Alignments that work

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:14 am

As we all know, DnD alignment does not work. It doesn't resemble any sort of morality and it's not even consistant with itself. Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic can mean whatever you want them to. This sucks. I offer the following definitions of the various alignments in order to fix this:

Good vs. Evil
Good and Evil is a sliding scale based on who exactly you consider to be "people". If you only care about yourself and do not treat anyone else as a person who deserves rights and dignity, you are Evil. If you think that everyone deserves respect and good treatment, you are Good. The more groups your treat as being "people", the more Good you are and vise versa. Things that are incapable of emotion, or less capable of emotion count for less. Animals are less important than people, but still count to a degree. Plants basically don't effect your alignment, unless you are causing people/animals to starve because of what you did to the plants.

Lawful vs. Chaotic
Chaotic is now Utilitarian. You do whatever you think will help people, regardless of rules, laws, and other restrictions. You are not random nor you are not crazy. Limbo, rather than being random and crazy nor is it Giant Frog. It is what happens when you put an infinite number of Always Chaotic outsiders on a plane with the Highly Morphic tag: the laws of physics become based on whatever renders those outsiders the most utility at the time. Which ends up being really fucking weird looking to people from a plane where the laws of physics are static.

Lawful is pseudo-Kantian. You follow the First Maxim "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This means that you do not lie, cheat, or steal from anyone and don't tolerate anyone else doing it. You also use a modified version of the Second Maxim, "Act in such a way that you treat people, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." This means you generally try to help people and don't treat people as a means to an end.

In both cases, who exactly counts as "people" depends entirely on your alignment on the Good/Evil axis. Lawful Evil people can hurt anyone that they don't consider people, and if someone who is considered "people" benifets from it, they are actively encouraged to do so. They still aren't allowed to lie, cheat or steal, however.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:44 am

Aren't Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil the same thing then? Since the only "person" that counts is yourself, and you're not likely to be cheating yourself or disobeying your own orders, there's not much basis for a difference. I guess you could say that Lawful Evil people only do things which help themselves in the long term, Chaotic Evil people are willing to do something ultimately detrimental if they enjoy it - but that seems more like self-discipline than an alignment.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:02 am

Damn it. I had even thought of that beforehand, but forgot to change it before I posted. That's what I get for posting at night, I suppose. It's fixed now.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:38 am

I handle alignment like this:

Lawful means acting according to a pretty rigid code/set of principles. Any such set qualifies, from a knightly order's rules to personal principles. What the law of the land is is of no consequences unless someone's code includes "follow the law of the land". In the same situation one will usually react in the same way.

Chaotic means having a very wide range of possible actions and reactions. Not much is set in stone, and the same situation can be reacted to in very different ways.

Neutral is a mix of the two extremes, with some prinicples/guidelines, and some leeway.

Good/evil are extremes rarely encountered outside outsiders and religious fanatics. To be evil one has to go out of one's way to cause harm and misery to others. Just ruthlessly removing obstacles for one's own gains doesn't qualify. Just killing all your enmies so they won't be after you later doesn't qualify. Stealing doesn't qualify. Cheating doesn't qualify. Being willing to sacrifice others so you survive doesn't qualify.
Similarly, to be good one has to be very selfless, almost a saint.

That means that I treat the vast majority of all people/humanoids and animals as neutral, and restrict good and evil to creatures born that way, and extremes like paladins, blackguards and clerics.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:06 am

Kantian ethics is all very well, but although "do not steal" can be derived from the Categorical Imperative, so can "treat all property as common property", so it seems like a failed concept in practice.

I'm quite content with the 4e alignment rules.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:43 pm

If you only care about yourself and do not treat anyone else as a person who deserves rights and dignity, you are Evil.

Kant Kant Kant Kant Kant.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:23 pm

Its a fairly absurd modern anachronism.

And I can't even begin to fathom why Law and Chaos are both basically concerned with helping people. Rather than, say, law or chaos. It all seems to be geared to giving a random tag to how good or what 'type' of good you are. But good seems to be the default assumption.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:39 pm

Law and Chaos usually are expressed in something akin to the Freedom vs. Security continuum, that is, whether people's need to be safe or whether their need to be free takes more importance. Obviously they are not entirely incompatible, which is why the character is Good, he works towards all Good ends, but when asked what is most Good, he has a different opinion than the guy over there ->

This may not be consistent with what "Chaotic Neutral" or even "Lawful Evil" are about, but that's how people usually seem to think of it, honestly.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Voss wrote:Its a fairly absurd modern anachronism.

And I can't even begin to fathom why Law and Chaos are both basically concerned with helping people. Rather than, say, law or chaos. It all seems to be geared to giving a random tag to how good or what 'type' of good you are. But good seems to be the default assumption.

Bear in mind the definition of "people." Lawful Evil means you go about helping yourself (or your tribe, or whatever) in a Kantian manner (act only in such that it would be a universal rule for your actions), whereas Chaotic Evil does so in a Utilitarian manner (greatest good for the greatest number of me).

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:01 am

but if you aren't concerned with anyone else, then how can you possibly be Kantian?

Act only in the way that, if everyone did it, it would benefit me? What?

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:32 am

Yeah, Kantian and Utilitarian probably only work at the good end of the scale. Their less 'others' inclined counterparts on the evil end might be strict egoism for the LEs (do whatever benefits me most all the time) and some sort of dark hedonism for the CEs (do whatever I want to whomever I want whenever I want). They're not particularly good fits, but they're better than the others. It's not surprising that it's a tough sell though, so few philosophies have really been concerned with the things that evil normally embodies.

Edit: Actually, strict egoism wouldn't really work with the dickish lawyerism that seems to permeate most LEs. So yeah, scratch that.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:01 am

Boolean wrote:but if you aren't concerned with anyone else, then how can you possibly be Kantian?

Act only in the way that, if everyone did it, it would benefit me? What?

Act only in the way that, if everyone did it (nonpersons included), it would benefit yourself or your tribe. Then make sure that everyone (nonpersons included) do that. Beings have basic rights, enfranchisement, liberty etc., if and only if they are a member of your tribe. Everyone else has no rights and should be made into slaves or otherwise used to benefit your tribe or yourself.

koz · Post by **koz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:11 am

This, while being fairly old, derelict and not entirely based on how I think anymore, has my system of alignment described, which I think you may be interested in seeing and reading. I feel it resolves a lot of the problems.

Aktariel · Post by **Aktariel** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:08 am

Erm... yeah. As it's presented, you can't really be Evil and Chaotic. Kantianism, even modified Kantianism, isn't really compatible with hurting people and breaking things.

Of course, everyone does it anyway, so it just depends on who you kill that makes you good or Evil... yeah, alignment is fucked and it's all relative anyway.
That is the true problem with alignment. It's a rigid codification of a very flexible reality.

I usually either say "fuck it" and people can play vampire paladins or Solar blackguards, or use some sort of "Selfless/Selfish Nice/Mean" set of scales.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:29 am

I love stuff based off the WotC boards because it says K every five seconds, as the only author.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:36 am

Aktariel wrote:Erm... yeah. As it's presented, you can't really be Evil and Chaotic. Kantianism, even modified Kantianism, isn't really compatible with hurting people and breaking things.

Yes, you can. Chaotic anything isn't Kantian under this system and Lawful Evil is Kant minus the assumption that all humans have intrinsic value. If you are Lawful Evil, hurting people and breaking their things is expected if they are from another city/tribe/race/religion.

@Mister_Sinister After reading over it, I notice that there is apparantly no alignments for benevolent dictators, societies with systematic opression of minorities or Robin Hood.

koz · Post by **koz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:48 am

Grek wrote:
@Mister_Sinister After reading over it, I notice that there is apparantly no alignments for benevolent dictators, societies with systematic opression of minorities or Robin Hood.

What ever led you to any of these conclusions? It gives provisions for all the above. Benevolent dictators are LG according to it (run them through the system), systematic oppression of minorities is LE. Robin Hood is a bit trickier - to be honest, I don't know the guy well enough.

I fail to see how your claims hold water here.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:15 am

The LG dictator fails because of Moral Principle #2 saying that the ends don't justify the means. If you are the head of a totalitarian government, and you say that the ends don't justify the means, that means you are not going to use military power to disenfrancise the populace and impose your benevolent rulership upon them. And if you aren't doing that, you aren't a benevolent dictator.

With the systematic oppression of minorities, I am basically talking nazism. Largescale public propaganda designed to get people to act on emotion rather than logic, and hate those minorities so much that you ignore the death camps and pretend that nothing is amiss. Ethical Principle #3 says that it's Chaotic that is ruled by emotions, not Lawful and that Lawful people encourage detachment and reason, not mob rule and skewing people's perception with propaganda campaigns.

For Robin Hood, he's the posterboy for CG. He robs the opressive, wealthy nobility and uses the money to feed the starving opressed peasants. He "seeks to achieve any given goal [Feeding the poor] as quickly as possible, without burdening themselves considering whether or not their actions were unduly harmful [To the people he robs], as they simply believe that any individuals harmed in the achieving of a given goal were so because they brought it upon themselves[He thinks this is 100% true about the rich.]." Which is one of the descriptions of Evil, not Good.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:34 am

Your problem is with your definition of "people." Remember, not every sapient entity is ethically considered a "person" under this system unless you're Good. I'm going to use "recognized people" whenever I think there might be ambiguity.

A LE dictator might well have sub-ranks of sapients, where you have the Natural Rulers (him and his buddies) who get full "person" status, the Ordinary People (his ethnic group), who get viewed mostly as people , and the Subpeople, who don't get viewed as people.

Manipulating the Ordinary People is then just fine and dandy, as long as it improves their lot. The Subpeople don't even have the right to not be driven off their land, enslaved, or killed; they have the same rights as livestock, under the dictator's ethics.

A benevolent dictator might actually be CG: the greatest good for the people is to be ruled by them, in their view. Actually, you'll have a lot of Chaotic dictators; utilitarianism doesn't preclude dictatorship if you (think you) know best, and forcing recognized people into actions that they don't want to do but need to for the greater good by force (like forcing people to get vaccinated at gunppoint) is a utilitarian act.

Robin Hood, I can't really say whether he's more utilitarian or Kantian. Remember, any action against someone can be justified under either system if they're not a recognized person; it's ust a lot simpler to justify harm to recognized people under Utilitarianism.

Neither alignment really likes rule by emotion; maybe that could be a third alignment? Ethically, you could then be Kantian, Utilitarian, Emotive, or Neutral, where Emotive means that you make your moral judgements with your gut, based on empathy for recognized people.

koz · Post by **koz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:50 am

Grek wrote:The LG dictator fails because of Moral Principle #2 saying that the ends don't justify the means. If you are the head of a totalitarian government, and you say that the ends don't justify the means, that means you are not going to use military power to disenfrancise the populace and impose your benevolent rulership upon them. And if you aren't doing that, you aren't a benevolent dictator.

With the systematic oppression of minorities, I am basically talking nazism. Largescale public propaganda designed to get people to act on emotion rather than logic, and hate those minorities so much that you ignore the death camps and pretend that nothing is amiss. Ethical Principle #3 says that it's Chaotic that is ruled by emotions, not Lawful and that Lawful people encourage detachment and reason, not mob rule and skewing people's perception with propaganda campaigns.

For Robin Hood, he's the posterboy for CG. He robs the opressive, wealthy nobility and uses the money to feed the starving opressed peasants. He "seeks to achieve any given goal [Feeding the poor] as quickly as possible, without burdening themselves considering whether or not their actions were unduly harmful [To the people he robs], as they simply believe that any individuals harmed in the achieving of a given goal were so because they brought it upon themselves[He thinks this is 100% true about the rich.]." Which is one of the descriptions of Evil, not Good.

The moment you believe that the ends justify the means, you aren't 'benevolent' in any meaningful sense of the term, because you are willing to do ANYTHING to impose what you believe to be 'correct' on other people through any means necessary. 'Benevolence' when it's being rammed down your throat is not benevolence under any sane definition of the term.

Good catch on the Nazism side of things, but if you had mentioned this specifically, I would have told you that Chaotic Evil fits that perfectly under the system. Hence, I fail to see the problem.

Well, as far as Robin Hood goes, I would like to point out that alignments are a guideline, not a rule. My principles go out of the way to stipulate that the alignment of a 'plastic' being, which Robin Hood is, are only 'guided' by their alignment, and that variant behavior is both possible and highly likely. That said, I can see what you mean on that account.

Antumbra · Post by **Antumbra** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:29 pm

Here's your alignment chart.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:59 pm

MS wrote:The moment you believe that the ends justify the means, you aren't 'benevolent' in any meaningful sense of the term, because you are willing to do ANYTHING to impose what you believe to be 'correct' on other people through any means necessary. 'Benevolence' when it's being rammed down your throat is not benevolence under any sane definition of the term.

Wat?

The ends do justify the means. Now, methodology is important for creating lasting social structures and all that shit, but the fact of the matter is that there really isn't any difference between letting someone die and killing them. Your actions and inactions determine who lives and who dies. And understanding and responding to that fact isn't "not benevolent" it's mature.

Frank

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:05 am

Means + Ends justifies Mean + Ends. Its the package deal that counts because you can only ever choose the package not bits and pieces.