Alignment and Societal Differences

[RickAllison]

As is being discussed currently in another thread, alignment in 5e is more variable than in older differences, but one line is particularly interesting. "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

This is intriguing because it brings up the intersection of morality and social expectations. Now humans have shown that the same species can develop wildly different social expectations. Showing up on time is considered polite in the USA, but is very rude in Argentina. Religion is a public ritual in some parts of the world and a private affair in others. Australians consider horrible and deadly creatures normal, while the rest of the world thinks "Ahhh, kill it with fire!"

It becomes radically more diverse when other species like in D&D are introduced. Goliaths value competition as an integral part of life and so denying someone a competitive opportunity by "rescuing" them while they still have a chance to succeed is a negative in that society. Aarakocra have no sense of personal property and so have a nasty habit of taking shiny things. How do these factor into 5e alignment?

[LudicSavant]

As is being discussed currently in another thread, alignment in 5e is more variable than in older differences, but one line is particularly interesting. "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

This is intriguing because it brings up the intersection of morality and social expectations. Now humans have shown that the same species can develop wildly different social expectations. Showing up on time is considered polite in the USA, but is very rude in Argentina. Religion is a public ritual in some parts of the world and a private affair in others. Australians consider horrible and deadly creatures normal, while the rest of the world thinks "Ahhh, kill it with fire!"

It becomes radically more diverse when other species like in D&D are introduced. Goliaths value competition as an integral part of life and so denying someone a competitive opportunity by "rescuing" them while they still have a chance to succeed is a negative in that society. Aarakocra have no sense of personal property and so have a nasty habit of taking shiny things. How do these factor into 5e alignment?

The answer is a disappointing one: 5e's alignment system is just poorly thought out.

You are correct to point out that "the right thing as expected by society" is rather absurd as a definition for what is supposedly a cosmic, universal trait. Anyone with a basic awareness of the existence of other cultures is going to know that what one society considers a virtue, another will consider a vice.

As such, adherence to the expectations of society simply cannot be a metric for a universal alignment.

[lunaticfringe]

Been looking for an article since that other thread began. It isn't the exact article but it does a good job of explaining Ethnocentrism (http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm) from an Anthropological perspective. Having studied Anthropology my interpretation would be something like this:

Take an Orc raised in a tribe who values combat prowess, showing no mercy, viewed Elves as the irredeemable Enemy, and engaged in Raiding similar to Vikings.

That Orc raids an a Wood Elves village any slays many unarmed, noncombatant Elves & takes some as his slaves.

That Orc is Lawful Good according to his Culture/Ethnicity.

Wood Elves consider him Evil, he considers Wood Elves Evil.

[Temperjoke]

This is part of why I'm cynical every month when one of these alignment debates appears. Last month or the month before when this appeared, I recommended have two alignments, a personal one and a DM assigned one that is based on a "universal" standard (DM's universe, how does these actions rate?). It was mildly laughed at and regarded as unnecessary by most everyone, but I still haven't seen any other way to reconcile the difference in one's perception of actions versus how the universe/afterlife would view them.

And so the cycle of argumentation regarding alignment will continue.

[LudicSavant]

*snip*

Be careful not to confuse descriptive relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Descriptive) with metaethical relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Meta-ethical).

[lunaticfringe]

Be careful not to confuse descriptive relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Descriptive) with metaethical relativism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Meta-ethical).

Ok, will do.

[Sabeta]

Saying that Alignment = How Society views certain Moral Standards falls apart the moment you consider that D&D is a universe in which Planes and Gods exist that embody Lawful Neutral.

However, I think for your Player's Alignment you can generally view it by whatever standards your people or god uphold. That's the simplest way to handle things for 99% of the game. For example, my last DM wouldn't let me play a Good Necromancer (I was hoping to play something of a doctor in wizard form), because the simple act of necromancy is a desecration of people's corpses and society views it as purely evil.

[lunaticfringe]

But does Gruumsh consider himself Righteous or Sinful?

[RickAllison]

But does Gruumsh consider himself Righteous or Sinful?

I think Gruumsh gives no care for others or what they think (unless it is about fear). Gruumsh is in it for Gruumsh, and both other deities and his followers have no more bearing in his life than how much of a threat they pose or aid they can supply.

If you read the Evil 5e alignments, they are all defined by how those creatures fulfill their desires through certain pathways.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, the LG one always bothers me a bit, and I really like 5e Alignment. Same with the CG one. They're clearly written to be flexible, and as such they're very useful for player's use as a baseline moral & personal freedom vs order motivation, without so constraining things that other personality traits can't come into play. But they're a little too open to being interpreted as some kind of moral relativism.

[JackPhoenix]

Take an Orc raised in a tribe who values combat prowess, showing no mercy, viewed Elves as the irredeemable Enemy, and engaged in Raiding similar to Vikings.

That Orc raids an a Wood Elves village any slays many unarmed, noncombatant Elves & takes some as his slaves.

That Orc is Lawful Good according to his Culture/Ethnicity.

Wood Elves consider him Evil, he considers Wood Elves Evil.

But does he raid the elves "to do the right thing as expected by society", or does he just "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by his greed, hatred, or bloodlust"? And how does he behave in other situations? You can't determine his general attitude from one example...and he could easily commit atrocities against the elves because of his ideal/bond/flaw, not because of his alignment. It works both way: a wood elf may very well "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect" and his conscience would generally lead to him being a nice person despite being fine with murdering orc civilians because his bond is "does anything to eradicate orcs"

[RickAllison]

But does he raid the elves "to do the right thing as expected by society", or does he just "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by his greed, hatred, or bloodlust"? And how does he behave in other situations? You can't determine his general attitude from one example...and he could easily commit atrocities against the elves because of his ideal/bond/flaw, not because of his alignment. It works both way: a wood elf may very well "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect" and his conscience would generally lead to him being a nice person despite being fine with murdering orc civilians because his bond is "does anything to eradicate orcs"

An Orc who, for example, is raiding the elves and giving the supplies to Orc orphans along with a healer elf could well rank in as a Good Orc. His motivations were entirely for the benefit of others.

[Naanomi]

I like a universal alignment meter, but one where intent matters... where CE lichens can form a death cult with LN necromancers acting as clerics because they really believe the false dogma of undead ancestor worship and the like

[JackPhoenix]

An Orc who, for example, is raiding the elves and giving the supplies to Orc orphans along with a healer elf could well rank in as a Good Orc. His motivations were entirely for the benefit of others.

Yep, though likely not LG, because it's not something his culture expects of him. Indeed, such selfless behavior is so much against the orcish cultural norms that he's most likely CG, again, depending on how much he follows the other orcish traditions. It may just as well be a personality quirk (Similar to urchin's example bond "I sponsor an orphanage to keep others from enduring what I was forced to endure" if he was an orphan himself) and he may be typical CE orc otherwise.

Once again, character's personality and background is more complex than just slapping on an alignment fitting with PHB description and calling it a day. As a description of general attitude, though, alignment is useful for NPCs... who's got time to create motivations and personality for every random person the characters come across?

[druid91]

I generally subscribe to the Frank and K's Tome version of alignment.

Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are all extradimensional political parties. While there are sub-factions within them that more or less coincide with earthly civilizations in the end, there are objective forces who represent these factions. And if your beliefs don't hold up to THOSE representatives beliefs, they don't let you in their club.

[JackPhoenix]

I generally subscribe to the Frank and K's Tome version of alignment.

Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are all extradimensional political parties. While there are sub-factions within them that more or less coincide with earthly civilizations in the end, there are objective forces who represent these factions. And if your beliefs don't hold up to THOSE representatives beliefs, they don't let you in their club.

Sounds like Factions from Planescape.

[Shaofoo]

I sincerely wonder what would alignment would even add to the game at this point.

I mean what can it add in the game. All it seems to add is two letters to the sheet, a slightly clearer way to play your character (emphasis on slightly) and several hundred posts where we demonize the other side as transsexual baby murderers.

Alignment should go the way of the Comeliness stat.

[Naanomi]

Mechanical effects of alignment:
1) Sprites can detect it
2) some magic items have effects that care about alignment
3) some of the outer planes have effects that care about alignment
4) lycanthropy changes it

I think that is it? Maybe some modules have more (Strahd?)

[Tanarii]

I sincerely wonder what would alignment would even add to the game at this point.

I mean what can it add in the game. All it seems to add is two letters to the sheet, a slightly clearer way to play your character (emphasis on slightly) and several hundred posts where we demonize the other side as transsexual baby murderers.

Alignment should go the way of the Comeliness stat.

Actually, despite defending 5e Alignment, I agree it can go away. Because the Ideal personality trait tends to cover the same thing, a character's moral or social order motivation, but more focused.

Alignment exists on top of that because tradition. D&D just wouldn't be D&D without Alginment. But at least they made it easy to integrate with the rest of their personality system, so that multi-dimensional personality characters are the norm now.

At least among those that actually use the personality system instead of sticking to failed systems like a backstory. /troll

[Naanomi]

I like alignment from a setting perspective... the planescape setting and its structure appeal to me (even if I do sometimes use a different cosmology). From a mechanical perspective I wouldn't mind seeing it completely disappear though, so long as the Outer Planes and its denizens were maintained anyways

[Shaofoo]

I think part of the reason why we will never get rid of alignment is because of the need to have acceptable targets for the killing. You can argue about the ethics of killing orcs and goblins but the game itself goes out of its way to paint them in a very negative light so that you almost feel righteous in killing them (or at the very least not conflicted). I guess "killing them because they are evil" is slightly more acceptable than "killing them because they are different".

[Malifice]

What about CG? Acting according to my own conscience. I mean, who doesnt do this anyway?

What if my conscience directs me to randomly murder children on a daily basis? Can I really be said to be 'Chaotic Good'

This gets back to what I was saying in an earlier thread; the skeletal nature of DnD alignments is all well and good (it provides a lot of wriggle room for different interpretations), but comes with its own problems by being so broadly defined.

Why I use outside texts to support definitions of Good and Evil.

Yes, an Orc marauder who slays, rapes, pillages and acts with arbitrary violence (as expected by his society) is 'LG'. He may even subjectively view himself as such (a paragon of his societies standards).

But objectively he is CE.

[Tanarii]

I think part of the reason why we will never get rid of alignment is because of the need to have acceptable targets for the killing. agree with that too. I think of Alignment, historically, as a way of defining teams. Team Good vs Team Evil. Team Law vs Team Chaos. Team (Demi)Human vs Team Monater. Team Us vs Team Them. IMO that's once of the reasons the term was used in the first place.

I vaguely recall one of the books in one of the editions talking about how you could replace alignment with any grouping of teams appropriate to your campaign. Factions so to speak. Posssibly with 2 (or more) axis of alignments. Team Barbarian vs Team Civilized would be a classic axis. Maybe Team Monotheist vs Team Pagan on another. So you might have the One God's City Humans working with the converted Barbaric Orcs vs the Pagan but civilized Elves and Tribal Golbins sometimes, and vice versa others. Depending on which Alignment was stronger.

[lunaticfringe]

What about CG? Acting according to my own conscience. I mean, who doesnt do this anyway?

What if my conscience directs me to randomly murder children on a daily basis? Can I really be said to be 'Chaotic Good'

This gets back to what I was saying in an earlier thread; the skeletal nature of DnD alignments is all well and good (it provides a lot of wriggle room for different interpretations), but comes with its own problems by being so broadly defined.

Why I use outside texts to support definitions of Good and Evil.

Yes, an Orc marauder who slays, rapes, pillages and acts with arbitrary violence (as expected by his society) is 'LG'. He may even subjectively view himself as such (a paragon of his societies standards).

But objectively he is CE.

Always with the raping with you man.... Where did the bad orc touch you?

[Malifice]

Always with the raping with you man.... Where did the bad orc touch you?

Putting that to one side, a person with a Chaotic Good alignment should be acting according to how his/her conscience directs him Good manner].

Thats how I interpret it anyway.

Same deal with LG. The person acts according to societies standards [as long as those standards are Good]

My view is that there is a clear inference in the Good alignmnents, that you are... wel... good.

Ditto evil.

[CaptainSarathai]

I've always played alignment as being purely mechanical, just like anything else on the sheet. What a character does is up to them. Therefore, a person who is Lawful Evil can happily co-exist in the same space as someone who his Lawful Good, and as long as they're never caught actually eating babies, everything is fine between them. Only things which can detect your alignment, know your alignment and base their actions upon it.
This might also be because I allow alignment to shift during play, as I think all good DMs do. Some PCs worry about it more than others. I also warn PCs of the shift and let them explain why perhaps it shouldn't change their alignment at all.

I also like the idea that others have spelled out for Alignments.
Good = Selfless
Evil = Selfish
Lawful = follows predictable rules/laws/traditions/patterns
Chaotic = unpredictable

Neutral is very rare, and represents motivations that are almost inhuman or alien, or that are simply unintelligent (an animal acting on basic instinct is not knowingly selfish or selfless, and therefore neutral)

The only societal, situational status is the Lawful/Chaotic axis, but Lawful Neutral says that it represents someone who follows their own personal code. So that's how I take it: Lawful means you have a set of rules that your character will not break. Doesn't matter where those rules come from, you adhere to a code. A pirate character who strictly adhered to "The Code of the Brotherhood" from 'Pirates of the Caribbean' is Lawful. A character who sees them "more like guidelines" is Chaotic.

[Giant2005]

As is being discussed currently in another thread, alignment in 5e is more variable than in older differences, but one line is particularly interesting. "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

This is intriguing because it brings up the intersection of morality and social expectations. Now humans have shown that the same species can develop wildly different social expectations. Showing up on time is considered polite in the USA, but is very rude in Argentina. Religion is a public ritual in some parts of the world and a private affair in others. Australians consider horrible and deadly creatures normal, while the rest of the world thinks "Ahhh, kill it with fire!"

It becomes radically more diverse when other species like in D&D are introduced. Goliaths value competition as an integral part of life and so denying someone a competitive opportunity by "rescuing" them while they still have a chance to succeed is a negative in that society. Aarakocra have no sense of personal property and so have a nasty habit of taking shiny things. How do these factor into 5e alignment?

Lawful Good creatures doing the right thing as expected of society might not be referring to your character's society, but to your society.
I think it could be just a way of saying "what is considered good, is whatever the culture of the players consider to be good" rather than the writers telling the reader that they aren't good people because their philosophical views are slightly different. WotC is just trying to be as politically correct as possible in this edition (which is also why WotC felt the need to waste ink on obvious statements like "You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender.").