Alignment on three axes.

[pemerton]

I personally have never seen any sort of definition set of objective good which was not anthropocentric.

Aritotle characterises good in functional terms, and so the "good for humans" is at least to some extent different from the "good for spiders". But moral theologians who have drawn on Aristotle (eg Aquinas) clearly think there is a notion of good that extends to god and angels.

Kant characterises right action in terms of pure reason, so that is certainly not intended to be anthropocentric.

Bentham, Singer and others define good in terms of preference satisfaction and the avoidance of suffering, and that is expressly intended to apply to animals other than humans, as well as humans.

In D&D however you have scads of different intelligent species with quite radically different needs and drives and it seems to me that this must quite explode the entire concept of obective value. Certainly where good is concerned. Even something as apparently universally good as a simple healing spell can be readily demonstrated to be "not good" as it would harm a Xeg-yi, an intelligent non-evil creature, thus being harmful to something which does not oppose good.

The healing spell doesn't seem to me to raise any more puzzles than (say) an injection of methodone, which is probably not good for me, but is good for someone who is using the drug as part of a treatment for overcoming a heroin addiction.

The issue of diverse drives etc is interesting, but when I look at mainstream humanoid races in D&D they tend to display less cultural variation than is actually found among human beings as they have actually lived at different times and places across the earth!

Does a being like a Demon which is "Always Evil" have free will if he cannot choose to do good? And if he does not, how can he be evil, without choice?

Isn't "always evil" a piece of rules text - it tells the GM that demons are almost always evil. It doesn't follow that, in the game, the demons didn't make that choice. (Imagine an entry that said "Soup kitchen volunteers - usually good": it wouldn't follow that in the game those people hadn't chosen to make an effort to help others.)

To the extent that the standard planar metaphyics of D&D makes demons manifestations of a non-sentient but necessarily destructive and hateful place (the Abyss), and hence does suggest that they have no choice and hence are (in some sense) not really evil, that for me just compounds the incoherence of alignment that I mentioned in reply to Ratskinner.

This is also why I tend to find Planescape quite cynical in its outlook.

 

[Starfox]

Would these distinctions in motivation and character not be better modeled with free descriptors on a character sheet (e.g. "Loyal to Queen Valisa" vs "Loyal to the Kingdom of Luggage" vs "Freedom Fighter") and some mechanics to bring them into play as so many games like FATE, BW, etc. have done?

It would be cool, but would it be DnD? Perhaps it could be. But for DnD to introduce a motiation system with actual game effects is a big step. Perhaps as an expanion module in Next.

 

[Andor]

It would be cool, but would it be DnD? Perhaps it could be. But for DnD to introduce a motiation system with actual game effects is a big step. Perhaps as an expanion module in Next.

It's been a part of the d20 rules set for some time actually. To be sure d20 modern is not quite D&D but it's not exactly difficult to switch from D&D alignment to d20 Modern allegiences.

 

[Andor]

The issue of diverse drives etc is interesting, but when I look at mainstream humanoid races in D&D they tend to display less cultural variation than is actually found among human beings as they have actually lived at different times and places across the earth!

Agreed, which is why I did not frame things in terms of culture, but physical demands. If you're postulating an objective value system them culture doesn't enter into it, something is good or not regardless of the local perspective. Which ignores the fact that culture is usually adaptive to some pressure.

When you take the diverse physical needs of fantasy races into account (fire hurts most things but heals fire elementals) it rapidly becomes apparent that you cannot define any concrete thing as good or evil without finding an exception somewhere in the monster manual. And yet if Good vs Evil is confined to the realm of action then we are instantly cast back into the realm of moral relativism where good for the goblin is bad for the elf.

Even worse, RAW some cursed or planar creatures can be good in their behavior and alignment and yet still count as EVIL (or Good, Lawful or Chaotic) in terms of detection and spell interaction, which explicitly detaches the objective/mechanical tag of Good and Evil from the objective values of good and evil, thereby rendering the whole thing a useless incomprehensible mess. I think we are actually all agreed on that.

 

[Ratskinner]

It would be cool, but would it be DnD? Perhaps it could be. But for DnD to introduce a motiation system with actual game effects is a big step. Perhaps as an expanion module in Next.

At a few points in the past, mechanical motivation was a part of D&D....sorta. There was class-based XP, which motivated characters to act in certain ways (very effectively, IME). In a broader sense, clerics and paladins used to lose their class abilities if (in the DM's eyes) they behaved against their alignment/tenets. The freeform part would be fairly new for the motivations end of things, but AD&D (IIRC) had "professions" or "Professional Skills" that were freeform descriptors of a character's background or actual career. Freeform Background descriptors appear to be one of the more popular innovations in 13th Age. So I'm not sure it'd be such a stretch to expand that technique into this realm.

Not that I expect to see such a thing.

 

[Starfox]

I'll happily concede that a well-done allegiance system could be good. Not so sure I'd wish it to entirely replace the 9-point alignment scale tough, with all it's´tradition it is one of the "sacred cows" for me. But then, we could have both- probably with one of them as an optional add-on.

The healing spell doesn't seem to me to raise any more puzzles than (say) an injection of methodone, which is probably not good for me, but is good for someone who is using the drug as part of a treatment for overcoming a heroin addiction.

Healing is not such an interesting example, because it is not a [Good] spell. Looking at spells that are inherently aligned, it is mostly spells that harm or ward from evil or summon good critters. Some let you take an affliction on yourself. This is all quite easy to see as good. Evil is more problematic, as it includes all undead-creating. Still, this is all pretty straightforward.

The issue of diverse drives etc is interesting, but when I look at mainstream humanoid races in D&D they tend to display less cultural variation than is actually found among human beings as they have actually lived at different times and places across the earth!

Reality beats fiction 90% of the time, which is so very cool. But this also goes with the use of alignment as an excuse in the game. To put it nastily; goblins are in-game versions of primitive people we as players have the right to kill because they have the "evil" label. And perhaps role-playing games needs this conceit to work. Which might seem problematic, but can also be therapeutic; it is after all much better to kill imaginary goblins than kill out different-looking neighbors in real life. Role playing games can channel some primitive urges into harmless pursuits, much like sports but for nerds.

To the extent that the standard planar metaphyics of D&D makes demons manifestations of a non-sentient but necessarily destructive and hateful place (the Abyss), and hence does suggest that they have no choice and hence are (in some sense) not really evil, that for me just compounds the incoherence of alignment that I mentioned in reply to Ratskinner.

This is also why I tend to find Planescape quite cynical in its outlook.

A demon is an amalgamate of one or more corrupt souls. They had free choice in previous lives, now they are getting the consequences of their actions. But Planescape also has "reformed" demons, and so has "Wrath of the righteous" so it is clearly possible.

 

[Starfox]

At a few points in the past, mechanical motivation was a part of D&D....sorta. There was class-based XP, which motivated characters to act in certain ways (very effectively, IME).

Yeah, and this was very confining. A thief had to steal which was probably the worst of them - I never played a 1E or 2E thief as an actual thief. Rogue is so much better as a descriptive term. Xp as role-play carrots and sticks is not a good idea, especially not if you didn't get to pick what role-playing code you want to play but get it as part of a class. At least you got to select your alignment (except if you were a ranger, paladin, monk, bard... ok, some got to freely select alignment). Some things HAVE improved since 1E.

 

[Balesir]

Economists, of course, have the most attenuated notion of honour of all!

Prima facie this is incontestably true - you might almost say "by definition" - but some of the more fascinating corners of current theory and experiment are actually finding circumstances where some aspects of "honour" are actually optimal in the economic sense. A rational theory of something like "honour" would be a really fun development, IMO.

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.

I know what you mean with the "impenetrability of the concept", but I think the difference is between "I should find out who I naturally am and live that" and "I should decide what I think I should be and discipline myself to be that thing". It's a bit like the difference between what motivates you and what you value; you may value keeping your house clean and tidy, but you also need something to motivate you to actually get up and clean and tidy it... In this scheme, "Lawful" is deciding what you value and finding or tailoring your motivations to make it so, while "Chaotic" is finding out what motivates you and tailoring your values to fit with those motivations.

In D&D however you have scads of different intelligent species with quite radically different needs and drives and it seems to me that this must quite explode the entire concept of obective value. Certainly where good is concerned. Even something as apparently universally good as a simple healing spell can be readily demonstrated to be "not good" as it would harm a Xeg-yi, an intelligent non-evil creature, thus being harmful to something which does not oppose good.

What common good will be found for fire and ice elementals? Or for the Thri-Kreen and the Lizardmen, who require desert and swamp, respectively?

Does a being like a Demon which is "Always Evil" have free will if he cannot choose to do good? And if he does not, how can he be evil, without choice?

Kant's "Categorical Imperative" to "treat others as an end in themselves" would fit perfectly well with any of the D&D creatures or beings, just for starters. There may also be universalisable "virtues" that could fit them all, too, I imagine. Tolerance, for instance, might be a virtue for any creature - with those dedicated to "evil" deliberately eschewing it.

rendering the whole thing a useless incomprehensible mess. I think we are actually all agreed on that.

Oh, yeah - I agree with that!

 

[Starfox]

I know what you mean with the "impenetrability of the concept", but I think the difference is between "I should find out who I naturally am and live that" and "I should decide what I think I should be and discipline myself to be that thing". It's a bit like the difference between what motivates you and what you value; you may value keeping your house clean and tidy, but you also need something to motivate you to actually get up and clean and tidy it... In this scheme, "Lawful" is deciding what you value and finding or tailoring your motivations to make it so, while "Chaotic" is finding out what motivates you and tailoring your values to fit with those motivations.

Ok, I think I understand this now, and to a point I even agree. Still, to me "lawful" has a large portion of conformism in it, while both of the viewpoints you describe are much more enlightened than simple conformism. Perhaps I can explain this by saying that lawful creatures derive their integrity from conformism and try to stay true to society, while chaotics make their own integrity and try to stay true to themselves. In well-developed individuals/societies the end result is much the same, but on a more primitive level the difference is startling and can lead to conflict. Actually, the way society has grown more flexible to become able to tolerate and embrace the individual kind of integrity is one of the best fruits of the enlightenment.

 

[pemerton]

to me "lawful" has a large portion of conformism in it

I can see where this is coming from in traditional alignment distinctions, but I don't think it can be right. Monks and paladins - the most lawful of characters - are not conformists. They stand out from the common herd in virtue of their discipline and resolution.

Actually, the way society has grown more flexible to become able to tolerate and embrace the individual kind of integrity is one of the best fruits of the enlightenment.

I think mixing enlightenment ethics we pre-modern tropes like honourable knights, crusades against evil and the like is part of what makes alignment incoherent.

To put it nastily; goblins are in-game versions of primitive people we as players have the right to kill because they have the "evil" label. And perhaps role-playing games needs this conceit to work.

Because of this I prefer to frame confict with humanoids in terms of self-defence and the morality of warfare (just war theory is one of the areas I work on in my day job). The players in my game regularly have their PCs take oaths from goblin or hobgoblin prisoners, and then release them on parole. (Except for one whose hometown was destroyed by a humanoid horde - that PC has killed hobgoblin prisoners, to the shock of his fellows.)