D&D General Rethinking alignment yet again

[Kinematics]

Loyalty is considered a virtue in tribal and feudal societies, sometimes as the most important virtue. But, there are belief systems that consider loyalty one of the great vices of the world and the source of much that is wrong with it, because they believe what loyalty really is is putting glitter on the ideas of self-denial and irrationality.

I feel like we might be talking a bit at cross-purposes here. While I did answer that loyalty would almost always been seen as a virtue, the issue of how often that's the case, and by whom, isn't really the point. The point was that a culture (orcs in this case) specifically treats it as a core virtue, and thus it doesn't matter if gnolls, for example, don't treat it as a virtue. It's not being used to describe the gnoll virtue compass. It's about what a given culture views as valuable, virtuous, and something to aspire to.

 

[Celebrim]

I feel like we might be talking a bit at cross-purposes here. While I did answer that loyalty would almost always been seen as a virtue, the issue of how often that's the case, and by whom, isn't really the point. The point was that a culture (orcs in this case) specifically treats it as a core virtue, and thus it doesn't matter if gnolls, for example, don't treat it as a virtue. It's not being used to describe the gnoll virtue compass. It's about what a given culture views as valuable, virtuous, and something to aspire to.

Sure. But that a lawful evil feudal/tribal military hierarchy values loyalty as a core virtue isn't particularly surprising, nor is it surprising that the gnolls - minion worshipers of a Chaotic Evil demon lord - don't value loyalty as a core virtue and instead are encouraged to betray others out of ambitious self-interest.

On the other hand, if he Orcs are traditionally depicted as Chaotic Evil (and they are) it would be really surprising if they valued loyalty as a core virtue, and your newly described Orc culture would either be very different than described orc culture or else the writers of flavor text for orcs were very bad at imagining an Chaotic Evil society (which in D&D is indeed a thing).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, that's possible. Yes you could be on Team Evil even if (and some might say especially if) you thought yourself as Good. Just because you think you are Team Good doesn't mean you are, and you already seem to believe and understand that because you are willing to pass moral judgment on others. So clearly you aren't saying that it doesn't matter what you believe, everyone is equally correct.

And as such that doesn't contradict what I said.

I can hardly prove that me finding someone's behaviour abhorrent is any sort of objective standard. And people disagree, and we will never have an agreement. What Gygax called "good" I'd call "evil". This is not an useful system.

In addition to what you said, it's also possible to believe that you are on Team Evil and you are morally right and correct. It's not as common, but it definitely happens. So even if you could prove to gnolls that they were somehow objectively on Team Evil (say you cast Detect Evil on them), it doesn't mean that they'd immediately concede that they were in the wrong or even that they'd be discomforted by this revelation. They'd laugh and say something like, "Well yes, but we live in a world governed by survival of the fittest and those that don't believe that are irrational and in denial of the reality of the world. So we are going to kill you, eat you, and enjoy that. And all your pretense that you are better than us is just self-delusion." And that's not that different than what many real people believe.

But certainly the spell doesn't actually produce words "evil" to the observers in the setting? It produces certain sort of feeling that the paladin has been taught to associate with "evil". But perhaps the gnoll priests associate the same felling with "strength" and the one which the paladin labels as "good" the gnolls call "weakness" etc?

 

[Maxperson]

I can hardly prove that me finding someone's behaviour abhorrent is any sort of objective standard. And people disagree, and we will never have an agreement. What Gygax called "good" I'd call "evil". This is not an useful system.

What Gygax called good was different from what Gygax ruled as good for his game. The alignment system in the 1e books doesn't allow for paladins to convert an evil creature through force and then murder it to keep it from backsliding, and be a good act. Gygax did allow that.

The system is useful, even if how Gygax ran it for his game isn't.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I agree with this but the problem is that if Law and Good and Chaos and Evil are all "cosmic forces" then they really can't be personality descriptors too.

The fundamental flaw with alignment IMO is taking something that was intended to be "what side are you on" (i.e. who are you aligned with) and turning into "here's a two word description of your character's personality". The same concept can be both in certain limited cases but it constrains the world building IMO too much to require that it do that double duty.

(I thread that needle by making alignment just about "what side are you on" and leave the personality descriptors off the table. And then only use it in campaigns where the sides you're on in the cosmic battle actually makes sense and will have game ramifications and not just be a thing on the character sheet. Unsatisfying to some, but it works well IMO and my players prefer it over using alignment as a summary of their character's personality).

I do the opposite - "chaotic" is a personality trait, similar to "whimsical." And I give the words on the character about the same mechanical weight.

Although I do imagine there's a rare spell called protection from whimsy that specifically blocks gnomes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Is it though? Almost universally people and organisations see themselves as good and their causes as reasonable and righteous. No matter how horrible their aims and deeds actually are.

Hell, Gygax himself labels genocidal war criminals and slavers as good! The entire basis of the alignment system is rotten from the foundation.

Team Evil is just goths.

(The modern kind, not the Germanic tribe, although you can blend them if you like.)

 

[Celebrim]

I can hardly prove that me finding someone's behaviour abhorrent is any sort of objective standard. And people disagree, and we will never have an agreement. What Gygax called "good" I'd call "evil".

Ok, now you aren't even advancing an internally coherent standard. If you really believed the first two sentences, you'd never advance the third one. In the first two you claim that you can't identify what good or evil is. And then you can conclude by claiming you can and can judge others by your standard. This is barely worthy of a rebuttal.

But certainly the spell doesn't actually produce words "evil" to the observers in the setting?

Why not? I mean I don't think my argument would change one way or the other. Why does this objection actually matter? Let's say we have a world where we can objectively qualify things like hatred, greed, wrath, deceit, and pride as Evil. Does that mean that few people would openly advocate for those things being virtues and the correct guide for living life? Of course not. Heck, there is a long history of players advancing arguments that Team Evil in the D&D universe is the correct team to play for, so why wouldn't they also in universe?

It produces certain sort of feeling that the paladin has been taught to associate with "evil". But perhaps the gnoll priests associate the same felling with "strength" and the one which the paladin labels as "good" the gnolls call "weakness" etc?

And I've already addressed that issue. Almost certainly what the Paladin calls good, the gnolls think is wrong and what the Paladin calls evil the gnolls think is good. So what? Not only does this disagreement not mean that things are subjective or incoherent, it doesn't even produce a difficult observer problem. We can as an observer see the two things each side points at and agree that the two things exist and both sides agree that they exist and can even describe them accurately only disagree over which is preferable and valuable as a life standard. Nothing about the disagreement prevents us from deciding whether we believe morality should have an external source or is a personal choice, or whether mercy and compassion are virtues or vices, or whether telling truth is better than telling lies, or whatever the two disagree over.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, now you aren't even advancing an internally coherent standard. If you really believed the first two sentences, you'd never advance the third one. In the first two you claim that you can't identify what good or evil is. And then you can conclude by claiming you can and can judge others by your standard. This is barely worthy of a rebuttal.

Welcome to reality? This is how morality actually works. People have opinions about it, no one can prove they're "objectively correct." This doesn't stop people expressing their moral opinions. There is nothing incoherent about it, that's how this stuff actually works.

Why not? I mean I don't think my argument would change one way or the other. Why does this objection actually matter? Let's say we have a world where we can objectively qualify things like hatred, greed, wrath, deceit, and pride as Evil. Does that mean that few people would openly advocate for those things being virtues and the correct guide for living life? Of course not. Heck, there is a long history of players advancing arguments that Team Evil in the D&D universe is the correct team to play for, so why wouldn't they also in universe?

Because "evil" has an actual real world connotation. Sure, we can label one team that, and probably in such world where this was done it would lose it's real world connotation. But then people would just develop other words to mean their subjective understanding of evil.

And I've already addressed that issue. Almost certainly what the Paladin calls good, the gnolls think is wrong and what the Paladin calls evil the gnolls think is good. So what? Not only does this disagreement not mean that things or subjective or incoherent, it doesn't even produce a difficult observer problem. We can as an observer see the two things each side points at and agree that the two things exist and both sides agree that they exist and can even describe them accurately only disagree over which is preferable and valuable as a life standard. Nothing about the disagreement prevents us from deciding whether we believe morality should have an external source or is a personal choice, or whether mercy and compassion are virtues or vices, or whether telling truth is better than telling lies, or whatever the two disagree over.

Yes, they could agree that different categories objectively exist. They wouldn't agree what those categories mean. They would just be red, blue and purple teams.

Also thankfully in modern D&D alignment detection spells don't exist, so we don't have to deal with this nonsense at all.

 

[Celebrim]

Welcome to reality?

On the contrary, you seem to be under a strange delusion.

This is how morality actually works.

Is it? Many people seem to disagree. But perhaps more to the point, your behavior indicates you disagree with yourself. You seem to claim that you know morality is subjective and that you know there is no such thing as objective morality. But, yet, despite claiming that you know that, you don't act like you believe it. If you really thought that morality was subjective, you'd treat questions like whether it was appropriate to murder your neighbor the same as questions like whether you prefer vanilla to chocolate.

This doesn't stop people expressing their moral opinions.

Yes, but the vast majority of people that express their moral beliefs do think that they are objectively correct. That is to say that for example they do believe it is objectively wrong to murder your neighbor. Whether or not they can prove that to you or to someone else is irrelevant. They believe it to be objective fact of the same sort as 1+1=2 or that the sun revolves around the Earth, which they probably can't prove to everyone's satisfaction either. And that's why they would tell you not to murder your neighbor and judge you for doing so. But you are saying that in reality you don't think any of this morality stuff is objective fact, even your own opinions. So why do you bother to argue about it or care particularly about what others believe about it? They aren't necessarily acting incoherently, but you are.

All I'm saying is live what you believe. If you really believe mortality is subjective, then act like it. Merely believing that morality is objective but you can't prove your particular point of view, perhaps because you lack the skill or perhaps because your audience are idiots, is a different thing that suggesting it's subjective.

Yes, they could agree that different categories objectively exist. They wouldn't agree what those categories mean.

Oh, they could agree even on what they mean I think. What they wouldn't agree on is which one you are right to believe. For example, they could agree that you believe in mercy and that they do not. They could agree that Team Good generally believed in mercy while Team Evil did not. But what you can't then prove (to use your word) is whether it is better to believe that mercy is a virtue or a vice. And so whether they had alignment spells or not, they couldn't agree who was right or wrong. For that matter, there is enough nuance and diversity over how to best accomplish what is desirable and correct that not even two members of Team Lawful Good would necessarily agree on every particular. And certainly, when you get to the level of Team Lawful Evil, then the expectation is fascist Tribe B could be fully at war with fascist Tribe C even with no disagreement other than, "In the end, there can be only one."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On the contrary, you seem to be under a strange delusion.

Is it? Many people seem to disagree. But perhaps more to the point, your behavior indicates you disagree with yourself. You seem to claim that you know morality is subjective and that you know there is no such thing as objective morality. But, yet, despite claiming that you know that, you don't act like you believe it. If you really thought that morality was subjective, you'd treat questions like whether it was appropriate to murder your neighbor the same as questions like whether you prefer vanilla to chocolate.

Yes, but the vast majority of people that express their moral beliefs do think that they are objectively correct. That is to say that for example they do believe it is objectively wrong to murder your neighbor. Whether or not they can prove that to you or to someone else is irrelevant. They believe it to be objective fact of the same sort as 1+1=2 or that the sun revolves around the Earth, which they probably can't prove to everyone's satisfaction either. And that's why they would tell you not to murder your neighbor and judge you for doing so. But you are saying that in reality you don't think any of this morality stuff is objective fact, even your own opinions. So why do you bother to argue about it or care particularly about what others believe about it? They aren't necessarily acting incoherently, but you are.

All I'm saying is live what you believe. If you really believe mortality is subjective, then act like it. Merely believing that morality is objective but you can't prove your particular point of view, perhaps because you lack the skill or perhaps because your audience are idiots, is a different thing that suggesting it's subjective.

I said one cannot prove objective morality. Whether something you cannot prove actually exists in some unreachable platonic idea realm is of little consequence. But ultimately we all have our moral instincts upon which we build our moral frameworks. But if someone doesn't agree with our axioms then we really cannot prove those to them. That's just how it is. And no, I don't think this unfortunate imperfection means one should stop arguing for positions one sees as moral. Morality is a social construct, and we all need to live in societies governed by such social constructs. So it makes plenty of sense to participate in building of that construct.

Oh, they could agree even on what they mean I think. What they wouldn't agree on is which one you are right to believe. For example, they could agree that you believe in mercy and that they do not. They could agree that Team Good generally believed in mercy while Team Evil did not. But what you can't then prove (to use your word) is whether it is better to believe that mercy is a virtue or a vice. And so whether they had alignment spells or not, they couldn't agree who was right or wrong. For that matter, there is enough nuance and diversity over how to best accomplish what is desirable and correct that not even two members of Team Lawful Good would necessarily agree on every particular. And certainly, when you get to the level of Team Lawful Evil, then the expectation is fascist Tribe B could be fully at war with fascist Tribe C even with no disagreement other than, "In the end, there can be only one."

Right. So they don't agree whether "Good" is good and whether "Evil" is evil, or perhaps other way around.