Is alignment really that rigid?

[hamishspence]

Not sure what point to be made is.

The distinction here is between Evil and Incorrect. One might say that an act is always evil regardless of context, yet still believe that the act was "the right thing to do" In that sense, describing an act as Always Evil is saying that it is Absolutely evil, without exception.

"Correct" doesn't necessarily mean "Good" Which is the point I was trying to make, that it is possible to make that distinction.

if "relativism" doesn't mean the belief that no act is good or evil out of context, what does it mean?

 

[Desdichado]

Well put.

No, it's not well put; it's both incorrect and in fact fairly insulting to suggest that anyone who doesn't want to use alignment wants to get rid of it for gamist advantage and no other reason.

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

None of those people are moral relativists, they just disagree on what the definitions of moral absoluteness.

Which is often the problem of players with D&D; they understand the difference between moral relativism and alignment, and they're trying to play with morality as an absolute, but they can't agree on whether or not a given action is truly Lawful or Good or something else, frequently.

Don't confuse moral relativism for confusion or disagreement about where absolutes lie.

 

[hamishspence]

Various D&D sources

Objective: an evil act is always an evil act regardless of context. Alignments are universal forces

Heroes of Horror: Behavioral alignment: alignments are codes of conduct or personality traits rather than overriding forces. Alignment entries are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules.

Relative alignment: Heroes of Horror p76 sidebar:
Nothing is absolute: Activities considered evil could be viewed as acceptable by some fantasy societies. It is literally impossible to define good or evil except on a case-by-case basis, that takes into account all cultural norms and background.

The Relative Approach (Variant): Book of Vile Darkness: Evil is a relative concept that is wholly dependant on the attitude of the observer. In the relative approach, evil is not something your character can point a finger at: it's realtive to each individual.

This is what D&D defines as "relative morality"

 

[Psion]

The distinction here is between Evil and Incorrect. One might say that an act is always evil regardless of context, yet still believe that the act was "the right thing to do"

No, I don't agree. There is no distinction. "Incorrect per objective moral theory" is pretty much "evil" when you are talking about alignment. If we were talking about correct or incorrect in some other context, I might see your point, but it's not something that anyone means. Certainly not anything I meant when I used the term correct. To be clear, when I said correct or incorrect in my prior post, I was speaking in terms of moral theory.

One can believe they "did the right thing" just like they can believe their coffee table is a beholder; in the context of the reality as it exists in D&D, merely having a belief doesn't make it correct.

if "relativism" doesn't mean the belief that no act is good or evil out of context, what does it mean?

It means that what is "good" or "evil" is purely a subjective judgment; there are no moral "facts". One person may take context into account another may not. But ultimately, it's irrelevant in determining what is "right" because there is no objective "right" under relativism.

Realism or objectivism (which is pretty much mutually exclusive with relativism) can take into account context. A realist moral theory CAN take into account context and still assert that there is a moral fact about the situation.

Only the subset of moral realist theories that might be called absolutist (by definition) have principles that aren't sensitive to context.

 

[Fenes]

In my game, I simplified the alignments some.

I defined good and evil as rather extremes. Good people are willing to sacrifice themselves for others, without any reward. Paladins are good. Clerics dedicated to "good" are good. Most others, even those fighting evil, are not good because they are not extreme enough.

Same for evil. People going out of their way to cause misery are evil, but those ruthlessly crushing anything in their path are not.

Lawful/Chaotic I rule as "More or less rigid set of principles the character acts according to".

Most people are neutral in that game - not good enough, not evil enough, not rigid/chaotic enough to be anything else.

Works well.

 

[hamishspence]

two standards

Using either individual or group based morality is problematic.

Totally individual-based: will not do an evil act, not even to save the lives of the many, could be summed up as "my moral status is more important than other people's lives."

Totally group based: needs of many outweigh needs of few: is a justification for anything to save lives, which can lead to atrocity. Example is the survivors issue: is it OK to murder someone to save the lives of the group? Again: extrapolated, can lead to anything being justifiable.

Morality should not be telescoped into one of the other, but both should be considered.

 

[Celebrim]

Using either individual or group based morality is problematic.

Depends on what you mean by 'problematic'. I think based on the context that you mean that two strong of commitment to either the individual or the group will make adhering to the principles generally considered 'good' to be difficult or impossible. In that, I think you are correct.

But highly individualistic or communal outlooks are not 'problematic' in the sense that they are internally coherent and certain people (or characters) do strive to live by them. So its not like they are nonsense even if we don't agree with them.

I think the answer to the conundrum you imply is that when someones commitment to the group or individual becomes much stronger than thier commitment to good, they've adopted a philosophy which - for whatever its merit - cannot be described in D&D terms as 'good'. Or in other words, strongly committing to a communal morality is 'Lawful' but not necessarily good, and strongly committing to an individual morality is 'Chaotic' but not necessarily good. In both cases you describe, I think that you are dealing with 'neutral' on the good/evil axis.

"Totally group based: needs of many outweigh needs of few: is a justification for anything to save lives, which can lead to atrocity. Example is the survivors issue: is it OK to murder someone to save the lives of the group? Again: extrapolated, can lead to anything being justifiable."

That could be anything from lawful neutral to lawful evil, depending on how readily and actively you choose to do evil. A lawful neutral philosophy might have a code of ethics which amounts to, "Repay good with good, but evil with evil." But if the 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' philosophy justifies, 'get them before they get you', this is probably more like lawful evil.

Totally individual-based: will not do an evil act, not even to save the lives of the many, could be summed up as "my moral status is more important than other people's lives."

That statement I found particularly interesting, because I think it twists things in a way I hadn't considered before. I haven't decided whether or not this is particularly lawful or particularly chaotic, and I think the reason is that you've not really provided enough information. When you talk about, "my holiness is more important than other people's lives", the first thing that comes to mind isn't highly individualist people, but people who are highly commited to some external legal code of behavior on which basis they believe that they will be judged. In particular, in D&D terms I think Sturm Brightblade and the other Knights of Solamnia who are doing thier best to adhere to the Oath and the Measure and everything else be damned. So I think the real question of what may be motivating the person is, "If I break these rules I've set for myself, I won't be able to live myself", or "If I break these rules dictated by right authority, I will lose honor in the eyes of others and be subject to censure". In some cases, it might be some of both - certainly Sturm seems to be conflicted in that way - which suggests a more neutral and less lawful outlook on life.

Morality should not be telescoped into one of the other, but both should be considered.

Sounds like a 'neutral good' position, though I wouldn't know for sure until you stated how you resolved the situation when the needs of the individual and the needs of the group were in conflict.

 

[Desdichado]

In particular, in D&D terms I think Sturm Brightblade and the other Knights of Solamnia who are doing thier best to adhere to the Oath and the Measure and everything else be damned. So I think the real question of what may be motivating the person is, "If I break these rules I've set for myself, I won't be able to live myself", or "If I break these rules dictated by right authority, I will lose honor in the eyes of others and be subject to censure". In some cases, it might be some of both - certainly Sturm seems to be conflicted in that way - which suggests a more neutral and less lawful outlook on life.

I've always thought that Sturm was a bit of a moral parable by Weis and Hickman using almost a parody of lawful (good?) in the Knights and contrasting them with Sturm who, under the influence of Tanis and Laurana learns to relax his lawfulness a bit.

In other words, I agree.

 

[hamishspence]

the exalted Deeds answer

The answer in Exalted deeds was that choosing to commit an evil act, even to save the lives of thousands, meant "a fundamental shift in the balance of the cosmos" and the morality should not be treated as a commodity to be sacrificed, not even for the lives of others.

However, this might not seem like a great way to resolve the problem to some: especially when taken to the "save the universe" level.

If I remember rightly: Kant held that lying was always evil and should never be done, not even if peoples lives are at stake. It is not too hard to think of ways in which this view might be argued against, from white lies, to spying, to lies when living under a tyranny, etc.

you can do the same with most acts.

At the same time, defining an act as not evil if done to save others, can lead to the justification of unpleasant things. E.g. in fantasy, sacrificing individuals to a monster to prevent it from razing the city.

So, my argument is: you cannot just chuck one or the other standard of judging things out: both standards must be used. the needs of the group, as well as more traditional moral views.

Which is why, at least according to Bernard Crick, in preface to The Discourses, Machiavelli used both standards, and did not simply throw one out, and writes that morally wrong acts can be excusable (but that does not make the acts any less morally wrong)

 

[hamishspence]

3rd ed vs 4th ed LG

In 3rd ed DMG, it gave examples of a town with both A LG and CE power center (CE the main one) and said the LG do not interfere with the CE one, but merely aid and abet their unfortunate victims.

In 4th ed PHB it stressed that LG chraracters actively oppose corrupt laws, but they prefer to work with the system if possible.

I think 4th ed places a higher priority than 3rd ed, on stressing that Being LG does not mean tolerating tyranny. In other words, LG rebels are more strongly supported in 4th ed.