Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is any one alignment intellectually superior?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2160880" data-attributes="member: 27012"><p>No, I don't think it clearly fits the alignment system as written. But I do think it suggests that what differentiates many moral responses is not an emotionless intellectual evaluation of the facts but the emotional response related to empathy. I think it is no mistake that one of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is a lack of empathy, not a low IQ.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unless you have any data to support that, your argument seems to be simply begging the question.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I forgot to put the opposite in my example. But, yes, I got that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And my anecdotal experience includes a lot of people who do play tangental characters. At least half the people in my regular group do this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I've role-played with people like that. There are certainly role-players with one or two archetypes that they almost always play. And I'll even agree that some were likely doing exactly what you describe. But I've also played with plenty of role-players who don't always play characters like that. What's normal? Unless you've played with tens of thousands of people, I'm not sure that either of us has role-played with a large enough sample size.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you've never met anyone who can play characters outside of a fairly narrow range of mindsets? I know of at least two approaches to playing a character that can produce those results. </p><p></p><p>I also know of at least one reason why some people who can probably don't. Many people have the same expectation that you do -- that a character provides some sort of window into the players psyche. It's kinda difficult to play a coldly ruthless sadist when you aren't if the person sitting across the table from you is going to assume that your character shows that you are really a coldly ruthless sadist inside. In fact, I tend to play characters that "get along" when I play with new groups simply to avoid player/character confusion, which is perhaps why your assumption that character choices are predictive of a player's psyche bothers me so much.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When they needed to pick someone to help put an American on the moon, did they pick someone who used slave labor to build rockets for the Nazis or a Nun? Or are you going to tell me about how inept and inefficient their rocket and jet engine programs were, too? Yes, there were plenty of problems there, too. But that didn't stop the Nazis from doing some things quite well, from making beautiful propaganda movies that are still considered influential today to building the first Volkswagen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What do you mean by "correct"?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You seem to be assuming that the morally correct position can be intellectually derived. I do not. And I think the evidence presented in that article as well as the behavior of sociopaths and shortcomings of utilitiaranism and moral relativism suggests that a position derived entirely from intellectual reasoning is often quite morally wrong because the factors that make one moral or immoral (in a Good or Evil sense) are not entirely rational.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Depending on the objective, the correct solution can be the immoral solution. You seem to want to argue that either the fact that the solution is correct automatically makes it moral or the fact that it is immoral automatically makes it incorrect. I disagree, because the factor that makes a course of action moral or immoral may have nothing to do with the reason why an action is correct or incorrect. If this were not the case, we would not have any moral dilemmas because the correct solution would always agree with the moral solution.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Claiming that no position is intellectually superior does not imply that there is no such thing as right and wrong. It may simply mean that right and wrong cannot be intellectually derived. There are plenty of examples of people who justify acts on sound utilitarian grounds who are still considered immoral. Why? Because an intellectual utilitarian assessment of the situation is not the only basis upon which people make moral decisions, nor it is even the primary basis.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know other people who can or do. I'll agree that I personally find it difficult to climb into the head of someone that I really don't like, but (A) I've done it for long games to understand the mindset and (B) not everyone plays characters over a long term in this hobby. Long campaigns are common but that's not the only way people play.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that's a very simplistic analysis of the Japanese. That's about all I can say without going into details that are sure to offend someone.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are assuming that the answer "None" means "alignment doesn't really have any meaning" or implies apathy. I don't think that several of the detailed responses say anything like that. Of course you can simply dismiss them as outliers or claim they are hiding their true feelings, but at what point are you really looking at the data and at what point are you simply forcing the data to fit your theory?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that some people can appreciate the Aztec art despite the fact that it treads on their emotional sensiblities and makes them feel revulsion is a triumph of intellect over emotion. Intellectually, the art is harmless and what it depicts is simply a representation. It's only through an emotional investment in what is being depicted and empathy for the victims being depicted that we feel any revulsion at all. Revulsion is not an intellectual response. It's an emotional response. Divested of an emotional response, Aztec art is technically superior to plenty of other art. To me, this is what seems self-evident.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Given that the same response can have many causes, I don't think that the response alone predicts anything. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Given how much of your argument is based on anecdotal evidence, simple assertion, and claims of self-evidence, I'm not really sure what you are expecting here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And if someone doesn't believe that Good is superior on utilitarian grounds but still believes that Good is superior, how does that fit into your theory?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is your claim that it's "typical" for people to run their own alignment or it's opposite or that its "typical" for people to explore the boundaries of their own alignment? The insight that Good people often don't enjoy playing Evil charactrers isn't all that profound.</p><p></p><p>Also note that I've played characters to explore other people's psyches and have had to psychoanalyze my own characters to understand what they were doing and feeling. It's not a matter of exploring boundaries so much as doing something to see how it plays out -- to see what sort of decisions a particular mindset or set of priorities produces. That I avoid Evil characters has little to do with my conscious self-identification and everything to do with that gut feeling of revulsion at what the characters are doing. I don't want to spend too much time with a character I don't like any more than I'd want to spend too much time with a real person that I don't like. But that doesn't mean that I can't climb inside of an Evil mind and do an effective job of playing it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I don't think I've ever seen that axis, which is why I don't place a lot of weigh on anecdotal evidence like this. Yes, I agree with the basic premise of your argument, which is that you can learn something about people from the characters they play and the alignments they pick but I don't think it falls into any single pattern. And once there are multiple reasons why people might make the same choices about characters or alignment, the ability to draw conclusions about a person from their choice is limited, if not non-existent. Your insights are certainly interesting but I think it's a stretch to make too many assumptions based on limited data like the responses to this question.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've never played with a group that self-identified as Evil. And I'm not sure that I'd want to.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 2160880, member: 27012"] No, I don't think it clearly fits the alignment system as written. But I do think it suggests that what differentiates many moral responses is not an emotionless intellectual evaluation of the facts but the emotional response related to empathy. I think it is no mistake that one of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is a lack of empathy, not a low IQ. Unless you have any data to support that, your argument seems to be simply begging the question. I forgot to put the opposite in my example. But, yes, I got that. And my anecdotal experience includes a lot of people who do play tangental characters. At least half the people in my regular group do this. Yes, I've role-played with people like that. There are certainly role-players with one or two archetypes that they almost always play. And I'll even agree that some were likely doing exactly what you describe. But I've also played with plenty of role-players who don't always play characters like that. What's normal? Unless you've played with tens of thousands of people, I'm not sure that either of us has role-played with a large enough sample size. So you've never met anyone who can play characters outside of a fairly narrow range of mindsets? I know of at least two approaches to playing a character that can produce those results. I also know of at least one reason why some people who can probably don't. Many people have the same expectation that you do -- that a character provides some sort of window into the players psyche. It's kinda difficult to play a coldly ruthless sadist when you aren't if the person sitting across the table from you is going to assume that your character shows that you are really a coldly ruthless sadist inside. In fact, I tend to play characters that "get along" when I play with new groups simply to avoid player/character confusion, which is perhaps why your assumption that character choices are predictive of a player's psyche bothers me so much. When they needed to pick someone to help put an American on the moon, did they pick someone who used slave labor to build rockets for the Nazis or a Nun? Or are you going to tell me about how inept and inefficient their rocket and jet engine programs were, too? Yes, there were plenty of problems there, too. But that didn't stop the Nazis from doing some things quite well, from making beautiful propaganda movies that are still considered influential today to building the first Volkswagen. What do you mean by "correct"? You seem to be assuming that the morally correct position can be intellectually derived. I do not. And I think the evidence presented in that article as well as the behavior of sociopaths and shortcomings of utilitiaranism and moral relativism suggests that a position derived entirely from intellectual reasoning is often quite morally wrong because the factors that make one moral or immoral (in a Good or Evil sense) are not entirely rational. Depending on the objective, the correct solution can be the immoral solution. You seem to want to argue that either the fact that the solution is correct automatically makes it moral or the fact that it is immoral automatically makes it incorrect. I disagree, because the factor that makes a course of action moral or immoral may have nothing to do with the reason why an action is correct or incorrect. If this were not the case, we would not have any moral dilemmas because the correct solution would always agree with the moral solution. Claiming that no position is intellectually superior does not imply that there is no such thing as right and wrong. It may simply mean that right and wrong cannot be intellectually derived. There are plenty of examples of people who justify acts on sound utilitarian grounds who are still considered immoral. Why? Because an intellectual utilitarian assessment of the situation is not the only basis upon which people make moral decisions, nor it is even the primary basis. I know other people who can or do. I'll agree that I personally find it difficult to climb into the head of someone that I really don't like, but (A) I've done it for long games to understand the mindset and (B) not everyone plays characters over a long term in this hobby. Long campaigns are common but that's not the only way people play. I think that's a very simplistic analysis of the Japanese. That's about all I can say without going into details that are sure to offend someone. You are assuming that the answer "None" means "alignment doesn't really have any meaning" or implies apathy. I don't think that several of the detailed responses say anything like that. Of course you can simply dismiss them as outliers or claim they are hiding their true feelings, but at what point are you really looking at the data and at what point are you simply forcing the data to fit your theory? And that some people can appreciate the Aztec art despite the fact that it treads on their emotional sensiblities and makes them feel revulsion is a triumph of intellect over emotion. Intellectually, the art is harmless and what it depicts is simply a representation. It's only through an emotional investment in what is being depicted and empathy for the victims being depicted that we feel any revulsion at all. Revulsion is not an intellectual response. It's an emotional response. Divested of an emotional response, Aztec art is technically superior to plenty of other art. To me, this is what seems self-evident. Given that the same response can have many causes, I don't think that the response alone predicts anything. Given how much of your argument is based on anecdotal evidence, simple assertion, and claims of self-evidence, I'm not really sure what you are expecting here. And if someone doesn't believe that Good is superior on utilitarian grounds but still believes that Good is superior, how does that fit into your theory? Is your claim that it's "typical" for people to run their own alignment or it's opposite or that its "typical" for people to explore the boundaries of their own alignment? The insight that Good people often don't enjoy playing Evil charactrers isn't all that profound. Also note that I've played characters to explore other people's psyches and have had to psychoanalyze my own characters to understand what they were doing and feeling. It's not a matter of exploring boundaries so much as doing something to see how it plays out -- to see what sort of decisions a particular mindset or set of priorities produces. That I avoid Evil characters has little to do with my conscious self-identification and everything to do with that gut feeling of revulsion at what the characters are doing. I don't want to spend too much time with a character I don't like any more than I'd want to spend too much time with a real person that I don't like. But that doesn't mean that I can't climb inside of an Evil mind and do an effective job of playing it. And I don't think I've ever seen that axis, which is why I don't place a lot of weigh on anecdotal evidence like this. Yes, I agree with the basic premise of your argument, which is that you can learn something about people from the characters they play and the alignments they pick but I don't think it falls into any single pattern. And once there are multiple reasons why people might make the same choices about characters or alignment, the ability to draw conclusions about a person from their choice is limited, if not non-existent. Your insights are certainly interesting but I think it's a stretch to make too many assumptions based on limited data like the responses to this question. I've never played with a group that self-identified as Evil. And I'm not sure that I'd want to. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is any one alignment intellectually superior?
Top