Alignment on three axes.

[pemerton]

Oh, is that where the argument was originally formulated? I must get and read a translation. I was about to point out why the assertion was dubious (at best), but only have the argument(s) second-hand.

My training is very much in modern philosophy - I once tutored a 1st year Plato course but managed to avoid reading much Plato for it!

In the Euthyphro the argument is framed in terms of piety - does behaviour become pious simply in virtue of being beloved by the gods, or do the gods love certain behaviour precisely because it is pious? I think it's fair to say that the mainstream view is that a good god is good because of his/her support and creation of good things - not that things become good simply in virtue of being loved by god.

Interpreting Hobbes moral theory is a cottage industry in itself, but the basic idea on this issue is that public standards of value arise only when prescribed by an effective authority, that God is an effective and universal authority, and therefore whatever standards God dictates are good, independently of their content. When set out like that, I'm assuming it's obvious why that is the minority view!

(There are further complications for those who deny straightforward objective metaphysics for value - but the best theories along those lines also regard it as important to be able to explain why "I value it because it's good" comes out true and "It's good because I value it" comes out false, even if in the underlying metaphysics of the theory value is an expression of preference. It turns out that this is a pretty big technical challenge in the philosophy of language; I think this is one of the reason why mainstream contemporary moral philosophy, at least in the English-speaking world, is objectivist.)

I don't at all get the "Self Cultivation" angle early in this thread. How is a monk cultivating the self more than rogue, and how could cultivating the self (as opposed to the group) be lawful? Does "Self Cultivation" have some idiomatic meaning I am not aware of?

I was trying to make sense of the idea that L/C is "ethical" and G/E is "moral". In ordinary philosophical usage, "ethical" and "moral" can be synonyms, but when they're distinguished "morality" means "obligations owed to others" and "ethical" means "pertaining to living a good life". Obviously on this usage the moral is a fairly important component of the ethical, but whatever is left over of the ethical - which is what I was trying to map to L/C - would be those parts of a good life that don't pertain to obligations owed to others. What would that be? It would self-regarding actions that contribute to a good life - which is what I meant by "self-cultivation".

In D&D tradition, monks are the characters most concerned with self-cultivation - taking deliberate stock of their lives and beings and taking steps to make themselves better persons - though paladins are also in this group, and samurai as well.

I took this as some confirmation that my analysis, grounded in an attempt to make sense of Gygax's usage of "ethical" for L/C, makes some sense, because it explains why monks, samurai and paladins are lawful.

As I also explained, it doesn't get all of D&D tradition right, because druids - favouring nature over self-cultivation - come out as chaotic.

 

[Starfox]

Obviously on this usage the moral is a fairly important component of the ethical, but whatever is left over of the ethical - which is what I was trying to map to L/C - would be those parts of a good life that don't pertain to obligations owed to others. What would that be? It would self-regarding actions that contribute to a good life - which is what I meant by "self-cultivation".

I still don't see how a monk does this more than a rogue - the (lawful) monk can basically make the self disappear, submerging in a group, while a (chaotic) rogue could be obsess over the self and how to perfect it to whatever ideal they have. Not sure it matters so much tough, perhaps its best to let this be.

 

[Raith5]

If anybody ever wanted to play around with the alignment system, there is room for change.

Where D&D-style play (from AD&D 2E onward, except of course 4E) organizes nine distinct alignments, my playing experience implies there are at least twenty distinct alignments in practice, based on three axes rather than two.

First let's look at each axis.
The moral axis: the greater good vs. the value of the individual (Good vs. Evil)
The ethical axis: the need for public order vs. individual rights (Law vs. Chaos)
The third axis we'll call the naturalistic alignment, which is active vs. passive neutrality (Apathy vs. Balance). [Whether there is a "middle ground" allowing for some apathy mixed with balance, I will leave for you as a separate thought exercise.]

What is the intended purpose of the third axis? Is it to assist the use of alignment as a roleplaying tool or to assert another layer of metaphysics to the game world?

I say this because I have this feeling that alignment (as a roleplaying tool) is at its most interesting when PCs of the same alignment argue about morality or disagree about what should be done. Perhaps because of differences of deity, race, fealty etc. Ie when action is guided by more than questions of morality and ethics. I think the 3rd ed optional system of allegiances touches on this is fairly freeform kind of way.

It seems this third axis is more about politics and practice than anything. After tolerance is not just a virtue, it is also a practice. I guess the question is whether the third axis will have some further ability to locate PCs in the world.

 

[pemerton]

Under a model of L/C = non-moral compenent of ethical = degree of self-cultivation, then a rogue who obsesses over self-cultivation (say, a certain sort of ninja) would be lawful.

 

[Starfox]

Under a model of L/C = non-moral compenent of ethical = degree of self-cultivation, then a rogue who obsesses over self-cultivation (say, a certain sort of ninja) would be lawful.

How about a rogue who obsesses about perfecting his techniques for stealing (and eating) as many types of ice-cream as possible? Or some other focused, but selfish and/or nonsensical goal?

 

[Balesir]

I suggest we replace the d&d alignment system with another equally arbitrary typology: the Meyers-Briggs temperament sorter. I will give this personalty test to all my players to find out where they stand. "This sword can only be used by an INTP and you are ENFP. Sorry."

I find MBTI quite insightful, but it's not really an "alignment" system in any meaningful way. It's about natural predispositions and preferences rather than allegiances or value systems. That could make it handy as an aide/guide to roleplaying a character (although fighting against ones own type will be hard for many/most people), but it makes it fairly useless as a driver for thematic conflict/drama.

My training is very much in modern philosophy - I once tutored a 1st year Plato course but managed to avoid reading much Plato for it!

Thanks for the reply! I am very strictly an amateur-but-interested in moral philosophy (and in how it relates to my developing discipline of economics).

As I also explained, it doesn't get all of D&D tradition right, because druids - favouring nature over self-cultivation - come out as chaotic.

I don't think D&D alignment as it is typically used has L/C as "ethics", really - just a sort of rather confused dichotomy between following a set of rules and "doing what feels right/appropriate".

Even the "duty to others" thing gets hinky, because of the clash between Kantian and Utilitarian concepts of "good". This is really noticeable in economics; an example situation would be:

- Consider that each individual is born with a (variable) quantity of what we'll call "talent".

- Someone with 1 "unit" of talent could make one widget per day; someone with two units of talent could make 2 widgets per day, and so on.

- There are as many "2 talent" people as there are "1 talent" people.

- Everyone needs one widget per day and values leisure time at the same rate.

Is it "moral" to force the people with 2 "units" of "talent" to work all day every day (rather than the half a day they would need to work to make their one widget), on the grounds that the less talented folks will then get to rest all day long, leading to the maximum benefit overall (everyone gets one widget and half the population get full time leisure as opposed to everyone getting one widget and half the population getting half the time as leisure)?

Maximising total utility can suggest some pretty unpalatable-sounding solutions. Ideas of non-coercion and non-linear utility can add a lot to the discussion, but the central dichotomy still tends to remain.

 

[pemerton]

How about a rogue who obsesses about perfecting his techniques for stealing (and eating) as many types of ice-cream as possible? Or some other focused, but selfish and/or nonsensical goal?

I don't know of any theory of self-cultivation that would count that as an instance - eating ice cream seems to have no connection to any mainstream account of the good life.

Perfecting techniques for stealing could count as self-cultivation depending on what's involved - are we talking about a self-developing cat burglar (who, like the ninja, should come out lawful) or the wild Conan-esque thief/thuge (who is a slave to nature and passions, and hence chaotic).

If you're sceptical about the notion of self-cultivation (for instance, if you disagree with JS Mill that it's better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied) then you won't find this notion of self-cultivation very useful. I'm not advocating it (nor dismissing it) - that would be contrary to board rules! I was just suggesting it as a more-or-less accepted category of value that is (i) distinct from the moral, (ii) fits under the label of the ethical, and (iii) roughly corresponds to something that the L/C axis has traditionally been used for in D&D (ie to distinguish the self-cultivating dwarf, monk or samurai from the wild and undisciplined barbarian, bard or elf).

Even the "duty to others" thing gets hinky, because of the clash between Kantian and Utilitarian concepts of "good".

Yes. And it doesn't help to add in Aristotelean notions of good, which are deontological but (unlike Kant) grounded in theories of human nature rather than pure reason.

Gygax's description of alignment founders on this very point: he describes "good" as belief in human rights; describes "lawful good" by referenece to the Benthamite slogan "greatest happiness of the greatest number"; and says nothing about how to reconcile "good as rights" with the Benthamite dismissal of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts". [Cue years of alignment debate about the constraints of duty to which paladins are subject.]

A further challenge for alignment in D&D is that many of us have clear notions of how classes like the paladin, samurai and the like should come out - based on the literary antecedents - but no longer have any living cultural access to the relevant value systems. Compared to the moral outlook of the authors of Arthurian romances, for instance, almost all people in liberal industrialised countries (who are the bulk of fantasy roleplayers) regard the protection of life (and the associated duty of not killing) as far more stringent, and have a radically attentuated if not completely extinct notion of honour.

Economists, of course, have the most attenuated notion of honour of all! - which is part of what Weber was getting at when he dismissed the English utilitarians as promulgating a morality for shopkeepers. An alignment system that is trying to put Benjamin Franklin and Lancelot into the same moral basket is pretty much doomed to incoherence regardless of the details of its axes.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I suggest we replace the d&d alignment system with another equally arbitrary typology: the Meyers-Briggs temperament sorter. I will give this personalty test to all my players to find out where they stand. "This sword can only be used by an INTP and you are ENFP. Sorry."

LMAO at the idea of adapting MBTI to D&D.

Wizard: "I cast detect introvert."
Fighter: "He's the guy in the corner staring at his boots."

Cleric: "I cast plane shift."
GM: "You arrive on a plane filled with fluffy clouds. You instantly want to make sure the rest of your party members are fulfilled."
Rogue: "You fool! You transported us to the plane of Feeling!"

Paladin: "Quick, Picard, see if you can find the tracks of the villains!"
Picard, the Elven Ranger: "Oh, no, I can't just follow tracks, you silly Sensor. I'm an Intuitive -- I need to understand the ways of the forest, the feel of the terrain, the weather and level of moonlight when the tracks were made ... only then will I have enough of the Big Picture(tm) to track!"

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I suggest we replace the d&d alignment system with another equally arbitrary typology: the Meyers-Briggs temperament sorter. I will give this personalty test to all my players to find out where they stand. "This sword can only be used by an INTP and you are ENFP. Sorry."

It can actually help players who lack experience in creating character personalities. I'm convinced that any believable fictional character can be classified as one of the types. There isn't really a conflict with alignment, although I've had fun trying to make connections with which alignments are most likely to be compatible with each of the 16 types.

 

[Starfox]

If you're sceptical about the notion of self-cultivation (for instance, if you disagree with JS Mill that it's better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied) then you won't find this notion of self-cultivation very useful.

I am just trying to penetrate the concept, self-cultivation obviously means more to you than the words imply. So I am looking for a definition by presenting absurd examples that might help me find out what you may mean by self-cultivation by providing examples of what it is not.

In Swedish we have a concept of "cultivating your garden" than seems to be much the same, but which is more about self-realization and thus to my mind chaotic. In fact, most philosophical pursuits seem chaotic to me - you are consciously avoiding following in others' footprints and trying to form an independent opinion. Even if that opinion is partially based on older authorities and the content of your newly-formed opinion can be lawful in the extreme, I still see the process of free thought itself as chaotic. Of course, this meshes with my view that law and chaos are methods and vehicles that can ideally be used to reach a greater degree of enlightenment and goodness, vehicles that should never be seen as goals in themselves. Yes, I see myself as striving to be NG in DnD terms.