I can't do without the 9 alignments

[Tequila Sunrise]

I hate to say it but I really missed the old alignments, and have reintroduced them - I found them really fun when interpreted a bit freely in the old days.

Cas

I've actually cut alignments down to Good, Neu...I mean Unaligned and Evil. Players can add other tags if they want, but I couldn't care less about them. I've also written up three Smite Evil feats, so alignment actually means something in my games.

TS

 

[Danceofmasks]

But it doesn't work against the Balor screaming 'I am Evil Incarnate!'. Or against the nihilistic assassin who tells to your face that he believes your god is an impotant mongrel and that intend to rip your head off. Funny that. You'd think they were evil too...

This isn't moral relativism. This is just changing words without changing their meaning. I'm saying the (traditional) D&D alignment system is one of moral absolutism and your argument doesn't even dent my claim.

No, you wouldn't think they were evil, if you don't have a word for it.
'cos those actions are simply a way of life to .. say .. drow, and they don't think of it as evil.
The bunch of brainwashed fools they are, the closest concept they have to evil is probably "the seldarine and their allies".

You'd have trouble translating the very word "evil" for a drow.
At least, before 4e anyhow.
And by their reckoning of which sets of beliefs and actions are acceptable, a flipped alignment map works fine.
'cos there's nothing wrong with stabbing someone in the face, I mean how else will your future generations get stronger? It's the right thing to do to someone who gives handouts to strangers.

Right now, I suspect you're not very familiar with non-western languages, 'cos if you were aware of untranslatable concepts, you wouldn't be dismissing language-based relativism so easily.
In Amoy, for instance ... you'd have trouble translating something as simple as the word "no."
Depending on context, you can translate it as "wrong" or "cannot" or "won't" but no as opposite of yes simply does not exist.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

If you are implying that drows aren't evil because they don't understand the term, you are wrong. They are evil. Says so right in their stat block.

If you are saying that they are evil but don't understand the term, I don't care.

The original point of contention was that the alignment system was morally absolutist and not relativist. Nothing you said change or even adress that.

Your arguments only contributes toward the notion that in the real world morality is relative. I rather agree. I'm mostly a relativist myself. And as a fellow relativist I am telling you that the D&D system is absolutist.

 

[Danceofmasks]

And you'd be wrong.
On the count that I'm a relativist, and on the count that D&D is absolutist.

Ok, look ... I think it's quite obvious that chaotic creatures and evil creatures aren't ones likely to agree with others, but surely lawful good creatures have the same morals, right?

Look, there's a hound archon. It's LG ...
Look, there's a dwarven general. It's LG ...
Look, there's a silver dragon. It's LG ...
Put them in a bunch of circumstances, and I can guarantee the conclusions they jump to as well as their actions, both idealised and actual, wouldn't be the same.

D&D deities, LG ones?
Hey look, Ilmater is LG, what's he all about?
What abou Horus-Re? He's LG, too!
But where Ilmater reckons you ought to martyr yourself and suffer for the sake of others, Horus-Re reckons you ought to destroy anyone who hurts you!

What's more, morality being what morality is, that is the presumption of a correct course of action without giving all factors due consideration, the more moral a person is (of any alignment), the more likely they are to be wrong.
Being strong in LG doesn't stop you from being prejudiced, and it doesn't stop you from killing other LG creatures in cold blood, all it means is that your society (if you're chaotic you'd be individualistic) is collectively anal about a bunch of virtues that supposedly value quality of life.

It doesn't stop you from being misled, or otherwise duped .. such as the classic "paladin mistakenly invoke doomsday device thinking they're saving the world" so it is only a measure of intent.
And where intent is yardstick, you have LG folks who have int/wis of 5, and manage to be ignorant of the devastation they're actually wreaking, thereby maintaining their LGness.

Alignments in D&D are more like a set of energies, not dissimilar to elemental energies, where a good spell is attuned to the outer planes of elysium, etc. just as a fire spell is attuned to the inner plane of fire.

Oh, and on the subject of irl ... I'm amoral. Because as I said earlier, morality is presumptious. A crutch for those either too lazy, ignorant, or stupid to apply reason to their decisionmaking.
The only proper way of making decisions is to give all factors due consideration, and just by saying something like "torture is wrong" is a symptom of incomplete reason.
There is a time and a place for any act.

So by the rules of D&D, I'd be attuned to the energies of the lawful and evil planes, and thereby susceptible to spells that target those energies.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

And you'd be wrong.
On the count that I'm a relativist, and on the count that D&D is absolutist.

Oh, and on the subject of irl ... I'm amoral.

Every single philosopher of amorality, such as Sartre and Nietzche, are included in the greater paradigm of moral relativism.

Some people like the edge of claiming they are amoral, but unless they suffer from some form of mental disorder, they are indeed moral relativist. After all, you talk about giving 'all factor due consideration'. Fine. But how do you value each factor? Which factors deserve more consideration? That depends on your own set of values. Your own moral values...

That's why two men confronted to the same set of factors won't necessarily take the same decision. It is not because one is lazy, ignorant or stupid. It's because, for example, one man values personal freedom above family and the other weigh these thing inversely. No matter what you claim, you have such values, you have your own way of prioritizing things like freedom, friendship, personal comfort and security. So you are not amoral.

---

There were only 9 alignment. It's obvious you could get two LG in conflict. But if they are LG, they will use a Casus Belli and respect the rules of war.

In D&D 3.5, Good had a specific meaning. Everytime Good and Evil can be defined for the entire (campaign) world, you are talking of the very definition of moral absolutism. The DM would give the final word on this, there was leeway between different campaigns, but on a a given campaign with a given DM, there was a final word on what was Good; If you didn't adhere to your campaign world definition of Good, then you slipped to neutral or evil. That's absolutist.

 

[77IM]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who told their players, "Write whatever you want in the 'alignment' box, I don't care."

If it ever becomes an issue, the forces of the cosmos (i.e. me) will determine the player's alignment based on their past actions, not what they wrote on their character sheet. (For example, I had an evil mind-controlling artifact target the murderous rogue first, and not even bother trying to corrupt the virtuous paladin.)

-- 77IM

 

[Danceofmasks]

No matter what you claim, you have such values, you have your own way of prioritizing things like freedom, friendship, personal comfort and security.

And that's why I have nothing but disdain for humanity.
Statements such as "No matter what you claim, that child is human and therefore deserves to not suffer and die of dysentry."
It's your morality talking, here.

Yes, I can make decisions.

So can anything that thinks, from insects to a character in a video game.
Ants will do what ants do, because by behaving appropriately, the hive functions.
Machines will make decisions based on their programming, sure .. and should they choose an inappropriate act, regardless of cause (such as a faulty sensor or whatever), then they are broken.

Take a look around.
Humans are broken.
Every situation is a recipe for failure .. there wouldn't be drama otherwise.
And all because they make decisions based on values and how those values feel.

Yes, I'm claiming that humans are stupid, individually and collectively, because they fail at reason.
There is no such thing as right and wrong, only functional and disfunctional.

Look, there's a colony of army ants, wiping out everything in their vicinity and then ... they starve to death.
If you're going to claim they're acting according to their values of freedom, friendship, comfort, security ... values are irrelevant.
Take a snapshot of the future, and that is what their actions mean. And only that. It is not right, it is not wrong, it is simply action and consequence.

Quit insulting me by lumping me in with your crowd.
Take a look around, and tell me humans are functional. They are clearly not.
And if you're going to say I'm mentally ill if I don't have morals, I'm going to counter with humanity being mentally ill because they fail at functional.
Maybe, by definition, my actions can be considered relativism, but if that is the case, then a worker ant and a microwave oven are also relativists.
The definition is @#$%!ed.

 

[HeirToPendragon]

Dance you have morals, anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't realize that all those little inhibitions that we put on ourselves are, in fact, morals.

Morals are simply your guideline to what is right and wrong. Your conscious if you will. Societies ethics shape and create your morals, but your morals are yours alone.

Someone that is amoral is called a sociopath. Are you a sociopath Dance?

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, my shrink says so.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Any given dilemna is resolved by evaluating the components of the problem. You said as much your self.

The only proper way of making decisions is to give all factors due consideration

But how do you give proper consideration? The claim that you give proper consideration to these factors is non-sensical unless you have a set of values to gauge them by. Otherwise, you'd be indifferent to all the factors you are evaluating. Even if you claim that you are looking for functionality, you are making a judgement right there that this is the most important thing (not that it is of much help in lots of situations).

If you are offered a better paying and more stimulating job that takes you away from your family, do you take it? The answer depends on how much you value family vs career, companionship vs personal accomplishment.

If your best friend, to whom you owe a serious favor, needs you to lie to the authorities in order to get him out of trouble, do you do it? It depends on how much you value friendship, honor (always pay your debt), comfort (your risk much by lying), honesty etc.

A devout christian would tell you that the answers are in the bible. A moral relativist will tell you that it depends on the hierarchy of values you have internalized (culturally and personnally, through immersion and experience).

We all have our own hierarchy of values. That's why we can make choices. Without them we'd be paralyzed because we'd be indifferent to all outcomes. And that hierarchy, mr amoral, are your moral values. Unless you swear to me that you spend your life in your basement and that you have never made a choice in your life, you have moral values. Not the exact same as me or anybody else, but moral values nonetheless.