Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ppaladin123" data-source="post: 4704712" data-attributes="member: 60923">From the perspective of a social scientist:Observers view the behavior of others and then attempt to categorize these others according to that behavior. They construct a typology that lends itself to prediction. The typology succeeds in as much as it allows consistent, accurate prediction. That in turn relies on constructing a typology in which variation within category is much lower than variation across categories. If several qualities are conflated by the typological categories then accuracy will be low. This is why the social construct of "race" as an ascriptive characteristic is not particularly useful for biologists; genetic variation within the proposed groups actually exceeds variation between said groups.Example:What will this person do in situation A? Well, we have classified him according to previous behavior as "lawful neutral," and statistically speaking 80% of those classified as "lawful neutral," have behaved in this way during previous trials. Let's see what he does.If the person does not behave the way the 80% do, we do not say that that person was not really lawful neutral. We continue to run studies to determine whether our 80% number continues to hold. Then we refine our categories using commonalities in the 20% to create a more accurate prediction mechanism. Perhaps we can create a typology that allows for 90% accuracy in prediction. We admit however that perfect prediction is not feasible because 1. categories are based on ideal types (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type" target="_blank">Ideal type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>) and 2. category membership is fluid.For an example of the difficulties of predicting behavior based on personality categorization, see the Meyers-Briggs temperment sorter:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Briggs#Criticism" target="_blank">Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>In short, categorization is a theoretical endeavor. We create the categories and assign others to them. Their category membership is not an intrinsic/inherent quality. For more information on that distinction, see the reification fallacy:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy</a>)Now in D&D we are placed in an interesting situation. As players and DMs the alignment system is the available theoretical construct for predicting character, NPC and monster behavior. When we read an adventure and see that Wulfgar is chaotic good, we form expectations as to how that character will behave in adventure. The problem is that the alignment categories are so vague, and there is so much variation within category, that the system does not provide much predictive power. Different authors/DMs/players mean such different things when they describe a character that knowing that character A is described as "chaotic neutral," by person Y tells us very little about her future actions (unless we create a meta-classification system based on how people use the alignment system).HOWEVER....in within game terms, alignment has become reified. What is for players/DMs a tool for predicting behavior is for in-game characters an inate characteristic because law/chaos and good/evil are literally built into the fabric of the universe. A character really is neutral good whether he knows it or not. Some spells hurt you if you are chaotic. Other spells detect you if you are good. Entire planes will refuse you entry if you do not match their alignment. You can be stript of your abilities for crossing categories (e.g. paladins and clerics). Suddenly what was simply a (lousy) way to for observers to predict behavior becomes extremely consequential to the well-being of the character. (Real World Equivalent: A virus that only targets lower middle class people!)What started out thus:observed behavior/characteristics------->alignment classication------->predictions about future behaviorbecomes this:innate nature ---->acts according to "real" alignment----->is a member of one of nine actual "teams."In theory this sort of reification leads to all kinds of silly semantic debates (see for example any debate on communism, capitalism or feudalism). When we begin to see our categories as "real," then we are no longer able to use them to effectively predict behavior and certainly can no longer critically evaluate them for the sake of improvment.Back to Rorschach. What is he? He is anything that the observer can use to predict his behavior.In one person's system he may be called, "chaotic neutral," according to a collection of traits and behaviors observed by that person.Another observer might call him, "scrupulous type IV," according to a different collection of traits and behaviors observed by that person.Who is right? That is not a question that can be answered because these are two separate typological systems. The correct question is to ask, "which system has more explanatory power?" I.e. which system predicts Rorshach's behavior most accurately. Unfortunately, often completely separate systems use the same words to describe categorizes. That's why we're all arguing about whether he is really lawful or truly good; we all have different taxonomies in mind but we continue to use the same four terms to describe our actually quite different categorization process.Now if two individuals can agree on a typology system, i.e. they can agree on the characteristics that sort observations into categories, they can have an interesting discussion about exactly where Rorschach fits. They might note that Rorschach seems to have many differences with others in the same category and decide to change the categorical system to reflect this.I am not however confident that we will ever all agree on that characteristics that sort someone into the d&d alignment taxonomy since they are abstract characteristics like, "kind" or "just," as opposed to concrete characteristics like, "eye color," or "posession of gene allele 4.3).In the end though, the debate is purely moot. Rorschach does not exist and will not be providing us with any future observations with which to test our respective taxonomies. And, a taxonomy provides little benefit if it does not exist to enhance predictive capacity.</blockquote>

Verification