Explaining Aligniment

[Steerpike]

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.

[SDragon]

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.

[SA]

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.

[SA]

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.

[Steerpike]

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.

[EvilElitest]

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

[SDragon]

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

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.

" 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.

Buh-Goo-See-Buh-Dee- That's all, folks!

[Steerpike]

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.

[Polycarp]

Well, 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."

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

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.

[sparkletwist]

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 ____."

[LordVreeg]

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.

Can I just give some props to this?  

[EvilElitest]

wait, so how do I quote individual phrases? like this

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.

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

[SDragon]

The second one, at the end of the quote, should be [/quote].

[Nomadic]

5) 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>

[Steerpike]

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).