D&D General An Ontology of D&D Alignment

[Charlaquin]

Does acting in other's interests involve serving them, obeying them, and putting their wishes above your own?

It certainly could involve those things, though it doesn’t necessarily have to. Ultimately it’s about promoting and preserving others’ wellbeing and quality of life.

If so, aren't your two axis parallel rather than intersections?

Ooh, now that’s a good question! I would say yes, they are parallel, but in a non-Euclidean geometry where they can intersect. Hierarchies demand sacrifice of some for the wellbeing of others, but who is doing the sacrificing and who is benefiting from that sacrifice? I’d wager you could find a strong correlation between where a Lawful character sits within their society’s hierarchy and where they sit on the Good/Evil axis.

Is acting in the other's interests when it doesn't sacrifice your own interests good? That is, it is the benefit to others that makes something good, or is it the sacrifice of self that makes something good?

And, if it is the benefit to others that makes something good and not the sacrifice of self, then why would you need the additional qualification "at the expense of one's [own] interests" given that it is neither necessary nor sufficient?

It is indeed the self-sacrifice that makes an act that benefits others Good in my world. If you only do things for others when doing so doesn’t inconvenience you, you are Neutral at best. I’m not religious, but I have always appreciated this quote: “you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?”

Being good takes work in my setting.

 

[Umbran]

Gaiman's rationalization of Hell always struck me as bizarre, since logically, the people who believe that they deserve punishment and feel remorse are the least needing of it, while those that don't believe that they have done anything deserving of punishment and do not feel remorse are usually genuine monsters.

I think Gaiman's version has some underlying psychological or metaphysical assumptions that aren't clearly explicated.

In point of fact, Lucifer's explanation reverses the conventional understanding of Heaven and Hell, and sends all those that believe that they require forgiveness to Hell and all those that believe that they do not to Heaven, rather than the reverse.

Not quite - those who are in Hell feel they deserve punishment. Some folks believe punishment is due, even with forgiveness. It may be safe to say many feel that there is no forgiveness for their crimes - they either cannot have it or do not deserve it. For all the cases mentioned, they are in fact guilty of nasty things. Lucifer himself is very much about punishing those who are factually guilty.

But either way, this would be the nature of subjective morality. You, subjectively, judge your own actions, in your own context. You are not judged by some universal constant or standard.

Given that it is Lucifer that is doing the explanation, I'm fairly sure that we shouldn't trust his accounting of the system.

This Lucifer is not the King of Lies. He does not tempt and cheat people into misdeeds, and then punish them for it. He doesn't need to - humans do that all on their own. I cannot recall an instance on the show of him lying.... except to himself about his emotions.

 

[Umbran]

I think its more than the rest of the definitions and subsets of ontological debate don't have any meaning in an entirely subjective system. If good means what I think means and its different then what you think it means, and we're both right, then debating about the reliability of our beliefs isn't really all that relevant.

Ah. Meaningless in that sense. Fair enough.

I was thinking of its meaning in game terms. You can build a subjective moral system for game purposes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Gaiman's rationalization of Hell always struck me as bizarre, since logically, the people who believe that they deserve punishment and feel remorse are the least needing of it, while those that don't believe that they have done anything deserving of punishment and do not feel remorse are usually genuine monsters.

It’s only bizarre if you assume it is meant to be just. The afterlife in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld functioned similarly, although there one’s fate was determined based on what they expected to happen, rather than what they thought was deserved. But in Mort, Death’s eponymous apprentice had a similar reaction to yours upon learning that it worked that way. He protested that this system seemed unfair, that the people most likely to be punished were those least deserving of it, and vise versa, to which Death’s response amounted to “yeah... so?”

Life isn’t fair. Why would one expect the afterlife to be?

 

[Big J Money]

Sorry for coming in late yet again. Party for a friend who got his green card, and it's a bit too late and too much alcohol to post tonight. But one night this week I'll respond to folks with my thoughts. The discussion is very welcome to see.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My own opinion is:

- Good and evil aren't subjectives. There is something named "Natural Law", an immutable and universal ethic code and this hasn't be linked to religion. If you think we have to respect the human rights, then you admit the defense of the human rights as part by the Natural Law.

- My house rule is allowing alignment and allegiance (by d20 Modern), even when these can be opposite, for example a zealot with good allegiance and evil alignment, or a sheriff who breaks the rules to defend law & order, law allegiance and chaotic alignment. I allow spells and power with key alignment can hurt enemies with same alignment but different allegiance (usually religion), for example a orc shaman vs a drow cleric.

- My concept of chaotic alignment is to being too attuned to Nature or primal forces, or general behavior with people with different allegiance (religion, tribe, brotherhood, clan, family, kingdom, race).

- Characters don't become evil automatically by bad actions, if there are mitigating circumstances of guilty as blackmail, menace or mental disorder. You are evil when you willy cause a serious injustice against innocent people.

- No-sentients creatures (for example constructs or undead) can be "evil" for game-mechanics if their auras are "tainted" although they can't understand the difference between good and bad.

- Almost of topic, but Nietzsche's Übermensch may be a clear example of smart but evil characters who don't support the idea of helping weak or helpless people.

 

[seusomon]

This is an excellent essay. It captures a full range of questions that need to be thought about if alignment is going to be an important element of a campaign. I have always thought that the D&D alignment is tantalizing in its potential for creating rich situations for role playing, but tends to stumble or fail in practice because DMs and players harbor inherently incoherent notions of what it means. Your essay gives a way to sort through the internal contradictions and assumptions people have and make a functional system that actually contributes to the flavor and mechanics of a campaign. I might quibble here and there with how some of the distinctions are expressed and presented, but I applaud you for creating something that is really helpful, regardless of one's preconceived views about what alignment "should" be. I will be using it in my own campaign design.

 

[seusomon]

I wonder, do you have this in a single pdf or Word file? It would be nice to download without copying each individual posting in this thread.

 

[Big J Money]

In the game, that means that your (excellent) essay helps DMs and players to better classify/clarify Alignment, but it doesn't offer any help to put in action a better Alignment in concrete play.

I'm but an armchair philosopher, but I believe I understand your point. If I understand you, then my response is that a hypothetical approach aims to empower people to apply their own ethics to a situation, with the hopes that, being better armed with knowledge, one's application of said ethics will be more effective.

And I suppose, it would be possible for me to step aside, and make a new post with a more practical ethical slant; proposing suggestions for which alignment systems have merit and why. I'm not sure that I'm up to such a task, however!

 

[Big J Money]

I wonder, do you have this in a single pdf or Word file? It would be nice to download without copying each individual posting in this thread.

Here is a Google Docs link. Let me know if it isn't working. And also let me know what your preferred Alignment System ends up being!

An Ontology of D&D Alignment

An Ontology of D&D Alignment Over the years, I’ve continued to be surprised that neither TSR nor WotC made an effort to educate in any depth the ways one can play with alignment in D&D. In an effort to understand it more deeply, I’ve written this tool to break down and identify the meaningful ch...

docs.google.com