Alignments and Objectivism

[graymachine]

I'm in a campaign in which the DM views the alignment system through the mores of objectivism. For example, I play a Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge that is Neutral Good and am able to maintain my alignment through my actions, those being bring a measurable change to the world couched in what would be considered "good." While I've not had the time to read objectivism throughly, I understand the basic concepts. Therefore, what would be a breakdown of the alignments from an objectivist perspective, i.e. what consitutes Lawful Good? Chaotic Evil? Or True Neutral for that matter?

[Pie Guy]

Opinions of alignment vary hugely from one to another, so here's my understanding:

Lawful Good: Let's help the villagers fend off the Orc attack!
Chaotic Evil: Let's ally with the orcs and then stab them in the back after the slaughter!
True Neutral: Let's go bowling!

[Myrmex]

Opinions of alignment vary hugely from one to another, so here's my understanding:

Lawful Good: Let's help the villagers fend off the Orc attack!
Chaotic Evil: Let's ally with the orcs and then stab them in the back after the slaughter!
True Neutral: Let's go bowling!

In classic terms, yes. But in objectivist terms?

The villagers wouldn't get help. The lawful good thing to do would be going bowling. The lawful evil thing would be to help them, and killing them would still be chaotic evil.

Translating classic Alignment to an objectivist world view:
Lawful good = lawful evil
neutral good = neutral evil
true neutral = lawful good
neutral evil = lawful good
lawful evil = lawful good
chaotic evil = chaotic evil

Roughly. Objectivism is all about helping yourself and being selfish and hating everybody and putting on eyeliner... oh, no that's teenage angst. Sorry, sometimes I confuse the two.

[Faulty]

Wait, are we talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism or the idea of morals as objective, universal concepts?

[Zincorium]

I'd say it's safe to assume the latter, as the former is well beyond the scope of any sane game.

Utilitarianism is pretty much the watchword here: who am I helping, and by how much? If you're helping others, improving their situation, you are objectively being good. Doing so according to the rules of a specific society tends towards lawful, behaving exactly as those rules say is as far as you can get towards being lawful. Disregarding rules during your accomplishment of an objective is thus chaotic, and helping yourself rather than others is going towards evil.

Primarily, this is about removing the vague flavor and intent that compose the standard alignment systems- it's not about whether you were trying to help, it's about whether you did. Incompetent good is just as evil as methodical bastardry.

[thegurullamen]

Assuming it's Randian Objectivism, just swap the -neutrals with the -goods. Looking out for yourself leads to a better world and looking out for others is a fool's errand that leads to a society full of codependent people.

The existence of evil is questionable.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Play a CE character who undermines true good by randomly helping people while expecting no reward. A dangerous altruist of that nature could easily upset realization of the Enlighted Self-Interest ideal.

[Keld Denar]

The existence of evil is questionable.

(Heard being said in front of a rampaging Balor)

Man: Your existance is questionable! Therefore, I disbelieve you!

*slurt* *squish* *splat*

Balor: MMmmmmmmm souls! The other white meat!

[Faulty]

I'd say it's safe to assume the latter, as the former is well beyond the scope of any sane game.

Utilitarianism is pretty much the watchword here: who am I helping, and by how much? If you're helping others, improving their situation, you are objectively being good. Doing so according to the rules of a specific society tends towards lawful, behaving exactly as those rules say is as far as you can get towards being lawful. Disregarding rules during your accomplishment of an objective is thus chaotic, and helping yourself rather than others is going towards evil.

Primarily, this is about removing the vague flavor and intent that compose the standard alignment systems- it's not about whether you were trying to help, it's about whether you did. Incompetent good is just as evil as methodical bastardry.

Well, I mean a campaign world's ethics can be teleological or deontological and still be objective. Both Kantian ethics and Utilitarian ethics, for example, aim towards universal ethics. Which you're dealing with is really up to the DM.

Play a CE character who undermines true good by randomly helping people while expecting no reward. A dangerous altruist of that nature could easily upset realization of the Enlighted Self-Interest ideal.

Communists are Lawful Evil!!!

[Starbuck_II]

There was a 50% chance that it was a illusion.

[Semidi]

Note: I am heavily critical of objectivism and think it is by far one of the stupidest philosophies of the 20th centuries. However, let's at least try to treat it charitably.

Objectivism believes in RATIONAL self-interest. Rand describes rational as having several virtues: independence of mind, integrity, and be just (fair transactions).

Altruism is looked upon as immoral because it exploits the powerful for the sake of those without power.

Rand would think of a lot of evil actions (as defined by D&D) as evil. For instance, taking something without having fair exchange. However, giving something without fair exchange would also be looked upon as immoral.

So if I had to make a guess it would be something like:

Original D&D ethics -> Randian Ethics
Good -> evil (for those extreme egalitarians) to neutral.
Neutral -> Good
Evil -> Evil

The law -> chaos isn't as important. However, I think everyone would have to be lawful to follow Randian principles.

It's kind of difficult to do because Randian ethics are kind of alien to what is generally considered ethical.

If it's ethical objectivism (as in universal ethical truths)

Really, just take your favorite moral theory and base your world after it. D&D as it currently stands seems deontological, not consequentialist. However, I don't really know if the creators were that interested in ethics to make it a cohesive ethical theory.

[Faulty]

Alignment is only good for spells and DR, anyway.

[KillianHawkeye]

An objective Alignment system (the standard in D&D) means that any action you take can be categorized as Good/Neutral/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, regardless of how the person committing the act feels about it, or their general understanding of the situation. Basically, Good acts are Good, Evil acts are Evil, etc. This system does not take into account motivations for acts. There is no such thing as "the Greater Good".

When considering the Alignment system and trying to classify the Alignment of a person or action, I find it helpful to seperate the Good <--> Evil axis from the Law <--> Chaos axis.

The Moral Axis
Good: Good people generally help others, providing aid and comfort even to those they do not know and even for nothing in return. They protect the weak from the strong, defend Good, and fight against the rise of Evil. They usually accept surrenders and take prisoners alive.

Neutral: Neutral people usually act a little bit like Good people, but in a more limited way or on a lesser scale. They generally like Good better than Evil, but they can't or won't take an active role in spreading Good to others. They usually act Good towards people they know and care about (because they have a personal stake in their wellfare), while ignoring the plights of strangers.

Evil: Evil people, for whatever reason, seek to do harm to others. They may kill or steal, ruin people's trust or confidence, cause pain and sadness, or damage people's wealth or reputation. Most Evil people still provide for their loved-ones in one way or another, but often hurt or control them in some way as well. They prey on the weak and innocent.

The Ethical Axis
Lawful: Lawful people crave order, stability, and regularity, and usually respect authority. They frequently live according to a certain set of principles, whether it is a personal code, a religion, or the laws of the land. They may consider honor and loyalty more important than their own desires, or value the stability of the community over personal freedoms. They protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Neutral: Neutral people enjoy the benefits of a stable society, but aren't compelled to promote order and lawfulness unless their own livelihoods are at stake. They follow whatever laws of their church or country which do them some good or are not too troublesome to obey, but may be willing to break the law when it is advantageous or if they believe it won't hurt anyone.

Chaotic: Chaotic people desire freedom of choice and individuality regardless of the cost, and frequently chafe under rigid rulership and strict authority. They usually don't outright refuse to follow rules, but will do so only if it suits them and are willing to use unconventional means to accomplish their goals. They may follow their whims or their hearts, or actively seek to disrupt society and spread chaos and disorder.

---===---

So for LG, LE, CG, and CE, you can combine some of the traits of each alignment. Note that each alignment contains a wide variety of possibilities. Also note that alignment does not dictate personality.

You can have Evil thoughts and still be Good. You can hate your boss and still be Lawful. You can give candy to babies and still be Evil. You can support your king and still be Chaotic.

[Semidi]

An objective Alignment system (the standard in D&D) means that any action you take can be categorized as Good/Neutral/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, regardless of how the person committing the act feels about it, or their general understanding of the situation. Basically, Good acts are Good, Evil acts are Evil, etc. This system does not take into account motivations for acts. There is no such thing as "the Greater Good".

That's an objective deontological alignment system, not just ethical objectivism, it ignores consequentialism. A utilitarian is still an ethical objectivist. The objective standard is that the action taken must be the one that will maximize happiness. This is compared to thinking that actions are good or bad based upon the actions themselves.

Side note: your ethical and moral axis doesn't make much sense. Ethical and moral mean just about the same thing (depending on the philosopher of ethics). Ethics isn't totally about law and chaos (though that could be a factor).

[KillianHawkeye]

That's an objective deontological alignment system, not just ethical objectivism, it ignores consequentialism. A utilitarian is still an ethical objectivist. The objective standard is that the action taken must be the one that will maximize happiness. This is compared to thinking that actions are good or bad based upon the actions themselves.

I have no idea what you just said. I'm not a Philosphy major. In my defense, I started writing that post after the first response to this thread and it took a few minutes, and I figured it was a basic question about objective (as opposed to subjective) alignments.

Side note: your ethical and moral axis doesn't make much sense. Ethical and moral mean just about the same thing (depending on the philosopher of ethics). Ethics isn't totally about law and chaos (though that could be a factor).

While I know that the words "ethical" and "moral" have very similar meanings IRL, my usage corresponds to the terms as they are used in D&D.

[Anselm]

I think it's safe to say that the OP is talking about an alignment system based on Randian Objectivism, not merely an alignment system that is said to be objective.

As I see it, the way to go about this would be to redefine "good" to mean "in accordance with the principles of Ayn Rand", and "evil" to mean "in opposition to the principles of Ayn Rand". The axis of law and chaos is unaffected, though unless your gameworld radically differs from our world such that Rand's principles come entirely naturally to everyone, it's likely that lawful people will have an easier time accepting this code, so "Chaotic Randian" will be uncommon. Randian behaviour, "good", means acting entirely in your own self-interest within a certain code of honesty. Anti-Randian acts, acts of "evil", might be acts that go against that code of honesty, but the category of "evil" also includes acts done for the good of others or in the interests of an entire group.

I have to say, though, that if -- as seems not unlikely -- this idea came about as a result of your DM's interest in the real-world political philosophy, this sounds like a massively bad idea. I hold (entirely different) views which make the standard D&D alignment system seem fairly abhorrent to me. Were I to run a D&D game, the solution to that would be to drop the alignment system, allowing the characters to act freely and suffer merely consequences, not judgements, from the gaming system. Choosing instead to construct a rigid system of alignment to suit the DM's own political philosophy seems like a recipe for a bad, soapbox-like game (especially since it's obvious that you're not all born-again Objectivists).

If this is just a random idea to enhance game flavour, and your DM might just as well have chosen communism, fascism, anarchism, or any other ideology which has interesting implications if accepted -- carry on, though I still think it's a bit of a weird idea. You can explore a world dominated by any ideology you like without first forcing that ideology to fit into an arbitrary 3x3 table constructed for a gaming system.

[kjones]

The D&D Alignment system is... defined. It's not well-defined, but it's defined, and it doesn't mesh well with Randian Objectivism. If your DM wants to use Randian ethics, then he's no longer using the D&D alignment system, and should stop pretending as such.

[graymachine]

To clarify, I meant the Randian philosophy. However, for explanation, the game doesn't take this modification to center stage. In fact, the DM started the game stating that, "the alignment system will be mostly ignored."

It has become somewhat of an issue, though, with my character. Him, in keeping with the philosophy of the Ur-Priest class, fully plans to overthrow/kill the gods. Yet, he retains a "good" alignment. The reason for this, at least to my understanding, is that they fail in the honesty department. They have endless cosmic power but they choose to set up arbitrary systems of ego-inflation that does them no good and even less to the world they have a supposed interest in helping.

My character desires power and divinity for himself, which will in turn benefit everyone, at least as he sees it. Does the most aravice desire (godhood) with side-hopes of it benefiting the world fulfill a Randian sense of good?

[chiasaur11]

Objectivist, eh?

Make sure at least one guy is a faceless detective in a snappy blue suit.

[Tequila Sunrise]

My character desires power and divinity for himself, which will in turn benefit everyone, at least as he sees it. Does the most aravice desire (godhood) with side-hopes of it benefiting the world fulfill a Randian sense of good?

This might sound like a cop-out answer, but it depends on your DM. If he says 'yes', then it does. If he says 'no', then it doesn't. You need to ask your DM directly.

[graymachine]

The D&D Alignment system is... defined. It's not well-defined, but it's defined, and it doesn't mesh well with Randian Objectivism. If your DM wants to use Randian ethics, then he's no longer using the D&D alignment system, and should stop pretending as such.

Well, I certainly wasn't wanting to offend the high morality of the D&D alignment system...

[kjones]

Well, I certainly wasn't wanting to offend the high morality of the D&D alignment system...

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. What I meant was that if you're completely redefining the alignment system, there's no reason to frame it in terms of the D&D alignment system, which is, when all is said and done, not that great. (What alignment is Batman again? Or Dr. Horrible?)

If you're going to throw out the alignment system, throw it out.

But all this is secondary to the question of your Ur-Priest... bring it up with your DM. Since this alignment system is pretty much his concoction, he's probably the only one that really understands its bounds.

[Semidi]

Does the most aravice desire (godhood) with side-hopes of it benefiting the world fulfill a Randian sense of good?

To be considered good by Rand he must get Godhood A) Honestly (not stealing it for instance) and through free exchange, B) independently and from his own work (not simply getting it as charity. Others can help him, but they must all be acting in their own self-interest), and C) he must want to benefit the world by instituting objectivism and not simply giving out altruistic charity (think laissez faire capitalism/extreme libertarianism).

So yeah, I don't see any reason why it couldn't work if played right.

[hamishspence]

Objectivism has its flaws, but there are some points where it meshes with D&D alignment system quite closely. And some where it heads the opposite direction.

BoED:

Mesh: "An evil act is an evil act. There are no excuses"
"Sacrificing others to save yourself is evil."
"You are not required to help evil people"

Reverse: "Selfish motives make a normally Good act Neutral"
"sacrificing yourself for others is Good"
"Good people should be charitable."

To give an example, both an Objectivist, and a BOED exalted person, given the "is it evil to murder a few people to save the many" would go "It certainly is.- whether or not you are among the many or the few."

the Objectivist equivalent of self-sacrifice is, putting your life on the line, when you think failure to do so would make your life unbearable- the slave fighting for freedom, the husband risking his life to save his wife/children, etc.

also, helping others isn't forbidden- only making your life/happiness significantly worse by doing so is. If your friend is in trouble- you help him, because you value his welfare more than a bit of time and money. But once he's back on his feet, you don't spend your life continuing to help him. "Reciprocal altruism" for the win- help based on the assumption that some day, you will need help in return.

the phrase used in The Virtue of Selfishness was "benevolence is whats owed to intelligent life, by intelligent life" and it went on to say- if a stranger is in danger of their life, and you can help them, without putting yourself at unacceptable risk, you should.

Some forms of charity might be justified on the grounds that "poverty leads to crime and disease- it can be worth it to pay to keep it minimal"

[Kalirren]

I'm in a campaign in which the DM views the alignment system through the mores of objectivism.

I'm going to articulate a viewpoint that your DM would probably object to, but it deserves to be said anyway. If your DM views the D&D alignment system of Law-Chaos and Good-Evil through the mores of Objectivism, then your DM is making the exact same mental fumble as that Chinese scholar who attempted to understand the historical Jesus through a Buddhist-Confucian framework. The problem is that Randian philosophy, being a product of a different culture and a different time, convolutes the ideas of ethics and morality in an entirely different way than the D&D alignment system does.

The very D&D alignment breakdown comes out of a Viking mentality of adventuring, where when summer comes and you hop in your boat and go pillaging: being Lawful Good essentially means that you enforce it upon yourself to only go after the church silver and whatever food you need to make it back home, being Chaotic Good means you steal their winter foodstocks too, because you're going to be just as hungry as they are come winter, being Lawful Evil means you make a point of terrorizing the populace while you do so, and being Chaotic Evil means you rape, kill, and pillage from the defeated -because- people are watching.

I can understand attempting to explore Randian philosophy by making it into another alignment descriptor; something like "Individualist" versus "Communalist" would probably work, and it would probably largely obviate the law-chaos axis. Then the rogue altruist who would give a starving man a fish would be a Good Communalist, and someone who expects that the starving man should be given a fish would be an Evil Communalist, and one who teaches a starving man to fish would be a Good Individualist, and one who lets the starving man starve would be an Evil Individualist.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

What IS so interesting about Objectivism anyway? From what I hear over the internet, it's just a terribly flawed belief system that comprises some very heavy-handed (and physically heavy) books that only gained interest because a watered-down form of it (no pun intended) appeared in BioShock.

[Oracle_Hunter]

If your DM is Randian, then all you have to do is flip the Evil side with the Good side, and you have it.

Seriously.

Spoiler

Show

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

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshipping "selfishness-without-a-self." She held that the former is good, and the latter evil, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.[27] A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of August Comte's altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others.

Like "Evil," Randians refuse to sacrifice the self for the good of others. OK, that could make them Neutral too, but there is more:

Rand defined a value as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep." The rational individual's choice of values to pursue is guided by his need, if he chooses to live, to act so as to maintain and promote his own life.

Emphasis mine. A "Good" Randian would not only refuse to help others altruistically, but would also consider their own life first and foremost, meaning that they are willing to, at an extreme, let others die (or kill) for their own ends. "Neutral" Randians may not behave altruistically, but aren't willing to completely exploit others for their own ends.

Naturally, the converse of Good is Evil. Law & Chaos need not swap around, since they don't describe morality, per se. Of course, a "CG" Randian would be the "perfect" Randian, instead of LG - you can swap Law and Chaos if you'd like to maintain that feature of D&D.

[hamishspence]

actually, there is an element of "no sacrificing others to save yourself" in the doctrine. Its argued that there is no excuse whatsoever for the initiation of force against someone. By strict rules, an Objectivist would strongly disapprove of someone willing to murder and steal, even to keep themselves alive.

In the classic "lifeboat dilemma" when you've just arrived but the boat has just been filled, but hasn't been lowered yet, an Objectivist would say that violence in order to gain someone else's place in the lifeboat, who is already in place, would be wrong.

[Eakin]

So going back to the original orcs-attack-village example, would the good think be maybe to train them to defend themselves, with the expectation of some kind of reward if they successfully fend off the attack (the fair exchange thing)?

[hamishspence]

Pretty much: retaliation against those who initiate physical force.

the "if the orcs keep getting away with it, I will be in danger- stopping the raids benefits me in the long run" attitude.