[Thought experiment] If alignments are objective how do we know what they represent?

[Saint-Just]

A few years ago I read the campaign "log" (more like freeform impressions) from the game with an interesting premise - Sigil has fallen from the Spire.

What the players knew: everything Planescapish happened, and then... portals have closed. Everyone who was in the Sigil was stuck in the Sigil. And this happened some hundreds years ago. By the start of the game Sigil is more claustrophobic and strapped for resources than ever, there is significantly stricter regimenting of life (not all of it handed from above), and a lot of effort is spent on pretty much keeping things running. You can see some tropes typical for the "generation ship" or faraway colony in a hostile environment - you just do what needs doing or everyone will die.

Except players also knew that the above is what passes for "official history", and there is a lot to doubt: yes, people can get mazed but has anyone at all seen the Lady of Pain in all those centuries? Isn't it a little bit too convenient for Advisory Council that some less popular decisions are supposedly not their own? Other things also may not be lining up so neatly.

And on of those "supposedly existing" things is alignment. Well, of course everybody knows alignment can be detected; it is even written on your ID (and you are supposed to have this information officially corrected if you know your alignment has changed). Spells and artifacts that work differently on different alignments work consistently, if you are affected by Protection against X you are affected by Magic Circle against X, no matter who or what cast it when for what purposes. But how do you know it has some relevance to any of the moral or ethics, instead of being some sort of soul blood group? All the usual arguments about subjectivity of evil, about people detecting as opposite alignments at the same time etc are actually told by people in the game - unofficially. And the tagline "Sigil has fallen from the Spire" even offers a conciliatory theory (it's only a theory, nobody knows for sure) - cosmic forces of Law, Good, Evil, Chaos may have existed, but since Sigil has somehow lost connection (which may have or haven't resulted in everything outside unraveling) to the outside whatever those spells and artifacts and abilities have relied on may have shifted so much that calling the alignment Good is about as meaningful as calling the same alignment Orange.

Now the question was not quite answered in that game (nor was the game really set up to do it). But I want to seek your input on the premise: in a situation with uncontactable (or nonexisting) outer planes, detached (Eberron-like) or nonexistent gods etc. how hard it would be to distinguish between two competing theories: alignments are morally based vs alignments are just there? I especially want to focus on "hard" part - e.g. even if 99% of people convicted of murder are Evil to properly prove causation (either way) instead of correlation you'd need significantly more data - and in absence of refined scientific methods it's likely that such theories would be either accepted or rejected on emotional or ideological basis.

[OldTrees1]

I am going to assume Detect Good/Evil used to detect moral/immoral and I am going to talk about Detect Strange/Charm to signify you don't know what Detect Strange/Charm is actually detecting.

Okay so you are talking about a population that is discussing philosophy and it once had spells that could detect moral character but their modern incarnations of those spells might be detecting strange/charm instead.

1) How many of them believe the spells are useless? IIRC Sigil has a stronger philosophic bend than most cultures, I suspect a few positions:
A: Without knowledge that the spells work, the spell's can't be trusted as evidence. We need to discover moral truth ourselves rather than rely on these suspicious spells. (See IRL responses to the same issue)
B: Clearly Detect Strange can be used to figure out what is moral. We should all behave like that and avoid what Detect Charm detects. They might associate any of the spells as the correct one. Including one group that thinks Detect Poison and Disease is Detect Moral :D.
C: "Clearly Detect Strange and Detect Charm are not opposites. See that person does not ping as either of them."

How would it look if the spells did not initially detect moral truth? Exactly the same. In order to know if the spells can detect moral truth, you need an alternative way to identify moral truth. If you have an alternative way, then I am envious of your universe because you can identify moral truth without the spells (and thus still have that alternative way if the spells change). Ah, but how do you know that method is reliable? Etc etc. The only reliable method is pure logic, and that method can't conclude anything beyond tautologies.

[Seto]

how hard it would be to distinguish between two competing theories: alignments are morally based vs alignments are just there? I especially want to focus on "hard" part - e.g. even if 99% of people convicted of murder are Evil to properly prove causation (either way) instead of correlation you'd need significantly more data - and in absence of refined scientific methods it's likely that such theories would be either accepted or rejected on emotional or ideological basis.

To distinguish between the two theories, as in, to rationally choose the best one? Pretty easy, I'd say. You don't need to prove causation a priori for that. Observing 99% correlation is more than enough. Because that correlation itself, even if it doesn't prove causation, is an observable phenomenon. The first theory has the advantage of explaining that phenomenon simply and elegantly. The second theory would have to provide an explanation if it were to compete.

Now if your question is: what does it take to prove beyond a doubt that alignments are morally-based? That's significantly harder, perhaps impossible. But then, it is the nature of any scientific theory to never be definitely true. A science has to constantly account for new phenomena. A theory can be considered true as long as it's sufficiently consistent with all known phenomena.
The two things the first theory (the "morality theory") has to do in order to surpass the second, is:
1- explain the apparent contradictions with creatures detecting several alignments at the same time, etc.
2- show that it has predictive value. That is, the theory can not only correlate alignments to certain actions, but also reliably predict that after a person takes certain actions, their alignment will shift in a certain way.

That second point is really fundamental. The fact is that alignment isn't a "soul blood type", that's easy to disprove on the simple basis that alignment can change. It is an observable phenomenon that alignment changes after certain actions. Now any good theory has to account for the reason of the change: what, if anything, was contained in the action that caused alignment change - or if it wasn't the action, what external factors participated in the change.
How does the second theory ("alignment is just there") explain those changes? If it doesn't, it's not a theory, it's just the refusal to engage. If it does, the proponents of that theory should seek to test and prove it, and if they can't, they'll eventually rally to the first theory which at least has a simple and likely explanation.

As a last point, yes, in the absence of definitive proof, most people will find reasons to support theories they like on an emotional and ideological level, no matter how contrived, and reject those they don't, no matter how likely. At a certain level though, it just becomes wilful ignorance, and no scientific theory is safe from that, in any world - no matter how commonly accepted.

[Tanarii]

It's mostly wrong thought experiment for 5e. Most of the things that make alignment verifiable to people are gone. Unless you can summon a sprite. ;)

Basically, even if Alignments are in-game objective, that doesn't mean that people don't have subjective views about them. At least until after they die, if they live within the great wheel cosmology or one that works similarly. And in some cosmologies, not even then.

So Alignments are always subjective at the DM/player level, may or may not be objective at the in-universe cosmic level depending on the DM's world building, and probably are subjective for most at the in-universe (at least prime material) creature level.

[LibraryOgre]

Now the question was not quite answered in that game (nor was the game really set up to do it). But I want to seek your input on the premise: in a situation with uncontactable (or nonexisting) outer planes, detached (Eberron-like) or nonexistent gods etc. how hard it would be to distinguish between two competing theories: alignments are morally based vs alignments are just there? I especially want to focus on "hard" part - e.g. even if 99% of people convicted of murder are Evil to properly prove causation (either way) instead of correlation you'd need significantly more data - and in absence of refined scientific methods it's likely that such theories would be either accepted or rejected on emotional or ideological basis.

How do we know about physics or chemistry? Thousands of years of observation.

If alignment can be measured (Detect Good, Detect Evil, or 2e's Know Alignment), then you can see, from people's actions, what results in different alignments. "Oh, Sister Pureheart, who has spent her entire life caring for orphans, is very Good, while Count Baddius, who drowns puppies and makes kittens fight to the death is very Evil." If Sister Pureheart is for some reason pinging as Evil, despite the actions everyone knows about, that's going to be a clear sign that SOMETHING sinister is going on, just like knowing that solid water is less dense than liquid water shows that water has some special properties.

[Isaire]

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to find people who were thought to be evil / good, kill them, wait a bit, resurrect them, and see what their experience of the afterlife was? Relative to what people had recorded before? Though I'm never really sure how the afterlife is supposed to work any more in 5e.

[MoiMagnus]

Even if peoples don't know what alignment means, peoples will definitely remark that (more often than random) they have similar values to peoples of the same alignment as them.

Think about what would happen IRL if zodiac symbols were actually able to describe the personality of peoples somewhat precisely. You won't need to wait long before having plenty of stereotypes about the different alignments.

And alignment will probably becomes subject to discrimination, as some communities will try to keep an homogenous alignment within them. And once you have different communities homogeneous in alignment, it will be much easier for scholars to compare the effects of those alignments on how peoples behave.

Obviously, there will be competing theories, but how much it is academic debates about subtleties and how much it is a religion war will mostly depends on the organisation of the society.

[Quertus]

If someone pings to both "Detect Charm" and "Detect Strange", does "Know Alignment" register them as "Charm Strange"?

If so, could this not be used as evidence for the cracks in the system?

[KineticDiplomat]

So the basic grounding is that there are, in fact, consistent standards of Good and Evil - their relative moral value is irrelevant for the first step of this, just that there are literal concrete and objective good and evil.

Great, do some industrial scale (and definitely not ethical) science. Set up a nameless one scenario; he re-incarnates as a perfect true neutral so long as his memory is completely gone upon revival.

Next up, baseline a system for metrics. Pick say, 10 things you think are unambiguously good (I recommend at least one be giving to charity - which might end up be big proportional to your own wealth, but hey, lots of tests) and 10 unanimously evil. Run a battery where the subject runs these actions until they get “Detected” as good or evil. Solve for the multi variable equations to create standard units of good and standard units of evil. You have to kill your nameless one a lot for appropriate sample sizes of actions that eventually flip you to good or evil, but hey, science.

If you have SGUs and SEUs (if you can get them close enough, you can create a SMU - standard morality unit) you can now catalog the effects of just about anything on the supposed Good and Evil. What is the charitable giving equivalent of killing an orphan? You can test that! Sure, there will be follow on research and people will refine the equations in the same way Econ grew from a simple algebra problem into John Nash using seven chalkboards at once, but the point is it can now be measured for any experiment you want.

[NigelWalmsley]

Frankly, I don't see how you can get from something like D&D alignment to any kind of coherent moral theory. Whatever mechanism it is that determines alignment, it's just one mechanism. There is, as it turns out, more than one moral theory. We can therefore conclude that people as a whole are not going to assign any universal correctness to whatever it is that alignment corresponds to, so, particularly if there isn't any kind of afterlife or easily-contactable gods, people will probably just treat it as kind of uninteresting. The only reason we care is that the authors used real-world moral terms for what is, in practice, a descriptor like [Cold] or [Figment].

[LibraryOgre]

Frankly, I don't see how you can get from something like D&D alignment to any kind of coherent moral theory. Whatever mechanism it is that determines alignment, it's just one mechanism. There is, as it turns out, more than one moral theory. We can therefore conclude that people as a whole are not going to assign any universal correctness to whatever it is that alignment corresponds to, so, particularly if there isn't any kind of afterlife or easily-contactable gods, people will probably just treat it as kind of uninteresting. The only reason we care is that the authors used real-world moral terms for what is, in practice, a descriptor like [Cold] or [Figment].

But, like [Cold] or [Fire], they broadly conform to those real-world terms. My [Fire] spell isn't going to solidify water, my [Cold] spell isn't going to start fires, because they are [Fire] and [Cold]. If I want to melt ice with magic, I'm not going to use [Cold] magic. And folks are going to be interested in these things, because creatures with the [Evil] descriptor are likely to feast on the entrails of your family, while things with the [Good] descriptor are likely to not do that.

I don't know about you, but I greatly prefer things with the [Good] descriptor, just for that reason. And if things with the [Good] descriptor are more likely to help people that act in certain ways... and those ways area also broadly helpful to myself and my community... I think you still wind up with people interested in it, because it has an effect. Not everyone is really interested in the nuances of physics, they know enough to not try to fly.

[NigelWalmsley]

My [Fire] spell isn't going to solidify water, my [Cold] spell isn't going to start fires, because they are [Fire] and [Cold].

Are you sure? The Codex Alera has an elemental magic system where freezing stuff is Fire magic (because it's heat transfer, and moving heat around is Fire). Avatar has an elemental magic system where freezing stuff is Water magic (because ice is made of Water). Which is to say that these categories are not actually very well defined. Even when you get into morality, there's a great deal of variation between settings. In D&D, casting Animate Dead on a T-Rex is Evil. In The Dresden Files, it's what the hero does to save the day.

And if things with the [Good] descriptor are more likely to help people that act in certain ways... and those ways area also broadly helpful to myself and my community... I think you still wind up with people interested in it, because it has an effect. Not everyone is really interested in the nuances of physics, they know enough to not try to fly.

That's a complicated question.

First, we might consider that sort of thing to be against the spirit of the question. If we're assuming there's no Pelor (who dwells on the upper planes and does nice things for people that are [Good]), we might reasonably argue that there are also no Solars (who dwell on the upper planes and do nice things for people that are [Good]).

Second, is that really how a [Good] creature should behave? I think you be on pretty good grounds arguing that helping people who indulge in cannibalism or go around casting Mind Rape on people is probably not compatible with being [Good] in any useful sense. But as noted above, there are grey areas. If I'm a benevolent (e.g. [Good]) outsider, do I really let the peasants starve because they use Skeleton Oxen in their plow teams?

Third, it's not only the [Good] creatures that are willing to help you and your community. If the local Vampire is willing to protect your village in exchange for a yearly blood tithe, is that really something you're going to refuse because he pings [Evil]? Remember, this is a world that is full of Manticores and Displacer Beasts that, while not [Evil], do think you taste delicious and are not going to be dissuaded by the fact that you do [Good] stuff in your spare time.

Fourth, there are supposedly cultures that are [Evil]. Orcish culture is, apparently, Chaotic Evil. Doubtless, Orcs have produced some moral philosophers. Whatever the writings of those philosophers are, it's hard for me to imagine them referring to their ideals and their society with a word that is a synonym for "wrong", unless you're doing something like A Practical Guide to Evil where alignments are explicitly just teams.

Which is not necessarily to disagree with you that most people will, on balance, do more [Good] stuff than [Evil] stuff. That's almost certainly true. But I don't think it really has anything to do with what Detect Evil has to say on the issue. In the real world, where there is no Detect Evil, most people's moral intuitions agree about most stuff. The existence of a ritual that agrees with one side or the other on a particular ethical dilemma might move opinions on the margin, but it's not going to make the dilemma go away.

[Saint-Just]

So the basic grounding is that there are, in fact, consistent standards of Good and Evil - their relative moral value is irrelevant for the first step of this, just that there are literal concrete and objective good and evil.

Great, do some industrial scale (and definitely not ethical) science. Set up a nameless one scenario; he re-incarnates as a perfect true neutral so long as his memory is completely gone upon revival.

Next up, baseline a system for metrics. Pick say, 10 things you think are unambiguously good (I recommend at least one be giving to charity - which might end up be big proportional to your own wealth, but hey, lots of tests) and 10 unanimously evil. Run a battery where the subject runs these actions until they get “Detected” as good or evil. Solve for the multi variable equations to create standard units of good and standard units of evil. You have to kill your nameless one a lot for appropriate sample sizes of actions that eventually flip you to good or evil, but hey, science.

If you have SGUs and SEUs (if you can get them close enough, you can create a SMU - standard morality unit) you can now catalog the effects of just about anything on the supposed Good and Evil. What is the charitable giving equivalent of killing an orphan? You can test that! Sure, there will be follow on research and people will refine the equations in the same way Econ grew from a simple algebra problem into John Nash using seven chalkboards at once, but the point is it can now be measured for any experiment you want.

I agree with NigelWalmsley about more than one moral theory existing; more importantly I think there is some misunderstanding of a premise

a) The idea was to know whether Detect G detects Good instead of Strange. Or to put it otherwise how much Good correlates with good. Moral value is not irrelevant because we don't know that there are objective good and evil - only something which is objective and is called Good (likewise for Evil).

b) More importantly, unless you already have enough power to break the setting setting up "industrial scale" alignment science may prove difficult. And alignment is supposed to be objective in most of the D&D settings. So you may try to calculate SMU anywhere - what additional information it offers in the "higher powers and afterlifes are unreachable" scenario that it doesn't offer in the standard Planscape-or-equivalent?

[Quertus]

And folks are going to be interested in these things, because creatures with the [Evil] descriptor are likely to feast on the entrails of your family, while things with the [Good] descriptor are likely to not do that.

Things with the [Good] descriptor would let the entrails of my family go to waste? Those evil ****s! Kill them! Kill anyone who detects as [Good]!

Cultural values, not objective good and evil, afaict.

Which means that I can certainly see cultures springing up around what Detect [Strange] has to say, if it's close enough to recognized "good" behavior.

And it'd be an absolutely *great* way for a Demon/Devil to guarantee plenty of fallen souls, simply by including a sin or two in the mistakenly believed to be "good" pile.

[NigelWalmsley]

The idea was to know whether Detect G detects Good instead of Strange. Or to put it otherwise how much Good correlates with good. Moral value is not irrelevant because we don't know that there are objective good and evil - only something which is objective and is called Good (likewise for Evil).

Probably about as well as any two moral systems correlate. Which is pretty well for practical purposes. For all that people have heated debates about the merits of Deontology or Consequentialism or Virtue Ethics or any number of other ideas about what it means to be "Good" (to say nothing of specific examples of those philosophies), people agree about most stuff. A Utilitarian and a Kantian will both tell you that it's wrong to kill someone for cutting you off in traffic, or steal someone's watch because you think it looks pretty, or cheat on your spouse. They may have different justifications for why those things are wrong (and, if you go far enough afield, you can find theories that reach familiar conclusions for reasons that are bizarre or horrifying), but they all agree that they are wrong. Similarly, while the exact list of things that Detect Evil pings in any particular edition are different from the list of things you or I would consider "Evil" (just as the list of things I would consider "Evil" is probably not exactly the same as the list of things you would), it probably correlates pretty well if you look at the issues that people agree on in the really world.

[Segev]

In the real world, without going into religion, just exmining semantics and language and concepts: how do we know what things carry moral weight? Ignore complex and nuanced scenarios, as their importance is in digging into detail. In broad strokes, how do we have any agreement at all that "Neutral Good" in D&D has any meaning at all?

I think asking the question about how you would know that a detected objective alignment system represents something is begging the question. You would know it represents morality and ethics (using D&D's grid) for the same reason that you recognize when issues deal with morality and ethics in any other setting or discussion.

All that changes is that you know that you can objectively judge that someone or something adheres to a particular alignment, and by how much. You may disagree wildly about whether the alignment they belong to is desirable or healthy or something to admire.

In other discussions of this topic, the question has been raised as to how you know an objective alignment is morally correct. This is the wrong question to ask. Alignments are not morally correct: whether something is morally correct or not is a matter of whether it aligns with the alignment to which one aspires.

With objective morality, a drow matron mother does not dispute that she is evil. She does not reject the concept of "good" and "evil," nor claim she's good because of justifications she comes up with. She openly proclaims herself to be evil, much as any noble paladin announces his goodness if the topic arises. She thinks being evil is morally correct, because she aspires to it. She finds it desirable and superior to being neutral or good.

[Tanarii]

In the real world, without going into religion, just exmining semantics and language and concepts: how do we know what things carry moral weight? Ignore complex and nuanced scenarios, as their importance is in digging into detail. In broad strokes, how do we have any agreement at all that "Neutral Good" in D&D has any meaning at all?

The first question is irrelevant, or rather non-answerable. The answer is: banana. Or if you prefer: mu.

The answer to the second question is it is defined by the game rules, but in a way that it is subjective from person to person, and any agreements must be at the table level. In a forum, it's the kind of question that there will never be agreement on.

I think asking the question about how you would know that a detected objective alignment system represents something is begging the question. You would know it represents morality and ethics (using D&D's grid) for the same reason that you recognize when issues deal with morality and ethics in any other setting or discussion.

Agreed it is begging the question. But the answer is because the game rules say so, and tell you what it represents.

But that's not the same as in any other setting or discussion. Because those don't tell us.

[OldTrees1]

In the real world, without going into religion, just exmining semantics and language and concepts: how do we know what things carry moral weight? Ignore complex and nuanced scenarios, as their importance is in digging into detail. In broad strokes, how do we have any agreement at all that "Neutral Good" in D&D has any meaning at all?

I think asking the question about how you would know that a detected objective alignment system represents something is begging the question. You would know it represents morality and ethics (using D&D's grid) for the same reason that you recognize when issues deal with morality and ethics in any other setting or discussion.

Since nobody knows IRL, they all rely on belief, opinion, and intuition. You are suggesting the characters in this scenario would do the same and find the Detect spell that most closely adhered to their moral intuitions. That would not generate knowledge (their logic would be based on a fallacy), but it would reach a conclusion.

All that changes is that you know that you can objectively judge that someone or something adheres to a particular alignment, and by how much. You may disagree wildly about whether the alignment they belong to is desirable or healthy or something to admire.

In other discussions of this topic, the question has been raised as to how you know an objective alignment is morally correct. This is the wrong question to ask. Alignments are not morally correct: whether something is morally correct or not is a matter of whether it aligns with the alignment to which one aspires.

With objective morality, a drow matron mother does not dispute that she is evil. She does not reject the concept of "good" and "evil," nor claim she's good because of justifications she comes up with. She openly proclaims herself to be evil, much as any noble paladin announces his goodness if the topic arises. She thinks being evil is morally correct, because she aspires to it. She finds it desirable and superior to being neutral or good.

She thinks being evil is morally correct. That is her belief. However if morality is objective rather than subjective, it does not matter what she prefers or desires. Under objective morality, the truth or falsehood of a moral judgement does not depend on the beliefs or feelings of any person. Objective morality is not about being observable, it is about being independent. If there is objective morality in D&D, the truth or falsehood of moral claims does not depend on the alignment of the listener. If for example, we consider the claim "Torture is morally permissible", it does not matter if the listener is that drow matron or a saint, the claim is either true regardless of the listener or false regardless of the listener. This does not mean that everyone believes the same thing, it means their beliefs are about something that has a single truth rather than a subjective truth. Their beliefs can be wrong. She believes being evil is morally correct, and she is mistaken*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

*Unless she is correct and evil is morally correct for everyone.

[Tanarii]

She believes being evil is morally correct, and she is mistaken*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

*Unless she is correct and evil is morally correct for everyone.

But she can believe that being evil is a superior way to live, and not give a damn about it being morally correct.

Btw I intentionally changed to "superior way to live" from what I was originally going to use: morally superior. Because I'm not sure that's the same thing as just "superior"

[OldTrees1]

But she can believe that being evil is a superior way to live, and not give a damn about it being morally correct.

Btw I intentionally changed to "superior way to live" from what I was originally going to use: morally superior. Because I'm not sure that's the same thing as just "superior"

I am not sure the distinction. Her belief that evil is a superior way to live is a moral judgement. She is believing she ought to be evil.*
(This is partially due to how moral was defined by its function rather than its contents. If there is a correct/better/superior answer, then that is the right answer.)

* Unless
1) She believes the world is amoral and there is no morally correct, so she goes to amoral judgements about x being better to achieve y.
2) She is engaging in doublethink

[NigelWalmsley]

I am not sure the distinction. Her belief that evil is a superior way to live is a moral judgement. She is believing she ought to be evil.*

I think if you have to build sentences like this, your definitions are failing you. No one is going to say that "we ought to be Evil", unless "Evil" just means "the team the Drow are on". Once you accept that "Evil" is something that entire societies actually are, the idea of calling it "Evil" stops really making sense. In the real world, even the groups that pretty much everyone thought were the bad guys didn't call themselves "Evil".

[Tanarii]

I am not sure the distinction. Her belief that evil is a superior way to live is a moral judgement. She is believing she ought to be evil.*

If there is no distinction between superior way to live and morally correct, then Segev is correct, and she is not automatically wrong in her belief that being evil is morally correct. Because that means that "morally correct" is now divorced from the Good alignments.

Which actually makes sense, since afaik none of them are defined as "morally correct" anyway. So we need to find out what Segev was trying to say when he used the term first. On reflection it reads like "correct way to live" to me, as opposed my initial conclusion based on your reply, in which you seem to be assuming it means "acting like one of the good alignments".

[Quertus]

I think that the discussion of the Drow matron is best worded as, "she believes that [Charm] is the best way to live".

Because, even if you can map these various fields to meanings (those who eat entrails vs those who do not), you are *still* left with the questions, "so, is this a *moral* judgement?", and "if so, which end is 'right'?"

The Drow matron would be no more wrong in declaring [Charm] to be the morally superior position than anyone IRL holding an opposed PoV on the morality of an action.

[OldTrees1]

I think if you have to build sentences like this, your definitions are failing you. No one is going to say that "we ought to be Evil", unless "Evil" just means "the team the Drow are on". Once you accept that "Evil" is something that entire societies actually are, the idea of calling it "Evil" stops really making sense. In the real world, even the groups that pretty much everyone thought were the bad guys didn't call themselves "Evil".

If there is no distinction between superior way to live and morally correct, then Segev is correct, and she is not automatically wrong in her belief that being evil is morally correct. Because that means that "morally correct" is now divorced from the Good alignments.

Which actually makes sense, since afaik none of them are defined as "morally correct" anyway. So we need to find out what Segev was trying to say when he used the term first. On reflection it reads like "correct way to live" to me, as opposed my initial conclusion based on your reply, in which you seem to be assuming it means "acting like one of the good alignments".

I think that the discussion of the Drow matron is best worded as, "she believes that [Charm] is the best way to live".

Because, even if you can map these various fields to meanings (those who eat entrails vs those who do not), you are *still* left with the questions, "so, is this a *moral* judgement?", and "if so, which end is 'right'?"

The Drow matron would be no more wrong in declaring [Charm] to be the morally superior position than anyone IRL holding an opposed PoV on the morality of an action.

Quertus is right that in this thread's thought experiment, and to satisfy NigelWalmsley's point about characters using loaded terms, I should reword it.

Tanarii is right that it is an assumption to assume alignment and morality coincide. I will call it out explicitly as P6. Without that premise there is a softer conclusion.

Suppose:
P1: This isolated population has the spells Detect [Charm]/[Strange] that detect alignments.
P2: Those alignments are objective. It does not matter who casts the detect spell or if nobody casts the detect spell, things will either have one of those labels or not. There is no quantum position or relativity based on observer.

Based on these premises Segev (and others before them) demonstrates how the isolated population could derive definitions for [Charm] and [Strange]

P3: [Charm] and [Strange] are opposites.
P4: There is an Objective Morality
P5: [Charm] and [Strange] are morally relevant

Based on these additional premises if one makes a claim that "[Charm] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" then that is a moral statement. Furthermore Objective Morality states that moral statements are either true or false regardless of speaker or listener.

P6: The GM defined the Objective Morality of the campaign and the campaign's definitions of the alignments to have [Charm] and moral coincide. This may be a controversial premise.

To paraphrase, the GM defined moral and [Charm] such that the statement "[Charm] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" is true. Therefore the statement "[Strange] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" would be false (as per P3-P6).

P7: Characters know or can at least empirically test P1-3 but rely on beliefs/opinion/intuition for P4-P6. I expect the second half of this to also be a controversial premise.

This means some characters might disbelief P4-6 or believe variations thereof. A common example would be a character with an alternate P6 believing "[Strange] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live". In this case that belief would be incorrect, but characters can believe things that are false.


----

So my overall conclusion is:
Eventually this isolated population will arrive at a consensus around accurate alignment definitions. They have the tools, even if they end up with new names. However you would still get the diverse and mutually contradicting opinions on what is the best way to live because those opinions had to rely on belief/opinion/intuition. Aka one might say [Charm] is best and another might say [Strange] is best. Only the players/GM with metagame knowledge would know whether the campaign was created such that one, the other, or neither is correct.

[Quertus]

Quertus is right that in this thread's thought experiment, and to satisfy NigelWalmsley's point about characters using loaded terms, I should reword it.

Tanarii is right that it is an assumption to assume alignment and morality coincide. I will call it out explicitly as P6. Without that premise there is a softer conclusion.

Suppose:
P1: This isolated population has the spells Detect [Charm]/[Strange] that detect alignments.
P2: Those alignments are objective. It does not matter who casts the detect spell or if nobody casts the detect spell, things will either have one of those labels or not. There is no quantum position or relativity based on observer.

Based on these premises Segev (and others before them) demonstrates how the isolated population could derive definitions for [Charm] and [Strange]

P3: [Charm] and [Strange] are opposites.
P4: There is an Objective Morality
P5: [Charm] and [Strange] are morally relevant

Based on these additional premises if one makes a claim that "[Charm] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" then that is a moral statement. Furthermore Objective Morality states that moral statements are either true or false regardless of speaker or listener.

P6: The GM defined the Objective Morality of the campaign and the campaign's definitions of the alignments to have [Charm] and moral coincide. This may be a controversial premise.

To paraphrase, the GM defined moral and [Charm] such that the statement "[Charm] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" is true. Therefore the statement "[Strange] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" would be false (as per P3-P6).

P7: Characters know or can at least empirically test P1-3 but rely on beliefs/opinion/intuition for P4-P6. I expect the second half of this to also be a controversial premise.

This means some characters might disbelief P4-6 or believe variations thereof. A common example would be a character with an alternate P6 believing "[Strange] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live". In this case that belief would be incorrect, but characters can believe things that are false.


----

So my overall conclusion is:
Eventually this isolated population will arrive at a consensus around accurate alignment definitions. They have the tools, even if they end up with new names. However you would still get the diverse and mutually contradicting opinions on what is the best way to live because those opinions had to rely on belief/opinion/intuition. Aka one might say [Charm] is best and another might say [Strange] is best. Only the players/GM with metagame knowledge would know whether the campaign was created such that one, the other, or neither is correct.

[Charm] - murder, killing babies, arson.
[Strange] - rape, theft, counterfeiting

Performing [Charm] acts can reduce/remove your [Strange] rating, and vice versa.

They are opposite. They are tied to things with moral weight.

Which one is "good"?

[Tanarii]

Tanarii is right that it is an assumption to assume alignment and morality coincide. I will call it out explicitly as P6. Without that premise there is a softer conclusion.

That was not my contention. Alignment defines morality, in broad stokes, in any given game. It just doesn't define which is morally correct.

Your assumption appeared to be that morally good was equivalent of morally correct, and morally evil was equivalent of morally incorrect. Or possibly morally wrong. Although that has slightly different connotations, as does morally right.

Whereas they're far more commonly defined as some variation of good = morality that results in nice/non-destructive/helpful to others behavior, and evil = morality that results nasty/destructive/harmful to others behavior. With no contention that one or the other is correct, or superior, etc. morally or otherwise.

In other words this:

P6: The GM defined the Objective Morality of the campaign and the campaign's definitions of the alignments to have [Charm] and moral coincide. This may be a controversial premise.

... is not automatically followed by this:

]To paraphrase, the GM defined moral and [Charm] such that the statement "[Charm] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" is true. Therefore the statement "[Strange] is the right/best/superior/moral way to live" would be false (as per P3-P6).

That second part is a house rule in D&D (and Palladium) alignment morality systems, as far as I'm aware. P6 is true for [Good] and [Evil], they both coincide with morality. But the second part (which I'll call P6a) is a separate corollary that does not follow automatically from P6.

Edit: looking at the way you worded P6, with one label being "and moral coincide", it's almost as if you think moral = morally correct = the right/best/superior way to live.

[OldTrees1]

[Charm] - murder, killing babies, arson.
[Strange] - rape, theft, counterfeiting

Performing [Charm] acts can reduce/remove your [Strange] rating, and vice versa.

They are opposite. They are tied to things with moral weight.

Which one is "good"?

Are [Strange] and [Charm] morally relevant, or are they orthogonal?
A) If the examples have moral weight but the pair of opposite tags don't, then exit the logic at the missing premise.
B) If the examples have moral weight and the pair of opposite tags do too, then is this a case like Virtue Ethics where we have a moral center bordered by immoral extremes? I did not account for that in the logic. Good point.

That was not my contention. Alignment defines morality, in broad stokes, in any given game. It just doesn't define which is morally correct.

Your assumption appeared to be that morally good was equivalent of morally correct, and morally evil was equivalent of morally incorrect. Or possibly morally wrong. Although that has slightly different connotations, as does morally right.

When I use the word "moral" or its derivatives, I am using the IRL words. When I use words like "Good" / "Evil" in the context of D&D I try to only do so in reference to the alignments of the same name. That is why I avoid phrases like "morally good" which has the same IRL definition of "moral", "morally correct", "morally right", etc but could be confused with the Good alignment.

I do not see any difference in connotations.

Whereas they're far more commonly defined as some variation of good = morality that results in nice/non-destructive/helpful to others behavior, and evil = morality that results nasty/destructive/harmful to others behavior. With no contention that one or the other is correct, or superior, etc. morally or otherwise.

Morality could be referring to an objective moral standard, or to the collection of beliefs a person / society has about morality. So instead of using the word morality I will use the phrase "objective morality" for the former and "moral theory" for the latter.

It is indeed common to have in game definitions of alignments named [Good] be based in a moral theory around nice/non-destructive/helpful to others behavior.

You could run it with no contention that one or the other is correct/superior morally. In that case they might not be morally relevant. This happens in a few situations, although it is more common for GMs to follow the naming convention and have [Good] be morally correct (even if they have to replace the definitions with ones that fit the group's moral intuitions).

In other words this:
... is not automatically followed by this:
That second part is a house rule in D&D (and Palladium) alignment morality systems, as far as I'm aware. P6 is true for [Good] and [Evil], they both coincide with morality. But the second part (which I'll call P6a) is a separate corollary that does not follow automatically from P6.

Edit: looking at the way you worded P6, with one label being "and moral coincide", it's almost as if you think moral = morally correct = the right/best/superior way to live.

However P6 is mean to talk about when the group/GM chooses to have the definition of [Good] describe the things that the definition of the objective morality for that campaign would judge as moral/morally correct/morally right/etc. You are right to point out the GM ruling as such can be a house rule (which doesn't invalidate it as a premise).

As for coincide, yes I mean if the GM decides to have the set of things that are [Good] and the set of things that are morally correct be the same set, then they are the same set. They are basically saying "these things give you the alignment [Good] and these things are morally correct". That is a house rule, but a common one.

Edit: looking at the way you worded P6, with one label being "and moral coincide", it's almost as if you think moral = morally correct = the right/best/superior way to live.

Yes. Once upon a time some fool though of a question "What ought one do?". This question was big and important, so they gave a name to the answer before they were done solving the question. They named the answer "moral". Later people have kept the naming convention but disagree about the answer. So there is this common concept of moral as being correct in and of itself but no consensus on what things are moral.

Okay I don't know if that precise story happened. Nor do I know that they were a fool. However that is the best way for me to highlight what moral is in this context. It is a label for the right answer while people continued to search for the right answer.

[LibraryOgre]

Are you sure? The Codex Alera has an elemental magic system where freezing stuff is Fire magic (because it's heat transfer, and moving heat around is Fire). Avatar has an elemental magic system where freezing stuff is Water magic (because ice is made of Water). Which is to say that these categories are not actually very well defined. Even when you get into morality, there's a great deal of variation between settings. In D&D, casting Animate Dead on a T-Rex is Evil. In The Dresden Files, it's what the hero does to save the day.

None of which are D&D. Avatar doesn't have an objective morality system. I mean, freezing things is also Fire Magic in Ars Magica, but that's not [Fire], that is Perdo Ignem. But those spells don't have the [Fire] or [Cold] descriptor, because those descriptors are from D&D (and, specifically, 3e and later D&D). The [Cold] descriptor indicates that something is cold. The [Fire] descriptor indicates that something uses fire, not just heat transfer or the removal of heat.

Third, it's not only the [Good] creatures that are willing to help you and your community. If the local Vampire is willing to protect your village in exchange for a yearly blood tithe, is that really something you're going to refuse because he pings [Evil]? Remember, this is a world that is full of Manticores and Displacer Beasts that, while not [Evil], do think you taste delicious and are not going to be dissuaded by the fact that you do [Good] stuff in your spare time.

Evil creatures can be motivated by various forms of self-interest.

Fourth, there are supposedly cultures that are [Evil]. Orcish culture is, apparently, Chaotic Evil. Doubtless, Orcs have produced some moral philosophers. Whatever the writings of those philosophers are, it's hard for me to imagine them referring to their ideals and their society with a word that is a synonym for "wrong", unless you're doing something like A Practical Guide to Evil where alignments are explicitly just teams.

They are evil, not [Evil].

In this thought experience, alignments are objective. Your argument seems to be that they are secretly subjective... that cultural perception changes the meaning of Good and Evil, and even [Good] and [Evil].

[Segev]

She thinks being evil is morally correct. That is her belief. However if morality is objective rather than subjective, it does not matter what she prefers or desires. Under objective morality, the truth or falsehood of a moral judgement does not depend on the beliefs or feelings of any person. Objective morality is not about being observable, it is about being independent. If there is objective morality in D&D, the truth or falsehood of moral claims does not depend on the alignment of the listener. If for example, we consider the claim "Torture is morally permissible", it does not matter if the listener is that drow matron or a saint, the claim is either true regardless of the listener or false regardless of the listener. This does not mean that everyone believes the same thing, it means their beliefs are about something that has a single truth rather than a subjective truth. Their beliefs can be wrong. She believes being evil is morally correct, and she is mistaken*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

*Unless she is correct and evil is morally correct for everyone.

I think the trouble here is that you're assuming "morally correct" means "adhering to being good."

That is a subjective judgment, however, because that asserts that "good is the best alignment to be." We believe that, IRL. But note that even in a subjective morality world, where one culture thinks wearing white after labor day is evil and another thinks wearing anything but white ever is evil, a member of the first culture could still think that "being evil is awesome" and deliberately wear white after labor day. He might even get into arguments over whether he counts as "evil" or not with members of the other culture, since he wears white all the time since he thinks it's the most evil fashion choice he can make, and therefore the most awesome fashion choice he can make. He might even be offended when the second culture tells him he's not evil, but in fact is doing the good and upright thing. He thinks that's lame, and he is definitely not lame.

"Objective morality" doesn't mean you agree on what's desirable. It just means you agree that something is good or evil. There is no disagreement between people who live in an objective morality setting and who are factually correct in their assessments over whether wearing white after labor day is evil or not. There is an objective truth over the evilness of that fashion choice. That doesn't stop Shiro Edgelord from wearing white all the time specifically because he thinks being evil is cool. He agrees it's evil. That's why he likes it.

The drow matron mother in D&D agrees that her behavior is chaotic and evil. For argument's sake, we'll assert that she is objectively correct, and so when the LG dwarven paladin condemns her for her wickedness and duplicity, she proudly agrees, and then condemns him for his weak-minded clinging to rules that only serve to enslave him to pathetic losers who are better off sacrificed for power.

She doesn't see a need to justify that what she does is "good." She believes evil is the morally correct alignment to pursue. And, given her preferences and goals, she is objectively correct that it is the best one for her.

She's evil, and proud of it. Those who oppose evil because it causes harm do so because their goals and desires are different, and objectively incompatible with hers.

[Tanarii]

When I use the word "moral" or its derivatives, I am using the IRL words. When I use words like "Good" / "Evil" in the context of D&D I try to only do so in reference to the alignments of the same name. That is why I avoid phrases like "morally good" which has the same IRL definition of "moral", "morally correct", "morally right", etc but could be confused with the Good alignment.

Yes. Once upon a time some fool though of a question "What ought one do?". This question was big and important, so they gave a name to the answer before they were done solving the question. They named the answer "moral". Later people have kept the naming convention but disagree about the answer. So there is this common concept of moral as being correct in and of itself but no consensus on what things are moral.

Okay I don't know if that precise story happened. Nor do I know that they were a fool. However that is the best way for me to highlight what moral is in this context. It is a label for the right answer while people continued to search for the right answer.

Ah. That explains it then. I ascribe no particular value or meaning to related to the IRL word moral. Nor am I interested or see any value in IRL moral theory.

So for me, it definitely seems like a huge logical leap from "Good" = morally correct and "Evil" = morally incorrect, and in fact the terms morally correct or morally incorrect should really just be left out of the equation.

There's no particular barrier in objective D&D morality, given the definitions of the various Good Alignments or Evil Alignments to date and assuming that those constitute "objective D&D morality", to an evil individual believing that their way is superior and best way to live. They are not automatically wrong, cosmologically.

That is basically the core conflicting belief at the heart of Planescape, except it's not just good vs evil.