What if Alignment was based on Aesthetics rather then Morality?

[GorinichSerpant]

One thing I have noticed is that as a general rule of thumb, Good aligned creatures are pretty while Evil aligned creatures are ugly. What if which one of these matters cosmically was changed around, so that instead of having a giant cosmic war over good and evil, the war is over defining if the universe is Beautiful or Ugly? Out of all the D&D settings I think Planescape is the one that this would work best in, because it already has the theme of philosphical arguments with clubs and the moral alignment axis defines which planar force you're aligned with rather then how good of a person you are.

[noob]

I think I already know my side.
Count me as evil.
Well it would not be any sillier than current alignment and it would prevent the gm from bashing the players "because they are evil"

[BWR]

It will not make anything radically different, really. Various groups will argue IC and OOC about and possibly kill each other over (hopefully only IC) differing standards of physical beauty instead of beauty of action and thought.

[noob]

All the "what is the alignment of X" threads would involve a lot more pictures.

[GPS]

All the "what is the alignment of X" threads would involve a lot more pictures.
Every alignment argument thread turning into Dungeons and Dreamboats? Yeah, I think I could live with that ;)

I guess the main effect would be the ability to stomach alignment arguments again.

Of course, this is all theoretical and impossible to institute IRL because of the subjective nature of physically attractive traits.

[J-H]

In general, across most species, attractiveness correlates well with health. The male gorilla who is fast and strong is more attractive than the weakling with a deformed shoulder. The human with clear, healthy skin is more attractive than the one with a bunch of warts or leprosy. The Maiasaur with the largest head crest is more attractive than the one who looks like a pachycephalasaurus.

If you base alignment on a given species' attractiveness (rather than some universal trait, which might as well be "Is it more blue or red?"), you may be sparking off some sort of eugenics war. The ugly people fight against the attractive people... but genetics tend towards an average, so what happens if a couple of ugly people have an attractive kid?

It sounds like a horrendously complex mess that might make for a good campaign setting, but only for the right group.

[GorinichSerpant]

In general, across most species, attractiveness correlates well with health. The male gorilla who is fast and strong is more attractive than the weakling with a deformed shoulder. The human with clear, healthy skin is more attractive than the one with a bunch of warts or leprosy. The Maiasaur with the largest head crest is more attractive than the one who looks like a pachycephalasaurus.

If you base alignment on a given species' attractiveness (rather than some universal trait, which might as well be "Is it more blue or red?"), you may be sparking off some sort of eugenics war. The ugly people fight against the attractive people... but genetics tend towards an average, so what happens if a couple of ugly people have an attractive kid?

It sounds like a horrendously complex mess that might make for a good campaign setting, but only for the right group.

So are you telling me, demon hordes that are literally plagues, devils that bring about old age and angels of sanitation?

I was also considering the angle that the forces of Beauty must have great illusion magic, thought I'm not sure if that should mean that Ugliness should have divination capability.

[Kane0]

Shapeshifters are the new chaotic.

[Pauly]

It is a long standing artistic device going back to prehistory. Without having some accepted ideas on what a particular characteristic looks like you can't depict it in art.

[Satinavian]

Heroes of Horror already kind of does that with its Evil taint and resulting ugly but yet somehow beneficial mutations.

But to throw good and evil out completely and just keep the beautiful/ugly aspect is a nice idea.

[Beelzebubba]

Phrenology and Lamarckian Evolution are legit science in Eberron and other steampunk / Victorian / Industrial Revolution or later societies.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, is it not really good people think good beings are good looking and evil people think evil beings are good looking?

And the ''accepted standard of beauty'' in the Western 1st world is the Ye Old ''what they thought was beauty in 1950''.

[gkathellar]

It does. Ethics is an aesthetic sensibility, especially in the Great Wheel, where it's four separate sensibilities. "Beauty" is not an objective thing on a linear scale.

But in the vein of what you're thinking: Nobilis does this, actually. Heaven only loves the things that are pure, beautiful, strong, etc, and sets an impossibly high standard, demanding that we do more and improve ourselves and whatnot. Hell, on the other hand, loves everything, and goes out of its way to love that which is foul, cruel, stupid and corrupt - that which nobody else loves - and in the process Hell has gotten pretty foul, cruel, stupid, and corrupt itself. It's an interesting cosmology, and worth checking out.

[Nupo]

One thing I have noticed is that as a general rule of thumb, Good aligned creatures are pretty while Evil aligned creatures are ugly.
I have always kind of thought of Chaotic Evil as ugly, but Lawful Evil as good looking. Frodo: "I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler."

[Spore]

Our heads partially go like this anyway.

He is so cute/beautiful/ideal, he must be good hearted and pure.
He is so unlikeable/ugly/miserable, he must be evil and corrupted because of that.

If you don't see the persons (like in online arguments) you can easily do that the other way round. He is so nice and agreeable, he must be beautiful. He is such a miserable creature he must be ugly.

You often do this to justify your actions. In philosophy however, beauty has nothing to do with morals. But it is its philosophical debate: Is beauty important? Are you a better or worse person for trying to be more beautiful? Can superficial people be good-hearted?

While in reality both topics are loosely connected at best: School kids bully anyone not agreeing to a norm. Most likely these that set the norm themselves. Others can comply with the norm or not but their goodness isn't affected by their appearance. It's their attitude towards it.

[GPS]

In theory, this also means traitors and double agents would be super easy to find. Just throw water on everyone to wash off their makeup.

It would also make morality complete black and white, since in this there's no room for a good ugly person, so moral quandaries would vanish.

[noob]

Ugly people could be nice but that do not make them less ugly.
As well as beautiful people could be angry mass murderers without compassion.
Moral is not a term necessarily referring to alignment.

[Zale]

But in the vein of what you're thinking: Nobilis does this, actually. Heaven only loves the things that are pure, beautiful, strong, etc, and sets an impossibly high standard, demanding that we do more and improve ourselves and whatnot. Hell, on the other hand, loves everything, and goes out of its way to love that which is foul, cruel, stupid and corrupt - that which nobody else loves - and in the process Hell has gotten pretty foul, cruel, stupid, and corrupt itself. It's an interesting cosmology, and worth checking out.

Yeah, Heaven worships the sort of idealized, perfected potential of things- the platonic ideals, so to speak. Heaven wants everything to strive to become the most perfect example of itself. It only loves the things that are perfect and ideal.

Hence everything falls below the standards of heaven. Perfection is beauty; in the eyes of an Angel, all things are ugly. Everything is flawed.

Angels don't necessarily hate the flawed, ugly things- but they don't love them. They want those things to strive, to become better than the are. Angels want humans to perfect themselves, to become things worthy of love.

It won't be fun. It'll probably hurt- the path to perfection means giving up on comfort, on contentedness, on just living a life. And you'll never quite reach the Perfect, The IDEAL.

In contrast, Hell loves everything. Each thing that exists is loved by Hell and the Fallen. You, me, the things that creep on the ground, the things that sit on the shelf. Everything.

But especially the wicked, the nasty, the ugly and the unwanted. Hell loves those the most, because if not for Hell, who would love the parasitic wasp and the mass murderer? Hell is infinitely accepting. Hell is infinite love.

But Hell is also a bad place. It accrues bad things because it never rejects them. Hell has no standards, no desire to become more than it is. Hell is wicked because it exalts wicked things.

Hell is accepting, but it's acceptance is something that stunts and stalls. It says, "Why be more than you are? Why be something better? I love you as you are, so stay. The sun is hot, the light is cruel, so stay in the shadows, little flower."

Nobilis includes a lot of morally gray or at least multifacted cosmic factions.

[VoxRationis]

What if the alignments were artistic aesthetics? I'd love to see the forces of Art Deco clash with those of Art Nouveau.

[GorinichSerpant]

In theory, this also means traitors and double agents would be super easy to find. Just throw water on everyone to wash off their makeup.

It would also make morality complete black and white, since in this there's no room for a good ugly person, so moral quandaries would vanish.

There are multiple facets of alignment in D&D, one side is what it says about a person, the other is which side of the cosmic supernatural war the person is on. Beauty or Ugliness in itself doesn't affect morality. While the cosmic war can function very much without it. It does make it completely black and white who you do or don't kill, if you decide to align yourself with either of those sides, but if you are neutral then life has as much complexity as ever, plus there are appearance obsessed lunatics carving each other up around you.

[Millstone85]

From what I read of Nobilis, it also has a faction that believes what is essential is invisible, be it to one's senses, heart or reason. Only they are aware of that ineffable quality because they are from outside of Creation, and they intend to unmake it all in order to free "something" of its lies.

They are called Deceivers and are one type of Excrucian. Paradoxically, Excrucians are more beautiful than angels, and angels are the most beautiful beings in Creation. Excrucians are basically bishōnen Cthulhu.

[Honest Tiefling]

On the Nobilis trend, it would be interesting to see fiends be beautiful/ugly not based on their alignment, but origin for DnD.

Demons are ugly, and I don't think anyone wants their genitals anywhere near Pale Night, which is a sight so terrifying she will turn people insane. They are horrible mishmashes of nightmares and something so close to being natural it falls into its own uncanny valley.

Devils, often being born of a plane created by/for a servant of the heavens, are beautiful. Terrifying, but beautiful. But then again, actual lawful angels might also be the same. It would be interesting in a outsider heavy campaign if angels can pose as devils and vice versa. It would also raise some questions about who is and is not a devil or an angel, and their semi-divine origin.

But that would possibly make chaotic good outsiders ugly...Which is something I could get behind. They are concepts and beings beyond humanity, aspects of chaos to help and guide the world. They might be able to take on less terrifying forms, but something is always wrong with them. They might be beautiful, but something always wrong with them and it is only a form taken to interact with mortals. Oddly, the animal based guardinals might be a good choice to make CG, as they are beautiful, but not right in that they are races that don't really exist and most humans shouldn't be finding horse heads attractive if they want to pass on their genes.

[Kane0]

Oddly, the animal based guardinals might be a good choice to make CG, as they are beautiful, but not right in that they are races that don't really exist and most humans shouldn't be finding horse heads attractive if they want to pass on their genes.

... there are a significant number of people on the internet that seem to disagree

[Honest Tiefling]

... there are a significant number of people on the internet that seem to disagree

Yes, hence the line about not always passing down genetics. They would be strange, and wonderful, but still...Alien to most. Maybe with a foreign or strange sense of attractiveness at best?

[Max_Killjoy]

One thing I have noticed is that as a general rule of thumb, Good aligned creatures are pretty while Evil aligned creatures are ugly. What if which one of these matters cosmically was changed around, so that instead of having a giant cosmic war over good and evil, the war is over defining if the universe is Beautiful or Ugly? Out of all the D&D settings I think Planescape is the one that this would work best in, because it already has the theme of philosphical arguments with clubs and the moral alignment axis defines which planar force you're aligned with rather then how good of a person you are.

It would make about as much sense as alignment ever has.

[Joe the Rat]

Well, at first we are looking at a heightened superficiality - concern with appearance over intent, or action (though we can talk about aesthetics of action as well). That dragon was truly worth slaying because its scales weren't shiny. But when you get into the internal perspectives of the moral/ethic axis, Chaotic Evil isn't saying "I'm a horrible person." It's saying "Your own wants are the highest need, and those who are strongest (or most devious) should be on top. Screw the rest of 'em" is the right way to live - how the universe should be.

Aesthetic alignment comes down to having different views of what is most beautiful - in appearance, in speech, in action, etc. "normal" builds go here, exaggerated aesthetics here, theroform here, monstrous here. Symmetry and dual wielding here, asymmetric weapons here. Opera here, crunk there. and so on.



Heroes of Horror already kind of does that with its Evil taint and resulting ugly but yet somehow beneficial mutations.Pants are truly an insidious tool of evil, as they hide a multitude of sins.

[Jay R]

I think it's a fun idea to talk about for a few minutes, but adds nothing in particular to the actual game, except a change of McGuffin.

[Cluedrew]

I can only see this being a thing if you want to use it for a particular set up or to talk about a particular issue. I can't see it being part of a generic thing. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I think general good is associated with beauty because people are attracted to good things. Good as in morally good capital G, but also strength, intelligence, health and other positive qualities.

By the way Nobilis sounds pretty interesting. Also weird, but that is the best king of interesting. ...kind of interesting. Not quite the king of interesting.