For critique... the old Alignment question...
- Thread starter The Sigil
- Start date
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Long posts...
That's what the "great alignment debate" has really boiled down to over the years, hasn't it? Moral relativism vs. moral absolutism? The relativists are trying to convince people to drop the alignment system because it doesn't agree with their world view. The absolutists are quibbling over exactly what the list of things is that are absolutely good and evil.
If you are a moral relativist, D&D's system will not work for you because it proceeds from a different set of assumptions and no amount of tweaking will help. I happen to be a moral absolutist, and so I'm fine with the system - though exploring exactly what the absolutes are is of course, a cause for argument even among other absolutists.
--The Sigil
I do have a tendency to do so, yes.Bonedagger said:Damn. You write long posts Sigil
This is basically what the alignment question always comes back to... moral relativism. D&D has a built-in assumption of moral absolutism. If you are a believer in moral relativism, of COURSE the D&D alignment system will have flaws that can't be fixed... because its first assumption is the opposite - that there is moral absolutism rather than moral relativism.
That's what the "great alignment debate" has really boiled down to over the years, hasn't it? Moral relativism vs. moral absolutism? The relativists are trying to convince people to drop the alignment system because it doesn't agree with their world view. The absolutists are quibbling over exactly what the list of things is that are absolutely good and evil.
If you are a moral relativist, D&D's system will not work for you because it proceeds from a different set of assumptions and no amount of tweaking will help.
I happen to be a moral absolutist, and so I'm fine with the system - though exploring exactly what the absolutes are is of course, a cause for argument even among other absolutists. It could, but keep in mind, the point of the CPS system was not to define specific acts of goodness and evil, but rather a set of assumptions to work with when playing a character in order to generate actions that fall within the specified alignment. Of course, that assumes that you agree with my definition of good=selfless and evil=selfish. LOL. :coolYour CPS-system is ok since we need to define two different forces but the problem could then be that we chose to call these forces "Good" and "Evil" (Yes. I know of law and chaos to
Precisely. That is why I tried to point out that, for example, two Lawfuls may not agree on which "rules" are right - that will lead to differences - and two Goods may not agree on which course of action leads to the greatest good. Then you get two Lawful Goods at odds with each other - divine or mortal, the idea is the same. Both are convinced that their way will be the best way to promote Law and Goodness. They may recognize that the other guy's way will do it too, but they think the other guy's way won't do it as well as their way. And in this manner we get grays.
--The Sigil
Voadam
Legend
all right, I will add in two coppers.
Everybody wants good things for themselves whether they are good or evil. Selflessnes is not a prerequisite for goodness.
The way I see it:
Good people care about others and take actions to benefit others. A good person leaves the world better off for having them in it.
Neutral people are generally indifferent to others. The do not cause much damage or improve things much.
Evil has no problem harming others and extreme evil takes pleasure in harming others. Evil causes damage.
Law values the group over individuals and rules and orders are priority values.
Chaos favors individuals and values freedom and choices.
Neutral is just in between on this axis.
Everybody wants good things for themselves whether they are good or evil. Selflessnes is not a prerequisite for goodness.
The way I see it:
Good people care about others and take actions to benefit others. A good person leaves the world better off for having them in it.
Neutral people are generally indifferent to others. The do not cause much damage or improve things much.
Evil has no problem harming others and extreme evil takes pleasure in harming others. Evil causes damage.
Law values the group over individuals and rules and orders are priority values.
Chaos favors individuals and values freedom and choices.
Neutral is just in between on this axis.
Bonedagger
First Post
Wow.. lol. Don't get carried away by taking things out of context.
"Two LG gods can have different views on what is the right way. "
Was merely a way to justify
"Your CPS-system is ok since we need to define two different forces but the problem could then be that we chose to call these forces "Good" and "Evil" (Yes. I know of law and chaos to ) Maybe trying to tie it to the different gods views could solve that problem? ".
Not an argument in itself.
I know your system was not made to define specific acts of goodness and evil. I was just trying to tie up those lose ends I saw that in my mind would otherwise cause contradictions. That is unless, as you pointed out, moral is never a question because Good aligned characters actions would always be good and vise versa (Is that expression used in english?... Means "And the other way around") and you there by believes moral is not relative. Then it's fine
But I think we agree.
I have a suspicion. The alignment system was really added to D&D to keep people discussing the game to the point where it starts to feel like beating a dead horse... We both fell in their trap. Dammit.
"Two LG gods can have different views on what is the right way. "
Was merely a way to justify
"Your CPS-system is ok since we need to define two different forces but the problem could then be that we chose to call these forces "Good" and "Evil" (Yes. I know of law and chaos to ) Maybe trying to tie it to the different gods views could solve that problem? ".
Not an argument in itself.
I know your system was not made to define specific acts of goodness and evil. I was just trying to tie up those lose ends I saw that in my mind would otherwise cause contradictions. That is unless, as you pointed out, moral is never a question because Good aligned characters actions would always be good and vise versa (Is that expression used in english?... Means "And the other way around") and you there by believes moral is not relative. Then it's fine
But I think we agree.
I have a suspicion. The alignment system was really added to D&D to keep people discussing the game to the point where it starts to feel like beating a dead horse... We both fell in their trap. Dammit.
Last edited:
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Sigil, thank you for bringing this up. I would like to point out however, that I actually define the terms, lawful, chaotic, good and evil almost completely different than you. Not to say that you are wrong and I am right, but to point out that "he who defines, wins."
In my worldview:
1) Lawful = Absolutism + Many over One + Team + Static + "J" in Keirsey/Myers/Briggs Temperment Theory
(Mechanus being the ideal physical representation of this worldview.)
2) Chaotic = Relativism + One over Many + Individuality + Dynamic + "P" in Keirsey/Myers/Briggs Temperment Theory
(Limbo being the ideal physical representation of this worldview.)
3) Good = Quality
(As per "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence", "Lila", and MOQ.)
4) Evil = Not Quality
(As above.)
.
.
.
Your Good/Evil axis is a part of how I define Law/Chaos. I believe that "Many over One" is not necessarily a part of Good, but it is the essence of Law.
Thus, in my system:
LG = Static Quality
NG = Ideal Quality
CG = Dynamic Quality
LN = Ideal Static
N = Ideal Median
CN = Ideal Dynamic
LE = Static Not Quality
NE = Ideal Not Quality
CE = Dynamic Not Quality
.
.
.
As per the black box:
I am an avid animist. Meaning: I do not believe that humans are sentient and that all other beings and objects are nonsentient. I believe that all objects and beings are sentient, just in a less complex manner than a human being (or possibly more if we do not put humans at the center of the universe).
In my mind, electrons "value" and "choose", obviously to less of an extent than a human, but this valueing and devalueing is there.
Why do I bring this up? The "black box" is a side effect of the Mind/Body division that I do not choose to cut in half. Good, Evil, Absolute, and Relative all have a larger priority with my philosophical knife than Mind/Body.
Go nuts.
In my worldview:
1) Lawful = Absolutism + Many over One + Team + Static + "J" in Keirsey/Myers/Briggs Temperment Theory
(Mechanus being the ideal physical representation of this worldview.)
2) Chaotic = Relativism + One over Many + Individuality + Dynamic + "P" in Keirsey/Myers/Briggs Temperment Theory
(Limbo being the ideal physical representation of this worldview.)
3) Good = Quality
(As per "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence", "Lila", and MOQ.)
4) Evil = Not Quality
(As above.)
.
.
.
Your Good/Evil axis is a part of how I define Law/Chaos. I believe that "Many over One" is not necessarily a part of Good, but it is the essence of Law.
Thus, in my system:
LG = Static Quality
NG = Ideal Quality
CG = Dynamic Quality
LN = Ideal Static
N = Ideal Median
CN = Ideal Dynamic
LE = Static Not Quality
NE = Ideal Not Quality
CE = Dynamic Not Quality
.
.
.
As per the black box:
I am an avid animist. Meaning: I do not believe that humans are sentient and that all other beings and objects are nonsentient. I believe that all objects and beings are sentient, just in a less complex manner than a human being (or possibly more if we do not put humans at the center of the universe).
In my mind, electrons "value" and "choose", obviously to less of an extent than a human, but this valueing and devalueing is there.
Why do I bring this up? The "black box" is a side effect of the Mind/Body division that I do not choose to cut in half. Good, Evil, Absolute, and Relative all have a larger priority with my philosophical knife than Mind/Body.
Go nuts.
Last edited:
Voadam
Legend
selfish/selfless counterarguments
I disagree that selflessness and putting others before yourself equals good.
Evil people can put their evil organization/cause/leader's interests before their own. The evil cutltist willing to sacrifice himself for his cause is an archetype of evil. There can be evil martyrs.
On the other hand, a person who sets up mutually beneficial situations I consider is doing good. For instance, a merchant who sells food. The buyer gets the food they need or want and the grocer gets money. They both gain, they are both better off for the transaction. The grocer is not half evil because he gained from the transaction.
I disagree that selflessness and putting others before yourself equals good.
Evil people can put their evil organization/cause/leader's interests before their own. The evil cutltist willing to sacrifice himself for his cause is an archetype of evil. There can be evil martyrs.
On the other hand, a person who sets up mutually beneficial situations I consider is doing good. For instance, a merchant who sells food. The buyer gets the food they need or want and the grocer gets money. They both gain, they are both better off for the transaction. The grocer is not half evil because he gained from the transaction.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Re: selfish/selfless counterarguments
Hence why putting others before yourself is a lawful trait.
Voadam said:
Hence why putting others before yourself is a lawful trait.
Similar Threads
