The Campaign Builder's Guild

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: Nomadic

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.

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_Elf

Quote from: Nomadic

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.

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_Elf

Quote from: Nomadic

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.

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_Elf

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.

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.