A structured attempt at alignment

[Voss]

Mord, I'm unclear what value neutral has in your system. And Pragmatic & Selfish look to converge to the same point. It actually looks like it devolves to 3 options: Absolutists, Altruists and Everyone Else. With Absolutists breaking down into an infinite number of subsets.

[kzt]

It's also of limited utility. This seems to put in the same box someone who has an absolutist code of "do unto others as you want them to do unto you" and someone who has an absolutist code of "Hitler was right about the jews". I'm not at all sure this helps describe characters in a useful way.

[schpeelah]

Morality in the real world can get muddled, but if you can speak to a deity that has the understanding of Good in their portfolio, and you have very real knowledge of how much nicer the upper planes are, the idea of choosing evil goes from a few deeply troubled individuals to three guys that are too stupid to connect dots.

Evil is a subjective value judgement. It cannot conceivably be objective. That said, the existence of Hitler and Stalin makes people throw makes people throw fascism and communist into a mental "evil philosophies" with no understanding bucket to the point those opposing philosophies are confused with one another. Advocating actions consistent with those of demons is going to be unpopular when doing them makes you show up on demon detection spells and gets your soul sent to the Demon Dimensions, even if there's a chance of being rewarded by the demons there. Or at least, they won't have the same unthinking support that opposing viewpoints might get.

This seems to me to be what the DND alignment system is trying to communicate, so let's just spell it out(...)

EDIT: Also, question: does this exercise assume that alignment meant to be a guideline as to your character's general principles of action, or is it supposed to be the cosmic team you're playing for? I can't imagine casting spells with a "Pragmatic" alignment, or casting "Detect Selfish." Or a god of Pragmatism.

The writers of alignment had no clear idea what they were trying to communicate. Your ideas are certainly in their message, but so are ideas contradictory to that.

Splitting along the lines of altruism/selfishness runs into the following problems:
1) people who burn witches at the stake to save their souls - good or evil?
2) people construct narratives that frame their selfish actions as selfless - who decides when it's a matter of perspective?
3) helping another person because of following some rule with no concern about that person - good or just lawful?
Indeed, it's a matter of perspective most of the time. Helping people feels good and that's what motivates people to do good works a lot of the time. On the other side, there's enlightened self-interest.

Absolutist/Pragmatic is no good either. Various rule sets have different values and you can be "pragmatic" or not about getting the things you value. The choice of the rule/value set is far larger than whether you are being Paragon or Renegade about fulfilling those values, rendering it rather pointless. Indeed, the witch thing above illustrates how different values and beliefs can change hurting someone into helping and vice versa.

[animea90]

No one ever thinks they are a bad guy. If there was an infallible test to see if a particular idea and it's consequences is evil, no one would choose to be evil. Even people like Hitler and Pol Pot thought they were doing the right thing. No one ever goes "well it's only a little horribly evil, I might build an orphanage later to balance it out."

I think you're underestimating the number of people who will say the test is simply wrong. Or that they're only doing something evil because reasons.

Hence the use of the word infallible and the clause "and it's consequences." Few people would pursue a path of clear evil, not a suggestion of evil, but clear unequivocal Evil, among those almost none are sane.

Morality in the real world can get muddled, but if you can speak to a deity that has the understanding of Good in their portfolio, and you have very real knowledge of how much nicer the upper planes are, the idea of choosing evil goes from a few deeply troubled individuals to three guys that are too stupid to connect dots.

More to the point, good and evil team up practically all the time in comics, which is the source material for fantasy gaming for really a lot of people.

A bad team up is the joker and batman go fight new flavor of the month. It's bland and feels forced, the joker (while iconic) lacks a decent motivation and exists to be evil. During this team up the joker will try to foil batman, and batman will get irritated by the joker. It's pointless and trite.

A good team up is when Lex Luthor and Superman stop a flavor of the month. Luthor isn't a maniac who is build robots because "fuck things not being ripped apart by robots" (anymore) he is a man with a different philosophy, that leads to different actions, and it can be ambiguous as to whether it is an inherently evil stance. During this team up Superman tries to show Lex the good he does and how he can be trusted, and Lex tries to explain that blind faith in a god like being can result in tragedy if supes has a bad day, and asks supes questions like which laws apply to him and which he can ignore. This shows a conflict with a possibility of reconciliation, and two forces ultimately wanting the best for humanity.

If there was a test, like detect Evil, rational people wouldn't be evil. Good/evil team ups only work if you have a chance of redemption or a fall from grace.

This is an important point. In DnD you can get real sensory feedback of whether you are good or evil *and* what horrible things will happen to you in the afterlife if you are evil.

A such, any foresighted intelligent person is going to be good(or at least neutral). Evil would be the domain of people with terrible impulse control.

[kzt]

A such, any foresighted intelligent person is going to be good(or at least neutral). Evil would be the domain of people with terrible impulse control.

Or the ability to convince themselves that whatever action they want to do today is good.

I know a guy who is prison guard at a maximum security prison. He's told me that very few of the inmates accept responsibility for the events that got them there.

[Voss]

Evil would be the domain of people with terrible impulse control.

Or being evil enough that they get insta-promoted on death to an evil outsider with its own power base (however small that may be)

[animea90]

A such, any foresighted intelligent person is going to be good(or at least neutral). Evil would be the domain of people with terrible impulse control.

Or the ability to convince themselves that whatever action they want to do today is good.

I know a guy who is prison guard at a maximum security prison. He's told me that very few of the inmates accept responsibility for the events that got them there.

But in the real world we don't have a "detect evil" spell and and we don't have planeshift to go visit the various planes where people end up when they die. In the real world things are more grey. There is no proof of an afterlife, much less a reliable way to determine who ends up where.

But in DnD, you could have a pally walk up to him, detect evil and say "yeah, you are going to suffer in hell for eternity for what you did. My spell pinged evil. Anyone who wants to go to heaven(a really nice place I was just visiting) should not act like him.".

And its not just going to affect individual behavior, you would see a complete cultural revolution. The big thing is that there is no chance of getting away with a crime. ALignment is handled by an omniscient power that provides observable feedback. This would severely skew people's willingness to commit crimes.

[Chamomile]

Evil people get judged by Evil gods. Hell is totally awesome if you're further down the lowerarchy than most people.

[Mord]

Mord, I'm unclear what value neutral has in your system. And Pragmatic & Selfish look to converge to the same point. It actually looks like it devolves to 3 options: Absolutists, Altruists and Everyone Else. With Absolutists breaking down into an infinite number of subsets.

Neutrality is fence-sitting bullshit in any system.

A Pragmatic person believes the ends justify the means. A Selfish Pragmatist will beg, borrow, steal, or even kill all for the sake of their own gain - you can think of any number of example stereotypes of such a person, from a street thug to a robber baron. One example of selfish absolutist: Javert.

An Altruistic Pragmatist may be your Robin Hood, a utilitarian social planner, Spock, Che Guevara, Han Solo (once he comes to Luke's rescue at the end of A New Hope), Colonel Graff from Ender's Game... Basically anyone who seeks the greater good and doesn't consider themself to be bound by any rules in doing so.

Batman, on the other hand, is a classic Absolutist. He'll break all kinds of laws relating to vigilantism, but he's got his "one rule" (Nolan/Bale Batman).

It's also of limited utility. This seems to put in the same box someone who has an absolutist code of "do unto others as you want them to do unto you" and someone who has an absolutist code of "Hitler was right about the jews". I'm not at all sure this helps describe characters in a useful way.

"Hitler was right about the Jews" isn't a moral code. Without a specific instruction as to behavior, it's just a repugnant opinion. Now, "Kill all Jews, whenever and wherever you find them" is a moral code.

Someone who holds to that code by living it out to the best of their ability is certainly as much an Absolutist as a turn-the-other-cheeker. The distinction must come on the other axis - similarly to how a Devil and a Paladin are both creatures of Law, and can be lumped together under that descriptor.

So, is this anti-Semite Selfish or Altruistic? As I understand it, these alignments are a description of this person's motivations, not actually a description of the practical effects of actions. (It doesn't make any sense for a person's alignment to be affected by the unforeseen consequences of their actions.)

However, racism is fundamentally a selfish outlook because it depends on stereotypes, which are internal to the racist and exist to satisfy the racist's psychological needs. It is necessary to judge potential victims as individuals in order to determine whether killing them actually does anyone any good. Killing a bunch of random Jews is a fundamentally selfish act even if you sincerely believe Jews as a group to be doers of evil. Randomly murdering strangers based on your perceptions is fundamentally motivated by your own feelings of racial antipathy, not any harmful thing you factually know those strangers to have done to others. Thus, you cannot legitimately be motivated by altruistic goals if you are killing strangers on the basis of their ethnicity. (Maybe something DND Paladins should consider when wiping out Orc camps.)

1) people who burn witches at the stake to save their souls - good or evil?

Good and evil don't exist on my scheme, exactly because of the subjective nature of "good." Instead, as in the anti-Semite example above - altruism requires evaluation of individuals and their works to determine if killing that person will help others. A witch-burner who burns only witches who uses magic to kill peasants for petty reasons and lets other witches go free is an Altruistic Pragmatist. A witch-burner who burns all witches because the Bible says so is a Selfish or at best Neutral Absolutist.

2) people construct narratives that frame their selfish actions as selfless - who decides when it's a matter of perspective?

The other people involved. If you have tricked yourself into believing that peasants love to be stabbed and act accordingly, you are still Selfish, because from the peasants' point of view, you are causing them bleeding problems for the sake of feeling good about yourself.

3) helping another person because of following some rule with no concern about that person - good or just lawful?

Selfish Absolutism.

Indeed, it's a matter of perspective most of the time. Helping people feels good and that's what motivates people to do good works a lot of the time. On the other side, there's enlightened self-interest.

Doing good things principally because it makes you feel good is selfish. Doing good things principally because you feel others deserve to have good done to them is altruistic.

Absolutist/Pragmatic is no good either. Various rule sets have different values and you can be "pragmatic" or not about getting the things you value. The choice of the rule/value set is far larger than whether you are being Paragon or Renegade about fulfilling those values, rendering it rather pointless. Indeed, the witch thing above illustrates how different values and beliefs can change hurting someone into helping and vice versa.

I'd say Abs/Prag is more cut-and-dry than Alt/Self, honestly. If you have rules you won't break no matter what you may gain by doing so, you're an Absolutist. If you'll do anything to accomplish your goals, you're a Pragmatist.

If you define everything in terms of how you feel about it, then everyone is SuperShinyDoublePlusGood. However, defining it in terms of your actions' concrete direct effects on others takes the element of self-deception out of play. Altruistic actions provide material benefits to those whose circumstances are changed by the action. Selfish actions provide material benefits to the actor.

Killing Orcs because you hate Orcs, or because the farmers have put a bounty on Orc heads? Selfish. Killing armed male Orcs to save the farmers they're raiding? Altruistic. Killing the rest of the Orc women and children because "they're all bad apples?" Selfish.

---

One downside to my paradigm is that it is literally impossible to have such a thing as a "Pragmatic Selfish" race or something like that. So, if you like having alignment as a way of defining your white hats and black hats, my system is a terrible idea and should be passed on. If you want alignment to actually help a player in getting into their character's head, I think my system has merit.

[Voss]

Neutrality is fence-sitting bullshit in any system.

Deep.

But really, it still tells me nothing about how to distinguish neutral from selfish or pragmatic.

And I get that Altruists and Selfish people are different... it still isn't clear how Pragmatic filters into anything.

And your responses to kzt seem to indicate that you think selfish and evil are pretty much the same thing. At least, to me, at no point does the phrase 'he's Selfish' indicate to me that someone is going to be stabbing random people or endorsing genocide. At worst., they're just not going to care that others do it. Or not.

If you have rules you won't break no matter what you may gain by doing so, you're an Absolutist. If you'll do anything to accomplish your goals, you're a Pragmatist.

So if you'll do anything to accomplish your goals except break your conviction to do anything...

[Mord]

And I get that Altruists and Selfish people are different... it still isn't clear how Pragmatic filters into anything.

In a few words: altruism/selfishness describes whose benefit you prefer to act towards. Absolutism/pragmatism describes what you're willing to do to accomplish those acts.

A person can be considered altruistic if they generally act with the primary intention of increasing others' net happiness, in accordance with those others' definition of happiness.
A person can be considered neutral if they sometimes harm others for their own benefit and sometimes put themselves in harm's way for others' benefit.
A person can be considered selfish if they generally act with the primary intention of increasing their own net happiness, with effects on others' happiness considered secondarily if at all.

A person can be considered absolutist if, in pursuing their altruistic or selfish ends, they strictly observe some kind of rule system even when such observance makes it more difficult to achieve their goals.
A person can be considered neutral if they have a set of rules they consistently espouse, but inconsistently apply to their actions.
A person can be considered pragmatic if they allow no scruples to hold them back from their goals.

And your responses to kzt seem to indicate that you think selfish and evil are pretty much the same thing.

Evil has nothing to do with it. I left Good/Evil out of my alignment structure because I don't think they are words that can be defined usefully.

So if you'll do anything to accomplish your goals except break your conviction to do anything...

DIVIDE BY ZERO ERROR... j/k

I don't know what you're suggesting. Do you think it unacceptable for a Pragmatic person to play along with someone else's rules long enough to accomplish their ends?

[hyzmarca]

A such, any foresighted intelligent person is going to be good(or at least neutral). Evil would be the domain of people with terrible impulse control.

Or the ability to convince themselves that whatever action they want to do today is good.

I know a guy who is prison guard at a maximum security prison. He's told me that very few of the inmates accept responsibility for the events that got them there.

But in the real world we don't have a "detect evil" spell and and we don't have planeshift to go visit the various planes where people end up when they die. In the real world things are more grey. There is no proof of an afterlife, much less a reliable way to determine who ends up where.

But in DnD, you could have a pally walk up to him, detect evil and say "yeah, you are going to suffer in hell for eternity for what you did. My spell pinged evil. Anyone who wants to go to heaven(a really nice place I was just visiting) should not act like him.".

And its not just going to affect individual behavior, you would see a complete cultural revolution. The big thing is that there is no chance of getting away with a crime. ALignment is handled by an omniscient power that provides observable feedback. This would severely skew people's willingness to commit crimes.

The thing is, being able to objectively detect Good and Evil does not give you the power to determine good from bad.

You have to separate the cosmic forces from the day to day choices. And in the little picture it's quite possible that Good is horrifically evil and Evil is purely good.

And once you understand that it becomes less a matter of Good being right and Evil being wrong so much as both of them being uncaring alien forces that are utterly incompatible with any reasonable conception of morality.

This is especially true if you use the Book of Exalted Deeds as your guide to morality, where inflicting horrific and gratuitous tortures on Evil people is objectively Good.

Neutrality is fence-sitting bullshit in any system.

I'm going to disagree. If Good and Evil are objective cosmic forces, then Neutrality is the rejection of both. And while this can come from apathy or circunmstantial morality, it can also come from active rejection of both Good and Evil and the believe that Good isn't good. That sometimes doing the Good thing has horrible consequences and sometimes doing the Evil thing has great benefits and neither force can be allowed to win because that would just destroy the universe.

Whether Hobgoblin Stalin considers himself evil is beside the point. We are presuming alignment and trying to figure out whether that works as an actual predictor of behavior. Earlier someone mention Lawful Evil making you Ayn Rand... well, okay. I won't disagree. But so what? Unless she gets some sort of Ur-priest class synergy or something it only tells us that some people believe things strongly and we can put them in categories. Do we even need to do so?

I think Ayn Rand, and hardcore Libertarians in general, would be more extremely naive Chaotic Good.

Morality in the real world can get muddled, but if you can speak to a deity that has the understanding of Good in their portfolio, and you have very real knowledge of how much nicer the upper planes are, the idea of choosing evil goes from a few deeply troubled individuals to three guys that are too stupid to connect dots.

The thing is, just because that Deity is Good doesn't mean that he's correct. He can, in fact, be utterly and completely wrong.

Of course, even when he's right he can still be utterly horrific. Say, for example, that said deity orders you to murder every child under the age of reason in a nation run by an Evil wizard, because doing so would ensure that they get at least a neutral afterlife and to make a point that he doesn't like the Evil Overlord very much. Even if murdering millions of children is Good, would it be right?

[Scrivener]

Morality in the real world can get muddled, but if you can speak to a deity that has the understanding of Good in their portfolio, and you have very real knowledge of how much nicer the upper planes are, the idea of choosing evil goes from a few deeply troubled individuals to three guys that are too stupid to connect dots.

The thing is, just because that Deity is Good doesn't mean that he's correct. He can, in fact, be utterly and completely wrong.

Of course, even when he's right he can still be utterly horrific. Say, for example, that said deity orders you to murder every child under the age of reason in a nation run by an Evil wizard, because doing so would ensure that they get at least a neutral afterlife and to make a point that he doesn't like the Evil Overlord very much. Even if murdering millions of children is Good, would it be right?

The problem with your scenario is it assumes actions in direct conflict of precepts. Your point can be boiled down to "what if the god of good commanded evil?"

Firstly we are talking about a nonsense scenario like "what if there was a law that made you break laws? How could you obey the law then?" Which leads to arguments about the meaning of words, and the definition of obedience. And that means that alignment system is pointless and stupid, as per my first post in this thread.

Secondly this question was brought up by Socrates/Plato in the Crito. The solution to this question is either the Socratic one, good gods serve a greater understanding of Good, and as such one should strive to follow that principle instead of the gods. Or the Christian solution of god is Good, literally everything he commands has to be Good, because he is the arbitrator of Good, yes even that if commanded by god is Good. Either answer devolves into a question of what is the nature of good and how do know what good is, making it unusable as an alignment system.

Any system that involves moving "step away" from good and evil (like altruism and selfishness) just moves this argument a "step away". The fact that D&D has an infallible and readily available test makes all rational beings choose good.

[hyzmarca]

Either answer devolves into a question of what is the nature of good and how do know what good is, making it unusable as an alignment system.

Not really. Because Detect Good is called Detect Good purely out of convention rather than certainty. One can't really say that Good is Good and Evil is Evil. They might, in fact, have it backwards.

And I'd go so far as to propose that the traditionally Evil civilizations refer to Evil as Good and Good as Evil, because that's just their perspective. Because while Good and Evil objectively exist, deciding one is morally correct is still a subjective judgement call.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Either answer devolves into a question of what is the nature of good and how do know what good is, making it unusable as an alignment system.

Not really. Because Detect Good is called Detect Good purely out of convention rather than certainty. One can't really say that Good is Good and Evil is Evil. They might, in fact, have it backwards.

And I'd go so far as to propose that the traditionally Evil civilizations refer to Evil as Good and Good as Evil, because that's just their perspective. Because while Good and Evil objectively exist, deciding one is morally correct is still a subjective judgement call.

[Voss]

Indeed. Objective but subjective but maybe opposite meanings because reasons is gibberish.

I don't know what you're suggesting. Do you think it unacceptable for a Pragmatic person to play along with someone else's rules long enough to accomplish their ends?

I'm saying by your definition they have an equally absolute stricture they won't break, making them just another of the infinite flavors of absolutism.

[John Magnum]

Everyone in the world is potentially an Absolutist, if you allow for an infinitely large brute-force decision algorithm that takes as input the entire history of the universe and returns as output the action they take. Unless you write in time-travel stuff and declare that in some way it matters that people act non-deterministically.

[nockermensch]

I have discovered a truly marvelous biaxial alignment system, which this post is too narrow to contain.

You mean we're going to have to discover it centuries from now using principles that aren't actually known in the present day? Damn.

Ah, fuck it. Frank's 500 word challenge has inspired me to write. The moral alignments follow later today or tomorrow.

The Alignments
The D&D multiverse is already a pretty strange place, with things like magic and active, interfering gods. But few things in it are stranger than the alignments. Something akin to universal ethical and moral forces, the alignments exert a subtle but measurable influence everywhere.

Chaos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaOrSuWZeM
A popular school of thought in the D&D multiverse claims that Chaos was the first force to arise from the primordial nothing. Chaos acts by causing constant unpredictable change. Pure chaos appears as bursts of random colors, elements and noises, ever changing and churning, something you may recognise as not belonging anywhere in an universe any bit like ours. This is not a mistake: Pretty much any Plane in D&D other than Limbo contains more Order than Chaos, as things there have constant shapes and act in predictable ways. Still, if there was no Chaos in the rest of the universe, creativity, magic and even motion would cease, for Chaos is needed everywhere for any change to occur. Chaos also exists in the rest of the multiverse as an Ideal, or Philosophy.

The Philosophy of Chaos preaches that patterns constrain the Self, so one should always strive to live bound by less traditions, laws and planning. It teaches that passion trumps reason and that one should trust luck. It wants rebellion or spontaneity over conformity.

Superior beings associated with Chaos tend to exhibit the chaotic qualities of Creativity, Adaptability and Luck. Inferior ones are disorganised and prone to act in confusing, self-defeating ways. Likewise, chaotic magic or deities bless by granting luck and curse by causing confusion.

Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq8Ib8JTFiY
Law in D&D refers to an universal force that acts by creating predictable patterns. Sages believe that one the infinite permutations of Chaos generated Law eons ago, and from that point of origin Law expanded and dominated the D&D multiverse. In its pure form Law appears as static monochromatic straight shapes and constant tunes, but unlike Chaos, Law reflects upon itself and generates ever more complex forms and sounds. The interplay between the rule-making of Law with the random force of Chaos created the infinite forms of the D&D multiverse but the forces are by no means balanced: Law not only is the prevalent force but also exists as a guiding Philosophy for many beings.

The Philosophy of Law is that the Self benefit from patterns, so one should strive to create more laws, traditions and plans. It teaches people to trust reason over passion, to minimize the influence of luck and to work inside existing systems instead leaving them. While the tenets of Law can look like a very efficient way to live, its followers frequently indulge into excessive bureaucracies and overplanning that makes for a stifling and unresponsive life.

Among the lawful qualities are Efficiency, Meticulousness and Endurance. Lawful flaws, frequently shown by inferior lawful people are lack of adaptability or creativity and refusing to act unless all options are measured. Lawful gods and magic bless by removing bad luck and curse by forcing beings to repeat previous actions or otherwise act in a predictable way.

Law-Chaos Neutrality
Most beings in the universe lack the commitment to the chaotic or lawful philosophies to actually register as Chaotic or Lawful something. Adopting patterns when they benefit you and refusing them when they hinder you is called "being a sensible person". Superior neutral beings can have lawful and chaotic qualities and likewise the inferior neutral ones can show the worst aspects of both ethical philosophies.

[Mord]

Indeed. Objective but subjective but maybe opposite meanings because reasons is gibberish.

I don't know what you're suggesting. Do you think it unacceptable for a Pragmatic person to play along with someone else's rules long enough to accomplish their ends?

I'm saying by your definition they have an equally absolute stricture they won't break, making them just another of the infinite flavors of absolutism.

A stricture that literally says "do whatever it takes" is exactly the opposite of a restriction and can only be interpreted otherwise under the most ridiculous semantic framework.

I'm not going to pretend there aren't problems with other aspects of my alignment idea, but you have latched onto a total nonissue.

An Absolutist has things they will either refuse to do under any circumstances and/or things they will always do under any circumstances. A Pragmatist doesn't. So, where in that is the rule a pragmatist won't break?

Everyone in the world is potentially an Absolutist, if you allow for an infinitely large brute-force decision algorithm that takes as input the entire history of the universe and returns as output the action they take. Unless you write in time-travel stuff and declare that in some way it matters that people act non-deterministically.

Superior beings associated with Chaos tend to exhibit the chaotic qualities of Creativity, Adaptability and Luck. Inferior ones are disorganised and prone to act in confusing, self-defeating ways. Likewise, chaotic magic or deities bless by granting luck and curse by causing confusion.

If Chaos "preaches that [...] one should always strive to live bound by less [...] planning," shouldn't lesser Chaos spirits actually be more rational, organzed, and reasonable than greater ones? By your definitions, the great spirits of Chaos seem more akin to Cthulhu than Dionysus.

From your description, Chaos-affiliated entities in descending levels of pure Chaos might go: Cthulhu, Sheogorath, Junji Ito, Dionysus, the Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka.

[animea90]

Evil people get judged by Evil gods. Hell is totally awesome if you're further down the lowerarchy than most people.

Being promoted in hell has little to do with your evilness. It's determined by your strength. A moderately evil level 10 will do better than a super evil level 2

[Voss]

Indeed. Objective but subjective but maybe opposite meanings because reasons is gibberish.

I don't know what you're suggesting. Do you think it unacceptable for a Pragmatic person to play along with someone else's rules long enough to accomplish their ends?

I'm saying by your definition they have an equally absolute stricture they won't break, making them just another of the infinite flavors of absolutism.

A stricture that literally says "do whatever it takes" is exactly the opposite of a restriction and can only be interpreted otherwise under the most ridiculous semantic framework.

Thats my problem. You're presenting a ridiculous semantic framework. Where all <dedicated> are at one end in infinite subgroups, and at the other end is anyone so goal obsessed that they'll do absolutely anything.

So, where in that is the rule a pragmatist won't break?

That they'll do absolutely anything.

[souran]

Frank has it right on good and evil.

If you have Objective Evil, what can it POSSIBLY offer that would make any rational actor pick to be evil. Who could even choose neutrality when its a question of objective good and evil. Who would be willing to live in a community where some people openly worship an objective evil force or entity? D&D alignment system makes its typical brand of polythiesm totally nonsensical too.

Anyway, attempts to make alignment have a larger impact on the rules is honestly pretty terribad. Alignment is one of the worst ways of trying to describe the motivation and phyche of characters and while it might be good to give players reasons to make hard choices, trying to tie more game rules to alignment is just about he worst way to do this I can imagine.

If you do want to see what a world with absolutist morality give the works of R. Scott Bakker a read. In those the really "evil" things are alien beings who have become stuck on a world with Gods who enforce a very strict code of good and evil. Use magic = go straight to hell. The aliens have no idea what the code is, and their native psychology doesn't even allow them to understand good and evil in the same way as humans so they always get sent to hell. Its pretty interesting, if also a little on the wordy side. However, its the sort of thing that just further makes it clear that D&D alignment is a terrible idea.

[Occluded Sun]

No one ever thinks they are a bad guy. If there was an infallible test to see if a particular idea and it's consequences is evil, no one would choose to be evil. Even people like Hitler and Pol Pot thought they were doing the right thing. No one ever goes "well it's only a little horribly evil, I might build an orphanage later to balance it out."

There's part of the problem - you're confusing the concepts of evil and wrong, treating them as though they were different names for the same idea.

That's not how evil works - and it's not how good works, either. It's not a synonym for right or correct.

[schpeelah]

There's part of the problem - you're confusing the concepts of evil and wrong, treating them as though they were different names for the same idea.

That's not how evil works - and it's not how good works, either. It's not a synonym for right or correct.

You are plain wrong. Good and evil are just moral right and wrong. Not every wrong is evil, but every evil is definitionally wrong.

[Ice9]

Two things:
1) If you're not going to use Good/Evil to mean actually Good/Evil, then don't call them that. When you start saying things like "Well, not all good-aligned people are actually good, and some evil-aligned people are actually great guys" then you should just use Red/Blue instead and not be confusing.

2) If you do use Good/Evil, and they do actually mean that, then yeah, your second alignment axis is unlikely to matter much. Because if you're good, you're not going to want to team up with some evil bastard - unless there's some "end of the world" thing going on, in which case the law/chaos component wouldn't matter either. Seriously, is "and then I teamed up with this neo-nazi, because we agree on a lot of other things" something that you can imagine a non-bastard protagonist saying in anything?