PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying need help with alignment



dread05
2015-12-29, 11:04 AM
Hello, my brother / DM is setting a campaign in the european middle ages. Imaging a world where the inquisition is at its worst, the chruch is moving all the strings. The villains are gonna be the van hellsing villains, meaning vampires, werewolves undead and the such. Magic exists only through prayers (and maybe demon pacts, but we are not allowed to do that).

I'm rolling a fighter/war cleric, dubbed crusader in our setting. He is a veteran of the first crusade, a holy warrior who does the bidding of the church without any further questions. He is the type of man who would kill a sick person inflicted with disease in order to stop the disease from spreading, after being ordered to do so from the (corrupt) abbot of the nearby church.

My question is one concerning his aligment. Essentially he is the guy who accepts that good can be achieved through evil means, but on the other hand, he is convienced he does no evil. My initial thought was the bad side of lawful good. Or maybe lawful evil?

Red Fel
2015-12-29, 11:13 AM
Hello, my brother / DM is setting a campaign in the european middle ages. Imaging a world where the inquisition is at its worst, the chruch is moving all the strings. The villains are gonna be the van hellsing villains, meaning vampires, werewolves undead and the such. Magic exists only through prayers (and maybe demon pacts, but we are not allowed to do that).

I'm rolling a fighter/war cleric, dubbed crusader in our setting. He is a veteran of the first crusade, a holy warrior who does the bidding of the church without any further questions. He is the type of man who would kill a sick person inflicted with disease in order to stop the disease from spreading, after being ordered to do so from the (corrupt) abbot of the nearby church.

My question is one concerning his aligment. Essentially he is the guy who accepts that good can be achieved through evil means, but on the other hand, he is convienced he does no evil. My initial thought was the bad side of lawful good. Or maybe lawful evil?

Short version: It depends.

If you're in a setting where alignment is cosmically objective, like D&D, then Evil acts are Evil, full stop, irrespective of your motivations. A holy warrior for a corrupt church, who would do Evil for the greater good, is not Good. LE would be appropriate, or LN at best.

If, on the other hand, you're in a Warhammer-esque setting where you have a choice between different shades of black and grey, your character might be Good based upon the end goals - namely, protecting the innocent, preventing the spread of disease, and so forth. Even in such a setting, however, a person who "does the bidding of the church without any further questions" is abdicating his moral decisionmaking. It's hard to attribute morality to a person who makes no moral decisions. As such, even if the Church's goals were noble, the character himself would likely be Lawful Neutral, based on his refusal to take a personal moral stand.

Douche
2015-12-29, 11:19 AM
I agree with Megamind up there... sounds Lawful Neutral to me. He just follows orders, like an executioner that takes no pleasure in killing.

Anyway, sounds like you already have your motivations made up, and they sound interesting to me. Does it really matter what you write on your character sheet? If it's necessary, just put Lawful Neutral and play your character how you envision him. I don't even write mine down anymore, or I put unaligned. Let your characters actions speak for themselves

goto124
2015-12-29, 11:41 AM
Are there alignment mechanics? That sort of setting doesn't seem to lend well to cosmic alignment.

What does your brother think about alignment?

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 11:54 AM
I do not know of a moral system* under which the decision to do immoral actions for moral ends necessarily renders the moral agent immoral. Usually it depends on the specific immoral actions and their quantity/frequency. Several moral systems even include cases where an action may be prima facie(on the first look) immoral but the presence of relevant moral details can result in the action being amoral or even moral on further examination(common imperfect example being Killing in self defense).

*Cosmic allegiance systems like [Good] is [Good] because it is Celestial are not moral systems since they don't deal with morality.

Likewise, the moral actions in a choice can be defined in the abstract as "The action(s) one ought to do". It is quite common(I used to say universal) for moral agents to believe any action they are currently choosing is an action that they ought to do(otherwise why would they currently be choosing it).

TLDR: Your character's beliefs about "doing evil for good's sake" and "I have never done evil" do not inform us about his alignment. That would be up to the moral system your DM uses and the actual actions your character takes.

I would put down LN for now and let your DM adjust it later if needed.

dread05
2015-12-29, 12:04 PM
Well i cant really inform you on my alingment now can I? That's what I'm looking for myself. All I know at this moment is its a guy who is 100% sure he is doing the right thing. I'd agree that in the end everything is up to morals. But thats from our standpoint. In his eyes he is doing the will of the church that in his whole life he was made to believe it was holy and just.

Red Fel
2015-12-29, 12:17 PM
Well i cant really inform you on my alingment now can I? That's what I'm looking for myself. All I know at this moment is its a guy who is 100% sure he is doing the right thing. I'd agree that in the end everything is up to morals. But thats from our standpoint. In his eyes he is doing the will of the church that in his whole life he was made to believe it was holy and just.

Here's the thing. There's a difference between "I'm doing the will of the church, based on my understanding of its teachings," and "I'm doing the will of the church, based on what the guy in a robe tells me to do." The former indicates moral agency. The character is taking what he was taught, and determining what he deems to be a moral course of action based on that. The latter indicates moral abdication. The character is simply following orders and assuming that they are just based upon the source. So you need to first elaborate which of the two is more accurate.

Next, what OldTrees is saying is not "tell us what your alignment is," because that's the question you're asking; instead, OldTrees is saying "tell us how your DM's alignment system works," because that will be more useful here. I gave illustrations of two different methods of addressing alignment, either of which could be on or off point for you, and there are many more where those came from. You need to tell us how alignment works in your game before we can tell you how to apply that system to your PC.

Until then, the consensus seems to be LN.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 12:29 PM
Well i cant really inform you on my alingment now can I? That's what I'm looking for myself. All I know at this moment is its a guy who is 100% sure he is doing the right thing. I'd agree that in the end everything is up to morals. But thats from our standpoint. In his eyes he is doing the will of the church that in his whole life he was made to believe it was holy and just.

True enough :)
I would suggest deciding what your character considers good/evil. This will give more context to their position of being willing to do evil for good's sake when asked yet not thinking they even needed to do so yet. This won't help us determine the alignment but is often a better way to flesh out the characters alignment regardless of the player not knowing what the alignment of the character is (after all, being a non omniscient moral agent, it is easier to RP characters by understanding them as the non omniscient moral agents they are rather than by trying to imagine yourself as an omniscient moral judge).

Malifice
2015-12-29, 12:44 PM
He is a veteran of the first crusade, a holy warrior who does the bidding of the church without any further questions. He is the type of man who would kill a sick person inflicted with disease in order to stop the disease from spreading, after being ordered to do so from the (corrupt) abbot of the nearby church.

My question is one concerning his aligment. Essentially he is the guy who accepts that good can be achieved through evil means, but on the other hand, he is convienced he does no evil. My initial thought was the bad side of lawful good. Or maybe lawful evil?

100 percent Lawful Evil.

Your character can subjectively think he's a saint (many evil people do) and can be working towards 'the greater good' (most evil people are) and be thoroughly evil in his methods.

You do what needs to be done 'for the greater good'. You would kill the elderly, the sick and the defenceless in pursuit of this greater good. Other 'do gooders' lack the strength of resolve you do to 'do what needs to be done' in order to bring about order and peace.

You're totes LE.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 12:57 PM
100 percent Lawful Evil.

Your character can subjectively think he's a saint (many evil people do) and can be working towards 'the greater good' (most evil people are) and be thoroughly evil in his methods.

You do what needs to be done 'for the greater good'. You would kill the elderly, the sick and the defenceless in pursuit of this greater good. Other 'do gooders' lack the strength of resolve you do to 'do what needs to be done' in order to bring about order and peace.

You're totes LE.

On the other hand consider the following:

Bob believes that selfishness is evil to the point that only purely altruistic actions are good(with all else being evil). Yet Bob realizes that to be altruistic tomorrow(good) requires eating today(not purely altruistic thus Bob considers it evil). Thus we have Bob, who considers evil methods(Bob considers eating today to be evil) can be done to achieve good ends(Bob considers altruism tomorrow to be good). However we would consider Bob to be an extreme altruist and nowhere near evil.

Jane is a Warforged who believes the same as Bob, but does not believe she has ever come across a situation where there was a not purely altruistic action that would better serve altruism. She still believes those situations exist(Bob's situation is an example she would cite) but has not personally encountered one yet.

Believing in "for the greater good" does not necessarily make the person evil(see above example where the person believes in a more morally restrictive reality than we do).

Malifice
2015-12-29, 01:12 PM
On the other hand consider the following:

Bob believes that selfishness is evil to the point that only purely altruistic actions are good(with all else being evil). Yet Bob realizes that to be altruistic tomorrow(good) requires eating today(not purely altruistic thus Bob considers it evil). Thus we have Bob, who considers evil methods(Bob considers eating today to be evil) can be done to achieve good ends(Bob considers altruism tomorrow to be good). However we would consider Bob to be an extreme altruist and nowhere near evil.

Jane is a Warforged who believes the same as Bob, but does not believe she has ever come across a situation where there was a not purely altruistic action that would better serve altruism. She still believes those situations exist(Bob's situation is an example she would cite) but has not personally encountered one yet.

Believing in "for the greater good" does not necessarily make the person evil(see above example where the person believes in a more morally restrictive reality than we do).

In a game with objective good and evil then what a person believes, or his motives for his actions are irrelevant.

If you're slaughtering children, you're evil.

Intrestingly the character in question is aware he does evil things. Any illusions that he is a 'good person' is a self deception; he has insight into his evil.

Kind of like the Punisher. A LE dude who works for the greater good (using mass murder, brutal torture, and extortion as his tools). Contrast him with another 'dark knight' vigilante who also dresses in black and fights crime, just without the mass murder and brutal torture (and who isnt Evily aligned).

Evil antiheroes who fight for the forces of good are a very common trope.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 01:29 PM
In a game with objective good and evil then what a person believes, or his motives for his actions are irrelevant.

This is my point. Perhaps you would like to review my post wherein I pointed out:
1) A character's belief that doing (things they considers evil) can be done for (what they consider good)'s sake is irrelevant to that character's alignment in an objective moral system.
2) A character's belief that they have not done (things they consider evil) is doubly irrelevant to that character's alignment in an objective moral system.
I attempted to point out these 2 things in my reply to your post because your post was concluding the character was evil merely from these two irrelevant beliefs the character held. Sure there are evil characters that have both of these beliefs, but I demonstrated 2 extreme altruists that also had both of these beliefs to demonstrated via counterexample that these beliefs have no causal link with moral character.

Ashtagon
2015-12-29, 01:40 PM
Here's the thing. There's a difference between "I'm doing the will of the church, based on my understanding of its teachings," and "I'm doing the will of the church, based on what the guy in a robe tells me to do." The former indicates moral agency. The character is taking what he was taught, and determining what he deems to be a moral course of action based on that. The latter indicates moral abdication. The character is simply following orders and assuming that they are just based upon the source. So you need to first elaborate which of the two is more accurate.

Next, what OldTrees is saying is not "tell us what your alignment is," because that's the question you're asking; instead, OldTrees is saying "tell us how your DM's alignment system works," because that will be more useful here. I gave illustrations of two different methods of addressing alignment, either of which could be on or off point for you, and there are many more where those came from. You need to tell us how alignment works in your game before we can tell you how to apply that system to your PC.

Until then, the consensus seems to be LN.

I'm going to disagree with you.

By virtue of having a human-level of intelligence and wisdom, a character is mentally capable of making moral choices. Choosing to let someone else make your moral choices isn't abdicating yourself of moral responsibility (cf Nuremberg trials); it is in effect saying "my decision with regard to moral choices is to accept your choices as if they were my own".

Only creatures that lack the mental ability to make moral choices get to abdicate responsibility to another without consequence.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 02:04 PM
I'm going to disagree with you.

By virtue of having a human-level of intelligence and wisdom, a character is mentally capable of making moral choices. Choosing to let someone else make your moral choices isn't abdicating yourself of moral responsibility (cf Nuremberg trials); it is in effect saying "my decision with regard to moral choices is to accept your choices as if they were my own".

Only creatures that lack the mental ability to make moral choices get to abdicate responsibility to another without consequence.

Ashtagon's argument has precedent. This reminds me of a paper we read in a Moral Theories Philosophy class. If I remember correctly it argued against letting someone else choose because 1 it does not answer the question and 2 you are still responsible. Unfortunately I cannot relocated the paper(I think the paper used a term other than moral experts so my google-fu failed).

Apricot
2015-12-29, 03:19 PM
Ashtagon's argument has precedent. This reminds me of a paper we read in a Moral Theories Philosophy class. If I remember correctly it argued against letting someone else choose because 1 it does not answer the question and 2 you are still responsible. Unfortunately I cannot relocated the paper(I think the paper used a term other than moral experts so my google-fu failed).

First: I'm speaking about this solely in terms of philosophy. A given alignment system for a given setting presumes a certain moral philosophy, so of course the alignment system one ends up using takes precedence. Just want to get that out there before anyone starts quoting books at me.

There's a very strong argument for what you've pointed out: namely, that abdicating moral choice is a moral choice. However, it assumes many things to be true, and it isn't a universal truth (that is, you can easily construct a consistent and productive moral system that doesn't necessitate it). The argument in question is an extremely Western, liberal take on morality, in how it disregards authority and how it places morality in a sphere of its own. Consider the same argument made about any other field: "Letting someone else (a professional electrician) make a choice about your house's wiring is an electrical engineering decision!" It sounds utterly ridiculous. In these other fields, we know that there are individuals with more expertise and experience than us, and so we defer to them on the basis of their authority. In order to take this deferring-as-choice argument seriously, it would seem that we have to say that deferring to an authority is making a decision about the subject which we are deferring to them on. The problem with that is that it enters a regress: if we know enough about the field to know who to yield our choices to, then why do we need to yield our choices at all? A simpler way of putting it is that deferring to an authority is an act of choosing who we trust, which is a personal and social decision.

There is, in support of the argument you brought up, another way of taking this issue: to separate morality from all other fields of knowledge, and say that it is impossible to be a general expert on morality. This is a very daring claim, and pushes the issue towards a sort of active support of amorality: it's impossible to be a general expert because there's no such thing as general expertise, and if there's no general expertise then there's no means of judging right from wrong, which seems to negate the initial attempt to push the moral impetus onto the individual. Furthermore, even if we do accept such a thesis, we must realize that it is not a universal one. In Plato's famous Apology, for example, the ever-lively Socrates compares the act of raising young men to be good citizens to the act of raising and training horses, and appears to do so with utter seriousness. This is the font from which much of the Western tradition springs, and within it there is no objection to deferring to moral authority. The trend of deferring moral choice to one's moral betters (whoever they may be, or however they may be judged) isn't merely antique either, but in fact continues extraordinarily strongly through the Western Christian tradition: read Dostoevsky's account of the system of Elders in The Brothers Karamazov for an early Modern depiction of that very same act. And this is not even beginning to speak of what happens in the East, although my knowledge there is far weaker.

So, although it is true that Ashtagon's argument has precedent, the exact opposite case has far, far more. In fact, Ashtagon's argument is more a development of modernity than anything, with the best arguments towards it coming from the Existential tradition (Sartre's famous speech "Existentialism is a Humanism" is a poetic and compelling, if occasionally disjointed and contradictory, account). Whether or not one chooses to accept the argument, for the sake of alignment systems or their personal lives, is a completely different issue, but let's not be mistaken: it's simply one take on the issue.

Ashtagon
2015-12-29, 03:42 PM
So, although it is true that Ashtagon's argument has precedent, the exact opposite case has far, far more. In fact, Ashtagon's argument is more a development of modernity than anything, with the best arguments towards it coming from the Existential tradition (Sartre's famous speech "Existentialism is a Humanism" is a poetic and compelling, if occasionally disjointed and contradictory, account). Whether or not one chooses to accept the argument, for the sake of alignment systems or their personal lives, is a completely different issue, but let's not be mistaken: it's simply one take on the issue.

I had a great counter-argument written up, but because it might push against the no religion rule, I scrapped it. However, the existence of a great number of religions that have definite reward and punishment afterlives but lack any kind of limbo afterlife suggests that the idea of not being able to abdicate moral responsibility is older than Nuremberg.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 04:08 PM
snip

A very nice post. I will enjoy rereading it later when I have more time.

Sidenote 1: It is times like this that I wish the forum had looser censorship and thus could enjoy these topics deeper.
Sidenote 2: I used "precedent" merely to mention there was further reading about the argument Ashtagon's used, not to imply precedence(why does English make 2 similar forms of the same word have such different meanings?!?). Thank you for sourcing even more reading for people interested in that topic.

veti
2015-12-29, 05:58 PM
In a game with objective good and evil then what a person believes, or his motives for his actions are irrelevant.


Really? I thought the standard-bearer for "objective good and evil" in RPGs is D&D, and the SRD describes alignments in clearly motivational terms:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. - and so on.

Keltest
2015-12-29, 06:19 PM
Really? I thought the standard-bearer for "objective good and evil" in RPGs is D&D, and the SRD describes alignments in clearly motivational terms:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. - and so on.

Indeed, I am frequently confused when people say the why of doing something has no bearing on its alignment status. "Why" is the difference between a paladin who stands on the front lines to protect his comrades, and a blood knight who is on the front lines to get close to the carnage.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 06:35 PM
Really? I thought the standard-bearer for "objective good and evil" in RPGs is D&D, and the SRD describes alignments in clearly motivational terms:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. - and so on.

D&D is one of the poorest sources for discussing objective morality. Also his statement was only half right depending on which moral theory is right.

Intent, Action, and Consequence are all details of moral significance under one moral theory or another(examples in no particular order being Virtue Ethics, Kantian, and Utilitarianism).

Utilitarianism generally only cares about the consequences.
Kant on the other hand determines which actions are allowed by testing maxims(kinda like intent + action combined).

snacksmoto
2015-12-29, 07:35 PM
Imaging a world where the inquisition is at its worst, the chruch is moving all the strings.

Evil. Not specifically him, but that of the organization to which he pledges allegiance.


He is a veteran of the first crusade, a holy warrior who does the bidding of the church without any further questions.

Lawful over Evil. Unrepentant to his sins. Values the structure and hierarchy of his church far above analyzing his moral compass.


He is the type of man who would kill a sick person inflicted with disease in order to stop the disease from spreading, after being ordered to do so from the (corrupt) abbot of the nearby church.

Intolerant, unwilling to entertain less extreme measures. Willing to murder the helpless and innocent at the mere word of a church superior. Lawful Evil, unrepentant, values structure and hierarchy over even the attempt to do good or even alternatives.


Essentially he is the guy who accepts that good can be achieved through evil means, but on the other hand, he is convienced he does no evil.

Has no qualms about doing acts of evil, misguided in his "sainthood", ignorant in the morality of his own actions. Prioritizes Lawful over Evil but not a murderhobo. Most likely he will value the tenants of his church and commandments of his superiors over the laws of the land.

100% Lawful Evil.

Apricot
2015-12-29, 08:20 PM
I had a great counter-argument written up, but because it might push against the no religion rule, I scrapped it. However, the existence of a great number of religions that have definite reward and punishment afterlives but lack any kind of limbo afterlife suggests that the idea of not being able to abdicate moral responsibility is older than Nuremberg.

Oh, shoot - I didn't intend to butt up against the rules like that. I was just trying to describe that there was a strong case for an opposing position, and one which has a rich tradition. I thought that keeping the possibility of moral authority in mind might help with discussion of odd alignment issues like this. I would love to see your counterargument in a PM, though I should warn you that I'm not a strong believer in moral authority myself and was simply bringing it up to broaden the discussion. Sorry about pushing this to the level I did!


A very nice post. I will enjoy rereading it later when I have more time.

Sidenote 1: It is times like this that I wish the forum had looser censorship and thus could enjoy these topics deeper.
Sidenote 2: I used "precedent" merely to mention there was further reading about the argument Ashtagon's used, not to imply precedence(why does English make 2 similar forms of the same word have such different meanings?!?). Thank you for sourcing even more reading for people interested in that topic.

My mistake there! I completely misinterpreted what you were saying. Yes, Ashtagon's argument certainly does have a lot of precedent in that sense. I was seeing if I could broaden the sphere of discussion a little. Like, could you imagine a setting where the Good/Evil axis was arbitrarily set by the heads of two warring states (who have magic-granting artifacts in their possession, or something like that) and the only meaning of the terms was which side of that struggle you aligned yourself to? The ways that setting could press against issues of morality are delightfully Orwellian.

As mentioned above, I'm completely open about talking about these issues. The idea of how to create an alignment system that appropriately captures the incredible complexity of agent motivation is fascinating to me.

Malifice
2015-12-29, 09:39 PM
Really? I thought the standard-bearer for "objective good and evil" in RPGs is D&D, and the SRD describes alignments in clearly motivational terms:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. - and so on.

And this is determined objectively (bt the DM). If you are murdering, slaughtering children, engaging in torture and rape (no matter what the ends are to your means) you can not be said to be 'altruistic and concerned for the dignity of sentient beings'.

You are evil.


D&D is one of the poorest sources for discussing objective morality.
I disagree.

Its demonstrably true that it is only possible for objective alignment to exist (or indeed for an objective anything to exist) in a game like DnD (as the game itself happens in our imagination).

Without getting too cartesian, the DM has the power to say what is objectively true and what is not.


Intent, Action, and Consequence are all details of moral significance under one moral theory or another(examples in no particular order being Virtue Ethics, Kantian, and Utilitarianism).

And if the DM says that these theories are the objective truth (or none of them are) then thats what is (or is not).

I prefer to set the line (killing, harming, opressing = evil; charity, kindess, compassion, respect for the dignity and life of others = good)


Utilitarianism generally only cares about the consequences.

Again, only relevant if the DM says it is. Nothing in the DND alignment system to me screams utilitarianism. Evil is killing and causing sufferring. Good is aleviating suffering and helping other people. The only time killing is generally not viewed as an evil act is when it is done as a means of self defence or the defence of others, and when no other option reasonably presents itself. When it is proportionate and reasonably needed (again determined objectively). You cant reason with a tentacled monster from beyond the far realm, or a demon from the abyss or an undead monster. Paladins carry swords for a reason.

OldTrees1
2015-12-29, 11:59 PM
Like, could you imagine a setting where the Good/Evil axis was arbitrarily set by the heads of two warring states (who have magic-granting artifacts in their possession, or something like that) and the only meaning of the terms was which side of that struggle you aligned yourself to? The ways that setting could press against issues of morality are delightfully Orwellian.

... That is you subtly describing the Cosmic Allegiance part of the multiple authors Alignment RAW right? Aka the author that wrote RAW along the lines of Celestial evil is [Good] while Fiendish evil is [Evil].



I disagree.

Its demonstrably true that it is only possible for objective alignment to exist (or indeed for an objective anything to exist) in a game like DnD (as the game itself happens in our imagination).

Without getting too cartesian, the DM has the power to say what is objectively true and what is not.
1) The Objective in Objective Morality refers to the truth being independent of reference frame not the observation being independent of reference frame. Omniscience is not necessary for an Objective Morality to exist. All that is necessary is that Moral Relativism(the truth of an actions moral character depends on who is being asked) is false. For more information, read examples of Objective Morality Moral Theories like the aforementioned Utilitarianism and Kantian. Bentham did not believe everyone had omniscience and that did not bother him when he wrote about Utilitarianism.

2) I was referring to using the rules of a game as being a poor source for a philosophic concept relative to actual philosophy texts. While it is my fault for not being clearer about differentiating between D&D the rulebooks and D&D the game in progress, it should still be eminently clear not to use a game as a primary source for terms from a field of study(other than game design or perhaps game theory).

This is the 2nd time this thread that I found you replying to a post of mine with a dramatically different reading of my post than I the author of my post. If you need to suggest how I could be clearer, then please do so rather than continuing to reply to dramatically different readings of my post. (I apologize for the terrible wording in this paragraph. However forum rules require the author to presume fault in the cases of imperfect communication)

Malifice
2015-12-30, 12:51 AM
1) The Objective in Objective Morality refers to the truth being independent of reference frame not the observation being independent of reference frame.

And this is only possible abesnt a reference frame. In other words its impossible IRL. Or at the very least, its impossible to know anything objectively aside from bare self existence (Cogito ergo sum and all that).

In a game that takes place entirely in the subjective imagination of a person objective good and evil can exist.

It cant be known to exist by any of the inhabitants, any more than Neo can know that the spoon is not a spoon. But the DM knows.

If the DM says 'act X is objectively evil' then it is. Thats independent of what the actor himself thinks about his action.


Omniscience is not necessary for an Objective Morality to exist.

But it is. How can you subjectively prove to me the objective existence of anything?

Surely P-zombies, qualia, dualism, solipsism, postmodernism etc etc etc show us that all knowledge (barring knowledge of self) is entirely subjective?

Not that I have a problem with a character who subjectively thinks he is a good person, but objectively is not. Thats common enough; most people in prison for even the most henious of acts think theyre good people, or that their actions were 'justified'. Every genocide ever was done for 'the greater good' and all that.


All that is necessary is that Moral Relativism(the truth of an actions moral character depends on who is being asked) is false. For more information, read examples of Objective Morality Moral Theories like the aforementioned Utilitarianism and Kantian. Bentham did not believe everyone had omniscience and that did not bother him when he wrote about Utilitarianism.

Oh, Im not saying that beings inside the DnD world might not hold to ideals of moral relativism. Im sure the world is full of evil people who honoestly think they are good people, and only engage in murder and genocide for 'the greater good' of society.

In my games, they wind up in hell on death, have an E on thier character sheet, and ping to certain spells.

I once had a LE character who was engaged in genocide and torture to bring about a unified Faerun, free from the religious schisms of the time of troubles. One race, one god (Bane), one king (a DnD fascist). He viewed himelf as a righteous and good man. He did not harm children (being orphaned during the time of troubles himself).

He was genuinely shocked when he picked up a holy sword and it gave him a negative level. He put it down to deception by the gods in an effort to sway him from his righteous path.


2) I was referring to using the rules of a game as being a poor source for a philosophic concept relative to actual philosophy texts. While it is my fault for not being clearer about differentiating between D&D the rulebooks and D&D the game in progress, it should still be eminently clear not to use a game as a primary source for terms from a field of study(other than game design or perhaps game theory).

They can be as philisophically indepth as the DM wants them to be. He's the one that sets alignment after all.

If your DM agrees with a moral realtivistic stance then go out and commit genocide on your local orc village and rest safe in the knowledge that youre committing a truly righteous act tossing screaming orc babies into the pyre. Nits make lice after all.

Personally in my games, evil acts are evil. moral relativism doesnt enter into it. The only time killing is 'not evil' is when it is done in an act of self defence or the defence of others, as a last resort, and only when reaosnably necessart.

The DM decides when this condition is met, not the player.

OldTrees1
2015-12-30, 01:46 AM
@Malifice

Since this is the 3rd time in this thread that this misrepresentation of my post has occurred, I will be ignoring you for the rest of the thread (or at least until such a time as you correct one of those 3 misrepresentations).

Malifice
2015-12-30, 01:49 AM
@Malifice

Since this is the 3rd time in this thread that this misrepresentation of my post has occurred, I will be ignoring you for the rest of the thread (or at least until such a time as you correct one of those 3 misrepresentations).

Bro, Im not sure how I misrepresented you? I literally multiqouted your posts, and replied to what was written. Im not trying to be obtuse, but can you point out (succinctly) where I misread you?

OldTrees1
2015-12-30, 02:05 AM
Bro, Im not sure how I misrepresented you? I literally multiqouted your posts, and replied to what was written. Im not trying to be obtuse, but can you point out (succinctly) where I misread you?

It is against forum rules to point out or even claim someone else misread (as I have learned the hard way).

However details of my posts you might want to examine:

The difference between Truth and Observation:

We know that non omniscient beings cannot know everything by definition. This does not prevent everything that exists from existing.
Stating that a Moral Truth is independent of reference frame is not the same as saying everyone or even anyone would know(much less be able to prove) that moral truth. Objective Morality is the term describing the Metaethical position (reminder: Meta Ethics deals with questions about what do we mean when we talk about term like "Moral" or "Good" rather than questions about what is Moral or Good) that Moral Truth is independent of reference frame.

The difference between D&D the rules and D&D the game in progress:

Your responses keep mentioning a DM, whereas I was suggesting it was poor form to base one's understanding of a field of study(say Ethics or Economics) off some lines of the rules of a game(say D&D or Monopoly). These are drastically different conversations. All I was saying is don't rely on something like the Scrabble rulebook to teach you something like linguistics (with the implication that there are much better sources for learning concepts in those fields of study).

Malifice
2015-12-30, 02:44 AM
We know that non omniscient beings cannot know everything by definition. This does not prevent everything that exists from existing.

And I never disagreed with this point.

My point was that even if objective 'external' truth existed, it is impossible for a person to know what it is with any level of logical surity.

He could be right. He could be wrong. He can not know for sure.

My second point is this is irrelevant in DnD. Your character can assume moral relativism to be objectively true. He can assume solipsism to be the 'true state of the universe' (and ironically, he wouldnt be far from the truth).


Your responses keep mentioning a DM, whereas I was suggesting it was poor form to base one's understanding of a field of study(say Ethics or Economics) off some lines of the rules of a game(say D&D or Monopoly). These are drastically different conversations. All I was saying is don't rely on something like the Scrabble rulebook to teach you something like linguistics (with the implication that there are much better sources for learning concepts in those fields of study).

The reason I mention a DM is becasue we are dealing with a game that uses one. In the real world, all knowledge is subjective (barring knlowledge of the self), In the 'DnD' world there exists a DM who controls reality. If he says there is objective truths, then there are. Whenther your character can ever know them or not is a different story.

You and I cant know if objective truth exists in the real world. We can make a guess, and maybe we'll be right. But thats not the same thing as knowing. In DnD our characters are equally blind to the existence of objective truth; but it can exist (due to the fact tha the DnD universe happens subjectively - objective truth exists, if the DM says it does).

veti
2015-12-30, 05:35 AM
And this is determined objectively (bt the DM). If you are murdering, slaughtering children, engaging in torture and rape (no matter what the ends are to your means) you can not be said to be 'altruistic and concerned for the dignity of sentient beings'.

Err... yes, you really can. The DM, as you've pointed out, can say whatever she likes. Including that torturing innocents is not merely permitted, but actually required, to maintain a good alignment. It's her world.


Without getting too cartesian, the DM has the power to say what is objectively true and what is not.

The DM might, of course, be lying - as in, deliberately oversimplifying the world to reflect what the players should know or believe about it. Or she may be speaking through the mouth of a deceptive NPC. Or the DM may be just plain incoherent, trying - without realising it - to maintain multiple "objective truths" that are not logically compatible with one another (and may not even be explicitly stated).

From the player's point of view, there is no reliable way to tell if any (or all, for that matter) of these conditions applies, and even if you could demonstrate that one of them must be happening, there's still no way to tell which one.

So the DM's omniscience is - basically, irrelevant to everyone except the DM.


I prefer to set the line (killing, harming, opressing = evil; charity, kindess, compassion, respect for the dignity and life of others = good)

"Charity, kindness, compassion, respect" - those are motivations, not things that can be reliably detected and measured externally. If I choose to let a murderer walk away, is that an act of compassion, apathy or cowardice? You can't tell, unless I tell you (and I might be lying, if I thought it would have a game-relevant effect on my character). Sure you can form your own opinion, but to call that "objective fact" is just - nonsensical.

Malifice
2015-12-30, 06:03 AM
Err... yes, you really can. The DM, as you've pointed out, can say whatever she likes. Including that torturing innocents is not merely permitted, but actually required, to maintain a good alignment. It's her world.

Absolutely. The DM can list all kinds of abhorrent acts as 'good' acts.

Or simply rule moral relativism is the objective truth where anyone gets into heaven becuase they were doing what they genuinely believed was the 'greater good'.

Be weird rubbing shoulders with Hitler, McVeigh, Bundy and Pol Pot in mount Celestia, but hey.

OldTrees1
2015-12-30, 08:10 AM
And I never disagreed with this point.
Either you have been, since that dense point explains the entirety of our disagreement about Objective Morality, or you have not been responding to the 1st half of my posts at all.


My point was that even if objective 'external' truth existed, it is impossible for a person to know what it is with any level of logical surity.
Why would knowing what it is with any level of logical surety matter to whether it can be or not? It wouldn't (since you stated you never disagreed).

Why would knowing what it is with any level of logical surety matter to what source one relies upon to learn their terminology. It shouldn't since we don't use the Monopoly rule book as the textbook for Economics classes.


The reason I mention a DM is becasue we are dealing with a game that uses one.
But the quote you were responding to was not dealing with a game that uses a DM but rather was suggesting the core rules were a poor Introduction to Ethics textbook.


With that I am done. My previous post listed the 2 points of misrepresentation/disconnect between my post and what you were responding to. This post read with those 2 points in mind should correct the miscommunication. In either case my statement of

D&D is one of the poorest sources for discussing objective morality.
about how using the D&D rules as a source is a poor choice in a discussion about objective morality relative to other sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a philosophy paper, or a philosophy textbook. Should still be clear enough to the lurkers that I will not bother explaining it further.

Malifice
2015-12-30, 11:46 AM
Why would knowing what it is with any level of logical surety matter to whether it can be or not?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

OldTrees1
2015-12-30, 12:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

Your continual misrepresentation is infuriating! What I said is practically the opposite of what cypher is talking about.

At the beginning of the Matrix Neo was ignorant of the Matrix and Morpheus knew about the Matrix. Neither Neo's ignorance nor Morpheus's knowledge caused the Matrix to either exist or not exist. Existence necessarily predates knowledge and thus whether something exists or not is not dependent on whether it is know or knowable.

Go troll someone else!

Susano-wo
2016-01-01, 07:49 PM
Ijust wanted to add a bit about motivations. There are multiple...I guess layers is the best term...of motivation. The motivation for performing mechanical actions is often what turns them into moral actions. Picking up a hundred dollar bill is just picking up a hundred dollar bill, but what your motivation for doing so is what changes it from altruism or theft (assuming that circumstances exist that allow it to be either of those, e.g. you know who it belongs to). Similarly, the very definition of murder is wrongful killing. The killing has to be wrong for the mechanical act of killing to become a(b) (im)moral act.

Then, there is the motivation for committing the moral act (basically the mechanical+moral aspects of individual actions). That is where the confusion lies, I think, and people end up arguing past each other. Assuming an absolute moral system, your higher level motivation (why you murder, for example) is irrelevant to the morality of an action. However, your immediate motivation for an action (why you killed a person) is absolutely and manifestly relevant to the morality of an act.

OldTrees1
2016-01-01, 09:32 PM
Ijust wanted to add a bit about motivations. There are multiple...I guess layers is the best term...of motivation. The motivation for performing mechanical actions is often what turns them into moral actions. Picking up a hundred dollar bill is just picking up a hundred dollar bill, but what your motivation for doing so is what changes it from altruism or theft (assuming that circumstances exist that allow it to be either of those, e.g. you know who it belongs to). Similarly, the very definition of murder is wrongful killing. The killing has to be wrong for the mechanical act of killing to become a(b) (im)moral act.

As usual it is more or less complicated than that based upon which moral theory one is using(some ignore motivation, some use it and other factors, and some only focus on motivation). However that was well put.


Then, there is the motivation for committing the moral act (basically the mechanical+moral aspects of individual actions). That is where the confusion lies, I think, and people end up arguing past each other. Assuming an absolute moral system, your higher level motivation (why you murder, for example) is irrelevant to the morality of an action. However, your immediate motivation for an action (why you killed a person) is absolutely and manifestly relevant to the morality of an act.

Strangely enough the higher level motivations have been debated in ethics but not nearly as much. One example is:
Is it more/less/equally moral for someone that wants to do wrong to do right compared to someone that wanted to the right all along?

However, usually only the immediate motivation, the action itself, and the consequences before another actor are examined.

Susano-wo
2016-01-02, 08:41 PM
...Strangely enough the higher level motivations have been debated in ethics but not nearly as much. One example is:
Is it more/less/equally moral for someone that wants to do wrong to do right compared to someone that wanted to the right all along?

However, usually only the immediate motivation, the action itself, and the consequences before another actor are examined.

Yes, you can debate them, definitely. There's no universally agreed upon answer to that in moral theory. I was talking about systems where certain [action+motivation] pairings (e.g. murder) are always absolutely evil (e.g. D&D), in those systems, why you do them is irrelevant to if the actions are [good], [evil], or [neutral]. Of course, characters not caring if their actions are cosmically good or evil, or what they ping as under the Paladin's evildar can make for every interesting characters in thjose systems. :smallamused:

OldTrees1
2016-01-03, 01:19 AM
Yes, you can debate them, definitely. There's no universally agreed upon answer to that in moral theory. I was talking about systems where certain [action+motivation] pairings (e.g. murder) are always absolutely evil (e.g. D&D), in those systems, why you do them is irrelevant to if the actions are [good], [evil], or [neutral]. Of course, characters not caring if their actions are cosmically good or evil, or what they ping as under the Paladin's evildar can make for every interesting characters in thjose systems. :smallamused:

I have found that moral systems used by DMs vary about as much(although likely with different distributions) as moral theories philosophers debate about. Thus I tend to not privilege the RAW moral system in threads based in DM determined moral systems. This is the context in which I read your previous post (probably due to the "definition of murder is wrongful killing" phrase which is useful in discussing in moral systems).

Hence why I stated the exception to your statement before stating agreement with your statement.

Susano-wo
2016-01-03, 02:17 AM
Ah, I can definitely see how you read the post in that way. I was intending for it to be read within the context of A D&D style alignment system. My own moral thoughts are similar if not the same on the first part, and not set in stone on the second part. :smallbiggrin:

And yeah, I agree about DM variance. Every DM I've ever had has basically just used their own moral compass when deciding if something is good or evil, and not used the descriptions in the book. Which I'm kind of ok with. The book descriptions are often muddled and have distinctions I don't agree with, so its fine, since I play with my friends, to just have us go according to our own morality. When it even comes up what alignment people are. :smallsmile: