D&D General Designing Morality Systems

[Aldarc]

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.

I'm no philosopher either, but Í don't associate a solid moral framework with what D&D tries to pass off as its two-axis alignment system, yet here you are trying to pretend that it has any more moral substance or validity than astrological signs or MBTI. You are trying to reify something incredibly abstract (i.e., chaotic alignment in a fantasy elf game), which is a complete no-go.

I think that you are looking at 4e's alignment system in a way that is alien and foreign (i.e., the D&D alignment framework you are used to) and imposing your notions on it rather than taking time to understand what it means in the context of its own World Axis world view and moral framework. Chaos does NOT represent freedom of thought in ancient worldviews. It meant an absence of Creation: i.e., a null and void state. Chaos is antithetical to Creation, which is an act and product of Order. Goodness preserves Creation, while Evil perverts Creation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Morality is a difficult issue in TTRPGs. Here's my take-

I'd start by contrasting the introduction of morality systems in videogames. I remember when the Ultima series (which was very popular) introduced a morality system in Ultima IV. There were a lot of people that absolutely hated it. The idea that your actions would have an impact on your character (and could curtail your options later) was viewed very unfavorably by a lot of people! When it came to videogames, the idea that "actions have consequences" was anathema.

Even later, we see this attitude. Games (such as the Infamous series) might have branching options depending on your choices in the game (do you get the good or the evil powers) but it is still fairly rare for a video game to approximate real-world impact of morality.

In a certain way, I think that this is also reflected in D&D. The concept of morality can be notoriously hard to pin down- that's why people can still argue about the early Gygaxian view that hobo-murdering of "evil" creatures is a "good" activity. Morality itself is a complex subject that people are not in universal agreement on .... that might be the understatement of the year.

Which leads to my opinion on the issue-
1. You can have a very simplified, "basic fantasy" morality system. There are goodies, and there are baddies. And there is very little complexity or ambiguity. There is no Mitchell & Webb moment where the heroes are standing over the slaughtered corpses of countless humanoid monsters and say, "Wait, are we the baddies?" You have a fairy-tale morality system for a fairy-tale world.

2. You embrace the ambiguity. At this level, you look at individual moral choices, and those choices will have consequences. Characters can make their choices based on their personal ethos, or their religion, or theirs oath, or other personal motivations, and consequences will flow from those decisions.

 

[Oofta]

I'm no philosopher either, but Í don't associate a solid moral framework with what D&D tries to pass off as its two-axis alignment system, yet here you are trying to pretend that it has any more moral substance or validity than astrological signs or MBTI. You are trying to reify something incredibly abstract (i.e., chaotic alignment in a fantasy elf game), which is a complete no-go.

I think that you are looking at 4e's alignment system in a way that is alien and foreign (i.e., the D&D alignment framework you are used to) and imposing your notions on it rather than taking time to understand what it means in the context of its own World Axis world view and moral framework. Chaos does NOT represent freedom of thought in ancient worldviews. It meant an absence of Creation: i.e., a null and void state. Chaos is antithetical to Creation, which is an act and product of Order. Goodness preserves Creation, while Evil perverts Creation.

I think I'm expressing my own opinion. I explicitly told you I don't care about ancient worldviews, I think what we know of what they really thought and believed has gone through multiple filters. People creating and preserving the records were the ones with a vested interest in keeping order, many of our ideas of ancient cultures were formed during the Victorian era.

Don't tell me what I think or that because I disagree I'm "pretending".

 

[Aldarc]

I think I'm expressing my own opinion. I explicitly told you I don't care about ancient worldviews, I think what we know of what they really thought and believed has gone through multiple filters. People creating and preserving the records were the ones with a vested interest in keeping order, many of our ideas of ancient cultures were formed during the Victorian era.

Don't tell me what I think or that because I disagree I'm "pretending".

I don't care about your opinion about any of this at all and I don't think it's relevant in the slightest. I am talking about what 4e alignment means in the framework of the World Axis world view. Do you have something to worth contributing about that topic or not?

 

[Oofta]

I don't care about your opinion about any of this at all and I don't think it's relevant in the slightest. I am talking about what 4e alignment means in the framework of the World Axis world view. Do you have something to worth contributing about that topic or not?

Sorry that having an opinion bothers you so much. I simply disagreed with the basic idea that law and chaos are inherently more or less good. Bye!

 

[Aldarc]

Edit

 

[CleverNickName]

Which leads to my opinion on the issue-
1. You can have a very simplified, "basic fantasy" morality system. There are goodies, and there are baddies. And there is very little complexity or ambiguity. There is no Mitchell & Webb moment where the heroes are standing over the slaughtered corpses of countless humanoid monsters and say, "Wait, are we the baddies?" You have a fairy-tale morality system for a fairy-tale world.

2. You embrace the ambiguity. At this level, you look at individual moral choices, and those choices will have consequences. Characters can make their choices based on their personal ethos, or their religion, or theirs oath, or other personal motivations, and consequences will flow from those decisions.

Yep, I agree. And for my two cents, I prefer the 1st option for my casual one-shot D&D games, and the 2nd option for my long-running regular night campaigns.

When people think of morality in an RPG, most often they think of Good vs. Evil. But I would expand the D&D concept of "morality" to apply to Law vs. Chaos aspects of it as well. (And when I say "Law" I'm not just referring to the laws of the land, but also to social norms, traditions, established orders, the status quo, etc. I'm not just talking about the king's edicts.) After all, being "lawful" isn't really the same as being a "good" person. Good people can, and probably should, break the laws and buck the status quo for the benefit of the greater good (see: Robin Hood), and evil people often use the law as a tool to oppress others (see: Javert in Les Miserables) and exploit laws to their own advantage (see: an average Tuesday on Wall Street.) People often point to being a 'law abiding citizen' as evidence of being a 'good person,' and it always makes me roll my eyes.

When you apply both Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, you get a better definition of "morality," at least in the D&D sense of the word. (Outside of D&D, the best advice I can give is to go audit an Ethics class at your local university.)

 

[Voadam]

I am talking about what 4e alignment means in the framework of the World Axis world view. Do you have something to worth contributing about that topic or not?

I don't think that follows from or matches up to the 4e World Axis cosmology.

The Elemental Chaos is just there, it was not until the Shard of EVIL came into things that there was any specific evil in the Chaos. The Shard also turned the devils from divine astral angels of the god of man to Evil, but not Chaotic Evil. Asmodeus murdered his patron, changed himself and his followers to a new evil and overthrew the old order, but was not Chaotic Evil.

The primordials versus the gods Dawn War was not a good versus evil situation with Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good at opposed poles. The Gods had lots of evil, including Chaotic Evil like Gruumsh. You can make an argument it was Chaos versus Law but not Chaotic Evil versus Lawful Good.

Lawful Good is not particularly associated with anything in 4e. A couple specific gods seems to be about it.

Most things in 4e are just there, the World just is, the Elemental Chaos just is, the Underdark is harsh with a lot of evil things in it but not actively evil until you cross paths with the Evil Torog. The Feywild is not specifically good or evil, just very fey. The Astral has every alignment in big ways with the specific god realms but no prevalance of anything over anything else. The shadowfell is a bit evil aspected from all the necrotic and undead but mostly just a depressing thing. The Abyss is the one realm of strong unidirectional alignment with strong corrupting evil.

I feel you could do 4e world axis cosmology just as easily with nine point alignment.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think that follows from or matches up to the 4e World Axis cosmology.

The Elemental Chaos is just there, it was not until the Shard of EVIL came into things that there was any specific evil in the Chaos. The Shard also turned the devils from divine astral angels of the god of man to Evil, but not Chaotic Evil. Asmodeus murdered his patron, changed himself and his followers to a new evil and overthrew the old order, but was not Chaotic Evil.

The primordials versus the gods Dawn War was not a good versus evil situation with Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good at opposed poles. The Gods had lots of evil, including Chaotic Evil like Gruumsh. You can make an argument it was Chaos versus Law but not Chaotic Evil versus Lawful Good.

Lawful Good is not particularly associated with anything in 4e. A couple specific gods seems to be about it.

Most things in 4e are just there, the World just is, the Elemental Chaos just is, the Underdark is harsh with a lot of evil things in it but not actively evil until you cross paths with the Evil Torog. The Feywild is not specifically good or evil, just very fey. The Astral has every alignment in big ways with the specific god realms but no prevalance of anything over anything else. The shadowfell is a bit evil aspected from all the necrotic and undead but mostly just a depressing thing. The Abyss is the one realm of strong unidirectional alignment with strong corrupting evil.

I feel you could do 4e world axis cosmology just as easily with nine point alignment.

Addressing your post here point by point is not necessarily the best way to address it. So long story short. Look through these ancient mythologies that I alluded to. You would likely identify deities of various alignments who are fighting to preserve the cosmic order against the primordial forces that preceded them. That doesn't somehow erase the Chaoskampf motif of these stories. Neither does it erase the Chaoskampf motif of the World Axis, and I do think that the 4e Alignment is meant to reflect this Chaoskampf motif that we find in the World Axis.

Edit: Considering James Wyatt's background as a Methodist minister with a seminary education in Union Theological Seminary, I would find it incredibly odd if he wasn't exposed to this Chaoskampf motif, either directly (i.e., reading Hermann Gunkel) or indirectly (e.g., teaching, commentaries, etc.).

 

[Voadam]

Addressing your post here point by point is not necessarily the best way to address it. So long story short. Look through these ancient mythologies that I alluded to. You would likely identify deities of various alignments who are fighting to preserve the cosmic order against the primordial forces that preceded them. That doesn't somehow erase the Chaoskampf motif of these stories. Neither does it erase the Chaoskampf motif of the World Axis, and I do think that the 4e Alignment is meant to reflect this Chaoskampf motif that we find in the World Axis.

Edit: Considering James Wyatt's background as a Methodist minister with a seminary education in Union Theological Seminary, I would find it incredibly odd if he wasn't exposed to this Chaoskampf motif, either directly (i.e., reading Hermann Gunkel) or indirectly (e.g., teaching, commentaries, etc.).

Your theory seems like it would work better with a different five point alignment scale than 4e uses.

CE-C-U-L-LG

If the two big teams are basically Law/Order and Chaos (Olympians versus Titans, Asgardians vs Jotuns) and you have evil on team Law (Ares for example on team Olympians) then it would seem to make more sense to call Ares aligned with Law if you are using a ChaosKampf type model of alignment or a three point type alignment system while in a nine point he would probably be identified individually as CE and in 4e either CE or E.

You could then say that LG is more good than L, or that CE is more evil than C which seems more straightforward than the comparison of CE vs. E.

For the 4e comsology the Astral would be Law aligned and the Elemental Chaos would be Chaos aligned. CE is then down at the bottom of Chaos.

The oddity would be that Gruumsh would be on team Law alignment wise unless you switched him from a god to a primordial or demon.