Is alignment really that rigid?

[pemerton]

a 'character contract' should exist between the player(s) and the DM. It's a metagame agreement. Something that's settled outside the game.

The question isn't "what's moral"? D&D campaigns are woefully ill-equipped to answer that. The question should be "what kind of game do we want to play?" A rule system can't answer that

<snip>

People get caught up arguing alignment interpretations vis a vis their characters actions when they really should be discussing basic ground rules for the campaign; what constitutes acceptable in-game behavior.

Agreed.

Like I said, in my experience, the better the roleplayer the less likely it is that they are going to get outraged by in system support for a character contract.

<snip>

Typically the good players look at the in system support, and think something lequivalent to, "Cool. I would have created and abided by an implicit or explicit character contract anyway, so this is in no way a burden."

It depends on the in-system support. If the in-system "support" is a type of constraint on character development (which alignment, and some personality flaw systems, can be) I'm not such a big fan.

A system which rewards me for doing interesting things with my character's personality (eg my Loyalty trait gives a bonus to attack or defence when I'm fighting in pursuit of the cause) is a different matter.

My view of traditional D&D alignment is that it is too narrow a vision of human morality to be of any use in a game with any sort of modernist inclinations (which most D&D games have to a greater or lesser extent, in my experience). The games in which I've seen the most interesting character development and player commitment to that character development have been alignment-free, but have been set up so that that character development wouldn't come back and penalise the player (eg by requiring mechanically or plotwise sub-optimal choices).

Nobody really has any clue why they retained LG and CE, and nobody really knows why they axed the neutrals, the CG, and the LE (which is really bizarro because LE was one that stood out the most).

I'm not sure what your threshold for knowledge is - but I have a rational belief as to why they did this. They changed the alignment system from a failed attempt at a total moral classificatory scheme to a genre-appropriate attempt to label heroes and villains. "Lawful Good" is Galahad, "Good" is Robin Hood, "Evil" is the Sherrif of Nottingham and "Chaotic Evil" is Ungoliant.

 

[haakon1]

the argument about alignment was a proxy argument for, "I want to use my character as a game peice which helps me win the game. I don't want to have to have my roleplaying potentially impact my success in the game." Which if you think about it, is very similar to an alignment position itself.

Well put.

I think there's also a difference in player's attitudes towards the concept of Good/Evil in the real world.
--If you think these are Good/Evil are solid things with Absolute meanings, as people like Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, the Beowulf author, or Gygax did, alignment is a simple and obvious concept.
-- If you think Good/Evil are meaningless social constructs/you have a Relativist view ("the orc thinks he's good"), it's extraordinarily confusing.

 

[justinbot]

My biggest problem with alignment is just how prescriptive some people see it as being. Quotes from the DnD game I oveheard at a local game shop last week:


"Your character, wouldn't do that, he's lawful good."

"You have to help me, a good character would."

"You can't trust anything the warlord says, he's unaligned."

 

[haakon1]

"You have to help me, a good character would."

LOL. Somehow that's a perfect line for an Evil PC!

 

[pemerton]

If you think these are Good/Evil are solid things with Absolute meanings, as people like Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, the Beowulf author, or Gygax did, alignment is a simple and obvious concept.

Not necessarily. The Pope, George Bush, the Iranian clerical leadership and Al-Qa'ida's leadership group all share roughly the same absolutist moral metaphysics. I nevertheless suspect that they might get into alignment arguments at a game table (primarily over law/chaos, but also over good/evil).

I won't elaborate on account of the board anti-politics/religion rule, but I hope the point is pretty clear.

 

[haakon1]

Not necessarily. The Pope, George Bush, the Iranian clerical leadership and Al-Qa'ida's leadership group all share roughly the same absolutist moral metaphysics. I nevertheless suspect that they might get into alignment arguments at a game table (primarily over law/chaos, but also over good/evil).

I won't elaborate on account of the board anti-politics/religion rule, but I hope the point is pretty clear.

As I said, people who are moral relativists in the real world don't understand alignment in game.

 

[pemerton]

As I said, people who are moral relativists in the real world don't understand alignment in game.

If you think that the Pope, George Bush, the Iranian clerical leadership and Al-Qa'ida's leadership group are moral relativists, I'm not sure what you mean be "moral relativism".

 

[haakon1]

If you think that the Pope, George Bush, the Iranian clerical leadership and Al-Qa'ida's leadership group are moral relativists, I'm not sure what you mean be "moral relativism".

That's not what I meant.

I need to stop having this conversation now. Sorry.

I likely misunderstood what you were trying to say, but nevertheless . . . the don't discuss religion and politics rule is a good one here, I'd say.

 

[hamishspence]

Absolutism in belief and practice

In fiction novels at least, a person can believe an act is always evil, yet be willing to choose it over not doing it, and allowing evil to happen to people they value.

In this case, they are absolutist, in the sense of believing act is evil, yet consider it to be necessary to save others.

Forward to Machiavelli's The Discourses written by Bernard Crick (Penguin Classics, Leslie J Walker translation) went like this:

"There are times when it is necessary to do admittedly evil things"

"But if one is willing, then, he seems to say, for God and man's sake, recognize that what for the moment you are doing is evil, and do not fall into calling it good"

True moral relativism would be that all acts depend entirely on context, and any act can be good if context fits. Which is not a common view.

 

[Psion]

True moral relativism would be that all acts depend entirely on context, and any act can be good if context fits.

That's incorrect; that's not moral relativism. According to relativist moral theories, no act can be considered to be objectively correct at all, regardless of context.

Moral realist/objectivist theories may or may not factor in circumstances. Absolutism (improperly used in this thread, as most alignment threads, in regards to philosophy terminology) refers to theories that regards some acts or agents as incorrect regardless of context. But absence of this does not make the theory relativist. One can hold that there are universal moral truths and still take context into account in objectivist theory that are not considered absolutist.

[/philosophy 101 lesson]