I would consider myself Chaotic Good. I prefer to stay within boundaries of lawfulness but when some rule is so stupid that it actually *prevents* good things from being done, then screw that rule. I am going to do what I am convinced is right and just for everyone in the situation.
Isn't that the definition of Neutral Good?
Yeah, @Quartz is defining a trait that could be claimed by either NG or CG really. The separating feature here is that a neutral good character is willing to work with the law in the long run as long as things aren't already so unjust they are out of hand. A chaotic good person is rarely willing to work with the law and actively seeks to undermine it for any reason, but especially if it is unjust.
One dimension to alignment that always bugged me are the races that under alignment list something like:
Red Dragon Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil
My problem is this: if bieng good or evil is a choice (animals are neutral because they act on instinct, with no comprehension of sapient morality), but something is evil by its nature, and hence has no choice, how can it be trully evil?
One dimension to alignment that always bugged me are the races that under alignment list something like:
Red Dragon Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil
My problem is this: if bieng good or evil is a choice (animals are neutral because they act on instinct, with no comprehension of sapient morality), but something is evil by its nature, and hence has no choice, how can it be trully evil?
Well one might say that any choice you make is a result the the effect of your genetics and your environment on your mind, and that free will isn't even a concept that makes sense in theory.
@Samiel, can't say I see any evil in nature, or evil nature, you can't blame a crocodile for biting your leg off. And what if an evil would really be there, would it kill everything, and then what, revive it and kill it again? Hm.. I guess it can enslave people.
As for men, well, Blaise Pascal said: “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.”
I found this to be said by many others before, and I agree that evil/bad actions comes from ignorance, an error that comes from agitated senses, or poor understading of your actions, feels like everything breaks down do one question: what do you want?
@lmaoboat, as we never use moral terms to talk about animal behaviour, only human behaviour is to be marked morally. And Free Will is exactly why that is.
Well one might say that any choice you make is a result the the effect of your genetics and your environment on your mind, and that free will isn't even a concept that makes sense in theory.
Well, one might say that but I think for the sake of argument most individuals operate on the assumption that they have some internal will that drives them.
Yes, yes. Assumptions are dangerous, but I contend that at least for this thread lets assume that there is a sort of will that is guided by their core being, or soul. This is where alignment comes in: What is in your core? Good or Evil?.
My problem is this: if bieng good or evil is a choice (animals are neutral because they act on instinct, with no comprehension of sapient morality), but something is evil by its nature, and hence has no choice, how can it be trully evil?
Evil as defined by D&D primarily deals with selfishness and self preservation over good which is altruism and community.
In this case I believe that the dragons are this way as they are a manifestation of some evil that even goes beyond their own wills.Because dragons are unnatural, greedy hoarders who go out of their way to cause wanton destruction and misery. Perhaps they don't have much choice in the matter as @lmaoboat suggested, but for the purposes of D&D the alignment grid is a convenient way for us to determine general disposition which in turn typically predicts behavior.
The bottom line is: D&D assigns dragons to CE because of the way they, as a rule, behave and what drives them, not because they necessarily choose evil things.
@Zafiro - Of one thing I'm sure: happiness does not mean absolute goodness.
"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
Certainly we seek happiness, and certainly we have the potential for good, but I would argue the exact opposite about human nature left untended. Without work to keep us honest, we are rotten children jealous for eachothers' possessions, squabbling about the most inconsequential of things and murdering each other for the ability to print more monopoly money than someone else.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the OP mention Aristotle, as I found myself in general agreement with Aristotle's ethics. I believe it makes sense to define the good as what makes one happy as a human, or more generally, what everything searches according to its own nature. Evil is what goes against this objective. As such, I believe every one is fundamentally good; they might be misguided though. To me Hitler is not an evil being because I find the notion of an evil being absurd; Hitler is just a deeply misguided good being: he thought it would be good to exterminate an ethnicity (among other things). I don't think he enjoyed doing evil things as being evil; he did evil things believing they were good (hence he was misguided).
There might be people twisted enough to enjoy evil for itself, but there is no pure evil; these people seek the good that there is in this evil: the pleasure they find through it, the self-glorification, etc.; those are good things, even though the means to attain them are wrong.
D&D's morality system shouldn't be taken seriously IMO, it makes the simplistic assumption that altruism is good and egoism is bad, which conflicts with the notion that everyone acts towards their own happiness first and above all. Altruism and egoism are two faces of each person's quest towards happiness, and there is a balance of both to attain.
I also believe both chaotic and lawful alignments are wrong as they place personality and law, respectively, above the good. Both chaotic and lawful characters are misguided as they place tools above the objective. Only Neutral characters can seek the good for itself and above all else. This is part of the reason I don't like Paladins except Keldorn, because he behaves essentially as Neutral Good (I don't view his irrational hatred of Viconia as being "lawful", just retarded).
Therefore I consider myself, as all humans and all things in the universe, as Neutral Good in D&D's definition of Neutral and Aristotle's definition of Good. In D&D's definition of morality (altruism vs egoism), which I find useless, I think all are Neutral - True Neutral. Neither altruism or egoism are searched for themselves, but only insofar as they can bring happiness, and both contribute to a certain extent.
D&D's morality system shouldn't be taken seriously IMO, it makes the simplistic assumption that altruism is good and egoism is bad, which conflicts with the notion that everyone acts towards their own happiness first and above all. Altruism and egoism are two faces of each person's quest towards happiness, and there is a balance of both to attain.
While I disagree with you wholeheartedly on whether or not Hitler, or any of us really, are truly good, I will say that you are definitely right when discussing D&D's system. It is very limited and to find ourselves over identifying with one alignment will probably result in a stunted self-image.
Therefore I consider myself, as all humans and all things in the universe, as Neutral Good in D&D's definition of Neutral and Aristotle's definition of Good. In D&D's definition of morality (altruism vs egoism), which I find useless, I think all are Neutral - True Neutral. Neither altruism or egoism are searched for themselves, but only insofar as they can bring happiness, and both contribute to a certain extent.
While happiness is great, I am unconvinced that it is the thing that defines goodness. If what you are saying is true, and we are all born good, then I have a difficult time realizing that evil could exist at all. Why don't we forgive eachother when we are hurt? Why don't we step out of comfort and help the mentally ill or impoverished? Why do we shoot eachother?
Deep down, perhaps we want to, but if we are not measured equally by our desires and our actions, then we either glorify the spirit or the body in preference over the other. If humans are both spirit and body, one is good and one is bad then we should have them fight and make one kill the other; either the body dies(suicide) or the soul dies (zombie). I contend that both spirit and body are inherently evil and that is why we see so much violence and hatred in the world. Only an outside influence could ever make us right.
Yes, Hitler was misguided, but not by some unfortunate circumstance. No, it was by his evil spirit, wanting safety and security for himself and his people. This desire led him to use his body and others to exercise force on innocent neighbors, ending lives as if they were nothing. What if this brought him infinite happiness? Does that, in the end, make it good? If this cannot be seen as the epitome of evil and evil thought then I don't know what is.
While happiness is great, I am unconvinced that it is the thing that defines goodness. If what you are saying is true, and we are all born good, then I have a difficult time realizing that evil could exist at all. Why don't we forgive each other when we are hurt? Why don't we step out of comfort and help the mentally ill or impoverished? Why do we shoot eachother?
I think moral evil exists because humans are not capable of always making perfect judgements. We like to think we act rationally but we only very partially do so. Some people are particularly screwed up in their heads (i.e. Hitler). Therefore, even though we only want good things, often we choose the wrong means. Or we may even portray as good what is actually horrible.
Yes, Hitler was misguided, but not by some unfortunate circumstance. No, it was by his evil spirit, wanting safety and security for himself and his people. This desire led him to use his body and others to exercise force on innocent neighbors, ending lives as if they were nothing. What if this brought him infinite happiness? Does that, in the end, make it good? If this cannot be seen as the epitome of evil and evil thought then I don't know what is.
I agree that Hitler did evil things; my point is that evil was not his aim, good was. No one wants evil for itself. As you mentioned, he wanted safety and security for himself and his people, which are very good things, but the means he chose to achieve those were obviously very wrong. In the end I think evil boils down to this: choosing the wrong path towards the good. No one wants to get lost on the way to happiness, but many do unfortunately.
I do not think ending lives as if they were nothing can bring anyone real happiness, because it seems eminently contrary to human nature. Conceivably, a species could exist that finds happiness in mass murder of its siblings, (setting aside the question of how this species would survive), and so mass murder would be good for that species. I think some spider females eat their male partner after mating, and that's good because that's what they're supposed to do as that particular species of spiders. Obviously that would be very wrong for humans.
Deep down, perhaps we want to, but if we are not measured equally by our desires and our actions, then we either glorify the spirit or the body in preference over the other. If humans are both spirit and body, one is good and one is bad then we should have them fight and make one kill the other; either the body dies(suicide) or the soul dies (zombie). I contend that both spirit and body are inherently evil and that is why we see so much violence and hatred in the world. Only an outside influence could ever make us right.
I don't think there's such thing as a "soul" in humans but that would be another discussion. It's absurd in my terms to say anyone's intrinsically evil, as that would imply this person searches his own unhappiness and utter annihilation, which is exactly the reverse of what we observe: all want to be happy and preserve their existence. Those who lose hope of being happy usually end their existence through suicide, which shows that happiness is the point of existence. But I think we just have different definitions. And I'm tired and this will probably go nowhere. But anyway thanks for the interesting discussion.
I'd say someone who kills one person for no other reason than sadistic pleasure would be more "evil" than Hitler. I don't think the effect of one's actions affects the morality of it much, because someone could be the most twisted, evil person ever, but be incredibly incompetent.
to be completely truthful everyone is chaotic evil. Why? because no one does anything if they wont gain something weather that's a good feeling because you did something nice or you shot someone to take there money. The good person wouldn't do good things if it didn't make them feel good in some way wile the guy who shot someone wouldn't have done it if he didn't have something to gain from it. Its nature instinct the same instincts that make people do bad things make others do good things so everyone is out for themselves everyone is working for there own personal gain therefor no good nor evil
to be completely truthful everyone is chaotic evil. Why? because no one does anything if they wont gain something weather that's a good feeling because you did something nice or you shot someone to take there money. The good person wouldn't do good things if it didn't make them feel good in some way wile the guy who shot someone wouldn't have done it if he didn't have something to gain from it. Its nature instinct the same instincts that make people do bad things make others do good things so everyone is out for themselves everyone is working for there own personal gain therefor no good nor evil
And if people did do good things for some magical, non-biological reason, would be able to tell the difference? If people didn't do something for a logical or emotional reason, they'd be doing things spontaneously, and there' be no "free will". Since acting on emotional or logical impulses is both indistinct from the "real" thing, and because it couldn't be any other way, I don't think that pointing it out makes good or evil any more equal.
@Rajick Doing something for your own benifit is not evil. We could obtain biscuits from the biscuit dwarves by being nice to them and running errands or by stealing them - one of those options is evil, the other isn't (for the sake of simplicity can we say stealing is evil for this example!).
I view evil as malicious intent to harm, exploit, or dominate others. Indifference to same is basically evil too. I view good as behavior that supports a pro-social environment, and helps both oneself and others realize their best healthy functioning--which I personally believe involves a high level of personal independence/judgment/responsibility from individuals.
Anyway, self-interest is not evil in and of itself. It distills down to how harmful the behavior is.
to be completely truthful everyone is chaotic evil. Why? because no one does anything if they wont gain something weather that's a good feeling because you did something nice or you shot someone to take there money. The good person wouldn't do good things if it didn't make them feel good in some way wile the guy who shot someone wouldn't have done it if he didn't have something to gain from it. Its nature instinct the same instincts that make people do bad things make others do good things so everyone is out for themselves everyone is working for there own personal gain therefor no good nor evil
I cannot agree with your reasoning as you have incorrectly equated the self with evil. Of course with every human act it is impossible to make a choice without the self, but it does not follow that all acts have to be selfish. The self is certainly always involved, but often we identify our self with things and people outside of self, and thus we can prioritise another persons well being ahead of our own. Either in small ways or right up to someone jumping in front of a car to push a child out of the way, only to be killed instantly before they even have the chance to allow the self to bask in the warm glow of having done a good thing!
@Rajick Doing something for your own benifit is not evil. We could obtain biscuits from the biscuit dwarves by being nice to them and running errands or by stealing them - one of those options is evil, the other isn't (for the sake of simplicity can we say stealing is evil for this example!).
ok your right but end result you still got some biscuits. I'm not saying that people don't do good what I'm saying is no person does anything unless they will receive some kind of reward from it which is greedy as hell but the truth. I'm not saying that one thing is better then another I'm saying its all based on instincts some people would see the biscuits and say "hmmm.... I want biscuits maybe if I helped them they would give me some" and other people would say "screw the biscuit dwarves I'm taking that s**t" ether way you both got the biscuits. Good and evil are things made up by people and our intelligence but the fact is they don't exist they have no real tangible connection to our lives. Everything is driven by instinct we just think about a lot of stuff and turned some of our instinct driven actions into evil things. And unfortunately I could say doing things for personal gain for every alignment and if you go to the inner workings of the characters under those alignments that would be all there is no good no evil just doing things for personal gain.
I cannot agree with your reasoning as you have incorrectly equated the self with evil. Of course with every human act it is impossible to make a choice without the self, but it does not follow that all acts have to be selfish. The self is certainly always involved, but often we identify our self with things and people outside of self, and thus we can prioritise another persons well being ahead of our own. Either in small ways or right up to someone jumping in front of a car to push a child out of the way, only to be killed instantly before they even have the chance to allow the self to bask in the warm glow of having done a good thing!
Well that example is another example of instinct we all have within us a driving force to protect the species thats why we breed and thats why a lot of people have died trying to protect other people because deep down all instincts stem from a need to protect/grow the species. And unless that guy/girl jumping in front of a car to push a child our of the way wanted to die I don't think he/she was planing on it going that way but they did it. Me personally I would only do this if it was my son or daughter but thats just cuz I'm an ass and think more people need to die
The core human is just as any animal, self serving and uncaring for others. Anything good or bad that we end up doing is largely due to what experiences we have had and how just our personal brain happen to handle certain synapses. I'm not chaotic good because I want to be but because it makes me feel good and anything else makes me feel bad. Thus I am no better than a evil person as they'd generally just follow what makes them feel good as well. Apart from dysfunctions due to genetics or bad experiences this is true for all humans, just that what makes one feel good and another bad is seemingly random. Free will is a joke when we have no control over what our own brain will reward or punish us for.
How about just nicely asking for some biscuits? And as long as we all love eachother we all get some. Alot of people bend the rules untill they fall as victim and cry out loud for justice and everything. Anyway, " sooner or later God'll cut you down."
@Rajick I agree with you if you are saying that the concepts of good and evil are artificial. Even choosing to accept them, they aren't absolutes and conceptually differ through time and across cultures.
What I was trying to say is that we can serve ourselves but go about it in a good way, the selfish nature can be served whilst improving the lot of those around us i.e not at their expense. Which I am sure you are aware will also increase our own lot, gaining us allies, good will.
I suppose by my definition good/evil is identified by a presence/absence of compassion.
@Six I think you're doing animals a big disservice there. "Self-serving and uncaring" is not factually accurate as quite a few animals have been shown to demonstrate non-kin empathy and altruistic traits.
While good/bad are relative concepts there is decent evidence that altruism is a beneficial trait that has been selected for by evolution in humans. It boils down to this: You help your family group and genes that are similar to yours are more likely to survive. Humans have a natural group size of somewhere in the 150-200 region so not all of them will be direct family but are likeley related, so it makes sense to help anyone in your group, regardless of being a close relative or not.
It depends whether you see good/evil on the same axis as WoTC, who seem to equate it to altruism/selfishness.
@Rajick I agree with you if you are saying that the concepts of good and evil are artificial. Even choosing to accept them, they aren't absolutes and conceptually differ through time and across cultures.
What I was trying to say is that we can serve ourselves but go about it in a good way, the selfish nature can be served whilst improving the lot of those around us i.e not at their expense. Which I am sure you are aware will also increase our own lot, gaining us allies, good will.
I suppose by my definition good/evil is identified by a presence/absence of compassion.
I meant the core of animals as well as that of humans though easily misread I see now, or maybe rather mistyped. As in when born there is only the survival instinct and not much more. Don't think anyone could argue that smarter animals lack basic feelings. As far as I know the one major thing animals lack is self awareness, though I wouldn't be surprised if some species proved that wrong.
Animals have feelings having or not having feelings doesn't change anything about good or evil. Feelings are genetic trait built from generations of evolution and influenced by ones surroundings so in that regard almost all animals have feelings other then maybe reptiles fish and amphibians.
@Rajick, of course, like I said it before - we never use moral terms to talk about animal behaviour, only human behaviour is to be marked morally - I just think that bear is cute:)
I'm Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral; I can't figure out which one I fit more into. To me there is no such thing as good and evil, what is labed good and whats evil varys with culture and time period. To me what seperates the civilized from the barbarins is law/order, even the most courpeted goverments are better than total anarchy.
Comments
Red Dragon
Alignment: Always Chaotic Evil
My problem is this: if bieng good or evil is a choice (animals are neutral because they act on instinct, with no comprehension of sapient morality), but something is evil by its nature, and hence has no choice, how can it be trully evil?
As for men, well, Blaise Pascal said: “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.”
I found this to be said by many others before, and I agree that evil/bad actions comes from ignorance, an error that comes from agitated senses, or poor understading of your actions, feels like everything breaks down do one question: what do you want?
@lmaoboat, as we never use moral terms to talk about animal behaviour, only human behaviour is to be marked morally. And Free Will is exactly why that is.
Yes, yes. Assumptions are dangerous, but I contend that at least for this thread lets assume that there is a sort of will that is guided by their core being, or soul. This is where alignment comes in: What is in your core? Good or Evil?.
Evil as defined by D&D primarily deals with selfishness and self preservation over good which is altruism and community.
In this case I believe that the dragons are this way as they are a manifestation of some evil that even goes beyond their own wills.Because dragons are unnatural, greedy hoarders who go out of their way to cause wanton destruction and misery. Perhaps they don't have much choice in the matter as @lmaoboat suggested, but for the purposes of D&D the alignment grid is a convenient way for us to determine general disposition which in turn typically predicts behavior.
The bottom line is: D&D assigns dragons to CE because of the way they, as a rule, behave and what drives them, not because they necessarily choose evil things.
There might be people twisted enough to enjoy evil for itself, but there is no pure evil; these people seek the good that there is in this evil: the pleasure they find through it, the self-glorification, etc.; those are good things, even though the means to attain them are wrong.
D&D's morality system shouldn't be taken seriously IMO, it makes the simplistic assumption that altruism is good and egoism is bad, which conflicts with the notion that everyone acts towards their own happiness first and above all. Altruism and egoism are two faces of each person's quest towards happiness, and there is a balance of both to attain.
I also believe both chaotic and lawful alignments are wrong as they place personality and law, respectively, above the good. Both chaotic and lawful characters are misguided as they place tools above the objective. Only Neutral characters can seek the good for itself and above all else. This is part of the reason I don't like Paladins except Keldorn, because he behaves essentially as Neutral Good (I don't view his irrational hatred of Viconia as being "lawful", just retarded).
Therefore I consider myself, as all humans and all things in the universe, as Neutral Good in D&D's definition of Neutral and Aristotle's definition of Good. In D&D's definition of morality (altruism vs egoism), which I find useless, I think all are Neutral - True Neutral. Neither altruism or egoism are searched for themselves, but only insofar as they can bring happiness, and both contribute to a certain extent.
While happiness is great, I am unconvinced that it is the thing that defines goodness. If what you are saying is true, and we are all born good, then I have a difficult time realizing that evil could exist at all. Why don't we forgive eachother when we are hurt? Why don't we step out of comfort and help the mentally ill or impoverished? Why do we shoot eachother?
Deep down, perhaps we want to, but if we are not measured equally by our desires and our actions, then we either glorify the spirit or the body in preference over the other. If humans are both spirit and body, one is good and one is bad then we should have them fight and make one kill the other; either the body dies(suicide) or the soul dies (zombie). I contend that both spirit and body are inherently evil and that is why we see so much violence and hatred in the world. Only an outside influence could ever make us right.
Yes, Hitler was misguided, but not by some unfortunate circumstance. No, it was by his evil spirit, wanting safety and security for himself and his people. This desire led him to use his body and others to exercise force on innocent neighbors, ending lives as if they were nothing. What if this brought him infinite happiness? Does that, in the end, make it good? If this cannot be seen as the epitome of evil and evil thought then I don't know what is.
I do not think ending lives as if they were nothing can bring anyone real happiness, because it seems eminently contrary to human nature. Conceivably, a species could exist that finds happiness in mass murder of its siblings, (setting aside the question of how this species would survive), and so mass murder would be good for that species. I think some spider females eat their male partner after mating, and that's good because that's what they're supposed to do as that particular species of spiders. Obviously that would be very wrong for humans. I don't think there's such thing as a "soul" in humans but that would be another discussion. It's absurd in my terms to say anyone's intrinsically evil, as that would imply this person searches his own unhappiness and utter annihilation, which is exactly the reverse of what we observe: all want to be happy and preserve their existence. Those who lose hope of being happy usually end their existence through suicide, which shows that happiness is the point of existence. But I think we just have different definitions. And I'm tired and this will probably go nowhere. But anyway thanks for the interesting discussion.
Anyway, self-interest is not evil in and of itself. It distills down to how harmful the behavior is.
As an internet discussion becomes longer, the chances of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1. And it only took 8 pages
I'm not chaotic good because I want to be but because it makes me feel good and anything else makes me feel bad. Thus I am no better than a evil person as they'd generally just follow what makes them feel good as well.
Apart from dysfunctions due to genetics or bad experiences this is true for all humans, just that what makes one feel good and another bad is seemingly random.
Free will is a joke when we have no control over what our own brain will reward or punish us for.
What I was trying to say is that we can serve ourselves but go about it in a good way, the selfish nature can be served whilst improving the lot of those around us i.e not at their expense. Which I am sure you are aware will also increase our own lot, gaining us allies, good will.
I suppose by my definition good/evil is identified by a presence/absence of compassion.
While good/bad are relative concepts there is decent evidence that altruism is a beneficial trait that has been selected for by evolution in humans. It boils down to this: You help your family group and genes that are similar to yours are more likely to survive. Humans have a natural group size of somewhere in the 150-200 region so not all of them will be direct family but are likeley related, so it makes sense to help anyone in your group, regardless of being a close relative or not.
It depends whether you see good/evil on the same axis as WoTC, who seem to equate it to altruism/selfishness.
And you people think they have no feelings, shame on you.
I like how not just the mother lioness cares about her cub, but more others lions too.