I miss CG

[ProfessorCirno]

I am so glad that alignment is back to its original intent - to give you a framework to imagine your characters overall world view, before you leave it behind and create their personality and actions.

I like playing D&D.

I don't like playing "your neutral good character wouldn't stab that tied up goblin in the head because he has good in his alignment descriptor. The fact that he was killed by goblins 10 days ago is irrelevant because he would see them as being like simple animals. He wakes up and can't cast druid spells any more because his god abandons him."

Heh, ironically, this kind of thinking is exactly what I and, I think, a few others are most afraid of. This idea of "My character can and should be able to do EVERYTHING!*"

If you go against your god's edicts, the god is going to say "Wait, what? Fine then, screw you, no God Juice for your ass." That's not a flaw in the system, nor is it - to cut it off pre-emptively - a strict "gamist" or "simulationist" outlook. It's how the world(s, if you want to be that way) work - what the gods give, the gods can and will take away, especially if they find you drifting from the party line. It's no different in politics, in work, in your every day social ramblings with other people, or in the way you catagorize your own thoughts.

*As opposed to characters being able to do anything, which is a different beast altogether.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I personally hope the Gods are less strict on alignment. I would like to see a God front itself as being good and lawful for example. With lots of Lawful Good Paladins who maintain order in a religious city-state.

However this same God empowers; ruthless, self-centred Evil assassins to do its dirty work in other various parts of the world. Against other Gods in their never ending, cosmology spanning tug-of-war with the minds and bodies of lesser beings.

 

[VannATLC]

Most Gods, from historical (fictional) example, and from rational extrapolation of a DND God's basic characterisations, will be more interested in generally promoting the things the like.. and quite likely to just accept the costs of it.

Gods are people too, mmmkay?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I personally hope the Gods are less strict on alignment. I would like to see a God front itself as being good and lawful for example. With lots of Lawful Good Paladins who maintain order in a religious city-state.

However this same God empowers; ruthless, self-centred Evil assassins to do its dirty work in other various parts of the world. Against other Gods in their never ending, cosmology spanning tug-of-war with the minds and bodies of lesser beings.

Well, what I'm getting at is, if your powers are granted by that tree-hugging hippy (have I mentioned I dislike rangers and druids?) god who promotes happy feelings and goodness, they're not gonna be too pleased when they come back from their most recent poker game to find you, the person they decided to throw some God Juice into, going around and being a merciless rat bastard in their name.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

If the actions the Druid (Rangers are no longer tied to a god)... Though then again, neither are Druids *coughs* anyways.

If the actions the god's (divine-class) has taken upon is serving the means of the god. I imagine it would probably give the (divine-class) a good talking too about keeping their association secret but to continue doing what it is doing.

I guess what I am saying is, I imagine gods like a political party. They put on a front to gain members, but those within the party know more about its dirty little secrets and are allowed to use what means there are to gain an advantage over other political parties.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If the actions the Druid (Rangers are no longer tied to a god)... Though then again, neither are Druids *coughs* anyways.

If the actions the god's (divine-class) has taken upon is serving the means of the god. I imagine it would probably give the (divine-class) a good talking too about keeping their association secret but to continue doing what it is doing.

I guess what I am saying is, I imagine gods like a political party. They put on a front to gain members, but those within the party know more about its dirty little secrets and are allowed to use what means there are to gain an advantage over other political parties.

Ah, but unlike a political party, a god can literally say "You know what? You're not with our group anymore" and then kick you out and take away your God Juice. Immidiately and with no paperwork, at that.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Ah, but unlike a political party, a god can literally say "You know what? You're not with our group anymore" and then kick you out and take away your God Juice. Immidiately and with no paperwork, at that.

Yes, but I think a god is smarter then that. So while that could happen on occasion. IF the person is still acting in the interests of that god. Then he could still serve and be given power from the god and begin doing more "behind-the-scenes" work.

I could see small groups of Clerics or Paladins who broke their codes or ethics they were first instilled with when joining that following. But still serve their god, working behind the scenes doing things like; assassinations, illegal holy excavations, hunting down beings that offended the god, politically/socially/economically taking down other churches in the city, etc.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes, but I think a god is smarter then that. So while that could happen on occasion. IF the person is still acting in the interests of that god. Then he could still serve and be given power from the god and begin doing more "behind-the-scenes" work.

I could see small groups of Clerics or Paladins who broke their codes or ethics they were first instilled with when joining that following. But still serve their god, working behind the scenes doing things like; assassinations, illegal holy excavations, hunting down beings that offended the god, politically/socially/economically taking down other churches in the city, etc.

But see, this isn't a political party, this is a god. Jeff the god of hippies has several thousand worshipers who he could pump up with his magic instead of you. Why keep you around?

Besides, again, the lawful good aligned god IS good. Doing the assassinations and such is something they literally cannot allow to happen in their hiearchy - that would mean the god is contradicting itself.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well thus why I put in my original post that I hope gods are less strict with alignment. So meant also the gods own. So while their behaviour/beliefs may swing towards Lawful Good (thus their alignment is LG) they are not bound by it, it is simply a dominant trait of their personality.

As for why keep those few around, well for the exact reason his existence as a follower comes into question. He has deviated from your prescribed views, as such you don't have to hide your actual means of gaining power from him.

 

[pemerton]

We aren't so much disagreeing here on terminology. You are drawing a hard line between Maxim and act whereas my readings of Kant always tended to give the impression Maxim and Act are one and the same at a certain level. For example, the Maxim: Humans must always be considered not a means but an end in themselves. This maxim is like a metatemplate for actions. All acts which consider humans as ends in themselves are Good, those which consider humans a means to an end are Evil (to use D&D terms). The Maxims are broad categories which could be broken down into individual self-contained Maxim/Action units. Similarly while it's probably me who is using the term wrongly Consequentialism is not what I was attempting to convey. I was moving from deontological rather than consequentialist reasoning. That the Alignment system of 3e/etc. were deontological absolutist systems in which the moral weight of the act is purely in the act not the results thereof.

OK, but how does one individuate acts? If not by their consequences, then by the intentions that generated and guided them, presumably.

To put it another way: both deontologists and consequentialilsts care about acts. But they differ in their criteria for act-individuation and hence act-evaluation: intention for deontologists, consequences for consequentialism.

The quality of individual actions having an objective, absolute, and quantifiable morality in themselves independent of intent does not preclude free will.

I don't really want to get into a discussion of free will. I'll just ask - if this moral quality is independent of the agent's intention, and is independent of the consequences that result from the action, then what does it depend upon?

To answer "the maxim" will not help. The maxim is simply a description of the action. I know how to describe actions by reference to agents' intentions. I know how to describe them by reference to their consequences. But what other description is available here?

I was responding to an argument from what seemed to be a primarily utilitarian view that objective ethics cannot be judged because there is no way to know their consequences.

Does "judging an objective ethics" mean working out whether or not it is true?

Anyway, there is no obvious contrast between consequentialism and moral objectivism. Most major consequentialists have been objectivists (J S Mill, Sidgwick, and on at least some interpretations Hare and Singer).

No arguing with you here in that such a simplification seriously cuts down on potential discord. I just hate to see such a full system, with such a unique basis and ideas go away. Especially when it's a system that can cause a game to spawn serious philosophical considerations on the nature of morality. And especially that its constraints and nature are so different than RL.

This I don't understand. Why not just have philosophical discussions about what is actually happening in the game. How does a nonsensical moral framework imposed by the game designers facilitate moral reflection?