D&D alignment via perspective

[OldTrees1]

Personally I also prefer the color wheel and looking at it so narrowly as to only use two colors a bit simplistic to me.

some characters are only one. some can be two, or three, four, or even all five. this doesn't really change how good of a character they are either way. just what they focus on in life, what they value and how balanced out they are. one character when I tried to apply the color wheel to her, I found she changed colors in different stages of her life:

To me the color wheel starts by asking about 10 different topics and asks you to give 10 answers. None of those answers map to any color. But specific pairs of answers can be summarized by how much the character currently identifies with a specific color.

Personally I suggest creating a decagon on the Color Wheel as a visual description of your character's current color identity. This even shows how the character has a different affinity with different aspects of a color.

And I agree this answer changes across their life.

In broad strokes the difference between the Color Wheel and Alignment is:
The Color Wheel asks about your personality in 5d space
Alignment asks about how you answer "what ought one do?" in 2d space
Both are obviously too few dimensions to fully answer the question but

[tordirycgoyust]

To expand a bit on why the colour wheel works as a system: it only asks the player how their character views themselves and what they value, not how they actually behave.

The greatest failing of alignment is that it tries to measure multiple mostly orthogonal things on a single scale.

As OP correctly points out, most people think of themselves as Good, usually Lawful Good... but in practice it's really hard to live up to those ideals and you end up behaving "Neutral". Getting these very different things (self-concept vs actions) confused is the source of at least 95% of alignment debates (and Wittgenstein rolls in his grave).

Now, at that point there comes a question of how failing to live up to ideals and the consequences thereof is treated. It's up to the person making the setting and the DM to determine the cutoffs, what the gods care about, whether Outsiders are treated differently than mortals, etc. It also demands that a lot more attention be paid to what magic that interacts with alignment actually does, if such magic exists at all.

It also avoids charged terminology like good and evil, which helps one avoid bias when considering their self-conception and ideals. If Evil is a valid lifestyle choice in D&D, it's got to have some actual validity. By which I mean a relatively PR-friendly name (at least in Evil-dominant places like Menzobaranzan; the Kingdom of Light is still going to call the Drow Evil, just as the Drow call the Kingdom of Light a bunch of weak-ass hippies) and some actual ideals that can at least be spinned as positive (drive, ambition, and a willingness to make hard choices and sacrifices, for example).

[Lord Raziere]

It also avoids charged terminology like good and evil, which helps one avoid bias when considering their self-conception and ideals. If Evil is a valid lifestyle choice in D&D, it's got to have some actual validity. By which I mean a relatively PR-friendly name (at least in Evil-dominant places like Menzobaranzan; the Kingdom of Light is still going to call the Drow Evil, just as the Drow call the Kingdom of Light a bunch of weak-ass hippies) and some actual ideals that can at least be spinned as positive (drive, ambition, and a willingness to make hard choices and sacrifices, for example).

See, for high fantasy like this, I prefer the terms "Light" and "Dark"

Light isn't really good.

Dark isn't really evil.

they do however have different set of values that set them at odds with each other. Light wants people to be safe, Dark wants people to be free. Light wants a perfect orderly world where everything has its place, everything runs smoothly and all the rules are followed. Dark just wants a world where everyone can do their own thing, not have to be bound by oppression and be able to explore their full potential and individuality. Light can be oppressive. Dark can be selfish. At its best its Lawful Good Vs. Chaotic Good, at its worst its Lawful Evil Vs. Chaotic Evil.

both have a morality of sorts, both have an ideal they're working towards, and the pursuit of that ideal can lead down some very bad roads for some people, but both have potential to be good. (I'm not sure where selfish evil tyrants fits in though- perhaps as something that both Light and Dark hates?) but it gives more complexity while still having a way to make clear villains from it, by making sure one thing or the other is taken too far whether its selflessness or selfishness, as well as more grey conflicts between the two.

but then again I never like to be normal or vanilla, so I doubt anyone else likes such a system.

[NNescio]

TAnd I agree this answer changes across their life.

In broad strokes the difference between the Color Wheel and Alignment is:
The Color Wheel asks about your personality in 5d space

It isn't 5D so much as 2D with polar coordinates.
(Unless one insists on paradox 'alignments' like one primary tinged by two opposing colors.)

See, for high fantasy like this, I prefer the terms "Light" and "Dark"

Light isn't really good.

Dark isn't really evil.

they do however have different set of values that set them at odds with each other. Light wants people to be safe, Dark wants people to be free. Light wants a perfect orderly world where everything has its place, everything runs smoothly and all the rules are followed. Dark just wants a world where everyone can do their own thing, not have to be bound by oppression and be able to explore their full potential and individuality. Light can be oppressive. Dark can be selfish. At its best its Lawful Good Vs. Chaotic Good, at its worst its Lawful Evil Vs. Chaotic Evil.

both have a morality of sorts, both have an ideal they're working towards, and the pursuit of that ideal can lead down some very bad roads for some people, but both have potential to be good. (I'm not sure where selfish evil tyrants fits in though- perhaps as something that both Light and Dark hates?) but it gives more complexity while still having a way to make clear villains from it, by making sure one thing or the other is taken too far whether its selflessness or selfishness, as well as more grey conflicts between the two.

but then again I never like to be normal or vanilla, so I doubt anyone else likes such a system.

That's how Chainmail and OD&D used to work, sorta (less on the safety/freedom part). Law, Neutral, and Chaos, with alignment determining a character/creature's allegiance instead of its personality.

(First Fantasy Campaign actually had it as Good, Neutral, Chaos. Presumably this was changed in Chainmail to de-emphasize the 'morality' baggage and instead shift focus to the team allegiance part. AD&D 1e brought back Good and Chaos, presumably for more... nuanced teams, but even then it mostly remained an allegiance determiner instead of actual outlooks on morality/ethics.)

Then 2e came by and started* using alignment as a straitjacket for personality/attitudes (including moral/ethical outlooks.) Later editions then relaxed the straitjacket, but the basic idea is still there.

(*Maybe it was done to mollify moral panic groups back in those days. Presumably the Good/Evil split allowed TSR to issue a 'moral' statement, basically "Yes, those options are in the game but we don't exactly condone them. They are more like villain options that the players are supposed to oppose." But this whole part is just speculation on my part.)

[OldTrees1]

It isn't 5D so much as 2D with polar coordinates.
(Unless one insists on paradox 'alignments' like one primary tinged by two opposing colors.)

You might want to review the color wheel system again. Those "paradox alignments" are normal and expected. There are even entire organizations based around them. This is because they are not paradoxical in the slightest. A biologist might very well be biased towards (Logic, Technology, and Interdependence)



If someone identifies with:
Morality over Amorality
Logic over Impulse
Chaos over Order
Interdependance over Parasitism
Technology over Instinct
How well does your 2D attempt capture their personality?
Did you place them smack dab in the middle of the Order section of White?
Or did you waffle between putting them as Green/White vs Blue?
Or did you just put them in the middle?

Spoiler: Another neat picture

Show

[Max_Killjoy]

Always found the "interdependence" vs "parasitism" one... just odd. As if one could neither reject both at the same time, nor seek neither.

[OldTrees1]

Always found the "interdependence" vs "parasitism" one... just odd. As if one could neither reject both at the same time, nor seek neither.

I think they are going for "For the Good of the Group" vs "For the Good of the Self".

Alternatively you can answer both sides independently and then treat it as a 10 sided polygon.

[RedMage125]

Spoiler

Show

You might want to review the color wheel system again. Those "paradox alignments" are normal and expected. There are even entire organizations based around them. This is because they are not paradoxical in the slightest. A biologist might very well be biased towards (Logic, Technology, and Interdependence)



If someone identifies with:
Morality over Amorality
Logic over Impulse
Chaos over Order
Interdependance over Parasitism
Technology over Instinct
How well does your 2D attempt capture their personality?
Did you place them smack dab in the middle of the Order section of White?
Or did you waffle between putting them as Green/White vs Blue?
Or did you just put them in the middle?

Spoiler: Another neat picture

Show

Thank you for that. I don't play M:tG, and I don't use Ravnica, and so I've never understood what the colors stood for.

I now know that I am White/Blue, lol.

[Quarian Rex]

It seems to me, very generally, that people who I would consider evil under the D&D alignment rules see themselves more as neutral. That those I see as neutral see themselves as good. No one seems to seriously consider themselves evil. This applies to real world personas as well as those posting online.
...
Should something like this affect world building?

It is defined as Evil. Evil is the thing that is defined as unacceptable and wrong. When something is unacceptable, you get rid of it.

It also avoids charged terminology like good and evil, which helps one avoid bias when considering their self-conception and ideals. If Evil is a valid lifestyle choice in D&D, it's got to have some actual validity. By which I mean a relatively PR-friendly name (at least in Evil-dominant places like Menzobaranzan; the Kingdom of Light is still going to call the Drow Evil, just as the Drow call the Kingdom of Light a bunch of weak-ass hippies) and some actual ideals that can at least be spinned as positive (drive, ambition, and a willingness to make hard choices and sacrifices, for example).

I think that one of the biggest stumbling blocks when discussing the alignment system is speaking solely from the perspective of good, and that colors the entire conversation. Good has no problem justifying itself in opposition to Evil, but Evil has a much harder time when you accept Good's definitions of it.

If the alignments are on a four sectioned wheel then you need to spin that wheel and rename the opposing forces when another alignment is on top. Evil wouldn't see itself as 'Evil', with all of the connotations put upon it by Good, but as Strength standing in opposition to crippling Weakness. Chaos would see itself as Freedom standing in opposition to Slavery. Law would see itself as Security standing in opposition to Vulnerability.

When looking at the alignment system from a worldbuilding perspective I think that this would be of utmost importance. You need a way to look at societies of varying alignments as being valid from their own perspective. And you need a way to do so that doesn't just have each side declare themselves to be 'good', something that usually leads to useless navel gazing and can be instantly subverted by a simple Detect Alignment spell. While the axes can generally agree about the actions covered by each alignment it doesn't imply that they have to believe the other sides propaganda of what that actually means.

[Lord Raziere]

I think that one of the biggest stumbling blocks when discussing the alignment system is speaking solely from the perspective of good, and that colors the entire conversation. Good has no problem justifying itself in opposition to Evil, but Evil has a much harder time when you accept Good's definitions of it.

If the alignments are on a four sectioned wheel then you need to spin that wheel and rename the opposing forces when another alignment is on top. Evil wouldn't see itself as 'Evil', with all of the connotations put upon it by Good, but as Strength standing in opposition to crippling Weakness. Chaos would see itself as Freedom standing in opposition to Slavery. Law would see itself as Security standing in opposition to Vulnerability.

When looking at the alignment system from a worldbuilding perspective I think that this would be of utmost importance. You need a way to look at societies of varying alignments as being valid from their own perspective. And you need a way to do so that doesn't just have each side declare themselves to be 'good', something that usually leads to useless navel gazing and can be instantly subverted by a simple Detect Alignment spell. While the axes can generally agree about the actions covered by each alignment it doesn't imply that they have to believe the other sides propaganda of what that actually means.

Your right. Thanks I hate it. Now I have to deal with people redefining this or that in an escapist fantasy too when I already hate it when people do in real life. Ugh.

[Pleh]

Your right. Thanks I hate it. Now I have to deal with people redefining this or that in an escapist fantasy too when I already hate it when people do in real life. Ugh.

I'm trying to follow along:

You call it, "redefining." But it looks to me like it's more a subjective expression of perspective (definitions tend to be more objective). I think there's a bit of a chicken or egg question with fundamental perspectives like alignment.

It seems quite natural that a character would espouse values that coincide with the best aspects of their alignment (e.g. chaotic characters might see the benefits of freedom in their chaotic nature, but be less sensitive to the lack of security that it also entails).

In fact, you might say that a character's value of freedom over security might be part of their definition as chaotic. Rather than viewing characters trying to obscure facts about their behavior with thought experiments, it might be better to view alignment as their subjective perspective on ethics.

"You're supporting that noble's ascension to power by engaging in the state's political process. You're not chaotic."

"But I support this noble because I believe they want to support citizens having more freedoms, thus advancing my goals of having more freedom."

It seems to me nothing is being redefined, just viewed through a different frame of reference.

[tordirycgoyust]

It took a bit of doing since the blog moved, but I was able to track down [part of] the blog series that best systematized the mapping of the alignments to the colours. Of particular note is the conceit that each colour does have its own names for the axes from its own perspective. Green, for instance, labels its axes Humble/Vain and Honest/Manipulative, and a properly Green person would list their alignment as Honest/Humble as they decry their greatest enemies as Vain/Manipulative, whereas Blue would label the axes as Logical/Rash and Progressive/Cowardly. D&D is very much written from a mono-White perspective, and thus we inherit its axes of Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic across the entire game and end up with blinders that make it almost impossible to coherently write "Evil" or "Chaotic" societies or even worshippers of Chaotic/Evil gods (or for that matter the gods themselves) because they inevitably get strawmanned to oblivion.

If you accept that non-White societies can be functional (which you don't have to, but D&D categorically does), then to understand them you have to interact with them on their own terms.

I also imagine two distinct forms of Detect Alignment. One simply measures self-conception as a sort of heat map of the colours. The other measures which afterlife one would end up in were they to die at the time of measurement. One is obviously a lot more useful for solving mysteries than the other (though neither will ever be a smoking gun by itself), and would be significantly higher level and on a much more restricted set of spell lists.

[Lord Raziere]

In fact, you might say that a character's value of freedom over security might be part of their definition as chaotic. Rather than viewing characters trying to obscure facts about their behavior with thought experiments, it might be better to view alignment as their subjective perspective on ethics.

"You're supporting that noble's ascension to power by engaging in the state's political process. You're not chaotic."

"But I support this noble because I believe they want to support citizens having more freedoms, thus advancing my goals of having more freedom."

It seems to me nothing is being redefined, just viewed through a different frame of reference.

Uuuuuuugh, I hate it even more now. Words. what do they even mean anymore. They're just talking past each other. thats not useful at all. they might as well be in completely different realities. perspective is what makes me cynical about anything because if anything can be viewed from different frames of reference, those frames of reference can be abused for bad things to happen and no one to have a solid ground to protest against things that are bad. it muddles everything in uncertainty. is there a name for this problem? because there should be, I can't be the only one who has this problem with people talking perspectives like this:
"ooooh behold a completely different frame of reference! its so novel and just as valid as yours, how can you protest against a man being stabbed to death, are you sure a man being stabbed to death isn't actually right from some obscure perspective you haven't considered?"

I'm rapidly starting to think "perspective" discussion is just another form of gotcha.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be quite honest, I don't believe that most people think that whatever they do is right, or that they're always justified in their actions. This whole "it's all relative" idea is does not match with what I see around me.

Everyone does things they know are wrong according to their own moral code. And most of these things are wrong on the moral code formed by intersecting all the various moral codes--everyone believes they're wrong. There's a wide agreement about most of the daily "sins" (wrong things) that people commit. Someone who can't tell right from wrong is insane (by legal standards). Just about every person justly convicted of a crime they actually committed did something they knew was wrong or at least had reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions.

Sure, they may not consider themselves bad people, because they have excuses. For some, it was a one-time deviation from the norm. But hardened criminals, for whom such acts are normal still often don't see themselves as bad because they've blamed other things/conditions/people. They don't think the acts themselves are good, they think that they had no choice/someone else made them/etc. But this is (and they know it) just deflection to salve the wounded conscience. And I've met people who knew they were evil and gloried in that fact. They knew they were doing things that were morally wrong and didn't care. They had murdered their own conscience and were openly wearing its blood on their hands.

So good and evil are not matters of perspective. There is right and there is wrong. And mentally-healthy (and most mentally-ill, for that matter) people know the difference at least in the broad brush-strokes.

Translated into the tabletop--lots of truly evil people know they're evil by any normal standard. And don't care. Or consider that to be a strength. They "mercilessly take what they want", either within the confines of "the game of society" (Lawful) or not (Chaotic/Neutral). A D&D devil knows he's evil. Accepts that fact. It just doesn't matter. The assassin who kills without qualm knows that what he does stains his soul. And doesn't care (or at least doesn't care enough to change his behavior and attitudes). The slaver takes slaves and tortures them/works them to death/sells them into bondage because no one stops him, not because he believes he's in the right (at least in the main).

So sure, some people are self-deluded. Mainly "crusader" types who do evil "for the greater good" or those who tote around evil underlings or companions and claim that their own hands are clean because they weren't the ones holding the skinning knife. But that's delusion, and everyone else is under no such confusion. Most people know that
a) they're trying to do what's good and help others in good ways. These are the Good people.
b) they're just making it through life without too much care for the goodness or evilness of their actions. These are the Neutral people.
c) they're routinely taking morally-questionable actions and don't care that much about others (or at least not enough to sacrifice anything). These are the Evil people.

Even the Good people usually don't get too far from the Neutral line, because people are fallible and imperfect, not angels. Even the Evil people usually don't get far from the Neutral line in the other direction, because they're not cackling-mad cartoons or fiends.

And I prefer it this way. There is good, there is evil. Not a mishmash of "perspectives", but truth that everyone knows deep down unless they've openly murdered their own conscience. And those that have are not justified by not knowing it--they're even more condemned for having known it and shutting up that quiet voice saying "no, that's wrong". Supernatural beings take this a step further and are pure(r) good and evil. There are villains, who are evil and know they're evil. There are good antagonists who are doing good, but whom the party disagrees with as to how to do good, or what the end result should look like. There are people who started off thinking they were doing good but slipped into error and have become evil by doing so, even for "good" intentions. There are people who started out with bad intentions but did good things, liked it, and are now doing good but wearing edgy clothes. Wait...I think I've gotten off track here...

[Max_Killjoy]

Uuuuuuugh, I hate it even more now. Words. what do they even mean anymore. They're just talking past each other. thats not useful at all. they might as well be in completely different realities. perspective is what makes me cynical about anything because if anything can be viewed from different frames of reference, those frames of reference can be abused for bad things to happen and no one to have a solid ground to protest against things that are bad. it muddles everything in uncertainty. is there a name for this problem? because there should be, I can't be the only one who has this problem with people talking perspectives like this:
"ooooh behold a completely different frame of reference! its so novel and just as valid as yours, how can you protest against a man being stabbed to death, are you sure a man being stabbed to death isn't actually right from some obscure perspective you haven't considered?"

I'm rapidly starting to think "perspective" discussion is just another form of gotcha.

The word for the "everything is perception / perspective / relative" problem is postmodernism. 😒

[Lord Raziere]

The word for the "everything is perception / perspective / relative" problem is postmodernism. 😒

I personally am more the fan of the jokey fun aspects of postmodernism than any real philosophy. like fourth-wall breaking and referential humor.

[tordirycgoyust]

Uuuuuuugh, I hate it even more now. Words. what do they even mean anymore. They're just talking past each other. thats not useful at all. they might as well be in completely different realities. perspective is what makes me cynical about anything because if anything can be viewed from different frames of reference, those frames of reference can be abused for bad things to happen and no one to have a solid ground to protest against things that are bad. it muddles everything in uncertainty. is there a name for this problem? because there should be, I can't be the only one who has this problem with people talking perspectives like this:
"ooooh behold a completely different frame of reference! its so novel and just as valid as yours, how can you protest against a man being stabbed to death, are you sure a man being stabbed to death isn't actually right from some obscure perspective you haven't considered?"

I'm rapidly starting to think "perspective" discussion is just another form of gotcha.

Three moral relativists walk into a bar and get to debating as they imbibe their beverages of choice.

The normative moral relativist says that all moral systems are equally valid, and as such one should hold off from judging those with different moral systems than one's own.

The meta-ethical moral relativist points out the hypocrisy of making the claim that holding off from judging other moral systems due to their equal validity is more moral than not, as that claim is merely as valid as every moral system that doesn't make that claim.

The descriptive moral relativist continues by pointing out that most conceivable moral systems are non-functional and any society that adopted them wouldn't last more than a day, even if in principle they are in fact equally valid. Those comparative few moral systems that are functional just happen to all be, by and large, pretty similar in the end even if the way they get there is very different. He then points out that a rather suspiciously high number number of functional moral systems reserve the right to call normative moral relativists idiots.

[Lord Raziere]

Three moral relativists walk into a bar.

The normative moral relativist says that all moral systems are equally valid, and as such one should hold off from judging those with different moral systems than one's own.

The meta-ethical moral relativist points out the hypocrisy of making the claim that holding off from judging other moral systems is more moral than not, as that claim is merely as valid as every moral system that doesn't make that claim.

The descriptive moral relativist continues by pointing out that most conceivable moral systems are non-functional and any society that adopted them wouldn't last more than a day, even if in principle they are in fact equally valid. Those comparative few moral systems that are functional just happen to all be, by and large, pretty similar in the end even if the way they get there is very different.

See, I was at the part where I realized societies would be non-functional if they adopted most of the moralities, but the part where the functional ones are very similar even if where they start is very different is what I didn't have. Thanks.

[Pleh]

"ooooh behold a completely different frame of reference! its so novel and just as valid as yours, how can you protest against a man being stabbed to death, are you sure a man being stabbed to death isn't actually right from some obscure perspective you haven't considered?"

I'm rapidly starting to think "perspective" discussion is just another form of gotcha.

In the hands of bad actors, sure, but ignoring difference of perspective will not protect you from bad actors trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They would just use different methods, and you pay a cost that you lose the opportunity to learn new and perfectly valid things from people who simply see a portion of reality that has escaped your notice.

Far better, imo, to take the time to evaluate the merits of new perspectives offered, as an extension of the effort to remain open-minded.

Of course, being stabbed is a scenario where you just don't have time to consider new perspectives. You have to just defend yourself as necessary and wait to quibble about what you should have instead done later in hindsight.

So, sure. It is completely reasonable to consider a new perspective to forfeit consideration if it is actively leading to intolerable conclusions (such as having the right to stab people with impunity). That doesn't jump to the conclusion that therefore we shouldn't consider ANY differences of perspective EVER.

It's about knowing where to place good boundaries. Perspectives offered in a constructive, respectful manner might be worth paying attention to. Those that present in an offensive and/or aggressive manner don't deserve our attention even if they happen to be right.

[Quarian Rex]

Your right. Thanks I hate it. Now I have to deal with people redefining this or that in an escapist fantasy too when I already hate it when people do in real life. Ugh.

Not redefining anything really...

You call it, "redefining." But it looks to me like it's more a subjective expression of perspective (definitions tend to be more objective). I think there's a bit of a chicken or egg question with fundamental perspectives like alignment.

It seems quite natural that a character would espouse values that coincide with the best aspects of their alignment (e.g. chaotic characters might see the benefits of freedom in their chaotic nature, but be less sensitive to the lack of security that it also entails).

...

It seems to me nothing is being redefined, just viewed through a different frame of reference.

This guy gets it. One of the advantages of viewing it like this is that you (as a player) don't have to jump through any philosophical hoops if you don't want to. Your assumptions of the actions of the other alignments are still mostly correct, they just happen to think that their actions were worth it. Remember that Good has its own weaknesses that the other alignments see as abhorrent. How many Good people have been struck down turning the other cheek to someone who chose to press their advantage? How many have died when an ill timed act of mercy resulted in an enemy returning for more blood? Does this have to come up during play? Not unless you happen to stop and have a discussion with a particularly philosophical Orc Chieftain or Sithlord.

When looking at D&D-land you need to recognize that there are fundamental differences in what would be their 'human' experience and that of our own. While we stumble around questioning the meaning of a life worth living without the meaningful guidance of any true authority, D&D-land has objective paths of meaning with actual afterlives that 'reward' their adherents. While we are all pretty familiar with the idea of following the virtues of Good to earn a place in the afterlife, we need to understand (in the context of the game world) that the other axes have their own 'virtues'. Ruthlessness and cruelty are just as useful in this life and as richly rewarded in the afterlife (a very different afterlife to be sure) for the Evil as are mercy and compassion for the Good. Recognizing that can allow you to portray evil/chaotic/lawful societies/characters/etc. as both valid and interesting, instead of making them look stupid for not being good.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not redefining anything really...

This guy gets it. One of the advantages of viewing it like this is that you (as a player) don't have to jump through any philosophical hoops if you don't want to. Your assumptions of the actions of the other alignments are still mostly correct, they just happen to think that their actions were worth it. Remember that Good has its own weaknesses that the other alignments see as abhorrent. How many Good people have been struck down turning the other cheek to someone who chose to press their advantage? How many have died when an ill timed act of mercy resulted in an enemy returning for more blood? Does this have to come up during play? Not unless you happen to stop and have a discussion with a particularly philosophical Orc Chieftain or Sithlord.

When looking at D&D-land you need to recognize that there are fundamental differences in what would be their 'human' experience and that of our own. While we stumble around questioning the meaning of a life worth living without the meaningful guidance of any true authority, D&D-land has objective paths of meaning with actual afterlives that 'reward' their adherents. While we are all pretty familiar with the idea of following the virtues of Good to earn a place in the afterlife, we need to understand (in the context of the game world) that the other axes have their own 'virtues'. Ruthlessness and cruelty are just as useful in this life and as richly rewarded in the afterlife (a very different afterlife to be sure) for the Evil as are mercy and compassion for the Good. Recognizing that can allow you to portray evil/chaotic/lawful societies/characters/etc. as both valid and interesting, instead of making them look stupid for not being good.

Those aren't paths of meaning, they're just carrots and sticks.

[Quarian Rex]

Those aren't paths of meaning, they're just carrots and sticks.

{Scrubbed}

[Lord Raziere]

@ Quarian Rex: I mean if you ignore the fact that DnD alignment is clearly emulating modern fantasy genre morality with its rules I guess you can come up with an interpretation that is "deeper" than anyone intended and all the people who like DnD clearly don't play for. Who am I to stop you from looking at something only you see?

At the end of the day, DnD is mostly for people who like to keep it shallow and fun to them, and most people who dig deeper, dig in the direction of making it become more relatable and realistic to them rather than more alien and full of intentional unfortunate moral implications we don't like, especially since DnD already has a long laundry list of unexamined unfortunate moral implications we don't like already. there is not much appeal to "hey lets make this less simple to the average DnD player, and even less appealing to the people who dig deeper about it and thus criticize it". your trying to sell us on an idea that is antithetical to both desires there, since generally the simplest solution to the problems of alignment from people who don't like it is to just ax it. which is only really a problem at all in 3.5.

[Max_Killjoy]

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

And I'm saying that carrots and sticks, fiat from on high, and "might makes right" are not meaning or morality, no matter what world you're in.

Have to be careful to stay on the history side of the line and out of the real world religion side, but generally speaking "afterlife destination" has not been anything like a universal concern in belief systems and moral philosophies across the span of human history.

[Railey66]

From my point of view, a great deal of the issues with the Alignment Discourse- - and thus, the Alignment Mechanic as it shows up in play- - is that over 90% of humankind is ethically Neutral, and over 90% of mankind sees itself as ethically Good.

[hamishspence]

From my point of view, a great deal of the issues with the Alignment Discourse- - and thus, the Alignment Mechanic as it shows up in play- - is that over 90% of humankind is ethically Neutral, and over 90% of mankind sees itself as ethically Good.

Whether or not this is true in the real world (a question that falls out of the scope of this thread), in at least some D&D settings (most famously, Eberron) it's not true - with only just over 1/3 of humankind being ethically Neutral, rather than 90%.

I will agree at over 90% of humankind, even in D&D, believes itself to be Not Evil (and a hefty chunk of those believers being wrong)- but I don't know about "believes itself to be Good".

[Quarian Rex]

@ Quarian Rex: I mean if you ignore the fact that DnD alignment is clearly emulating modern fantasy genre morality with its rules I guess you can come up with an interpretation that is "deeper" than anyone intended and all the people who like DnD clearly don't play for. Who am I to stop you from looking at something only you see?

That's the point though, I'm ignoring nothing, I'm actually just paying attention. I'm leaning hard into the mechanical weirdness. If you want to just approach D&D from the standard trope-y perspective that is fine and completely compatible. But if you want to play an (N)PC from a more non-standard point of view then realizing that Evil/Law/Chaos can have their own actual ethics, not merely being defined as various forms of not-Good, can make such things actually playable instead of defaulting to mustache twirling idiocy and disruptive anarchy.

At the end of the day, DnD is mostly for people who like to keep it shallow and fun to them,

D&D can be played any number of ways and most of those ways are not incompatible if done with some thought.

and most people who dig deeper, dig in the direction of making it become more relatable and realistic to them rather than more alien and full of intentional unfortunate moral implications we don't like

You are absolutely right, that is what a lot of people do, to their detriment. Evil and Chaos (and true Law to a lesser extent) are alien concepts to most of us. Trying to make them more relatable usually results in them becoming less realistic (no longer Evil, just Good standing in another spot and such). This just devolves into moral relativism, something that a lot of people find deeply unsatisfying in this kind of setting, and then declare (with no small justification) that the alignment system doesn't make sense and should just be thrown out (this is apparently quite familiar to you).

I'm trying to suggest that playing the alignments 'straight' but with internal consistency can be much more interesting and realistic. Can that look alien? Yes, it can and perhaps it should. When looking at the perspectives of a villain who feels completely justified in his actions they should be "full of intentional unfortunate moral implications we don't like". That is why you oppose them.

And I'm saying that carrots and sticks, fiat from on high, and "might makes right" are not meaning or morality,

{Scrubbed}

Have to be careful to stay on the history side of the line and out of the real world religion side, but generally speaking "afterlife destination" has not been anything like a universal concern in belief systems and moral philosophies across the span of human history.

{Scrubbed} I just think that it would have a much greater role in D&D-land since it would now be an observable and obvious reality, and so have real influence on mortal lives.

Additionally, how do you personally define meaning? I'm curious as to where you are coming from on this.

[RedMage125]

I think what Pleh, Phoenixphyre, and Quarian Rex are trying to convey is that Alignment in D&D still permits for the "morally relative" as a subjective perception, so that you can have characters who genuinely do not believe they are "Evil". But with objective cosmic forced of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, those are sometimes post-hoc semantic justifications. Phoenix goes into a little more depth pointing out that many who are truly Evil simply do not care.

Lord Raziere, you appear to be painting that as if it somehow implies an acceptance of subjective perception as "true", which would lead to the kind of "redefining" that you find such an anethma. You clearly have your own preferences for "Good=positive", "Evil=negative" and "goal should be removal of Evil", but that's kind of talking past what the other posters are discussing. They're discussing the status quo of the world/cosmology of D&D worlds within the confines of RAW. How those things are defined and can be implemented, potentially. You appear to only want to discuss things from the point of view of a player who is playing a Good character with a desire to see Evil "removed".

That's my perception, at least.

@ Quarian Rex: I mean if you ignore the fact that DnD alignment is clearly emulating modern fantasy genre morality with its rules I guess you can come up with an interpretation that is "deeper" than anyone intended and all the people who like DnD clearly don't play for. Who am I to stop you from looking at something only you see?

At the end of the day, DnD is mostly for people who like to keep it shallow and fun to them, and most people who dig deeper, dig in the direction of making it become more relatable and realistic to them rather than more alien and full of intentional unfortunate moral implications we don't like, especially since DnD already has a long laundry list of unexamined unfortunate moral implications we don't like already. there is not much appeal to "hey lets make this less simple to the average DnD player, and even less appealing to the people who dig deeper about it and thus criticize it". your trying to sell us on an idea that is antithetical to both desires there, since generally the simplest solution to the problems of alignment from people who don't like it is to just ax it. which is only really a problem at all in 3.5.

I'm sorry, but I perceive this as kind of a cop-out to the discussion. You're being very closed-off about this topic, unwilling to entertain discourse that doesn't fit into your preferred narrative, and thus this statement which reads to me as "D&D Alignment is bad anyway, and everyone knows it. It's either too simple to be relatable, and digging into the complexity is less fun because it's still bad". Which isn't a talking point. That's not a discussion. That's saying "It's a given that what I don't like is just Bad", and not engaging honestly and openly.

I understand that some people don't like alignment. And personal opinions and preferences are totally okay. But that doesn't make those opinions "facts", let alone a "given" to launch a debate point from. As I've discussed before, problems with alignment are not universal, and may not even be a prevalent as you believe. Understand that 1) most people who play D&D do not go to the forums. 2)Of the people who do frequent the forums, you are more likely to see people who have had problems or issues with the game, as well as those who seek to implement changes and are looking for feedback from a think tank. 3) So the forums (these ones, the old Gleemax ones, or ENworld) don't actually represent an accurate cross-section of D&D players, for purposes of collecting data for a study. And 4) even a poll of the forum community ONLY would still likely not show that "a majority have problems with alignment", since most forum dwellers simply do not participate in discussions about topics they don't have input on. Alignment threads, any of them, are ONLY going to attract the types of people who either A) have pre-existing dislike of alignment or B) have something to say to defende, or increase understanding of it.

I've still yet to see the data you spoke about before. If you have access to a study that was conducted that has a sample population that more accurately reflects the D&D playing population that does, indeed show that people who problems with alignment are more prevalent than people who do not, I would love to see it, because I have been operating under the understanding that such a study does not exist. If you have such a study, I would absolutely be more willing to engage you in a discussion that entertains the notion of "alignment is problematic". But until you can actually furnish such a study (which must, of course, include mention of how the data was collected to avoid perception of bias), myself and many others are going to appear "dismissive"* of your alignment problems as subjective.

*Please note that the word "dimissive" is in quotes because while I -and others- are not operating with the intent to denigrate or dismiss your experiences and preferences, it may seem that way to you. Things that you hold to be true for you, are just that...to you. Please understand that when told your problems are "subjective" that it just means "this thing that is true for you is not true for everyone", and that's it. No one is telling you that it is "not true for you".

And I'm saying that carrots and sticks, fiat from on high, and "might makes right" are not meaning or morality, no matter what world you're in.

Have to be careful to stay on the history side of the line and out of the real world religion side, but generally speaking "afterlife destination" has not been anything like a universal concern in belief systems and moral philosophies across the span of human history.

{Scrubbed}

[Max_Killjoy]

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

{Scrubbed}

Beyond that, or in response to some other assertions by others in this thread, I'd have to get into specific examples of belief systems to make my point, and I'm not willing to cross that Rubicon.

Additionally, how do you personally define meaning? I'm curious as to where you are coming from on this.

I don't.

As in, "meaning" is subjective, each person finds their own, or doesn't, and no one else can impose or provide it.

[Quarian Rex]

I think what Pleh, Phoenixphyre, and Quarian Rex are trying to convey is that Alignment in D&D still permits for the "morally relative" as a subjective perception, so that you can have characters who genuinely do not believe they are "Evil". But with objective cosmic forced of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, those are sometimes post-hoc semantic justifications. Phoenix goes into a little more depth pointing out that many who are truly Evil simply do not care.

To be clear, I'm trying to go one step further by saying that in this cosmology the subjective perceptions are backed up by objective realities. In the standard D&D cosmology there are multiple moral 'truths' that exist in opposition to each other, demanding that each individual choose a side and take a stand, to lesser or greater extent. I think that they actually have concrete, fundamental, differences that are irreconcilable, not merely just matters of perspective. I think that each side can accuse the opposite of abhorrent (to them) views and have the opposites completely own those accusations, not say 'It only seems that way because...'. When Good accuses Evil of being ruthless and cruel Evil says, "Of course, where do you think we get our strength?". When Evil points to the weaknesses of mercy and charity Good says, "Of course, from our unity we become great". Saying that they are 'morally relative' implies that they are all really just the same and I think that does a disservice.

This still allows a broad spectrum of RP and possibilities for change though. A loyal citizen on the lower end of a corrupt LE society can still believably be seduced to a Chaotic revolutionary movement, but Judge Dredd would never be swayed from THE LAW, and both can be completely justified.

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

Morality = "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". That's the definition. Google it. {Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

{Scrubbed} But, again, that wouldn't really apply in D&D-land. Even the lowest level Cleric is direct proof of said divine influence.

Gotta go, come back to this latter.