Quote Originally Posted by gloryblaze View Post
I think the issue here is that the ultimate question ("What ought one do?") in the moral theory proposed by OldTrees (and which seems to be a real philosophy, based on his descriptions) is asked in a vacuum, not from the perspective of any person.

You said that the drow priestess's ideals align with the in-universe alignment "Evil". This can be true. You then said she "ought to live by that alignment." And from her perspective, this is true and she will do so.

The issue is that the question "what ought one do?" in OldTrees's moral theory is not asked from her perspective. It is asked in a vacuum, in a white room. In an RPG, it is defined by the GM. So if the GM decides that it is "moral" to follow the in-universe alignment "Good", then the drow priestess is objectively wrong to follow the in-universe alignment "Evil", even though doing so is what she believes she ought to do based on her ideals. Her ideals themselves are objectively wrong under this moral theory. She is mistaken that one ought to be Evil.
Asked in a vacuum, with no goal stated, there is no answer to "what ought one to do?"

This is true regardless of moral systems, subjective or objective. "What ought I to do?" cannot be answered if you do not already know the answer to the follow up question, "In order to...?"

That is, "What ought I to do?" depends entirely on what it is you're trying to achieve. If you have no answer to that, then there is nothing you ought to do. Alternatively, the answer may be "nothing. You ought to do nothing." Because if there is no goal, no purpose to your question, then anything you do will be in service to something other than your goal, because you have no goal to serve. And thus there is nothing you ought to do.

This is why most people have an underlying "...to be a good person" or "...to be happy" or "...to assuage my conscience" or "...to go to the best afterlife" or any number of other things they don't say when they ask, "What ought I to do?"

In a system with objective morality, if the underlying "to...?" is answered by "to be a good person," everyone will agree - because there is an objective definition of "good" - that he ought to behave in a good-aligned manner. Why he chose "a good person" over "an evil person" is an open question, but likely has to do with his society and seeking to fit in (which sounds Lawful, but really is rather ethically neutral; even Chaotic social creatures can prefer to be comfortable in their society).

The answer to the thread's topic question is that we know what they represent because we know what they are. And what is moral for one alignment is potentially (even probably) immoral for another. Or, put another way, any act with moral weight is moral, and the question is just which alignment it is moral for.