Core Principle: Your Alignment System is Dumb

[Endovior]

Morality is a concept of intelligent beings. It doesn't apply to creatures without human-comparable intelligence. Unintelligent animals, much like plants and oozes, lack any alignment whatsoever.

Should human morality apply to non-human intelligences though? I mean, cultural biases exist that bring definitions of morality onto conflict in the real world. In a world with fantastic creatures, a world with non-human intelligence, should should a narrow, human moral compass apply universally?

A mindless zombie is evil according to the D&D rules. A feces flinging celestial monkey is good. Both are examples of morality applying to creatures of limited or non intelligence.

A mind flayer or vampire murders sentient beings in order to survive, but these creatures are not neccesarily homocidal. By modern human standards, homocide is abhorrent, xenocide is not. If it were, all societies would be vegetarian or vegan.

Perhaps I am just building a strawman here. I have been in so many alignment debates and arguments with D&D players that I have probably lost all rational perspective on the issue. If I run another game I'll probably use the elemental alignment ideas brought up on this thread. That, or I'll abandon it entirely in favour of some houserules.

Sure, why not? D&D is a world of absolute morality, rather then relative morality. The absolute morality in place here considers intelligence as the baseline for moral qualities... the Selfless care more about intelligences that are not themselves, while the Malicious destroy other intelligences to advance their own survival. It works. This has nothing to do with modern human standards at all; given that the modern human standards exclude the possibility of nonhuman intelligence. Given that possibility, yeah, killing an elf in D&D land is still 'homicide'. 'Xenocide', as mentioned, isn't even relevant to modern human morality, again, because of the lack of nonhuman intelligence. If, say, there were intelligent elves running around being cool and awesome, then we'd probably consider them 'people' too, and ascribe 'human' rights to them. That's what happens in D&D, given the relative integration of humans and elves (hence, half-elves). They don't apply it equally, though, hence anti-goblin sentiment; but that's more a matter of politics then anything else.

[Danchild]

Sure, why not? D&D is a world of absolute morality, rather then relative morality. The absolute morality in place here considers intelligence as the baseline for moral qualities... the Selfless care more about intelligences that are not themselves, while the Malicious destroy other intelligences to advance their own survival. It works. This has nothing to do with modern human standards at all; given that the modern human standards exclude the possibility of nonhuman intelligence. Given that possibility, yeah, killing an elf in D&D land is still 'homicide'. 'Xenocide', as mentioned, isn't even relevant to modern human morality, again, because of the lack of nonhuman intelligence. If, say, there were intelligent elves running around being cool and awesome, then we'd probably consider them 'people' too, and ascribe 'human' rights to them. That's what happens in D&D, given the relative integration of humans and elves (hence, half-elves). They don't apply it equally, though, hence anti-goblin sentiment; but that's more a matter of politics then anything else.

Relevant sentence bolded. You missed the part about Evil zombies and Good celestial monkeys?

[Crissa]

I don't think suicide bombers are selfless, honestly.

-Crissa

[Danchild]

I don't think suicide bombers are selfless, honestly.

Self sacrifice taken to an extreme. Some people regard them as martyrs.

[Crissa]

Yes, but is sacrificing yourself to achieve a goal truly selfless? Either all in combat are selfless or none really are. And I'd think that not fighting would be more without thought for the self than something which makes you the center of some notoriety.

I don't think of murder-suicides as selfless, either.

-Crissa

[MGuy]

Selflessness in that I imagine you're giving yourself to a cause higher than yourself. Isn't that what people who tie themselves to trees, go on hunger strikes, do other forms of non violent passive aggressive self sacrifice doing?

[Danchild]

Suicide attacks are presented as heroic in the legends of some cultures. Such as Samsons defiance in the Palestinian temple or the 300 Spartans. This does not diminish the heroism or selflessness of those who fight or sacrifice for a cause. However, there are differences between someone who incoveniences themselves for a cause, someone who risks harm to themselves for a cause and someone who risks serious injury or death for a cause. Then there are those who are prepared to die for a cause.

D&D does not scale alignment. So in a fantasy game these distinctions are moot. All are the acts of selfless (good) people.

[RandomCasualty2]

Yes, but is sacrificing yourself to achieve a goal truly selfless? Either all in combat are selfless or none really are. And I'd think that not fighting would be more without thought for the self than something which makes you the center of some notoriety.

Well no. Fighting to survive isn't selfless, that's self-preservation. Doing something that you know will get yourself killed is selfless because well... you won't survive to enjoy any benefit from doing whatever you did. Therefore it really has to be selfless, so long as you don't believe in any reward after death.

Now, you could argue suicide bombers who believe they're going to 20,000 virgins or whatever in heaven are not selfless, because they seek to gain some reward from doing what they're doing.

[violence in the media]

Yes, but is sacrificing yourself to achieve a goal truly selfless? Either all in combat are selfless or none really are. And I'd think that not fighting would be more without thought for the self than something which makes you the center of some notoriety.

Well no. Fighting to survive isn't selfless, that's self-preservation. Doing something that you know will get yourself killed is selfless because well... you won't survive to enjoy any benefit from doing whatever you did. Therefore it really has to be selfless, so long as you don't believe in any reward after death.

Now, you could argue suicide bombers who believe they're going to 20,000 virgins or whatever in heaven are not selfless, because they seek to gain some reward from doing what they're doing.

You could argue that the virgins are more of a consolation prize, offered and accepted on faith. A lie one makes to oneself in the face of inevitable demise, if you will.

"Look, we know you're going to die doing this...but God will be happy with you and provide you with many, many celestial hookers. Doesn't that sound nice?"

[Maj]

Suicide bombers aren't doing it for the pussy. They're doing it because they hate whatever it is they're bombing. The pussy's just an excuse.

[mean_liar]

In the rules of D&D, good people are rewarded if they are very good, and bad people are rewarded if they are very bad.

Citation needed.

My impression is that good people are rewarded if they are good at all, and bad people are rewarded only if they are VERY bad - there is no celestial equivalent to lemures and other teeming masses of tortured souls which constitute the majority of extraplanar evil populations.

[Username17]

My impression is that good people are rewarded if they are good at all, and bad people are rewarded only if they are VERY bad - there is no celestial equivalent to lemures and other teeming masses of tortured souls which constitute the majority of extraplanar evil populations.

Yes there is. Mount Celestia uses Lantern Archons as furniture and not all petitioners even get to be lantern archons. Those who don't get that high end up as chairs and shit. Sure, no one is running around poking them with a spear... but they still aren't even afforded sentience. So... ick.

If you aren't at least a Lantern Archon's worth of lawful goodness, you're in as shitty a position as the villains who failed to make Chain Devil. The afterlife of D&D is frankly nauseating. Almost everyone gets the major shaft. ending up as a deer in Valhalla and getting eaten every day is one of the better fates.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Suicide bombers aren't doing it for the pussy. They're doing it because they hate whatever it is they're bombing. The pussy's just an excuse.

They could also be doing it for economic benefit to their families, in the face of unemployment and starvation.

You're right in the sense that they're not doing it for the pussy, in the same way various Christians aren't shooting doctors or bombing clinics for the heavenly mansion. They think they're doing the right thing, the various rewards are all part of the divine pat on the head package.

[RandomCasualty2]

Suicide bombers aren't doing it for the pussy. They're doing it because they hate whatever it is they're bombing. The pussy's just an excuse.

Well yes and no. Suicide bombers do hate who they're bombing. In general, they're poor and have relatively little to live for anyway. People promising them that they'll be in some kinda crazy paradise if they suicide bomb someone makes it sound pretty tempting.

[Endovior]

Again, it depends on motivation. The previous case assumed a goblin suicide bomber who quite sincerely believes that everything's so terribly shitty that the world would be incredibly improved for everyone he knows and cares about if he strapped some kind of bomb to his chest and blew up a bunch of humans in the market. He's probably wrong, of course, but if he believes that, he's probably Selfless.

On the other hand, one could just as easily imagine some kind of death-cultist, who has joined the Church of Nerull or something, and believes that his afterlife will be incredibly awesome if he intentionally infected himself with a plague and spread it throughout his hometown, killing everyone in a horrible lingering death. Much the same actions, different motivation. Since the system I'm running here questions motivation, that's all I need concern myself with.

Sure, why not? D&D is a world of absolute morality, rather then relative morality. The absolute morality in place here considers intelligence as the baseline for moral qualities... the Selfless care more about intelligences that are not themselves, while the Malicious destroy other intelligences to advance their own survival. It works. This has nothing to do with modern human standards at all; given that the modern human standards exclude the possibility of nonhuman intelligence. Given that possibility, yeah, killing an elf in D&D land is still 'homicide'. 'Xenocide', as mentioned, isn't even relevant to modern human morality, again, because of the lack of nonhuman intelligence. If, say, there were intelligent elves running around being cool and awesome, then we'd probably consider them 'people' too, and ascribe 'human' rights to them. That's what happens in D&D, given the relative integration of humans and elves (hence, half-elves). They don't apply it equally, though, hence anti-goblin sentiment; but that's more a matter of politics then anything else.

Relevant sentence bolded. You missed the part about Evil zombies and Good celestial monkeys?

Le sigh.

Remember again that I'm referring to my specific tweaks of the system to make it less dumb. As such... Necromancy is Playing With Fire. There are no Evil Zombies.

On the other hand, Celestial creatures have more Intelligence then regular animals; they're maybe as smart as human morons. The planes they live on condition them towards Selfless behavior, as per the wishes of the Gods that made them that way.

[Danchild]

I am not sure that a person becomes less selfless because they believe in an afterlife. I mean, Chritian mythology posits that their religious figurehead sacrificed himself for the sins of man...If he had a free pass to the afterlife, his sacrifice was not really a sacrifice, was it? I'm personally not religious, but I acknowledge that religion has motivated a lot of good people. Some of them believed in an afterlife. Does that make them less good?

Remember again that I'm referring to my specific tweaks of the system to make it less dumb. As such... Necromancy is Playing With Fire. There are no Evil Zombies.

My mistake. I assumed you were using simple language to describe the existing D&D alignment system.

[Prak]

It's motivated a lot of bad people too. Does hearing voices that say their the almighty telling you to kill kids make that any more selfish?

[Kaelik]

I am not sure that a person becomes less selfless because they believe in an afterlife. I mean, Chritian mythology posits that their religious figurehead sacrificed himself for the sins of man...If he had a free pass to the afterlife, his sacrifice was not really a sacrifice, was it?

Yes, it really does make it not a sacrifice. It's not a sacrifice to stop being a mortal human and go back to being omnipotent.

[Crissa]

Well, technically Jesus wasn't omnipotent and it was his dad's sacrifice of having his son killed, not Jesus's sacrifice of having died, but of having lived.

If you want to get technical on it and all.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

Well, technically Jesus wasn't omnipotent and it was his dad's sacrifice of having his son killed, not Jesus's sacrifice of having died, but of having lived.

If you want to get technical on it and all.

If you want to get technical and all, you are totally and completely wrong, because Jesus is the only one who can sacrifice anything, because "The Father" can't actually sacrifice anything. And Jesus is omnipotent, after he died, which is kinda the fucking point. At least according to Catholic Doctrine.

But you know, since no two people actually have the same opinion about what it means, because it's a bunch of made up bullshit that is specifically self contradictory all over the place, it doesn't actually matter what anyone believes, because under no circumstances whatsoever does anything God or Jesus hypothetically did count as a sacrifice, with the exception of Jesus choosing to suffer pain, and under that only possible claim of sacrifice, dying is actually the exact opposite of sacrifice, because it made his life better in every possible way.

[Mask_De_H]

Christ: it's like Godwin's Law.

Pun intended.

[Crissa]

I suppose 'he sacrificed his only begotten son' means nothing.

*sigh*

-Crissa

[Prak]

No it really doesn't. It wasn't a sacrifice except for the pain, and christ supposedly being away from heaven.

But even then, god's supposed to be all around us, and christ and god are supposed to be the same entity. The only place you can go to get away from god, by catechism, is Hell. So the sacrifice was more like "yeah, go down to the corner mart and pick up some eggs. Oh, you'll have to experience a lot of pain when you come back, but after that you'll be walking right back through the building door here"

[Endovior]

lol @ epic blasphemy.

I approve.

[TheFlatline]

The absolute morality in place here considers intelligence as the baseline for moral qualities... the Selfless care more about intelligences that are not themselves, while the Malicious destroy other intelligences to advance their own survival. It works.

No it doesn't.

By your standards, if I walk up to a puppy and snap it's neck, I'm not necessarily doing a bad/malicious act because the puppy had less intelligence than even the average dog, so my action isn't even a moral quandary.

Which is a stupid fucking morality system. Does that mean a character can murder babies in cold blood? They have shit for intelligence too. How about an old person who's gone senile? Is kicking the door down and hacking the person to pieces okay because they weren't intelligent? If it's *not* okay, because they *once* were intelligent, then how do you okay hacking up a zombie? *They* were intelligent once.

You have to take several steps away from that morality system to even *start* to make sense.

Good would see intrinsic value in everything, Buddhist-style, and would fight to save that intrinsic value if threatened.

Evil would see no intrinsic value in anything, but only situation value (ie how something/someone could be used to benefit you or your cause).

Neutral people would be people who accepted that everything had intrinsic value, but had trouble not seeing and taking advantage of something's situational value.

Probably 85% or so of the world would be neutral in this case, with maybe 10% being evil, and only 5% being good, because it's harder than fuck to accept that everything has it's own purpose and place. And good adventuring characters would be exceedingly rare.