 4E would be better off just not having an alignment system at all, because what they did was mix relative and absolute into this confusing mess
4) Exalted i don't think has any alignment system, through you could apply the D&D one to I suppose. I'm a little confused about what your saying through, isn't Exalted traits definition characters exactly the same as D&D's class traits defining characters?
5)ASoIa is a song of Ice and Fire by martin, a truly wonderful series that is one of the most realistic fantasy novels you can find. My point there is that every character in the series (except possibly Jamie) thinks what they are doing is right, even through most of them would be D&D evil.
Thanks for all the comments. Part two is on the blog as well
from
EE
A semi-random sampling of other comments on alignment, most rants removed. Most.
Because this is a can of worms oft-openned, and many good back-and-forth conversations have come from them.
I also read most of the entry, and thnk you got most of the nuances and issues relevant to the D&D lexicon.
I just tend to believe that the alignment system also is used as a crutch for bad roleplaying, and the better the game and the better the players, the more alignment is a hindrance than a help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[blockquote=LC]The reason I don't see Enneagrams as effective Alignment-substitutes is that while it's easy to encapsulate an eternal struggle between Order and Chaos, or between Good and Evil, it's much harder to conceive of a similar struggle between Type-Seven-Personalities and Type-Fours. It's not black-and-white enough to fill that role.
I would encourage certain types of players (read: "players who are a lot like LC") to consider reading about the Enneagram, the Meyers-Briggs Personality Typing system, or any number of other classification methods, if they're interested in brainstorming personality traits for the characters they're playing. But it's not for everybody, and I can't imagine it functioning very well as a game mechanic in any case.
Just stay away from the magazine quizzes, I guess. [/blockquote]
Mm. Have to agree with you on most of this, though I am not going to go through my alignment rant in full.
I actually do use some of the five factor model of trait theory as it is refreshingly honest enough to admit it is a descriptor, not a dynamic theory. I got into the habit of scoring OCEAN (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extravsion, Agreeablenes, and Neuroticism) a 1-100 for my NPC's, and sometime putting a few words next to it.
It and many trait theory variants are great for describing NPC's. I often like to scribble somehting about the depth of the NPC, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[blockquote=scholar]idea 2: alignment is determined by the gods
your detect spells work from your god's POV, so, to stay with the inquisition, their fellow priests would see them as the paragon of goodness, while a pagan witch would see them as evil. this is basically a "detect heretic".[/blockquote]
Only takes me months to get to these things.
This is pretty similar to what Celtricia does, for myriad reasons.
I believe that alignment as a game mechanic has a place in some games, but that is it incredibly simplistic. As said in some half-dozen other threads, my viewpoint is that an absolute alignment system exists only in a near perfect inverse relationship to the maturity level of the setting. Snargash's extreme mental gymnastics are a perfect example of meshing these two nearly mutually exclusive concepts.[spoiler=much love]Snargash, I do read through almost every casting of
'Wall of Text' that you cast. Just am crazy busy.
And I apologize to anyone who takes umbrage to my comments in advance.[/spoiler]
I have 2 mechanics I use as a GM to get similar results.
1) Faction specific spells that detect allegiance or influence. As an example, The Church of the Lawful Triumverate has specific spells that can detect if a person worships entropic beings at close range, and more exact spells that can detect individual churches at some distance. With even greater range, priests from the LT can detect the strong use of Entropic magics. Almost every church has some version of these.
2) I don't like alignment in the traditional game use, but I do actually keep track of every players actions on an alignment graph, and I have done this for decades. It affects little, but it gives me an idea if they are playing a moral position well. This takes it out of players hands for use in cheap justification amd allows for the motivational ambiguity so important to a roleplaying-heavy while at the same time I track my players actions behind the scenes.
I also keep track of what religious factions or worse, their patrons, a player has run afoul of or made friends with. Do enough excavations into ancient temples of the Entropic Overlords, and eventually they will notice you, esepcially if you kill some some entropic outsiders while you are exploring.
Time will tell if that made sense or was helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peeve #41 from the misanthropic desk of the Thread Murderer.
This strange idea that ancient, immortal beings of incalculable power can be pigeon holed into an alignment system at all.
Every ninth thread or so, we bunch our collective panties about whether the alignment system works for regular folks. We weigh the merits of whether NPCs or PCs or classes should be constrained by alignment at all.
Yet some people want to to try to assign a 2 letter value to the motivational script of a potentially unknowable greater creature rife with creative juices borne form the time of creation,and driven by events and passions fired by a hundred or more human generations??
Right.
x.
(More coffee)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of tossing in one's 2 cents, I am somewhere in the $3.19 range in this thread already...
So you'd think I'd let well enough alone. But noooo....
I actually have to thank MythMage for this thread, as there has been a lot of real thought put into many of the answers, as well as an intersting cross-section of what kind of play different world builders are looking for.
Because even more than the overarching question that was originally asked, this thread has been more of an exercise in the different way GM's want to use or not use the moral scales in their games.
[blockquote=slapzilla]Does moral relativism have any room in DnD RAW? I don't think so as the system is set up to be fantasy... simpler than reality.[/blockquote] IS this supposed to mean that all fantasy is simpler than reality? I can't agree with that. Something being fantastic may mean that is wildly different, but not always simpler.
I do agree that the orignal D&D game was built with that in mind. The afor-mentioned 'detect evil', or 'Protection from evil' etc, is certainly direct evidence that the original game was more of direct morality play. But much like many other folks have tried their hands at improving and changing those rules (or writing their own) to fit their setting, such is the case here, as well. and where a hit location chart may make the game more realistic and more enjoayble for some folk, a more ambiguous alignment/morality system does the same thing for other GM's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Forced alignment?--Never. I can see racial and cultural tendencies, such as a cultural tendency towards callousness due to hardship, or a tendency towards organization or disorganization. Even dragons in my setting do not grow a color until their personality starts to set. A gold dragon can have a bratty black dragon.
I have always felt that it takes the role playiong out of the game. Players in Celtricia that run into a tribal band of Orcs, ogres, and Bugbears out in the wild will normally (depsnding on where they are) have to find out who they are before attacking, and if they don't know, will normally converse first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: TybaltSo in other words religion is rather like say that of the Greeks or Romans in that you worship deities not based on alignment or allegiance (unless you're a priest or priestess) but rather based on your particular needs of the moment?
So for instance let's say Jor (your guy from above) has a few different circumstances.
Let's say he needs to do the following things and wants divine assistance if possible. First of all for a good marriage for his brother, second for surviving an upcoming campaign, third for a journey he's about to undertake. Am I correct in assuming he doesn't expect a particular deity he worships to cover this for him?
Jor is a human member of the Scarlet Pilums, so he probably worships at the Lawful Triumverate, the Church of the Hunt (Verbren), or the Wild Hunt (Geryon), as they are the most martial churches in town and are the most likely patrons of a Scarlet Pilums. We'll say that He follows Verbren the Hunter as his Major Patron. The best way to describe it using the same words you used would be to say that people have a major patron church but that the needs of a particular circumstance make it totally acceptable to pay homage of a deity that can better control the outcome of that need.
As in most things in the World of Factions, shades of grey rule. But almost all major patron churches are heavily influencesd by guild and group memberships. So understand, a patron deity is normally a function of the most common aspect in a person's life. Jor understands that he is subject to any Deity's will if he is in their sphere of influence, but expects Verbren 's protection to help him in most of his day-to-day affairs.
However, in the situation you describe, Jor would probably go to the Church of Woerter of the Hosting to pray for a blessing for his brother's wedding and to recive a token from the church to give to his brother.
He'd count on Verbren to protect him in the campaign against the Zyjmanese, but he'd actually make a trip over to the Church of Direction (Arlieng the Guide) to pray for a safe journey. He'd probably hit the Devilkin Shrine of Oblimet, Devil-Duke of Travels that is in the Church of Direction while he was there to cover his bases, and maybe to get a token, if he could afford it.[note]There are often shrines to Saints or other deities that share spheres in common in a church, unless they are already in another church. That is actually how the Chruch of the Lawful Triumverate came into being, and the Church of Direction's major Patron is Arlieng, but there are shrine's to Obliment and Saint Manwessa the Younger. [/note]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I echo that there is no correct answer here, except that alignment, if used, must be consistent throughout the campaign. It must be stated ahead of time, and clearly. Anything with consequences must be. I thought that because I only use it for myself when I DM, it did not matter, but the biggest fight my PC's ever had was over whether and act that a knight was performing was really lawful, or was it chaotic and he was just twisting the logic to rationalize it.
(A PC member of the Collegium Tortoris slew him the next session, and he was one of the most powerful PC fighters that has been run in two and a half decades...so this alignment stuff matters to us, but the PC's need it as well, if they role-play their characters well.)
I will also throw out there that when you actually score this stuff, the hardest part is that it is relative. The baby kobold bologna example might be pretty heinous to everyone, but when a paladin does it, it's huge, richter shaking news, while for Sam the Assassin Lord, it may be a normal lunchtime.
In other words, moral-relativism affects alignment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never understood the bad rap it gets, but nor do I understand the dogmatic allegiance to it, either.
As long as alignment is a respocne, not a predictor, it works fine. I don't have my players choose an alignment, I actually graph it in 3 dimensions (Order/chaos, good/evil, active/passive) based on their actions, for my DM use. The Gods of Celtricia are bounded by the aspect that the worshippers percieves of them, not by the God itself. Gods in Celtricia are huge...and misunderstood.
(I'm sorry, there is no one in a town who would go to church at the 'evil' church)
That snapshot you mention is actually really intersting if you graph it. I give each player little points on most of their major actions, and actually graph it When you have a 13 year PC's graph, you get some really intersting movement and deviation (and a ratty old piece of graph paper, to boot.)
But the reason I am posting onto this is the misunderstood place of Lawful-good. I have seen in so many threads people mentioning intolerant, pious, self righteous churches or church-sponsored folks who are called by their respective GM handlers 'Lawful-Good'.
Good people don't persecute other people. Good PCs and good NPCs don't round up people who don't beliecve as they do. That's lawful-evil, or at best lawful neutral.
:blah: This could be a fun thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth noting, in D&D proper alignment isn't from the gods, its from a higher power above the gods. Deities follow the good/evil scale like everybody else.
I wouldn't say that the alignment system is a sign of bad roleplaying, unless somebody uses it to define their character.
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestWorth noting, in D&D proper alignment isn't from the gods, its from a higher power above the gods. Deities follow the good/evil scale like everybody else.
I wouldn't say that the alignment system is a sign of bad roleplaying, unless somebody uses it to define their character.
from
EE
EE, alignment is not a sign of bad roleplaying. Merely a crutch for bad roleplaying, in my very personal and prejudiced viewpoint.
also, as to alignment and the higher beings...
[blockquote=Vreeg]Yet some people want to to try to assign a 2 letter value to the motivational script of a potentially unknowable greater creature rife with creative juices borne form the time of creation, and driven by events and passions fired by a hundred or more human generations??
Right.
x.
(More coffee) [/blockquote]
Quote from: EvilElitest3) I actually think 4E's alignment is far more restrictive, because they simplify things to the point where it doesn't make sense. Reading their descriptions, good and evil are just "Saints and Serial Killers", and cutting the Chaos/Law aspect out just makes things black and white. Unaligned is generally a crop out to avoid having to do work, but essentially, 4E's entire alignment system is a bit of a crop out, because they are just taking a system that did work, but was just badly presented (with a few exceptions like poison) and then simplified it. 4E would be better off just not having an alignment system at all, because what they did was mix relative and absolute into this confusing mess.
I wouldn't disagree with this. However, I've never liked Alignment and so a system where Alignment is just a weak attribute of a much larger character makes me happy. Too many arguments occurred as to whether some one was C/G or N/G; C/N ot C/E, etc. There was too much grey area between each alignment; they overlapped in so many area... It was simply too much of a hassle at the table.
Quote from: EvilElitest4) Exalted i don't think has any alignment system, through you could apply the D&D one to I suppose. I'm a little confused about what your saying through, isn't Exalted traits definition characters exactly the same as D&D's class traits defining characters?
I suppose I sort of rambled on there. What I meant was that I preferred Exalted's system because it defined your character in more (and different) ways than D&D's alignment and gave the player to choice of where to put their dots. It also forced player to make a save of some kind (never played exalted, only read the book a few years back so my memory is a bit) sketchy) when players went against their profile. To me, it feels more real than a player just saying 'yeah I kill that orphanage, I don't care if I go evil! Die younglings, die!"
1) If alignment acts as a crutch, then it is one that breaks more often than not, because it is the bad role players who aren't good at roleplaying are often the people who screw up more often than not in terms of using alignment, like MIko or Belkar (if they were players)
2) Actually considering how generally pagan D&D gods are, It makes sense, good/evil/law/chaos come from powers beyond the D&D gods.
Elemental Elf
1) Well if you don't like alignment at all, thats fine. Personally, I like the system, because I find the afterlife and what not a major part of my games, so it makes sense to me, I like having absolute good and evil. But I can understanding why one would want relative alignment. The problem with 4E is that it is an absolute system hat wants to be a relative system, which is possibly the worst way to go about it. 3E is an absolute system, for better or for worst, but it was a consistent one. Its problem is that it is horrible presented, which i explain in the part two on my blog
2a) Ironically enough i've just started reading the 1E book of Exalted yesterday, and i only just read that part. The thing is, i don't think it is really that effected, but i'm bias because personally i don't like having mechanical personality traits, as i think those should be up to the personal roleplaying. To be fair, i still haven't played an exalted game, but i don't know if it is a proper replacement system.
2b) Well your right in that a person who randomly destroys orphanages is a cliche and horribly unimaginatively idea, i think somebody who would do that is generally just a bad player, regardless of alignment system. A good example of logical evil would be say, well Napoleon, a selfish bastard but not a psychopath by any means.
nice avatar by the way
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitest2) Even in games that don't have alignment, the ideal of morality still plays part, just weather its relative or absolute. For example, if i played a game based upon Beserk, that doesn't mean the alignment system has to go away, people just wouldn't be aware of it (and everybody would be evil). If you choose to not use alignment, you are still interacting with the game's morality.
Yes and then it ceases being an alignment system. I and quite a few others I know don't use an alignment system. I am probably the one that comes the closest to using any type of system (my likes/dislikes and morality charts). Most of the rest of those referenced don't use anything, they just wing it. There is no system for them. Sure you might say this still deals with alignment. However, at this point it is not truly a system and then alignment (really I think a bad name that has helped keep the problems alive) is better described then as general beliefs. You don't HAVE to have a crunch system at all, you can run it totally fluff.
You can certainly, but having an alignment system doesn't automatically damage the game. Alignment, at least the D&D version isn't quite beliefs, it is any form of absolute morality that governs the world.
For example, I make a game world where everything is run by two separate forces, and each follows a different code. Super power one likes those who follow the believes of the say, a very christian like god, and every person in that world who dies following that code goes to its heaven. The other one is more Buhiddist, and everyone following its code goes to its afterlife. The people in-between are simply reincarnated. That world is essentially an absolute morality system. Alignment isn't just the mechanical basis, its a system upon which the world functions. Again, that doens't make it better than a system that doesn't have any morality system, it just makes it different. In theory you could apply the D&D alignment system to most other games, but of course in theory you can just get ride of it in D&D
from
EE
By the by, what are these four circles below my avatar?
from
EE
As far as I can tell its like a "rank" system. Whenever you hit a certain amount of posts, a circle gets colored blue (well a deeper blue). Once there all blue, they become a white-ish color. The name of the rank changes as well.
Thanks. What are the golden ones, or is that a even higher one? I kinda suspected a rank system, but does anybody know how it works. Thanks
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestElemental Elf
1) Well if you don't like alignment at all, thats fine. Personally, I like the system, because I find the afterlife and what not a major part of my games, so it makes sense to me, I like having absolute good and evil. But I can understanding why one would want relative alignment. The problem with 4E is that it is an absolute system hat wants to be a relative system, which is possibly the worst way to go about it. 3E is an absolute system, for better or for worst, but it was a consistent one. Its problem is that it is horrible presented, which i explain in the part two on my blog
2a) Ironically enough i've just started reading the 1E book of Exalted yesterday, and i only just read that part. The thing is, i don't think it is really that effected, but i'm bias because personally i don't like having mechanical personality traits, as i think those should be up to the personal roleplaying. To be fair, i still haven't played an exalted game, but i don't know if it is a proper replacement system.
2b) Well your right in that a person who randomly destroys orphanages is a cliche and horribly unimaginatively idea, i think somebody who would do that is generally just a bad player, regardless of alignment system. A good example of logical evil would be say, well Napoleon, a selfish bastard but not a psychopath by any means.
nice avatar by the way
from
EE
I don't mean to come off preachy, I apologize if I have. I can totally see the value of an absolute Alignment It makes the life of a DM and his world easier to understand, less shades of gray. However, I feel the way 3.5's alignment was explained left it open to interpretation to a much larger degree than it originally intended. The problem is that D&D caters to 2 disparate those that want to kill monster, take their stuff and level up. The other group are those who view the world as more than a collection of XP and feel constrained by any mechanics that hinder role playing. Now most people fall some where between these 2 extremes. WotC decided to cater to the extremes by making, as you say, an absolute Alignment but then did not follow through and make that system matter, the way it should. The end result was, IMO, a less than seller system. If D&D were a truly absolute system, it would work much better.
Quote from: EvilElitestThanks. What are the golden ones, or is that a even higher one? I kinda suspected a rank system, but does anybody know how it works. Thanks
from
EE
It is indeed a rank system. You start off with light blue circles, that slowly fill in becoming dark blue. When you hit 4 Dark Blue orbs, you then move onto Gold. When you have 4 Gold, I believe you get another set of light blue orbs below the original and level up in the same way. Back in the day the rank names were based off the characters of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm not sure what book the new rank names are based off of... :)
Quote from: EvilElitestYou can certainly, but having an alignment system doesn't automatically damage the game. Alignment, at least the D&D version isn't quite beliefs, it is any form of absolute morality that governs the world.
I never said it damages the game. I just prefer not to use it as I don't like it. While in theory yes its a system of morality, in practice it's a system of belief. Belief of (and I am talking totally meta-crunch here) how the pc should act based on how the player sees things. The old problem of players seeing alignment as a shackle for their character instead of a guideline. This is why I don't like the name "alignment" system. It evokes a sense of needing to align yourself to one of several standards and so you wind up getting shoehorned into a certain role. Is this how it's supposed to work? No. Is this something a smart role player can overcome? Of course. Is it something that most have trouble with. Sadly yes. As it stands most games that use alignment fall into a belief system due to the name and design forcing metagame thinking that shouldn't exist. The ideal system would probably be called an absolute morality system. Even then you have other problems and it all falls down to the DM. A good DM with good players can get past this. Most people though have issues that aren't helped because WoTC hasn't done all that well in clarifying their crunch.
Except alignment is absolute, so it doesn't have to do with belief. A belief based system would be closer to a relative morality system, one people's personal beliefs are the basis of the system, while D&D alignment is more absolute, it is a clearly (well in theory) defined concept. Its just has crappy presentation.
The things you've said about alignments faults are just signs of bad players generally, because playing off of stereotypes is just a generally bad way to play all together.
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestThe things you've said about alignments faults are just signs of bad players generally, because playing off of stereotypes is just a generally bad way to play all together.
from
EE
Unfortunately, bad role players are not a simple extraction but are a reality. Any alignment system must either acknowledge them or disregard them. In many ways the type of alignment system used by a game tells you something about the target audience. I don't believe there is a perfect system because gamers are a diverse lot, which is why the D&D system fails. It tries to cater to everyone and winds up being used as a crutch.
Having re-read your blog, you make a solid argument for an absolute alignment. The kicker is decoupling Right and Wrong from Good and Evil. One of the biggest problems, I see in the 3.x system is that
that concept is never clearly explained (most likely because WotC was catering to everyone rather than making a solid system). As you mentioned, Good and Evil have connotations, perhaps a better way of making the system would be to use words that have no such connotation; if the dichotomy is Lime v Lemon, people will react very differently compared to Good v Evil.
Quote from: EvilElitestExcept alignment is absolute, so it doesn't have to do with belief. A belief based system would be closer to a relative morality system, one people's personal beliefs are the basis of the system, while D&D alignment is more absolute, it is a clearly (well in theory) defined concept. Its just has crappy presentation.
The things you've said about alignments faults are just signs of bad players generally, because playing off of stereotypes is just a generally bad way to play all together.
from
EE
Read what I said again. The bit on belief is metacrunch (aka it all has to do with how the rules effect the players in the real world). And like EE said, you have to deal with all types of players. That includes the less stellar ones (which make up a majority).
I'm really confused on what you said near the end. Could you explain this passage:
QuoteThis is the biggest problem -- that people who find their own personal morals are listed as evil, instead of questioning the validity of good and evil, simply deny the rules that state their idea/actions as evil and instant they are good despite having nothing to back this up. Of the countless alignment threads spread about the dreaded interwebs, the most common is 'Torture is acceptable in order to get info needed from bad guys' -- sort of a Sergeant White/Dirty Harry way of looking at things -- with the second being a defense of their favorite characters actions, to the point of denying the actual factual basis of the game in avoid having their character classified as evil (everybody who says V's latest murder wasn't evil, yeah, I mean you people). I mean, I can understand the aversion to having yourself or your favorite character declared 'evil' because of the negative connotation, but really you need to understand the implications of good and evil. Of all the alignments, evils pretty much covers both the most amount of idea, and the largest range of people, because it has such easy requirements. I mean, by D&D standards I'm LN, I don't care. The thing is, right and wrong are not the same as Good and Evil. Good and Evil are like two different political parties, which one is right is up to you personally.
First you are talking about alignment as it relates to the game. But then you slip back in to "Good and Evil aren't the same things as right and wrong" and I don't see how those two parts are connected.
My personal stance is not to object to the use of the words Good and Evil, nor to a black-and-white morality. I object to the game saying what constitutes Good and Evil, and to what they see as Good and what they see as Evil. I don't think they should be deciding those issues. I'd rather they'd left those two blank and simply let people insert their own morality.
Another thing I object to is the absolutism: I do not wish to be part of a system I am not allowed to opt out of. If I wish to have no part in the Morality of the Universe, for whatever reason, the game as written doesn't allow that.
Unfortunately, bad role players are not a simple extraction but are a reality. Any alignment system must either acknowledge them or disregard them. In many ways the type of alignment system used by a game tells you something about the target audience. I don't believe there is a perfect system because gamers are a diverse lot, which is why the D&D system fails. It tries to cater to everyone and winds up being used as a crutch.
Having re-read your blog, you make a solid argument for an absolute alignment. The kicker is decoupling Right and Wrong from Good and Evil. One of the biggest problems, I see in the 3.x system is that that concept is never clearly explained (most likely because WotC was catering to everyone rather than making a solid system). As you mentioned, Good and Evil have connotations, perhaps a better way of making the system would be to use words that have no such connotation; if the dichotomy is Lime v Lemon, people will react very differently compared to Good v Evil.
[/quote]
1) Well the thing is through, in 3E at least, WotC actually wasn't aiming for the lowest common denominator, and seemed to expect a certain level of maturity from their gamers, as seen in BoED, BoVD. They just had really crappy presentation, which the PHB shows. As the 3E aligniment system functions as a whole (which only makes sense if you've bought about half a dozen different D&D books on the matter) it actually doesn't require players to handle a general absolute morality, and demands a good deal of maturity to understand its (hidden) depth and complexity. But your right, the presentation is utter crap, aligniment should be a whole chapter. I still hold 3E's system as one of the best absolute morality systems ever (weather you like absolute morality or note is a separate issue of course) but it has such bad presentation that it just flops. Its like a great writer with a crappy publisher.
2) Well in the context of the game the idea of "Good and Evil" fit, and so people get upset over the negative connotations, but within the context of D&D, they do fit. I mean, the angles of D&D heaven would call themselves Good, and it is pretty understandable to call the demons evil. Its just part of the general genre/tone of the game. I mean i get what you mean, but within the context of the game those terms make sense. Also think about it, every absolute morality system defines one group as good and another as evil. In the ancient Roman times, the Romans were "good" and everybody else were "evil" even through the Romans were themselves a bunch of genocidal ruthless dominator (who also brought peace and stability to europe but hey)
Nomadic
1) But the thing is, you have to aim for all kinds of players, but not 'bad' players, otherwise you don't have a game. I mean, D&D kinda expects the players to be able to do math (which i suck at) but i understand its doing so in order to get a well balanced game. Now 3E isn't a well balanced game by any standards other than a mentally beaten drunk, but thats besides the point. When you aim for people who just aren't good players, that is just hurting your own devices, and then you get a product like Eragon (ok i just switched genres, but you get the idea). That is why, for all my many beefs with White Wolf, i admire them non the less because they actually aim kinda high in terms of expected player maturity. Not as high as they claim they aim, but again, not the point. Also, call me a hopeless optimist, but until 4E i wouldn't say that the majority of D&D players were bad, other wise the hobby would fail utterly (well 3E failed but that was for other reason again)
2) Damn it, there are two EEs, this means war
Silvercatmoonpaw (can i just call you bob?)
1) I don't see how that is jarring, actually, my point is that just because a morality you personally believe in is classified in D&D terms as "Evil" that doesn't mean that your personal beliefs are wrong, just that within the context of the D&D absolute morality that would be part of the evil order of events. Because Good and Evil and "Right and Wrong" are not mutually exclusive, having a morality system that doesn't agree with the D&D view of "Good" doesn't invalidate your believes, it just means that your believes are against the system itself. Which is fine.
2) I see no problem with an absolute morality system, because i just bear in mind that the systems definintion of Good and Evil in no way disprove my own believes. For example, if i played in a world where the Christian view on good and evil was absolute (lets not get into religious dicussion, i'm just using an example) then anyone who follows the Christian doctrine would be classified as "good" and non believers would be "evil". That doesn't prove or disprove the believes of ether party.
Ok, less controversial example, if there was a world where the Greek Gods totally dominated the forces of "good" and "Evil" then murder wouldn't be evil under certain circumstances. D&D isn't trying to force a singular believe system upon you, it is just takes place in a world where absolute morality is clearly defined, that doesn't make any view point "wrong" or "right"
3) Except D&D takes place in a world where certain powers are taken for granted, that isn't trying to force a particular belief upon you. It is basically two powers that have specific standards and ideals they need to fit, that doesn't make one morality or another right or wrong
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestBut the thing is, you have to aim for all kinds of players, but not 'bad' players, otherwise you don't have a game. I mean, D&D kinda expects the players to be able to do math (which i suck at) but i understand its doing so in order to get a well balanced game. Now 3E isn't a well balanced game by any standards other than a mentally beaten drunk, but thats besides the point. When you aim for people who just aren't good players, that is just hurting your own devices, and then you get a product like Eragon (ok i just switched genres, but you get the idea). That is why, for all my many beefs with White Wolf, i admire them non the less because they actually aim kinda high in terms of expected player maturity. Not as high as they claim they aim, but again, not the point. Also, call me a hopeless optimist, but until 4E i wouldn't say that the majority of D&D players were bad, other wise the hobby would fail utterly (well 3E failed but that was for other reason again)
I still am not sure that you understand what EE and I were getting at. This is something that there is not really a choice for. If you want people at large to pick up your game and run with it you have to make sure your alignment system is clear to all (this is one of the reasons there is such a huge group of DnD haters out there). You have to cater to everyone. Not everyone can be a stellar roleplayer. You have to be willing to accept the less good ones (and a few of the bad roleplayers... note that bad roleplayer does not equal bad gamer). A majority of roleplayers aren't at that level and you need to be clear. Not being clear and then excusing it by saying that your game is only for good roleplayers isn't very fair to those that aren't good (and besides you can't get good without practicing).
Quote from: EvilElitest2) I see no problem with an absolute morality system, because i just bear in mind that the systems definintion of Good and Evil in no way disprove my own believes. For example, if i played in a world where the Christian view on good and evil was absolute (lets not get into religious dicussion, i'm just using an example) then anyone who follows the Christian doctrine would be classified as "good" and non believers would be "evil". That doesn't prove or disprove the believes of ether party.
Ok, less controversial example, if there was a world where the Greek Gods totally dominated the forces of "good" and "Evil" then murder wouldn't be evil under certain circumstances. D&D isn't trying to force a singular believe system upon you, it is just takes place in a world where absolute morality is clearly defined, that doesn't make any view point "wrong" or "right"
3) Except D&D takes place in a world where certain powers are taken for granted, that isn't trying to force a particular belief upon you. It is basically two powers that have specific standards and ideals they need to fit, that doesn't make one morality or another right or wrong
It isn't about disproving. It
is about forcing: I cannot even play a character in Alignment-As-Written who is separate from the system. In 3E there is no Unaligned option, yet central to the type of character I most like to play is that they aren't part of the "higher framework" that includes morality. The existence of the objective and absolute alignment system wouldn't bother me so long as there was an Unaligned option.
Also I don't see how there can be Good and Evil separate from Right and Wrong: what D&D defines as "Good" comes from one worldview of what is "right" for people to do to each other, and "Evil" is things that are "wrong" for people to do to each other. If you separate a view of "right" and "wrong" from "Good" and "Evil" then where do Good and Evil come from?
Nomatic, I get what your saying, I'm just saying that is no reason to make a bad system. While your right in saying that 3E had a duty to present its morality system properly and it certainly didn't, that doesn't mean it has a duty to make a simplistic or half assed Morality system (see 4E). Now you are again, totally right about bad presentation being responsible for most of the issues with alignment, that is the primary reason for its failure. My point is that the system its self is quite sound (with a few exception, see poison), its the presentation that is bad. If the 3E PHB did the correct thing and spelled out alignment in oh so much detail, then
things would be great. But as it didn't, well that is where the problems come from
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIt isn't about disproving. It is about forcing: I cannot even play a character in Alignment-As-Written who is separate from the system. In 3E there is no Unaligned option, yet central to the type of character I most like to play is that they aren't part of the "higher framework" that includes morality. The existence of the objective and absolute alignment system wouldn't bother me so long as there was an Unaligned option.
Also I don't see how there can be Good and Evil separate from Right and Wrong: what D&D defines as "Good" comes from one worldview of what is "right" for people to do to each other, and "Evil" is things that are "wrong" for people to do to each other. If you separate a view of "right" and "wrong" from "Good" and "Evil" then where do Good and Evil come from?
1) I honestly don't see why you would want to play somebody who is separate from the D&D alignment system, nor does it really make any sense. I mean if you think about it, if the entire world is run by two powers calling themselves "Good" and "Evil", how can you not be part of it. Now i could understand making an "Unaligned" system for creatures that don't have free will, like golems, possibly zombies, and one could make an argument for animals/creatures of less than 3 int. But considering how the system works, IE actions plus intent =alignment, i don't see how that would make sense. I also don't see why you would want to, almost every possible morality can fit into that, except maybe the great old ones and some types of insanity.
2) Look at it this way, the terms "Good" and "Evil" in D&d are just titles. What is good? What is evil? In real life those don't really have answers, everybody has a different idea. The Aztecs wouldn't say human sacrifice was evil, and the American southerns called slavery a great good (damnit Calhoun). Some cultures described women as a necessary evil, while others promoted gender equality as good. It totally varies. Again, in the context of D&D, where the world is run by two omnipresent, omipowerful cosmic forces, each has a clear description of what "good" and "Evil" is, torture, rape and murder are always evil. But does that make it right? What if you personally don't agree with the definition of good? The ancient japanese certainly wouldn't agree with the ideal of the D&D good powers, that doesn't make them a nation of sociopathic murders. The romans would scoff at a system that held mercy has one of its highest ideals. So while Good and evil are absolute concepts in D&D, right and wrong are subjective, left up to personal interpretation
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitest1) I honestly don't see why you would want to play somebody who is separate from the D&D alignment system, nor does it really make any sense. I mean if you think about it, if the entire world is run by two powers calling themselves "Good" and "Evil", how can you not be part of it. Now i could understand making an "Unaligned" system for creatures that don't have free will, like golems, possibly zombies, and one could make an argument for animals/creatures of less than 3 int. But considering how the system works, IE actions plus intent =alignment, i don't see how that would make sense. I also don't see why you would want to, almost every possible morality can fit into that, except maybe the great old ones and some types of insanity.
There are two points to make:
1) Unaligned in a creature of 3+ Int is, at least in your system, the rejection of even the notion of Right and Wrong, the rejection of the idea of codes existing at all. An Unaligned person does not determine their actions based upon any code, simply either what they feel like doing or what they think is smart to do.
2) If I do not have the choice to opt out of a system I do not believe in then I do not have free will. The same goes for my character.
Quote from: EvilElitest2) Look at it this way, the terms "Good" and "Evil" in D&d are just titles. What is good? What is evil? In real life those don't really have answers, everybody has a different idea. The Aztecs wouldn't say human sacrifice was evil, and the American southerns called slavery a great good (damnit Calhoun). Some cultures described women as a necessary evil, while others promoted gender equality as good. It totally varies. Again, in the context of D&D, where the world is run by two omnipresent, omipowerful cosmic forces, each has a clear description of what "good" and "Evil" is, torture, rape and murder are always evil. But does that make it right? What if you personally don't agree with the definition of good? The ancient japanese certainly wouldn't agree with the ideal of the D&D good powers, that doesn't make them a nation of sociopathic murders. The romans would scoff at a system that held mercy has one of its highest ideals. So while Good and evil are absolute concepts in D&D, right and wrong are subjective, left up to personal interpretation
I still don't understand how Good and Evil as defined in the D&D game are anything other than a system of right and wrong, a system of what is acceptable to do and what is acceptable not to do. Yes, you can choose which is which, but that doesn't change what they are.
Look at my argument this way: I want there to be the choice of having a third opinion on the Good-Evil axis. Neutral doesn't work because that's only a middle position and not completely distinct from either Good or Evil.
I didn't read your entire blog post or everything that's been posted here, but I just thought I'd share the way in which I interpreted the D&D alignment system.
Basically, I always felt the confusion was due the nomenclature, especially with the law-chaos axis.
I think people, myself included, see these words which represent erm.... how to put it... not quite absolutes, but almost elemental "forces"... and they find it hard to relate this to the personal qualities of the character they are creating.
I found that if I mentally renamed the alignments I could apply them far better to the way my characters behaved. So, rather than "Chaotic Good" I thought of my character as "Emotional and kind" or rather than "Lawful Neutral" I thought in terms of "Logical and honourable"
Just my two low-denomination monetary units.
Quote from: EvilElitestNomatic, I get what your saying, I'm just saying that is no reason to make a bad system. While your right in saying that 3E had a duty to present its morality system properly and it certainly didn't, that doesn't mean it has a duty to make a simplistic or half assed Morality system (see 4E). Now you are again, totally right about bad presentation being responsible for most of the issues with alignment, that is the primary reason for its failure. My point is that the system its self is quite sound (with a few exception, see poison), its the presentation that is bad. If the 3E PHB did the correct thing and spelled out alignment in oh so much detail, then
things would be great. But as it didn't, well that is where the problems come from
So then you're agreeing with me?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThere are two points to make:
1) Unaligned in a creature of 3+ Int is, at least in your system, the rejection of even the notion of Right and Wrong, the rejection of the idea of codes existing at all. An Unaligned person does not determine their actions based upon any code, simply either what they feel like doing or what they think is smart to do.
2) If I do not have the choice to opt out of a system I do not believe in then I do not have free will. The same goes for my character.
I still don't understand how Good and Evil as defined in the D&D game are anything other than a system of right and wrong, a system of what is acceptable to do and what is acceptable not to do. Yes, you can choose which is which, but that doesn't change what they are.
[/quote]
Look at my argument this way: I want there to be the choice of having a third opinion on the Good-Evil axis. Neutral doesn't work because that's only a middle position and not completely distinct from either Good or Evil.
[/quote]
I really don't see any way that you can opt out actually, i mean name one character or moral/cultural ideal that doesn't fit within the system.
kindling, that thing is that the alignment doesn't really have to do with your personality so much as your moral actions and intents. I mean, you can have a CE person who is kind and honorable, just evil for other reasons. Kindess and what not are relative terms
See part two here for more detail
http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/11/finally-bloody-part-two-is-done-might.html
Nomadic, i agree with you on the point about presentation certainly, that is why 3E's alignment system failed. I disagree on the idea that having bad presentation weakens the system itself, because it does make sense if you can get a good understand (and the PHB won't help you) through other books. But I agree on presentations and its flaws.
from
EE
It weakens the game. The bad design causes roleplay problems because it encourages people to view alignment as a restriction instead of a guideline. That's not something you can really deny because it does happen and it happens alot. I have plenty of first hand experience with it. That is why I don't like the DnD 3e alignment system. Had they worded it differently it wouldn't have this problem that causes so much confusion.
Another fairly decent article, I did find it wasn't quite as good as your first part though, mainly because I found it is slightly biased for Good and Lawful.
You make very clear definitions for things with Good and Lawful, but as soon as Neutral or Chaotic show up, your explanations start getting really vague. Chaotic Evil is an exception, I found it well thought out.
You seem to make anything neutral out to be wishy-washy, this isn't really true, someone who has certain good tendencies (friendly and stuff) but has evil tendencies (selfish, little regard for others) would be neutral, even though he isn't wishy-washy at all.
Bd presentation doesn't ruin the entire game, nor the entire system. The system itself is sound. You can't fault the 3E alignment system in its design, with a few exceptions (Poison, animals, necromancy), almost all of its problems come from the presentation. But you shouldn't condemn the whole system on the basis of bad presentation, nor does that prove that relative morality is better than absolute, through even a well done 3E system doesn't prove the opposite)
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestI really don't see any way that you can opt out actually, i mean name one character or moral/cultural ideal that doesn't fit within the system.
My position is about rejecting all codes of behavior, whether cultural or moral.
Quote from: LlumAnother fairly decent article, I did find it wasn't quite as good as your first part though, mainly because I found it is slightly biased for Good and Lawful.
You make very clear definitions for things with Good and Lawful, but as soon as Neutral or Chaotic show up, your explanations start getting really vague. Chaotic Evil is an exception, I found it well thought out.
[/quote]
You seem to make anything neutral out to be wishy-washy, this isn't really true, someone who has certain good tendencies (friendly and stuff) but has evil tendencies (selfish, little regard for others) would be neutral, even though he isn't wishy-washy at all.
[/quote]
Your right, but for the purpose of making absolutes, neutral is a little hard to describe, it just a general in-between. For example, somebody who is a generally good person in all respects, but lives in a society that supports slavery (even if he doesn't have slaves) could be TN. Its the hardest to describe
Thanks for the comments through
from
EE
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: EvilElitestI really don't see any way that you can opt out actually, i mean name one character or moral/cultural ideal that doesn't fit within the system.
My position is about rejecting all codes of behavior, whether cultural or moral.
And in doing so you will still be committing actions and thus be within the system. Can you site a specific manner where you can avoid the system, short of losing free will please?
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestAnd in doing so you will still be committing actions and thus be within the system. Can you site a specific manner where you can avoid the system, short of losing free will please?
Animals can avoid it, supposedly because they don't make moral choices. Anyone who can avoid making moral choices can avoid the system.
Plus I am saying that a system that only allows one to operate within its confines does not allow truly free will.
1) Animals don't have int higher than 3, they can't make moral choices
2) Considering it is a system of classification, i would like to point out that any system can fit within that, it doesn't limit it
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestBd presentation doesn't ruin the entire game, nor the entire system. The system itself is sound. You can't fault the 3E alignment system in its design, with a few exceptions (Poison, animals, necromancy), almost all of its problems come from the presentation. But you shouldn't condemn the whole system on the basis of bad presentation, nor does that prove that relative morality is better than absolute, through even a well done 3E system doesn't prove the opposite)
from
EE
I don't know where you are getting stuff from here. I never faulted the 3e system (in fact it is my favorite iteration of DnD). I fault the presentation of the alignment system for ruining many otherwise good games. That is something you cannot argue against, period. It is something that can be easily seen first hand if you play 3e a bit. The alignment systems poor wording means that anyone who isn't good at roleplaying or is unfamiliar with 3e is going to find themselves using alignment as a shackle when it shouldn't be. Thus you get games ruined by lawful stupid paladins and chaotic stupid psychopaths (not to mention the many other flavors out there). Having a player who keeps trying to smite evil on every single thing they see or just randomly walks into a bar and kills anyone and then explains it as following their alignment... That's because the poor wording encourages such things to happen (and they happen often). That does ruin a game, it pulls all the fun out of it for everyone else when someone misunderstands an easily misunderstood setup.
Quote from: EvilElitest1) Animals don't have int higher than 3, they can't make moral choices
And why does 3+ Int make any difference? I don't remember ever reading an explanation of how 3+ actually works to make a difference.
Quote from: EvilElitest2) Considering it is a system of classification, i would like to point out that any system can fit within that, it doesn't limit it
How does someone who completely rejects the moral framework of what Good and Evil are about fit into that system?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAnd why does 3+ Int make any difference? I don't remember ever reading an explanation of how 3+ actually works to make a difference.
I think I remember reading somewhere that you need a minimum of 3 Int to be sentient, so anything with less then 3 Int isn't sentient, therefor it makes no choices, it only acts on instinct. So they don't have "morals", just instinct.
So are the instincts of sentient D&D creatures different from their ability to make choices? Because in the real world I don't personally believe in that difference, but I've never been sure in D&D.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSo are the instincts of sentient D&D creatures different from their ability to make choices? Because in the real world I don't personally believe in that difference, but I've never been sure in D&D.
As far as I can tell, for a sentient creature instincts influence them, but do not directly control (most of the time) their actions.
What about animals that don't operate wholly on instinct? An example being chimpanzees (who have to be taught certain things by other chimps).
Quote from: NomadicWhat about animals that don't operate wholly on instinct? An example being chimpanzees (who have to be taught certain things by other chimps).
I believe they would be considered 3 Int. Or their instincts allow them to learn, reinforced behaviour and what not.
Quote from: LlumOr their instincts allow them to learn, reinforced behaviour and what not.
That sounds like a vary shaky line. How would this be different from what sentient creatures do?
Quote from: LlumQuote from: NomadicWhat about animals that don't operate wholly on instinct? An example being chimpanzees (who have to be taught certain things by other chimps).
I believe they would be considered 3 Int. Or their instincts allow them to learn, reinforced behavior and what not.
Well with chimps and other smart animals they reach a point where they have to be taught certain things to survive (just like humans). It isn't an instinct thing anymore than humans teaching each other is. So its sort of a fuzzy line where sentience and non-sentience are separated (don't worry about it too much though, even real world scientists are unsure how to define it).
Quote from: NomadicWell with chimps and other smart animals they reach a point where they have to be taught certain things to survive (just like humans). It isn't an instinct thing anymore than humans teaching each other is. So its sort of a fuzzy line where sentience and non-sentience are separated (don't worry about it too much though, even real world scientists are unsure how to define it).
Ha! That reminds me of The Lost World (the book, not the movie) where they hypothesize that the raptors became vicious bloody monsters because they never had older raptors to teach them.
I don't believe that any animals born in the wild aren't able to survive without adults to teach them (It's not easy, but if it should be possible). But like you say, its nothing to worry about, something of a very minute point.
Quote from: LlumQuote from: NomadicWell with chimps and other smart animals they reach a point where they have to be taught certain things to survive (just like humans). It isn't an instinct thing anymore than humans teaching each other is. So its sort of a fuzzy line where sentience and non-sentience are separated (don't worry about it too much though, even real world scientists are unsure how to define it).
Yes actually that is what I was thinking of when I saw that. As to the surviving without an adult that is actually quite common. Look at what happens to a nest of baby birds where the parents die. In birds that have to be taught how to fly most of the time they will die (unless they get very lucky). They can't fly, so they can't find food or water or even escape a predator. With chimpanzees they are taught alot more. A baby chimp without an adult to teach it doesn't have enough instinct to survive. It will die.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: EvilElitestBd presentation doesn't ruin the entire game, nor the entire system. The system itself is sound. You can't fault the 3E alignment system in its design, with a few exceptions (Poison, animals, necromancy), almost all of its problems come from the presentation. But you shouldn't condemn the whole system on the basis of bad presentation, nor does that prove that relative morality is better than absolute, through even a well done 3E system doesn't prove the opposite)
from
EE
Yes. The idea is not that 3e alignment system is poorly presented, that's a given.
I need to turn this around for a moment. I have mentioned that alignment is, at least in my book, a crutch for bnad role-playing. I can cite a dozen reasons without firing a synapse (or frying one). But can someone tell me tha advantages of having an alignment system?
Like I said the only reason I can think of to actually have an alignment system is as a crutch for a new DM or as flavor for a DM that prefers it. It is not necessary nor advantageous (indeed it is easier and more realistic to not have one at all).
1) My main point is that while the presentation is bad, the system is sound. You can mock the presentation all you want, that is perfectly valid, my point is that mocking the 3E alignment system as an absolute system isn't nearly has valid (through if you don't like absolute alignments at all that is different matter
2) For better or for worst, all animals, along with other mindless or creatures unable to think "intelligently" are the only exceptions of the rule.
3) And i would like to point out that even in shadow's example of rejecting the system, that doesn't actually work unless you give up your ability to make choices, every time you make an action or decision with any intention behind it you are effectively having an alignment.
And there are plenty of reasons to have an absolute morality system, no better or worst than not having any morality system (or a relative one). If you game, like D&D takes place in a world with an afterlife/higher powers, aligniment is a good way to have an effective net morality system, or judgement. Its a wonderful system if your world, again like D&D, has a forcus on the cosmology as a whole, while relative morality has a focus more upon the direct mortal plane, the main point being that nobody knows what is absolute
two system, neither one is inherently better than the other.
from
EE
Well we are going to have to agree to disagree as I believe that abstract morality is better. However I prefer a higher level of realism then is altogether necessary. On a related note, while saying that it is impossible to not have an alignment in some form is technically true. In a system that does not use alignment it does not matter. Sure you could give them an alignment, but it would have no effect on anything (it would be unnecessary bookkeeping basically). Therefore it is ignored and the system will generally do just fine should it choose to do so.
Quote from: EvilElitest3) And i would like to point out that even in shadow's example of rejecting the system, that doesn't actually work unless you give up your ability to make choices, every time you make an action or decision with any intention behind it you are effectively having an alignment.
But if you have no intention on the Good/Evil axis then your action either has no alignment or only your action and not your intention determines the alignment of the action.
1) relative or absolute alignment, are, as I said on my blog, a matter of personal taste. I personally like absolute better, but it tends to get done badly more often than not, but that doesn't prove the concept wrong. However, relative morality is fine for certain people, and I don't object to its use, i just prefer absolute when done well. So yeah, live and let live
2) I have a slight objection to your use of the word "realistic". Within the context of a fantastical universe where gods and other powers are perfectly valid beings, i don't think relative morality is any more or less realistic than absolute (again works both ways)
3) My point is you can apply the D&D alignment system to almost any medium you want to if you feel like it, IE it is very workable. I wouldn't recommend it, but it is possible
Silver
you can't not have intention without losing your free will in the process, so your example is impossible. Could you say something a little more....focused
Also no blog comments?
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestSilver
you can't not have intention without losing your free will in the process, so your example is impossible. Could you say something a little more....focused
But how can
every intention mean something on the Good/Evil scale? Can't there be intentions that have no bearing on Good or Evil?
I'm still convinced that D&D Good and Evil do not cover all possible intentions a person can have. Until someone explains how they can I don't know how to see it any other way.
Quote from: EvilElitest2) I have a slight objection to your use of the word "realistic". Within the context of a fantastical universe where gods and other powers are perfectly valid beings, i don't think relative morality is any more or less realistic than absolute (again works both ways)
I take it you've never seen one of my settings before (not too amazing since I haven't worked on a setting in awhile so the last one is buried). In my settings gods are rarely "valid" beings (indeed their are many different conflicting religions none of which can be proved true). Even magic is often explained in a scientifically plausible way. Thus more realism than is altogether necessary.
Silvermoon, if you believe that give me an example. Give me any character from any medium and I'll show you that it is possible to fit them within the scale, as long as they have free will
Also intentions < Actions, so it isn't just about intentions, intentions is just the ablity to make a choice. Most intentions are simply neutral
Nomadic, i've seen plenty of games like that, and you can say that your magic is more realistic maybe, but that doesn't make absolute vs. relative any more realistic or unrealistic. I mean, in real life we aren't quite sure either (and this is coming from a moral relativist). So while I'm not putting down your settings, or relative morality, just that it isn't inherently realistic. But then again, neither is absolute morality.
from
EE
Ok I have a bad habit of not being specific enough and that does cause problems.
"Well we are going to have to agree to disagree as I believe that abstract morality is better. However I prefer a higher level of realism then is altogether necessary."
The first part talks about my thoughts on alignment. The second part talks about my thought on everything. Nothing to do with why I think relative is better. In fact it was actually a jab at myself and my needless realism.
Quote from: EvilElitestSilvermoon, if you believe that give me an example. Give me any character from any medium and I'll show you that it is possible to fit them within the scale, as long as they have free will
Are we discussing applying alignment across all forms of story, or just D&D forms?
Because if it's the first then I can give an example we've already discussed: animals. And before you tell me "well they don't have free will" or something like that be aware that the way I see the world the thought processes of humans and other animals are not all that different. Everything humans do can be stripped down to reveal the animal instinct behind it. If animals have no alignment than humans and other sentient species have none as well.
Whereas if you are talking about in the D&D world then I can't give you one because I haven't read D&D fiction.
Quote from: EvilElitestAlso intentions < Actions, so it isn't just about intentions, intentions is just the ablity to make a choice. Most intentions are simply neutral
And here you are already saying that intention is just the ability to make choices, which is no different in humans than in other animals. So humans and other animals should have the same alignment choices.
Perhaps we should just agree we see things differently and leave this issue in peace.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAnd here you are already saying that intention is just the ability to make choices, which is no different in humans than in other animals. So humans and other animals should have the same alignment choices.
I don't mean to bring up old arguments but that really doesn't pass the "Come On" test. By all accounts Horses, with their great STR, should be amazing climbers but that obviously doesn't pass the "Come On" test. Animals lack the cognitive ability to reason, they are non-sentient being who cannot comprehend the vast universe above, below or in between.
[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]...the ability to make choices, which is no different in humans than in other animals.[/blockquote]
Not to rag on you Moonpaw, but I'd argue that the nature of choice is very different between humans and animals due to the degree of complexity of the human versus animal brain, and that the idea of choice gets more complicated the more intelligent and self-reflexive (the more complex) something becomes. The ability to predict consequences with greater efficacy makes a choice more complicated. I agree with you that human and animal consequences aren't totally different qualitatively but they are different in degree - I think its difficult to argue that what goes on in a human brain when a choice must be made isn't more complex than what goes on in a parakeet's brain. Once you have a sense of time, history, causality, culture, and morality - all which, perhaps, can ultimately be traced back to the operations of instinct but which are far more refined in humans (and perhaps some very intelligent animals such as chimps and dolphins) - surely choice gets more complicated, even if you started with the same concepts.
Think of it like a computer program. An ant has a very basic program with limited instinctual options and little freedom of choice. It is, essentially, an instinctual automaton. A human has a vastly complex and sprawling program fraught with contradictory and competing instincts, even though those instincts or impulses fundamentally resemble those of an ant. The difference is in the degree of complexity, and out of that complexity comes a different nature of choice.
Nomatic- I'm sorry i misunderstood. As a fan of totally unneeded realism (hence why i'm wary of Exalted) i understand
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAre we discussing applying alignment across all forms of story, or just D&D forms?
Because if it's the first then I can give an example we've already discussed: animals. And before you tell me "well they don't have free will" or something like that be aware that the way I see the world the thought processes of humans and other animals are not all that different. Everything humans do can be stripped down to reveal the animal instinct behind it. If animals have no alignment than humans and other sentient species have none as well.
[/quote]
Whereas if you are talking about in the D&D world then I can't give you one because I haven't read D&D fiction.
[/quote]
Just name a character from a medium, it doesn't matter what.
from
EE
QuoteAll animals live entirely upon instinct, while humans do not. D&D morality wouldn't apply because they simply don't have the same thought process, they are doing good or evil, just their nature. A shark that bites a man isn't good or evil, he is just an animal looking for food. A dog that saves a boy isn't good or evil, he is just protecting a member of his pack. Its not moral intention, its just instict
entirely[/i] by instict, but it seems a bit hand-wavey to say a gorilla or dolphin is the same. It determines a
lot of their behavior, but territorialism and the mating instict also determine a
lot of human behavior.
In conclusion: sometimes dogs are just
mean, and sometimes people are ruled by their insticts. The dog may be able to think a lot less about his choices than a human, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he doesn't
have a choice.
Quote from: brainfaceIn conclusion: sometimes dogs are just mean, and sometimes people are ruled by their instincts. The dog may be able to think a lot less about his choices than a human, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he doesn't have a choice.
At any rate there is such a thing as a mean animal (and generally the ones that can be mean tend to be the ones that have some form of thought process beyond instinct such as dolphins, dogs, and monkeys). In fact you can teach an animal to be mean in much the same way you can teach a human. Through neglect and other abuse.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: brainfaceIn conclusion: sometimes dogs are just mean, and sometimes people are ruled by their instincts. The dog may be able to think a lot less about his choices than a human, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he doesn't have a choice.
That hardly justifies the Dog/Dolphin/Monkey being evil, it does however justify the creature's 2 INT.
Most animals can learn to be many different things based on external stimuli however that does not mean the animal can comprehend its actions in any sort of moral or immoral system. We anthropomorphise the animals and place their actions into our morality system based on how we view their actions.
Take two examples. 1. A Dog kills a rabbit and brings the carcass back to its pack. 2. A Dog kills a child and brings the carcass back to its pack.
As humans we view the former are good and the latter as evil. However neither are really good or evil because the Dog could not comprehend the implications of its actions in a morality system because their INT 2 does not give them the intelligence to preform such mental feats.
Animals are true Neutral because their dirty, unintelligent creatures.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: NomadicQuote from: brainfaceIn conclusion: sometimes dogs are just mean, and sometimes people are ruled by their instincts. The dog may be able to think a lot less about his choices than a human, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he doesn't have a choice.
That hardly justifies the Dog/Dolphin/Monkey being evil, it does however justify the creature's 2 INT.
Most animals can learn to be many different things based on external stimuli however that does not mean the animal can comprehend its actions in any sort of moral or immoral system. We anthropomorphise the animals and place their actions into our morality system based on how we view their actions.
Take two examples. 1. A Dog kills a rabbit and brings the carcass back to its pack. 2. A Dog kills a child and brings the carcass back to its pack.
As humans we view the former are good and the latter as evil. However neither are really good or evil because the Dog could not comprehend the implications of its actions in a morality system because their INT 2 does not give them the intelligence to preform such mental feats.
Animals are true Neutral because their dirty, unintelligent creatures.
I do not recall at any point saying that an animal can be evil. Evil does not equal mean.
[blockquote=Elemental Elf]Take two examples. 1. A Dog kills a rabbit and brings the carcass back to its pack. 2. A Dog kills a child and brings the carcass back to its pack.
As humans we view the former are good and the latter as evil. However neither are really good or evil because the Dog could not comprehend the implications of its actions in a morality system because their INT 2 does not give them the intelligence to preform such mental feats.[/blockquote]
I'm absolutely not disagreeing with you and think this is a totally valid point. What I do think is interesting are some of the implications that can be extrapolated from that point, implications that potentially throw a monkey-wrench into the alignment system of DnD - they start to eat away/destabilize the clear-cut, absolute morality system.
Why do we as humans consider killing the rabbit good/neutral/at least not very evil in the big scheme of things (otherwise all hunters and by extension all meateaters in human society would be Evil, which seems pretty darn extreme) whereas killing the child is evil? It seems to me because the rabbit is relatively unintelligent compared to us.
But this gets complicated when you consider the number of superintelligent creatures out there in your average DnD universe. The difference between your average rabbit/human is 8 points of Int (2 for the rabbit, 10 for the human). The difference between your average human and mindflayer is also 8 points: to the mindflayer, the human is a mental peon, little better than an animal. Killing a human to eat their brains isn't really all that different to a mindflayer than a human killing a cow to eat its meat. When you start to get even more intelligent creatures - say a Balor or a Red Dragon Wyrm, which have intelligence in the 24 range (which means that the difference between human/Balor Int is nearly double the difference between human/rabbit Int) - this becomes even more pronounced. So why is the mindflayer evil and the rabit-killing human not?
If you have to draw a line in the sand and insist on absolute morality (killing is wrong if you're over X Int), where's the cutoff? Is hunting down and killing a Howler (Int 6) evil? How about a Manticore (Int 7)? And if killing one of those isn't evil, what's the difference between killing one and killing a mentally subpar human with an Int of 6-7 - rare, but far from impossible? Yeah it doesn't pass the "Come On" test, but it does kind of make the crudeness of alignment, and for that matter the DnD attributes, very apparent. What it comes down to is that alignment and 6 numeric attributes are a pretty crappy way of expressing complex and multi-faceted concepts like morality and intelligence, and that trying to insist on doing so is pretty silly. The solution? Shrug, gloss over it, and move on... or play without alignment.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: NomadicQuote from: brainfaceIn conclusion: sometimes dogs are just mean, and sometimes people are ruled by their instincts. The dog may be able to think a lot less about his choices than a human, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he doesn't have a choice.
That hardly justifies the Dog/Dolphin/Monkey being evil, it does however justify the creature's 2 INT.
Most animals can learn to be many different things based on external stimuli however that does not mean the animal can comprehend its actions in any sort of moral or immoral system. We anthropomorphise the animals and place their actions into our morality system based on how we view their actions.
Take two examples. 1. A Dog kills a rabbit and brings the carcass back to its pack. 2. A Dog kills a child and brings the carcass back to its pack.
As humans we view the former are good and the latter as evil. However neither are really good or evil because the Dog could not comprehend the implications of its actions in a morality system because their INT 2 does not give them the intelligence to preform such mental feats.
Animals are true Neutral because their (sic :p) dirty, unintelligent creatures.
In the context of an absolute moral system, I'd probably say there's no significant difference in the dog's actions in the two examples. In the relative moral system that I live in, I'd say killing the child was much worse.
Silvercat, in your example, I think in your example, animals would be TN. If they have a human-like ability to make choices (I'm not stepping into that can of worms), then they choose to be neutral. If they don't have that ability, then they're neutral by default.
Elitest, I agree that the d20 alignment system can cover everything, but only in the sense that any classification system with a catch-all category can cover everything. I could just as easily create a classification system for colors that had Red, Green, and Other as the categories, and I'd be able to apply it to any color I came across. Same thing goes with Good, Evil, and Somewhere Inbetween.
I'll also agree that in a setting where Ultimate Divine Will is a Standing Fact, absolute morality is more realistic then subjective morality. The problem is, nobody wants to create a setting where every single action has a predetermined moral value, because then they either have to handwave some things as fundamentally evil (which feels like a gross oversimplification of things), or they have to account for every single case example possible (which is much more realistic, but more work for any human I know of). An example would be the issue of stealing. Taking the first approach you could simply say "stealing is evil". If anybody asks about stealing for the sake of survival, you can just just stick to "stealing is evil". Taking the second approach, you can say stealing is evil, unless it's for survival, in which case it's good, unless you cause physical injuries, in which case it's bad, unless the injured individual is willing to accept the injuries for the sake of your survival, in which case its good... ad infinitum.
On another issue brought up, I don't see how you can separate right/wrong from good/evil, unless you're attempting to somehow implement both an absolute moral system and a relative moral system, which I don't think you can do. In either an absolute moral system or a relative moral system, can you give me an example of something that is Good and Wrong?
Quote from: NomadicI do not recall at any point saying that an animal can be evil. Evil does not equal mean.
Sorry, I was using your statement as a springboard for my own statement, I meant to delete the quote before post. Sorry.
@ Steerpike: You bring up an interesting topic in that if intelligence is the bar then by all accounts Devils and Mind Flayers can eat us with out impunity because they, being much smarter, can and do understand morality better than we can ever hope to.
I would say that since it is a game developed by humans, for humans that the obvious cutting off point would be the INT of 2. Essentially, Sentience begins at INT 3 thus any creature with such an INT score is able to understand morality and is thus accountable for his/her actions.
I think another topic of interest would be at what age do Children become accountable? In standard D&D a 17 year old can adventure out and claim his destiny. So obviously a 16/17 year old possesses the maturity required to make moral decisions. But what about a 10 year old? A 5 year old? A newborn? When do they mature to the point where they can be given an Alignment? When they can speak? Read? Write? When they hit puberty?
Obviously this is a topic that starts many flame wars but I'm curious where other CBGers lie.
Does there have to be a single set milestone to that? For that matter, what's the single milestone that tells precisely when one "hits" puberty?
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: NomadicI do not recall at any point saying that an animal can be evil. Evil does not equal mean.
Sorry, I was using your statement as a springboard for my own statement, I meant to delete the quote before post. Sorry.
@ Steerpike: You bring up an interesting topic in that if intelligence is the bar then by all accounts Devils and Mind Flayers can eat us with out impunity because they, being much smarter, can and do understand morality better than we can ever hope to.
I would say that since it is a game developed by humans, for humans that the obvious cutting off point would be the INT of 2. Essentially, Sentience begins at INT 3 thus any creature with such an INT score is able to understand morality and is thus accountable for his/her actions.
I think another topic of interest would be at what age do Children become accountable? In standard D&D a 17 year old can adventure out and claim his destiny. So obviously a 16/17 year old possesses the maturity required to make moral decisions. But what about a 10 year old? A 5 year old? A newborn? When do they mature to the point where they can be given an Alignment? When they can speak? Read? Write? When they hit puberty?
Obviously this is a topic that starts many flame wars but I'm curious where other CBGers lie.
Ah ok I see now. It's ok I just thought you misunderstood what I was saying. Anyhow I think that that point of maturity is reached when the child understands the difference between right and wrong and can make choices based on that knowledge. There is no hard age.
An often-overlooked part of the first chapter in the 4e D&D book covers personality traits, which works realms better than the shoddy alignment system.
Personally, I don't use alignment in my games. Players tell me during the character creation process how they want their characters to be, and play from there. I don't "penalize" alignment deviation, or personality deviation. I trust my players to act in character. The only thing I penalize is metagaming at the table.
[blockquote=Elemental_Elf]Essentially, Sentience begins at INT 3 thus any creature with such an INT score is able to understand morality and is thus accountable for his/her actions...[/blockquote]
...Which leads to some interesting situations. It means that killing a Frost Wyrm, a Hippogriff, a Girallon, or an Elephant (all Int 2) is perfectly acceptable and on par with killing a rabbit, whereas killing a Gray Render, a Rast, a Chimera, a Grick, an Otyugh, a Gibbering Mouther, a Basilisk, or for that matter the Tarrasque (all Int 3-4), at least, without being provoked, is on par with killing a human.
Unless, of course, you complicate it further and rationalize that some of those creatures are dangerous (yeah, like humans aren't dangerous...) or aren't really that far above animals or aren't culturally conditioned to possess morality... or whatever. At which point the system breaks down again as you can split moral hairs forever.
Steerpike, there is something to your statements but its simply put, those aren't "civilized". Killing Orcs/Goblins/Kobolds is perfectly acceptable, because they aren't "civilized". This opens up a whole new can of worms as well.
However to your earlier comments about certain other creatures like the manticore and what not, since they have Int, they fit on the good/evil axis. The manticore for example is an evil creature (I believe) so its "ok" to kill it, cause its evil.
Same thing goes for Devils and Demons, they're instinctively "evil" creatures. And the way the system works is you seem to be able to open up a can of holy/unholy wrath on enemies that aren't your alignment, its like brownie points.
Quote from: Llumthose aren't "civilized". Killing Orcs/Goblins/Kobolds is perfectly acceptable, because they aren't "civilized".
Just to pipe in here... but what constitutes civilized?
Quote from: NomadicJust to pipe in here... but what constitutes civilized?
Who knows, as far as I can tell its a euphamism for not a human/elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling/other good race.
Can I just say that based on the last set of questions asn to what constitutes cilvilized or intelligent, I am glad I left the D&D...
Civilized race is the race from who's perspective the story is being told. Europeans were civilized, not the Aztec. Chinese were civilized, not the European "Ferenghi."
Using this, a story from the perspective of the Orcs or Goblins (baring an intentionally Evil campaign) would be considered Good since the story is told from their perspective. The Orcs are defending their land, killing the Human boers is a good act since the Humans are evil.
I'm not sure how to reconcile this with an Absolute Alignment system... What makes Orcs evil? Their uncivilized compared to humans and have very different social structure but then again so did the Aztec. Just because they sacrificed thousands to their God does not mean their culture is evil, just different. In the same way, the Orc's culture is just different. Who decides what is Good and Evil in a world dominated by petty Gods and even pettier mortals?
More good points, Elemental_Elf. I think that "civilized," like "natural," "good," "right," "reasonable" (and reason) are problem words because they mean different things to different people and it's nearly impossible to agree on definitions for them. Were the Europeans who colonized South America, killed thousands with disease (often deliberately) and violence really more "civilized" than the Aztecs with their sacrifices? European monarchs had massive wars where thousands died over tiny scraps of territory and hereditary rights, while churches tortured and burned thousands more in the name of God (witch-craze, Inquisition, the wars of religion - starts to look a lot more barbaric than some periodic, rather sanitary sacrifices every now and then, especially when considering that Aztec sacrificial victims were pretty honored whereas women accused of witchcraft would be hideously debased before being killed by smoke inhalation). Yeah Europeans had better technology, but surely the "bigger gun = more civilized" formula isn't a terribly good one. Just different is certainly one way of putting it; in any case, the Civilized/Barbarian dichotomy breaks down very quickly when subjected to even cursory deconstruction.
Quote from: SteerpikeMore good points, Elemental_Elf. I think that "civilized," like "natural," "good," "right," "reasonable" (and reason) are problem words because they mean different things to different people and it's nearly impossible to agree on definitions for them. Were the Europeans who colonized South America, killed thousands with disease (often deliberately) and violence really more "civilized" than the Aztecs with their sacrifices? European monarchs had massive wars where thousands died over tiny scraps of territory and hereditary rights, while churches tortured and burned thousands more in the name of God (witch-craze, Inquisition, the wars of religion - starts to look a lot more barbaric than some periodic, rather sanitary sacrifices every now and then, especially when considering that Aztec sacrificial victims were pretty honored whereas women accused of witchcraft would be hideously debased before being killed by smoke inhalation). Yeah Europeans had better technology, but surely the "bigger gun = more civilized" formula isn't a terribly good one. Just different is certainly one way of putting it; in any case, the Civilized/Barbarian dichotomy breaks down very quickly when subjected to even cursory deconstruction.
OK, Now we are getting somewhere. I use the "Acculturated vs. Tribal" conflict a lot, and it is one that I like. However, The reason I like it brings up another term that I believe is relevant, "Moral Ambiguity". I'll get to that point in a minute.
My tribal peoples in Celtricia, Orcash (orcs), Ograk (Ogre), Gartier (Bugbears), gnollic, etc, have been tribal for millenia, hating civilizations and organized countries. However, in the last few centuries, there has been an integration due to economic cooperation. So on many countries, Orcash and Gartier live in towns, become 'civilized, and even fight their tribal brethren. It has been a great underlying storyline.
So when the New Legion or a patrol comes across a band of ograk and orcash, they don't automatically go on the attack. They might be good guys, or they might be aprt of the Firehazer or Zyjmanese tribes. They have to find out and deal with the social issue.
And not to beat on a concinnous subject, but much as our fairy tales and children's stories are often simple morality plays in disguise, and as we grow up our stories become more complicated and 'morally ambiguous' (including ASOFAI, which is referenced), so, too, I contend that more mature, 'story-driven' games outgrow simple alignment systems.
I'm not saying that they (alignment systems) cannot be a good tool for a GM and a helpful, shared vocabulary for those of us with a cosmopoetic bent. But literary critics reference moral ambiguity hand-in-hand with the complexity and maturity of a piece or artist for a very good reason.
Quote from: LlumQuote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizationcivilization[/url], and who is using it. I'm sure the law students among us can cite a number of interesting histories from Civil Law, as well, but complex social systems, shared culture, and class-hierarchies are common themes in what determines a civilization, and I personally like the attribute of cultural virality (the power of a civilzation to spread without war) as a deteminant of the strength of a civilization.
But at the crux of it, it is not a question with a nominal answer, but a ratio one. The term 'uncivilized' is actually by this defination an unsphisticated one (which is funny), as any group could be less or more civilized, but not uncivilized. Even my own terminology of 'acculturated' should properly be 'more acculturated'.
People and civilizations are complex, alignment systems are simplistic. Personal opinion.
on animals, the thing while animals can be mean or less mean, they still aren't functioning on the same moral level. A dog who bites an innocent bystander because he moves funny isn't be evil, he is just being a mean dog. In D&D that makes them TN, but personally i think this is the only time where unaligned works
Halfling, three points
1) Yeah, you can apply any absolute system to any category. i can use the LOFR morality system for any game, through the results would be very amusing
2) I don't think that actually is a gross oversimplification of good and evil, its just categorizing them. Good and evil are such vague concepts in real life that categorizing them is actually easier than in real life because the definition of Good and evil is decided by the absolute system rather than anything else. I don't see that as immature in any ways, for example if a system says that stealing is evil, well then its evil, regardless of context. D&D treats stealing as it treats killing, it is decided in context. However using another example, Torture, it is considered evil regardless of almost any context (mind control being one of the very few exceptions). It is always evil, regardless of if your torturing a hardened criminal or a heathen, it is always evil, because that is under the evil classification in the cosmic rules
3) On good and evil vs. right and wrong, that has nothing to do with relative morality. Good and Evil are clearly defined categories, that does not make one inherently better than the other. A fanatical follower of Hexer wouldn't consider his deity bad, even if he is classified as "evil". He would just reject Good as weak and narrow minded and embrace his deity as the true master of the realm. A member of the British Empire who is oppressing the Africans wouldn't consider himself evil, and would reject any system that classified himself as such. The Confederate foot soldiers mostly thought they were right in what they were fighting for. Just because a system calls them "Good" Or "Evil" doesn't make what they believe right or wrong
Moniker- Like most of 4E's devices, personality traits are a heavy handed and crude device. Its just a petty way to avoid actual role playing. i can get personality traits as a mechanic in a game that uses flaws/traits like LOTFR or GURPS, but in 4E they are just another gimmick that avoids actual roleplaying. Because come one, traits are something you should role play your self, they have nothing to do with alignment.
And they don't work as a replacement to alignment because they have nothing to do with each other. Personality traits are just character traits, they don't have to do with morality.
Also alignment doesn't punish you in any way, you just change depending upon your personality/morality. That isn't a punishment. If you are a class dedicated to one morality in particular, well yeah it punishes you, but you took the class
Sorry for the mini tangent, 4E just disgusts me thats all
On killing orcs/goblins ect, it isn't ok to kill them just because they are different. Killing goblins just for being goblins is still evil. It just that goblins and what not often threaten those around them and tend to do evil things, so killing them is ok. For example, if orcs attack a town, and you kill them, its not evil. Going and killing orc children on the other hand......
Also, define civilized? like right and wrong that seems to be a very relative term
Elemental Elf, if the story is told entirely form the orc/goblin perspective, then they would consider themselves right/justified, but not in actuality good by D&D standards. Hence right and wrong not being good/evil
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestElemental Elf, if the story is told entirely form the orc/goblin perspective, then they would consider themselves right/justified, but not in actuality good by D&D standards. Hence right and wrong not being good/evil.
Who defines what is good and evil in an absolute alignment system? If its the creator God of the Aztec, that good would be very different than the Christian God's good.
If right and wrong are so distinct from good and evil, and beings are simply going to act in favor of what they consider "right" regardless of any alignment issues ("I don't care that we're Evil. We're also right, and we're doing what's best for the world.") - in other words if no one really cares about alignment and the absolute system of morality and simply follows their own "moral" or ethical compass based around principles of right and wrong as opposed to good and evil, then what is the use of having absolute morality in the first place? It's not going to affect anyone's decisions in any way.
The only real reason I can see for retaining absolute good and evil when you're going to have everyone act according to their own subjective system of right and wrong is because various rules/spells/mechanics have alignment attached to them. This comes down to pandering to crunch, placing rules and system before story and character.
As to the presence of demons/devils/angels in a setting, I don't think that abandoning a black and white morality system precludes their existence. In fact, I think once you introduce a more relative or at least multi-shaded system of morality, or as Ishmayl might put it a deontological system of morality, that demons/angels become waaaay more interesting because suddenly everything's opened up for debate - motivations, actions, goals, etc.
I have played with alignment but I find the best policy is to ignore it and treat it as if it doesn't exist, or ideally remove it entirely. In terms of ontological embodiments/attributse I'd prefer an anti-moral or "secular" system, perhaps like Ghostman's recently posted 7 Elements system, which suggests the presence of absolute values, just not moral ones.
elemental elf- Yeah. In D&D a power beyond the realm of the gods dictates aligniment, but if you have the Aztec gods as the absolute judges of a different absolute morality system, then yeah you'd have a different scale of good and evil. Again, that wouldn't dictate right or wrong. Through that isn't much different from a relative morlaity in that case.
Quote from: SteerpikeIf right and wrong are so distinct from good and evil, and beings are simply going to act in favor of what they consider "right" regardless of any alignment issues ("I don't care that we're Evil. We're also right, and we're doing what's best for the world.")
- in other words if no one really cares about alignment and the absolute system of morality and simply follows their own "moral" or ethical compass based around principles of right and wrong as opposed to good and evil, then what is the use of having absolute morality in the first place? It's not going to affect anyone's decisions in any way.
[/quote]
The only real reason I can see for retaining absolute good and evil when you're going to have everyone act according to their own subjective system of right and wrong is because various rules/spells/mechanics have alignment attached to them. This comes down to pandering to crunch, placing rules and system before story and character.
[/quote]
As to the presence of demons/devils/angels in a setting, I don't think that abandoning a black and white morality system precludes their existence. In fact, I think once you introduce a more relative or at least multi-shaded system of morality, or as Ishmayl might put it a deontological system of morality, that demons/angels become waaaay more interesting because suddenly everything's opened up for debate - motivations, actions, goals, etc.
[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of other creatures in D&D who are more grey in their beings. What makes Demons/devils/angels interesting is taht they are totally absolute, they are the embodiments of a certain morality. Normal mortals are around for grey or mixed morality, those types of outsiders exist for the absolutes.
In short, while i'm not going to say Absolute morality is "better" than relative in any way, I find the claims of relative morality superiority rather silly. I know this goes both ways, but you absolute can handle just as well as relative, through i'm not going to say its better.
from
EE
Uhh, Evil, I think you cut your text out :)
After a certain character count the post just shows up blank, so you may have to split your post into two halves.
You can read his post by quoting it if you want.
Quote from: EvilElitestelemental elf- Yeah. In D&D a power beyond the realm of the gods dictates aligniment, but if you have the Aztec gods as the absolute judges of a different absolute morality system, then yeah you'd have a different scale of good and evil. Again, that wouldn't dictate right or wrong. Through that isn't much different from a relative morlaity in that case.
*snip*
from
EE
Then would everyone in an Aztec-esque society be evil if their gods, whom everyone worships with great fervor, demanded ritual sacrifice of captured enemies? All I'm saying is that every system derives it's power from greater sources. So in the case of D&D that greater source is a poorly written paragraph in the PHB?
Just a minor nitpick here but...
Quote from: EvilElitestI know this goes both ways, but you absolute can handle just as well as relative, through I'm not going to say its better.
You can't pull off a "real world" setting with absolute morality. That is a setting that needs a more abstract setup. But then again that is how the real world generally is. On the other hand you can pull off an absolute world with an abstract system. You just have to go about it differently.
Quote from: EvilElitestelemental elf- Yeah. In D&D a power beyond the realm of the gods dictates aligniment, but if you have the Aztec gods as the absolute judges of a different absolute morality system, then yeah you'd have a different scale of good and evil. Again, that wouldn't dictate right or wrong. Through that isn't much different from a relative morlaity in that case.
Quote from: SteerpikeIf right and wrong are so distinct from good and evil, and beings are simply going to act in favor of what they consider "right" regardless of any alignment issues ("I don't care that we're Evil. We're also right, and we're doing what's best for the world.")
- in other words if no one really cares about alignment and the absolute system of morality and simply follows their own "moral" or ethical compass based around principles of right and wrong as opposed to good and evil, then what is the use of having absolute morality in the first place? It's not going to affect anyone's decisions in any way.
The only real reason I can see for retaining absolute good and evil when you're going to have everyone act according to their own subjective system of right and wrong is because various rules/spells/mechanics have alignment attached to them. This comes down to pandering to crunch, placing rules and system before story and character.
[/quote]
As to the presence of demons/devils/angels in a setting, I don't think that abandoning a black and white morality system precludes their existence. In fact, I think once you introduce a more relative or at least multi-shaded system of morality, or as Ishmayl might put it a deontological system of morality, that demons/angels become waaaay more interesting because suddenly everything's opened up for debate - motivations, actions, goals, etc.
[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of other creatures in D&D who are more grey in their beings. What makes Demons/devils/angels interesting is taht they are totally absolute, they are the embodiments of a certain morality. Normal mortals are around for grey or mixed morality, those types of outsiders exist for the absolutes.
In short, while i'm not going to say Absolute morality is "better" than relative in any way, I find the claims of relative morality superiority rather silly. I know this goes both ways, but you absolute can handle just as well as relative, through i'm not going to say its better.
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestelemental elf- Yeah. In D&D a power beyond the realm of the gods dictates aligniment, but if you have the Aztec gods as the absolute judges of a different absolute morality system, then yeah you'd have a different scale of good and evil. Again, that wouldn't dictate right or wrong. Through that isn't much different from a relative morlaity in that case.
Quote from: SteerpikeIf right and wrong are so distinct from good and evil, and beings are simply going to act in favor of what they consider "right" regardless of any alignment issues ("I don't care that we're Evil. We're also right, and we're doing what's best for the world.")
- in other words if no one really cares about alignment and the absolute system of morality and simply follows their own "moral" or ethical compass based around principles of right and wrong as opposed to good and evil, then what is the use of having absolute morality in the first place? It's not going to affect anyone's decisions in any way.
[/QUOTE}
It certainly will. Gods, paladins, clerics, demons, angles and what not will certainly be affected. The mechanical and magical effects still play a part of teh system. And considering the nature of the afterlife, and the cosmology, that makes a big difference.
And that will effect people's descions, just not everybody's descions. Demons being evil will make people think twice, and those who revere good will try to change those who aren't like them.
Will it make everybody change? Of course not, but it does make a difference.
from
EE
QuoteThe only real reason I can see for retaining absolute good and evil when you're going to have everyone act according to their own subjective system of right and wrong is because various rules/spells/mechanics have alignment attached to them. This comes down to pandering to crunch, placing rules and system before story and character.
As to the presence of demons/devils/angels in a setting, I don't think that abandoning a black and white morality system precludes their existence. In fact, I think once you introduce a more relative or at least multi-shaded system of morality, or as Ishmayl might put it a deontological system of morality, that demons/angels become waaaay more interesting because suddenly everything's opened up for debate - motivations, actions, goals, etc.
[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of other creatures in D&D who are more grey in their beings. What makes Demons/devils/angels interesting is taht they are totally absolute, they are the embodiments of a certain morality. Normal mortals are around for grey or mixed morality, those types of outsiders exist for the absolutes.
In short, while i'm not going to say Absolute morality is "better" than relative in any way, I find the claims of relative morality superiority rather silly. I know this goes both ways, but you absolute can handle just as well as relative, through i'm not going to say its better.
from
EE
ok, reposted what i posted eariler, thanks for explaining that to me
Elemental Elf- In the D&D game, the powers that define "Good" and "Evil" are cosmic powers beyond even the gods, much like the creators of the universe.
Now, if we had a different absolute system where the entire definition of Good and Evil stemed from the Aztec gods, then human sacrificers, oppression, slavery would be considered good, not evil. But in D&D, the Aztecs would be evil, as would the Ancient Romans, and the Feudal Japanese. They would believe themselves justified and right, but by the Definition of Good and evil they would be evil as a culture.
Nomatic
May religious faiths in our world believe in absolute morality, so if the real world functions on relative or absolute morality is a matter of personal options. I think its relative, but i'm an Atheist, so go figure.
Anyways, my main point is that the D&D 3E system works, if you like absolute morality. If you don't, well thats another story entirely
from
EE
[blockquote=Evil_Elitist]People will always belief what they want and nothing can dictate that with absolute clarity.[/blockquote]That's sort of why I'm wondering why absolute morality is neccessary at all, if everyone ignores them? Paladin special abilities and spells etc seem to be the reason I come up with. But I don't see why people would think twice about dealing with Evil beings if Evil no longer means wrong... they might well identify with Evil very strongly.
I guess I just don't like absolute/supernatural morality too much, is what it comes down too. Whatever works for your game is the best way to go.
well in a world where there are supernatrual cosmic elements, then people's views on good and evil will be slanted. And absolute system is a manner of determining good and evil under one specific standard. I could make one using the Geneva's Convection as a guide line in order to figure out the aligniment of people.
Anyways, my main point is that nothing can truly determine "right" and "wrong" to people, they will believe what they want to believe.
If you just don't like absolute morality, thats fine. Absolute morality is no better, if no worst than relative morailty, each to their own
from
EE
Some cultures see cannibalism as evil and wrong. Some tribes eat their enemies to absorb their memory, and even their own family members in tribute to their ancestors. Hell, Christians take the sacriment, which is the literal/aliteral flesh and blood of their god.
Ultimately, why is it even necessary to categorize what good and evil is? Gamemasters are mostly looking for a way to collar their players and hold them accountable for their actions. What really needs to be discussed is morality, with standards set by culture, NOT by character creation rules.
Fly loose and free, I say. Alignment restrictions are antiquated; a sacred cow that should be put to pasture. Why not have players create a character personality write-up without hard, rule-based restrictions?
Quote from: EvilElitestMay religious faiths in our world believe in absolute morality, so if the real world functions on relative or absolute morality is a matter of personal options. I think its relative, but i'm an Atheist, so go figure.
No in that case you have a relative morality. Unless every single religion believes in the same basis of good and evil there is no absolute morality. Also the irony of this situation is hilarious. An Atheist arguing for absolute morality vs a Christian arguing for relative morality.
Quote from: EvilElitestAbsolute morality is no better, if no worst than relative morailty
That's exactly the sort of thing a moral relativist would say :P
Quote from: MonikerSome cultures see cannibalism as evil and wrong. Some tribes eat their enemies to absorb their memory, and even their own family members in tribute to their ancestors. Hell, Christians take the sacriment, which is the literal/aliteral flesh and blood of their god.
Ultimately, why is it even necessary to categorize what good and evil is? Gamemasters are mostly looking for a way to collar their players and hold them accountable for their actions. What really needs to be discussed is morality, with standards set by culture, NOT by character creation rules.
Fly loose and free, I say. Alignment restrictions are antiquated; a sacred cow that should be put to pasture. Why not have players create a character personality write-up without hard, rule-based restrictions?
1) and in an absolute system, depending upon what is defining the absolute, it can be taken either way. In D&D eating dead bodies isn't evil, through killing an innocent solely to eat them certainly is.
2) Actually Christianity, at least those that do sacerment don't interpret that way. Through I"m sure that argument has been countered enough as it is in other dicussion, so i'd suggest looking it up.
3) Considering that D&D works under the assumption that their is a working Heaven and Hell, demons and devils, paladins and a balance of justice it is certainly a valid system. It also is a great way to categorize justice and morality within a system.
4) wait i'm a bit confused? You speak of a categorization system as somehow collaring players, but didn't you eariler promote 4E's character traits? A system that decides one's personality and boils them down to a series of mechanical feats is far more collaring than a system that groups morality based upon one's actions. You speak of freedom, but your seem to be focused on promoting a game that is far more limiting, as we know that 4E's aligniment system is far more limiting than 3E's, as it contains all of the weakens but not of the benefits.
5) I see no way how aligniment limits cultural or personal beliefs in any way. The main point of my article is explaining how personal beliefs and cultural ideals can not only function, but thrive under the aligniment system.
on a different note, moral relativism in game design is a wonderful idea
from
EE
Oh and Nomatic, most faiths believe they have a true absolute morality. I don't personally believe it, but they do. Catholics, for better or for worst certainly believe that their understand of good and evil is absolute, and come judgment day everyone will be sent to heaven or hell depending upon their actions, while Puritans will have a different view on the matter. Is there an absolute morality that controls teh world? Personally i think not, morality is created by people, but for all i know there could be. Within the context of D&D people won't be sure of true morality. It varies
now remember, i'm not saying relative morality is bad or in any way inferior to absolute morality, both system are fine in their own way, its a matter of personal taste
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestOh and Nomatic, most faiths believe they have a true absolute morality. I don't personally believe it, but they do. Catholics, for better or for worst certainly believe that their understand of good and evil is absolute, and come judgment day everyone will be sent to heaven or hell depending upon their actions, while Puritans will have a different view on the matter. Is there an absolute morality that controls teh world? Personally i think not, morality is created by people, but for all i know there could be. Within the context of D&D people won't be sure of true morality. It varies
now remember, i'm not saying relative morality is bad or in any way inferior to absolute morality, both system are fine in their own way, its a matter of personal taste
from
EE
Yes but what I am saying is that when running a realistic style game you need to use relative morality. Because the real world doesn't have one verifiable moral compass due to cultural and religious differences.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: EvilElitestOh and Nomatic, most faiths believe they have a true absolute morality. I don't personally believe it, but they do. Catholics, for better or for worst certainly believe that their understand of good and evil is absolute, and come judgment day everyone will be sent to heaven or hell depending upon their actions, while Puritans will have a different view on the matter. Is there an absolute morality that controls teh world? Personally i think not, morality is created by people, but for all i know there could be. Within the context of D&D people won't be sure of true morality. It varies
now remember, i'm not saying relative morality is bad or in any way inferior to absolute morality, both system are fine in their own way, its a matter of personal taste
from
EE
Yes but what I am saying is that when running a realistic style game you need to use relative morality. Because the real world doesn't have one verifiable moral compass due to cultural and religious differences.
and that is what I was saying back a few pages ago.
Quote from: NomadicBecause the real world doesn't have one verifiable moral compass due to cultural and religious differences.
:offtopic: :soap:
While morality in the real world certainly isn't as clear-cut as fundamentalist religious people would like to pretend it is, that's not to say there aren't some black and white lines. Note that I'm not talking about relative vs absolute in the grand scheme of the universe/multiverse/whatever you believe in here-- however, if one takes one's frame of reference as "a human living on Earth in 2008" (i.e., the real world), there are some things that apply across that entire frame of reference-- for all intents and purposes, absolutes.
The "politically correct" view is that every culture is more or less equal, and something that is objectionable only seems objectionable because of one's cultural outlook. When we're talking about things like dress, art, language, literature, and cuisine, I'll go along with that-- they all have their distinguishing traits. Even regarding morality, there's a lot of flexibility. However, it's not all relative. Some have some moral views that are
just plain wrong. If culture A has shunned slavery as it was practiced in, say, early 1800s America, and culture B has not shunned this practice-- then culture A is right and culture B is wrong, and that's all there is to it. A rather striking (and disturbing) modern example has been the practice of some tribes of ritually mutilating the genitals of young girls. Some spineless/heartless/brainless anthropologists have even halfheartedly defended this practice as "their culture." No. This behavior is bad. That's all there is to it.
If this world ever wants any concept of "human rights," the concept that there aren't any moral absolutes will have to go. People are entitled to their own cultures, their own beliefs, their own languages, and whatnot-- but not barbaric practices that don't belong in a civilization that has sailed across the ocean, never mind landed on the moon.
I'm with you, sparkletwist. Personally I've always embraced a middle ground between Absolute/religiously-charged/supernatural morality and complete relativism. I think that the majority of cultural behaviors that violate taboos of other cultures cannot really be labeled good or bad - for example, women wearing pants or showing their faces is never wrong, and to assert otherwise is to add misguided moral weight to a cultural practice. Frankly, I don't understand how anything that doesn't harm other people can ever be considered evil, bad, or sinful - I think that labeling harmless but perhaps culturally deviant practices evil/wrong is deeply misguided. On the other hand, there are certain laws/taboos that make universal sense. Not murdering your neighbors, for instance. It's not because murder is actually Evil - it's that if we're going to have a social contract, you can't have people going around murdering left and right.
Basically, I think that in the ideal world culture should be utterly divorced from morality. Good and bad - or right and wrong - can't be derived from tradition, from revelation, from ancient texts, from cultural practices - only from reason, social logic, and even science. While some might point out that this is just my opinion, my own "moral compass," I'd counter that it appeals to a universal system rather than drawing from a set of personal beliefs. I don't think we're ultimately capable of achieving a system like that - subjective morality and culture will always intrude on the colder but ultimately fairer operations of human reason - but I think as a species we should work towards an ideal. I also think there's very much a place for culture in this system - it just should just be separated as far as possible with greater or general morality. It's a very Enlightenment viewpoint in a way, and while I think Enlightenment thinkers definitely had their problems I admire their drive towards the assertion of a universal, provable, demonstrably superior value-system.
Basically my utopia is The Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture), a post-scarcity (and thus post-"law") version of that "ideal-typical" liberal society.
1) Sparkle, were do you draw the line? The ancient romans were famous for inbreeding, torture, orgies, slavery and genocide (ethic cleansing) and were infamous for their tendencies to ruin whole lands (Hell they sowned the seeds of Carthage with salt when they didn't do anything, almost a century after Hannibal). The Spartains were brave and badass, but they were literally baby killing pseudo nazis with a racial regime (more ethnic Purging), Andrew Jackson was the founder of the democratic party was a true man of the people, who slaughtered maybe 100 000 native American (even more ethnic cleansing). Alright here is a question, the Chinese and the Greeks tended to castrate young boys, so how are they any different?
2) Steer, define harming people? Some women in certain countries would consider the veils a benefit, while a lot of others think it sexist and part of male oppression. Also, define murder? The Japanese believed that killing somebody for the good of the nation is perfectly acceptable, while that goes against UN laws. The Ancient spanish believed taht the death of heretics wasn't a sin.
2) How the hell is an ideal real like culture one devoid of morality? Might as well take away free will in the process. Also, most of the strongest thinkers during the Enlightenment leaned towards more natural rights then a semi communist/utilitarian view on "Greater Good"
Anyways, this is off topic in terms of alignment
from
EE
The Culture isn't devoid of morality, it just has neither Absolute morality (it's predominantly atheistic, though also EXTREMELY non-conformist - there is no "norm") nor totally relative morality. While obviously far from the utopias of Enlightenment thinkers it also shares a lot in common with Classical Liberalism, which emerged from the Enlightenment. My point was that I don't think law or "general morality" and culture should be intertwined (otherwise you veer increasingly towards theocracy); that morality should be derived from reason and logic (sometimes phrased as "natural rights") rather than from tradition, religious dogma, or a set of arbitrary cultural norms. That it's possibly to phrase a system of right/wrong or good/evil distinct both from absolute morality, which presents Good and Evil is as tangible forces (I don't think they are), and total relativism, which seems to exonerate things like genital mutilation or slavery. The "line" is delineated not by reference to the supernatural but rather "what makes most sense for our society" or "what set of laws will improve our society the most"? Obviously this leads to a new set of arguments but I think that that set of arguments (about logic and the self-improvement of society) is far more productive than one between relativism vs. traditional/cultural doctrine or dogma.
Back to the subject of the Culture. Free will is vital to the Culture - it's the whole point of the Culture. It's communist in the very purest sense: it's citizens are in no way subject to a state or Greater Good with the very marginal exception of Contact. Culture citizens are free to do literally anything they want (including leaving the Culture); you could spend your whole life just playing games or creating art or doing recreational drugs, if you wanted (and many do). Machines have automated 100% of labor and everyone dwells on massive self-sufficient space stations/planetoids/huge ships. I can see why reading the first sentence of the wikipedia page might lead one to envision the Culture as a freedom-inhibiting authoritarian socialist state that subsumes all of its citizenry towards a utilitarian Greater Good, but really it's pretty much 180 degrees from that. It's liberal anarchy, without property (you can synthesize EVERYTHING you want) or non-friendly competition (wars are hyper-rare and only fought when another, less enlightened civilization starts exterting a destructive influence on large ports of the galaxy - such as the theocratic Idirans in the first book, who declare jihad on the universe). If you kill someone (also incredibly rare, the only murders are the very occasional crimes of passion, and everyone in the Culture is posthuman so it takes quite a bit to actually kill them) you get slap-droned (a drone follows you around and stops you from killing again) - other than social ostracization, that's the only "punishment." It's actually not all that far from Star Trek's Federation, which is also relatively post-scarcity.
I didn't say the Culture was realistic - for one we'd need ridiculously more advanced technology to attain anything near its self-sufficiency and thus the elimination of competition for necessities/resources - but I admire its way of doing things and I think that the closer we can get to something resembling the Culture, the happier everyone would collectively be.
On the subject of veils, the question isn't whether veils are considered a benefit or not. If the women wearing the veils were highly educated, had complete 100% choice about whether to wear the veils, faced 0 social or political penalties or pressures for not wearing the veils (such as stoning to death or anything like that), etc., and still wanted to wear the veils, that's cool with me. It's not the veil-wearing that I've got a problem with: it's the sexism and oppression that undeniably do exist that I've got a problem with. The veils are just a sympton.
It's a bit like the Aztecs sacrificing virgins to volcano gods (this is an argument Richard Dawkins makes I believe, and for all his causticity I think he makes a lot of good points). The women being sacrificed genuinely believed that they were serving the gods. But if you can prove that those gods don't exist, or that their existence is extremely, extremely unlikely, and fully educate the women-to-be-sacrificed, then they might change their minds. If, after realizing that the gods they were going to be sacrificed to are almost certainly non-existant and they still want to be sacrificed, fine. To invoke another comparison, it's a bit like eugenics and doctrines of racial purification. If you accept that certain races are subhuman and dangerous to the species and no better than animals (or demons) then treating them as such makes a certain amount of sense; but since eugenics and racial superiority can be 100% disproved by science, it totally invalidates any justification of racism. Relativism too often puts its fingers in its ears when people start proving things (or disproving things) or making any value-judgments. I just don't think you need Absolute Morality where Good/Evil are tangible forces - like the Alignments - to make those value-judgments.
Murder is just a word. What matters is whether it makes sense to be killing people if we're claiming to have a healthy society. Yes the Spanish used to believe that killing heretics wasn't a sin; but once you divorce religion from societal morality, assert that someone holding a particular set of beliefs does no physical harm to anyone, killing the person clearly becomes equivalent to what most would term "murder" - unjustified killing.
You're right that this is somewhat tangential in relation to alignment, but the thread seems to have evolved partly into a debate about absolute vs. relative morality, and I was trying to weigh in with something of a third or middle option in what I thought was an interesting argument. I'm certainly not trying to be hostile! If you'd rather ditch all talk of morality beyond gaming (difficult to do if you want to create a realistic game-world), fine. I personally find it hard to talk about Alignment without talking about morality more generally, but perhaps I should just stay out of the thread.
Quote from: sparkletwistA rather striking (and disturbing) modern example has been the practice of some tribes of ritually mutilating the genitals of young girls. Some spineless/heartless/brainless anthropologists have even halfheartedly defended this practice as "their culture." No. This behavior is bad. That's all there is to it.
What are your thoughts on ritually mutilating the facial cartilage of young girls?
Ok just something to note here. Abstract morality is something completely separate from any one persons feelings. It is what our world functions on. You may think that something is just plain wrong. But unless everyone else on earth agrees with you then you have an abstract moral system. Sure the mutilation of young girls is a horrible thing for us and I personally think it should be stopped. However, those that are doing it think that it is a good thing to do. If they didn't they wouldn't be doing it. It is indeed a part of their culture and thus swings towards the good side of their moral compass.
Does this mean that it isn't wrong? Absolutely not. You see moral relativism has nothing to do with the fundamental truth of a society. It is there to encompass all the facets of a society when the absolute rights and wrongs cannot be found. For all we know one of the religions got it right (as a christian I am of course going to lean towards it but I won't start a religious debate here). If that's the case you still have an absolute morality based world that has to be symbolized with abstract morality because not everyone agrees.
Yar to what Nomadic said. I guess my point of view is that we're never going to discover which if any absolute morality system governs us (until the Day of Judgment/Ragnarok/whatever). So we have to pick a set of rules (abstract morality) to govern ourselves. I don't think that complete moral relativism, where we can discount potentially horrific acts as simply part of a culture, is the responsible choice to make as a species; or in other terms I don't think we should all completely embrace moral relativism. I also don't think that we have to simply pick an absolute morality system and hope that we've got lucky (although we might choose to do so personally, I suppose, just so long as we don't force this system on anyone else - including our offspring. We don't force our children to share our politics, nor should we force them to share our religious/moral inclinations). I think a third option - neither an absolute moral system that may or may not be correct nor a complete abandonment of value-judgments (total relativism)- is in order. And I think that the path to that is through reason or logic divorced from cultural or religious traditions...
Quote from: MonikerSome cultures see cannibalism as evil and wrong. Some tribes eat their enemies to absorb their memory, and even their own family members in tribute to their ancestors. Hell, Christians take the sacriment, which is the literal/aliteral flesh and blood of their god.
Ahem. Only the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Christian churches (as far as I know - certainly only them amongst the major churches) believe in the Sacrament as the literal body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation). None of the Protestant Churches (as far as I know, certainly not the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church, the URC or the Baptist Church) include transubstantiation as one of their official beliefs. :P
Moving onwards from that... I've always disagreed with alignment. It seems to me to be an arbitrary and completely failed attempt to class something which is relative into nine stereotypes. It works for your generic stereotypical fantasy game, but for anything even vaguely deep, it's just too simplified.
QuoteThe "politically correct" view is that every culture is more or less equal, and something that is objectionable only seems objectionable because of one's cultural outlook. When we're talking about things like dress, art, language, literature, and cuisine, I'll go along with that-- they all have their distinguishing traits. Even regarding morality, there's a lot of flexibility. However, it's not all relative. Some have some moral views that are just plain wrong. If culture A has shunned slavery as it was practiced in, say, early 1800s America, and culture B has not shunned this practice-- then culture A is right and culture B is wrong, and that's all there is to it. A rather striking (and disturbing) modern example has been the practice of some tribes of ritually mutilating the genitals of young girls. Some spineless/heartless/brainless anthropologists have even halfheartedly defended this practice as "their culture." No. This behavior is bad. That's all there is to it.
Well, the thing is, that's the point. As far as we're concerned, that's absolutely morally wrong. But had history developed differently and these tribes developed the technology and subjugated us, it's quite possible that we would be seeing NOT mutilating the genitals of young girls as wrong (although, true, the feminist revolution may have occurred, etc, etc, but I don't really want to delve that deeply into an alternate-history analogy).
Quote from: Halfling FritosWhat are your thoughts on ritually mutilating the facial cartilage of young girls?
Abstract morality is something completely separate from any one persons feelings. It is what our world functions on. You may think that something is just plain wrong. But unless everyone else on earth agrees with you then you have an abstract moral system. Sure the mutilation of young girls is a horrible thing for us and I personally think it should be stopped. However, those that are doing it think that it is a good thing to do. If they didn't they wouldn't be doing it. It is indeed a part of their culture and thus swings towards the good side of their moral compass.[/quote]
Interesting, and the perfect way to bring this back
:ontopic:
Outside of cartoons and comedies, it's rare that villains rub their hands together and comment on how evil they are. Just because a character is evil doesn't mean they don't think they are doing the right thing (particularly Lawful Evil)-- even if that standard is deplorable to the rest of the outside world. I'd say that if your character's subjective moral compass is in significant opposition to the "universal concept of good," that is what makes your character evil.
Just like sparkletwist says the evil people generally don't see themselves as evil.
Anyway from all the discussion on the boards it seems to almost boil down to a strict almost libertarian view of things. As long as no one else is hurt it doesn't matter what I do.
[blockquote=sparkletwist]Outside of cartoons and comedies, it's rare that villains rub their hands together and comment on how evil they are. Just because a character is evil doesn't mean they don't think they are doing the right thing (particularly Lawful Evil)-- even if that standard is deplorable to the rest of the outside world. I'd say that if your character's subjective moral compass is in significant opposition to the "universal concept of good," that is what makes your character evil.[/blockquote]And I guess what I was getting at before I went into fully rantomatic mode was that in such a reality where right/wrong are privileged over good/evil (i.e. "Evil," that is tangible, supernaturally embodied or Absolute Evil as a genuine force in the universe), Good and Evil get emptied of any real meaning. The "Universal Concept of Good" might very well be wrong, so Good and Evil degenerates completely into "Us" and "Them." You might as well call Good and Evil "Red" and "Blue." Sure Blue might be outnumbered, but so were the rebels in Star Wars...
What strikes me as a more realistic world where Absolute Morality exists and is easily testable (Detect Evil and the other Detect___ spells) is that a big charter gets written up that summarizes the consequences of every action recorded. Look up "Murder for Vengeance" and you get "A Neutral Evil Act," vs. "Stealing to Feed Yourself and Your Family" and you get "A Chaotic Good Act," etc. Unless a whole group of people reject the charter (thus emptying Good and Evil of value and turning the moral absolutes into a system of Us and Them), you end up with a rather boring if well-behaved world.
I feel the need to come to the defense of moral relativism!
Quote from: sparkletwistThat's exactly the sort of thing a moral relativist would say :P
I used to work for a certain human rights NGO. I worked on promoting democracy and civil society in my capacity as part of the program staff. But I don't believe there is such a thing as a "natural right," nor do I think that moral absolutes are necessary for human rights to exist.
There are only two possible sources of rights: God (or "nature" if you prefer) and Man. If you think God/nature has given us rights, fine - you can be an absolutist. But if you're not prepared to do that, then you must accept that rights in general, and human rights in particular, were devised by men for the purposes of men. As repellent as it sounds, there is no absolute basis on which to say any practice is "barbaric." The concept of barbarism itself is invented. There is no such thing as objective morality and never has been, nor is there such a thing as "natural rights" (sorry John Locke).
But I am still a proponent of human rights, and I still judge other people's form of morality against my own. I believe that murder is wrong, but I accept that it is wrong according to my human-made idea of morality, and I'm OK with that. I am a proponent of human rights because I believe a world with them is a better world than a world without them.
In my opinion, "absolute morality" is a crutch for people who are uncomfortable with the idea that morality only amounts to their own opinions. They don't like to say "my opinion on the matter is better than yours," so they craft the idea of an absolute that they can point to and say "it's not just
my opinion that murder is bad; it's
objectively immoral." This is the same tactic used by 19th century imperialists to say that natives were categorically inferior: take your own cultural morality and say it is universal and absolute, then condemn everyone who doesn't conform as barbaric reprobates who are defying natural law.
I am a moral relativist, but there is an important distinction to be made here - the stereotypical, politically correct, much-maligned moral relativist says "we can't judge" and twiddles their thumbs, unable to take a stand without absolutes. That isn't really moral relativism; that's cowardice. I am a moral relativist who says "we can't judge objectively - but I can judge subjectively." I am willing to work and fight for my personal and cultural morality because I believe the world is better for it, and I don't feel I need to craft a spurious idea of absolute morality to justify myself.
[/rant]
[blockquote=Polycarp!]I am a moral relativist, but there is an important distinction to be made here - the stereotypical, politically correct, much-maligned moral relativist says "we can't judge" and twiddles their thumbs, unable to take a stand without absolutes. That isn't really moral relativism; that's cowardice. I am a moral relativist who says "we can't judge objectively - but I can judge subjectively." I am willing to work and fight for my personal and cultural morality because I believe the world is better for it, and I don't feel I need to craft a spurious idea of absolute morality to justify myself.[/blockquote]Hear hear! You expressed perfectly what I've been struggling to say.
What I posted above is probably why I have difficulty with absolute morality systems in games. Perhaps it is my weakness as a role player, but the idea of an actual, absolute morality totally baffles me. How is it possible to have a creature with free will who is also "evil" by nature? I understand that it's a nice, simple mechanic to give the paladin the ability to smite "evildoers," but it's always been a concept I just can't wrap my head around. When you bring real absolute morality into a game the whole system of values becomes so convoluted and distorted that we end up with big discussion threads like this with people debating what "evil" means and what will cause your paladin to fall. It tends to give me a headache, and I prefer to just drop it entirely and go with how I perceive the world to actually function.
Quote from: sparkletwistOutside of cartoons and comedies, it's rare that villains rub their hands together and comment on how evil they are. Just because a character is evil doesn't mean they don't think they are doing the right thing (particularly Lawful Evil)-- even if that standard is deplorable to the rest of the outside world. I'd say that if your character's subjective moral compass is in significant opposition to the "universal concept of good," that is what makes your character evil.
I think what we are having here is some confusion on the type of moral relativism being discussed. Moral relativism in a RPG does not use good or evil. It uses the individuals own moral compass. This is because in an abstract system you don't have any spells or abilities that requires good and evil. It is 100% about interaction between people. So you don't care if society views a person as bad. All you need to know is what the people interacting view each other as.
Quote from: sparkletwistNote that I'm not talking about relative vs absolute in the grand scheme of the universe/multiverse/whatever you believe in here-- however, if one takes one's frame of reference as "a human living on Earth in 2008" (i.e., the real world), there are some things that apply across that entire frame of reference-- for all intents and purposes, absolutes.
mean[/i] anything considering living in modern times on this planet is all that we (as a species) know. To me, the "absolute standard" comes about because some views are just plain better for the human race than others.
Quote from: Polycarp!I am a moral relativist who says "we can't judge objectively - but I can judge subjectively." I am willing to work and fight for my personal and cultural morality because I believe the world is better for it, and I don't feel I need to craft a spurious idea of absolute morality to justify myself.
objectively[/b] better for humanity? I suspect it's closer to the brand of morality that you advocate than the one that they do. To me, that makes it an absolute. (again, at least within the realm of "modern humans living on Earth")
So what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that my brand of "absolutism," as such, is drawing a line in the sand with those types and proclaiming: The civilized world agrees with me, not you. If you can't see that, gtfo our planet.
Quote from: SteerpikeThe Culture isn't devoid of morality, it just has neither Absolute morality (it's predominantly atheistic, though also EXTREMELY non-conformist - there is no "norm") nor totally relative morality. While obviously far from the utopias of Enlightenment thinkers it also shares a lot in common with Classical Liberalism, which emerged from the Enlightenment.
My point was that I don't think law or "general morality" and culture should be intertwined (otherwise you veer increasingly towards theocracy); that morality should be derived from reason and logic (sometimes phrased as "natural rights") rather than from tradition, religious dogma, or a set of arbitrary cultural norms.
[/quote]
That it's possibly to phrase a system of right/wrong or good/evil distinct both from absolute morality, which presents Good and Evil is as tangible forces (I don't think they are), and total relativism, which seems to exonerate things like genital mutilation or slavery. The "line" is delineated not by reference to the supernatural but rather "what makes most sense for our society" or "what set of laws will improve our society the most"? Obviously this leads to a new set of arguments but I think that that set of arguments (about logic and the self-improvement of society) is far more productive than one between relativism vs. traditional/cultural doctrine or dogma.
[/quote]
Back to the subject of the Culture. Free will is vital to the Culture - it's the whole point of the Culture. It's communist in the very purest sense: it's citizens are in no way subject to a state or Greater Good with the very marginal exception of Contact. Culture citizens are free to do literally anything they want (including leaving the Culture); you could spend your whole life just playing games or creating art or doing recreational drugs, if you wanted (and many do). Machines have automated 100% of labor and everyone dwells on massive self-sufficient space stations/planetoids/huge ships. I can see why reading the first sentence of the wikipedia page might lead one to envision the Culture as a freedom-inhibiting authoritarian socialist state that subsumes all of its citizenry towards a utilitarian Greater Good, but really it's pretty much 180 degrees from that.
[/quote]
It's liberal anarchy, without property (you can synthesize EVERYTHING you want) or non-friendly competition (wars are hyper-rare and only fought when another, less enlightened civilization starts exterting a destructive influence on large ports of the galaxy - such as the theocratic Idirans in the first book, who declare jihad on the universe). If you kill someone (also incredibly rare, the only murders are the very occasional crimes of passion, and everyone in the Culture is posthuman so it takes quite a bit to actually kill them) you get slap-droned (a drone follows you around and stops you from killing again) - other than social ostracization, that's the only "punishment." It's actually not all that far from Star Trek's Federation, which is also relatively post-scarcity.
[/quote]
On the subject of veils, the question isn't whether veils are considered a benefit or not. If the women wearing the veils were highly educated, had complete 100% choice about whether to wear the veils, faced 0 social or political penalties or pressures for not wearing the veils (such as stoning to death or anything like that), etc., and still wanted to wear the veils, that's cool with me. It's not the veil-wearing that I've got a problem with: it's the sexism and oppression that undeniably do exist that I've got a problem with. The veils are just a sympton.
[/quote]
It's a bit like the Aztecs sacrificing virgins to volcano gods (this is an argument Richard Dawkins makes I believe, and for all his causticity I think he makes a lot of good points). The women being sacrificed genuinely believed that they were serving the gods.
[/quote]
But if you can prove that those gods don't exist, or that their existence is extremely, extremely unlikely, and fully educate the women-to-be-sacrificed, then they might change their minds. If, after realizing that the gods they were going to be sacrificed to are almost certainly non-existant and they
still want to be sacrificed, fine.
[/quote]
To invoke another comparison, it's a bit like eugenics and doctrines of racial purification. If you accept that certain races are subhuman and dangerous to the species and no better than animals (or demons) then treating them as such makes a certain amount of sense; but since eugenics and racial superiority can be 100% disproved by science, it totally invalidates any justification of racism.
[/quote]
Relativism too often puts its fingers in its ears when people start proving things (or disproving things) or making any value-judgments. I just don't think you need Absolute Morality where Good/Evil are tangible forces - like the Alignments - to make those value-judgments.
[/quote]
Murder is just a word. What matters is whether it makes sense to be killing people if we're claiming to have a healthy society. Yes the Spanish used to believe that killing heretics wasn't a sin; but once you divorce religion from societal morality, assert that someone holding a particular set of beliefs does no physical harm to anyone, killing the person clearly becomes equivalent to what most would term "murder" - unjustified killing.
[/quote]
You're right that this is somewhat tangential in relation to alignment, but the thread seems to have evolved partly into a debate about absolute vs. relative morality, and I was trying to weigh in with something of a third or middle option in what I thought was an interesting argument. I'm certainly not trying to be hostile! If you'd rather ditch all talk of morality beyond gaming (difficult to do if you want to create a realistic game-world), fine. I personally find it hard to talk about Alignment
without talking about morality more generally, but perhaps I should just stay out of the thread.
[/quote]
Real life morality isn't on the table, just D&D morality. I'm not saying your wrong (well not much, but hey) so i don't expect you to reply to my question, just explain how you are not promoting an absolute morality and yet don't want an absolute morality
from
EE
I had a rather inflammatory idea of juxtaposing two quotes together, but I'll play nice.
I did have more comments to make based on quotes, but I'm sticking to just this, for simplicity's sake.
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: Polycarp!I am a moral relativist who says "we can't judge objectively - but I can judge subjectively." I am willing to work and fight for my personal and cultural morality because I believe the world is better for it, and I don't feel I need to craft a spurious idea of absolute morality to justify myself.
objectively[/b] better for humanity? I suspect it's closer to the brand of morality that you advocate than the one that they do. To me, that makes it an absolute. (again, at least within the realm of "modern humans living on Earth")
I'd probably take out the Taliban reference, to avoid invoking some modern variation of Godwin's Law, but otherwise, I agree. If I were to take a purely moral relativist stance here, accepting that all of my beliefs are ultimately only opinions, then they have no weight for me to stand behind. "Right" and "Wrong", "good" and "bad", could just as easily be relabeled as "Orange" and "Blue". Working toward "right" in the world is just as silly as working toward "Orange" in the world.
I was making two distinct arguments, EE. One was that I don't like absolute morality in gaming and don't think that it coexists very well with a more relative view of right and wrong because I feel that if right and wrong supersede good and evil as the compass by which people in a game-world live their lives then Good and Evil and alignment more generally are emptied of value and are only relevant insofar as the rules of the game proclaim them relevant, i.e. Paladin/Cleric abilities, spells, etc.
The other argument was about my specific view of absolute vs. relative morality in the real world as a course for humanity to take. Polycarp! explained more or less what I was thinking much better than I did; what he calls "moral relativism" (and sparkletwist labels a certain form of absolutism) is my "third option," whereas what I was dubbing moral relativism he calls cowardice (a mater of semantics - I agree with Polycarp!'s statements, I was just using slightly different terminology). Basically, my argument comes down to the fact that even without absolute forces of good and evil you can still make value-judgments, and that those value-judgments should be derived not from tradition or God but from human reason. What to me distinguishes absolutism from relativism or what-have-you is that absolutism appeals to forces exterior to human society - divine or immutable forces. I was earlier discussing relativism in an extreme sense (no judgments) which is what I object to.
Back to gaming, my opinion can be summed up pretty simply:
1) I don't like alignment as I feel that it asserts absolute morality which oversimplifies the game-world, and that it couldn't realistically exist (or be realistically implemented), at least as a knowable force ("I Detect Evil").
2) If right and wrong exist as independent and relative concepts in contrast with Good and Evil or other alignments I don't understand the necessity for alignment at all, since if people are governed by their subjective view of right and wrong rather than their understanding of Good and Evil... you wouldn't shirk from committing an Evil act if you considered it "right." To me this undermines the whole point of alignment (reducing Good and Evil to "Us" and "Them") and creates a big mess.
3)My solution's are to (a) do away with alignment altogether as pretty much all non DnD games have or (b) to worry about alignment only when the rules insist on doing so and to otherwise ignore it completely.
If you find that you can make relativism and absolutism coexist in your campaign, more power to you. To me it just doesn't seem workable.
Evil Elitest, I think it might help if you got a better grasp on how the quote tags work. First, if an opening tag has one of those number in it, it will only work with the first closing tag with that same number. I'm not sure why this is, since nesting works without the numbers, but still. Second, the tags are caps sensitive, so an opening quote won't work with a closing QUOTE. In fact, in has to be lower-case on both tags.
The presence of absolute morality in a setting can lead to very interesting things. If a god demands that we perform or avoid an action, does that make the action divine or profane? If She calls said action evil, and punishes us for it, is Her forewarning justification enough for our suffering or is she the villain for putting such strictures upon us? To whom are the heavens beholden? Is hell just? Do sinners deserve their fate, though in their pathetically finite comprehension they know not what they do?
All these questions can lead to very ugly debates when discussing real world faiths, but it's all good meat for gaming. A world wherein Hell does exist, and the "sins" that lead souls to it are not thought sins in the eyes of many mortals, can inspire some tantalising stories. I do not think "absolute morality" removes the shades of grey. On the contrary, it can provide a discomfiting new complexity to your world.
It's important to distinguish between fantasy settings and reality, and recognise that moral statements about your fictional world don't necessarily reflect any kind of sane worldview. Heck, in your world winking might actually destine you for a genuine, physical damnation. That doesn't make it evil. It might just make your god tremendously fucked up. Again, all good story meat.
I once did a few adventures in a setting where the Powers of Heaven created laws that destined the wielders of certain weapons and magics for the Shadow-place, Gehenna. It was a good law that saved many millions of lives. But when a demon army marched against their world, mortals were forced to adopt these old villainous ways as only said weapons could defeat the invaders.
Alas, the makers of the Old Law had died long ago, making it an uncontravertable cosmic truth. So the heroes of the new war continued to end up in Gehenna. Slowly, the casualties of the war mounted, and Gehenna became filled with the bitter shades of damned heroes, while those who lived and fought had to reconcile themselves to the seeming inevitability of their own damnation.
To me the universe you're describing, SA, is one based around power, not real Good and Evil. If your god is possibly just very fucked up, her impositions are a matter of Power rather than of Good. In other words, Good and Evil are emptied of real moral value in that world, remaining ultimately arguable: you don't go to Hell if you're Evil, you go there because the god sent you there, masquerading her power under the label "Good."
This is fast becoming a purely semantic argument here, I think. Whatever the case your Gehenna campaign sounds awesome.
General points
1) Did anyone read the article where i Defined the Game's version of a relative morality system, because a lot of your are talking about something else
2) Did anyone read where i talked about absolute vs. relative morality within game and how neither system is inherently better or worst. Also how i'm not talking about real life morality here
3) For that matter, are people still reading the article or just going onto a soap box about alignment?
And now for my own soap box
Polycarp, calling absolute morality a crunch seems a little arrogant, unless your trying to say "I'm better than you". Absolute morality is no more realistic than relative, but it certainly isn't any less, because we don't know if there is absolute within our world. While no group can "prove" that there is a absolute morality, no other group can "disprove" that there is a possibility of absolute morality. It is theoretically possible for a divine being, or a group of divine beings to in fact be governing the world, by what ever standard (there could be a Giant flying noodle monster all we know). So saying it is more realistic is silly. As to calling it a crunch, i'm a bit confused there. It doesn't limit nor simplify the issue of morality in any way, one could argue that it actually makes things more complex by throwing gods and divine will into the mix. Unless your saying that because you personally don't like it and thus don't use it, it is somehow inferior or stupid for playing a differ style than you, which seems absurdly condescending. Unless of course you only speaking in a real world standard and aren't talking about RPGs at all, and then i agree with you and I'm sorry for implicating you for arrogance, because I like that view on a real world basis.
On the subject of absolute morality in game, if the world works under a single all powerful definition of good and evil, then of course certain creatures can be considered absolutely evil or truly good.
My point is not that absolute morality is better than relative, just that it functions just as well, and its a matter of personal taste.
Wenslydale- But almost every faith of Christianity believes in some form of absolute morality, from the Puritians, to the Quakers, to the Born Again, Lutherin, Calvinist., almost all have some view on what is Just and what is wrong.
Steer pike
1) Except you don't give any real example of its simplification or somehow lesser to relative morality other then "well, i say so" which really doesn't amount to more than you telling me that you better than I am or you somehow a better gamer, and i find that somewhat arrogant. Also you don't actually prove your point with anything, which seems a little silly. And unrealistic? thats off on two points, the first being that we don't know if there is an absolute morality in this world, and secondly, a world with gods, magic, and demons/angles is somehow unrealistic? Huh?
2) The world itself functions under the idea that there is an absolute morality, hence good and evil, heaven and hell, paladins and blackguards, negative and positive energy. Right and wrong can never be decided, but good and evil are absolute force. Right and wrong simply decided what side people feel like joining or believe in
3) Why? Your free to play relative morality in your game, power to you, but that doesn't make absolute an unworkable or jarring system
Halfing- Wait how does quoting actually work?
Sparkle- I never said that absolute morality in any way forces us to use disney villains. Read the article, the main point is that evil is a perfectly rational and logical way of life considering
1) So i'm confused, why is the South Americans on a worst basis than the Chinese or Romans or Japanese? Is it because they contributed more?
2) Isn't that standard an absolute one?
Final point
Absolute morality and relative morality are different ways of playing. Both are perfectly acceptable and playable systems, and neither one is inherently better
from
EE
Quote from: EvilElitestGeneral points
1) Did anyone read the article where i Defined the Game's version of a relative morality system, because a lot of your are talking about something else
2) Did anyone read where i talked about absolute vs. relative morality within game and how neither system is inherently better or worst. Also how i'm not talking about real life morality here
3) For that matter, are people still reading the article or just going onto a soap box about alignment?
And now for my own soap box
Polycarp, calling absolute morality a crunch seems a little arrogant, unless your trying to say "I'm better than you". Absolute morality is no more realistic than relative, but it certainly isn't any less, because we don't know if there is absolute within our world. While no group can "prove" that there is a absolute morality, no other group can "disprove" that there is a possibility of absolute morality. It is theoretically possible for a divine being, or a group of divine beings to in fact be governing the world, by what ever standard (there could be a Giant flying noodle monster all we know). So saying it is more realistic is silly. As to calling it a crunch, i'm a bit confused there. It doesn't limit nor simplify the issue of morality in any way, one could argue that it actually makes things more complex by throwing gods and divine will into the mix. Unless your saying that because you personally don't like it and thus don't use it, it is somehow inferior or stupid for playing a differ style than you, which seems absurdly condescending. Unless of course you only speaking in a real world standard and aren't talking about RPGs at all, and then i agree with you and I'm sorry for implicating you for arrogance, because I like that view on a real world basis.
On the subject of absolute morality in game, if the world works under a single all powerful definition of good and evil, then of course certain creatures can be considered absolutely evil or truly good.
My point is not that absolute morality is better than relative, just that it functions just as well, and its a matter of personal taste.
Wenslydale- But almost every faith of Christianity believes in some form of absolute morality, from the Puritians, to the Quakers, to the Born Again, Lutherin, Calvinist., almost all have some view on what is Just and what is wrong.
Steer pike
1) Except you don't give any real example of its simplification or somehow lesser to relative morality other then "well, i say so" which really doesn't amount to more than you telling me that you better than I am or you somehow a better gamer, and i find that somewhat arrogant. Also you don't actually prove your point with anything, which seems a little silly. And unrealistic? thats off on two points, the first being that we don't know if there is an absolute morality in this world, and secondly, a world with gods, magic, and demons/angles is somehow unrealistic? Huh?
2) The world itself functions under the idea that there is an absolute morality, hence good and evil, heaven and hell, paladins and blackguards, negative and positive energy. Right and wrong can never be decided, but good and evil are absolute force. Right and wrong simply decided what side people feel like joining or believe in
3) Why? Your free to play relative morality in your game, power to you, but that doesn't make absolute an unworkable or jarring system
Halfing- Wait how does quoting actually work?
Sparkle- I never said that absolute morality in any way forces us to use disney villains. Read the article, the main point is that evil is a perfectly rational and logical way of life considering
1) So i'm confused, why is the South Americans on a worst basis than the Chinese or Romans or Japanese? Is it because they contributed more?
2) Isn't that standard an absolute one?
Final point
Absolute morality and relative morality are different ways of playing. Both are perfectly acceptable and playable systems, and neither one is inherently better
from
EE
To quote an entire post, there's a speech bubble icon at the top-right of every post. Click that, and you'll go to a reply box with the post already in quote tags. For some reason, these specific quote tags have numbers in them, but I have no clue what the number do, other then the fact that the opening tag
only works with the closing tag that has the same number. Personally, I think the numbers are just pointless complexity, but that's just me.
Another option is to type the word "quote" (no quotation marks, all lower-case) between brackets.
Quote from: [name" directly after "quote" in the opening tag, where [name] is the name of the person you're quoting. The [name] does not need to be lower-case, but it shouldn't be in brackets. Leave the closing tag unchanged. In fact, because you're leaving the closing tag unchanged, you might want to get a little used to reading nested tags, but that's another story.
Quote from: Porky PigBuh-Goo-See-Buh-Dee- That's all, folks!
Hmm, I think this partly comes down to a matter of perspective.
I'd like to make very clear that I don't consider you in any way an inferior gamer, and I wasn't trying to imply that I was better. If I seemed arrogant, I apologize.
I have read your article and your definitions and I don't entirely agree.
Part of my problem with absolute morality is that I don't really understand how it can exist; it always, always seems to get undermined and contradicted, to break itself down, to deconstruct once you subject it to interrogation (see Salacious Angel's scanario, with the bitter, damned heroes). It's an unstable binary. The forces can exist in terms of a game-world, but they're not really ethical forces - right and wrong are the real "good and evil" in the campaign, Good and Evil just supply their respective avatars with power (linked to the "crunch" aspect). If Good isn't actually always right and Evil sometimes is right - if those forces' ethical actions are open to interpretation - then they don't seem to embody what their names would suggest.
Example: A city of one million is in peril. You have captured an enemy who knows which direction and form the attack will take; if you can extract the information from him, you can minimize damage to the city. It is Evil to torture anyone under any circumstances. It is also Evil to allow a million people to die if you can stop their deaths. It is Good to show mercy. It is good to stop the death of innocents.
A paradox arises in this not so black-and-white situation. You have to modify your system of morality (and such modifications can more or less go on ad infinitum) - i.e. it is OK to torture people if you really have to, or it is OK to let a million people die even if you could have stopped it if you have to torture someone. In either case, right or wrong are going to come into play, as you suggest: different individuals will assert what is right and what is wrong under that situation. My point is that the individual making the choice is far more likely to be governed by their sense of right and wrong than by the fact that their Alignment might shift. If they choose to torture the person and so save the city and their alignment shifts to Evil they'll just say, bah! Good clearly isn't in the right! I had to torture that man - I was justified. Good is hypocritical! They pretend to be all about benevolance and nobility but they're actually just cowards who refuse to realize the grim necessities of the world!
To me, that person just broke the absolute system of morality. The supernatural forces might still exist, but they're no longer aligned with anything ethical. They become kind of redundant, significant only insofar as they affect the powers of clerics, paladins, and blackguards - powers which myself and other posters have identified as being tied to crunch.
Do you understand my point about how Good and Evil, if they're idealized and absolute forces or energies, nontheless become somewhat meaningless if everyone follows their own moral compass of right and wrong? It comes down to picking sides: Good no longer really means Good in a moral sense, it just ends up as a "team" to play on, just as Evil is. I think this might actually be what you want - Good and Evil interrogated by right and wrong, as sides, rather than as true moral forces - in which case we've kind of been agreeing the whole time. I prefer to ditch the idea of alignment because it seems to bring with it a lot of that "moral bagagge": just call the sides something else (even Heaven and Hell and Light and Dark). And I'm cool with this - in fact I love it. I'm trying to do something like this in Tempter.
I really think semantics may have reared its nasty head and soured this debate.
In terms of the "unrealistic" thing, I kind of have to disagree. Having gods and demons is fine; having inconsistent/paradoxical internal logic that breaks down under scrutiny isn't (as I think true absolute morality might be - although I'm no longer concvinced we're really talking about the same thing when we talk about absolute morality).
What it comes down to, I think, is that I just find the "team-labels" of Good and Evil deceptive and irksome. Light and Dark seem preferable to me.
Quote from: sparkletwistWell, a lot of them say "my opinion on the matter is better than yours because God agrees with me," or some other view that tries to make their view out to be an absolute good when it's really just a clash of opinions. For me, the absolute criteria are easier to verify: what causes the human race to best be able to progress socially, technologically, and so on.
You can't say "for me, the absolute criteria are ____." Well, you can, but it's not coherent. If it's "for you," it's not "absolute criteria."
Quote from: SteerpikePart of my problem with absolute morality is that I don't really understand how it can exist; it always, always seems to get undermined and contradicted, to break itself down, to deconstruct once you subject it to interrogation
I did read your essay, in its entirety - I don't have much to comment on because it ultimately comes down to what works for you. If your world has demons, then you'll need to decide what it is demons believe, and you might decide that what demons want is called "evil." The distinction between absolute and relative in the game world seems fairly academic to me - everyone actually in the game world is going to have their own definitions anyway, because only caricatures (see: demons) actually believe themselves to be evil. In the end I think having an absolute system to support mechanical things like smite/detect evil is more trouble than it's worth.
Quote from: Polycarp!You can't say "for me, the absolute criteria are ____." Well, you can, but it's not coherent. If it's "for you," it's not "absolute criteria."
It was simply a transition. All I meant was to denote that I was no longer talking about the views of those religious people or whoever else, and I was now talking about my own views. That is, "I believe that there are absolute criteria, and they are ____."
Quote from: JourneytothecenterofmyheadI once did a few adventures in a setting where the Powers of Heaven created laws that destined the wielders of certain weapons and magics for the Shadow-place, Gehenna. It was a good law that saved many millions of lives. But when a demon army marched against their world, mortals were forced to adopt these old villainous ways as only said weapons could defeat the invaders.
Alas, the makers of the Old Law had died long ago, making it an uncontravertable cosmic truth. So the heroes of the new war continued to end up in Gehenna. Slowly, the casualties of the war mounted, and Gehenna became filled with the bitter shades of damned heroes, while those who lived and fought had to reconcile themselves to the seeming inevitability of their own damnation.
Can I just give some props to this?
wait, so how do I quote individual phrases? like this
Quote from: SteerpikeHmm, I think this partly comes down to a matter of perspective.
I'd like to make very clear that I don't consider you in any way an inferior gamer, and I wasn't trying to imply that I was better. If I seemed arrogant, I apologize.
I have read your article and your definitions and I don't entirely agree.
Part of my problem with absolute morality is that I don't really understand how it can exist; it always, always seems to get undermined and contradicted, to break itself down, to deconstruct once you subject it to interrogation (see Salacious Angel's scanario, with the bitter, damned heroes). It's an unstable binary. The forces can exist in terms of a game-world, but they're not really ethical forces - right and wrong are the real "good and evil" in the campaign, Good and Evil just supply their respective avatars with power (linked to the "crunch" aspect). If Good isn't actually always right and Evil sometimes is right - if those forces' ethical actions are open to interpretation - then they don't seem to embody what their names would suggest.
Example: A city of one million is in peril. You have captured an enemy who knows which direction and form the attack will take; if you can extract the information from him, you can minimize damage to the city. It is Evil to torture anyone under any circumstances. It is also Evil to allow a million people to die if you can stop their deaths. It is Good to show mercy. It is good to stop the death of innocents.
A paradox arises in this not so black-and-white situation. You have to modify your system of morality (and such modifications can more or less go on ad infinitum) - i.e. it is OK to torture people if you really have to, or it is OK to let a million people die even if you could have stopped it if you have to torture someone. In either case, right or wrong are going to come into play, as you suggest: different individuals will assert what is right and what is wrong under that situation. My point is that the individual making the choice is far more likely to be governed by their sense of right and wrong than by the fact that their Alignment might shift. If they choose to torture the person and so save the city and their alignment shifts to Evil they'll just say, bah! Good clearly isn't in the right! I had to torture that man - I was justified. Good is hypocritical! They pretend to be all about benevolance and nobility but they're actually just cowards who refuse to realize the grim necessities of the world!
To me, that person just broke the absolute system of morality. The supernatural forces might still exist, but they're no longer aligned with anything ethical. They become kind of redundant, significant only insofar as they affect the powers of clerics, paladins, and blackguards - powers which myself and other posters have identified as being tied to crunch.
Do you understand my point about how Good and Evil, if they're idealized and absolute forces or energies, nontheless become somewhat meaningless if everyone follows their own moral compass of right and wrong? It comes down to picking sides: Good no longer really means Good in a moral sense, it just ends up as a "team" to play on, just as Evil is. I think this might actually be what you want - Good and Evil interrogated by right and wrong, as sides, rather than as true moral forces - in which case we've kind of been agreeing the whole time. I prefer to ditch the idea of alignment because it seems to bring with it a lot of that "moral bagagge": just call the sides something else (even Heaven and Hell and Light and Dark). And I'm cool with this - in fact I love it. I'm trying to do something like this in Tempter.
I really think semantics may have reared its nasty head and soured this debate.
In terms of the "unrealistic" thing, I kind of have to disagree. Having gods and demons is fine; having inconsistent/paradoxical internal logic that breaks down under scrutiny isn't (as I think true absolute morality might be - although I'm no longer concvinced we're really talking about the same thing when we talk about absolute morality).
What it comes down to, I think, is that I just find the "team-labels" of Good and Evil deceptive and irksome. Light and Dark seem preferable to me.
1) No problems, you've been pretty civil so far
2) the thing is, that isn't a paradox, just a typical moral dilemia. There aren't only two choices, do nothing and torture, there are never only two choices. A good person will attempt to do something else, look for a non evil options. I've argued that particular senerio you've mentioned so many times that i can honestly say there are no situations where there are only two options, unless the DM is abusing his power. Remember if you failed trying to solve the problem in a good manner, the blood isn't on your hands as you haven't planted the bomb. To say nothing about how torture is an ineffective method of gaining infomation
3) It hasn't broken the absolute system of morality of all. Ends don't justifies evil means, thus you shouldn't do evil things. Find another way. It will be harder, but thats the point of good, its challenging. no, wait stop. Don't come up with some absurdly unlikely situation where the only two options are evil, because that isn't a stimulation of real life, that it just a video game where you only have two choices. Short of the DM himself going and making a totally arbitrary choice situation, there are never only two ways to handle things. THe Evil methods is easier certainly, but thats the point of evil, its easy
4) There isn't any paradox, thus the "realistic" point sticks. A person chosing and evil method doesn't break the system, it just makes him evil. Most evil people would do good acts, that doesn't change the fact they are evil
5) Dark and Light is just another absolute morality system, just functioning upon a different basis. Relative morality is just shades of grey
from
EE
The second one, at the end of the quote, should be [/quote].
Quote from: EvilElitest5) Dark and Light is just another absolute morality system, just functioning upon a different basis. Relative morality is just shades of grey
Relative morality is a lack of good and evil and doesn't follow a sliding scale like absolute morality does. There are many different vectors you can take, none necessarily better than the other.
</nitpick>
EE,
I was talking about Dark/Light as "sides" rather than moral choices. My point above was that even though an action might be labeled cosmically "Evil" (how did people arrive at that term anyway in the game-world?) since many people would consider "Evil" choices under the absolute morality system "right" they would point out that the cosmic force that calls itself "Good" is hypocritical - that the word "Good" no longer applies. The different alignments become cosmic sides or forces rather than forming an actual ethical system, since everyone would refuse the absolute binary in favor of their own moral compass: they would reject the self-proclaimed titles of Good and Evil attached to the cosmic forces that predominate the universe, even if they acknolwedge that those forces still exist. The cosmic forces still exist, they're just interrogated by a wholly separate system of right and wrong. This is why I was suggesting that the forces involved be renamed without as rigid moral labels, because I think that people functioning in a universe governed by those forces would quickly reject the labels of Good and Evil for the cosmic forces tugging their strings.
Just my take though. You make a fair point about the paradox. But nonetheless, a large part of your point is that right and wrong still exist independently from good and evil, and I think that once that's established the cosmic forces calling themselves Good and Evil cease to be truly ethical forces - they're just energies or powers some people might call Good and Evil (and which I'd be more comfortable calling Light and Dark).
Well my thesis in my essay was that good and evil aren't right and wrong so much as too opposing forces that envelope everything. But the titles good and evil fit the label just as well as any other name, and considering the theme of each i think they are quite apporate. True i'm bias because i agree generally with the morality of the D&D good, as i reject utilitarianism, but within the context of D&d the them fits. Techinically speaking "Good" is in fact three seperate forces, Good/Evil, Negative/Positive, Holy/Unholy, with Law/Chaos being thrown in. But the thing is, good and evil will always been hard to define, but i'd rather have them named absolute than say right or wrong. It also figts the general themes of D&D, so i wouldn't argue semantics
from
EE
I see what you mean, and you're right about those names/forces fitting DnD's themes. I suppose I just don't find those themes appealing.
just to throw in my 2cp as a late comer:
EE, i have a hard time understanding your point. when good and evil are absolute, und you split it down into law/chaos, positive/negative (i suppose you mean planar energy) and good evil, what exactly is the good choice in the first two cases?
in dnd terms, there are such things as evil positive energy beings. there are lawful good entities that would snuff out humanity for being untidy (gotta love the inevitables, right?).
those beings, most of the time are what we would call "divine". do you submit to them? are we beholden to arbitrary judgement? if i was to say "i want to lead a good life" and the end of said life i'm being told that i haven't and someone(thing) points out where i failed - okay. that i understand. but if some higher concept judges me by standards i never agreed to adhere to, i feel a bit, well, cheated? "you just lost the game" "what game?" "asking means losing it." "WTF?"
of course, there are somethings that are universal, even for me. "do not kill, do not rape, etc." this falls under "do unto others" at least in my opinion. i know, i'm talking about christianity here, which is always difficult in an rpg context, but it is our benchmark for good and evil, at least where i live. but using the ten commandments as "good" what does it make me, when i say "one through five... yeah, mostly. six is no choice, imo, but the rest? hm... i guess that makes me 6/4." so i'm good-ish. or am i evil? neutral? can i quantify my goodness?
what about nr 6 in specific? "you shall not murder." okay. does that aply to murdering things that don't agree with the rest of the rules? no, it doesn't. killing infidels is a-okay, bellum iustum all the way. there goes the absolute moral.
gorram, now i have a headache. and violated nr 3.
@ur-topic: your essay is a good read, except for my aforementioned troubles. and some typos. ;)
I pretty much agree with all your points, Scholar.[blockquote=Scholar]of course, there are somethings that are universal, even for me. "do not kill, do not rape, etc."[/blockquote]It's interesting that you mention the ten commandments later... has anyone else noticed that any prohibition against rape, one of those now universal things (though I suppose far from universal a few thousands years ago) is conspicuously absent from the ten commandments? Not making a point (and not trying to disturb anyone's religious beliefs!), just always struck me as a little odd when judged from the modern context (especially when people start citing the commandments today as a set of moral tenets).
Quote from: SteerpikeI pretty much agree with all your points, Scholar.[blockquote=Scholar]of course, there are somethings that are universal, even for me. "do not kill, do not rape, etc."[/blockquote]It's interesting that you mention the ten commandments later... has anyone else noticed that any prohibition against rape, one of those now universal things (though I suppose far from universal a few thousands years ago) is conspicuously absent from the ten commandments? Not making a point (and not trying to disturb anyone's religious beliefs!), just always struck me as a little odd when judged from the modern context (especially when people start citing the commandments today as a set of moral tenets).
Just a minor nitpick to throw out but... While the "ten commandments" themselves don't contain a do not rape command. Other parts of the Law of Moses do have sections on forbidding rape (and what is to be done to rapists).
Fair enough. Just always struck me as odd that in a list of the big 10, coveting your neighbor's wife (i.e. not even actual physical adultery, but even just contemplating adultery) takes priority over non-consensual sex, as does not keeping the Sabbath holy or taking the Lord's name in vain. If the 10 are intended as like the most vital, never-break-these Rules (which usually they seem to be), it seems that saying "Goddamn it" or fantasizing about your neighbor's hot wife makes it to the list whereas forcing yourself on someone sexually doesn't. *Shrug*
I'd better not start poking holes in the Bible though or I'll never stop, and I'll end up offending people... caused enough trouble on this thread already.
Quote from: SteerpikeJust always struck me as odd that in a list of the big 10, coveting your neighbor's wife (i.e. not even actual physical adultery, but even just contemplating adultery) takes priority over non-consensual sex, as does not keeping the Sabbath holy or taking the Lord's name in vain. If the 10 are intended as like the most vital, never-break-these Rules (which usually they seem to be), it seems that saying "Goddamn it" or fantasizing about your neighbor's hot wife makes it to the list whereas forcing yourself on someone sexually doesn't. *Shrug*
i always thought rape fell under the "no adultery" bullet point. of course, you *can* rape your spouse, but in the sctrict blood's-up-after-battle-rape sense, you are with someone that you are not married to -> adultery.
also, i must apologize for turning a discussion over a game into a discussion of real-life belief. i don't see myself as a mute, obedient subject of the dominant moral discourse, but i respect other peoples' point of view. for me, at the end of the day, the first rule is not doing something to others that i wouldn't accept them doing to me. trickery is excempt from this, as it is a matter of skill. and i'm good at it. ;)
Well, the commandment specifically states that "You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour," (New Revised Version). It's a prohibition against coveting someone else's property, which included spouses in that time; the wife thing is lumped in with oxen, slaves, etc. It doesn't say "thou shalt not lie with thy neighbor's wife," or actually prohibit rape. You could make the argument that by extrapolation the commandment frowns on rape, but its emphasis is on property rather than something as new-fangled as human rights or the idea of consent. As Nomadic pointed out, though, some of the other laws in other parts of the Bible (I'm guessing Duetoronomy but its been a long time since I read those sections) do specifically single out rape as wrong... but the commandments themselves don't go there per se.
I agree that the golden rule is a good rule to live by, and that trickery is fun ;).
so, in a world governed by absolutes, is this what happens when you stray from the path:
Connor: Now you will receive us.
Murphy: We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
Connor: We do not want your tired and sick.
Murphy: It is your corrupt we claim.
Connor: It is your evil that will be sought by us.
Murphy: With every breath we shall hunt them down.
Connor: Each day, we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Murphy: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
Connor: These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
Murphy: There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.
Connor: For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three. And on that day, you will reap it.
Murphy: And we will send you to whatever god you wish.
Connor, Murphy, Il Duce: And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
Il Duce: In nomine Patri.
Connor: Et Fili.
Murphy: Et Spiritus Sancti.
[*BLAM*]
this impressive scene (from boondock saints) is what always comes to my mind when i hear "lawful good" and "paladin". do you guys agree?
Quote from: SteerpikeFair enough. Just always struck me as odd that in a list of the big 10, coveting your neighbor's wife (i.e. not even actual physical adultery, but even just contemplating adultery) takes priority over non-consensual sex, as does not keeping the Sabbath holy or taking the Lord's name in vain. If the 10 are intended as like the most vital, never-break-these Rules (which usually they seem to be), it seems that saying "Goddamn it" or fantasizing about your neighbor's hot wife makes it to the list whereas forcing yourself on someone sexually doesn't. *Shrug*
I'd better not start poking holes in the Bible though or I'll never stop, and I'll end up offending people... caused enough trouble on this thread already.
This thread has caused me to say, "Enough, already!" more than any thread in months.
I know alignment has a place in many games, and does not in others.
Once we start debating morality in this mud ball we actually live on, that's not about alignment any more.