Intelligence, Information, and Alignment

"Virtue is knowledge."

-Meno, Socrates

"No one voluntarily does wrong, but all who do wrong do so against their own will."

-Gorgias, Socrates

If we had perfect knowledge, would we do the right thing? Always?

Those who subscribe to moral intellectualism would say yes.

But no one subscribes to moral intellectualism.

So everyone would say no.

This, however, is really the biggest question in ethics. And it's kind of the point of doing ethics at all. The only reason to study this so intently is because deep down, we believe that if we all knew what the most ethical course of action was in any given situation, we could do that.

It's also the question at the heart of The Good Place (if you couldn't already tell I'm a fan). If you're unfamiliar, the most barebones summary of the show is that Eleanor Shellstrop finds herself in "The Good Place", having died and gone to the show's version of Heaven. However, she wasn't a good person on earth and it becomes readily apparent that she deserves to be in The Bad Place, so she asks Chidi Anagonye, an ethics professor from Nigeria, to teach her ethics in hopes of earning her place. Eleanor studies ethics with Chidi because the two of them believe that by learning more, by studying how to be a good person, and by exercising the mental muscles of moral decision-making, she can become a good enough person to deserve her spot in The Good Place. They are banking on something that at least resembles moral intellectualism:

The better Eleanor understands ethics, the more ethically she will act.

But then again (minor spoiler alert. seriously just go watch the show), Chidi is the expert on ethics, and he still finds it difficult to make the right decision when faced with a choice. If someone who knows so much about ethics still struggles to do the right thing, maybe no amount of knowledge will help us. Maybe virtue is not knowledge.

So dramatic.

That would certainly be St. Augustine of Hippo's position in On Free Will: "It is just that he who, knowing what is right, does not do it should lose the capacity to know what is right, and that he who had the power to do what is right and would not should lose the power to do it when he is willing. In fact, there are for every sinful soul these two penal conditions, ignorance and difficulty."

According to him, it is precisely because we have free will, that we can choose to do what is right or what is wrong even if we know it's wrong. While he recognizes ignorance as a reason for doing something evil (you only get punished if you weren't ignorant in the first place), he also acknowledges that sometimes, doing the right thing is hard, and we don't want to do something good when the opposite is so much easier. That's a pretty Christian perspective. When the good-est person ever (Jesus) gets (minor spoiler alert) betrayed, whipped, stabbed, robbed and crucified, it's hard to believe that doing the "right thing" will be easy. There are often rewards for doing the wrong thing. 

Elphaba belts in Wicked, "No good deed goes unpunished."

So maybe it's fitting that Intelligence doesn't determine your morality. Because the Chaotic Evil Red Dragon with 22 Intelligence isn't usually a better person than the Lawful Good paladin who (obviously) dumped that stat. And no matter how many ranks the Neutral Wizard puts in Knowledge (moral philosophy), their alignment seems to be more of a matter of personal conviction than accumulation of information. With that said, knowledge certainly helps; knowing more can help PCs make more informed decisions about what to do.

For example, if the party is asked by a mighty Druid to go find a magical herb to cure the kingdom's prince of a deathly illness, naturally the good PCs will want to help out.

"Good" in the world of Dungeons & Dragons means "altruistic" at its heart, so of course they will want to cure someone. But then suddenly it is revealed that this herb will actually form part of a ritual that steals the prince's soul, revealing the druid to have had nefarious intentions all along.

If the PCs had known that all along, they could have made a more informed decision from the beginning. But what if the Druid is actually just protecting the forest from a tyrannical prince who will destroy a community of treants, dryads and forest gnomes?

If the PCs had known that maybe they would have helped anyway. Or they would have tried to talk the Druid down from homicide to something more reasonable like talking it out.

The point is that knowledge changes the conditions and allows the Players to make decisions that better reflect their alignment. Maybe it doesn't mean they will act ethically every time, but it means that the more they know the more they will do what they want, not what they don't want on accident.

But the PCs, much like real people, don't know everything, and Gather Information* checks can only get you so far. So it's really easy for PCs, much like real people, to make mistakes because we are ignorant. In real life, no one has perfect knowledge of everything in the world.

But not in D&D.

In D&D, we have a Dungeon Master.

Look at that big head. Room for so much information.

And the Dungeon Master knows everything. And even if there's something the DM doesn't know, once they improvise it on the fly, write it down in the lore, or decide it somehow, suddenly it's real, and they know it. In the game of D&D you have something you don't have in real life: you have one group of people who doesn't know everything and one person who knows everything.**

In economics,*** this is called information asymmetry: one party has less information than the other, giving the other more power in the relationship. Usually it refers to when consumers have less information than providers, causing them to make sub-optimal economic choices. If I don't know that soda is cheaper than water, I may be less willing to pay $2.00 for a soda. If I don't know the quality of a used car, it's easier for dealerships to hike up the price without me realizing I'm being ripped off.

In the in-game example above, the information is asymmetric because the DM knows that the Druid wants to kill the prince and why. Unless the PCs uncover both the Druid's true goal and their motivation, the PCs have to make a decision in a situation of uncertainty. In the end, their investigation through Knowledge and Gather Information Checks has the goal of reducing uncertainty, allowing them to make a better decision. But DMs always control the information our Players get.

That's why information asymmetry is such a fun tool which helps the DM create ethical dilemmas!

By restricting the flow of information to the Players, we can force them to make difficult decisions. Sure, if they know what their captives will do, deciding whether to kill or free them becomes easy. But if they don't, well, then it's a real dilemma.

Now, there are ways for PCs to reduce uncertainty and make better decisions, like using Sense Motive Checks or spells like detect lies or zone of truth to unearth the truth. Or they can use geas/quest to force someone to act a certain way and guarantee a certain result. If they have captured and interrogated goblin raiders, they can zone of truth them to see if they are lying, or if they really will stop attacking the townsfolk. Other parties might put a geas on them forcing them to go off and preach peace amongst their goblin buddies, knowing that they will be able to free them.

We should encourage Players to be inventive and seek ways to overcome the barrier of information asymmetry. That's part of their planning and strategizing. But if we want them to face a truly devastating ethical dilemma, the best way to force a decision is going back to pressure and free will, two elements of any good ethical dilemma.

A time crunch where PCs don't have the time to learn more about the situation forces quick decisions on limited information. And consequences make PCs think twice before taking a big risk.

For example, a couple months ago, my Players were on a quest from a dear friend and mentor of theirs, Velamar, a wizard at the local magical university. They were tasked to rescue some kidnapped magical beasts that had been stolen by the university. When they arrived at where the creatures were being held, they saw some other humanoids walking around and messing with the cages. They considered their options and decided to sneak up on them so the Vigilante (a rogue-like Pathfinder class) could get a Sneak

Attack and the caster could buff the fighter and summon allies ahead of time.

As the Dungeon Master, I knew that these other people were actually there to rescue the monsters too, having been hired by the local magical creature zoo. But the Players didn't know that. They could have approached to converse with them and learn more, but doing so would have lost them the opportunity for a Surprise Round with a Sneak Attack, summons, and a fully buffed fighter. They snuck up because the potential consequences of approaching peacefully outweighed the potential benefits in their assessment. An assessment based on limited information.

Just like good ol' Aquinas noted, doing the right thing is often hard, and can have serious consequences, even death. Sure trying to reason with them would have been kinder, more forgiving, and, ultimately, better for the PCs, but the looming threat of missing out on all these benefits makes it hard to do the right thing.

Before killing everyone, they did realize their mistake and ended up befriending these new allies. But then, ANOTHER TWIST! It turned out both the zoo and the university were torturing these animals for entertainment and magical research respectively. A medusa smuggler had been sneaking them out because she, too had been the subject of magical experimentation at the university. But their quest giver had conveniently left out this information.

Another riff on the traditional myth

When they arrived at the final confrontation with this medusa, having brought their new allies from the zoo, they encountered another dilemma: continue helping their wizard friend (and source of new spells for their spellbooks) or join the medusa's moral cause.

Sure they could get more details and make an informed decision after some deliberation, but I wanted to pressure them. So the others from the zoo attacked. Suddenly, this became a split-second decision based on very limited information. Who should they help? This person they just met? And a medusa, no less? Or their friends throughout the adventure? Who has the moral high ground? Who has the best rewards? Too slow an answer and the decision would have been made for them.

Just like that, we can manipulate the flow of information, the consequences, and the time pressure of dilemmas to push the plot and action forward, as well as give the PCs opportunities to make decisions that affect their characters and the world around them.

We just covered a lot of ground and there's tons to unpack from what we've mentioned here, but that'll wait til next time! Au Revoir!

*3.5 is my favorite edition. Gather Information was lumped in with Diplomacy to you Pathfinder fans and Persuasion/Investigation to you 5e folks. This also reflects why I still write skills as Knowledge (arcana) instead of just Arcana. Who knows what any of this was in 4e.

**Some people might say that in the real world God has perfect knowledge of everything that was, is an is to come. And to that I say: if God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, why is there still evil? Just kidding... Theodicy is a topic for another blog post. Hold your horses, we'll get there.

***I know.. what kind of a blog is this where we have referenced sitcoms, RPGs, Socrates, Broadway and economics all in one post. You might think my ADD hasn't been diagnosed... and you wouldn't be the first. SQUIRREL!