Dungeons and Developmental Psychology

[Ozymandias]

So, I've been a spectator of a number of 'alignment' threads, and observing them I've developed an annoying tendency to unconsciously try to group actions into the scrappy but loveable D&D 3e alignment system. The most recent example is Psych 230, studying Kohlberg.

For those not in the know, Kohlberg was a developmental psychologist known for his stages of morality theory - that moral development evolves in six distinct stages. It's regularly dismissed as an archaic oversimplification now, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

Broadly, the six stages are:

Pre-Conventional -
Stage 1: The individual acts to minimize punishment - acts are 'bad' if they hurt him/her
Stage 2: Focuses on self-interest; the individual acts to further his/her own ends. Can acknowledge other's goals as a means to further his own (quid pro quo).

Conventional -
Stage 3: Individual focuses on being a working part of society and filling social roles - as a means to improve standing in the eyes of peers and others.
Stage 4: Follows and upholds laws so as to create a functioning society. "What is lawful is right."

Post-Conventional -
Stage 5: Individuals follow laws based on the idea of a social contract (cf. Rousseau). They focus on "the greatest good for the greatest number" and invariably compromise to bring this about.
Stage 6: Morality is personal and based on abstract concepts and ideals. 'Justice' supersedes 'laws'. Kohlberg ties this to a number of concepts like universal empathy and the categorical imperative.

People often make the distinction between an 'ethical' law/order axis and a 'moral' good/evil one, but I don't necessarily think so.

Your thoughts?

[afroakuma]

Stage One appears to be developmental Ethical Axis neutrality.

Stage Two seems to be developmental Moral Axis neutrality.

Stage Three would be further Moral Axis development.

Stage Four is Ethical determination (lawful or chaotic).

Stage Five is Moral determination (good or evil).

Stage Six is the acquisition of a final alignment.

From the D&D alignment perspective, at any rate.

[Asbestos]

Stage 1: CE

Stage 2: NE

Stages 3 and 4: LN

Stage 5: LG and, maybe, NG

Stage 6: CG and CN


Anyone else think so?

[Blue Warlock]

Stage 1: CE

Stage 2: NE

Stages 3 and 4: LN

Stage 5: LG and, maybe, NG

Stage 6: CG and CN


Anyone else think so?

I'm following you all the way up until stage 6, because when you create your own moral code, it doesn't have to be good, ya know. Stage 6 should be something along the lines of "Any"

[Riffington]

An individual cannot have an alignment until they pass Stage 1 (or maybe 2). They simply lack the ability to understand right and wrong.

After that, one may have any alignment at any stage of development. The Stages of development are not about content. They are about the tools you use in moral reasoning. We hope that people at higher stages of development would be likely to act better... but there's no reason a priest of Hextor couldn't be Stage V.

There is no evidence to support the existence of Stage VI, so it's hard to talk about.

[afroakuma]

Stage 6 is more like Neutral Good or Chaotic Good (possibly Lawful if the law you follow is your own internal standard) as it focuses on Justice and Universal Empathy.

[Yahzi]

Anyone else think so?

1. NE - No alignment; psychotic violence
2. CE - Fear of punishment
3. LE - Desire for reward
4. CG - Peer approval
5. LG - Social contract
6. NG - Universal rights

In my view, it's the tools you use (as described above) when implementing the universal moral maxim (that is, the Golden rule). CE is "fair" to people who can hurt them back; LE is fair to people who can profit them somehow; CG is fair to the people they identify with as friends/peers; LG is fair to everyone under the law; NG is fair to everyone.

[DrakebloodIV]

CE- Fair to those whom it decided it should be fair to 'friends', powerful people, or just chosen at random
NE- Fair to everyone (Negatively Oppourtunistic)
LE- Fair to those under the law, Manipulative of the law, Word of the law not spirit of it
CN- Fair to Anyone who advances their wants/needs
TN- Fair towards Anyone
LN- Fair towards those under the law, follows the law to the letter
CG- Fair towards friends
NG- Fair towards All
LG- Fair towards people under the law, tries to better people through the law

[kbk]

*ahem*

I am a developmental psychologist.

Okay, differentiating Kohlberg's stages inside a level is usually pretty pointless. They are small differentiations and have poor testing validity anyways. These substages are only usually offered to provide a developmental account for the development of morality. Most psychologists will therefore talk broadly in the terms of pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.

One of the most important points I can make is that which moral path a person chooses is irrelevant, its the reasoning that lead them to make that choice. You could be in the conventional stage, and focus on working through society, but that doesn't mean you give a damn about anyone else, it just means you understand the idea of the social contract.

So I could reason Convetional stages as:
Lawful/anything: You understand and uphold the law. The law is the law.
neutral/anything: you may understand the law, but you know it requires measured application.
Chaotic/anything: You may know of the rule of law, but you are more concerned with how the law affects people.

And postconventional stages can really mean any alignment, so long as you do what you do for a higher purpose.


The second most important point I can make is that Kohlberg did not think we went cleanly from one phase to another. Instead he thought that on any given problem, anyone could reason as if in any stage, but as we aged, we began to trend to more mature moral reasoning. This picture might help:




Unfortunately, I think the Lawful-chaotic/good-evil alignment axis are too rigid to try to apply to Kohlberg.

[TwystidMynd]

I think Kohlberg's stages sound a lot more robust than the constricting alignment system, after reading KBK's post. The reality of the situation is that different personalities react differently to different problems. The 2-axis alignment system in D&D is very rigid, and doesn't really allow for a LG person to do something that someone would consider "evil" (like torturing a mass murderer for information on where they hid the bomb inside the orphanage). Those situations may cause a good deal of debate, or be filed under the "exception" category, or excuses may be made; in any case, the fact that it's debated, or an exception, or that an excuse needs to be made, are all indicators, to me, of a poor system to describe dynamic behaviour.

Kohlberg's stages at least acknowledge that a problem can be thought of in at least 6 different ways, and any individual has a reason to analyze a problem in any of those ways.

A better descriptor for personality might, for instance, be an enumeration of the likelyhood of a person to consider a problem in one of the 3 different Kohlberg stages.
For instance, an "evil" person (in D&D terms, anyways) might operate in the Pre-conventional stage moreso than any other, but s/he might still make post-conventional decisions in matters directly tied to his/her religion, making him slightly more chaotic than lawful (again, in D&D terms).
A "good" person (in D&D terms, anyways) could operate under the Conventional stage pretty frequently, and his lawful/chaos alignment may be covered under how often he operates in the Post-conventional stage.
Or something like that.

Edit: clarification.

[Riffington]

Kohlberg's stages at least acknowledge that a problem can be thought of in at least 6 different ways, and any individual has a reason to analyze a problem in any of those ways.

Er, most people can only manage Stage 3 (though modern Westerners have more formal education and more often get to Stage 4). These stages are content-independent, so there's no reason that evil cannot be advocated in Conventional or Post-conventional terms...

[TwystidMynd]

Er, most people can only manage Stage 3 (though modern Westerners have more formal education and more often get to Stage 4). These stages are content-independent, so there's no reason that evil cannot be advocated in Conventional or Post-conventional terms...

My point was that it's not a direct mapping to say that "Stage 1 is Chaotic Evil. Stage 3 is Lawful Neutral." Doing so seems to be dismissive of the fluid way that the stages are supposed to be thought of. The examples I gave were supposed to be case studies, not a generalization of archetypes. Some evil people may be seen as operating mostly in pre-conventional terms, but by no means did I propose that all evil people did.

Perhaps my wording in my initial post wasn't as clear as it could be, but I believe you're agreeing with me.

[Riffington]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you.

[kbk]

My point was that it's not a direct mapping to say that "Stage 1 is Chaotic Evil. Stage 3 is Lawful Neutral." Doing so seems to be dismissive of the fluid way that the stages are supposed to be thought of. The examples I gave were supposed to be case studies, not a generalization of archetypes. Some evil people may be seen as operating mostly in pre-conventional terms, but by no means did I propose that all evil people did.

Perhaps my wording in my initial post wasn't as clear as it could be, but I believe you're agreeing with me.

Thank you. That's precisely what I was saying, just put more concisely.

[bosssmiley]

Stage 1: CE
Stage 2: NE

So...smite evil works on babies?