Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 10:41:58 AM
Subjective morality disproves itself in practice.
Because it lacks a basis to grant itself legitimacy outside of occasional utilitarianism (which either itself resorts to holy/unholy principles), its either subverted or ousted by philosophies that do.

In modern day most moral subjectivists coast on moral principles set by the past, and assume said principles are inherent to man without the need for principled grounding.

Tldr: killing demons is good.

it has the legitimacy it needs. "Humans decide all moral values." The end, it's true even when nobody believes in it.

Quote from: Omega on October 30, 2022, 03:07:47 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.

uhhhh... Hate to break it to you. But that was a thing with 2e D&D and especially Planescape.

In Planescape: Torment a character in your party (Fall-from-Grace) is a succubus who became "enlightened" and changed her alignment from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Neutral (she is basically Spock). She is also a cleric but worships no god - so there you go.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.

And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.

What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.

They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.

i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.

The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic.  In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil.  Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is.  Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm

I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.

I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.

Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.

pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.

Allow me to make an argument which simultaneously shows the cause and effect nature of morality and which makes this on-topic for the thread. "Get Woke, Go Broke." The fundamental interaction here is that the companies which forcibly included broken ideologies and tasteless politics are going to get punished for it financially by their fans because it was a breech of trust in an unspoken social contract. The corporations argue that because these social contracts were never explicit that they do not exist, therefore they can rewrite their social contract with the fans as they please. The fandom perspective is that the unspoken social contract exists and should be enforced, so the long term effect of Wokism is to make explicit social contracts between corporations and fandoms more common and more precise.

This is exactly an example of a subtle moral interaction becoming clear through the course of history.

I think Pundit is probably a twinge premature in his conclusions that WotC is going broke over D&D. Your average D&D fan's sense of morality is about as sharp as a billiard ball. More likely, the Federal Reserve is going to backstab Wallstreet (who bet the farm on them keeping interest rates at almost zero) because that social contract was never explicitly stated. The resulting market crash is likely going to take Hasbro down as collateral damage. In this case, "Get Woke, Go Broke" is not happening because of fandom retribution, but because what goes around comes around. But it's all the same.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:16:17 PMIt has the legitimacy it needs. "Humans decide all moral values." The end, it's true even when nobody believes in it.

But reality becomes a nightmarish hellscape (or one moreso) when people actually believe in that. Its such a unsustainable hellscape of thought that people will willingly discard that train of thought and substitute it with something else whenever possible, even if they don't say it.
"All opinions are subjective" is a position that will disprove itself. Paraphrasing CS Lewis, its basically undermining its own point while making it.

Also settings where demons are not evil are also extremly played out and cliche. 'Demons be misunderstood' is also no longer a novel idea.

As far as demons and alignment:

First, the Hellboy stories have a fine moral center, from my reading of them. They send up Catholic theology, but they still have a moral code that most people of any religion would generally find reasonable. Hellboy overcomes being a demon and still is a good person, which is the point of the stories. That's a perfectly good lesson for human beings.

Further, D&D is a fucking fantasy game, not lessons on theology or moral philosophy. In particular, I disagreed with this -

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.

Whether you have Hellboy-like NPCs in your game or not isn't a moral stance - it's just different ways to play the game.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:16:17 PMIt has the legitimacy it needs. "Humans decide all moral values." The end, it's true even when nobody believes in it.

But reality becomes a nightmarish hellscape (or one moreso) when people actually believe in that. Its such a unsustainable hellscape of thought that people will willingly discard that train of thought and substitute it with something else whenever possible, even if they don't say it.
"All opinions are subjective" is a position that will disprove itself. Paraphrasing CS Lewis, its basically undermining its own point while making it.

Also settings where demons are not evil are also extremly played out and cliche. 'Demons be misunderstood' is also no longer a novel idea.

Even if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such. That's the beauty of it. If your community says rape is evil, it is, and you don't need to worry about ANY other community as long as you stay within it. If you really dislike other communities that say 'rape is good in certain circumstances' then get some friends, get some guns and destroy that community. Or just stay away, and tell your friends to do the same.

I don't think morality is set up by an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent creator of all. If there is one (which I don't find to be impossible) it's either

1. An uncaring creator
2. More like a Lovecraftian being

In which case you could not talk to it and get moral help. In the first, it wouldn't care enough to talk to you, in the second, you would not be able to compherend its method of communication. You would lose your mind just by being near it.

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 01:05:33 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.

And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.

What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.

They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.

i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.

The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic.  In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil.  Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is.  Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm

I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.

I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.

Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.

pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.

Allow me to make an argument which simultaneously shows the cause and effect nature of morality and which makes this on-topic for the thread. "Get Woke, Go Broke." The fundamental interaction here is that the companies which forcibly included broken ideologies and tasteless politics are going to get punished for it financially by their fans because it was a breech of trust in an unspoken social contract. The corporations argue that because these social contracts were never explicit that they do not exist, therefore they can rewrite their social contract with the fans as they please. The fandom perspective is that the unspoken social contract exists and should be enforced, so the long term effect of Wokism is to make explicit social contracts between corporations and fandoms more common and more precise.

This is exactly an example of a subtle moral interaction becoming clear through the course of history.

I think Pundit is probably a twinge premature in his conclusions that WotC is going broke over D&D. Your average D&D fan's sense of morality is about as sharp as a billiard ball. More likely, the Federal Reserve is going to backstab Wallstreet (who bet the farm on them keeping interest rates at almost zero) because that social contract was never explicitly stated. The resulting market crash is likely going to take Hasbro down as collateral damage. In this case, "Get Woke, Go Broke" is not happening because of fandom retribution, but because what goes around comes around. But it's all the same.

people don't like woke because woke is fucking dumb, not because they morally disagree with woke.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.

Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.

And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.

What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.

They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.

i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.

The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic.  In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil.  Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is.  Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm

I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.

I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.

Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.

pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.

I would say that there's more morality "baked into" many RPGs (or maybe moreso, in a fictional novel) than in the real world (outside of a theological framework).

Although much is random in an RPG (we do love our die rolls), there's a lot more of explicitly calling something "good" or "evil"--at least in the mind of the GM who's created the world.

Let's take disease, for example.  In the real world, all sorts of people get disease...good, mundane, evil people can all be struck down.  Theologically, believers will often say "It's a mystery" and don't explain why someone most might call "good" gets a disease but an evil person is spared.

If one is a nontheist, well, it's just random.  No virus or radiation or bacterium rubbed its hands together and cackled "Muhahahah!!! I'm going to give this innocent child cancer because it will be SO EVILLL!!!!"  The agents of much of what we see in the universe--outside of human beings--aren't good or evil...they just act naturally.  A Polar Bear that eats a human isn't acting evil...it's acting natural.

Now, in an RPG--well, it could be random, a mere die roll and the GM will shrug and say "sucks to be you."  But it could be a deliberate plot device--let's say "an evil wizard has cast a spell of a sleeping sickness on this fair maiden and you must find the hidden gem in the wizard's castle in order to free her from this sickness."  That's creating a definite moral framework around it.

Because of the nature of random events in RPGs, I'd say that fiction is a lot more morally charged...things happen in order for a plot to happen.  You never have a random character struck down by disease just for the hell of it, it's for a reason in the story.  But in an RPG, especially a fantasy RPG, a compelling adventure will often have heroic characters competing against explicitly evil NPCs.  (Alternately, the characters can be evil...but there's usually an inherent morality in it.)

In a world without moral agents--let's say, the world of 65 million years ago--I doubt if anyone would call the T. Rex evil and the Triceratops good...or maybe the comet that caused the KT event a moral evil.  The T. Rex did what it naturally did...and the comet had even less volition than the T. Rex.

Now, in the world of today, we have humans who make moral choices all the time.  And though I have religious beliefs that I believe have a strict moral code, I recognize that atheists, too have moral convictions--the completely amoral person is actually quite rare.  The atheist might say there's no objective morality (with which I disagree), but that doesn't mean they're saying morality doesn't exist.  There are many things that we could call "merely subjective" but that doesn't mean that they're non-existence.  And the fact that there are some things that humans nearly universally treat as immoral (say, the Holocaust), it doesn't change the fact that that's a belief in most of our minds--if we suddenly ceased to exist, in a materialist standpoint, no one would be saying that the Holocaust was evil.  (Of course, I'm not a materialist, so I come to a different conclusion...but I don't think that materialists automatically don't have a moral compass.)

But getting back to RPGs, at the end of the day, the GM makes his or her own rules on good and evil...though if they stray too much from the cultural values of good and evil that the other players have, it may be a very confusing game.  Actions and settings in an RPG are often charged with a moral framework--though, probably like most here, if that moral framework is WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democracy), with the current thing being held up as the height of morality of the ages (e.g., let's work in a condemnation of 'Cishet Whiteness'), I will probably just vomit and avoid playing it altogether.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 01:45:16 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.

And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.

What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.

They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.

i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.

The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic.  In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil.  Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is.  Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm

I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.

I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.

Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.

pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.

I would say that there's more morality "baked into" many RPGs (or maybe moreso, in a fictional novel) than in the real world (outside of a theological framework).

Although much is random in an RPG (we do love our die rolls), there's a lot more of explicitly calling something "good" or "evil"--at least in the mind of the GM who's created the world.

Let's take disease, for example.  In the real world, all sorts of people get disease...good, mundane, evil people can all be struck down.  Theologically, believers will often say "It's a mystery" and don't explain why someone most might call "good" gets a disease but an evil person is spared.

If one is a nontheist, well, it's just random.  No virus or radiation or bacterium rubbed its hands together and cackled "Muhahahah!!! I'm going to give this innocent child cancer because it will be SO EVILLL!!!!"  The agents of much of what we see in the universe--outside of human beings--aren't good or evil...they just act naturally.  A Polar Bear that eats a human isn't acting evil...it's acting natural.

Now, in an RPG--well, it could be random, a mere die roll and the GM will shrug and say "sucks to be you."  But it could be a deliberate plot device--let's say "an evil wizard has cast a spell of a sleeping sickness on this fair maiden and you must find the hidden gem in the wizard's castle in order to free her from this sickness."  That's creating a definite moral framework around it.

Because of the nature of random events in RPGs, I'd say that fiction is a lot more morally charged...things happen in order for a plot to happen.  You never have a random character struck down by disease just for the hell of it, it's for a reason in the story.  But in an RPG, especially a fantasy RPG, a compelling adventure will often have heroic characters competing against explicitly evil NPCs.  (Alternately, the characters can be evil...but there's usually an inherent morality in it.)

In a world without moral agents--let's say, the world of 65 million years ago--I doubt if anyone would call the T. Rex evil and the Triceratops good...or maybe the comet that caused the KT event a moral evil.  The T. Rex did what it naturally did...and the comet had even less volition than the T. Rex.

Now, in the world of today, we have humans who make moral choices all the time.  And though I have religious beliefs that I believe have a strict moral code, I recognize that atheists, too have moral convictions--the completely amoral person is actually quite rare.  The atheist might say there's no objective morality (with which I disagree), but that doesn't mean they're saying morality doesn't exist.  There are many things that we could call "merely subjective" but that doesn't mean that they're non-existence.  And the fact that there are some things that humans nearly universally treat as immoral (say, the Holocaust), it doesn't change the fact that that's a belief in most of our minds--if we suddenly ceased to exist, in a materialist standpoint, no one would be saying that the Holocaust was evil.  (Of course, I'm not a materialist, so I come to a different conclusion...but I don't think that materialists automatically don't have a moral compass.)

But getting back to RPGs, at the end of the day, the GM makes his or her own rules on good and evil...though if they stray too much from the cultural values of good and evil that the other players have, it may be a very confusing game.  Actions and settings in an RPG are often charged with a moral framework--though, probably like most here, if that moral framework is WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democracy), with the current thing being held up as the height of morality of the ages (e.g., let's work in a condemnation of 'Cishet Whiteness'), I will probably just vomit and avoid playing it altogether.

Absolutely. If you make a game where killing babies is good, most people will not play. That's why most people stick to their culture's morality with a few twists here and there.

Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.

I think your comment here misses the point.  Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea.  However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions,  and good and evil being objective.  That's all good IMO.

Objective morality is a self-contradicting system, because nothing is absolute,and that's an absolute statement.
My priest said it quite simply: "What's right is right even if no one's right.  What's wrong is wrong even if everybody's wrong."

Quote from: Cathode Ray on October 31, 2022, 05:04:24 PM
Objective morality is a self-contradicting system, because nothing is absolute,and that's an absolute statement.
My priest said it quite simply: "What's right is right even if no one's right.  What's wrong is wrong even if everybody's wrong."

I think you mean "subjective" rather than "objective"...but I get your point.

It really depends on your world view: if you view morality like, say, your favorite band or color or what you like on your pizza, then yes, it's inherently subjective, just as those things are.  There's no objectively "best" band or color or pizza.  However, if you believe that there is an objective basis for morality--e.g., a moral law-giving God--then people can be objectively right or wrong about morality, but that isn't going to change what it is.

Even a materialist can have "objective" measures for morality.  For example, if a materialist views that morality is "the greatest good for the greatest number" (utilitarianism)--well then, there are ways that will work towards this goal that are objectively better at achieving this goal than other ways.  (That still doesn't explain if the basis for moral behavior--such as utilitarianism--is objectively a good thing or just one's personal preference).

But really, in an RPG (and indeed, much of classic fantasy, myth, and storytelling), there's usually a moral point of view based on what the creator of that (writer, game designer and/or DM) is trying to convey.  In so far as we play in a world that's created by that person or persons, we will inhabit the moral space of that making.  If you're a Catholic, in the real life, you certainly wouldn't consider it moral to worship some pagan god...but in the game, well, Lawful Good Clerics aren't necessarily Catholic Priests, but could be Priests of Odin or Thor or Zeus.  It's a different moral space--but it does have a moral dimension.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:42:23 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.

Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.

your sarcastic quotes are solidified copium. Please try to refute my statements.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 05:25:21 PM

Quote from: Cathode Ray on October 31, 2022, 05:04:24 PM
Objective morality is a self-contradicting system, because nothing is absolute,and that's an absolute statement.
My priest said it quite simply: "What's right is right even if no one's right.  What's wrong is wrong even if everybody's wrong."

I think you mean "subjective" rather than "objective"...but I get your point.

YES, I did mean Subjective!  My wife called me to dinner and I typed the whole thing hastily.