Reprisal
First Post
I've been thinking about the way Alignment is approached in my D&D campaigns (past, present and future), and I began having some ideas. I now present them to you for input and what-not...
It should be obvious that Alignment is a loose descriptor of the basic ways a character would act in certain situations. There are two main axises: (1) Law and Chaos, and (2) Good and Evil. With the recent discussions of races being of a certain alignment most of the time. . .
I make three assumptions; the first two have to do with the nature of the two axises, and the last one has to do with which comes first, the alignment or the action.
For the purposes of my personal campaigns, it's becoming evident that it could, conceivably, be possible to attribute one's position on the Law-Chaos axis through cultural socialization (where and how you're raised). Therefore, an elf is not chaotic is not because she is an elf, but because she is a part of elven society; the same holds true for dwarves, only replacing chaos with law. The definition of Law being holding true to established social morés, norms and codes of law regardless of the specific morés, norms and codes of law.
I do not include the concept of a Personal Code within the boundaries of a Lawful alignment. However, I do include the concept of a culture and subculture. If one lives in a human land that is very akin to a Eastern Orthodox society, and is in fact a dwarf. That dwarf could still be lawful because he strictly adheres to the way a dwarf would live culturally. In this instance, he would be part of a dwarven subculture within the dominant human culture... This also means that an elf raised among dwarves, however unlikely, would most likely mean that this particular elf would most likely be of a Lawful alignment. Her race would have little, if anything, to do with it...
My second assumption is the Kantian* nature of Morality which states, basically, that there is one (1) set of moral rules that exist objectively and apart from any cultural, political or religious forces. Virtuous actions, also known as morally good actions, are those for which the rule governing that individual's action could be willed to become a universal law for all rational beings. Simply, this means that the Rules of Morality can be discovered through purely theoretical, and objective methods... These rules, once established, would mean that they apply to all rational (intelligent) beings regardless of their subjective biases.
((* Immanuel Kant))
This means that if something is wrong, it's wrong in all circumstances, regardless of culture and race. The classic example, that I can think of, would be the use of torture. Assuming that torture cannot be justified morally, this means that any use of torture is morally wrong, and will always be considered an act of evil regardless of circumstance.
Now, this may present problems, especially with other players. The true fact is that with this system in place, there needs to be a final authority on what is Virtuous, and what is not. In game, this needs to be determined by a central authority, most likely a certain God/dess (or team of them); out of game, the final decision rests, as ever, with the DM.
In order to prove whether or not an action is morally right, the onus lies with the player** to prove that this action, regardless of circumstance, will always be morally right. If it cannot be considered a universal law, then it is either morally wrong, if it's opposite can be proven using the same criteria, or simply an amoral action.
((** Or whomever...))
My last assumption is that all people, if left alone and without social interaction, will be of a True Neutral alignment. In order to be aligned on the two axises, one must be of a minimum Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma of 3. Alignment does not exist in a vacuum. It is the result of a change in a character's values, beliefs and psychology. At the same time, Alignment should not be totally up in the air.
Drastic changes in alignment should not occur without the use of magic or supernatural forces. Incremental change should be the norm a distinct majority of the time. This means that it is not acceptable for a player to have his Lawful-Good character suddenly start torturing, murdering and otherwise violating others without a very, very convincing reason to do so...
Yes, this presents a limitation on the freedom of a player as a whole, but at the same time, it allows shifts in alignment to change without breaking the game. It should not be acceptable for a player to begin acting completely deplorable in game because he was just fired in real life (assuming that this character did not already act deplorable in game, hehe). Alignment change can happen, but there has to be a convincing argument behind it other than "I just want to kill something!"
Of course, what I have just written is not applicable to all, if even many, player groups. I just thought that, in posting the essay, it may be of some use to other people.
So, what do you think? Can it work? Have I not thought of certain things? What could improve? What should be cut?
Anyway, thanks for your time.
((Oh yeah, personally, I do not believe in the Kantian standard of morality. I see no evidence of one set of morality, and in not believing there is one, I must therefore believe there is no morality at all...))
Post Edit - You big babies.
It should be obvious that Alignment is a loose descriptor of the basic ways a character would act in certain situations. There are two main axises: (1) Law and Chaos, and (2) Good and Evil. With the recent discussions of races being of a certain alignment most of the time. . .
I make three assumptions; the first two have to do with the nature of the two axises, and the last one has to do with which comes first, the alignment or the action.
For the purposes of my personal campaigns, it's becoming evident that it could, conceivably, be possible to attribute one's position on the Law-Chaos axis through cultural socialization (where and how you're raised). Therefore, an elf is not chaotic is not because she is an elf, but because she is a part of elven society; the same holds true for dwarves, only replacing chaos with law. The definition of Law being holding true to established social morés, norms and codes of law regardless of the specific morés, norms and codes of law.
I do not include the concept of a Personal Code within the boundaries of a Lawful alignment. However, I do include the concept of a culture and subculture. If one lives in a human land that is very akin to a Eastern Orthodox society, and is in fact a dwarf. That dwarf could still be lawful because he strictly adheres to the way a dwarf would live culturally. In this instance, he would be part of a dwarven subculture within the dominant human culture... This also means that an elf raised among dwarves, however unlikely, would most likely mean that this particular elf would most likely be of a Lawful alignment. Her race would have little, if anything, to do with it...
My second assumption is the Kantian* nature of Morality which states, basically, that there is one (1) set of moral rules that exist objectively and apart from any cultural, political or religious forces. Virtuous actions, also known as morally good actions, are those for which the rule governing that individual's action could be willed to become a universal law for all rational beings. Simply, this means that the Rules of Morality can be discovered through purely theoretical, and objective methods... These rules, once established, would mean that they apply to all rational (intelligent) beings regardless of their subjective biases.
((* Immanuel Kant))
This means that if something is wrong, it's wrong in all circumstances, regardless of culture and race. The classic example, that I can think of, would be the use of torture. Assuming that torture cannot be justified morally, this means that any use of torture is morally wrong, and will always be considered an act of evil regardless of circumstance.
Now, this may present problems, especially with other players. The true fact is that with this system in place, there needs to be a final authority on what is Virtuous, and what is not. In game, this needs to be determined by a central authority, most likely a certain God/dess (or team of them); out of game, the final decision rests, as ever, with the DM.
In order to prove whether or not an action is morally right, the onus lies with the player** to prove that this action, regardless of circumstance, will always be morally right. If it cannot be considered a universal law, then it is either morally wrong, if it's opposite can be proven using the same criteria, or simply an amoral action.
((** Or whomever...))
My last assumption is that all people, if left alone and without social interaction, will be of a True Neutral alignment. In order to be aligned on the two axises, one must be of a minimum Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma of 3. Alignment does not exist in a vacuum. It is the result of a change in a character's values, beliefs and psychology. At the same time, Alignment should not be totally up in the air.
Drastic changes in alignment should not occur without the use of magic or supernatural forces. Incremental change should be the norm a distinct majority of the time. This means that it is not acceptable for a player to have his Lawful-Good character suddenly start torturing, murdering and otherwise violating others without a very, very convincing reason to do so...
Yes, this presents a limitation on the freedom of a player as a whole, but at the same time, it allows shifts in alignment to change without breaking the game. It should not be acceptable for a player to begin acting completely deplorable in game because he was just fired in real life (assuming that this character did not already act deplorable in game, hehe). Alignment change can happen, but there has to be a convincing argument behind it other than "I just want to kill something!"
Of course, what I have just written is not applicable to all, if even many, player groups. I just thought that, in posting the essay, it may be of some use to other people.
So, what do you think? Can it work? Have I not thought of certain things? What could improve? What should be cut?
Anyway, thanks for your time.
((Oh yeah, personally, I do not believe in the Kantian standard of morality. I see no evidence of one set of morality, and in not believing there is one, I must therefore believe there is no morality at all...))
Post Edit - You big babies.
Last edited:
