Alignment. In-World, is it subjective? Are Illithids truly evil?

[NigelWalmsley]

Objective alignment does not mean objective morality. If the DM says an action is "Evil", that doesn't make it "objectively Evil", because objective morality is a contraction in terms. All the notion of "objective alignment" has ever accomplished is to make it more difficult to have useful discussions about moral claims. If the Drow think it is right to backstab your boss, they will use the word "Good" to describe backstabbery. Declaring that there is a separate objective Good that does not include backstabbery just makes discussions of Drow morality into an Abbott and Costello bit.

[Jason]

Objective alignment does not mean objective morality. If the DM says an action is "Evil", that doesn't make it "objectively Evil", because objective morality is a contraction in terms.

I disagree. If the DM rules that an action was evil then it was, within the realm of the game, objectively evil. The evilness of the action is completely independent of the perspective or opinion of any of the other players of the game (unless of course they convince the DM to change his ruling or replace him with another DM who makes a different ruling and retcons things. Such is the nature of RPGs).

Any change to a character's alignment as a result of a DM's ruling on the morality of a player's actions will also be an objective fact within the frame of the game. Any magical or other effects that key off of alignment will use the new alignment the DM ruled, regardless of what anyone else thinks the character's alignment is or should be.

Alignment is as objective as a character's strength score or remaining hit points. The DM might have "fuzzier" rules for determining the morality of an action and its effect on a character's alignment than he does for how many hit points a character loses from any given attack, but that morality has real in-game effects that are independent of the opinions or perspectives of any other observers. It is, in a word, objective.

[RedMage125]

Objective alignment does not mean objective morality. If the DM says an action is "Evil", that doesn't make it "objectively Evil", because objective morality is a contraction in terms. All the notion of "objective alignment" has ever accomplished is to make it more difficult to have useful discussions about moral claims. If the Drow think it is right to backstab your boss, they will use the word "Good" to describe backstabbery. Declaring that there is a separate objective Good that does not include backstabbery just makes discussions of Drow morality into an Abbott and Costello bit.

You've got "objective" and "subjective" switched. If the Drow consider backstabbery "good", then that is SUBJECTIVE. And it has no bearing on the OBJECTIVE Evil nature of murder.

So when a DM makes the call that an action is "Evil" then, in-world, that is objectively Evil. If this deviates from what the RAW say is evil, then the DM should let their players know in advance. Players have a right to know what deviations from RAW are in effect. If no deviations are specified, players have a right to expect that what is said in the RAW stands as true.

[NigelWalmsley]

I disagree. If the DM rules that an action was evil then it was, within the realm of the game, objectively evil.

No, that's not how it works. We've been over this, the term "Evil" is not an objective one. It means different things to different people with different moral systems. When you talk about the possibility of "objective Evil", you are talking about something that does not correspond to how the word "Evil" is actually used. "Evil" in D&D is a force, like Cold or Fire or Positive Energy. You can go to the Planes of Evil and dig up some raw Evil. That's a thing that exists, but the only relationship it has to discussions of morality is its name.

Any change to a character's alignment as a result of a DM's ruling on the morality of a player's actions will also be an objective fact within the frame of the game. Any magical or other effects that key off of alignment will use the new alignment the DM ruled, regardless of what anyone else thinks the character's alignment is or should be.

You are conflating separate concepts because you are using the same word to mean different things. Which is exactly the problem with alignment. "What does Holy Word do to you" and "which outer plane do you become a petitioner on" are not moral questions. They are factual questions, about which we might or might not make moral judgements. Evil cultures have moral philosophy. The Drow have written a bunch of words about how "Iron Sharpens Iron" or whatever to justify their society. In that body of work, they doubtless refer to things like "setting your boss up to fail a test imposed by the priesthood of Lolth so she gets eaten by spiders and you get her job" as "good". And they are going to do that whether there is a physical force called "good" or not, because the word "good" related to moral philosophy, not physics. All you do by insisting on objective alignment is confuse matters.

[OldTrees1]

No, that's not how it works. We've been over this, the term "Evil" is not an objective one. It means different things to different people with different moral systems. When you talk about the possibility of "objective Evil", you are talking about something that does not correspond to how the word "Evil" is actually used. "Evil" in D&D is a force, like Cold or Fire or Positive Energy. You can go to the Planes of Evil and dig up some raw Evil. That's a thing that exists, but the only relationship it has to discussions of morality is its name.

If murdering babies is immoral according to the GM of the campaign, then it is objectively immoral in that campaign.
If murdering babies is evil according to the GM of the campaign, then it is objectively evil in that campaign.

You can choose to use Evil as a misnomer, and I will admit that WotC has contradicted themselves many times over which model they are using. However GMs can also choose to have Evil not be a misnomer. Both ways are consistent with D&D (at least as far as D&D is consistent with itself).

As for this thread, it has been rather consistently using Evil as related to Immoral.

Objective alignment does not mean objective morality. If the DM says an action is "Evil", that doesn't make it "objectively Evil", because objective morality is a contraction in terms. All the notion of "objective alignment" has ever accomplished is to make it more difficult to have useful discussions about moral claims. If the Drow think it is right to backstab your boss, they will use the word "Good" to describe backstabbery. Declaring that there is a separate objective Good that does not include backstabbery just makes discussions of Drow morality into an Abbott and Costello bit.

Objective morality is not a contradiction in terms. If I make the claim "It is not morally supererogatory to murder babies", we can wonder if that claim
1) Is a statement with either a True or a False value. <-- This is not a contradiction in terms.
2) Is an erroneous statement because morality does not exist.
3) Is not a statement
4) Is a statement that is simultaneously both True and False. <-- This is a self contradicting position.

To pull in your example:
If the Drow starts talking about how they think it is right to backstab your boss, they are making a claim. Objective morality claims that the Drow's claim of "stabbing bosses is morally permissible" is a claim that would resolve to either a True or a False value. Just like the claim "1+3=24525" resolves to either a True or False value (False in the case of 1+3=24525). There is not "separate" involved. The Drow made a claim and that claim is either True or False (I think False but I am not all knowing ). OR to expand / elaborate:

The Drow said "I believe that if one claimed 'It is moral to backstab one's boss.', that the claim would have a value of True."
Just like when I claim "1+1=2" I am saying "I believe that if one claimed '1+1=2' that the claim would have a value of True."

[RedMage125]

No, that's not how it works. We've been over this, the term "Evil" is not an objective one. It means different things to different people with different moral systems. When you talk about the possibility of "objective Evil", you are talking about something that does not correspond to how the word "Evil" is actually used. "Evil" in D&D is a force, like Cold or Fire or Positive Energy. You can go to the Planes of Evil and dig up some raw Evil. That's a thing that exists, but the only relationship it has to discussions of morality is its name.

In the last edition with the most concrete alignment mechanics (3.5e), you are incorrect.

The Evil in the lower planes is the same Evil in a fiend, in an Unholy weapon, and in a common bandit. Want proof? In the Detect Evil spell, a fiend, unholy weapon, and evil person are all the same energy that gets detected.

[Jason]

You are conflating separate concepts because you are using the same word to mean different things. Which is exactly the problem with alignment. "What does Holy Word do to you" and "which outer plane do you become a petitioner on" are not moral questions. They are factual questions, about which we might or might not make moral judgements.

They are factual questions that are resolved by the cumulative morality of a character's actions, described in game terms as the character's alignment. Because alignment is determined by the morality of the character's actions, alignment is inseperable from morality.

You act as if who Holy Word affects is completely arbitrary. It is in fact a consequence of the morality of past actions undertaken by the victim. There are definite actions which, if the victim takes them, will reduce and eventually eliminate his vulnerability to Holy Word. Because they will result in an alignment change to good.

Evil cultures have moral philosophy.

Yes they do. And when they follow a moral philosophy that calls evil actions good, that results in their having an evil alignment. Because their judgement of what is good does not accurately describe what actually is good in the gameworld. They don't get to decide what alignment they are assigned as a result of their actions - the DM determines whether their actions were really good or evil and assigns them an alignment, and that alignment is an objective fact within the game world. If they want to change their alignment they have to change their actions, not just their philosophy.

[Friv]

5e, at least, seems to have dropped the "Intelligence is a real-world intelligence measurement" thing. However, I would say that the fact they don't specifically and purposefully hunt sapient prey is probably connected to their neutrality. Also, a severe lack of slavery, humanoid experimentation, and torture.

I would go with this as well.

It's one thing to say, "If we kill enemies in battle, we eat their flesh to sustain ourselves." It's certainly disrespectful, provided that your enemies don't think that it's okay to be eaten by a superior warrior, but it's not evil. You've already killed them, and you are not intending further harm.

What is evil is hunting sentient beings for the purpose of eating them. At that point, you're inflicting harm deliberately for the cause of food. (In general, there might be wiggle-room if there is literally nothing else to eat, but that gets into some weird 'is it okay to murder an innocent to save your life' territory that is a whole branch of philosophy and ethics.) Similarly, if you killed non-dead defeated enemies in order to eat them, that would be evil.

As a general rule, humans outlaw cannibalism because (a) it's considered harmful to most survivors to learn that their loved ones were eaten, and (b) when you say that 'it's okay to use a person as a resource if they die', there is a very distressing tendency towards a slippery slope that suggests finding excuses to create corpses to use as resources. It's more because of what could happen than because of what is happening. The former doesn't apply to a species that doesn't feel like corpses are still people, or who believe that eating a corpse is respectful, and the latter might or might not apply depending on the culture and situation.

[OldTrees1]

What is evil is hunting sentient beings for the purpose of eating them. At that point, you're inflicting harm deliberately for the cause of food. (In general, there might be wiggle-room if there is literally nothing else to eat, but that gets into some weird 'is it okay to murder an innocent to save your life' territory that is a whole branch of philosophy and ethics.) Similarly, if you killed non-dead defeated enemies in order to eat them, that would be evil.

Well summarized. Illithid inherent nature does get into that branch you mentioned (they have to eat brains, and I guess some editions require intelligent brains on occasion), however Illithid general practice (hunt humans to kill for food & hosts) is well evaluated by the main trunk.

As a general rule, humans outlaw cannibalism because (a) it's considered harmful to most survivors to learn that their loved ones were eaten, and (b) when you say that 'it's okay to use a person as a resource if they die', there is a very distressing tendency towards a slippery slope that suggests finding excuses to create corpses to use as resources. It's more because of what could happen than because of what is happening. The former doesn't apply to a species that doesn't feel like corpses are still people, or who believe that eating a corpse is respectful, and the latter might or might not apply depending on the culture and situation.

(c) Health concerns. Diseases find it easier to pass from dead human to cannibal human than from dead cow to human eating dead cow. Whether this is a valid reason to outlaw depends on the context, but it is a historic reason.

Personally I would consider (b) >> (a) >> (c)

[NigelWalmsley]

If the Drow starts talking about how they think it is right to backstab your boss, they are making a claim. Objective morality claims that the Drow's claim of "stabbing bosses is morally permissible" is a claim that would resolve to either a True or a False value.

No, it doesn't. D&D-style "objective morality" means that it would have an effect on your alignment, but alignment is not morality. Alignment is just a bit of physics. It means that certain actions have certain consequences. But not all moral systems are consequentialist. If you don't believe that an action is or is not moral because of what results from it, changing what results from it does not change your assessment of its morality. And that's all that D&D changes. Even within the consequentalist framework, being Evil or Good is just another consequence, one you are not obligated to weigh at any particular level.

You act as if who Holy Word affects is completely arbitrary. It is in fact a consequence of the morality of past actions undertaken by the victim. There are definite actions which, if the victim takes them, will reduce and eventually eliminate his vulnerability to Holy Word. Because they will result in an alignment change to good.

That's arbitrary! Why those actions and not other actions?

the DM determines whether their actions were really good or evil and assigns them an alignment

Again, that is arbitrary. Moreover, it's beside the point. If the Drow are "really Evil", but call themselves "good", all having them be "Evil" is doing is adding confusion. Far better to have a Lolth alignment. The we can coherently talk about "Lolth-ists believe X is good" without having to say completely absurd things like "Evil believes X is good". What you are asking for is that we make terminology more confusing for no reason in the service of a concept that does not make sense. Stop doing it.

[Jason]

That's arbitrary! Why those actions and not other actions?

Because the DM has determined that those actions are good in his game world. It's only arbitrary in so far as his judgements are arbitrary. He may have very solid reasons for saying "devouring live innocent children is an evil action that will result in an immediate change to evil alignment, Mr. Paladin."

Again, that is arbitrary. Moreover, it's beside the point. If the Drow are "really Evil", but call themselves "good", all having them be "Evil" is doing is adding confusion. Far better to have a Lolth alignment. The we can coherently talk about "Lolth-ists believe X is good" without having to say completely absurd things like "Evil believes X is good". What you are asking for is that we make terminology more confusing for no reason in the service of a concept that does not make sense. Stop doing it.

Grouping "Lolth alignment" under "Chaotic Evil" does simplify things. Instead of each species, or even each individual character having their own alignment we have game effects keyed off of just nine alignments. Nine fairly broad groups is much more simple than one alignment for each possible philosophy.
It might be confusing to the drow that what they call good isn't really good (if they're ever forced to confront that fact), but it's usually not that confusing to the players.
Grouping into nine categories also serves to give the DM some idea of what "Lolth alignment" might include where the published description of drow philosophy isn't specific enough.
And it does makes sense, because many if not most of the actions that are often described as evil in the real world are also evil in game. The DM doesn't have to say "backstabbing your boss would be an evil act" to most players any more than he has to say "jumping off a cliff will mean you fall (unless you have some way to fly)." Real world experience makes this obvious and largely intuitive. The Law and Chaos axis is a little less intuitive, but players get the hang of it.

[Friv]

(c) Health concerns. Diseases find it easier to pass from dead human to cannibal human than from dead cow to human eating dead cow. Whether this is a valid reason to outlaw depends on the context, but it is a historic reason.

Excellent point, and one that I should have considered! Doubly so as it's another one that probably doesn't apply for most lizardfolk --> mammalian humanoid eating.

[NigelWalmsley]

Grouping "Lolth alignment" under "Chaotic Evil" does simplify things. Instead of each species, or even each individual character having their own alignment we have game effects keyed off of just nine alignments. Nine fairly broad groups is much more simple than one alignment for each possible philosophy.

Except that it isn't. All those philosophies still exist. It's not like the existence of Chaotic Evil means you can't be a Social Darwinist, or the existence of Lawful Good means you can't be a Kantian. And since those categories are both broad and meaningless, in practice the game ends up getting into details anyway. Drow society and Orc society aren't "the same" in any real sense, which means that alignment has already failed to be better than just giving people philosophies.

And it does makes sense, because many if not most of the actions that are often described as evil in the real world are also evil in game.

Except that makes alignment less useful, not more. I don't need the game to remind me to not eat babies, as I am already solidly on team "don't eat babies". Alignment doesn't need to explain how you're supposed to deal with demons that eat people, you can already figure that out from the fact that they eat people. Where alignment is potentially useful are the ambiguous cases. Drow culture is different from your culture. It has different values, some of which you might be okay with tolerating (matriarchy) and some of which you might not (feeding criminals to spiders). But declaring "Drow are Evil" is not helpful in that context.

[Tvtyrant]

Except that it isn't. All those philosophies still exist. It's not like the existence of Chaotic Evil means you can't be a Social Darwinist, or the existence of Lawful Good means you can't be a Kantian. And since those categories are both broad and meaningless, in practice the game ends up getting into details anyway. Drow society and Orc society aren't "the same" in any real sense, which means that alignment has already failed to be better than just giving people philosophies.



Except that makes alignment less useful, not more. I don't need the game to remind me to not eat babies, as I am already solidly on team "don't eat babies". Alignment doesn't need to explain how you're supposed to deal with demons that eat people, you can already figure that out from the fact that they eat people. Where alignment is potentially useful are the ambiguous cases. Drow culture is different from your culture. It has different values, some of which you might be okay with tolerating (matriarchy) and some of which you might not (feeding criminals to spiders). But declaring "Drow are Evil" is not helpful in that context.

Although you should really join team Eat Babies, we have the best snacks.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Although you should really join team Eat Babies, we have the best snacks.

Clearly you are referring to your many flavours of crisp, which are superior in every way to team no baby eating's celery and carrot sticks.

[Jason]

I've made my case. The defense for alignment rests.

[RedMage125]

OldTrees, we may be wasting our breath, Nigel often does not distinguish between his Opinion and Fact. He also thinks very poorly of alignment in general, and thinks his perspective is superior (again, thinks this is a "fact", and not just his opinion).

No, it doesn't. D&D-style "objective morality" means that it would have an effect on your alignment, but alignment is not morality. Alignment is just a bit of physics. It means that certain actions have certain consequences. But not all moral systems are consequentialist. If you don't believe that an action is or is not moral because of what results from it, changing what results from it does not change your assessment of its morality. And that's all that D&D changes. Even within the consequentalist framework, being Evil or Good is just another consequence, one you are not obligated to weigh at any particular level.

The problem is you're using "alignment" and "morality" interchangeably, which isn't entirely correct. Often people use "moral axis" for the Good/Evil axis and "ethical axis" for the Law/Chaos one.

But what one must remember is that using those terms is just shorthand. Alignment is a simplified summary of one's general outlooks, attitudes and beliefs, as evidenced by one's actions.

And yes, it is absolutely consequentialist. That is what is meant by DESCRIPTIVE. Alignment stems FROM one's actions. That is by design, it is not a flaw.

That's arbitrary! Why those actions and not other actions?

No...it's ALL actions. Someone who frequently commits Good acts and never or very rarely commits evil acts is probably Good or Neutral ("Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality", 3.5e DMG, page 134). ALL of one's actions that have moral weight could potentially affect alignment.

Again, that is arbitrary.

Actually, having the change be a result (i.e. consequence) of a player's actions is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

I'm reminded of the Princess Bride. "You keep using that word..."

Moreover, it's beside the point. If the Drow are "really Evil", but call themselves "good", all having them be "Evil" is doing is adding confusion. Far better to have a Lolth alignment. The we can coherently talk about "Lolth-ists believe X is good" without having to say completely absurd things like "Evil believes X is good". What you are asking for is that we make terminology more confusing for no reason in the service of a concept that does not make sense. Stop doing it.

There's no confusion is you understand and accept the founding design premise that Good and Evil exist objectively in the universe, and that mortal actions can have Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic weight. The overall weight OF those actions weighs on the person, regardless of that person's perspective. In some editions (like 3.5e), those Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic energies would also be IN those people (because they are aligned with them), and can be detected with magic.

This is better than a "Lolth alignment", because it allows for more wide-reaching abilities to work, "Smite Evil", Holy Sword, Holy Word, that need not be specific to targeting only a narrow band of enemies.

Holy power being useful against Evil foes is also a strong classic trope of fantasy.

Except that makes alignment less useful, not more. I don't need the game to remind me to not eat babies, as I am already solidly on team "don't eat babies". Alignment doesn't need to explain how you're supposed to deal with demons that eat people, you can already figure that out from the fact that they eat people. Where alignment is potentially useful are the ambiguous cases. Drow culture is different from your culture. It has different values, some of which you might be okay with tolerating (matriarchy) and some of which you might not (feeding criminals to spiders). But declaring "Drow are Evil" is not helpful in that context.

Alignment and its mechanics are useful in giving mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes in a fair and objective manner. Things like a Holy sword that is more effective against ALL forms of evil. Or the lingering taint of Evil from the lair of a cult of diabolists. Or the fact that the Paladin finds the environment of the Abyss actively hostile to her, while the Chaotic Neutral Bard does not suffer as much.

If you didn't have alignment, but had a Holy Sword (+2d6 damage against evil creatures), how would you determine who the extra damage applied to? Answer: DM fiat. I am of the opinion that more widespread and hard-coded mechanics protect players from DM fiat, which I consider fickle.

As a general rule, humans outlaw cannibalism because (a) it's considered harmful to most survivors to learn that their loved ones were eaten, and (b) when you say that 'it's okay to use a person as a resource if they die', there is a very distressing tendency towards a slippery slope that suggests finding excuses to create corpses to use as resources. It's more because of what could happen than because of what is happening. The former doesn't apply to a species that doesn't feel like corpses are still people, or who believe that eating a corpse is respectful, and the latter might or might not apply depending on the culture and situation.

(c) Health concerns. Diseases find it easier to pass from dead human to cannibal human than from dead cow to human eating dead cow. Whether this is a valid reason to outlaw depends on the context, but it is a historic reason.

Personally I would consider (b) >> (a) >> (c)

AND, let's not forget, this is D&D. Cannibalism may result in someone becoming a Wendigo, or a Ghoul/Ghast.

There are very real possible supernatural consequences of cannibalism in D&D.

[Tanarii]

And yes, it is absolutely consequentialist. That is what is meant by DESCRIPTIVE. Alignment stems FROM one's actions. That is by design, it is not a flaw.

This may have been the case in 3e, but it's not necessarily true in 5e. In 5e, it's possible to use associated typical (but not required) as a roleplaying aid. Another of the 5-6 short personality traits that a player can use to help inform their decision making for the character in the fantasy environment.

No...it's ALL actions. Someone who frequently commits Good acts and never or very rarely commits evil acts is probably Good or Neutral ("Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality", 3.5e DMG, page 134). ALL of one's actions that have moral weight could potentially affect alignment.

Actions having moral weight and affecting alignment is a 3e thing. In 5e, with one exception (necromancy), no single action carries moral weight. Alignment is explicitly about the associated typical but not required behavior. It's explicitly not proscriptive. But again there's no explicit indication that it's descriptive, just a label, a judgement on previous behavior. It can (and IMO should) be used in a forward thinking fashion by the player. Neither descriptive, nor proscriptive, but instead on of many traits for character 'motivations' in determining decisions (aka roleplaying).

3e Alignment thinking is 20-12 years out of date at this point. We might as well be quoting gygax and AD&D.

[hamishspence]

Alignment change still exists in 5e. Zariel used to be Good (and an angel). Now she's a Evil (and a fiend). And Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes (the book with Zariel's stats in) makes it pretty clear that this was because of her actions.

Radiant Idots in Eberron, are angels who have become evil, but who haven't lost their celestial type, unlike Zariel.

[Tanarii]

Alignment change still exists in 5e. Zariel used to be Good (and an angel). Now she's a Evil (and a fiend). And Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes (the book with Zariel's stats in) makes it pretty clear that this was because of her actions.

Sure. Alignment change can be a thing. Nothing about the player or DM using it as a roleplaying aid makes that impossible. In fact, it's easier.

If I, a player, erase Lawful good, then write down Chaotic Evil, then use the new typical but not required behavior to assist in informing my decision making, my PC's Alignment has changed. And assuredly my characters actions will be modified as least occasionally due to the new Alignment.

In-universe, this might seem chicken and egg, as in when the alignment actually changes may be before or after or during the change in overall behavior. Because it's not tied to specific actions, you cannot nail it down. But from a player perspective, it doesn't have to be the result of specific character actions. It can be prior to the new alignment being used as a roleplaying aid, which results in some actions being different from what might have occurred before.

Edit: this is why I say it's in world objective, but table & player subjective. In world, it is whatever is written in the stat block or on the character sheet. That is objectively the in-world alignment. At the DM or Player level, it's however they choose to interpret the associated typical behavior and use it, so it's subjective.

[OldTrees1]

No, it doesn't. D&D-style "objective morality" means that it would have an effect on your alignment, but alignment is not morality. Alignment is just a bit of physics. It means that certain actions have certain consequences. But not all moral systems are consequentialist. If you don't believe that an action is or is not moral because of what results from it, changing what results from it does not change your assessment of its morality. And that's all that D&D changes. Even within the consequentalist framework, being Evil or Good is just another consequence, one you are not obligated to weigh at any particular level.

Sorry for the late reply but:

Objective morality is a philosophy term that was defined before D&D was invented. D&D-style objective morality is the same as non D&D-style objective morality, because "objective morality" is defined independent of D&D.

Deontological ethics systems are a form of objective morality
Virtue ethics systems are a form of objective morality
Consequentialist ethics systems are a form of objective morality

Objective morality is the metaethical position that claims moral statements resolve to either a True or a False value. If the statement "murdering babies is immoral" resolves to True then that is consistent with Objective Moralities metaethical model about what moral sentences are.

Now I get that you are trying to divorce "immoral" from "evil". However neither result impacts the consistency of objective morality. If evil becomes a misnomer, then objective morality continues to talk about immoral. If evil is not a misnomer, then objective morality continues to talk about immoral (which evil, not being a misnomer, is related to).

So now we return to my sentences:

If the Drow starts talking about how they think it is right to backstab your boss, they are making a claim. Objective morality claims that the Drow's claim of "stabbing bosses is morally permissible" is a claim that would resolve to either a True or a False value.

This is absolutely true unless you have a time machine and can go visit ancient greece to change the definition of a term that predates D&D.

OldTrees, we may be wasting our breath, Nigel often does not distinguish between his Opinion and Fact. He also thinks very poorly of alignment in general, and thinks his perspective is superior (again, thinks this is a "fact", and not just his opinion).

If this results in me posting another lesson about metaethics, and if only lurkers benefit from that lesson, that would still be acceptable. However don't be hasty, in a brief scan I saw a mistake on your part too.

And yes, it is absolutely consequentialist. That is what is meant by DESCRIPTIVE. Alignment stems FROM one's actions. That is by design, it is not a flaw.

That is not what consequentialism means. Consequentialism is a branch of moral theories (and thus a form of objective morality) that holds that the consequences of an event's intent/action/consequence package can have moral significance. Often to the point of exclusively focusing on the consequences. Consider utilitarianism evaluating the morality of an event based on the amount it increases or decreases utility (utility translates to roughly pleasure/happiness/value).

So descriptive alignment is not directly related to consequentialism. The GM could be using deontological or virtue ethics for their campaign and still use descriptive alignment. (Often I think WotC is presuming deontological ethics, because that focuses on the action in the intent/action/consequence package, but they do not restrict D&D to only that branch)

AND, let's not forget, this is D&D. Cannibalism may result in someone becoming a Wendigo, or a Ghoul/Ghast.

There are very real possible supernatural consequences of cannibalism in D&D.

Very good points. I had forgotten about that source of ghouls / wendigos.

Again, that is arbitrary. Moreover, it's beside the point. If the Drow are "really Evil", but call themselves "good", all having them be "Evil" is doing is adding confusion. Far better to have a Lolth alignment. The we can coherently talk about "Lolth-ists believe X is good" without having to say completely absurd things like "Evil believes X is good". What you are asking for is that we make terminology more confusing for no reason in the service of a concept that does not make sense. Stop doing it.

Let's take a step back from alignment, and even from morality. Let's talk about the shape of the moon.

Jacob believes the moon is a square.
Jane believes the moon is a circle.
In reality the moon is an oblate spheroid
.
Jacob claims "the moon is a square". If evaluated that claim will result in either a True or False value. Since the moon is actually a oblate spheroid, Jacob's claim "the moon is a square" evaluates to false. Jacob's claim that "the moon is a square" is false. This does not prevent Jacob who believes the moon is a square from believing the moon is a square. Beliefs about reality are different from reality. A belief can match reality (in this case a belief the moon is a oblate spheroid would be true) or they can not match reality (in this case Jacob's claim is false).

Beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate

Now let's step back to morality (still not to alignment yet)

Jill believes pushing Jack off a cliff to his death is moral. We know Jill's belief, but we also know that "beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate". Jill's belief could be true, or it could be false.

We might not know the answer, but the GM controls reality's state in the campaign. They will decide/have decided what reality's state is on that matter. In this case they have decided that "pushing Jack of a cliff to his death" would be immoral. With that information we now know that Jill's belief "pushing Jack off a cliff to his death is moral" does not match reality "pushing Jack off a cliff to his death is immoral".

Once again "beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate".

Now let's step back to alignment.

Jeffery believes murdering Jennifer is good. We know Jeffery's belief, but we also know that "beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate". Jeffery's belief could be true, or it could be false.

We might not know the answer, but the GM controls reality's state in the campaign. They will decide/have decided what reality's state is on that matter. In this case they have decided that "murdering Jennifer" would be evil. With that information we now know that Jeffery's belief "murdering Jennifer is good" does not match reality "murdering Jennifer is evil".

Once again "beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate".

So how does this relate to that Drow? If a particular Drow (Jeffery) happens to be evil and happens to believe something (murdering Jennifer) is good, and reality (as defined by the GM) differs by having that something (murdering Jennifer) be evil, then the Drow's belief is false. They are mistaken. Which is possible because "beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate".

Also notice I did not say something like "Evil believes X is good". I said "this being, happens to be evil, and happens to belief X is good".

Now is this terminology complex? Is it confusing? Is there an entire branch of higher level education on the topics of metaethics, ethics, and moral theories? Yes, the full picture takes time to understand. It it unnecessarily confusing? No. People eventually learn that "beliefs about reality & reality's state are separate" and when they do, then they understand reality has always been this more complex place.

[Vahnavoi]

3e Alignment thinking is 20-12 years out of date at this point. We might as well be quoting gygax and AD&D.

You should be quoting Gygax, because 1st edition AD&D had a better definion of the Alignment system than 5th edition has. Luckily for you, another person, Jason, already did.

5th edition Alignment system is not any real improvement over 1st edition AD&D, anymore than 2nd edition was.

To recap some history:

1) 2e Alignment was screwed over by TSR's decision to market the game to kids and appeal to moral guardians. They didn't really change the system, but they subtly changed the definitions so that Evil is what would make your mom angry and so is naughty-naughty, and even non-Good is pushing it. Players were heavily encouraged to play Good and "heroic" characters, but only in a way that adhered to contemporary PG-13 standards.

Notably, even people at TSR thought a lot of this was ridiculous, and if TSR had seriously stuck to their guns, things like Planescape, Dark Sun and Ravenloft probably wouldn't exist.

2) 5e Alignment was screwed over by WotC's crisis over 4e. They'd tried to kill or change many "sacred cows" of older editions in order to make a more functional game, including condensing Alignment to CE - E - Un - G - LG... only to find out that people actually liked those sacred cows and Paizo made a business for itself essentially selling a 3e retroclone.

So they had to walk it back, but at the same time, they were under crossfire from people who hated Alignment in earlier editions. As a result, 5e doesn't stand on its own. It's Alignment is vestigial lip service to older fans, with most of its features removed so it's easy to ignorr. Seriously. The most positive remarks I've heard of 5e Alignment come from people who hated it in 3e and love how the new version "doesn't get in the way". That's a case of damned by faint praise if there ever was one.

[Jason]

To recap some history:

1) 2e Alignment was screwed over by TSR's decision to market the game to kids and appeal to moral guardians. They didn't really change the system, but they subtly changed the definitions so that Evil is what would make your mom angry and so is naughty-naughty, and even non-Good is pushing it. Players were heavily encouraged to play Good and "heroic" characters, but only in a way that adhered to contemporary PG-13 standards.

They also did stuff like taking out half-orcs and assassins as player options, removing devils and demons as opponents, etc. You're right, they basically bowed to their critics and made the game more kid-friendly. Some of those things eventually came back late in the line.

2) 5e Alignment was screwed over by WotC's crisis over 4e. They'd tried to kill or change many "sacred cows" of older editions in order to make a more functional game, including condensing Alignment to CE - E - Un - G - LG... only to find out that people actually liked those sacred cows and Paizo made a business for itself essentially selling a 3e retroclone.

So they had to walk it back, but at the same time, they were under crossfire from people who hated Alignment in earlier editions. As a result, 5e doesn't stand on its own. It's Alignment is vestigial lip service to older fans, with most of its features removed so it's easy to ignorr. Seriously. The most positive remarks I've heard of 5e Alignment come from people who hated it in 3e and love how the new version "doesn't get in the way". That's a case of damned by faint praise if there ever was one.

Yeah, Alignment in 5th edition is mostly vestigial. It's probably my least favorite change in the new system (a system I generally like).

My group only played 4th edition for one session before deciding we didn't like it, so the alignment system there didn't really ever come up. We went back to 3.5 for all our D&D games until 5th came out.

[EggKookoo]

So they had to walk it back, but at the same time, they were under crossfire from people who hated Alignment in earlier editions. As a result, 5e doesn't stand on its own. It's Alignment is vestigial lip service to older fans, with most of its features removed so it's easy to ignorr. Seriously. The most positive remarks I've heard of 5e Alignment come from people who hated it in 3e and love how the new version "doesn't get in the way". That's a case of damned by faint praise if there ever was one.

I continue to maintain 5e could have given alignment some bite and appeal to folks who feel it's too constraining by making it part of your background. You can select "chaotic evil" but that describes the sum total of your life up to the point where you become 1st level. It should inform your history, and provide fuel for that history to perhaps catch up to you at some point. But once you become a bona fide 1st-level PC, you're not bound by it.

Then they could have had some fun with playing, say, a cleric with an evil background but who now serves a good deity.

[OldTrees1]

I continue to maintain 5e could have given alignment some bite and appeal to folks who feel it's too constraining by making it part of your background. You can select "chaotic evil" but that describes the sum total of your life up to the point where you become 1st level. It should inform your history, and provide fuel for that history to perhaps catch up to you at some point. But once you become a bona fide 1st-level PC, you're not bound by it.

Then they could have had some fun with playing, say, a cleric with an evil background but who now serves a good deity.

That could be interesting.

Personally, I prefer to focus on who my character is now. So if I am considering morality at all, I would want to consider their current moral character rather than their past moral character (except in as far as it impacts their current moral character).

Oh, and I still prefer moral character to be descriptive instead of prescriptive. You are never "bound" by your moral character. Your moral character is a result of who you are. A liar is a liar because they lie, not vice versa ("lie because they are a liar").

For example: An ex criminal Paladin used to be a criminal and now is not.

[EggKookoo]

Personally, I prefer to focus on who my character is now. So if I am considering morality at all, I would want to consider their current moral character rather than their past moral character (except in as far as it impacts their current moral character).

The two approaches aren't mutually-exclusive. You can continue to act how you like. But a lot of people feel alignment is confusing and restrictive, even if it really isn't. If I put down "good," do I have to act good? If I don't have to act good, why am I checking off the "good" box on my sheet?

In my experience as DM, most players don't really think strongly about their PC's alignment. Only those who are actively trying to roleplay a particular alignment tend to pay attention to it.

[Mystral]

No, alignment is not purely subjective. Good and Evil, as well as Law and Chaos are active, powerfull forces that govern the multiverse, even if they don't have any agency or personality. Actions can conform to those alignments and influence a creatures alignment, which is the sum total of its actions over its entire lifetime.

And while the vast majority of illithids are evil, there are probably a good number which are neutral and a rare few that are good-aligned. You could probably count the good aligned illithids that live during a century on one hand.

[OldTrees1]

The two approaches aren't mutually-exclusive. You can continue to act how you like. But a lot of people feel alignment is confusing and restrictive, even if it really isn't. If I put down "good," do I have to act good? If I don't have to act good, why am I checking off the "good" box on my sheet?

I think that is fair (and why I switched from a general statement to a person statement) but let me answer that rhetorical question:
If you put down "good" you don't have to act good. How you act will determine what the GM puts down in that box (under descriptive alignment that box describes how you have been, not prescribe how you must be). Maybe you are like Miko and your actions have the GM write down Neutral. If you want it to continue to say "good" then you should continue to act good. If you want it to change, then you should act differently.

In my experience as DM, most players don't really think strongly about their PC's alignment. Only those who are actively trying to roleplay a particular alignment tend to pay attention to it.

This goes for those staying at an alignment and those that are roleplaying a transition from one alignment to another (falls, redemption, becoming more wild, or settling down)

Although, as someone that does think strongly about my PCs' moral character, I am glad 5E designed alignment in a way that it can be ignored when unwanted or exist when wanted.

[Vahnavoi]

The two approaches aren't mutually-exclusive. You can continue to act how you like. But a lot of people feel alignment is confusing and restrictive, even if it really isn't. If I put down "good," do I have to act good? If I don't have to act good, why am I checking off the "good" box on my sheet?

In my experience as DM, most players don't really think strongly about their PC's alignment. Only those who are actively trying to roleplay a particular alignment tend to pay attention to it.

It's basically a pledge: "I'm going to play my character this way". Then the GM, in their role as a referee, decides if you're successful. Fail the pledge, and you acrue some temporary penalty, your alignment changes to match the way you play, and the game moves on. (In its original conception, you never had to to be good - you could be of any alignment.)

Really, if there's one true improvement to make for alignment, it's allowing the player to give TBD (To Be Determined) as their character's starting alignment, leaving it completely up to their GM to decide based on their actual in-game behaviour. That way, if you don't understand what alignments mean and how they operate in that GM's setting, you don't have to make any pledges you can't commit to and can find out how the setting approaches you by experiencing it.

[EggKookoo]

Really, if there's one true improvement to make for alignment, it's allowing the player to give TBD (To Be Determined) as their character's starting alignment, leaving it completely up to their GM to decide based on their actual in-game behaviour. That way, if you don't understand what alignments mean and how they operate in that GM's setting, you don't have to make any pledges you can't commit to and can find out how the setting approaches you by experiencing it.

That's how I handle it. I assume all PCs are neutral (in the "undecided" sense rather than the "balance" sense) until they inform me otherwise through their actions.

The real problem I run into is that most players play PCs that will be good if it's easy to do so. If the cost of being good starts to get too high, they weigh that cost and act accordingly. They want to lean toward good and will look for justifications for doing so (and feel genuinely bad if they can't), but in the end it's just a matter of what it takes. Waving your fingers and curing someone of a painful disease is a no-brainer. Any "good" person would do that. But giving up your life savings to do so? You still want the person to be free of the disease but the cost (to you) might be too high. Even giving up 10% of your life savings may be too high. There's some point where it's worth it, which will vary by person, even if everyone involved would be happy to relieve the sick person's suffering in the abstract and feel sad that they can't help.