Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ManinDarkness 01-21-05, 08:29 PM	This is it: The D&D Moral System A) D&D morals have six component label on two axis: Good [G], Evil [E], Neutral in regards to G-E [N(GE)], Lawful [L], Chaotic [C] and Neutral in regards to L-C [N(LC)]. G, N(GE) and E form the G-E axis. L, N(LC) and C form the L-C axis. B) An action is composed of three parts: intention, means and result. C) Intentions are to be labelled G or N(GE). If the action is done for the benefit of the one doing it exclusively, it is said to be N(GE), otherwise it is G. D) Means and results are to be labelled by with one component of G-E axis and one component of L-C axis with the following guidelines: D1) It is G if it implies an unselfish concern for the welfare of sentient beings and a respect towards life. D2) If not G, it is N(GE) if it implies not hurting directly other being except when facing an equal harm. D3) If not G or N(GE), it is E. D4) It is L if it implies following law, honor and tradition regardless of personal convictions and desires. D5) If not L, it is N(LC) if it implies instinct or a weighing of law, honor and tradition with convictions and desires. D6) If not L or N(LC), it is C. E) Actions are to be labelled by with one component of G-E axis and one component of L-C axis with the following guidelines: E1) Actions are to be labelled when it becomes evident what the result of it will be. E2) G actions need that the intention and the result be G, and the means be G or N(GE). E3) E actions need that the means or the result be E. E4) L actions need that the means and the result be L. E5) C actions need that the means be C and the result be N(LC) or C. E6) In regards to actions, G, E and N(GE) are mutually exclusive and complete. If it is not G or E, it is N(GE). E7) In regards to actions, L, C and N(LC) are mutually exclusive and complete. If it is not L or C, it is N(LC). F) Characters are to be labelled by with one component of G-E axis and one component of L-C axis. This label is called alignment. Alignment should be assigned with the following guidelines: F1) Characters with intelligence below 3 are to be labelled N(LC) and N(GE). It is strongly suggested that characters that have said intelligence do only actions labelled N(LC) and N(GE). F2) Alignment means that a character actions are thus labelled most of the time. Deviations in either axis can be expected. F3) Although characters are labelled at creation, only actions determine alignment. Alignment should not limit actions. F4) PC alignment is a concenssus between the player and the DM, but the DM is the final arbiter. G) Characters alignment should change, other than by a magical effect, following this guidelines: G1) When a DM decides that a PC's actions mostly pertain to another alignment, he should tell the player so. G2) The player has two options, accept the new alignment, or keep the Pc's alignment but change the way it is being played. G3) If an alignment change is to be done, it should be gradual and planned. G4) Indecision is sign of neutrality. What do you think about it? I don't want to know that the alignment system is flawed. I don't want to know that this is not your definition of G/E/L/C. I want to know if you think this does the trick.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-21-05, 09:42 PM	D) Means and results are to be labelled by with one component of G-E axis and one component of L-C axis with the following guidelines: D1) It is G if it implies an unselfish concern for the welfare of sentient beings and a respect towards life. D2) If not G, it is N(GE) if it implies not hurting directly other sentient being except when facing an equal harm. D3) If not G or N(GE), it is E. D4) It is L if it implies law, honor and tradition regardless of personal convictions and desires. D5) If not L, it is N(LC) if it implies instinct or a weighing of law, honor, tradition, convictions and desires. D6) If it not L or N(LC), it is C. I think you need to break up and block out two different charts for results and means. I also think neutrality needs to take up a bigger chunk of the pie. In additional, your definitions could use some bulking up. L implies law? Um. Kind of redundant. What is "honor?" Doesn't that have to do with personal convictions? More specifics would be better. edit: oh, yeah. I feel that evil intentions should play a role in determining if an action is evil or not. -mike the amazing muskrat
ManinDarkness 01-21-05, 09:58 PM	I think you need to break up and block out two different charts for results and means. I also think neutrality needs to take up a bigger chunk of the pie. In additional, your definitions could use some bulking up. L implies law? Um. Kind of redundant. What is "honor?" Doesn't that have to do with personal convictions? More specifics would be better. edit: oh, yeah. I feel that evil intentions should play a role in determining if an action is evil or not. What neutrality needs a larger chunk? As it is 1/3 of G-E combinations are N(GE) and 2/3 of L-C combinations are N(LC). Honor is not really based on personal convictions. Society dictates what is honorable, not the individual. If personal convictions match what is honorable, then the better for the character. I don't believe intentions can be evil. If a character kills someone for pleasure, then the intention is getting pleasure [N(GE)], and the means is murder [E], so the action would be E.
jagggar 01-21-05, 11:51 PM	What are your definitions as far as Lawful and Chaotic go? I think I see your reasoning in measuring an action versus good, and if it's not good, measuring it versus neutral, and if it is neither it is evil, but with my own definitions of Law and Chaos, I wouldn't use same process for determining the LC axis.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-22-05, 12:07 PM	Honor is not really based on personal convictions. Society dictates what is honorable, not the individual. If personal convictions match what is honorable, then the better for the character. Yeah, I disagree. I don't think there is always one specific code of honor for any given society. What is honorable by today's standards? You and I might have very different notions of honor. Where can this one, singular, societal concept of honor be found? I don't believe intentions can be evil. If a character kills someone for pleasure, then the intention is getting pleasure [N(GE)], and the means is murder [E], so the action would be E. All right. Let me turn that around. How can intentions be good? If someone gives to charity, aren't they doing that because that act makes them feel good? Now, if you tell me that's different because they are helping someone else (as you've stated in your original post), then why would it not be evil if you are harming someone else? Neutral if it's neither? My problem with it is this: It seems to me that, regardless, the intention is to seek pleasure. The means differ. One can seek pleasure through aiding others, through hurting others, or through helping only oneself. If you disagree, can you explain your model for intention a little bit better to me? -mike the amazing muskrat
ManinDarkness 01-23-05, 03:08 AM	What are your definitions as far as Lawful and Chaotic go? I think I see your reasoning in measuring an action versus good, and if it's not good, measuring it versus neutral, and if it is neither it is evil, but with my own definitions of Law and Chaos, I wouldn't use same process for determining the LC axis. What would be your own definitions of the L-C axis? I having a lot of trouble defining it. Someone said in a thread (the search is disabled or I would give due credit :( ) that L is kind of following morality out of fear of punishment and desire of reward; N(LC) is making the moral decision that seems right at the moment; and C is following the morality the character has forged by himself. I tried to make it that way, and failed utterly. Yeah, I disagree. I don't think there is always one specific code of honor for any given society. What is honorable by today's standards? You and I might have very different notions of honor. Where can this one, singular, societal concept of honor be found? There is one society a character feels he belongs. That is the society that determines the character's honor system, laws and traditions. I don't think it is important what is in these codes. What is important to me is that an outside code is being followed. All right. Let me turn that around. How can intentions be good? If someone gives to charity, aren't they doing that because that act makes them feel good? Now, if you tell me that's different because they are helping someone else (as you've stated in your original post), then why would it not be evil if you are harming someone else? Neutral if it's neither? My problem with it is this: It seems to me that, regardless, the intention is to seek pleasure. The means differ. One can seek pleasure through aiding others, through hurting others, or through helping only oneself. If you disagree, can you explain your model for intention a little bit better to me? I think that motivations can be a bit more selfless. Good motivations are not a matter of only having pleasure, but also a desire to share the pleasure with others. If I keep the pleasure to myself, then the motivation is neutral. I should work the wording. I see evil as a means to an end; as you say means make the difference.
Ptarmigan 01-30-05, 04:16 AM	I think that motivations can be a bit more selfless. Good motivations are not a matter of only having pleasure, but also a desire to share the pleasure with others. If I keep the pleasure to myself, then the motivation is neutral. I should work the wording. I see evil as a means to an end; as you say means make the difference. I have to agree with Mike the Amazing Muskrat here (and not on basis of name alone (although it does help)). If your 'good' motivations arise out of a desire to share pleasure with others, then your base motivation is still to fulfill a personal desire (i.e. the desire to make others happy). I think it comes down to the idea that there is no such thing as a selfess act. Even the paladin who throws himself in front of a fireball to save his arch-nemesis is doing so because he is fulfilling some personal urge to save others to do so (or conversely, he is doing so to avoid the pangs of guilt that would haunt him if he didn't - but all the same, it's about a net personal gain in pleasure). Philosophy aside, I don't think the way you are interpreting intention makes for a balanced system. Intention looks to be personal and subjective, in which case it makes sense that there is are no evil intentions, because no sane creature will take an action that is not benficial unto it's own person. Even the self-sacrificing paladin, as said, is performing an act that benefits his conscience. This act may be at the cost of his life, but paladin has judge that to be worth less than his morals, and thus while taking a self-destructive act, is also taking a self-benefitting act. The other axes (means and results) seem to be couched in objective, non-personal terms. The means, I assume, would be judged L/C/G/E as per the views of the majority of society - if they were judged, as intention, on a personal, subjective basis, the character would always find the means they chose acceptable (i.e. neutral, maybe good); otherwise, they would would not have chosen those means. The ends would be judged by whether the affected persons gained happiness (a good result) or lost happiness (an evil result), or by whether the majority's status/morals were reinforced (a lawful result) or degraded (a chaotic result). Again, judging results by objective, non-personal terms is necessary. If you judge results in personal terms, a good result is simply means the act had the intended result, and evil means the act failed as intended. Thus, a villian who successfully burns down an innocent village has accomplished a 'good' result - and this doesn't seem to be the intention of your system. So, the intention area doesn't seem to mesh well. I would either A) drop it from the equation or B) change it to use an objective, non-personal standard, like the other elements. Changing the other axes to use personal, subjective standards doesn't really work, especially when elements of D&D (e.g. the detect evil spell) rely on a largely objective morality system. Overall though, I really like your system. It's nice to see a system that takes into account all moral elements of an action. If you do take my advice and standardize the intention axis to use G/E and maybe L/C, maybe you could go with a 'best two out of three' type model for resolving an action's alignment? For example, I intend to depose an evil overlord (good intent) by raising undead army against him (evil means*), and it works and the people of the land are happier (good result). This could work out to neutral, and kind of leaning towards good... I don't know, I guess this is where I get a bit fuzzy. Anyway, hope this helps, I really like where you're going with this and would like to hear your thoughts. --Ptarmigan * As per D&D rules, which I'm not sure I really jive with, but that's a different thread (actually, it's several different threads, all over this board, I guess).
hekker 01-30-05, 05:01 AM	I like your system very much for labeling actions, I agree with you on most parts like the intention is (almost never) E, however I also tend to agree with the other poster who says that intentions cannot be G either. Maybe alignmet isn't dictated by intentions but by means? On the other hand I am not going to use your system in my campaign because it would be too much paperwork for me.
Darion Fenix 01-30-05, 02:06 PM	One who has his own system of honor and their own ethical code is a Hierarchist. These are people who say "The greatest sin in the world is to take away a man's freedom; this I will never do. I ought never to kill a man, but I would if I were stopping slavery. Stealing is also very wrong but if I can steal to prevent slavery or murder then stealing is okay. Lying is also wrong but if I could lie to avoid stealing or murdering someone then it is justified." Sounds like an honorable person, but in D&D terms it's best just to lump him in to the NG or CG category. I think it's fair to say that MLK and Ghandi were NG or even CG. Absolutists on the other hand are going to follow societal and universal laws because they're the law and someone more qualified than them made them the law. ManinDarkness is right about evil never being committed for evil's sake. Even a murderer is doing something good (for themselves.) Mike is wrong about good being done for similar selfish means. I certainly don't give money to charity for a warm and fuzzy feeling...usually that feeling is more akin to "wait...did I give that guy a 10 or a 20?......DAMN!" And this totally ignore the concept of self sacrifice...there is no room to feel good about giving your life for a cause. You're dead. Perhaps "Mike is wrong" was a bit strong. There are a number of arguments to be made that all "good" stems from some self-serving means. It's just my personal vendetta against Ayn Rand...take that you moldy old crone! After all, one ought not argue deontology and egoism in the same breath. So who's right? Do the ends justify the means or are means ends unto themselves? Can intention then be good or evil? Can thought? Well, we've only been arguing this for 2 centuries so I doubt we'll get much accomplished here. And I do not say that lightly, as a student of philosophy the debate of consequentialism consumes me. I digress...ManinDarkness, the system works. It's a great way to express what we all know logically to be true about D&D's alignments. And it stops any Paladin-Problems dead in their tracks. When a Paladin says "But..." just point to a laminated copy of the chart.
ManinDarkness 01-31-05, 02:24 PM	Thanks for your responses! :) I agree with you Ptamirgan, Intentions are quite different than Means and Results, and are judged in a personal basis. You would ask then, why Intentions are in the equation? IMO, doing good uninteded, is not good at all. Good should be a concious effort. One can not do good from the teeth outwards. If the action benefited the society at large, but it was by mere chance, then chance is the responsible for the action, not the one doing it. It is a fine distiction, but one I think should be done. And as it is to be judged personally, there are no evil intentions and L-C is not in the equation. On the other hand, as written, good intention doesn't ignore the fact that the one doing the action intends to benefit. As long as there is some benefit to otheras, I would say the intention is good.
Ptarmigan 01-31-05, 09:08 PM	Thanks for your responses! :) IMO, doing good uninteded, is not good at all. Good should be a concious effort. One can not do good from the teeth outwards. If the action benefited the society at large, but it was by mere chance, then chance is the responsible for the action, not the one doing it. It is a fine distiction, but one I think should be done. I agree completely. I think this also extends to unintentional evil... and it raises an interesting point: how would you rate elements of intention, means, and results in terms of importance? From what you said it seems like results would be low on the list, as you said they cannot be morally good (although they can be 'good for people') in and of themselves; they must stem from good intentions. I think that if i were to use this system (and I might, I really like it!), I would interpret intentions more as 'expected results', which would allow for L/C/G/E intentions... basically classifying intentions on the same scale you use for classifying results in system. This would circumvent the debate of whether altruistic intentions are really possible. Philosophically, I think your way of judging intentions is valid... mechanically, I just think it would be better to have all three elements (intention, means, and results) judge on the same axes. On the other hand, as written, good intention doesn't ignore the fact that the one doing the action intends to benefit. As long as there is some benefit to otheras, I would say the intention is good. I can agree that a good intention doesn't preclude benefit to one's self. But I think then you'd have to say if the action involves causing some detriment to others, the action is partially evil (I'd say only partial, because the intention will always be for at least one personal to benefit - i.e. the person undertaking the action). So, the intention to help others is partially good, but also partially neutral (because there will be at least *some* selfish motivation). Likewise, the intention to hurt others is partially evil, for similar reasons. And this totally ignore the concept of self sacrifice...there is no room to feel good about giving your life for a cause. You're dead. Heh, good point... but I'd say you're choosing to give your life to avoid the guilt that would come from not doing so. Still, in my mind, a selfish act, from a purely internal point of view. From an external point of view, it's a good act, but I would say what we call a 'selfless person' is just a person who's (selfish) desire to please themsleves by aiding others is stronger than their (selfish) desire to perserve their material comforts (or in this case, their material form). Hmm... I can see this heading into a semantic debate over the casual meaning of 'selfish/selfless' versus a philosophic meaning of 'selfish/selfless'. Let me just say that the idea that there can be good intentions but not evil intentions seems to judge good by external standards, but evil by internal standards (and we all seem to agree that intentions cannot be evil internally - that is, which respect to one's self).
jagggar 01-31-05, 09:22 PM	What would be your own definitions of the L-C axis? I having a lot of trouble defining it. Someone said in a thread (the search is disabled or I would give due credit :( ) that L is kind of following morality out of fear of punishment and desire of reward; N(LC) is making the moral decision that seems right at the moment; and C is following the morality the character has forged by himself. I tried to make it that way, and failed utterly. I often think and rethink my definitions of alignment. I'd say you'd be better off with your L-C axis judgement being both weighed as "Is this lawful?" and "Is this chaotic?" and if it is neither, then it is neutral(LC). no sane creatureWho said anything about being sane?
arimus09 01-31-05, 10:36 PM	Honestly I think that alignment is meant to be loose and fluid. Most people don't look at a chart to define what alignment there actions are. It's instictive and fluid. I feel that this is what core rule books intended. Otherwise they would have provided charts. It's set up so that one evil act can not make you evil, but many of a course of time could etc... I think you are trying to rationalize something that is meant more to be of emotion rather than logic. It's a good premise and an effective problem solver in the case of characters wanting to do something and arguing with you over the alignment of the action. Personally I think that your authority as a GM is more important and your word should be the end of any debate. Let the PC state his case, then make a decission, and let that be final. I think the "human factor" is what alignment is all about and you should rely on you intuition and instincts in determining what alignment an action is. A good man killing another man to protect his family is still good. An evil man saving someone to protect his family is still evil. Ultimatly in order to achieve what you are trying to achieve you would be undertaking a monumental effort and building something the size of todays modern legal library. It would just continue to grow and grow as a loop hole is found you will make an exception or adjustment to fill the gap. Then one day you will have a PC trying to do an action, an alignment question will pop up and you will spend a month researching it. I could go on and on about how this should be fluid and your responsibilities as a GM, but I won't. I think you get the point. Why overcomplicate something that is so simple. Cheers...
Darion Fenix 02-01-05, 01:48 AM	Let us assume for argument's sake that all acts are selfish. That would make Ayn Rand right and the world would work as described within Universal Ethical Egoism. Given that this is the case, we have a problem much like Determinism on our hands. IF Determinism is the case then we have the illusion of free will. And even if we have no free will, we shall certainly act as if we do because it is impossible to posses knowledge otherwise. Likewise, if every act is done out of selfishness then that is that, but we must not feel and believe that everything we do is selfish. So, if Universal Ethical Egoism is the case, then we are dealing with a purely consequential ethical system. The only goodness or evilness of an act could be measured by its outcome and there is no goodness within intention or the original act. Of course, the only way to measure goodness would then be the amount of pleasure, satisfaction or security of an event (Aristotle's center of a Good Thing.) So, goodness is relative to those effected and how much they benefit. Then, as long as the benefit outweighs the cost (there were more people effected positively then were effected negatively) an act was good. So, the goodness of an act lies in the number of those effected. But, isn't the point of Egoism to do good things for myself? Am I doing good for others inadvertently by doing what is good for myself? Rand certainly thought so. Sticky situation. By being a teleological theory, goodness must be measured by consequences. And in ethical egoism the goodness value applies entirely to myself. What then if I have done something very good for myself that was very evil in everyone else's opinion? Rand has an answer of course. One ought always do what is one's own "enlightened self interests." So clearly doing an evil act (in the view of others) is not in your own self interest because, society will seek to punish and ostracize you (what is good for themselves.) So, if we all keep our noses clean and take care of ourselves, then society will run swimmingly. Doubtful. Far be it from me to call Rand naive and utopian, so I'll leave that to Dr. Thiroux and Dr. Cooksey. "No matter how Rand tries to argue away the conflict of self-interest that continually arise among rational human beings, observation shows us that they do exist and have to be dealt with. [anecdote about Einstein and Russell being opposed to the development of atomic weapons and refused to believe that they would benefit humanity; omitted for brevity of post] Rand might wish to argue that these men are neither rational nor intelligent, but if so I would find it difficult to accept her definitions of rational human beings and rational self interest. Furthermore, it is interesting to speculate, along these lines why Ayn Rand steadfastly refused to support any of the communities or projects that were set up under her theories. One such was the Minerva Project, an island community to be run without government, and another was Libertarianism, a political party that nominated John Hospers as a presidential candidate in 1972 and has run a candidate in every national election since. Neither endeavor received Rand's blessing. One wonders if she was merely dissatisfied with these particular projects, or if she realized that her theory really was only a utopian ideal that could not function other than in the abstract." - Jacques P. Thiroux Ph.D. Or more eloquently "Egoists are ***holes!" - Blu Cooksey Ph.D. And a statement directed at Ayn Rand through a mouthful of french fries. "It's none of your ***damn business what I eat!" - Blu Cooksey Ph.D. (Not relevant, but funny) Notes: Rand referred to it as "Rational Ethical Egoism" so don't post and correct me. Big semantical deal. Blu Cooksey was my professor of Ethics and he studied under Ayn Rand..needless to say he was not a fan of her or her teachings. SO! As Kierkegaard gave Hegel's determinism a big "screw you!" I say the same to egoism. If Egoism is the way the universe works, then so be it. But, what would become of us if we all believed that and acted that way?
Ptarmigan 02-01-05, 05:22 AM	IF Determinism is the case then we have the illusion of free will. And even if we have no free will, we shall certainly act as if we do because it is impossible to posses knowledge otherwise. Likewise, if every act is done out of selfishness then that is that, but we must not feel and believe that everything we do is selfish. I agree. Metaphysically speaking, the argument for determinism is pretty strong. Morally speaking, the argument that humans always act in the most sefl-benefitting manner is also pretty strong. In either case, though, there is an inescapable illusion of choice. This illusion has many of the aspects we ascribe to the term 'reality' - it is what we perceive, what we interact with, and what governs the way we live. The reality of determinism, on the other hand, has none of these qualities. The illusion is more important and more 'real' to us than the reality, and so the illusion effectively becomes reality. So, to swing this argument back around to D&D... if we have choice, then not all actions, and not all intentions, are going to be judged equally. Let's say that intentions can be judged as either selfish (neutral, in the orginal system) or selfless (good, in the orginal system). Thus, any intention which is not good is neutral... neutral is the opposite of good. We also need a term for actions that only benefit the self, but where the enough consideration is given to others to avoid actively harming others. We'll call this kind of action a 'foo' action. Well, we already have a word that means the opposite of good: evil. And we have a word that means foo: neutral. So we're back to good and evil intentions. In short, you can't have a moral yardstick with just a midpoint and a high end; the midpoint simply becomes the low end, and a new midpoint is defined. As to the usefulness of a system like this: sure, as both a DM and a player I'll still go with my intuitive feel for alignment during game play. It's just that having a system such as this gives people a common arena in which to debate those actions that seem, well, debatable. I don't think it's the kind of think that needs to be printed up and pasted into your PHB... but anything that forces a person to say 'Where does my gut feeling that X is right and Y is wrong stem from?' has laid a lot of the groundwork for any moral debate. I guess the importance (to me) isn't as much in the system as it is in just having a system and getting people to think about it, and tell you if they do or don't agree with it, and why.
Drachasor 02-01-05, 08:56 AM	Heh, good point... but I'd say you're choosing to give your life to avoid the guilt that would come from not doing so. Still, in my mind, a selfish act, from a purely internal point of view. From an external point of view, it's a good act, but I would say what we call a 'selfless person' is just a person who's (selfish) desire to please themsleves by aiding others is stronger than their (selfish) desire to perserve their material comforts (or in this case, their material form). Hmm... I can see this heading into a semantic debate over the casual meaning of 'selfish/selfless' versus a philosophic meaning of 'selfish/selfless'. Let me just say that the idea that there can be good intentions but not evil intentions seems to judge good by external standards, but evil by internal standards (and we all seem to agree that intentions cannot be evil internally - that is, which respect to one's self). While it is of course true that people doing good have motivating factors for that action outweighing the factors for other actions, that doesn't diminish the good being done. What one is forgetting when one thinks like this is that those good motivators are NOT self-serving motivations. They are not motivations that are going to lead to behavior that only benefits the self or bahaviors that tangentially benefit the self. The "warm fuzzy feeling" in no way compensates for the potential loss of life or limb in helping another, nor does it compensate for the loss of cash when giving to charity, nor does it compensate for the loss of time when volunteering. To pretend this is the same as actual selfish behavior is embracing ingorance and short-sightedness, and I believe that's against the intentions of philosophy. (One can argue my point here on various levels of intention and knowledge of the outcomes, but the point still stands as there are plenty of people that would knowingly sacrifice for good, would knowing endure a net loss. Just remember that motivations that result in selfless behavior in no way guarantee relative gain compared to selfish behavior motivations, and it is often a relative loss). In short, Rand is wrong and her philosophy needs thrown out with the refuse. Dang dirty, randians..... -Drachasor
Ptarmigan 02-01-05, 03:59 PM	The "warm fuzzy feeling" in no way compensates for the potential loss of life or limb in helping another, nor does it compensate for the loss of cash when giving to charity, nor does it compensate for the loss of time when volunteering. To pretend this is the same as actual selfish behavior is embracing ingorance and short-sightedness, and I believe that's against the intentions of philosophy. I agree, as I said above, that there is an inescapable illusion of choice between selfish and selfless acts, and that this illusion is far more important to us, as humans, than any underpinning reality. I think Rand ignores this, so she's not so much wrong as she's just missing the whole point. I mean, I have been arguing that intention should be judged on a good-evil scale, because I think that humans functionally have a choice between right and wrong. However, in a philosophically stricter sense (that is 'the way things are' rather than 'the way things seem'), I think that humans do always act in the way that they perceive will most benefit themselves. I don't contend that this in any way precludes benefitting others, nor do I say that the benefit one's self receives will be readily apparent to outside viewers. It's just that whenever someone undertakes an action, it is because it is what they, in the given situation, most wanted to do. If there were another action they they more strongly wanted to do, they would do that instead. I'd pose this question: if someone is not getting some kind of emotional compensation for a selfless act, why are they doing it? The only reason I can see for doing a selfless act is that you want to help others... so, by doing said act, you are doing what you personally want. I'm not trying to undermine anything here... I think that in all ways that apply to the manner in which we live our lives, an act can be selfless and good and noble. I'm just talking about a philosophically strict definition of 'selfless/selfish' that has, in my opinion, far too little bearing on our day-to-day lives to form a basis for a system of morality. Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier...
Drachasor 02-01-05, 04:21 PM	However, in a philosophically stricter sense (that is 'the way things are' rather than 'the way things seem'), I think that humans do always act in the way that they perceive will most benefit themselves. I don't contend that this in any way precludes benefitting others, nor do I say that the benefit one's self receives will be readily apparent to outside viewers. It's just that whenever someone undertakes an action, it is because it is what they, in the given situation, most wanted to do. If there were another action they they more strongly wanted to do, they would do that instead. I'd pose this question: if someone is not getting some kind of emotional compensation for a selfless act, why are they doing it? The only reason I can see for doing a selfless act is that you want to help others... so, by doing said act, you are doing what you personally want. Well, I think you use "benefit" in a odd way, when what is often going on is the mere satiation of a motivating desire. Every action has that sort of thing, because otherwise no actions would be done. Additionally, "seflishness" requires a major part of the concern an individual has to be about himself, and that is not what is going on with acts of altruism, fringe benefits are just that: fringe. To inflate their importance when someone enjoys giving others the majority of the benefit of an action is to misconstrue what is going on. One needs to remember that selfish behavior is about the self and the self benefiting, it isn't about helping others. The most selfish behavior in a given situation is that which benefits oneself the most, and the least selfish (and possibly not selfish at all) is that which benefits you the least. Actions labeled as altruistic are indeed altruistic because they are not about the self, they are about others (both in motivation and effect). It is ill-conceived (especially in the case of martyrdom) to try to paint such acts as seflish. And I wouldn't say that personal satisfaction is the primary motivator for most acts of altruism (though it isn't bad to feel good about helping others). Most people, in my experience, have a genuine desire merely to help others, and this goes beyond mere concern with ones own well-being. Anyhow, I think the major problem with thinking every action is a selfish one is a poor working or actual definition of selfish. One has to make one up that is much broader than any remotely normal useage of the word. -Drachasor
Ptarmigan 02-01-05, 05:11 PM	Well, I think you use "benefit" in a odd way, when what is often going on is the mere satiation of a motivating desire. Every action has that sort of thing, because otherwise no actions would be done. This is, essentially, what I'm getting at... although I would call my usage of benefit 'philosophically strict' rather than 'odd'. But, I'll admit, it is odd compared to the way that the vast majority of people are using that word the vast majority of the time. Most people, in my experience, have a genuine desire merely to help others, and this goes beyond mere concern with ones own well-being. Sure, they do have a genuine desire... and they are acting as so to fulfill that desire. That is, in my opinion, the prime motivator of any action. All other factors - whether other people will benefit, what the tangible effects on oneself are, etc. - merely conspire to lead us to believe that an action will or will not fulfill our personal desires. Anyhow, I think the major problem with thinking every action is a selfish one is a poor working or actual definition of selfish. One has to make one up that is much broader than any remotely normal useage of the word. In my experience, re-defining a common term is often the crux of a philosophical debate. For instance: I could say "I know I'm sitting here at my computer." Pretty much anyone who understands English would understand the message I'm conveying. But do I really know I'm sitting here? I could be a brain in a vat being fed false sensory input by a computer, and I wouldn't be able to tell. In a strict sense, I don't know that I'm sitting here, but regardless I'm going to act as if I am sitting here. So, my non-strict-knowledge that I'm sitting here is more important than the strict-knowledge that I don't have... and that non-strict definition is what most humans mean (most of the time) when they say 'I know [something]'. However, that doesn't make the strict definition less valid... although it is less important in day-to-day life and, as you say, "much broader than any remotely normal useage of the word."
Drachasor 02-01-05, 05:24 PM	The difference between the usage of "know" and "selfish" there though, is that "know" is made more exact and precise whereas "selfish" is made broader and, if anything, less precise. IMHO the latter was merely done in an attempt, at some point, to claim there are no selfless acts, and it is a dishonest useage of the intent and meaning of the word. Unlike "know." -Drachasor
Ptarmigan 02-01-05, 06:13 PM	The difference between the usage of "know" and "selfish" there though, is that "know" is made more exact and precise whereas "selfish" is made broader and, if anything, less precise. IMHO the latter was merely done in an attempt, at some point, to claim there are no selfless acts, and it is a dishonest useage of the intent and meaning of the word. Unlike "know." I think that in both the case of 'selfish' and 'knowledge', I'm trying to put forth a definition that is more universal in scope, and isn't bounded by the way humans behave. Like I've said, I fully recognize these definitions as essentially unimportant... these are definitions we can conceive of, but which are never really going to influence our actions or the way we perceive and interact with the world. As far as precision, I'm trying to make both definitions as precise as my level of articulation will allow me, although I feel like I might be coming up short there. At least, what I'm trying to do in both cases is put forth a definition that has a precise meaning and is broad in scope, in that it is not limited by our functionality. Anyway, I don't really see how the definition I'm putting forth for selfish is 'dishonest'. I'm being as clear as I can about my definition... I'm not trying to sneak in some hidden meaning somewhere. I'm trying to outline the exact scope in which my definition does and doesn't apply. You might not agree with me, and that's fine - I never expect to find the One Truth in a philosophical debate, I just enjoy the debate for itself. You can say that the definition I'm putting forth is not one that is in general use, but I've gone ahead and said that myself. In short, it's not my intention to trick anyone here, so if there's something that isn't clear, I place the blame on my poor conveyence of my own ideas, and I'd be happy to try to clear up any areas where my argument seems to take a misguided or dishonest bent.
Quenditar 02-01-05, 06:40 PM	A question for everyone debating ethics on this thread: Have you formally studied economics? I have, for the record. Well, I think you use "benefit" in a odd way, when what is often going on is the mere satiation of a motivating desire. Every action has that sort of thing, because otherwise no actions would be done. Additionally, "seflishness" requires a major part of the concern an individual has to be about himself, and that is not what is going on with acts of altruism, fringe benefits are just that: fringe. To inflate their importance when someone enjoys giving others the majority of the benefit of an action is to misconstrue what is going on. I would certainly consider satiating a desire a benefit of an action. Just because a benefit is intangible doesn't mean it does not exist. More important is the question of why someone enjoys giving to others. One needs to remember that selfish behavior is about the self and the self benefiting, it isn't about helping others. The most selfish behavior in a given situation is that which benefits oneself the most, and the least selfish (and possibly not selfish at all) is that which benefits you the least. Actions labeled as altruistic are indeed altruistic because they are not about the self, they are about others (both in motivation and effect). It is ill-conceived (especially in the case of martyrdom) to try to paint such acts as seflish. And I wouldn't say that personal satisfaction is the primary motivator for most acts of altruism (though it isn't bad to feel good about helping others). Most people, in my experience, have a genuine desire merely to help others, and this goes beyond mere concern with ones own well-being. By "benefit", I have to assume you mean direct benefit rather than an indirect benefit such as fulfilling a felt moral obligation. Anyhow, I think the major problem with thinking every action is a selfish one is a poor working or actual definition of selfish. One has to make one up that is much broader than any remotely normal useage of the word. -Drachasor I think "self-interested" is a working synonym of Ptarmigan's use of "selfish". I don't think he takes it to mean helping oneself at others' expense.
iam_bkee 02-01-05, 06:48 PM	I've seen this trap before. Dm tries to enforce alignment, Search DC 20, Disable DC 109, CR 99. The DM takes one point of Wis damage every day he spends trying to "fix" alignment. The only solution is to throw it out (as in Arcana Unearthed) or leave it as is. Lost Wisdom will return one month after giving up on this quest. Good and Evil are subjective, period. It's not worth spending your game time arguing with your players over the alignment of any particular action. The simple fact is, players will do whatever they want, no matter how hard you try to force it. The more you try to enforce it, the harder they will try to break it. Just leave it simple. A character is Good, Evil, Lawfull, Chaotic, or Neutral, because the character sheet or stat block reads they are. If character are consistantly acting out of alignment, either change their alignment to match more closely, or don't care. If the players are acting against the campaign or story you're trying to write, then sit down and have a heart with them and decide as a group how you want this game to go. If the LG cleric is strangling helpless children in their sleep, because he didn't want to play the cleric in the first place but he felt forced into it, then something else needs fixed, not alignment. We the players (well, half of us, including me) were ok with the idea of the DM enforcing alignments in game. There would be an XP penalty for acting too far outside your prescribed nature, but if you role-played a gradual change, then you could change one step each time you leveled without penalty. That was the theory. My wizard was CG. While dungeoneering, I summoned several Lnatern Archons to help fight a group of Su Monsters (didn't know what they were at the time). In the next round the beasts overran the group, and stunned everyone except my wizard. We had a good distribution of fire resistance, so my solution was to fireball the whole group. Meta-gaming, the players all announced that they could take the hit, they were more afraid of being eaten at the time. The ensuing enferno destroyed all the monsters, and the Lanters I had summoned for aid. The party recovered. The DM declared my killing of the Lanters, Evil and penalized me "appropriately". I argued that my actions, though chaotic, were not evil, because I didn't summon the Lanters for the purpose of killing them, they were collateral damage. Outsiders don't die anyway, they simply go back to their plane of origin. If Summon Monster is not Evil, when its explicite purpose is to summon creatures to fight and die for you, then neither is their susequent accidental death. We were both right, from a certain point of view. I argued intent, he argued result. When really, his whole reason for enforcing alignment was to prevent me from taking actions like this (fireballing the party to clear out surrounding monsters). Even though, in preparation for this tactic, I spent my experience to build fire protection devices for the whole party.
iam_bkee 02-01-05, 06:51 PM	In the end, it wasn't worth arguing over. The enforcement rules were thrown out.
ManinDarkness 02-01-05, 08:02 PM	I think this also extends to unintentional evil... IMO, if the means used are evil, or the result is evil, then the action is evil. Ends doen't justify the means, and I don't believe in intentional evil per se, just as means to an end. It raises an interesting point: how would you rate elements of intention, means, and results in terms of importance?My importance rating is in part E. The importance is really label-dependant. Intentions really matter only to distinguish good actions from neutral. If evil is present, then the action is evil. Lawfulness is much of keeping forms, so means and result must be lawful. As long as the means are being chaotic, the results doesn't matter, as chaotic is keeping with oneself. I think that if i were to use this system (and I might, I really like it!), I would interpret intentions more as 'expected results', which would allow for L/C/G/E intentions... basically classifying intentions on the same scale you use for classifying results in system. This would circumvent the debate of whether altruistic intentions are really possible. Philosophically, I think your way of judging intentions is valid... mechanically, I just think it would be better to have all three elements (intention, means, and results) judge on the same axes.The problem I see is that means and results are evident, but intentions are not. I can see players intentional lying as to their original intentions. It is much easier to ask them why they did what they did, and judge basing of the first thing that comes to their mind. A question for everyone debating ethics on this thread: Have you formally studied economics?I have. Why? I think "self-interested" is a working synonym of Ptarmigan's use of "selfish". I don't think he takes it to mean helping oneself at others' expense.Neither is the dictionary definition of "selfish". Good and Evil are subjective, period.Regretably, they are objective in the context of D&D. It's not worth spending your game time arguing with your players over the alignment of any particular action.If the system is well-defined, there are not logical arguments. But then again, who said human beings are rational? :D
Darion Fenix 02-01-05, 10:17 PM	I just don't have the energy for this right now...so... *Inserts sound argument refuting Egoism in all forms...goes back to reading Kierkegaard* I give you...the life of the philosophy major... :thinks: :banghead: :teach: :uh-huh:
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 02-01-05, 11:50 PM	I don't believe in intentional evil per se, just as means to an end. dUde. This is definitely an issue I have with your system. As a player, I find the system's division of intent into only Good/Neutral arbitrary. Players hate arbitrary rules. Gimme a rhyme or a reason; suspend my disbelief. Tell me why this works. My problem with intention as it is outlined: Suppose we have this little kid. Aww, so cute. Here, little kid. Have a lollipop. My intention is to make the child happy. Good, right? The means is the giving of the lollipop. Lawful? Good? I'm not sure. The result we'll say is that the little kid smiles. How sweet. A Good result. Now, suppose Evil Mike comes along and sees the smiling kid with the lollipop. Evil Mike wants to hurt this child. His intention is to cause pain. Evil? How is that neutral? The means is the taking of the lollipop. Chaotic, i'd say. Theft of property. THe result is that the little kid cries. Evil Mike is such an ass. Evil. I don't follow how it can be good to intend to help someone, but it's neutral to intend to hurt someone. Hey. This is a system. It's a model, not reality, so if you can throw a good explanation out, I'm willing to bite. As is, the thing doesn't sit right with me. Ok. Question: can an action be on both the G-E and L-C axis? I'm a little unclear about that. ----------------- One who has his own system of honor and their own ethical code is a Hierarchist. These are people who say "The greatest sin in the world is to take away a man's freedom; this I will never do. I ought never to kill a man, but I would if I were stopping slavery. Stealing is also very wrong but if I can steal to prevent slavery or murder then stealing is okay. Lying is also wrong but if I could lie to avoid stealing or murdering someone then it is justified." Sounds like an honorable person, but in D&D terms it's best just to lump him in to the NG or CG category. I think it's fair to say that MLK and Ghandi were NG or even CG. Absolutists on the other hand are going to follow societal and universal laws because they're the law and someone more qualified than them made them the law. So we've got this guy, right? He doesn't have a hierarchy. He has a list. He will never steal, he will never kill, he will never eat spaghetti. You could put a gun to his head and he still wouldn't do any of those things. To me, that seems lawful; there is a specific code that this individual follows that is independent from societal laws. How is it that "Hierarchist" labels the only brand of personal code? Honor is not really based on personal convictions. Society dictates what is honorable, not the individual. If personal convictions match what is honorable, then the better for the character. Yeah, but society isn't a thing; it's made up of individuals, who may or may not agree on what is or is not honorable. What happens when an individual belongs to multiple groups that disagree? What if the edicts of one group I belong to demand that I kill, but the edicts of another require that I not? I'm unlawful if I follow either? My associations dictation my alignment, then? Ehhh... Hey, like I said, I understand that this is a model. I am not expecting you to solve the great philosophical debates of the millenia, but BUT I want to be convinced, not railroaded. Give me rationale, give me a context. As it is, there are too many things that can be debated within the system, which makes it not very systematic. Anyway, I don't know if this has been helpful, but I hope it was. -mike the amazing muskrat
Drachasor 02-02-05, 01:38 AM	I would certainly consider satiating a desire a benefit of an action. Just because a benefit is intangible doesn't mean it does not exist. More important is the question of why someone enjoys giving to others. I withdraw my arguements based on the word "benefit," it wasn't where the problem lay. I think "self-interested" is a working synonym of Ptarmigan's use of "selfish". I don't think he takes it to mean helping oneself at others' expense. It isn't a synonym of his use of "selfish" though. He is saying that any action that in any way provides any benefit to the actor is a seflish act. It is a way to redefine the word "selfish" so that all acts are by definition "selfish", for it is trivial to argue any act someone does brings with it the satiation, on some level, of the motivators of that act. Self-Interested would mean that the person is primarily interested in themselves, which is not the case with altruistic acts that one can easily point to (martydom being one). Of course, martyrdom is "selfish" by Randian logic (which is nuts, imho). Unlike the use of "know" you mentioned, where there can be things known and not known, the definition of selfish you employed was constructed to imply all actions are selfish (by definition). In doing so "selfish" had to be redefined to be so all-encompassing that no action could be selfless. This redefinition is not helpful in any way, and it even blinds us to the fact the actions that have no self-interest, are motivated by non-selfish goals, and are detrimental (even considering the emotional ramifications) compared to other potential actions. In this sense, Ptarmigan, I meant that it was "dishonest" to use the term "seflish", for in so doing it, you are not actually talking about any sensible or reasonable definition of selfish, but a word that has lost all of its original meaning (again, unlike the "know" example you gave). You can even define it well. I can define "black" as "white" very precisely, but it is still dishonest to use this definition of "black" in an arguement. I do not mean you intended to be dishonest in any sense, I merely meant the definition was "dishonest to reality or any sensible description thereof", if you will. Hope you understand, no offense intended. -Drachasor
Ptarmigan 02-02-05, 03:38 AM	It isn't a synonym of his use of "selfish" though. He is saying that any action that in any way provides any benefit to the actor is a seflish act. That's not quite what I was trying to say, so let me take another stab at it. What I'm saying is that only the benefits that apply to oneself are factors in the decision to take or not take an action. Whether an act may benefit or hurt others is only important in this decision inasmuch as it affects one's own chance of benefitting (probably in an emotional sense) from said action. Maybe 'selfish' is a bad word to use to describe this, because of its negative connotations. 'Selfish' implies a neglect for others; I think an action can be motivated completely out of a desire to help others, but if so you are ultimating taking the action not to benefit others but to fulfill your desire to benefit others (a distinction which, as I have said, is important only philosophically). So, instead of 'selfish', I'd rather say 'self-fulfilling', if that's alright. All actions are motivated by self-fulfillment. Acts which are 'other-fulfilling' are only taken because we believe that other-fulfillment will lead to self-fulfillment. Self-Interested would mean that the person is primarily interested in themselves, which is not the case with altruistic acts that one can easily point to (martydom being one). This raises a question (in my mind): why would someone choose to be a martyr? If they are choosing to do so, they must desire to be a martyr, or so it seems to me. I think (from what you've written so far, and sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth) you've agreed that fulfilling one's 'desire to be a martyr' is one motivating factor in choosing to be a martyr; I'd say that it is the only such factor, and all other seeming factors reduce down to that one final factor: self-fulfillment. Unlike the use of "know" you mentioned, where there can be things known and not known, the definition of selfish you employed was constructed to imply all actions are selfish (by definition). Actually, the philosophically-strict definition of knowledge I gave precludes knowing almost anything (in my opinion). From this strict standpoint, it is not possible to know anything more than 'I am'. One cannot prove, to another or to oneself, that what they perceive is real - and perception is the basis of knowledge. I put forth this example because I think this definition of 'knowledge' and my definition of 'selfish' share some important traits: 1) they are philosophically accurate and 2) they are meaningless outside the realm of philosophically discussion. What I'm trying to describe is 'the way the world is'; what you're describing I'd call 'the way to world acts'. I'm okay with the fact that these can be very different, but I can also understand that this duality can be philosophically troubling. So, let me be the first to say, if I had to say which was more important, and more real to us as humans, I'd choose 'the way the world acts' in a heartbeat. By the way: although I've studied philosophy (I have a B.A. as of three years ago, so I'm a little rusty), I've never read anything by Ayn Rand. In fact, I studied almost no moral philosophy, mostly metaphysics, skepticism, theory of knowledge... anyway if I'm rehashing well-known arguments, I apologize... I'm largely working this out as I go. And another thing: thanks to everyone who has been posting in this thread. Like I said, I haven't had the chance for many good debates for the past few years, so this has been a great deal of fun for me. And to Drachasor: No offense taken, I was just confused as to what you meant by 'dishonest'. I still don't think I'm changing the definition of selfish very much though... in my mind, if you examine a persons motivations deeply enough, they always fit fairly well into the common defintion of 'selfish' or at least 'self-fulfilling'. Just as with my example of what 'knowledge' can mean, I don't think I'm changing the definition so much as upping the level of scrutiny on the conditions for something to be truly 'known' or truly 'selfless'. And if you up the scrutiny far enough, it becomes clear that nothing can fit into either of those conditions.
ManinDarkness 02-02-05, 12:52 PM	My problem with intention as it is outlined: Suppose we have this little kid. Aww, so cute. Here, little kid. Have a lollipop. My intention is to make the child happy. Good, right? The means is the giving of the lollipop. Lawful? Good? I'm not sure. The result we'll say is that the little kid smiles. How sweet. A Good result.I'll say: Intention: G. Means: NG (Laws doesn't state that children should be given candy, none that I know.) Result: NG. Final veredict: NG. Now, suppose Evil Mike comes along and sees the smiling kid with the lollipop. Evil Mike wants to hurt this child. His intention is to cause pain. Evil? How is that neutral? The means is the taking of the lollipop. Chaotic, i'd say. Theft of property. THe result is that the little kid cries. Evil Mike is such an ass. Evil.Why does the evil man wants to hurt the children? My guess is because he feels good doing it or because he wants the lollipop badly. I'll say: Intention: N (unless his intent is to give the candy to someone else to make him happy in that case it would be good). Means: CE (the child is no position of thieving the evil man so it is evil). Result: NE. Final veredict: CE. I don't follow how it can be good to intend to help someone, but it's neutral to intend to hurt someone.As you see, my point is that you must continue to ask why. Ok. Question: can an action be on both the G-E and L-C axis? I'm a little unclear about that.Not only they can, they are:Actions are to be labelled by with one component of G-E axis and one component of L-C axis Yeah, but society isn't a thing; it's made up of individuals, who may or may not agree on what is or is not honorable. What happens when an individual belongs to multiple groups that disagree? What if the edicts of one group I belong to demand that I kill, but the edicts of another require that I not? I'm unlawful if I follow either? My associations dictation my alignment, then? Ehhh...Are you following because you think that people know better, or because you are better but they agree with you? First case is lawful, second chaotic.
steenan 02-03-05, 11:20 AM	To Ptarmigan: If your theory about "self-fulfillment" were true, there would be no free will. Nobody chooses, what he percieves as a pleasure (neither in physical, nor in emotional sense). And if getting such a pleasure is an only goal and only motivation, there is no conscious choice at all - every human is an "automaton", always acting in the most profitable way he can. So, if we stick to this reasoning, there is no sense talking about alignments (because everyone is NN, just like animals - they all do nothing else than seek "self-fulfillment" as you defined it, their pleasures are just a little simplier). There can be something like free will only when we are able to act in a "non benefitting" way, when we are able to chose between many different goals and follow many different motivations. To ManinDarkness: Whatever answer somebody gives you, you can always "continue to ask why". Why do you accept "Because I feel good doing it"? Can't you ask: "But why do you feel so?". Why do you accept "Because I want to make the child happy" - obviously, you can keep asking in exactly the same way as when the answer is "Because I want to make the child cry". There is always a point, when the answer will be "Just because I chose so.". And there is no use asking further questions - being able to decide without any "becauses" is what constitutes free will...
Ptarmigan 02-03-05, 04:35 PM	To Ptarmigan: If your theory about "self-fulfillment" were true, there would be no free will. Nobody chooses, what he percieves as a pleasure (neither in physical, nor in emotional sense). And if getting such a pleasure is an only goal and only motivation, there is no conscious choice at all - every human is an "automaton", always acting in the most profitable way he can. So, if we stick to this reasoning, there is no sense talking about alignments (because everyone is NN, just like animals - they all do nothing else than seek "self-fulfillment" as you defined it, their pleasures are just a little simplier). There can be something like free will only when we are able to act in a "non benefitting" way, when we are able to chose between many different goals and follow many different motivations. Yeah, this is true. I don't think we do have free will, in a philosophically strict sense, for the reason you described and for others pertaining to the physical nature of the human mind. Philosophical strictness aside, though, I think we do have free will in a functional way which is more meaningful and more real than any underlying philosophical truth (which we can conceive of but never really interact with). I guess my views on knowledge, morality, and free will all follow the same basic pattern. What can I say... I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent.
ManinDarkness 02-03-05, 05:28 PM	Whatever answer somebody gives you, you can always "continue to ask why". Why do you accept "Because I feel good doing it"? Can't you ask: "But why do you feel so?". Why do you accept "Because I want to make the child happy" - obviously, you can keep asking in exactly the same way as when the answer is "Because I want to make the child cry". There is always a point, when the answer will be "Just because I chose so.". And there is no use asking further questions - being able to decide without any "becauses" is what constitutes free will... Stop when you get the ones that the action intends to benefit. That is the motor for action in my system. If you want to benefit yourself only, it is neutral, if not, it is good. Outside the system, IMO, one always gives a value to the options available when we "choose". Free will is practiced not at the time of action-decision, but at the time of deciding which values are important to the self. One decided a long time before making the action.
steenan 02-04-05, 05:56 AM	Yeah, this is true. I don't think we do have free will, in a philosophically strict sense, for the reason you described and for others pertaining to the physical nature of the human mind. Philosophical strictness aside, though, I think we do have free will in a functional way which is more meaningful and more real than any underlying philosophical truth (which we can conceive of but never really interact with). I guess my views on knowledge, morality, and free will all follow the same basic pattern. What can I say... I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent. What is the "functional way" of having free will? Either we really can choose, or the free will is an illusion. There is no other possibility than those two. There can not be two contradicting truths. Do you act as if you had free will? Do you believe that the decisions are yours or that you are determined by genes and outside stimuli? If you don't believe in free will, speaking of "functional ways" of having it (in contrary to "philosophical truth") is just lying to yourself. And if you believe, why do you contend otherwise? Stop when you get the ones that the action intends to benefit. That is the motor for action in my system. If you want to benefit yourself only, it is neutral, if not, it is good. Outside the system, IMO, one always gives a value to the options available when we "choose". Free will is practiced not at the time of action-decision, but at the time of deciding which values are important to the self. One decided a long time before making the action. And what if I don't want to benefit anyone? If I, for example, want to do something, that will result in me dying (and I don't believe in any form of life after death, or I believe that i will be condemned), and it won't benefit anyone other, either? Or if I seek vengance knowing, that I won't feel any better (maybe even worse) after killing the guy I hate, but I want do do it anyway? Or if I sacrifice for someone who I know will die anyway, or for someone who does not want my sacrifice? About choosing values, but not actions, I can agree only partially. It would be much easier than it is, if having once decided what we value we wouldn't have to make every single decision afterwards. It's very often, that someone acts against his own values - not because he decided he wanted to change them, but because he chose wrong this one single time. (Example: Every true Christian follows the same basic values, but also every Christian sins. "Sins" are exactly what I describe - wrong steps, wrong decisions while trying to follow values). Jerzy Liebert, a Polish poet, wrote: "Having chosen for eternity, in every moment I have to choose." (translation mine). Ant I believe that's how it is...
Sir Todd 02-04-05, 09:21 AM	It seems overly complicated on two fronts. One, why factor in results at all? How does it matter to ones alignment if a result turns out different from your intentions. Ends and Means are really the only two factors here. Secondly, You can't allow base emotions as an end or an intention... It leads into a grey zone where you lose sight of what really matters in alignment, Actions. Ends should be a tangable goal, like: sex, food, to hear pleas for mercy, to watch others suffer, to see others happy, a lasting relationship, a good profit, information, ect.. Means are how you get the goal (whether successfull or not), like: torture, theft, allowing the weakness in others to get you to the goal (like letting someone get drunk so you can get your goal), making a purchase, offering to sell, offering gifts, physically helping the other get to their goals (like gathering firewood for others), ect.. In the end both must simply be looked at together. The GM and player may have to use some common sense too. But typically if an action benefits others at the expense of the doer, then its probably good. If an action benefits the doer at the expense of others, then its probably evil. Anything else is likely neutral. Some examples: Selling goods = neutral (mutually beneficial), Stealing money = evil (benefit you at the expense of someone else), Stealing food = evil (same as stealing money... unless there is no other way to survive, then it can safely be ruled neutral as a matter of survival. A common sense issue, if a starving man steals food its not nessessarily an indication of character), building a home for orphans = good (benefits others at your expense).
ManinDarkness 02-04-05, 03:09 PM	And what if I don't want to benefit anyone? If I, for example, want to do something, that will result in me dying (and I don't believe in any form of life after death, or I believe that i will be condemned), and it won't benefit anyone other, either? Or if I seek vengance knowing, that I won't feel any better (maybe even worse) after killing the guy I hate, but I want do do it anyway? Or if I sacrifice for someone who I know will die anyway, or for someone who does not want my sacrifice?There must be a motor. If there is no motor there is no action. Honoring a beloved one's memory is a motor (a neutral one, the memory belongs to the self), revenge is a benefit (neutral again). If I intend the benefit to someone that doesn't want it, the action is not changed in the least. About choosing values, but not actions, I can agree only partially. It would be much easier than it is, if having once decided what we value we wouldn't have to make every single decision afterwards. It's very often, that someone acts against his own values - not because he decided he wanted to change them, but because he chose wrong this one single time. (Example: Every true Christian follows the same basic values, but also every Christian sins. "Sins" are exactly what I describe - wrong steps, wrong decisions while trying to follow values).Not really. He acted against the values he thought he had. For some reason, what he decided is more "valuable" than his current values. Choosing is not necesarily a conscious act.
ManinDarkness 02-04-05, 03:17 PM	One, why factor in results at all? How does it matter to ones alignment if a result turns out different from your intentions. Ends and Means are really the only two factors here.Accidental evil is still evil. Accidental good is no good. Incompetent good is no good. Secondly, You can't allow base emotions as an end or an intention...No emotions factored in. Intent relates to intended benefit. Means and results are to be labeled according to tangible evidence. The GM and player may have to use some common sense too.In my experience common sense is the least common of senses. :D Players (DM included) always ask where it is written so. building a home for orphans = good (benefits others at your expense).That is why intention and ends should be factored. Think Oliver Twist.
Darion Fenix 02-04-05, 03:22 PM	Of course we've all been overlooking the fact that in D&D, Good and Evil are objective terms, pure and simple. In the real world we (or we or not) dealing with an abstract, indescribable, paradox called "The God". The God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, eternal and a whole slew of other terms which aren't rational. The God is the Radical Alterity; that which we are not. While in the D&D world, the gods are quite real and they are effective. If Lathander appeared before me and said "These actions are evil and these actions are good" then I'd sure as hell listen and take notes. And I'd go out and spread the good word!...after changing my armor.
Ptarmigan 02-04-05, 04:07 PM	What is the "functional way" of having free will? Either we really can choose, or the free will is an illusion. There is no other possibility than those two. There can not be two contradicting truths. Do you act as if you had free will? Do you believe that the decisions are yours or that you are determined by genes and outside stimuli? If you don't believe in free will, speaking of "functional ways" of having it (in contrary to "philosophical truth") is just lying to yourself. And if you believe, why do you contend otherwise? I don't think that free will really exists. However, I think that we all act as if we had free will, and moreover it not possible to act as if one didn't have free will. So free will is an illusion, but it is an inescapable one. So, I ask what is more important: a truth that we can think about but never live by (determinism) or an illusion that is always there, we can't really get around, and governs the way we and every other human being lives their life (free will). In my opinion, it's the second one. Even if we can recognize it as an illusion, the illusion is more tangible and, in some sense, more real than the truth - this is what I've called functional free will. So I think that the statement "We have free will" can be true or false depending on whether we're talking about 'the universe, as it really actually is' or the 'the universe as we perceive and live in it'. Another, maybe better way to say it, is that I think free will doesn't exist, but I don't think it matters that it doesn't exist. Anyway, sorry for taking this thread so far off track... but I do have some comments about the system in question. To wit: why is unintentional evil still evil, but unintentional good not good? I can understand the second part pretty easily... if someone accidentally saves the world, you'd be more likely to call them lucky than morally upright. But what about unintentional evil? The only reason I can see for this is evil caused by irresponsibility: for example, you try to poison the evil king's wine, but his good and innocent daughter drinks the wine instead, and is killed. That is evil, and it is against your intentions, true... but I'd say the 'evil' here is not because of the bad result but because of the careless means of the act. It seems to me than any unintentional evil can be traced back to irresponsible means, which makes the suggestion to drop the result factor and just go off intention and means pretty reasonable.
ManinDarkness 02-04-05, 04:27 PM	Anyway, sorry for taking this thread so far off track... but I do have some comments about the system in question. To wit: why is unintentional evil still evil, but unintentional good not good? ... The only reason I can see for this is evil caused by irresponsibility... It seems to me than any unintentional evil can be traced back to irresponsible means, which makes the suggestion to drop the result factor and just go off intention and means pretty reasonable.In the system good intentions don't make good actions. If for some reason the intended good and the course of action used to hopefully reach that conclusion fails to give off a good result then the action as a whole is no good. As I said, incompetent good is no good. As good actions need result and I wanted consistency, results are factored in all actions. As a result, it gives some leniency to the system; the actions must not have all of its components of a label to be that label. Also, most action combinations result as neutral, which I like very much.
ManinDarkness 02-15-05, 04:33 PM	:bump: