Explaining Aligniment

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Or 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?

[Nomadic]

What 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).

[Llum]

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).

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.

[Nomadic]

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).

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.

[LordVreeg]

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

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?

[Nomadic]

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).

[EvilElitest]

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

[Nomadic]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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.  

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.

[EvilElitest]

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

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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

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.

[Nomadic]

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)

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.

[EvilElitest]

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

[Nomadic]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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

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.

Also 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.