The Campaign Builder's Guild

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: Nomadic

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.

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, 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