Theories of Alignment

[JusticeZero]

I've noticed a trend in alignment discussions. Specifically, there are at least two core theories of how alignments WORK. Those theories are irreconcilable with each other, but each one is coherent.

Because these two stances disagree on a very fundamental assumption, and because most moral questions have some ambiguity to them, the debate between the two is completely impossible to resolve. In all of the complex questions, you have to sacrifice either validity or reliability; there is no simple theory of morality that covers all cases in a way that satisfies everyone. If you sacrifice validity, you will have to accept that some of the quirkier results of the alignment system seem absurd. If you sacrifice reliability, then actions will have different effects on alignment depending on the context, and some of the actors in the setting will wander out into alignments very different from where they are traditionally expected to be.

"There are as many as sixty spices in this meal, and I have no idea where some of them might fall on the alignment spectrum." - Vaarsuvius
First, you have the Physicalist interpretation. This theory states that the alignment system is integral to the physics of the game universe, and the principles that they run on are fixed and concrete. Because they are rigid, it is possible, indeed likely, that some things that are necessary and helpful will end up flagged with alignments that don't represent that actor as a whole.
Some of the things that ping as "Evil" are really nice and helpful, and some things that ping as "Good" are reprehensible. And that's OK. Some people just have to deal with the fact that in spite of being a great person, very nice and charitable, their necessary career choices are going to condemn them to hide from paladins. Other people need to deal with the fact that that glowingly bright holy guy who casually channels the powers of light and holiness might actually be a vile villain who knows how to game the system.
In theoretical terms, the alignment system preserves reliability, but sacrifices validity. The results are predictable, but sometimes seem a bit wonky.

"We were once so close to Heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals proclaiming us 'The nicest of the damned'." - They might be Giants
Second, you have the Ambivalist interpretation. In this view, Good is undeniably Good, by the spirit of the law; Evil is Evil. Most everything has some moral vagueness, so perfect Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos are actually impossible to reach in practice. If you got a large number of people from different backgrounds to judge things, most of them would call Good things Good, Evil things Evil, and so on. On things that people find more open to debate, they fall into Neutral. The actual boundary between Neutral and any non-neutral alignment is foggy and probably best seen as a spectrum.
However, everything has free will. Even demons can do Good things, and can indeed so so much good that they drift through Neutral into Good territory. Detection effects are perfect judges of character. If a devil protests that they aren't evil, check their alignment. They might actually be good. If something DOES ping as Evil, a Good character can smite them at will, because the morality has already been worked out. This means that things that are casually thrown out like "Always evil" are in question.
In theoretical terms, the system preserves validity, but sacrifices reliability. The results are dramatically different in different places and situations depending on how each situation played out, but they always make sense.


All of the alignment debates I remember seeing have come down to these two camps, when in fact it is probably easier to just say "In this setting, alignment is Ambivalist", or "This setting is Physicalist in nature"; once you know which theory is in play, everything else snaps into place.

Thoughts? Am I missing any other major theoretical constructions that people are actually using? Obviously, this isn't the place for people who hold those two theories to start jousting with each other.

[AMFV]

As with anything that takes viewpoints and transforms them into simplified versions. This is vastly over simplified. It is certainly possible to hold both viewpoints, simultaneously, or hold something very close to both. From what I can tell the difference is between people who are not objective moralists in real life, trying to analyze D&D morals. Because without getting into real world morality, I believe morality is like a consistent predictable thing. I don't think it varies; not ever.

So the problem is that you're oversimplifying. One can argue that Good is Good and is fundamental to the nature of the Universe. Furthermore I have yet to see something that is undeniably evil explained as a "good thing" or the reverse, which is only the "I Kill a Redeemed Fiend" scenario, and that one is based off something that is explicitly NOT rules text, but suggested rules text.

[White Blade]

Well, I think there are a lot of things wrong here. There is no reason to assume that everyone an ambivalist would label as evil deserves to be killed.

The assumption of your descriptions seems to be, "The only way to deal with ambiguity within the system is to make people who are actually, IRL good people evil under the system" where I always subscribed to Keith Baker's method, "Lots of people are evil, but ain't all of them terrible". So Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are equally common. Joe Jerkface abuses his wife and lies on his tax return but doesn't deserve to have a crossbow bolt put between his eyes. He might even be a valuable ally and someone we could all stomach getting on with, but nobody is gonna be like, "You know, Joe is a swell guy, let's set him up with my daughter" because that's dumb. Joe is a Jerkface. Right there in the name.

I also agree with AMFV: IRL Moral Objectivists are pretty much always confused by the assertion that you can't get an alignment system that works. "But not everybody will agree" is a completely irrelevant question about morality. Besides which, most often a more accurate phrase would be, "Not everybody will agree about how bad this is" not about whether or not it is bad.

Look, we found the evil no win situation of doom! Okay, firstly, you probably haven't. Ethics is like theoretical physics. But lets imagine you end up here, you unfortunate schmuck, and make this happen at the table. If the table can't all agree about whether the action is evil, chuck it in the neutral bin and move on.

As far as alignment for people goes I divide things up like this:
Good characters are looking out for what is best for everybody.
Neutral characters are looking out for themselves without crushing anybody else
Evil characters are just looking out for themselves (and their group, depending on where they are on the scale)

[JusticeZero]

That's a very Ambivalist response. Certainly at the extremes there is no real doubt; someone who robs from the poor is doing something evil. Nobody is going to argue that the emperess who bathes in the blood of infants every day in hopes of retaining her beauty is committing evil. But then you look at say, a repo man whose job it is to repossess things from people to resolve contracts - they are stealing things, and there can be some ambivalence in the exact situations. It's the parts where things are hazy that is being referred to here.
The fact of the matter is that this is simply a response to the fact that all of the responses in alignment disputes seem to fall into one of the two camps, and then those two camps argue bitterly.

[AMFV]

That's a very Ambivalist response. Certainly at the extremes there is no real doubt; someone who robs from the poor is doing something evil. Nobody is going to argue that the emperess who bathes in the blood of infants every day in hopes of retaining her beauty is committing evil. But then you look at say, a repo man whose job it is to repossess things from people to resolve contracts - they are stealing things, and there can be some ambivalence in the exact situations. It's the parts where things are hazy that is being referred to here.

And there's your problem. You're describing moral relativism. For a moral objectivist, there never is any ambivalence to morality. A Repo Man is not stealing anything, he's fulfilling a contract. It's not theft if they put their property up as a contractual obligation. Again, there no hazy parts, in D&D and in objective morality, things that are wrong are always wrong, regardless of opinion or subjective reasoning. Things that are right are always right.

Edit: Furthermore I disagree with your two positions still. There are significantly more complex viewpoints than that, and as I've pointed out there people who believe that in the real world morality is like a physical entity, and I'm not sure why you can't or won't understand that. I believe that way. And I can understand that you believe differently. And my viewpoint is that most alignment debates are between people who are generally predisposed to moral objectivism and those who are predisposed to moral relativism. Relativists tend to despise D&D's alignment system, since it is objectivist, and objectivists tend to see no problem with it, since it matches their philosophy, which is usually where alignment threads break down.

Furthermore I don't believe that you can't present me with a situation that is morally ambivalent, at least not in any real sense, now there are situations where the right course of action isn't readily apparent, but it never wavers, and intent has nothing to do with it.

[JusticeZero]

The issue is that people will often say that they believe in absolute morality, but when examined, they are adding in a lot of fiddly moving parts and objections to mediate the exceptions.
"Do Not Kill. Animals and bugs are okay. So is self defense. Or to protect others, Or in wartime. Or in some other cases where there are some odd supporting circumstances. Or.."
Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone. However, there are a lot of cases where two groups of do-gooders who are trying very hard to be Good are in bitter conflict with each other.
The system itself has a lot of bits that are hard to resolve in it. Then people argue over those bits. Are there creatures that are always evil? Why? Do they have any ability to affect their own behavior? If they do, are they still evil? How about spells with the <evil> tag? Or channeling energy? Why can't a villainous priest of a neutral god channel positive energy? All these things start a whole lot of debate, because it can involve mechanical things.

Both of the theories presented are defining absolute moral systems when dealing with disputable areas.

[AMFV]

The issue is that people will often say that they believe in absolute morality, but when examined, they are adding in a lot of fiddly moving parts and objections to mediate the exceptions.
"Do Not Kill. Animals and bugs are okay. So is self defense. Or to protect others, Or in wartime. Or in some other cases where there are some odd supporting circumstances. Or.."

There are very few moral systems that do contain some exceptions, but exceptions don't turn morality relative. But it's still the actions itself that define things.

For example: "Do not kill" is an extremely rare moral prohibition. I only know of one religion that has that prohibition. "Do not murder" is fairly common, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the two since people often do. In any case you are now VERY firmly in real world morality, which we can't discuss, if you'd like I'll discuss this over PM, I don't mind discussing real world morality, but for obvious reasons I can't discuss it here.

Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone. However, there are a lot of cases where two groups of do-gooders who are trying very hard to be Good are in bitter conflict with each other.

As was said in the previous thread on alignment, just because Morality is absolute does NOT mean that one cannot have a bad idea or be wrong about morality. There is only one correct morality, but not everybody is correct about it.

The system itself has a lot of bits that are hard to resolve in it. Then people argue over those bits. Are there creatures that are always evil? Why? Do they have any ability to affect their own behavior? If they do, are they still evil? How about spells with the <evil> tag? Or channeling energy? Why can't a villainous priest of a neutral god channel positive energy? All these things start a whole lot of debate, because it can involve mechanical things.

Both of the theories presented are defining absolute moral systems when dealing with disputable areas.

What bits are hard to resolve? There are no creatures that are always 100% evil, as we've been presented with exceptions to many of them, for example the Succubus Paladin. So we know that all beings can be redeemed, because of Asmodus we know that all beings can fall. Evil beings can only channel evil energy because the energy itself is affected by their alignment.

[LudicSavant]

Two things.

1) The main problem with alignment debates is that the PHB does not actually define what different alignments mean in a fashion that has true definitional value, yet people act as if it did. Heck, one of the PHB examples of a "chaotic" action is almost identical to one of their "lawful" actions except that the term "discipline" got replaced with "art." Right, okay PHB, thanks for clearing that up.

A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there.

The argument of "what alignment is act/person/whatever X" is akin to the ongoing philosophical argument as to whether "when a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To a serious philosopher, the answer is obvious. However, despite the answer being obvious, the "classic" question is still taken seriously by some people who didn't get the memo, and still causes pointless debates today.

The obvious answer is thus: The two sides answering "yes" and "no" and eternally going at each others' throats aren't actually arguing about the same thing. One side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sonic vibration?" and correctly concluding yes. The other side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does anyone experience an auditory sensation?" and correctly concluding no. The argument is thus a false one: Both sides would probably agree on the answers of the two questions I just listed, but they won't agree on the original question because they don't realize that they haven't properly defined the question.

D&D 3.5e alignment arguments are generally the same way: People are really asking different questions (like "is this action defying the laws of the land" or "is this action organized" or "is this action rational" or any of a thousand other questions), because they have totally different definitions of what each alignment means, yet are treating the discussion as if they're answering the same questions.

The way the PHB defines alignments, you could define any action as being both a paragon of Law and Chaos. Without adding our own definitions, the tags simply don't functionally differentiate themselves from each other. The problem isn't that it's wrong to add any given definition, it's that people act like their definition is actually the one in the PHB.


2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore. It's one of those things that people who haven't done any of the reading talk about as if it were a profound insight... like people who decidedly aren't quantum physicists talking about how quantum physics denies basic rules of logic (hint: it doesn't) and use it as a basis for mystical thinking.

Then, they claim that morality is absolute, but disagree with other people who also think that morality is absolute. If morality were "absolute", it would be absolutely the same for everyone.

If this actually posed an issue, one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion. Your statements do not actually poke holes in the idea of absolute morality, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

[JusticeZero]

There are no creatures that are always 100% evil, as we've been presented with exceptions to many of them, for example the Succubus Paladin. So we know that all beings can be redeemed, because of Asmodus we know that all beings can fall.

Which is the core demonstration of ambivalism in a nutshell. That is, 'There are absolutes for the alignments; things that are borderline get chunked into Neutral, and entities can make choices to become other alignments regardless of metaphysical lockdown." Your posts just described one of the stances I defined.

Evil beings can only channel evil energy because the energy itself is affected by their alignment.

That position is highly debated. Lots of people say that negative and positive energy is just energy. I'm not among them, by the way. If an entity is only able to use negative energy, can they go good acts with it? Sure, it's harder to find the opportunities to..

[AMFV]

Two things.

1) The main problem with alignment debates is that the PHB does not actually define what different alignments mean in a fashion that has true definitional value, yet people act as if it did. Heck, one of the PHB examples of a "chaotic" action is almost identical to one of their "lawful" actions except that the term "discipline" got replaced with "art." Right, okay PHB, thanks for clearing that up.

Which is why we discuss different actions in terms of their value as compared to actions that have known moral components.

The argument of "what alignment is act/person/whatever X" is akin to the ongoing philosophical argument as to whether "when a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?" To a serious philosopher, the answer is obvious. However, despite the answer being obvious, the "classic" question is still taken seriously by some people who didn't get the memo, and still causes pointless debates today.

To a serious philosopher NO answer is ever really obvious. An obvious answer generally means that you've overlooked something. Furthermore there is some pretty heavy discussion on exactly those basic philosophy precepts to this date.

The obvious answer is thus: The two sides answering "yes" and "no" and eternally going at each others' throats aren't actually arguing about the same thing. One side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sonic vibration?" and correctly concluding yes. The other side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does anyone experience an auditory sensation?" and correctly concluding no. The argument is thus a false one: Both sides would probably agree on the answers of the two questions I just listed, but they won't agree on the original question because they don't realize that they haven't properly defined the question.

But what is an auditory sensation? We can certainly imagine one would have occurred, and when one imagines an experience one replicates in part that experience, so then by thinking about a tree falling, I'm experiencing in part that sensation. Now I might not believe that but in Philosophy nothing is ever as simple. Also you didn't define anyone, does that include animals? Does that include trees? I mean they certainly experience the effects of the sound waves, as do rocks.

D&D 3.5e alignment arguments are generally the same way: People are really asking different questions (like "is this action defying the laws of the land" or "is this action organized" or "is this action rational" or any of a thousand other questions), because they have totally different definitions of what each alignment means, yet are treating the discussion as if they're answering the same questions.

Well the laws of the land explicitly don't matter to lawful. Rationalism isn't particularly relevant, as can be indicated by things that are produced later. The question must be asked in terms of defining actions which are presented in many books that come later. For example we know that Slavery is lawful, because the PHB defines it so, and because later sources collude this, that's how we can determine.

The way the PHB defines alignments, you could define any action as being both a paragon of Law and Chaos. Without adding our own definitions, the tags simply don't functionally differentiate themselves from each other. The problem isn't that it's wrong to add any given definition, it's that people act like their definition is actually the one in the PHB.

However the problem is that many sources were added later that did answer many of those questions. And it's pretty easy when examining more sources than the PHB to make reasonable conclusions about those facts.

2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore. It's one of those things that people who haven't done any of the reading talk about as if it were a profound insight... like people who decidedly aren't quantum physicists talking about how quantum physics denies basic rules of logic (hint: it doesn't) and use it as a basis for mystical thinking.

Now you've hit my serious grumpy button, you've come in here and acted as though you were the authority on philosophy while heavily oversimplifying things and talking down to those of us with different views, and now you are implying that we don't have enough of a scholarship to discuss this. Moral Relativism is a viewpoint, when viewed by those who believe in moral Absolutism, just because it isn't a unified philosophy (and relativism shouldn't be) doesn't mean it doesn't describe specific philosophies.

There are also absolute philosophies, most of them religious in nature. For example certain religious people believe that eating certain foods make you unclean regardless of the circumstances and would prefer death to that, death is preferable, that's absolutism.

By this "logic," one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion.

Here I agree.

[LudicSavant]

To a serious philosopher NO answer is ever really obvious. An obvious answer generally means that you've overlooked something.

Ugh. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention the quantum physics thing. People who are not quantum physicists tell me all sorts of things about what quantum physics means and what quantum physicists do. Actual quantum physicists tell me something completely incompatible with those viewpoints. When I study quantum physics myself, I get to finding out that all the pop culture nonsense about it is just that.

2+2=? Obvious answer.
3+3=? Obvious answer. I could easily provide you an infinite series of questions with obvious answers, in which nothing is being overlooked. I could even provide you with an algorithm for arriving at the obvious answers for the following infinite questions. Ergo, not only are many answers really obvious, but an infinite quantity of obvious answers exist. Note that mathematics, like all such fields, is firmly grounded in sound philosophy, and that these are, ultimately, philosophical questions. You could, for instance, possess the philosophy that the answer to the math question is a matter of opinion. This philosophy would also be wrong.

So please... just... spare me the pop culture nonsense about how all questions are deep.

Moral Relativism is a viewpoint, when viewed by those who believe in moral Absolutism, just because it isn't a unified philosophy (and relativism shouldn't be) doesn't mean it doesn't describe specific philosophies.

Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence.

There are also absolute philosophies, most of them religious in nature. For example certain religious people believe that eating certain foods make you unclean regardless of the circumstances and would prefer death to that, death is preferable, that's absolutism.

It's only usually religious because we live in a world where the majority of people are religious. Moral absolutism is why ethics is a field, and why we have scientific studies related to determining moral questions.

[atomicwaffle]

Alignment (in game) is about absolutes, there is ultimate good, and there is ultimate evil. Both have in-game manifestations with stats. People of the IRL can't comprehend this because they live in a world of moral relativism, and try to sully in-game alignment mechanics with it BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO BE ANYTHING ELSE!

Part of roleplaying is picking a role and playing it out (shocking i know, but bare with me). Alignment is a tool by which you determine how your character will act. Don't ask "what do i do?" but ask what your character would do.

Before a person even creates a character, i always ask them the following question: Do you want to create a character that is like you or a character that is not like you?

[AMFV]

Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence.

Moral Relativism is not a philosophy. It's a descriptor used to talk about an entire series of moral philosophies where there is no universal morality, and it's been used in ethics works that are certainly not anthropologist works from the 1950s.

It's only usually religious because we live in a world where the majority of people are religious. Moral absolutism is why ethics is a field, and why we have scientific studies related to determining moral questions.

I have never heard of a serious scientific study dedicated to a moral question. I've seen scientific studies dedicated to behavior, and how people respond with certain dilemma, the Milgram Experiment for example. But that's behavior, and here is where see moral relativism, you see morality as being defined by behavior and belief. I see morality as defining behavior and belief. Morality for me is an absolute, and there are still examinations of ethics in moral absolutism, it's just different in how ethics are examined. For me morality would not change based on how other people behave, it remains the same. And I think it does for everybody whether or not they acknowledge it.

[Raven777]

2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore. It's one of those things that people who haven't done any of the reading talk about as if it were a profound insight... like people who decidedly aren't quantum physicists talking about how quantum physics denies basic rules of logic (hint: it doesn't) and use it as a basis for mystical thinking.

If this actually posed an issue, one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion. Your statements do not actually poke holes in the idea of absolute morality, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Morality isn't math. Morality is based on opinions and social consensus. To some people, morality is relative. Some things you would find disgusting, some cultures would be entirely fine with. Some dilemmas you would find impossible to resolve, some people might fail to see where the big deal is. Values are always relative to one's goal and one's self, and extrapolated to people and cultures from there. There is no universal objective right or wrong, never was proven to be, and never will be. Philosophers have argued against each other for ~2500 years about that. Arguing otherwise would be arguing one person's moral high ground over another's. The only way to win that debate is to carry and swing the bigger stick.

Now, 'course, D&D works on different foundations, and I think it's pretty evident D&D operates on objective fundamental forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos actually being an enforceable thing.

[JusticeZero]

The main problem with alignment debates is that the PHB does not actually define what different alignments mean in a fashion that has true definitional value, yet people act as if it did. Heck, one of the PHB examples of a "chaotic" action is almost identical to one of their "lawful" actions except that the term "discipline" got replaced with "art." Right, okay PHB, thanks for clearing that up.
The way the PHB defines alignments, you could define any action as being both a paragon of Law and Chaos. Without adding our own definitions, the tags simply don't functionally differentiate themselves from each other. The problem isn't that it's wrong to add any given definition, it's that people act like their definition is actually the one in the PHB.

Added to this, there are mechanical aspects attached to the alignments. Expanding Neutral to cover the problem cases isn't helpful when most things require positions closer to the poles.

One side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sonic vibration?" and correctly concluding yes. The other side is asking "if a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does anyone experience an auditory sensation?" and correctly concluding no. The argument is thus a false one: Both sides would probably agree on the answers of the two questions I just listed, but they won't agree on the original question because they don't realize that they haven't properly defined the question.

If Harry the Necromancer uses animated corpses of bandits to farm for a hungry town, is he doing an act that will help save the villagers?" Yes. "Is Harry avoiding actions which use Negative energy to manipulate a corpse?" No, Harry is using Negative all over the place. "Which of those questions is actually the one that the physics of the universe cares about?" Well, that needs to be defined, doesn't it?

2) We're not anthropologists from 60 years ago. We should stop talking about moral relativism like it's an ideology that we're supposed to take seriously anymore.

Moral relativism, as a part of a balanced anthropological theoretical diet, is still very much in use today. It's just been refined to get rid of the worst extremes of PoMo paralytic silliness. And PoMo is still a central principle in active use too, just, once again, in a more refined fashion. Most of the theories I work with on a regular basis involve explorations of how morality functions from various different stances to come up with somewhat different end results. I wouldn't call it particularly profound.

By this "logic," one would conclude that because people argue all the time about math and physics, math and physics don't have right answers and it's all just up to opinion. Your statements do not actually poke holes in the idea of absolute morality, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

I never attempted to "poke holes in the idea of absolute morality". These are frameworks that people use to reconcile a variety of pragmatically challenging cases which do not stand out as being on either extreme, when they don't want to just tell everyone "You're all Neutral. Even the paladin."

[AMFV]

Morality isn't math. Morality is based on opinions and social consensus. To some people, morality is relative. Some things you would find disgusting, some cultures would be entirely fine with. Some dilemmas you would find impossible to resolve, some people might fail to see where the big deal is. Values are always relative to one's goal and one's self, and extrapolated to people and cultures from there. There is no universal objective right or wrong, never was proven to be, and never will be. Philosophers have argued against each other for ~2500 years about that. Arguing otherwise would be arguing one person's moral high ground over another's. The only way to win that debate is to carry and swing the bigger stick.

Now, 'course, D&D works on different foundations, and I think it's pretty evident D&D operates on objective fundamental forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos actually being an enforceable thing.

Nope, morality is based on something else. And whether or not I find something disgusting has no bearing on whether it's moral, but whether somebody else finds it fine, has equally no bearing on whether it's moral. There is a universal right or wrong. Furthermore since you're now claiming that the negative is an absolute that means that you have to prove your viewpoint, not vis versa. If you make the claim then the burden of proof is on you.

As I've said the difference between relative moralists and universal moralists is the root of these alignment problems. For a universal moralist, D&D works exactly how the world does and should. For a relative moralist D&D works in a manner opposite to the real world. Which is why relative moralists find D&D alignments distasteful, but universal moralists find morality to be acceptable.

[LudicSavant]

To some people, morality is relative.

Equivalently valid statement:

To some people, .9 repeating is not exactly equal to 1. The statement is true: Many people don't believe that .9 repeating is equal to 1 (they're wrong, and I can provide a simple proof of this if anyone doubts me, which I don't doubt they will... it seems there's always at least one person on every public forum who finds the idea insane). I've heard many people say it's "just an opinion" that .9 repeating is the same number as one, but that doesn't mean that whether or not .9 repeating is equal to 1 is a matter of social consensus. Right or wrong, the statement can be evaluated as true/false.

As soon as you lend a definition with real definitional value to "good" and "bad," (generally something to the effect of maximizing human well-being / reducing suffering) you can start to measure it. Once you start to measure it, you can use those measurements to make predictions. If your system of making predictions proves useful, you've got a framework for a scientific theory. It's pretty straightforward, really.

I mean, yeah, you can decide to define good and bad in different ways, but then it goes back to the "tree falls in a forest" problem. Generally it's not hard to get people to agree on a usable definition as long as that definition isn't "conforms with the dogma of X religion," similar to how it's generally not that hard to get people to agree on definitions for similarly ambiguous states like "healthy" and "unhealthy" and use those terms in scientific pursuit even though we still can't quite nail down a consistent definition for things as basic as "dead."

In retrospect I feel it was a bad idea for me to mention anything on the topic, as I do not really feel up to the task of taking the time to write out an introduction to modern ideas of moral absolutism / relativism outside of the purview of pop culture and religion, but I can at least provide a link which will do a decent job of introducing anyone interested to the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g

[Raven777]

Nope, morality is based on something else. And whether or not I find something disgusting has no bearing on whether it's moral, but whether somebody else finds it fine, has equally no bearing on whether it's moral.

Please elaborate on that something else. I am sincerely curious. The fact that there is no universal consensus on what defines "moral" and "not moral" is the root of my point.

EDIT : LudicSavant's post explains it well, I think. Sure if you lay down arbitrary axioms, then you can build a coherent moral theory over them. Doesn't mean others will accept your axioms, though. I don't think, say, for example, human happiness counts as something self-evident enough to be an universally acceptable axiom. But others might disagree. Which is my point entirely.

EDIT2 : Thanks for the link.

[atomicwaffle]

except morality is NOT relative INSIDE Dungeons and Dragons. There are actually absolutes to good and evil that exist inside the game and game mechanics (angels, archons, demons, devils, gods/goddesses). Morality may or may not be relative elsewhere, but inside Dungeons and Dragons it IS ABSOLUTE.

[AMFV]

Equivalently valid statement:

To some people, 0.999999 repeating is not exactly equal to 1. I've heard many people express that opinion, but it doesn't make it valid. I've heard many people say it's "just my opinion" that .9 repeating is the same number as one, but that doesn't mean that whether or not .9 repeating is equal to 1 is a matter of social consensus.

It depends, in most scenarios it is the same number (functionally at least), and treating it as though it's own number actually introduces more error, since rounding errors are a thing. Or observational errors.

As soon as you lend a definition with real definitional value to "good" and "bad," (generally something to the effect of maximizing human well-being / reducing suffering) you can start to measure it. Once you start to measure it, you can use those measurements to make predictions. If your system of making predictions proves useful, you've got a framework for a scientific theory. It's pretty straightforward, really.

The problem is that you can't use that as a framework for absolute morality. Maximizing human well-being is too vague and poorly defined, and so is suffering. I exercise, I put my body through physical pain, my your definition that would be immoral, since I'm suffering. Which is why morality cannot be defined exclusively by it's results.

Furthermore Morality isn't an exact science the same thing that is "good" may not always produce the results as defined by your system, which means that you can't measure it appropriately, and results is not a workable way to define a system of morality.

Lastly, you are supposing, that the purpose of morality is to improve society, which is not an agreed-on assumption, and you'll find that it varies greatly from moralist to moralist whether or not that is the purpose of morality. For example one moralist might say that the purpose of morality is to become more like the divine, or like the truth of things. Another might say that the purpose of morality is to reduce suffering, another might say that the purpose of morality is for self-esteem. Those are not all really not compatible. Which means that if there is universal morality they are not all right.

I mean, yeah, you can decide to define good and bad in different ways, but then it goes back to the "tree falls in a forest" problem. Generally it's not hard to get people to agree on a usable definition as long as that definition isn't "conforms with the dogma of X religion," similar to how it's generally not that hard to get people to agree on definitions for similarly ambiguous states like "healthy" and "unhealthy" and use those terms in scientific pursuit even though we still can't quite nail down a consistent definition for things as basic as "dead."

And I pointed out how that problem is far less simple than you believed it was. Philosophy is not simple and even questions that appear simple are not exactly simple. It's not just a matter of defining the questions it's a matter of disagreement over what things qualify as things at all.

For example, in your tree metaphor, as I said it matters what experiencing auditory effects means, and what qualifies as "somebody". Furthermore the does it make a sound, is not actually a question of results, but rather the action itself, which you clever redefined into terms of results. Does the tree make a sound, is not the same as saying "does somebody experience a sound after a tree falls", or "are there soundwaves after a tree falls" because it shifts the focus of the question, and that changes it, so you aren't rephrasing the question, you're changing it completely.

Please elaborate on that something else. I am sincerely curious. The fact that there is no universal consensus on what defines "moral" and "not moral" is the root of my point.

EDIT : LudicSavant's post explains it well, I think. Sure if you lay down arbitrary axioms, then you can build a coherent moral theory over them. Doesn't mean others will accept your axioms, though. I don't think, say, for example, human happiness counts as something self-evident enough to be an universally acceptable axiom. But others might disagree. Which is my point entirely.

EDIT2 : Thanks for the link.

The truth of things, I am moral to be more like the truth of things. In my case that's the Divine, for Plato it was something very different. That's as far as I can discuss that without going into real world morality, or what my real world morality is.

Furthermore you make the same mistake every relativist I've ever talked to makes. If morality is to be more like the Divine, and you believe it to be something else, then you are wrong, your viewpoint isn't valid. If morality is relative then everyone's viewpoint is valid... HOWEVER, since my morality does not believe all viewpoints are valid that means that all viewpoints cannot be equally valid, because the second mine was valid, yours would be invalidated. So by your idea that morality is based on personal opinion, all morality has to be invalid, as my morality cannot be valid while somebody's else's is, or you are mistaken.

[LudicSavant]

It depends, in most scenarios it is the same number (functionally at least), and treating it as though it's own number actually introduces more error, since rounding errors are a thing. Or observational errors.

No, it's really the same number in all scenarios. .9 repeating and 1 are the same number. This is very simple to prove.

Argument from associativity of addition

0.9999... = 0.9999... + 0
= 0.9999... + (0.9999... - 0.9999...)
= (0.9999... + 0.9999...) - 0.9999...
= 1.9999... - 0.9999...
= 1.0000... (infinite zeroes = 0)

Argument from continuity of the real numbers
Any real number can be written out as a decimal expansion in at least one way.
Also, for any two different real numbers, you can pick a third number which is between them.
So, if 0.9999... and 1.0000... were different numbers, then it would be possible to find a number which was between them, and write it out.
But it's impossible to write out the decimal expansion of a number between 0.9999... and 1.0000...
Therefore, they cannot be different numbers.
Therefore, they are the same number.

Multiplication proof

Let
x = 0.9999...

Multiply both sides by ten:
10x = 9.9999...

Subtract x from both sides:
10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...
9x = 9.0000...

Divide by nine:
x = 1.00000... (infinite zeroes = 0)

The problem is that you can't use that as a framework for absolute morality. Maximizing human well-being is too vague and poorly defined, and so is suffering.

Terms with imperfect definitions are nothing new to science, nor do they prevent it from moving forward with them. The terms in this case aren't particularly more vague than the concept of "health" in medical science.

[AMFV]

Math

Well I concede that point. It was already what I would have intuitively suspected.

[TheIronGolem]

except morality is NOT relative INSIDE Dungeons and Dragons. There are actually absolutes to good and evil that exist inside the game and game mechanics (angels, archons, demons, devils, gods/goddesses). Morality may or may not be relative elsewhere, but inside Dungeons and Dragons it IS ABSOLUTE.

Except that doesn't hold. If you define good and evil as "what the angels/demons do", then that's just naming the sides of a conflict between cosmic forces. The morality of a given course of action is not related to that, even if they share the names of "good" and "evil". Trying to tie the two together just ends up being an exercise in circular reasoning: "These things are good because the Good gods do them, and those gods are Good because they do good things..."

Besides, even the beings of "ultimate" Good or Evil will frequently disagree amongst themselves regarding what the right thing to do is. Morality isn't even objective for them, and they supposedly embody it.

In short, Good and Evil might be absolute, but good and evil are not.

[AMFV]

Except that doesn't hold. If you define good and evil as "what the angels/demons do", then that's just naming the sides of a conflict between cosmic forces. The morality of a given course of action is not related to that, even if they share the names of "good" and "evil". Trying to tie the two together just ends up being an exercise in circular reasoning: "These things are good because the Good gods do them, and those gods are Good because they do good things..."

Besides, even the beings of "ultimate" Good or Evil will frequently disagree amongst themselves regarding what the right thing to do is. Morality isn't even objective for them, and they supposedly embody it.

In short, Good and Evil might be absolute, but good and evil are not.

Good and Evil are good and evil in D&D. You don't define good and evil as "What the Angels/Demons do" since they are capable of doing things that are outside their nature. Good actions are defined, and their motivations are also defined, from that it's easy to extrapolate what is Good or Evil.

Edit : To be more specific what is good is Good, and what is evil is Evil, they are absolutes.

[jiriku]

I think it might be accurate to describe alignment in D&D as either objective or subjective. In D&D, alignment is objective; regardless what anyone might say about whether person x is good or evil, a few detect spells will settle the matter. Anyone who disagrees with the results of the detect spell is simply wrong. It is possible to create a subjective morality in D&D by stripping out alignment, including subsystems of detect spells, aligned creature subtypes, planar alignment traits, alignment-based damage reduction, etc, etc. If you do this and characters disagree about whether person x is good or evil, there is no objective standard available to determine who is right, or if there is in fact an answer to the question at all.

Where I think a lot of DMs get stuck or run into trouble is attempting to build a hybrid system. In a hybrid system, alignment is supposed to function in a subjective way, but (whether by accident or design) there are odd survivals and leftovers from the objective system, like damage reduction or certain spells that harm only people of a certain alignment. To my way of thinking, a hybrid system is bound to run into trouble eventually, because the mechanics of the world conflict with its fluff.

A fourth kind of alignment I've seen used is local alignment. In a local system, good and evil are objective facts only within certain boundaries, like the borders of a kingdom or a specific plane of existence. In other parts of the game world, a different good and evil exist, or good and evil might be entirely subjective. Local alignment is like an objective system, in that game mechanics can give an absolute answer on morality, but like a subjective system, insofar as that answer may not be true in a neighboring province. Local systems typically aren't well thought-out enough and lack sufficient nuance to handle complicated events in a changing game world; they quickly break down when confronted with unusual conditions.

[JusticeZero]

D&D morality is Absolute. However, IN PRACTICE, there is a LOT of grey area. Simply asserting that the gray "is neutral" can make the alignment system non-helpful by expanding "Neutral" to an impractical extent. I just happen to note that people tend to address the grey area using one of two theoretical heuristics. These theoretical structures, I described in the original post. One is to use the metaphysical crunch - the physics of the world - as the defining factor, which tends to result in creatures and effects being mechanically aligned over behavioral factors; the other is to use behaviors and individual moral choices over metaphysics, muddling clean classifications with the action of free will.
The former - which I termed "Physicalism" because it defers to the physics of the world - tends to result in quirks like liches who have converted to pacifism and philanthropy who still radiate Evil.
The latter, I refer to as "Ambivalism" because it relies on case by case judgments of deeds and motives and results in ambivalous classifications where demons are Evil.. mostly, with some exceptions.. and angels are Good.. usually.. maybe not every time. It tends to result in Succubus paladins, good cities that use the voluntary labor of skeletons, and similar.

[TheIronGolem]

Good and Evil are good and evil in D&D. You don't define good and evil as "What the Angels/Demons do" since they are capable of doing things that are outside their nature.

If a being that embodies the force of Good is capable of committing acts that are not good, then that shows the two to be independent. Good might prefer to do good, and Evil to do evil, but they cannot be tightly coupled if such beings are capable of choosing between the two.

If, on the other hand, a being that embodies the force of Good is not capable of committing a non-good act, then it cannot be said to be exercising any moral agency at all, and this therefore shows morality to be unrelated to (and thus independent of) the cosmic forces.

Good actions are defined, and their motivations are also defined, from that it's easy to extrapolate what is Good or Evil.

But how are they defined? You just said it wasn't "what the angels/demons do", so you can't rely on the authority of what the Powers That Be proclaim to be good/evil. Either you're mistaken and that is how good and evil are defined (which leads back to the circular logic problem), or the moral concepts of good and evil are independent of the cosmic forces of Good and Evil.

[AMFV]

D&D morality is Absolute. However, IN PRACTICE, there is a LOT of grey area. Simply asserting that the gray "is neutral" can make the alignment system non-helpful by expanding "Neutral" to an impractical extent. I just happen to note that people tend to address the grey area using one of two theoretical heuristics. These theoretical structures, I described in the original post. One is to use the metaphysical crunch - the physics of the world - as the defining factor, which tends to result in creatures and effects being mechanically aligned over behavioral factors; the other is to use behaviors and individual moral choices over metaphysics, muddling clean classifications with the action of free will.
The former - which I termed "Physicalism" because it defers to the physics of the world - tends to result in quirks like liches who have converted to pacifism and philanthropy who still radiate Evil.
The latter, I refer to as "Ambivalism" because it relies on case by case judgments of deeds and motives and results in ambivalous classifications where demons are Evil.. mostly, with some exceptions.. and angels are Good.. usually.. maybe not every time. It tends to result in Succubus paladins, good cities that use the voluntary labor of skeletons, and similar.

They radiate evil because of the fact that the act to become a Lich is more evil than what he now is. Agan morality is defined by actions. Also you can have Physicalist morality and still have Succubus Paladins. Because you can still have Physicalist morality and have Asmodus fall.

[SiuiS]

You are missing. The third, original viewpoint; that alignment is a cosmic line drawn in the sand and is literally which side you are aligned with; Good and Evil decided to pick teams for dodge ball one day and ended up centuries later with most evil people driven into exile, almost extinct, and the good faction breaking up because some of them thought genocide was cool and righteous and others thought that once evil became a sniveling, crying exile it was no longer Good to pursue and execute them.

That's the original stance. Alignment is not moral at all. The moral axis is ancillary but not integral. Everyone who speaks the aligned tongue of Good decided that being good was what was right for them in the apocalypse war between darkness and light. Everyone who is Evil chose to be Evil with a capital E because helping Gruumsh marauder and murder and helping Lloth subvert sympathetic elves and helping mind flayers dominate the world and killing and eating those who weren't strong enough to fight back sounded fun.

Detect alignment is basically a magical retinal scanner during the Cold War that tells people if you're American ("good"), Russian ("evil") or Swiss ("neutral") and let's them decide themselves how to act thereafter, with the caveat that an evil man I
Sitting at the bar and thinking about how pretty his wife is won't register as evil because he's not actively engaged in his Russian Agenda.

[AMFV]

If a being that embodies the force of Good is capable of committing acts that are not good, then that shows the two to be independent. Good might prefer to do good, and Evil to do evil, but they cannot be tightly coupled if such beings are capable of choosing between the two.

If, on the other hand, a being that embodies the force of Good is not capable of committing a non-good act, then it cannot be said to be exercising any moral agency at all, and this therefore shows morality to be unrelated to (and thus independent of) the cosmic forces.



But how are they defined? You just said it wasn't "what the angels/demons do", so you can't rely on the authority of what the Powers That Be proclaim to be good/evil. Either you're mistaken and that is how good and evil are defined (which leads back to the circular logic problem), or the moral concepts of good and evil are independent of the cosmic forces of Good and Evil.

Mostly through sources such as the BoED and BoVD, which explicitly define certain actions as good and evil.