New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 263
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Of course the spells did never explain what exactly the mismatch in the worldview was, only that one existed.
    "They believe it is a half full glass of milk before bed instead of a half empty glass of milk! Mismatch! Traitor! Heretic!"

    What a perfectly reasonable reaction.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-02-22 at 03:51 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    "They believe it is a half full glass of milk before bed instead of a half empty glass of milk! Mismatch! Traitor! Heretic!"

    What a perfectly reasonable reaction.
    really at point you might as well have "Detect Enemy", which is just a spell that detects whatever person is an enemy to you as determined by the GM. technically more useful for the average DnD group without any of the morality arguments.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  3. - Top - End - #183
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    "They believe it is a half full glass of milk before bed instead of a half empty glass of milk! Mismatch! Traitor! Heretic!"

    What a perfectly reasonable reaction.
    It did give a degree of mismatch as answer, not just yes/no. So it actually was useful.


    But there was also some "detect hostility" effect that some other part of the rulesystem provided. Didn't get much use though.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2021-02-22 at 04:04 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    "Detect Trolley Dilemma"
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    "Detect Trolley Dilemma"
    honestly that would be a useful thing for a morality system to have. one I might even prefer over detecting evil. evil is relatively simple to deal with no matter how strong or weak it is. a trolley dilemma is something with no real right answer and thus far more dangerous.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  6. - Top - End - #186
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Perhaps I should have put it in blue, but I think it would just be easier to cast Detect Thoughts or Zone of Truth and ask them what they think about certain things you consider moral. Having a spell that just cuts out the middle man and gives you that information wouldn't sit well with me, especially if there's no chance to resist it.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    It did give a degree of mismatch as answer, not just yes/no. So it actually was useful.
    I missed that it gave the degree. Neat. I had presumed it was of some utility but also reinforcing that it can't be used as a single source of truth (just like Detect Evil is not a license to kill despite the parodies).

    But it inspired a joke about the most zealous person using the least reliable spell I could think of for the least significant difference being mistaken as a valid difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    "Detect Trolley Dilemma"
    Oh what about "Pose Trolley Dilemma"?
    As you cast this spell speak aloud and concentrate on a trolley dilemma. Entities will glow green for option 1, orange for option 2.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-02-22 at 05:01 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Oh what about "Pose Trolley Dilemma"?
    As you cast this spell speak aloud and concentrate on a trolley dilemma. Entities will glow green for option 1, orange for option 2.
    Black for 'refuses to participate'
    Purple for 'requires further context'
    Red for 'out-of-bounds response'
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Black for 'refuses to participate'
    "No glow" for they've realized the Trolley Problem doesn't indicate anything useful about morality.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Perhaps I should have put it in blue, but I think it would just be easier to cast Detect Thoughts or Zone of Truth and ask them what they think about certain things you consider moral. Having a spell that just cuts out the middle man and gives you that information wouldn't sit well with me, especially if there's no chance to resist it.
    Why does the opportunity to resist the spell make its existence sit better with you?

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    "No glow" for they've realized the Trolley Problem doesn't indicate anything useful about morality.
    It might provide some argument for those who wish to determine whether toddlers are, in fact, neutral evil or not.

    Spoiler: Video of a 2-year-old being posed the trolley problem via Brio
    Show


    In case it's not obvious, I share this for amusement value more than anything else.

    Taking it way too seriously, given the lack of an actual switch and the need to consciously steer, this version of it would ask different questions than the normal one of "is inaction the same as action?"

    In terms of D&D's objective alignments, I think the trolley problem has more bearing on ethics than morality: are there rules you follow to make this decision, or do you make a more snap judgment when presented with each case individually?

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    In terms of D&D's objective alignments, I think the trolley problem has more bearing on ethics than morality: are there rules you follow to make this decision, or do you make a more snap judgment when presented with each case individually?
    Good insight. The way people approach the problem does say a lot relative to their answer.

    Other common approaches are:
    Finding a 4th option (because 3 is too few)
    Rewriting the trolley problem as 5 new variants
    Creating distance from the problem (flip a coin, defer to another, etc)

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Good insight. The way people approach the problem does say a lot relative to their answer.

    Other common approaches are:
    Finding a 4th option (because 3 is too few)
    Rewriting the trolley problem as 5 new variants
    Creating distance from the problem (flip a coin, defer to another, etc)
    Yeah. I think trying to find more options (3, 4, however many) is actually an answer on the moral test: they find both (all) solutions provided unacceptable, and will devote their emotional and intellectual effort to finding something better.

    Rewriting the problem is similar: it's a rejection of the scenario as impossible, because they believe that real scenarios will have alternate solutions. Or, if you mean things like "well, what about pushing a fat man onto the tracks," that's less about the people answering the trolley problem and more about the people asking it.

    When they create distance, that's actually an ethics answer, same as any other evaluation of their process. In this case, they have a set of rules they follow, and we can have long and arduous discussions on whether the rules they follow are lawful, neutral, or chaotic.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Yeah. I think trying to find more options (3, 4, however many) is actually an answer on the moral test: they find both (all) solutions provided unacceptable, and will devote their emotional and intellectual effort to finding something better.

    Rewriting the problem is similar: it's a rejection of the scenario as impossible, because they believe that real scenarios will have alternate solutions. Or, if you mean things like "well, what about pushing a fat man onto the tracks," that's less about the people answering the trolley problem and more about the people asking it.

    When they create distance, that's actually an ethics answer, same as any other evaluation of their process. In this case, they have a set of rules they follow, and we can have long and arduous discussions on whether the rules they follow are lawful, neutral, or chaotic.
    By rewriting I meant people asking themselves 5 variants in order to think about the original question. It is the opposite of trying to find a 3rd option.

    Trying to find a 3rd option is rejecting the investigation the question is asking. Usually due to thinking about it as a concrete case that must have enough detail to find a 3rd option.

    Asking yourself variants is driving the investigation deeper. I answer this way in the default case, but is it really about inaction vs action or not? If I do variations that keep that consistent, will I still answer the same way? Famous examples include the fat man, the organ harvesting, and the miracle cure. Maybe inaction is no excuse in the default case but suddenly inaction sounds right in the organ harvesting case. Hmm. Then there must be a different reason explaining why.

    For the distance I was talking about them trying to reduce ownership of their answer. They try to inject some other actor (a coin for example) into the situation. Although if there is no agent around to inject, does a non agent actor actually create distance, or just the illusion of distance?

    Some of these tell us other details about the character's personalities.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-03-03 at 06:42 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Grrr…

    IMO, the trolley problem breaks down as follows:

    If I do nothing, I am not at fault. I did not set this trolley on this path. If I act, I am at fault.

    Moreover, if I act, I am *legally* at fault, and can be charged accordingly.

    Moreover, I may be *wrong*, and what I *perceive* as a threat might not actually be a problem (shooting a film, for example). If I am wrong, then it could be a choice between 0 deaths and 1 death.

    In order to remove all those excess variables… well, it depends on which aspect you *want* to evaluate.

    Because, not unlike the original CaW vs CaS article, the trolley problem seems to be comparing too many variables at once.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Why does the opportunity to resist the spell make its existence sit better with you?
    One of the nice trends ive seen happen with D&D is for magic to be less automatic. There are more chances of failure in the form of attack rolls and saving throws rather than relying on magic to counteract magic (spell resistance, miss chance, contingencie, etc). The fewer instances of ‘nope, it just happens’ the better for me, as TTRPGs for me derive a lot of their enjoyment from their uncertainty, that chance of success and failure. The roll of the dice is interesting, automatically reading someone’s morality takes a chunk of fun out of it.
    Like, having no save leads to things like Belkar’s trusty sheet of lead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Grrr…

    IMO, the trolley problem breaks down as follows:

    If I do nothing, I am not at fault. I did not set this trolley on this path. If I act, I am at fault.

    Moreover, if I act, I am *legally* at fault, and can be charged accordingly.

    Moreover, I may be *wrong*, and what I *perceive* as a threat might not actually be a problem (shooting a film, for example). If I am wrong, then it could be a choice between 0 deaths and 1 death.

    In order to remove all those excess variables… well, it depends on which aspect you *want* to evaluate.
    Ah, so you’d glow purple then :P
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2020

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    The trolley problem is a good case to consider, because it illustrates the point that not only are there multiple axes on which good can be measured, but that they can actively oppose each other.

    There are several moral principles that could apply to the trolley problem: the principle of "avoid causing death" would have us not pull the lever, while "more survivors is better" would have us pull it. Most people would agree that both of those principles are important - but, when they are in conflict with each other, there's widespread disagreement over which one is more important. People who consider themselves to be good (or at least, in DnD-terms, neutral with good leanings) can and do disagree on what the good thing to do in this situation would be, or whether there even is a good thing to do, or whether there's only one.

    One of the downsides of having a game with objective morality is that conflicts of this sort are difficult to represent well. That's not to say that they can't be represented at all - Miko's aforementioned kerfuffle is a shining example - but the fact that detect good can confirm that you're all on the same team combined with the existence of imminent threats that ping on detect evil does tend to put a damper on them.

    I think that moral foundations theory would be a good place to start if you want to formalize this. The six foundations (Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression) could work very well to represent, in a way that's nuanced enough to be useful for roleplay and characterizations yet simple enough for a game system, both which principles a character considers important and how they measure up in light of those principles.

    There are plenty of real-world examples of conflict between people with differing opinions on which of these moral foundations are more important, so there's lots to draw from if you want conflict between "good" characters. I won't discuss specifics because most of these conflicts are political, but there's fertile ground here.

    A system based on moral foundations theory would also do quite a nice job of representing the law/chaos axis with more nuance than the original nine-alignment grid. Characters who value authority highly are quite different from those who value fairness and loyalty, yet both would be considered "lawful" under the old system. Characters who would choose liberty over authority are quite different from those who would choose liberty over absolutely all else, yet both would be considered "chaotic" under the old system.

    Actually, let's spell this out in full:

    • Lawful good: Primarily values care plus at least one out of of authority, loyalty, fairness, and sanctity. (Depending on the DM, any of these last four may be required. Authority is likely to be required.) May appreciate liberty, but when push comes to shove will choose other principles over it.
    • Neutral good: Values care very highly. Everything else is optional so long as the character doesn't stray into LG or CG territory.
    • Chaotic good: Primarily values care and liberty, and doesn't put much weight on authority. Everything else is optional.
    • Lawful neutral: Values at least one out of of authority, loyalty, fairness, and sanctity. (Depending on the DM, any of these four may be required. Authority is likely to be required.) May appreciate liberty and care, but when push comes to shove will choose other principles over them.
    • Neutral: Either doesn't value anything so much that it's always a clear overriding factor, or has a combination of values that can't be made to fit sensibly into any other alignment.
    • Chaotic neutral: Doesn't value authority, and probably places low or no value on loyalty, fairness, and/or sanctity. Values liberty and/or care enough to avoid being CE but not so much as to be CG.
    • Lawful evil: Values at least one out of of authority, loyalty, fairness, and sanctity. (Depending on the DM, any of these four may be required. Authority is likely to be required.) Does not value care or liberty.
    • Neutral evil: Does not value care. Everything else is optional so long as the character doesn't become LE or CE.
    • Chaotic evil: Does not value any of the moral foundations at all. (No, not even liberty - as much as they may like it for themselves, a CE character does not care about the liberty of others.)


    There's a lot of nuance here. The only alignment out of the original nine that doesn't have room for significant differences in opinion between members is CE, and that's an alignment that's well-known for being one-note. (It's also an alignment whose members usually end up fighting each other even if they all want exactly the same thing, so if you're looking to make a game where fine ethical disagreements can lead to conflict, you really don't need a way to represent those disagreements here.)

    I think it's also important to note that players can also disagree with their GM on what's good and evil, and it can be very disheartening to do what you believe is the right thing only to be told that your character is now evil as a result. Worse yet, the only way to restore your character's alignment requires that you agree (or at least pretend to agree) that what you did was wrong - the atonement spell only works on someone who is truly repentant, so someone who thinks that they actually did the right thing can't benefit from it!

    If your DM were to instead say something to the effect of "OK, that's going to loose you a mark of Sanctity" then that'd feel a lot better as a player - because if the player thinks that whatever they did to loose sanctity was the right thing then they must not consider sanctity to be important, so they won't take that loss as a mark against them personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Black for 'refuses to participate'
    Purple for 'requires further context'
    Red for 'out-of-bounds response'
    Since we're talking about the trolley problem, I'm going to have a little fun with it: you should derail the cart. If you pull the lever at just the right time, you'll send the front wheels of the cart down one track and the rear wheels down another, potentially saving everybody.

    Of course, that's only what I'd do if I had time enough to think. One of the key components of the trolley problem as it's normally posed is that everything happens quickly. It's supposed to be a forced binary choice, and forcing this binary choice is justified by the assumption that there won't be time to look for third options.

    Yet what people who pose the trolley problem almost always miss is that, if it happens too fast to look for third options, then it also happens too fast to reason and philosophize and wring one's hands over the right response. The real answer to the fast trolley problem must be a reaction, with justification being either absent or contrived to fit. You can't have it both ways - either this is an exercise in moral reasoning where we can actually perform moral reasoning, or it's one with a forced binary choice. If it's the latter, then regardless of what you might think that you should do, for many of us the real answer would be "panic and freeze."

    The trolley problem is moderately useful as a contrivance. I think it's only useful it it's acknowledged as a contrivance, though. When we're talking about the trolley problem, we're not really talking about trolleys. We're talking about how we make hard decisions between distasteful options via a fantastical (and therefore comfortably not real-world) example.

    As I said earlier, they trolley problem illustrates the point that there are multiple principles that could be considered good but which can oppose each other. I suspect that any further insights that could be drawn from it would only be further elaborations on that theme. Nitpicking the presentation of the problem may be fun, and I'll admit that I indulged in that nitpicky fun in the above few paragraphs, but seriously, I think that the best insights that can be gleaned from it come from acknowledging the contrivance and then that, accepting it as constructed model example, it is a problem.

    So, I suppose I'm glowing red.
    Last edited by Herbert_W; 2021-03-07 at 11:07 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    It might provide some argument for those who wish to determine whether toddlers are, in fact, neutral evil or not.

    Spoiler: Video of a 2-year-old being posed the trolley problem via Brio
    Show
    That may be the only useful result to ever come out of the trolley problem.

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_W View Post
    I think that moral foundations theory would be a good place to start if you want to formalize this. The six foundations (Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression) could work very well to represent, in a way that's nuanced enough to be useful for roleplay and characterizations yet simple enough for a game system, both which principles a character considers important and how they measure up in light of those principles.
    This sounds like a workable concept, however i’m curious if we can cut or combine these six into a set of three? I’m a sucker for the rule of three and it might make the concept a bit easier to utilize at the game table.
    Last edited by Kane0; 2021-03-07 at 10:50 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_W View Post
    I think that moral foundations theory would be a good place to start if you want to formalize this. The six foundations (Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression) could work very well to represent, in a way that's nuanced enough to be useful for roleplay and characterizations yet simple enough for a game system, both which principles a character considers important and how they measure up in light of those principles.
    Instead of going back to the 9 alignments, why not use those 6 values? There are a few ways to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    This sounds like a workable concept, however i’m curious if we can cut or combine these six into a set of three? I’m a sucker for the rule of three and it might make the concept a bit easier to utilize at the game table.
    I don't see how to compress it down to 3. 6 feels like an incomplete list but should be mostly servicable.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2021-03-07 at 11:38 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2020

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Instead of going back to the 9 alignments, why not use those 6 values?
    That's what I'm suggesting. I only brought the train of thought back around to the nine alignments to show how much each one glosses over - how many different ways there are for characters who have the "same" alignment on the nine-sector grid to have dramatic ethical differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    This sounds like a workable concept, however i’m curious if we can cut or combine these six into a set of three? I’m a sucker for the rule of three and it might make the concept a bit easier to utilize at the game table.
    Ultima: Quest of the Avatar was mentioned earlier in this thread, and that managed to expand three core principles into six virtues (and then added ones "above" and "around" to make eight). We could do a similar thing here to make it seem like the six foundations come from three.

    For example, we could have these cores, each of which composes one foundation when unalloyed:

    • Beneficence: Care
    • Acceptance: Authority
    • Trust: Liberty

    When alloyed, the other three foundations emerge:

    • Beneficence/Acceptance: Loyalty
    • Trust/Beneficence: Fairness
    • Acceptance/Trust: Sanctity

    (It's a little bit tempting to posit a seventh foundation that consists of all of the cores alloyed together. Perhaps this could be balance, as in the ability to strike a good balance between the foundations when they conflict. That's not a foundation that people are instinctively inclined to value - it's not baked into human brains, like the original six supposedly are - but it is something that people might learn to value after spending time trying to build consensus and community among others who have varying foundational preferences.)

    I'd recommend having this three-core representation serve as a way of justifying the system within the rule of threes rather than as a replacement for having six independent values. You would loose a lot of nuance if you were to collapse these six foundations into just the three. Someone could value liberty very highly while not caring much for fairness and sanctity, or vice versa, for example.

    This system is drawn from real-world human psychology (or, at least, a certain group of psychologists' understanding thereof). That's good in a way, as it makes it suitable for describing believably human-like characters. However, it does mean that it's going to be a little messy. We shouldn't expect things to fall into neat categories and patterns that match our aesthetic preferences. It's really quite a wonder that things work out as neatly as they do!

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    So knowing full well it would reduce the depth/complexity, how about each character just prioritizes Care, Fairness and Loyalty from most to least important. Should be quick and easy for most players to get their heads around and get on with the game.
    I think Sanctity wouldn't really translate well into something like D&D, though Loyalty to the group and Respect for authority could be split into their own separate values (but as noted i'm a sucker for the rule of 3's).
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    So knowing full well it would reduce the depth/complexity, how about each character just prioritizes Care, Fairness and Loyalty from most to least important. Should be quick and easy for most players to get their heads around and get on with the game.
    I think Sanctity wouldn't really translate well into something like D&D, though Loyalty to the group and Respect for authority could be split into their own separate values (but as noted i'm a sucker for the rule of 3's).
    Sounds a lot like Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    I think Sanctity wouldn't really translate well into something like D&D, though Loyalty to the group and Respect for authority could be split into their own separate values (but as noted i'm a sucker for the rule of 3's).
    The whole morality issue of necromancy is primarily about sanctity. Including sanctity would mean that this and simila practices would be properly represented instead of making excuses why they relate to the other axes or to make them morally neutral.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Sounds a lot like Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.
    Which when properly utilised is also a great stand-in for alignment I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    The whole morality issue of necromancy is primarily about sanctity. Including sanctity would mean that this and simila practices would be properly represented instead of making excuses why they relate to the other axes or to make them morally neutral.
    Necromancy isn’t the same between settings though. In some cases its irredeemably bad, corrupting, nasty and always so, in others its just another tool in the magic toolbox and comes largely down to how it’s used. Then on top of that you have how people feel about it in-world of course.
    Sanctity doesn’t really strike me as a means of determining good/bad or right/wrong any more than tradition or external authority does, you’re just offloading the process elsewhere.
    But i get your point, not everyone shares this point of view.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Which when properly utilised is also a great stand-in for alignment I suppose.
    Maybe, if you're trying to use Alignment as strictly a personality test, but even then, they tell you somewhat different things.

    An Ideal of "I will see my brother's death avenged" seen through the eyes of a Lawful Good character will be rather different than through the eyes of a Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Evil character.


    The Chaotic Evil character whose Bond is, "I betrayed my family once and lost everything that mattered; I will never betray my adopted replacements," will be quite different from a Lawful Good person with the same Bond. Unless some drastic alignment shift happened between the instigating betrayal and now, the CAUSE of the betrayal and its nature may also be quite different. The LG guy may have betrayed them because he found himself in a "break the law or support family" sort of deal, and has now shifted from choosing "the law/his oaths" to "his family/friends" as how he expresses his Lawful nature. The CE guy may have betrayed his family out of the kind of malicious selfishness one expects of the alignment, and has decided that his in-group is more important to him than himself now (but still will do horrific things to support and protect that in-group against out-groupers).

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2020

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    So knowing full well it would reduce the depth/complexity, how about each character just prioritizes Care, Fairness and Loyalty from most to least important. Should be quick and easy for most players to get their heads around and get on with the game.
    I think Sanctity wouldn't really translate well into something like D&D, though Loyalty to the group and Respect for authority could be split into their own separate values (but as noted i'm a sucker for the rule of 3's).
    The issue that I see with dropping moral foundations from the game is that, if you do so, then a character who values those foundations is indistinguishable rules-wise from a person who has no values at all. You'll unintentionally send the message that people who hold those values IRL are not good people (and yes, sanctity, authority, and liberty might seem like an odd combination of vales - but I do know someone who thinks like that, so it's not inconceivable that one of your players will.)

    On the other hand, if you split this into a G/E replacement (which is what you seem to be describing, as you listed all of the foundations that relate to beneficence) plus what I assume would be a L/C replacement then you add unnecessary complexity. You also add unnecessary judgement, by implying that all of the foundations that you group together a law-like or chaos-like do not count as good-like.

    I'm proposing this system as an alignment replacement. That means that it could replace both the G/E and L/C axes with a single unified system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Sanctity doesn’t really strike me as a means of determining good/bad or right/wrong any more than tradition or external authority does, you’re just offloading the process elsewhere.

    But i get your point, not everyone shares this point of view.
    Yes, exactly. The main point of moral foundations theory is that different people can have different ideas about what it means, fundamentally, to be right or wrong.

    As an aside, I think that sanctity fits very well into DnD, given that what is true in the game is based loosely yet largely on what was believed (or what modern people think was believed) in medieval times. It makes perfect sense that a rogue who steals from temples in order to feed their street urchin friends would be very unpopular with the gods, or at least with some gods. They certainly value care and would therefore count as good under a classical alignment system, but the disrespect for sanctity that they display would make it entirely appropriate that they could be affected by holy word and the like despite being good. Sanctity allows this sort of consequence to be represented mechanically. It's also the only moral foundation that we can say that the creation of undead universally and indisputably offends. (Care? Nope, you might use undead minions safely if you're careful and can offset any magical negative energy pollution with positive energy, depending on the campaign. Authority? That depends on whether the authority you follow prohibits the use of undead, which not all do. Loyalty and fairness? Not really applicable. Liberty? Not applicable if the undead are mindless.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Sounds a lot like Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.
    You could make it work like that, but I think it'd be mechanically simpler to roll everything into a set of something like Ideals. This is an alignment replacement, after all. We need a simple way to answer the question of "When this particular cleric casts blasphemy, who gets hurt?"

    So, maybe it's time to hash this out into a ruleset. Here's a rough draft:

    A character's ethical values, and how well they measure up according to those values, are determined by their relationship to six ethical principles: care, loyalty, authority, liberty, fairness, and sanctity. These are not mere abstract concepts in the world of DnD; they are metaphysical principles which are just as real as heat, light, and matter. A creature's ethical status can be detected by magic and determines how they are affected by certain spells.

    Write down each of these principles in the order from those which your character considers the most important to the least. This list of values should serve as a guide for your character's behavior - or at least, to what they think that they ought to do. Not everyone can live up to their own standards, after all. You can refer to this list for guidance as to what your character would do when facing a difficult ethical decision, where different principles call for a different course of action. If you find that your character consistently chooses a principle that's lower on the list, that's OK - that just means that your character's values have changed. At the end of a session, you may reorder the list to suit the values that your character has demonstrated through their actions.

    For each principle, your character may be opposed (O), neutral (N), or supportive (S). A character who has not regard for an ethical principle, acting against it whenever it suits their interests, is opposed. Being opposed to a principle does not necessarily mean that you go out of your way to act against it, simply that you disregard it when it suits you. A character who opposes care may steal from others and engage in wanton violence, for example. However, this does not mean that they will do so recklessly - a character who opposes a principle may nonetheless be restrained by social expectations and by law. Supporting a principle means that a character is willing do, and does, put effort into acting in accordance with it that goes significantly above and beyond what an ordinary person would be expected to do. Being nice to your friends does not mean that your character supports care or loyalty - supporting care means working to help the needy regardless of their relationship to you or lack thereof, and supporting loyalty means being willing to defend your friends even at great risk your yourself. A neutral character is neither supportive not opposed, but rather somewhere in-between.

    The majority of humans and humanoids are neutral. Most people would say that they support a variety of, or even all, of these ethical principles - but they lack the commitment to be truly supportive of any of them.

    A character may only be supportive of up to three principles at a given time. Normally, these will be the top three principles on that character's list of values. (If they aren't, then it's probably time to re-order that list.) This is because different ethical principles can sometimes be in conflict with each other; fully supporting a principle requires being willing to choose it over at least some other principles as well as choosing it over one's own self-interest.

    In most campaigns, player characters are expected to be at least neutral with regards to care, fairness, and loyalty. This is a pragmatic requirement that minimizes the likelihood and severity of conflict between players. It also minimizes the havoc that the party could wreak upon the DM's carefully-constructed campaign world. Campaigns where this restriction is relaxed are known as evil campaigns.

    Here's an example of how a spell like holy word might work:

    This spell, when cast, is charged with an ethical principle chosen by the caster. If the caster does not have a patron deity then this must be a principle which the caster supports; if they do, then it must be one which their patron deity supports.

    Creatures which oppose this principle suffer the full brunt of this spell's effects, creatures which are neutral suffer a reduced effect, and creatures which are supportive suffer no effect.

    By symmetry, it's easy to extend this to blasphemy:

    This spell, when cast, is charged with opposition to an ethical principle chosen by the caster. If the caster does not have a patron deity then this must be a principle which the caster opposes; if they do, then it must be one which their patron deity opposes.

    Creatures which support this principle suffer the full brunt of this spell's effects, creatures which are neutral suffer a reduced effect, and creatures which are opposed suffer no effect.

    Alternatively, it might be simpler to have these spells target every applicable principle instead of choosing just one. However, that brings up weird edge cases - what if a creature supports one of the targeted principles while opposing two of them? Covering these edge cases would require unwanted complexity. I prefer this system, where casters may need to choose which version of the spell to cast as appropriate for the particular enemies that they are facing when they cast it.

    Once could easily imagine spells that use this system in more creative ways. For example, there might be a spell called detect enemies that detect creatures which the wizard who wrote the spell considers to be enemies; players who find the spell and wish to make use of it would need to experiment in order to determine what sort of creatures are in fact detected. Even if they know that the spell works based purely on alignment, that could still be an interesting challenge, even if just because they need to seek out creatures of different alignments in order to test it.

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    So what happens if a cleric of one deity like Moradin tries to smite a cleric of another deity like Corellon? I presume both would value Sanctity, so they pick another value?
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    So what happens if a cleric of one deity like Moradin tries to smite a cleric of another deity like Corellon? I presume both would value Sanctity, so they pick another value?
    I'm not convinced anything needs to happen beyond "the cleric succeeds or fails as normal and needs to deal with the consequences".
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I'm not convinced anything needs to happen beyond "the cleric succeeds or fails as normal and needs to deal with the consequences".
    That doesn't answer nor obviate the question. Does the cleric succeed because they disagree on authority vs. liberty, or fail because they agree on sanctity and loyalty?
    Last edited by Segev; 2021-03-10 at 11:29 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •