The Metaphysics of Morality | Philosophy in D&D | The Innkeeper 

The last argument makes sense considering that one of D&D's greatest inspirations was Michael Moorcock. In his books, there's a cosmic war between Chaos and Order, and this why in the earlier editions of D&D there was no Good and Evil axis, your character could only be Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, and that didn't reflect the character's morality, but it did mean the character's you know, ALIGNMENT to one of the sides of said cosmic war.

There is a way simpler solution to the problem you describe - and it doesn‘t contradict the text: virtue ethics. One thing that gets in the way of the argument is the notion that the right thing is neccessarily good. - and if we frame ethics like Kant did, we can only arrive at that conclusion. But really, Kant manipulated us with that notion. After all, the whole point of his morality was that things would work out if everyone worked according to the categorical imperative - that we just need to use reason. But if we look at the actual world around us, we notice that we aren‘t omniscent. So it is completely possible that someone acts in good conscience, but actually causes harm due to a lack of information. Kants term doesn‘t allow that - and this is by design. The era of enlightenment wanted to establish that humans wouldn‘t need religion or tradition to organize society or gain knowledge of truth, so Kant delivered a philosophy in which humans could achieve all those things with reason alone. In Platos world, humans were pretty helpless against the machinations of the Gods and against fate. Their idea of good is more aestetical. Virtue ethics tell you that certain personality traits are inherently admirable and that you can‘t be blamed for acting according to them, even if it turns out to be the wrong thing. This even solves the problem of extraplanars and free will: virtue ethics isn‘t really about actions. So let‘s look at Asmodeus. He was created lawful good, so at the beginning of his mission, he exemplified certain virtues. But the blood war could change him - maybe he was honest, but he had to get used to deception to avoid ambushes from the neverending horde of demons. So what does that mean about characters? Well, your character isn‘t evil because they do evil things. Rather, their actions are motivated by a lack of virtue and an excess of vice. It also has interesting implications as vices and virtues can be influences from the outer planes - and the idea that a region is plagued by hatred because there is a dormant portal to the nine hells influencing peoples minds is kinda cool.

Asmodeus didn't prove his innocence, Primus simply declared a mistrial

I've always taken the "objective" part of D&D's alignment to mean a subjective definition imposed by gods and other powerful entities; they put forth their opinions as an absolute, objective definition even though they conflict with each other.

Similar to how the human brain effectively named itself, and deemed itself the most important organ in the body, I believe that in D&D, the gods and celestials claimed themselves the moral good, as their actions seem to have a net positive effect on the planes relative to them. The only reason why we see them as morally good, is because the society for which the universe came to be, believed the things that celestials do, are objectively good.

"Phylosophy is a nightmare from which you never wake that will leave you questioning the reality you exist within and whether you even possess the right to exist within in"... that's my definition of fun.

One of Arcadia's layers fell _on its own_ to Mechanus because it wasn't "good" enough to fit in the lawful good/lawful neutral plane

Sound reasoning, more mind melting philosophy is always welcome!

i'm not sure why, but i find no problem divorcing morality from the concepts of good and evil as defined by the books. could it be all those hours i spent trying to understand Kreia on KotoR2? in any case it seems like the most logical solution to this problem

12:12 That's not quite right, sort of, in a sense. Back in 3.5e (I think?) Ao was said to follow the orders of a "being of light". This being is heavily implied to be the DM. That might be a solution to the problem. Ethics are as they are because the DM says so, and that's a fact in the fiction itself. Of course that doesn't solve every problem, but it helps? Idk.

This video is terrific and can certainly apply to real life. I absolutely detest the alignment system and all variations in D&D for player characters when I began DMing, I applied alignment only to those creatures originating from or associated with outer planes. I talked with the players and we decided to have Principles, Agendas and Loyalties. Those are relevant to how characters and NPCs currently behave and how they treat others. I create NPCs with at least one of each defined, so it is simple to read those instead of having to interpret Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Neutral. In session zero, the players determine only one Loyalty, Principle and Agenda. Those can expand with new entries and change during play. The interesting aspect I didn’t foresee is when the characters chose loyalty to each other. With those in place it’s easy for the player to know what their character would do in some situations, and be more mindful of consequences of their actions. Players would no longer utter “that’s what my character would do” as if that would justify an action and avoid consequences.

That's a picture of kricketune, not kricketot! Though I do hope that we can at some point in our Avernus campaign get Kricketot to a point where he can evolve. Maybe we'll train him bard levels so that once he reaches level 10 he'll evolve into our Kricketune :D

A yogoloth grins evily at the party. "Oh, no you misunderstand, I serve the greater good. it just is my definition of good is vastly different then yours" seems to sum up this video? :D

Thank you for this video! It's the first one of yours I've stumbled across, and now I'll have to seek out others! I'm coming to a similar conclusion as you, i think, but intuitively (I lack your level of philosophy training). I'm a relatively new D&D player, playing a "chaotic"-leaning "good" character in a party of mostly neutral characters, and it occurred to me that most moral dilemmas that may face us will likely fall on the shoulders of my character -- something that has given me a little anxiety! But, in thinking over what questions to ask to my DM, it occurred to me to wonder what, exactly, is the moral fiber of his universe? We're playing in Forgotten Realms, but that may not matter much. He's free to change things that are guidelines in the books to start with. Some small clues have caused me to suspect that there is no objective morality in his universe, only what we (and our cultures, associates, etc.,) impose on it. I already knew better than to assume that my "good" character would have things right -- she can easily fail at her alignment, for one thing, and her god and background come with their own blindspots. But this video will help me clarify my thoughts, I think, and give me some better language to use when I talk to my DM. ❤

Oh yes, the hammer. The broken hammer. Yes Ian, it is still a hammer, but it is "less of a hammer" if you will. That's how teleology works it would appear. Unless your slight inclination toward positivism (which I am sure you would confess to ) has made it necessary for you, to remove teleology from your formula for ontology. So much in this video, so much. I underestimated it. And I've taken up to much time. I'm now a subscriber.

Worrying about ethics and morality is simply a luxury of intelligent existence. Without us to draw conclusions and abstractions, the universe, nature and it’s “unintelligent” life just operates without question. So my own personal conclusion is, without us to perceive and contemplate morality and ethics, it doesn’t exist. Anyway, thank you for using my hobby of D&D to crash course me into ethics. I don’t know too much other than my own conclusions having lived a very odd life full of my own contemplations thanks to being isolated from others. I’m here to support this channel indefinitely and I am so happy I found it. Thank you for putting it out there and for the work you do. It’s a very unique and often overlooked perspective when it comes to gaming. All the best!

I just started to watch yout videos. really like it, great job, i learn more in this 2 hours of 3 videos than in a year in philosofy classes (sorry for my poor english im from argentina

One of the things I liked in 4th edition was the unaligned alignment was available to players. I like the idea that the different moral /meta ethics types exist differently based on the plane it comes from and from the deities that are tied to them. I'm loving this heady concept dive!

Man I'm so glad I found this channel.

Thank you. Thank you for freeing me. Balls.

One thing I find interesting about meta-ethics is the way some "moral anti-realists" approach and have approached it in the past. I've heard some people argue that they understand that their morals are completely artificial, and they're not relativists, in the sense that they don't find their moral opinions as anything more than just that, opinions. It's kind of interesting to see that objective morality is the "obvious" answer of the meta-ethics of the world, but then it's funny to see anti-realism coming out of the woodwork to deconstruct it. In a funny way, maybe DnD is suffering from the same crisis of nihilism and the deconstruction of religious morality that our real world faced in modernity. "The Gods are dead, and we have killed them", perhaps?

You put the peeps in the chilli pot and heat it all up. You put the peeps in the chilli pot and add the M&Ms. You put the peeps in the chilli pot and make it taste... bad.

Avatar... I tried to escape the reality that the terrible movie adaptation was created at all. I shall retreat to the part of my mind where it never existed at all.

I would argue that in DnD "good" is defined deontologically, but the most moral thing it considers is an attempt to be altruistic. That's why both utilitarians and deontologists are "good" - they both try to be altruistic in different ways - the very reason you identified them both in good alignment. And in that case, DnD is morally realist. At least in the sense that such morality connects to a physical force of "good" and "evil". There is as much reason to consider these "good" and "evil" to be truly good and evil as there is to consider the sun to be good.

Cheer up, Sisyphus. All has not been in vain. Hopefully you might consider making more videos like these, whether about other games or whichever media of your choice, on your return. See ya then.

When he knows your full name you know you've been at the Inn too long (Don't worry Drew my name's not a secret)

I believe morality to be both objective and subjective. How can that be? Isn't that contradiction? Not really. The key is context. There is no one size fits all. You can't say, "Killing is wrong." Because there are circumstances where it isn't wrong or it is good. Like self-defense/defense of others from an unprovoked deadly attack. You can't say, "Helping people is good." because there are times where that is bad. Like helping a criminal rob someone. Heck, the real problem is that we don't even have a basic definition for what is good or bad. That alone would solve a lot of issues, just putting it in a clear concise manner. I use a definition from a guy called Scott Clifton. "A particular action or choice is moral or right when it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, or health; or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering, or it does both." "A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being, or health; or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering, or it does both." That right there is objective morality. That is the standard morality is set upon. Simple, yet it encompasses. So where does subjectivity come in? Well, in asking the question of 'how bad' or 'how good' something is. Because different people thing some things are better/worse then other things. How much pain/suffering does one need to experience before death is preferable? No matter what your answer, you aren't wrong. Because you can't really measure that. It is different for everyone. This is also where moral grey comes in. What if an action/choice both promotes happiness, but also causes suffering? In these situations we should refer back to the definition, and try to make the best actions/choices we can with the information we have. So, the definition is objective. It's particulars are more subjective. Hopefully this helps with your dilemma, instead of saying good and evil are unreal.

Uh, yes, I do agree that you can't take moral philosophy seriously and play D&D... because you can't take D&D seriously and be moral. I don't mean to say that D&D is necessarily immoral, but that moral D&D is necessarily unserious. The alignment system elevates true neutrality. It's not so hard to reach this conclusion if you hold on to the point of departure.

Gods in D&d are real, whatever a person's interpretation of morality is irrelevant, he's either a worshiper of a God and their creed, or his soul is destined to Hell, Wall of the Faithless or becoming one of the False. Morality like faith in D&D isn't metaphysical, it's as real as gravity is to us now.

I believe that there are twqo abd only two moral semi-facts. First, to increase the toltalammount ov emotional and/or physical peasure that is and/or will be expirienced and to decrease the total ammount of displeasure. I say semi-facts because unless you believe in antimaterialism, what constitutes as pleasure/displeasure becomes *very* complicated and could be considered subjective. I also believe that the concepts of pleasure/displeasure to be social constructs and therefore there is no point in trying to lead a moral life for the sake of morality. Because of that, I haven't really created any criterion for what is to be considered pleasure/displeasure

Y'know, Nietzsche might have something to say about going "beyond good and evil" or the origin of why one might consider something moral? A "genealogy of morality" maybe? Lol

Have you considered that the alignment system is not about morality at all?

In Planescape. The outer planes are a manifestation of morality and philosophy. Faith literally moves mountains. It's called cosmic realignment. The faith of souls shapes the outer planes and the outer planes dictate what the moral compass is in the multiverse. How then stable planes, camps and realms can exist. I dont know.

so...basically nihilism then?(although even that has many forms...oh boy) hehe

My ideas don't matter XD

Ngl, the moral realism implicit within what ive seen from D&D has always kinda turned me off of the lore, because its just so self-evidently ridiculous, interdimensional dragons are more believeable than moral realism, particularly in a setting like this.

Geezer here.... Tossed alignment back in the early 80s. Better game without it in my view. Game on.

Almost like absolute morality doesn't make sense!

So many words. If this nice chap making the video wants to play a Chaotic Evil character, well then, play a Chaotic Evil character. We don't have to substantiate the non-existence of morality because we are attracted to adolescent appeal of being the bad boy. Don't get hung up sir, on the associated guilt and then record 36 minutes of metaphysical apologetics to justify your choice. In psychology, when an intelligent person (I qualified it) throws away morality, the decision to do so is not a rational one, it's an emotional one. Like most decisions. Emotion. And its brother, unresolved, unintegrated emotion. Here we are. What has the intelligent person undergone recently, and/or what unresolved demon from their past is causing this person to eschew morality for the easier path? I wish it was more complicated.

I don't really understand why you're considering utilitarian being not good as a negative. What if instead of the trolley problem, we had the organ transplant problem. One person can at the cost of their own life give up their organs and allow say a dozen people to live. This might well be considered a good act. What if a person decides not to, is this bad? What if the dozen people murder the person and delivers his organs to a doctor to transplant, are they bad? What if a doctor kills the donor and then confesses his crime, is the doctor bad? What if a dozen people decide to save one guy is this bad? As far as utilitarianism is concerned many of these acts are the same better or even worse, however I'm betting your monkey brain likes some better then others even if utilitarianism is categorical in which is good and bad. This is not to put it into being an evil theory, but if it simply has to pass a human sniff test, it seems impossible that it's not at least incomplete as a moral theory.

what if utilitarianism is the right good and evil system

you are the only thing wrong here, killing is not evil that is false you mistook it as true hence you failed to understand morality

killing is NOT evil that is a stupid deontological view not a utilitarian one

you cant fit it because you are trying to mix utilitarianism the right morality with 2 wrong models

the 3 contradict each other because only utilitarianism is right quit trying to put the other 2 in the same level they are not