New definitions for alignment


Off-Topic Discussions


This is not about what alignment currently is, but rather this is about making a new definition for alignment and the related terms.

The goal for these new definitions is to,
A) respect and provide sensible reasoning for alignment restrictions (such as paladins, monks, demons vs devils, etc)
B) allow cultural differences about details without undermining the alignment concept

So firstly, the purpose of having a concept of morality, regardless of the details of that concept, is to allow a group to function cohesively. Individual predators value themselves alone and therefore take all they can get while minimizing the cost to themselves. Groups however, seek greater long term benefit by sharing both benefit and cost, which means that in a group, individuals must give up some of what they want and accept some of the costs.

There are three aspects here, what kind of values are held as important, the focus of actions according to gains benefit/cost, and lastly, proactive vs reactive.

Values all involve one of five concepts, which come in two categories. Avoidance of harm, Fairness, Authority, In-group vs others, and Purity. Avoidance of harm and Fairness tend to be bound together, as are the other three. I therefore call these two groups, Justice (fairness and avoidance of harm) and Structure (Authority, purity, and in vs out grouping) (which I'll capitalize when I reference them later).

What does this mean for alignment? Well, four aspects are in play, Aspect Alpha, nearly everyone values Justice, even if they disagree about the details of what is or is not just, but not everyone values the stability gained from Structure or at least do not believe it is worth the cost.

The second aspect Beta, would be the focus of one's values. When one considers the consequences of their actions, do they judge the consequences mainly on what it means for themself or for people in general? That is their focus.

The third aspect Delta, is proactive or reactive. This isn't so much about whether one might plan ahead, but rather about if one ponders deeply and technically about the foundational things of their life and whether they act to control their life or let life happen to them.

The fourth aspect Gamma, is behavior vs result. Basically, does one focus on behaving in a particular way (measured according to their values) or focus on the result (measured by their values) and shift behavior according to the situation. Someone focused on results will be more likely to break their own rules, if they even have any.

---
Now, Lawfulness the alignment trait is all about one who is proactive, considerate of behavior and thus supportive of Structure. The dedication that comes from a deep thoughtfulness of how one behaves and a strict adherence to that chosen way of behaving is the core of the Lawful alignment.

The Chaotic alignment is naturally the polar opposite, being one focused more one results and reacting to circumstances as they come, the classic "go with the flow" mentality.

Good is focused on the group at the expense of the individual. Group being in the more abstract sense. Thus, one of Good alignment does whatever is needed for the betterment of a higher cause. These are the most self-sacrificial people.

Evil is however the difficult one, as since Evil generally includes people that are truly despicable, killing for joy or pleasure for example, yet also includes those simply focused on themselves. Thus, Evil is defined here as the rejection of either the need for morality and thus acts purely for one's own benefit, or the rejection of the group concept and one acts not just for themselves but against the whole world, treating all other things as having value only to the the individual's whims.

---
Thus, from this, it should make perfect sense why paladins need to be Lawful Good, because the entire concept of a paladin is defined by being an individual that well and truly serves a higher goal whatever the cost may be to themselves. This fits the definitions above of Lawful and Good. Any other alignment would be in conflict with the concept of a paladin.

Similar case for monk, as the dedication required to master oneself like that requires absolute adherence to a particular way of living and truly putting all of themselves into what they do. It can really only be achieved by those who have traits defined as being lawful.

As you can see, these definitions are not at all about what is good or bad, but more about the character's take on the entire concept of how they judge and value things to ascribe good and bad to things

So what do you guys out there think? Is this a good way to define alignment? Does it make sense? Does it fit alignment restrictions? Any other opinions on it's validity or how you expended/adjust it?

Grand Lodge

This is what I came up with several years ago -- I've posted it numerous times in various Threads over the years:
.
.
.
.
Good and Evil are Moral Alignments. Good is good and evil is, um, evil.

Lawful and Chaotic are Personality Alignments.

.

A Lawful personality is disciplined or orderly, regimented, thoughtful, a long-term thinker, a planner, probably serious rather than casual.

A Chaotic personality is whimsical, free-spirited, does things haphazardly, doesn't plan or care about long-term consequences.

....Meanwhile, a Neutral personality is someone who is neither clearly Lawful nor Chaotic. Which means it includes a whole host of personalities. Anything that doesn't conform to Lawful or Chaotic is Neutral.


The problem with that though, is that not everyone agrees on what is good or evil. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing for his people. Many others call him evil, yet even today, there are people who believe as he did. None of them consider themselves evil, while others do.

This is why I defined good and evil the way I did, because it then works perfectly in spite of people different ideas about good and evil.

Your definition runs into problems when you get people fighting each other, each believing themselves good, and then detecting evil on the other side.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:

The problem with that though, is that not everyone agrees on what is good or evil. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing for his people. Many others call him evil, yet even today, there are people who believe as he did. None of them consider themselves evil, while others do.

This is why I defined good and evil the way I did, because it then works perfectly in spite of people different ideas about good and evil.

Your definition runs into problems when you get people fighting each other, each believing themselves good, and then detecting evil on the other side.

But still runs into the same problems. Germans sacrificing themselves for their nation and their people would still be good under your definitions.

Definitions making Nazis good are not good.


Good is entirely subjective. Nazis are not objectively evil, rather, they are evil according current western values.

What happens when you play an rpg with a nazi (for a perhaps extreme example)? If you use only your own ideas of good vs evil, then the nazi player tries to play a hero yet gets constantly in conflict with you over what is right for the hero to be doing.

On a more subtle scale, my definition also opens up what a paladin can be and still remain a paladin. Cause Lawful Stupid is a ridiculous concept.

It also allows questions of morality to be explored as a narrative point or even a major focus of a game, without disrupting the actual gameplay with arguements over whether certain actions are mechanically good or evil.

But the big important point here, what you consider good I might consider evil, and that is not something the mechanics should be defining for us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:

Good is entirely subjective. Nazis are not objectively evil, rather, they are evil according current western values.

What happens when you play an rpg with a nazi (for a perhaps extreme example)? If you use only your own ideas of good vs evil, then the nazi player tries to play a hero yet gets constantly in conflict with you over what is right for the hero to be doing.

On a more subtle scale, my definition also opens up what a paladin can be and still remain a paladin. Cause Lawful Stupid is a ridiculous concept.

It also allows questions of morality to be explored as a narrative point or even a major focus of a game, without disrupting the actual gameplay with arguements over whether certain actions are mechanically good or evil.

But the big important point here, what you consider good I might consider evil, and that is not something the mechanics should be defining for us.

Then drop the terms entirely. If you're going to invent meanings that don't match anyone's understanding, then using the existing moral term just adds confusion.

What happens when I play an rpg with a Nazi? I quit the game when I find out. Or he does.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:
Good is entirely subjective. Nazis are not objectively evil, rather, they are evil according current western values.
No, "genocide is evil" is completely universal, it's not some new western idea.
Quote:
What happens when you play an rpg with a nazi (for a perhaps extreme example)?

I'm not playing with someone who wants to kill me and the people I care about.


I think you set your example too extreme if your trying to argue subjective morality vs absolute morality.

A little tamer example I can use is from the ender book series

For us murder is a terrible amoral act but in the book an alien species that behaves like a hive mind. the individual drones aren't sentient so there death is no different need breaking a possession. For that species the mass murder of humans wasn't considered amoral until the queen found out that each individual human was sentient. Morality can be very subjective. However I do believe in Golarion it is quite a bit more solid since there are actual gods of good and evil. With that in mind Golarion a moral issue could probably be settled by praying and asking the god who is in charge of it. You could get a very objective moral system that way.

As far as the Nazi thing goes. Genocide involves killing off a people. Obviously a evil act. the thing the nazi's did was illustrate anyone not of there race as people (obviously for many reasons erroneous) that is how they justified it so they might even agree that genocide is evil but they would describe the people there killing as not humans and that has been a tactic in war for who can say how long; to dehumanize your enemies. Now to look at another human and think there not like me there just an animal is another problem all together.

Very few people consider themselves evil If they do they are igther misunderstanding or have a mental illness. Despite that as a society its easy to assign a fair amount of evil actions. There is like 50 more steps to this discussion and I feel I have already written a wall so I'll stop here.

Oh last thing I feel selfishness is one of the more common modern evils.


Rysky wrote:
Interesting Character wrote:
Good is entirely subjective. Nazis are not objectively evil, rather, they are evil according current western values.
No, "genocide is evil" is completely universal, it's not some new western idea.

Can you provide any examples, at all, of non-western cultures feeling their ancestors conducted an evil historical act by displacing or killing the tribes or peoples who previously inhabited their lands? Are modern Indians sad about the Aryan invasions? Do Mexicans feel bad about Aztec atrocities? Are Turks apologetic about what they did to the Armenians? Is the average Hutu super sorry to every Tutsi he meets, or does he kind of think they were wise to act first? Do modern Mongolian citizens feel embarassed about Genghis Khan's atrocities, or do they think everyone else kind of had it coming for fighting back, and feel some nationalist pride in his mountains of skulls? The Japanese are famously un- or insufficiently apologetic about WW2, but are you saying they're really regretful that their ancestors pushed out the Ainu when they inhabited the home islands? Are native american tribes full of guilt for wiping out American megafauna, for that matter?

I would also question whether this is a universal belief even in the "the west."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More importantly, it's important to note that this is a fantasy game, not a colloquium in ethics.

In a game where the core function is that PCs kill monsters, we have to keep in mind that it's probably better to keep things simple. Stick with the basic 'What to do when a monster surrenders' and 'What to do with the monsters' offspring' issues. Concerns such as 'Is it okay to lie to an evil monster' or 'Can we attack first against the monster that is only "probably" evil' are about as deep as gameplay usually -- or should -- go.

The bottom lines for me are this:
1) It's a fantasy game where we're here to have fun killing monsters and taking their treasure -- and we're essentially always going to agree on every aspect of right and wrong. Yet for those one percent of times where our personal ethics will differ, it's better to NOT include them in our game at all (just like we don't necessarily talk about religious or political issues at the table).

2) For the basic purpose of playing in a fantasy game where we're here to have fun, MY specific idea of LG and CG and NG may be a little different than yours and that is OKAY. You a grown-ass-adult and I got no business telling you that LG means you have to obey some evil law because an evil King passed an evil Law. Just like you sure as hell ain't gonna tell me that CG means you believe in 'Freedom' and since I'm LG I don't believe in 'Freedom' -- Bi+ch, I'm a grown-ass-adult you ain't tellin' me that 'Freedom' means CG but not LG . .... You make an Alignment decision for your PC or NPCs and I'll make decisions for mine. Ultimately, we're still going to agree on 99% of this stuff anyway, and see #1.

So Good and Evil are Moral Alignments (for My PC and all my NPCs)
And Lawful and Chaotic are Personality Alignments (for My PC and all my NPCs)
YMMV
(and we're still going to agree on 99%)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Interesting Character wrote:
Good is entirely subjective. Nazis are not objectively evil, rather, they are evil according current western values.
No, "genocide is evil" is completely universal, it's not some new western idea.

Can you provide any examples, at all, of non-western cultures feeling their ancestors conducted an evil historical act by displacing or killing the tribes or peoples who previously inhabited their lands? Are modern Indians sad about the Aryan invasions? Do Mexicans feel bad about Aztec atrocities? Are Turks apologetic about what they did to the Armenians? Is the average Hutu super sorry to every Tutsi he meets, or does he kind of think they were wise to act first? Do modern Mongolian citizens feel embarassed about Genghis Khan's atrocities, or do they think everyone else kind of had it coming for fighting back, and feel some nationalist pride in his mountains of skulls? The Japanese are famously un- or insufficiently apologetic about WW2, but are you saying they're really regretful that their ancestors pushed out the Ainu when they inhabited the home islands? Are native american tribes full of guilt for wiping out American megafauna, for that matter?

I would also question whether this is a universal belief even in the "the west."

I don't care.

I mean, if you're actually arguing that genocide isn't evil, then I don't even want to talk to you. If you're making some kind of equivocation about the Holocaust and people not feeling sufficiently guilty about things their distant ancestors did, I kind of wonder why.

No. There is no completely universal standard that absolutely everyone would agree on. To take the most reductive example: The Nazis wouldn't have agreed the Holocaust was evil.

That doesn't mean we throw up our hands and give up any moral argument whatsoever and it certainly doesn't mean we take the OP's approach and substitute some other definition for good and evil that has nothing to do with either any serious attempt at moral philosophy or anyone's common understanding of good and evil.


W E Ray wrote:

More importantly, it's important to note that this is a fantasy game, not a colloquium in ethics.

In a game where the core function is that PCs kill monsters, we have to keep in mind that it's probably better to keep things simple. Stick with the basic 'What to do when a monster surrenders' and 'What to do with the monsters' offspring' issues. Concerns such as 'Is it okay to lie to an evil monster' or 'Can we attack first against the monster that is only "probably" evil' are about as deep as gameplay usually -- or should -- go.

The bottom lines for me are this:
1) It's a fantasy game where we're here to have fun killing monsters and taking their treasure -- and we're essentially always going to agree on every aspect of right and wrong. Yet for those one percent of times where our personal ethics will differ, it's better to NOT include them in our game at all (just like we don't necessarily talk about religious or political issues at the table).

2) For the basic purpose of playing in a fantasy game where we're here to have fun, MY specific idea of LG and CG and NG may be a little different than yours and that is OKAY. You a grown-ass-adult and I got no business telling you that LG means you have to obey some evil law because an evil King passed an evil Law. Just like you sure as hell ain't gonna tell me that CG means you believe in 'Freedom' and since I'm LG I don't believe in 'Freedom' -- Bi+ch, I'm a grown-ass-adult you ain't tellin' me that 'Freedom' means CG but not LG . .... You make an Alignment decision for your PC or NPCs and I'll make decisions for mine. Ultimately, we're still going to agree on 99% of this stuff anyway, and see #1.

So Good and Evil are Moral Alignments (for My PC and all my NPCs)
And Lawful and Chaotic are Personality Alignments (for My PC and all my NPCs)
YMMV
(and we're still going to agree on 99%)

On 2) Sometimes it will be necessary to hash certain things out in game. Some player using the OP's definition where nothing he did could be evil unless it was purely selfish and rejected any group concept and thus could murder and torture freely as long as it was for some larger group, not his personal benefit would get stomped into evil pretty damn quick in any game I ran. I would be equally as confused in his game. Since there are mechanical consequences, some adjudication is needed.

Which, up to a point, is fine. As long as the differences are hashed out beforehand or at least misunderstandings can be retconned once they're understood.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Interesting Character wrote:

The problem with that though, is that not everyone agrees on what is good or evil. Hitler thought he was doing a good thing for his people. Many others call him evil, yet even today, there are people who believe as he did. None of them consider themselves evil, while others do.

This is why I defined good and evil the way I did, because it then works perfectly in spite of people different ideas about good and evil.

Your definition runs into problems when you get people fighting each other, each believing themselves good, and then detecting evil on the other side.

But still runs into the same problems. Germans sacrificing themselves for their nation and their people would still be good under your definitions.

Definitions making Nazis good are not good.

I am sure that there were good people in Nazi Germany. Most Germans were not Nazis, and even those who actually joined the party may have done so for reasons other than wanting to promote the party's evil agenda. I am sure that any non-evil person who joined the Nazi party eventually found themselves in a situation that placed them in either moral or physical danger, of course.


You are missing the point. I defined the terms as methods of developing a meterstick for deciding what is okay or not okay, the meterstick is not the actions. The idea being is that "good" isn't a trait of an action, but rather is trait of how you think about actions in general.

To use modesty as an example, Different cultures have different ideas about what is or is not modest. The measurement of modesty changes from culture to culture, but the fact that modesty is measured stays the same.

*Also, why is everyone going on about genocide? Most nazis had no idea it was happening (nor did anyone else until long after the war), and they didn't know because even Hitler wasn't stupid enough to think that even his own nazis (in general, obviously he did find some exceptions he could trust to carry things out) would support genocide.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I was going to remove some posts and replies, but have decided to leave them as is to provide context for the posts that would have been left and for the following moderation comment.

Paizo.com is not going to be hosting discussions with people trying to be an advocate (Devil's or otherwise) for Nazis or genocide, which is how alignment posts that drag in Hitler & Nazis as examples usually end up coming across.

Right now, there are people both in general and within our gaming community who are horrified at what feels like an onslaught of hate crimes perpetrated by people or groups that associate themselves with nazis, nationalism and white supremacist groups. Now is not the time and paizo.com is not the place to drop Hitler or nazis into a gaming discussion on an alignment/morality system in a fictional game. You may intend it as a purely academic discussion, but for many of our community members it is bleeding into the fabric of daily life and is deeply personal.

I'm leaving the thread open, but we will be keeping an eye on it. One aspect of RPGs that I like is how they provide a framework for people to explore things like morality and different philosophical viewpoints. I see the forums as an extension of our gaming tables and while I am supportive of our community exploring these themes together, we need to be sure that the conversation is safe for our community members seated around us at our metaphorical gaming table. The topic and discussion of "but nazi's don't see themselves as evil" does not lead these conversations in a direction that is safe for all of our community members. Drop it and move on.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.

We're done here. You've replaced discussion of genocide with sex with minors and I'm not interested in spending resources monitoring more of your posts on this matter.


Sara Marie wrote:
We're done here. You've replaced discussion of genocide with sex with minors and I'm not interested in spending resources monitoring more of your posts on this matter.

And I was trying to work out a reply without controversial references, but that pretty much seals it. Never mind.


Just one thing: I always thought "lawful" should be called "orderly" instead since a) that makes more sense as the opposite of chaotic and b) I think the alignment is less about following the law of the land and more about organized vs random or free.


One more thing: while people may disagree if morality is objective or subjective in real life it is DEFINITELY objective in Pathfinder/DND considering you can detect it with spells. A person's alignment in the Pathfinder/DND universe is just as objective as other traits like their mass or PH level.

Grand Lodge

W E Ray wrote:
2) ....

.

thejeff wrote:
replies

.

Agreed, all the way; you're right.

Grand Lodge

Interesting Character wrote:
I defined the terms as methods of developing a meterstick for deciding what is okay or not okay.

.

This is really interesting (and something I only mildly considered from your OP). I'd enjoy reading a few actual-game instances to give more thought beyond the theoretical and see the practical in-game application.

....Ultimately though, I'm still pretty sure I wouldn't like it. Trying to come up with a metric in gaming ethics would be tricky, and when we hit a point of contention, well, I got no business telling you how to determine your morality just like you have no business telling me mine. ....But I'd still love to see a few examples -- there are always ways I can improve my own game!

Grand Lodge

....just saw Sara Marie's post....
Wow I'm glad I didn't read all the way through some of the other replies!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to share my favorite little bit of history from Chaim Herzog's autobiography, Living History. I note that this has absolutely NO bearing on Alignment in D&D for me but I always get a little teary-eyed when I retell it. And, if you care to read it, it may (or may not) put a little perspective on some of the Nazis, at least.

from 'Living History' by Chaim Herzog:

Herzog was a Colonel (if I recall correctly) at the time when World War II ended (for the British army). He was in charge of trekking through Germany and clearing out concentration camps after Hitler was defeated. His descriptions and emotions of being the first person to see them is gut-wrenching enough, and this story happened only a few days before Herzog captured Himmler.

Herzog had liberated several concentration camps by the time he and his army encountered a Nazi submarine Captain, whose name Herzog did not provide in the autobiography. The German Captain and his, I dunno, hundred or so sailors were easily taken 'prisoner' as the war was over and the clean-up beginning. The Nazi Captain was very belligerent and demeaning of Herzog, whether it was antisemitism against Herzog or just that his side had lost the war, we don't know.

At various points in interrogation/ debriefing, the Nazi Captain proclaimed vehemently, even violently, that Herzog's officers were lying, that there were no atrocities committed and Hitler was honorable, and fair. That the Allies were spreading monstrous propaganda and would go to hell.

When Chaim Herzog heard the Captain speak this he asked what the Nazi would do if he were taken to the concentration camp only a few miles away, the one Herzog's army had just liberated, and saw the place for himself -- and if everything the Allies had been saying were true, what would the Nazi Captain do?

The Nazi submarine Captain, aggressively, defiantly, even proudly declared that it was all a lie, all a hoax, and so if it were shown to him to be true he would tear off his swastika symbol off his proud uniform, spit on it and stamp on it, and he would command all his sailors to do the same.

Chaim Herzog agreed and immediately took the Nazi Captain and his sailors the fifteen or twenty miles to the previous day's concentration camp, and escorted him through the remains of the concentration camp.

Visibly distraught and very emotionally conscious, the Nazi Captain ripped off his swastika, threw it on the ground and spat upon, and ordered his men to do likewise to their uniforms.

....I believe it was the next couple pages where Chaim Herzog described how he captured Heinrich Himmler.

. . . .

Again, this has no bearing on Alignment discussion or gaming, but I enjoy retelling the story.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / New definitions for alignment All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.