Let's talk alignments
Zafiro
Member Posts: 436
""Alignment is a guide to a character's basic moral and ethical attitudes toward others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general."
So, let's talk about it, not just about the game, but from a philosophical and practical point of view, how do see or understand Good and Bad/Evil?
I for myself don't see Evil in nature, just bad behaviour, like the Emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius said: "All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil." I think misunderstanding regarding good and bad/evil fits better.
I find Bad to be an error, not an option, if we agree with Aristotle, "EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
So you see, I trow away the idea of Evil in nature, like Satan(or Evil Gods), God can't have an opposite extreme or meaning, as God is everything, not to be misunderstood God is Bad an Evil at the same time. Bad is the other edge of Liberty, as Liberty is risky.
I'm ending this here for now, feel free to add anything fruitful.
Kindly came to my attention I've been unclear about the poll; I have to say, feel free to say anything(not to be confused with trolling) that sparks to mind about ethics, and let's consider the poll to be about real life, as I said best in real life, seems to be best in everything, including gaming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
Alignment quiz http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b/
Keep in mind the alignment suggested by the quiz is just a suggestion. It describes your character no better than a 36-question test would describe you. But it’s a good way to start thinking about how your character acts when confronted with issues of alignment.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/4240/an-introspection-the-true-nature-of-oneself-understood-from-rpgs#latest
If this is your first visit, I strongly recommend reading every post, and here I want to thank everybody for sacrificing time to this discussion.
Food for thought:
Rationality and virtue.
Life befitting rationality.
Morals and Duty.
So, let's talk about it, not just about the game, but from a philosophical and practical point of view, how do see or understand Good and Bad/Evil?
I for myself don't see Evil in nature, just bad behaviour, like the Emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius said: "All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil." I think misunderstanding regarding good and bad/evil fits better.
I find Bad to be an error, not an option, if we agree with Aristotle, "EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
So you see, I trow away the idea of Evil in nature, like Satan(or Evil Gods), God can't have an opposite extreme or meaning, as God is everything, not to be misunderstood God is Bad an Evil at the same time. Bad is the other edge of Liberty, as Liberty is risky.
I'm ending this here for now, feel free to add anything fruitful.
Kindly came to my attention I've been unclear about the poll; I have to say, feel free to say anything(not to be confused with trolling) that sparks to mind about ethics, and let's consider the poll to be about real life, as I said best in real life, seems to be best in everything, including gaming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
Alignment quiz http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b/
Keep in mind the alignment suggested by the quiz is just a suggestion. It describes your character no better than a 36-question test would describe you. But it’s a good way to start thinking about how your character acts when confronted with issues of alignment.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/4240/an-introspection-the-true-nature-of-oneself-understood-from-rpgs#latest
If this is your first visit, I strongly recommend reading every post, and here I want to thank everybody for sacrificing time to this discussion.
Food for thought:
Rationality and virtue.
"Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and, in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle." Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
Life befitting rationality.
"PROP. XXXV. In so far only as men live in obedience to reason, do they always necessarily agree in nature.
Proof.--In so far as men are assailed by emotions that are passions, they can be different in nature, and at variance one with another. But, men are only said to be active, in so far as they act in obedience to reason; therefore, whatsoever follows from human nature in so far as it is defined by reason must be understood solely through human nature as its proximate cause. But, since every man by the laws of his nature desires that which he deems good, and endeavours to remove that which he deems bad; and further, since that which we, in accordance with reason, deem good or bad, necessarily is good or bad; it follows that men, in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily do only such things as are necessarily good for human nature, and consequently for each individual man; in other words, such things as are in harmony with each man's nature. Therefore, men in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily live always in harmony one with another. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.--There is no individual thing in nature, which is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason. For that thing is to man most useful, which is most in harmony with his nature that is, obviously, man. But man acts absolutely according to the laws of his nature, when he lives in obedience to reason, and to this extent only is always necessarily in harmony with the nature of another man wherefore among individual things nothing is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason. Q.E.D.
Corollary II.--As every man seeks most that which is useful to him, so are men most useful one to another. For the more a man seeks what is useful to him and endeavours to preserve himself, the more is he endowed with virtue, or, what is the same thing, the more is he endowed with power to act according to the laws of his own nature, that is to live in obedience to reason. But men are most in natural harmony, when they live in obedience to reason therefore men will be most useful one to another, when each seeks most that which is useful to him. Q.E.D." Spinoza - Ethics
Proof.--In so far as men are assailed by emotions that are passions, they can be different in nature, and at variance one with another. But, men are only said to be active, in so far as they act in obedience to reason; therefore, whatsoever follows from human nature in so far as it is defined by reason must be understood solely through human nature as its proximate cause. But, since every man by the laws of his nature desires that which he deems good, and endeavours to remove that which he deems bad; and further, since that which we, in accordance with reason, deem good or bad, necessarily is good or bad; it follows that men, in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily do only such things as are necessarily good for human nature, and consequently for each individual man; in other words, such things as are in harmony with each man's nature. Therefore, men in so far as they live in obedience to reason, necessarily live always in harmony one with another. Q.E.D.
Corollary I.--There is no individual thing in nature, which is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason. For that thing is to man most useful, which is most in harmony with his nature that is, obviously, man. But man acts absolutely according to the laws of his nature, when he lives in obedience to reason, and to this extent only is always necessarily in harmony with the nature of another man wherefore among individual things nothing is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason. Q.E.D.
Corollary II.--As every man seeks most that which is useful to him, so are men most useful one to another. For the more a man seeks what is useful to him and endeavours to preserve himself, the more is he endowed with virtue, or, what is the same thing, the more is he endowed with power to act according to the laws of his own nature, that is to live in obedience to reason. But men are most in natural harmony, when they live in obedience to reason therefore men will be most useful one to another, when each seeks most that which is useful to him. Q.E.D." Spinoza - Ethics
Morals and Duty.
"To secure one's own happiness is a duty, at least indirectly; for discontent with one's condition, under a pressure of many anxieties and amidst unsatisfied wants, might easily become a great temptation to transgression of duty. But here again, without looking to duty, all men have already the strongest and most intimate inclination to happiness, because it is just in this idea that all inclinations are combined in one total. But the precept of happiness is often of such a sort that it greatly interferes with some inclinations, and yet a man cannot form any definite and certain conception of the sum of satisfaction of all of them which is called happiness. It is not then to be wondered at that a single inclination, definite both as to what it promises and as to the time within which it can be gratified, is often able to overcome such a fluctuating idea, and that a gouty patient, for instance, can choose to enjoy what he likes, and to suffer what he may, since, according to his calculation, on this occasion at least, be has not sacrificed the enjoyment of the present moment to a possibly mistaken expectation of a happiness which is supposed to be found in health. But even in this case, if the general desire for happiness did not influence his will, and supposing that in his particular case health was not a necessary element in this calculation, there yet remains in this, as in all other cases, this law, namely, that he should promote his happiness not from inclination but from duty, and by this would his conduct first acquire true moral worth. to understand those passages of Scripture also in which we are commanded to love our neighbour, even our enemy. For love, as an affection, cannot be commanded, but beneficence for duty's sake may; even though we are not impelled to it by any inclination — nay, are even repelled by a natural and unconquerable aversion. This is practical love and not pathological — a love which is seated in the will, and not in the propensions of sense — in principles of action and not of tender sympathy; and it is this love alone which can be commanded. The second proposition is: That an action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely on the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire. It is clear from what precedes that the purposes which we may have in view in our actions, or their effects regarded as ends and springs of the will, cannot give to actions any unconditional or moral worth." Immanuel Kant - Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals
- Let's talk alignments320 votes
- Lawful Good9.69%
- Lawful Neutral5.94%
- Lawful Evil3.13%
- Neutral Good23.44%
- True Neutral11.56%
- Neutral Evil5.00%
- Chaotic Good24.38%
- Chaotic Neutral12.19%
- Chaotic Evil4.69%
Post edited by Zafiro on
3
Comments
Apparently a chaotic evil person is like a demon, completely and utter incomprehensibly evil and unable to cooperate with anyone, but a chaotic good person is able to cooperate with anyone.
Thats not capitalism. Capitalism is were you make a product that your customers need and serve them well so you can get repeat business. You work for the betterment of your costumers and its in your own self interest to do so since your making a profit. Working for your own betterment first is more a gangsters philosophy. Its a common misconception about capitalism.
But I digress, back on topic. Since I tend to play rangers I find Chaotic Good suit me well. Make sense for this type to work with some evil characters if their goals are the same and I tend to use mix alignment parties.
P.S. Some may humanity has two good innates: the figther, the heroe of deeds, and the sufferer, the martyr. The first ones fight for an ideal while the second, suffer for the same ideal. The Heroes are combative and The Saints reflexiv.
Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral?
http://writingiseasier.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/batman-alignment-chart.jpg
And he to me: This miserable way
is taken by the sorry souls of those
who lived without disgrace and without praise.
They now commingle with the coward angels,
the company of those who were not rebels
nor faithful to their God, but stood apart.
The heavens, that their beauty not be lessened,
have cast them out, nor will deep Hell receive them
even the wicked cannot glory in them.
I don't know about Hell, but I may think Neutrality is actually worse than Evil.
Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal.There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought.
Not by vegetation, or senses driven by eating, drinking, having sex; human happines has to have a human principle, "exercising thought" as rational beings.
As for the game, Good vs Evil is really more Altruistic vs Egoistic.
Bascially if you are Lawful the code of conduct can be a personal code, which what I think happens in the case of Batman. In fact Batman is in many ways the quintessential Lawful Good character. He has lines that he absolutely will not cross (such as killing), and is trying to fix society to a point he his no longer needed.
I think a problem arises with something I like to call lawful stupid, which is when someone plays (often a paladin!), their lawful good character quite aggressively with only a superficial understand of what lawful actually means. This can often be quite disruptive in parties.
I like to play Paladins myself, and I have often surprised parties I have been in with my attitude. I have always played Paladins that seek to lead through example not preaching, and they always run on a code of personal honor rather than societal. So when a character in his party steals something they often ask "aren't you going to stop me" to which the response is usally "of course not, it's not my place to dictate how you act, I believe what you have done is wrong, but that is your choice to make". What I would usually then do is seek out the person who had been stolen from, explain the situation, and offer recompense from my own coffers with usually a little extra, assuring them that the person who had commited the theft is basically a good person, but is not quite all the way there yet. Besides usually in the fantasy environments we often game in, with poverty and such, thefts commited to meet basic needs such as to provide food, shelter and the like aren't usually the problem in his code, it is usually greed that is the problem. So someone stealing out of greed, or hoarding wealth out of greed is usually the greater problem.
DnD Theology and morality really only "works" because we "just go with it"- everyone knows it doesn't stand up very well by itself!
I see myself as ideologically opposed to capitalism, though I'm tainted by the world I live in: tempted into both buying a desktop, laptop and tablet. But life really is about sharing, about enjoying nature, about restraining yourself so that other persons and species may live, fulfillment in life is found in doing things that make others happy. And as many laws are evil, and some are good, you should take the middle road and judge laws by what is right and just, what betters people and what helps the most needy and vulnerable of people, peoples and species. Good being more important than either law or anarchy, I vote for Neutral Good.
It's in being there for others, be they human, animal, plant or ecosystem, that we find fulfillment.