D&D General Designing Morality Systems

[Oofta]

They keep it because loud people find it traditional. Big difference.

As opposed to the loud people who want to get rid of it even though it's just a broad descriptor that has very little mechanical impact? A tool many people find useful on at least a regular basis that can be completely ignored but can't easily be replaced?

 

[Voadam]

Using a morality line, like in 4e, works well for those kind of things:

+50​	+25​	0​	-25​	-50​
Lawful Good​	<-Good​	<-Unaligned->​	Evil->​	Chaotic Evil​

I think that despite what we see on forums, most people understand the general difference between evil and good. So the DM just have to track the points (karma, fate, whatever) and choose the appropriate unlockable bonus with each category.

I agree that most people generally agree on most good vs. evil and just disagree about specific lines, particularly around the edges of unaligned/neutral.

But that 4e chart seems designed by devils. "Of course Asmodeus is less bad than a dretch, he's not CHAOTIC EVIL." Even saying the ideal of morality is not to be GOOD, but LAWFUL good.

That chart kind of worked in Warhammer where CHAOS was the big cosmological bad and evil was not a cosmological force at all, but it seems a really poor fit for standard D&D cosmology.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But that 4e chart seems designed by devils. "Of course Asmodeus is less bad than a dretch, he's not CHAOTIC EVIL." Even saying the ideal of morality is not to be GOOD, but LAWFUL good.

That's been a thing forever though. Law and Chaos started out as just a different way of saying Good/Evil and the game has almost always implied that Lawful Good was Best Good.

The weird thing about 4e is that the gods (Law/Civilization) and primordials (chaos/Change) were basically morally equal with differing ideologies until a moron dumped a shard of pure, cartoon evil into the Elemental Chaos. So chaotic evil is just a fluke of fate. The shard could have just as easily landed on Oylmpus or the Prime.

 

[Voadam]

That's been a thing forever though. Law and Chaos started out as just a different way of saying Good/Evil and the game has almost always implied that Lawful Good was Best Good.

I disagree.

Three point 0e/B/X/BECMI/RC alignment Chaos versus Law is very different from AD&D+ nine point alignment Chaos versus Law.

Nine point divorced Law and Chaos from Good and Evil entirely by making them different alignment axes. Lawful Good is a specific different flavor of Good than Neutral Good, not a better/best version of Good. Dwarves are not more good than Elves.

Even in the Holmes 5 point alignment system from the 70s it seemed clear that the idea was that CG went as Good as LG and that LE went as Evil as CE. How Good or Evil you were was based on how far on the Good/Evil axis you were, and that Law/Chaos was an orthogonal issue.

 

[d24454_modern]

I would prefer a motivations system for what a character do,
rather than morality that rely on don’t do!

I feel like that doesn’t fix any of the problems with morality since it just devolves into “perks” all the same.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree that most people generally agree on most good vs. evil and just disagree about specific lines, particularly around the edges of unaligned/neutral.

But that 4e chart seems designed by devils. "Of course Asmodeus is less bad than a dretch, he's not CHAOTIC EVIL." Even saying the ideal of morality is not to be GOOD, but LAWFUL good.

That chart kind of worked in Warhammer where CHAOS was the big cosmological bad and evil was not a cosmological force at all, but it seems a really poor fit for standard D&D cosmology.

4e alignment is much closer to ancient and classical conceptions of cosmological morality. It’s the idea that moral vice leads to violence, chaos, and cosmological disorder, whereas moral goodness leads to order, stability, and the preservation of creation. As such, it’s important, IMHO, to understand that 4e’s alignment is oriented in relation to the created cosmos, namely its destruction or preservation.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I have sometimes tried to adapt D&D Alignment by renaming the axis. "Evil" becomes "Power" because that sounds more like something someone would want to be part of and allows for both the usual jerk-faces as well as anti-heroes. "Law" becomes "Structure": it's about having something outside yourself that you can follow. "Chaos" becomes "Freedom", which I think is self-explanatory, but let me know if it isn't.

"Good" is the hard one: I can't figure out if I want it to about being nice in general ("Benevolence" or "Kindness"), or if I want to rename it "Community" and give it a "for the greater good" edge that suggests why people might not want to join it. It's hard to figure out how to make it sound opposed to Power.

 

[Oofta]

4e alignment is much closer to ancient and classical conceptions of cosmological morality. It’s the idea that moral vice leads to violence, chaos, and cosmological disorder, whereas moral goodness leads to order, stability, and the preservation of creation. As such, it’s important, IMHO, to understand that 4e’s alignment is oriented in relation to the created cosmos, namely its destruction or preservation.

I've never understood the desire to have freedom of expression and thought (chaotic) being inherently less good than following the rules (lawful). A mafia type is very lawful, and they'll tell you that it's "nothing personal" right before they murder you and your body disappears. Chaotic doesn't necessarily seek destruction, blindly following the rules is not inherently good.

 

[Aldarc]

I've never understood the desire to have freedom of expression and thought (chaotic) being inherently less good than following the rules (lawful). A mafia type is very lawful, and they'll tell you that it's "nothing personal" right before they murder you and your body disappears. Chaotic doesn't necessarily seek destruction, blindly following the rules is not inherently good.

I think that you're trying to impose the two-axis D&D framework understanding of alignment on D&D 4e's more ancient/classical model. Because 4e is not saying that "freedom of expression and thought (chaotic) [is] inherently less good than following the rules (lawful)." It says that moral goodness leads to cosmic order and harmony and that moral evil leads to cosmic disorder and strife.

 

[Oofta]

I think that you're trying to impose the two-axis D&D framework understanding of alignment on D&D 4e's more ancient/classical model. Because 4e is not saying that "freedom of expression and thought (chaotic) [is] inherently less good than following the rules (lawful)." It says that moral goodness leads to cosmic order and harmony and that moral evil leads to cosmic disorder and strife.

I simply don't associate chaotic with moral evil. Someone can not care about rules and be the most giving and caring individual around. But then again I'm not a philosopher. Many organizations whether religious or governmental want people to believe that thinking for themselves is inherently evil. That only the people of authority know what is true and righteous. It's a form of control.

That's all. I'm not disagreeing with what philosophical theories were pushed classically, just that I disagree with chaotic alignments being inherently "less good" or that lawful is inherently better.