What is your Alignment?

[Weiser_Cain]

I play a lot of lawful evil characters, they aren't destructive for no reason. If there is a benifit to saving the princess they'll do it if there's a benifit to drinking her blood they'll do it but if they promised to save the princess they stick to the first agreement, due to a sense of honor.

[EnderAndrew]

Anyway, I don't agree that good/evil is purely subjective. Lawful is one thing. Good is not. Good I would define as an emphasis on contributing to the health, stability and well being of others. Evil I would define as the reverse. Evil destroys the structure of things to revel in the energy given off. Good contributes to the order of a structure to benefit from the orderly functioning of the structure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But I think there is some room for being subjective. For instance, many people define altruism as good, and selfishness as evil. A philosophy like Objectivism, on the other hand, defines selfishness as good (though it doesn't use the conventional definition of selfishness), and altruism as evil. But going by the definitions provided in the Player's Handbook, altruism is good, while a philosophy like Objectivism is Chaotic Neutral, so there is considerable disagreement over the terms good and evil.

 

Your definitions there seem to be of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. What about an evil tyrant who holds an iron grip on order and the structure of his nation, in order to benefit almost solely from it's orderly functioning? Or a freedom fighter who brings down said tyrant and destroys the structure of government? Those would be Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good (thought the latter could also be CN), respectively.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about necessary evils?

 

Is industrialization evil? Historians will tell you the invention of the automobile can be attributed to more deaths than most wars.

 

What about culling human lives to preserve and protect society? From a pure logical standpoint, it benefits more lives than are taken. Yet any practice that involves killing a human is seen as evil and barbaric.

 

Some would argue that all violence is evil, even when protecting others.

[metadigital]

Or ritual public executions of criminals (Roman colloseum, Great Britain 1950, USA today)?

[EnderAndrew]

Good is caring about the well-being of people?

 

Then I have a A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

[Walsingham]

Good points there, gentlemen. I shall have to ponder them, although in my opinion revolutions - however well intended - end in tears. I certainly agree with the idea that excessive order can be a stagnating factor, resulting in energy loss and decay. Perhaps... perhaps... perhaps I should go to bed.

[metadigital]

Good is caring about the well-being of people?

 

Then I have a A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GOLD

[Cantousent]

...And dripping with irony. It's sad to think that many people took this treatise seriously and were aghast.

 

The basic characteristics of both good and evil are fairly well accepted. Sure, any intelligent person has the capicity to argue the fine shades, but the rough outline of good is both well known and accepted by the mass of people.

 

The vast majority of folks realise that murder is evil. The question revolves around the circumstances of murder. Is it murder to blow yourself up for the greater glory of Islam? Is it murder to execute a prisoner? Is it murder to slaughter livestock for use as food? The issue can be as cloudy as you want to make it.

 

Sophists can always turn any question into a two sided argument, for or against. That's all well and good. ...But there's a reason the devil renders payment in asbestos bills. Be wary of making him your client.

[EnderAndrew]

Why would people be aghast?

 

From a pure logical standpoint, his proposal offered nothing but gain to society over a troubling problem.

 

From a pure humanistic perspective, isn't it better than the population not starve? Why have large groups of people all suffer, when instead a small group can suffer and everyone else can prosper?

 

Didn't Spock say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

 

If the principles of being good are defined as benevolently looking after the well-being of others, then we are rarely good. We define good as following laws, or precepts of religious dogma.

 

Said laws and dogmatic principles don't always take into account the betterment of society as a whole.

 

One doesn't have to be a sophist to see there is a different between say right and wrong, and legal and illegal. Is the term good supposed to apply to law-abiding, or benevolent?

 

Those are important distinctions.

 

In the D&D sense, I have to assume that benevolence makes one good, and law-abiding makes one lawful. But often we intertwine the two.

[Cantousent]

He wasn't serious when he wrote it. ...And I don't believe you, sire, are serious in agreeing with it. However, I do have a hankering for baby-back ribs.

[EnderAndrew]

Being Irish, I like the Irish. I don't seriously think we should eat babies, even if they are Catholic.

[Musopticon?]

Interesting. Is there an online resource that I might read up on this particular aspect at leisure?

 

(In other words: linky?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is, but I can't seem to find this Wiki right now. I'll do some digging and get back to it soon.

 

Edit:Well, sometimes digging works. Look what I found:

http://apache.dataloss.nl/~spidey/pmwiki/

 

Happy rummaging.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Musopticon?

[Walsingham]

Being Irish, I like the Irish.  I don't seriously think we should eat babies, even if they are Catholic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's eay to say that about pasty white babies. But how does a nice sun-reared fruit-fed plump carribean baby sound? Glazed with a habanero and molasses sauce?

[Reveilled]

Why would people be aghast?

 

From a pure logical standpoint, his proposal offered nothing but gain to society over a troubling problem.

 

From a pure humanistic perspective, isn't it better than the population not starve?  Why have large groups of people all suffer, when instead a small group can suffer and everyone else can prosper?

 

Didn't Spock say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

 

If the principles of being good are defined as benevolently looking after the well-being of others, then we are rarely good.  We define good as following laws, or precepts of religious dogma.

 

Said laws and dogmatic principles don't always take into account the betterment of society as a whole.

 

One doesn't have to be a sophist to see there is a different between say right and wrong, and legal and illegal.  Is the term good supposed to apply to law-abiding, or benevolent?

 

Those are important distinctions.

 

In the D&D sense, I have to assume that benevolence makes one good, and law-abiding makes one lawful.  But often we intertwine the two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think we only intertwine the two when we agree with the laws of society. When we disagree with the law, for whatever reason, we can see the breakers of that law to be good, or even heroes. For instance, the Founding Fathers all commited High Treason against the Crown of Great Britain; Lawbreaking in the strongest sense, yet the Founding Fathers are considered to be heroes of almost mythic proportions.

[metadigital]

Look what I found:

http://apache.dataloss.nl/~spidey/pmwiki/

 

Happy rummaging.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many thanks.

Being Irish, I like the Irish.  I don't seriously think we should eat babies, even if they are Catholic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's eay to say that about pasty white babies. But how does a nice sun-reared fruit-fed plump carribean baby sound? Glazed with a habanero and molasses sauce?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reminds me of a joke.

Man goes into a shoe store to purchase same.

Saleman shows lots of shoes, none suitable. Finally he comes to the end of normal stock and has an idea. "Sir, I have some very, very special custom shoes you may be interested in, but they are very expensive, for reasons that will become obvious when I show them to you."

"Okay, it can't hurt to look."

"Here they are,"says the salesman after returning from the backroom with a pair of thin, light, and perfectly fitting skins.

"They are so light, and seem watertight, yet able to breath! That's amazing!"

"Yes sir."

"What's the deal?"

"They cost $10000."

"What?!" says the man, aghast.

"They are made from the skin of real people's feet, so naturally they are a very precious resource and not easy to get."

"I see," said the man, "well, I certainly can't afford them. It's a pity, though, because they are the most unbelievably good shoes I have ever worn ..."

"Well, I have another pair in black, for $10 ..."

Why would people be aghast?

 

From a pure logical standpoint, his proposal offered nothing but gain to society over a troubling problem.

 

From a pure humanistic perspective, isn't it better than the population not starve?  Why have large groups of people all suffer, when instead a small group can suffer and everyone else can prosper?

 

Didn't Spock say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

 

If the principles of being good are defined as benevolently looking after the well-being of others, then we are rarely good.  We define good as following laws, or precepts of religious dogma.

 

Said laws and dogmatic principles don't always take into account the betterment of society as a whole.

 

One doesn't have to be a sophist to see there is a different between say right and wrong, and legal and illegal.  Is the term good supposed to apply to law-abiding, or benevolent?

 

Those are important distinctions.

 

In the D&D sense, I have to assume that benevolence makes one good, and law-abiding makes one lawful.  But often we intertwine the two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This principle is called hedonistic economics.

 

A similar idea is to take those in a society who have defaulted or forfeited their rights, say murders, and use them for the good of others in society (making the best of a bad person). This would be using their belongings and organs etc for other innocents, as the physical manefestation part of their karmic balancing (or socio-redress).

 

Certainly has the advantage of removing all possibility of recidivism, AND the individuals get that warm feeling of contributing to society -- whether they want to or not -- just before their last organs are taken. :D

[EnderAndrew]

Glaze anything with habaneros and molasses and I may dig in.

 

Hedonism or not, I'm hungry.

[metadigital]

Soylent Green is made of people!

[EnderAndrew]

I thought Soylent People was made of green!

 

And don't spoil the ending. I'm sure there will be a remake soon enough.

[Cantousent]

Your alignment is Chaotic Doofus.

[EnderAndrew]

Skite my daisy-head!

 

Whatever do you mean?

 

Actually I'm really loopy tonight. I'm sick and haven't slept in ages.

[Walsingham]

Glaze anything with habaneros and molasses and I may dig in.

 

Hedonism or not, I'm hungry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have chef +10 !!!

[metadigital]

Glaze anything with habaneros and molasses and I may dig in.

 

Hedonism or not, I'm hungry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have chef +10 !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... And so we see how humankind was doomed with original sin. No matter how virtuous, no matter what santimonious ideals and high-minded aspirations, as soon as hunger strikes, all bets are off and anything goes ... like a French lifeboat after a shipwreck, no-one is safe from the Hobbesian brutality of the dog-eat-dog world of humans ...

[EnderAndrew]

But Hobbes was tiger-eats-boy.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

In Communist Russia boy eats tiger!

[EnderAndrew]

In Post-McCarthy America, doesn't Communist equate directly to Evil on the alignment scale?

 

See, again I'm always on topic.

[Walsingham]

Do you mean stalinist (yes) or flowery goddamn hippie (yes)?