Alignment Axis expansion

[John Morrow]

John, let me begin by expressing that you're my favourite person here on ENWorld with whom to debate alignment. While our views almost always differ, I never feel that we are failing to comprehend one another.

I feel much the same way. I think that a big part of our difference is that I'm talking about alignment in mass-market terms while you are talking about it in historical terms, though I have some differences of opinion there, too, that I'll go into below.

That stated, I really have to object to how you are characterizing sharp, impermeable good-evil distinctions as somehow postmodern. They are only postmodern in that part of the project of modernity was to erect these impermeable boundaries. I'm not interested in games that are either postmodern or modern; what I'm interested in are games that have a pre-modern feel.

My point is that postmodernism often tears down the boundaries created by modernism. The alignment system is all about boundaries and categories, wether it reflects modernism or some other mindset.

I know you aren't interested in games with a modern or post-modern feel. What I'm trying to say is that I think D&D and it's alignment system, for better or worse, reflects the world view of contemporary Americans (with all of the baggage that carries, from a smattering of Judeo-Christian ethics to women's liberation) rather than any historical world view. And because of that, I think it makes the most sense in that context and it's often counter-productive to fight it.

The idea that of it being okay to systematically exterminate a race because it is evil by nature is, according to the postmodernist critique, a fundamentally modern one. The holocaust helped to inspire postmodernism because it was recognized that the idea of systematically exterminating a group because it was by nature under all circumstances, essentially evil was a consequence of modernist thought.

And I disagree with the post-modernist critique in that regard. I don't think it's all that modern, though I do think every culture puts a different spin on it. In particular, I think the Nazis simply put a scientific veneer and larger scope on something that you can find throughout human history. And in many other cases where killing and extermination were not justified on utilitarian grounds, it was because those cultures felt no need to justify their actions against other humans.

Even the most extreme persecutions of the past like Charlemagne's mass execution of Saxons, the Spanish Inquisition, the suppression of the Judean revolts of the first and second centuries, the Crusades, etc. did not share the characteristic that it was okay to kill all the Cathars/Jews/Saxons/Saracens because they were irredeemably evil. Pre-modern persecutions might envisage a group as less human or less possessed of grace but they did not deny the essential humanity of these groups. Mass executions took place to "inspire" resistors to convert to whatever it was that the persecutor wanted.

Well, there are two aspects of this that I should address.

First, most of your examples fall within a Christian ethical context while I'm considering many pre-Christian contexts since D&D is, in theory, not Christian. Christian ethics presuppose the possibility of grace and redemption, which is why they also proved ultimately incompatible with the monarchy, slavery, and the subjugation of women. I wouldn't use the D&D alignment system to model Christian ethics. And, no, we probably shouldn't debate this point so we don't run afoul of the moderators.

Second, yes most of those historical agressors did not deny the essential humanity of the groups they attacked or persecuted but there is a very good reason for that. They couldn't deny their humanity because they were clearly human (more on Nazis in a moment). The orcs and goblins and gnolls of D&D are clearly not human, nor do I think were they meant to be, nor do I think they were meant to be in Tolkien.

So the question is whether orcs, goblins, and gnolls in D&D are simply humans with a few ability adjustments and funny looks or a fundamentally different class of creature that has no humanity. If they are a fundamentally different class of creature, then denying their humanity is simply stating the truth, not denying what they are. And, frankly, I don't know why they need to be in the game if they aren't supposed to be monsters rather than people.

So don't think of killing all the goblins as sending Jews to the gas chamber. Think of it as killing all of the wolves in a region because they eat your sheep and endanger your children (ignoring the ecological impact). Think of it as wiping out Small Pox. It's just that these wolves are intelligent enough to talk to you.

I think looking at what the Nazis did is helpful here so I'm not going to cry Goodwin's Law on you.

What the Nazis did was both effective and terrible. You are looking at how terrible it was but I think you need to consider why it was terrible and why it was so effective. They were so terrible and effective because they attacked the lynchpin that stops human being from exterminating one another like wolves or cockroaches, the humanity of others and our empathy for it. They convinced people, aided by fear, hatred, jealousy, and a hefty dose of pseudo-science that entire classes of other human beings had no humanity. Because once you remove that humanity, the entire moral calculus does change.

In many ways, I think you are begging the question here. You are assuming the humanity of D&D monsters and then framing morality accordingly. I'm challenging the idea that D&D monsters have any humanity. I'm not trying to deny them the humanity that they have in the way Nazis denied various groups of humans humanity. I'm envisioning monsters that have no humanity to deny, such that claiming they have no humanity is simply the truth.

And, yes, that can lead one down a path of logical that has an uncomfortable resemblance to what the Nazis did. I fully understand what the games Violence and Power Kill are trying to say, once you accept their assumption. Change orcs or goblins into the poor residents of a modern housing development and what the typical band of D&D adventurers do is pretty ugly. And that's why I think it's important that orcs and goblins not be the moral equivalent of the poor residents of a housing project.

Look at saints like Christopher and Guinefort -- even semi-human creatures unable to speak were seen as having souls and some kind of contact with the divine. For pre-moderns, it was not necessary to dehumanize an opponent in order for it to be okay to kill him.

And for a lot of pre-modern people, they didn't need any justification for killing their enemies and taking their stuff. But D&D is played by contemporary people (many Americans or Europeans) who have a different moral perspective.

Pre-modern social paradigms tended to be hierarchical rather than citizenship-defined -- everyone had some relationship with the highest divine or highest political but one's status was dictated by their distance/proximity to it. Modernist social paradigms have tended to work off an in/out concept -- you are either CITIZEN or NOT CITIZEN.

There were plenty of "in/out" concepts in ancient times, too. I think you are being selective. Whether it's "circumcised"/"uncircumcised" (not only the Jews but Egyptians, Muslims, and Crusaders used that distinction) or "Greek"/"Barbarian", there are plenty of other examples of "in/out" divisions out there. Take a look at Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization for some examples. Yes, hierarchy and distance was also commonly used. But even within those hierarchies, there were distinct categories, be it "noble", "land owner", "serf" and "slave" or some variation with nationality included. You were either "in" those groups or "out" of them and "in" another group.

The "us" and "them" distinction is fairly common and fundamental to how poeple look at the world. It's not only why pronouns generally distingish first, second, and third person but why some languages also have inclusive and exclusive pronouns to differentiate those who are "in" from those who are "out" in the second or third person.

So, while the model of good and evil you favour for D&D stands in opposition to postmodernism, it does so because of its alignment with modernism

From a post-modernist perspective, yes. Bear in mind that I was claiming that the alignment system is fairly incompatible with a post-modernist perspective.

More accurately, I'm trying to pick a model of good and evil that allows contemporary (and likely modernist, from that perspective) people to engage in pre-modern activities that they might not find ethically palatable, in a way that's more ethically palatable to them.

I doubt that many people would buy a game where you get to play a Conquistador that's on a mission to kill the Aztecs and take their gold. Make your thinly veiled Aztecs orcs or goblins who sacrifice innocent humans or elves to their dark gods and most players would accept it. Why? Because we've come to accept the humanity of the Aztecs, even if we find their religious practices to be wrong. Killing an opponent with humanity, especially to take their stuff isn't something that a lot of contemporary people are going to feel good about. Both <U>Power Kill</U> and <U>Violence</U> attempt to illustrate this. Killing inhuman monsters to take their stuff is morally something different to most people, because monsters are different. The can lack humanity.

So, yes, you could expect your players to adopt a 15th Century Spaniard's mindset and play a "Conquest of Mexico" game or you could turn your Aztecs into Orcs, make them inherently Evil, and eliminate the ethical heaviness and messiness of the historical treatment, making it an adventure game. I'm not saying that the heaviness is wrong, nor am I saying that the orc version would produce an authentic and accurate dynamic. I just don't think that heaviness is not what a lot of people want, nor is it what the alignment system seems designed to handle.

I agree that alignment systems are better adapted to essentialist ideas of characteristics but I don't think they lose all utility when they interact with these other modes of storytelling. If one looks at Cold War politics in the Third World, one can see an alignment system interacting just fine with moral ambiguity and indistinguishable behaviour.

I'm not seeing it.

I think you mistakenly assume modernist essentialism as an eternal characteristic of human thought; it is a recent one. Pre-modern thought had essentialism but a messy, permeable relativistic essentialism.

Remember that I'm not looking for the same thing that you are. D&D is a fantasy game. It's "Medieval" in the sense that the movie Troy ("Inspired by Homer's Illiad") was "Late Bronze Age", Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar was "Roman", or "Clan of the Cave Bear" is "Prehistoric". If I was looking for an authentic treatment of a pre-modern setting and mindset, D&D would not be my first stop.

I'm looking to emulate adventure fiction and popular mythology (through a modern lens). So while I can imagine far more sophisticated and historically accurate ethical systems, my practical considerations are how my (unavoidably contemporary American) players are going to interpret what their characters are doing.

But how do you explain a person trying to open the gates of hell as "neutral" simply because he pursues his goal pragmatically? The goal is still fundamentally evil.

Why would a character want to open a gate to Hell?

To suggest that everyone who acts rationally in their own interest is neutral is to challenge the idea that we can make intelligent villains.

Not at all. It challenges the idea that all villains are Evil and that all Evil villains are rational. One can be intelligent without being rational. One can even be wise but not rational.

I don't want a system that forces all chaotic evil villains to thwart their own goals on a regular basis or demands that I redefine opening the gates of hell as a "neutral" program.

Again, I think you are begging the question here. Why must opening the Gates of Hell be "Chaotic" Evil? What's the in-character justification for opening the Gates of Hell?

But don't high Intelligence and Wisdom become problematic then here? Does Chaotic Evil then enforce a cap on Intelligence and Wisdom because they indicate, respectively, the capacity to formulate complex long-range strategies and the capacity to exert self-discipline sufficient to carry them out?

Not necessarily. I think you are making several assumptions about both here. In particular, I think you are assuming that Intelligence is related to long-range planning and that Wisdom leads to self-discipline. I don't think either is the case, particularly in the way that D&D uses them. Take a look at serial killers. They can be clever and even wise. But they just...can't...stop...killing...people, even when they know they will eventually get caught.

If this is the case, I have the same criticism of your idea as I have of the multiple axis system; an alignment variable should function as an independent variable not as a proxy from which the value of other variables can be derived.

I don't think it is the case, though I could imagine a Lawful character making your argument.

Then there is the more practical question of the fact that I want him to open a gate to the Abyss not to Hades.

What was the in-character justification?

Yes. But effectively running a Communist Party in the first world required that people run their party like capitalists -- expanding their market share, making profits, etc. Effectively promoting an ideology in a society that has not accepted it is an ambiguous tightrope act; Green parties still hand out disposable brochures, etc.

How effective are these Communist Parties at achieving Communism and is their first objective to bring about Communism or simply the pragmatic goal of remaining a viable political party? That, to me, is an illustration of pragmatism winning out over ideology.

 

[RSKennan]

I've always wanted to use "Active-Passive" as a 3rd axis. It would define a character's commitment to the ideals of the other aspects of their alignment. You could be actively or passively neutral for instance (Balance-Seeker or Indifferent).

For simplicity one intensity level would apply to both the ethical and moral aspects of alignment in any games that I'd run, but it might make more sense to have a separate one for each aspect of the alignment.

Edit: It looks like Micheal G posted something similar first. Cool.

 

[fusangite]

I feel much the same way. I think that a big part of our difference is that I'm talking about alignment in mass-market terms while you are talking about it in historical terms,

Although I'm talking in historical terms, the nature of our disagreement is actually more uncomfortable. I think that the alignment rules as you interpret them ential attitudes and values that don't get along with my personal politics/religion. In superhero games, it is generally assumed that one's code against killing applies to everyone but robots -- alients, mutants, etc. It seems like the way you are running alignment, you're saying to your PCs, "It's okay. They're all robots."

My point is that postmodernism often tears down the boundaries created by modernism.

Yep. And all I'm saying is, "what if we play in a world in which the boundaries have not yet been erected?" I would like it if the current alignment rules didn't proclude both that option.

I know you aren't interested in games with a modern or post-modern feel. What I'm trying to say is that I think D&D and it's alignment system, for better or worse, reflects the world view of contemporary Americans (with all of the baggage that carries, from a smattering of Judeo-Christian ethics to women's liberation) rather than any historical world view.

Agreed. But what if we made it modular so that it could reflect both?

First, most of your examples fall within a Christian ethical context while I'm considering many pre-Christian contexts since D&D is, in theory, not Christian. Christian ethics presuppose the possibility of grace and redemption, which is why they also proved ultimately incompatible with the monarchy, slavery, and the subjugation of women.

Whoa! Let's just agree to disagree on this assertion so we don't get the thread closed, ok?

They couldn't deny their humanity because they were clearly human (more on Nazis in a moment). The orcs and goblins and gnolls of D&D are clearly not human, nor do I think were they meant to be, nor do I think they were meant to be in Tolkien.

That's why I think their consensus regarding the cynocephali was important. They ultimately argued that the dog-headed men, even though they could not speak, were ensouled. That's why they made a 9' tall dog-headed man into a saint. Later they made a greyhound into a saint as well. Categories were permeable. Monsters and animals could be ensouled. If D&D alignment had greater flexibility, goblins could be both evil by nature and potentially ensouled.

So don't think of killing all the goblins as sending Jews to the gas chamber. Think of it as killing all of the wolves in a region because they eat your sheep and endanger your children (ignoring the ecological impact).

Even under these terms, something other than an understanding of ecology caused medievals and ancients to enact measures (admittedly usually insufficient) to protect rare animals and landscapes from annihilation even though they had no economic value. Even with non-peers who were animals, people without an understanding of ecology still saw that spark of life as having some kind of inexpressible value.

I think looking at what the Nazis did is helpful here so I'm not going to cry Goodwin's Law on you.

I wouldn't have invoked them were it not for the fact that we were looking at how people understand the emergence of postmodernism.

They convinced people, aided by fear, hatred, jealousy, and a hefty dose of pseudo-science that entire classes of other human beings had no humanity. Because once you remove that humanity, the entire moral calculus does change.

I know. That's my argument. I don't think that in the case of creatures who may or may not have free will that one should arrive at a classification system that wholly dehumanizes them. That's my concern here.

In many ways, I think you are begging the question here. You are assuming the humanity of D&D monsters

No. I'm assuming that "humanity" boundaries that are permeable or less than 100% precise/absolute; that's all.

I fully understand what the games Violence and Power Kill are trying to say, once you accept their assumption. Change orcs or goblins into the poor residents of a modern housing development and what the typical band of D&D adventurers do is pretty ugly. And that's why I think it's important that orcs and goblins not be the moral equivalent of the poor residents of a housing project.

No. My point is that creatures in many worldviews do not fit into clean binaries; they fit into binaries with liminal regions. An exceptional individual can be a dog and a saint or a dog and a man and a saint. You seem to have two settings here: 100% human and 0% human -- I like situations where there are categories in between.

And for a lot of pre-modern people, they didn't need any justification for killing their enemies and taking their stuff.

Yep. And what was interesting, from my point of view, was that they didn't need to dehumanize these people in order to do so. That's another feature of worlds I run.

There were plenty of "in/out" concepts in ancient times, too. I think you are being selective. Whether it's "circumcised"/"uncircumcised"

Yep. And within that system, there is still Balaam. Even so, systems like this are the exception and not the rule.

But even within those hierarchies, there were distinct categories, be it "noble", "land owner", "serf" and "slave" or some variation with nationality included. You were either "in" those groups or "out" of them and "in" another group.

I have to disagree here. These categories were permeable; read people writing about rank and you find that there are all kinds of messy circumstances where categories overlap or people fall into spaces between them. Even at the time, people acknowledged these things.

As for your Cortes example, the textual evidence is massive and overwhelmingly that the Spanish understood the Aztecs to be fully human.

Remember that I'm not looking for the same thing that you are. D&D is a fantasy game. It's "Medieval" in the sense that the movie Troy ("Inspired by Homer's Illiad") was "Late Bronze Age", Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar was "Roman", or "Clan of the Cave Bear" is "Prehistoric". If I was looking for an authentic treatment of a pre-modern setting and mindset, D&D would not be my first stop.

I'm not looking for an alignment system that is historically authentic; I am looking for an alignment system that does not prohibit me from telling stories about cultures my players and I find interesting.

Why would a character want to open a gate to Hell?

The NPC was the leader of the dark elves who failed to escape to the underworld the last time they could and had been stranded in the world.

Why must opening the Gates of Hell be "Chaotic" Evil? What's the in-character justification for opening the Gates of Hell?

Hell, in this world, was the domain of the chaotic evil underworld god who was the god of the dark elves. They wanted to go home. Of course, they also wanted to bring home to the material world; their kinsmen and their gods would march out of the gates, as they marched in.

Not necessarily. I think you are making several assumptions about both here. In particular, I think you are assuming that Intelligence is related to long-range planning and that Wisdom leads to self-discipline.

In 1E, these were the descriptions of these attributes. Literally.

How effective are these Communist Parties at achieving Communism and is their first objective to bring about Communism or simply the pragmatic goal of remaining a viable political party? That, to me, is an illustration of pragmatism winning out over ideology.

Yes. And without some amount of pragmatism, no idealistic goal can possibly be achieved.