Explaining Aligniment

[Nomadic]

those aren't "civilized". Killing Orcs/Goblins/Kobolds is perfectly acceptable, because they aren't "civilized".

Just to pipe in here... but what constitutes civilized?

[Llum]

Just 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.

[LordVreeg]

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...

[Elemental_Elf]

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?  

[Steerpike]

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.

[LordVreeg]

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.

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.

civilization[/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.    

[EvilElitest]

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

[Elemental_Elf]

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.

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.

[Steerpike]

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.

[EvilElitest]

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.

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.
[/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

[Elemental_Elf]

Uhh, Evil, I think you cut your text out :)

[Llum]

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.

[Elemental_Elf]

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.

*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?

[Nomadic]

Just a minor nitpick here but...

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.

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.

[EvilElitest]

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.

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.
[/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