Hello, /tg/. There was some discussion on /v/ about moral alignment charts and I came up with a very basic and general philosophical chart alignment system instead. I haven't tested the chart on any game itself but I wanted to ask the grognards of /tg/ if it is even viable in the first place or have they attempted anything similar and what was their results.
>>98927765i dont get it>utilitarianism (concequentialism?)the moral choice generates the greatest good>deontologyour intentions matter, not the outcomes that kind of makes sense as an opposition>realismas best i can tell that's just the idea that morality exists, so utilitarian and deontological characters ought to also be realists>existentialistthe belief that morality doesnt exist objectively?it seems to me that realism and existentialism ought to be opposed quadrants, and concequentialism and deonology ought to be opposed quadrants. as it stands im not really sure what the chart describes
>>98927852Realist here corresponds to more Machiavellianism or "Realism" (in a political sense). I didn't want to use the former due to the negative connotation. But it was a gamble trying to figure out a term since moral realists (who are also deontologists) is a thing. And I cannot use Pragmatic since that is a positive connotation when I'm strictly using neutral terms, so I compromised with "Realist". The vertical quadrant of Realist and Utilitarianism makes up the Consequentalist vertical semi-circle.The quadrants themselves are opposed strongest by their opposite, which is reflected by the rotating isosceles which cannot capture said quadrants, only its left and/or right neighbours. (eg. Utilitarianism is mutually exclusive against Existentialism, Deontology is mutually exclusive against Realist)
>>98927933if your "realist" phlosophy is just the pursuit of self-interest, isnt it something more like cynicism or perhaps Nietzscheism? is concequentialism really more oppositional to existentialist ethics than deontology? anyway thats all really just pedantic and ignores the bigger question - what does this chart actually do in a game?
>>98927971>what does this chart actually do in a game?Function as a replacement for a dynamic moral alignment systemAlso to answer your posted picture, I think despite the paradoxical nature, a synthesis of both technically exists. It's something called threshold deontology where the moral rules apply until a certain catastrophic threshold.Here's an updated diagram.
>>98927971I've positioned Utilitarianism as strongest opposed to Existentialism via its utter rejection of an external framework. Utilitarianism and Deontology clash but only on how to evaluate actions, they are still based on universalism or a external criteria.
>>98927984>Function as a replacement for a dynamic moral alignment systemFor one thing alignment systems are of very little use in most games.For another the point is alignment, not morality. It's "whose interests do your actions support", not "what beliefs drive your actions".
>>98928028I'm gonna hit the hay for now but I think what you just highlighted as differences aren't really as mutually exclusive to one another, one just precipitates the other. I hope the thread is still up when I wake up.
The realist-aligned paladin:>"despite making up 20% of the population, orcs are responsible for 80% of its violence">"did you know, 41% of tieflings kill themselves before age 300?">"PER CAPITA"He must quote statistics like this, otherwise he'll fall.
>>98927765Cool concept, I think it would work great for an electronic game, but some stuff that came to mind>it might be too complicated for most d&d players>when would the player do this chart? At character cretation? does it progress alongside the character? How would that be done in pen&paper?>what if a character does. make something outside his usual behavior and beliefs out of nowhere?>if the chart is ever changing, wouldn't it get a bit cumbersome to keep editing it over and over?>who decides how much each action shifts the chart around?Are you familiar with the classic Storyteller's system of Nature and Demeanors? I've always though it was pretty dope.In a nutshell, a character picks a Nature (who he really is inside) and a Demeanor (how he presents himself). I've always wondered if it could work for DnD as well.
>>98927984>Function as a replacement for a dynamic moral alignment systemthe problem is it's not clear HOW it replaces a traditional allignment system. in oldschool D&D you can think of allignment like a two-axis karma system. acting lawfully makes you more lawful and some people would do law for the sake of their allignment, but you can gain law karma for entirely selfish actions too. A lawful good paladin can only fall to evil because it's possible for them to weigh the life of their wife over the lives of the villiagers they're sworn to protect. They act within their motives and values, and the karma mostly just keeps score. that's useful for tracking if your character has done enough to qualify for something like a good-aligned magic sword without imposing strange restrictions on how you play the guyconsidering that, how does your system even function? if my ethic is to never lie but doing so maximizes utility, do i gain deontological or utilitarian karma? If my ethic is to maximize utility and i act according to that, does my karma gain depend on whether or not i succeed or fail? what's an innately existentialist monster? what does a divine plane of egoism look like? if im a hedonist who derives pleasure from altruism, where do i fall on the chart? if an absurdist who is trying to kantmaxx gives in to selfish temptation and thereby accidentally saves five people on the trolley problem, what karma do they gain? i guess more broadly the problem i see is that you've tied allignment to systems of ethics, when the point of the question was always the ethics themselves. i dont really need to know how closely Urist the battle-dwarf alligns with egoism, i need to know if he's good or evil in general terms. Somehow, despite being an ethical compass, this tracks everything except how ethical you actually are>>98927990how then, do you rationalize an absurdist-deontologist?
>>98927765i dont get these categories. if i were to divide philosophy the first thing i would represent is the divide between materialism and idealism. i dont see how most of your categories exclude one another or combine with one another to make something coherent.what is utilitarian supposed to represent? machiavellian realism is a meme mostly because of how misunderstood machiavelli was. have you read any of his works? he is a with the current thinking a leftwing political writer through and through. He argues for a protomaterialist political reality just like marx did, where power actually lies with the people and he was one of the first people to say so. In The Prince he constantly advocates that proper government is one that satisfies the needs and wants of the people otherwise to rule you would have to be a complete tyrant, which he doesnt support. It makes sense considering he was a staunch republican with the original sense of the word. I could see something like this working with better and clearer categories and combinations but it would have to be baked into the game and the implied setting itself For example oldschool dnd is completely deontological with it's law and chaos axis and then any nuance if one tried to insert any to dnd, is built on top of that
>>98927765It’s not a bad idea anon but it seems like you just used the first four things that came to mind. These things have nothing to do with each other and do not even begin to divide all philosophical views. “Realist” isn’t even a thing either. You can be a realist (or anti-realist) about something, but it’s not a general term.Also, are you trying to replace moral alignments with something else or just trying to reinvent them?
>>98927765Realist:Deontologist falls apart when the principles are in inherently powerful or the ability and capacity. Utilitarian:Existentialist falls apart when the common benefit is free selves. Made a blank.
>>98927984Same problem with Egoist:Desontooligst here. If the Will is intrinsic it doesn't work as opposition. Similarity Consequentialist:Intentionalist doesn't divide that way given how utilitarianism is entirely based on good intentions for others that coincidentally end up being beneficial to whoever is claiming things must be done but I'm sure that's totally unintentional even though it happens every timeRather than having the triangulation of the character be fixed points it might help to add >inconsistencies because we all have those in large quantity when a fine tooth comb is put to it, where there can be dots or circles in various areas where the character's beliefs, actions and ideological composition end up more scattered than clean lines. Here the circle in Existentialist is the acknowledgement (required via Realist) that people make decisions that are not always rational maximization or with complete information and we must accept that those decisions will be enacted upon. The circle in Utilitarian is the acknowledgement (required via Realism/Egoism) that if enough other people get their shit together in a realistic self oriented way it can be quite beneficial and cohesive, which wouldn't be the worst thing.
>>98927765Isn't this just a two-axis chart but instead of moving freely along the axes you can only pick one to care about and have to be 50/50 on the other axis?Like if you snipped the corners off of the classic alignment grid so you're left with neutral good, neutral evil, lawful neutral and chaotic neutral
>>98927765>>98927984Reading over the rules, it seems as if you've hit upon the worst of both worlds by making alignment both prescriptive and descriptive.The triangle changes length and rotates if the player strays from their core belief, but they're also unable to choose the opposing option at all. On top of certain choices requiring a more specific leaning.Though a more fundamental issue you're run into is that the players might not be as familiar with philosophy as you. And if they are, you risk the same thing that most alignment systems risk, which is a philosophical argument. The more I consider it, the worse it seems than even a standard alignment chart.
>>98928425I read Machiavelli a long time ago, but I think I would've remembered if he had this perspective; in fact I remember him advocating for the complete destruction of republics in war. It also wasn't really about treating the people well, it was more about deceiving them, eg having a really awful advisor with no allies who does all your dirty work, and you can blame and dispose of when too much opposition builds up. It was about politics and rulership as a discipline.
Okay I'm back, nice to see some replies>>98928174I'm marking that Paladin as a strong Utilitarian-Egoist based on your statements alone.>>98928244Since it spawned on /v/, it definitely has a video game bias to it. As in the game has a pre-set tagged choices rather than freeform. A game, Broken Roads, has theirs looks like pic which I based it from but Machiavellian and Nihilism has negative connotations and they written it sort of unsavory that you just became conniving rat schemer instead of a rugged survivalist that is well-guarded and have a preference for your in-group. And no, I am not familiar with Nature and Demeanours but it sounds like you cannot move away from your Nature? That's more on the lines of Honne and Tatemae.>>98928388It moves away from the strict deontological good vs evil of the classic D&D alignment and goes for a larger umbrella where you can be good and evil in almost every part of the spectrum, it just constantly shrinks, extends or rotates. > how does your system even functionThere are choices that are tagged with their corresponding philosophy and the player chooses which ones they want or are allowed to choose.>>98928470I guess it's not so much a replace, unlike what I said previously, but a more flexible way to roleplay said character despite it still having limitations.>>98928717The triangle rotates around. Every anon here can imagine an evil Existentialist (doing acts solely motivated because they can) as much they can a virtuous Egoist .>Utilitarian:Existentialist falls apart when the common benefit is free selves.I made them diametrically opposed to avoid paradoxes. The principle triangle can never touch both Existentialist and Utilitarian despite it being argued that it can in some higher level of argumentation.
Replaced the Nietzsche quote so it doesn't look as narrow and biased, the will to power quote was a misattribution into what I wanted it to be anyways.>>98928746The Egoist and Deontologist are opposed in ways, using your example, on how the will is positioned towards good. The Egoist is willing to bend principles if it is not consequentially beneficial to themselves, much so if it is detrimental. The Deontologist will see will, as always something that bends towards the principled good that is mutually exclusive to personal cost. The fixed points are relegated to the choices the player is presented rather than the player's present philosophical stances are. That and discrete points would just trivialize the chart. It was not meant to be a perfect chart but it just needed to be structurally sound for a game.>>98928858I'd wager that it's all of the moral alignments, each with its own place in its own quadrant.>>98928978>Reading over the rules, it seems as if you've hit upon the worst of both worlds by making alignment both prescriptive and descriptive.That is the sin I must work with anyways since it stems from video game design logic. It also bypasses players being unfamiliar with the philosophy since video games are fixed premises within themselves, so the player can just see whether a choice is [Utilitarian] or [Egoist] by merely selecting one rather than be lost in question.
>>98928746Also, the base should not move like in your picture. It remains fixed on the center.
>>98929031no it wasn't. you just did a bad reading oh him like most people do>Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of there being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number.>Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him.There are countless such lines in the book where he basically advocated to get your power from the people and not the nobles. Getting your power from the people is what makes a republican and getting your powers from the nobles a prince.He keeps saying to princes you must become like republicans. He recognizes a few centuries early what was recognized in the french revolution and the new wave of enlightenment. That power comes from the people. His ideas are indeed based in reality but all the advice he gives are historical examples where rulers and states prospered because they followed the happiness of the people as a priority
>>98929585OP here, I've only read passings of The Prince but I do get a glimpse that he is one of the more caricatured philosophers that persists even to the modern day. His treatises, that would later be known as political realism, can only be seen in lectures about political science so his mainstream image is only that of what his detractors painted him as: a greedy political sociopath.
>>98927765So based on how understand this chart:Utilitarian is ConservationRealist is Self-EnhancementExistentialist is Openess to ChangeDeontologist is Self-TranscendenceDo I have that right?
>>98930201
>>98930201There are specific overlaps between each philosophy's neighbours that do one thing differently on a case by case basis rather than completely discrete entities.As I read it your diagram is similar in the social focus and personal focus criteria. Its counterpart in the Philo-sceles chart is the Universalist vs Individualist semi circles. If I were to group it like you did I would go:Deontologist = ConservationUtiltiarian = Self-TranscendenceEgoist = Self-EnhancementExistentialist = Openness to ChangeBut like I said these are not discrete attributes, they have gradients with one another, hence the Principle Triangle NEVER actually points to just one philosophy, just your major one.
Changed Deontologist's subtitle and also Intentionalists into Intrinsicists so it fits the umbrella more with Existentialists.
>>98929213>>98929261Yeah, I understand what you did. You're doing it wrong and your model isn't useful for creating the semblance of being. Its pretty clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about at this point. glfh
>>98930487When you see it somewhere else, make sure to remember this day!
>>98929213>There are choices that are tagged with their corresponding philosophyWell thats not how these games work but ignoring that for now, what is the benefit? How do you use that to tell a better story or write better rules?
God damn this is a civil /tg/ thread and with an interesting subject at that>>98929213>nature and demeanoursNature is your unchanging true self yes. At character creation you pick two of the Archetypes for Nature & Demeanour, but you can create new ones. Nature does have mechanical impact determining one of the ways you will regain Willpower (e.g. a Conformist regains willpower after the group or supported leader succeeds due to his support). Keep in mind the Storyteller's System is way more roleplay-focused than simulationist.The chart is absolutely better for vidya than rpgs but this is still a good place to discuss it. But the alignment chart, as flawed as it is, is fundamentally extremely easy to understand because its just 2 opposing values (Law-Chaos Good-Evil) and the neutrals. Even if it is subjective, at a basic level, it is easy to grasp and has obvious examples like the Rogue is chaotic good/neutral, the cruel dictator is lawful evil.Meanwhile asking the player during character creation to go read up on fucking Nietzsche if he doesnt get the chart is absurd and stupid.
>>98931366>>98929213>Nature is your unchanging true self yes.see, this is what i am talking about. nature being your unchanging true self is the most idealist concept ever. Then the system builds on top of that and actually gives some mechanical output.if it was about actually choosing what your character believes in, then idealism wouldn't be a fundamental truth of the setting and so you couldnt have nature as a category in your rules>The chart is absolutely better for vidya than rpgs but this is still a good place to discuss it. But the alignment chart, as flawed as it is, is fundamentally extremely easy to understand because its just 2 opposing values (Law-Chaos Good-Evil) and the neutrals. Even if it is subjective, at a basic level, it is easy to grasp and has obvious examples like the Rogue is chaotic good/neutral, the cruel dictator is lawful evil.Meanwhile asking the player during character creation to go read up on fucking Nietzsche if he doesnt get the chart is absurd and stupid.The chart is extremely easy to understand because anyone raised in the western world is familiar with this morality due to religion. And the law vs chaos scale is also apparent everywhere in our liberal democracies since this is the way it is depicted.So to put it better the dnd alignment works because it's a simplification and gamification of the way people think that the world works. Picking your philosophical outlook of choice means that you are aware of all these and have decided to pick one so you would need to have read Nietzsche and a few others at the very least to have any opinion worth hearing about.
>>98929213>>98929261I still can't tell what this shit is for.>to replace alignment chartsOkay, but what are those for? What game function do you understand those to have that you're trying to achieve? If you want to describe a character then just let the player pick words that describe them. This has the benefit that they're likely to pick words they understand. Maybe even words the rest of the table understands.I'm also dubious that it describes anything very well. I'm no philosophotician, but I gather top right is some form of virtue ethics. But that doesn't tell me which virtues they favour. I presume there are similar issues everywhere else.It seems like you're trying to show off your education instead of actually using your brain.
