PDA

View Full Version : Alignments and Objectivism



graymachine
2009-04-05, 06:29 PM
I'm in a campaign in which the DM views the alignment system through the mores of objectivism. For example, I play a Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge that is Neutral Good and am able to maintain my alignment through my actions, those being bring a measurable change to the world couched in what would be considered "good." While I've not had the time to read objectivism throughly, I understand the basic concepts. Therefore, what would be a breakdown of the alignments from an objectivist perspective, i.e. what consitutes Lawful Good? Chaotic Evil? Or True Neutral for that matter?

Pie Guy
2009-04-05, 06:35 PM
Opinions of alignment vary hugely from one to another, so here's my understanding:

Lawful Good: Let's help the villagers fend off the Orc attack!
Chaotic Evil: Let's ally with the orcs and then stab them in the back after the slaughter!
True Neutral: Let's go bowling!

Myrmex
2009-04-05, 06:55 PM
Opinions of alignment vary hugely from one to another, so here's my understanding:

Lawful Good: Let's help the villagers fend off the Orc attack!
Chaotic Evil: Let's ally with the orcs and then stab them in the back after the slaughter!
True Neutral: Let's go bowling!

In classic terms, yes. But in objectivist terms?

The villagers wouldn't get help. The lawful good thing to do would be going bowling. The lawful evil thing would be to help them, and killing them would still be chaotic evil.

Translating classic Alignment to an objectivist world view:
Lawful good = lawful evil
neutral good = neutral evil
true neutral = lawful good
neutral evil = lawful good
lawful evil = lawful good
chaotic evil = chaotic evil

Roughly. Objectivism is all about helping yourself and being selfish and hating everybody and putting on eyeliner... oh, no that's teenage angst. Sorry, sometimes I confuse the two. :smallwink:

Faulty
2009-04-05, 07:05 PM
Wait, are we talking about Ayn Rand's Objectivism or the idea of morals as objective, universal concepts?

Zincorium
2009-04-05, 07:12 PM
I'd say it's safe to assume the latter, as the former is well beyond the scope of any sane game.

Utilitarianism is pretty much the watchword here: who am I helping, and by how much? If you're helping others, improving their situation, you are objectively being good. Doing so according to the rules of a specific society tends towards lawful, behaving exactly as those rules say is as far as you can get towards being lawful. Disregarding rules during your accomplishment of an objective is thus chaotic, and helping yourself rather than others is going towards evil.

Primarily, this is about removing the vague flavor and intent that compose the standard alignment systems- it's not about whether you were trying to help, it's about whether you did. Incompetent good is just as evil as methodical bastardry.

thegurullamen
2009-04-05, 07:13 PM
Assuming it's Randian Objectivism, just swap the -neutrals with the -goods. Looking out for yourself leads to a better world and looking out for others is a fool's errand that leads to a society full of codependent people.

The existence of evil is questionable.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-04-05, 07:22 PM
Play a CE character who undermines true good by randomly helping people while expecting no reward. A dangerous altruist of that nature could easily upset realization of the Enlighted Self-Interest ideal.

Keld Denar
2009-04-05, 07:25 PM
The existence of evil is questionable.

(Heard being said in front of a rampaging Balor)

Man: Your existance is questionable! Therefore, I disbelieve you!

*slurt* *squish* *splat*

Balor: MMmmmmmmm souls! The other white meat!

Faulty
2009-04-05, 07:29 PM
I'd say it's safe to assume the latter, as the former is well beyond the scope of any sane game.

Utilitarianism is pretty much the watchword here: who am I helping, and by how much? If you're helping others, improving their situation, you are objectively being good. Doing so according to the rules of a specific society tends towards lawful, behaving exactly as those rules say is as far as you can get towards being lawful. Disregarding rules during your accomplishment of an objective is thus chaotic, and helping yourself rather than others is going towards evil.

Primarily, this is about removing the vague flavor and intent that compose the standard alignment systems- it's not about whether you were trying to help, it's about whether you did. Incompetent good is just as evil as methodical bastardry.

Well, I mean a campaign world's ethics can be teleological or deontological and still be objective. Both Kantian ethics and Utilitarian ethics, for example, aim towards universal ethics. Which you're dealing with is really up to the DM.


Play a CE character who undermines true good by randomly helping people while expecting no reward. A dangerous altruist of that nature could easily upset realization of the Enlighted Self-Interest ideal.

Communists are Lawful Evil!!!

Starbuck_II
2009-04-05, 07:35 PM
There was a 50% chance that it was a illusion.

Semidi
2009-04-05, 07:39 PM
Note: I am heavily critical of objectivism and think it is by far one of the stupidest philosophies of the 20th centuries. However, let's at least try to treat it charitably.

Objectivism believes in RATIONAL self-interest. Rand describes rational as having several virtues: independence of mind, integrity, and be just (fair transactions).

Altruism is looked upon as immoral because it exploits the powerful for the sake of those without power.

Rand would think of a lot of evil actions (as defined by D&D) as evil. For instance, taking something without having fair exchange. However, giving something without fair exchange would also be looked upon as immoral.

So if I had to make a guess it would be something like:

Original D&D ethics -> Randian Ethics
Good -> evil (for those extreme egalitarians) to neutral.
Neutral -> Good
Evil -> Evil

The law -> chaos isn't as important. However, I think everyone would have to be lawful to follow Randian principles.

It's kind of difficult to do because Randian ethics are kind of alien to what is generally considered ethical.

If it's ethical objectivism (as in universal ethical truths)

Really, just take your favorite moral theory and base your world after it. D&D as it currently stands seems deontological, not consequentialist. However, I don't really know if the creators were that interested in ethics to make it a cohesive ethical theory.

Faulty
2009-04-05, 07:42 PM
Alignment is only good for spells and DR, anyway. :smalltongue:

KillianHawkeye
2009-04-05, 08:07 PM
An objective Alignment system (the standard in D&D) means that any action you take can be categorized as Good/Neutral/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, regardless of how the person committing the act feels about it, or their general understanding of the situation. Basically, Good acts are Good, Evil acts are Evil, etc. This system does not take into account motivations for acts. There is no such thing as "the Greater Good".

When considering the Alignment system and trying to classify the Alignment of a person or action, I find it helpful to seperate the Good <--> Evil axis from the Law <--> Chaos axis.

The Moral Axis
Good: Good people generally help others, providing aid and comfort even to those they do not know and even for nothing in return. They protect the weak from the strong, defend Good, and fight against the rise of Evil. They usually accept surrenders and take prisoners alive.

Neutral: Neutral people usually act a little bit like Good people, but in a more limited way or on a lesser scale. They generally like Good better than Evil, but they can't or won't take an active role in spreading Good to others. They usually act Good towards people they know and care about (because they have a personal stake in their wellfare), while ignoring the plights of strangers.

Evil: Evil people, for whatever reason, seek to do harm to others. They may kill or steal, ruin people's trust or confidence, cause pain and sadness, or damage people's wealth or reputation. Most Evil people still provide for their loved-ones in one way or another, but often hurt or control them in some way as well. They prey on the weak and innocent.

The Ethical Axis
Lawful: Lawful people crave order, stability, and regularity, and usually respect authority. They frequently live according to a certain set of principles, whether it is a personal code, a religion, or the laws of the land. They may consider honor and loyalty more important than their own desires, or value the stability of the community over personal freedoms. They protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Neutral: Neutral people enjoy the benefits of a stable society, but aren't compelled to promote order and lawfulness unless their own livelihoods are at stake. They follow whatever laws of their church or country which do them some good or are not too troublesome to obey, but may be willing to break the law when it is advantageous or if they believe it won't hurt anyone.

Chaotic: Chaotic people desire freedom of choice and individuality regardless of the cost, and frequently chafe under rigid rulership and strict authority. They usually don't outright refuse to follow rules, but will do so only if it suits them and are willing to use unconventional means to accomplish their goals. They may follow their whims or their hearts, or actively seek to disrupt society and spread chaos and disorder.

---===---

So for LG, LE, CG, and CE, you can combine some of the traits of each alignment. Note that each alignment contains a wide variety of possibilities. Also note that alignment does not dictate personality.

You can have Evil thoughts and still be Good. You can hate your boss and still be Lawful. You can give candy to babies and still be Evil. You can support your king and still be Chaotic.

Semidi
2009-04-05, 08:19 PM
An objective Alignment system (the standard in D&D) means that any action you take can be categorized as Good/Neutral/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic, regardless of how the person committing the act feels about it, or their general understanding of the situation. Basically, Good acts are Good, Evil acts are Evil, etc. This system does not take into account motivations for acts. There is no such thing as "the Greater Good".

That's an objective deontological alignment system, not just ethical objectivism, it ignores consequentialism. A utilitarian is still an ethical objectivist. The objective standard is that the action taken must be the one that will maximize happiness. This is compared to thinking that actions are good or bad based upon the actions themselves.

Side note: your ethical and moral axis doesn't make much sense. Ethical and moral mean just about the same thing (depending on the philosopher of ethics). Ethics isn't totally about law and chaos (though that could be a factor).

KillianHawkeye
2009-04-05, 08:26 PM
That's an objective deontological alignment system, not just ethical objectivism, it ignores consequentialism. A utilitarian is still an ethical objectivist. The objective standard is that the action taken must be the one that will maximize happiness. This is compared to thinking that actions are good or bad based upon the actions themselves.

I have no idea what you just said. I'm not a Philosphy major. :smallwink: In my defense, I started writing that post after the first response to this thread and it took a few minutes, and I figured it was a basic question about objective (as opposed to subjective) alignments.


Side note: your ethical and moral axis doesn't make much sense. Ethical and moral mean just about the same thing (depending on the philosopher of ethics). Ethics isn't totally about law and chaos (though that could be a factor).

While I know that the words "ethical" and "moral" have very similar meanings IRL, my usage corresponds to the terms as they are used in D&D.

Anselm
2009-04-05, 09:03 PM
I think it's safe to say that the OP is talking about an alignment system based on Randian Objectivism, not merely an alignment system that is said to be objective.

As I see it, the way to go about this would be to redefine "good" to mean "in accordance with the principles of Ayn Rand", and "evil" to mean "in opposition to the principles of Ayn Rand". The axis of law and chaos is unaffected, though unless your gameworld radically differs from our world such that Rand's principles come entirely naturally to everyone, it's likely that lawful people will have an easier time accepting this code, so "Chaotic Randian" will be uncommon. Randian behaviour, "good", means acting entirely in your own self-interest within a certain code of honesty. Anti-Randian acts, acts of "evil", might be acts that go against that code of honesty, but the category of "evil" also includes acts done for the good of others or in the interests of an entire group.

I have to say, though, that if -- as seems not unlikely -- this idea came about as a result of your DM's interest in the real-world political philosophy, this sounds like a massively bad idea. I hold (entirely different) views which make the standard D&D alignment system seem fairly abhorrent to me. Were I to run a D&D game, the solution to that would be to drop the alignment system, allowing the characters to act freely and suffer merely consequences, not judgements, from the gaming system. Choosing instead to construct a rigid system of alignment to suit the DM's own political philosophy seems like a recipe for a bad, soapbox-like game (especially since it's obvious that you're not all born-again Objectivists).

If this is just a random idea to enhance game flavour, and your DM might just as well have chosen communism, fascism, anarchism, or any other ideology which has interesting implications if accepted -- carry on, though I still think it's a bit of a weird idea. You can explore a world dominated by any ideology you like without first forcing that ideology to fit into an arbitrary 3x3 table constructed for a gaming system.

kjones
2009-04-05, 09:32 PM
The D&D Alignment system is... defined. It's not well-defined, but it's defined, and it doesn't mesh well with Randian Objectivism. If your DM wants to use Randian ethics, then he's no longer using the D&D alignment system, and should stop pretending as such.

graymachine
2009-04-05, 09:36 PM
To clarify, I meant the Randian philosophy. However, for explanation, the game doesn't take this modification to center stage. In fact, the DM started the game stating that, "the alignment system will be mostly ignored."

It has become somewhat of an issue, though, with my character. Him, in keeping with the philosophy of the Ur-Priest class, fully plans to overthrow/kill the gods. Yet, he retains a "good" alignment. The reason for this, at least to my understanding, is that they fail in the honesty department. They have endless cosmic power but they choose to set up arbitrary systems of ego-inflation that does them no good and even less to the world they have a supposed interest in helping.

My character desires power and divinity for himself, which will in turn benefit everyone, at least as he sees it. Does the most aravice desire (godhood) with side-hopes of it benefiting the world fulfill a Randian sense of good?

chiasaur11
2009-04-05, 09:44 PM
Objectivist, eh?

Make sure at least one guy is a faceless detective in a snappy blue suit.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-04-05, 09:51 PM
My character desires power and divinity for himself, which will in turn benefit everyone, at least as he sees it. Does the most aravice desire (godhood) with side-hopes of it benefiting the world fulfill a Randian sense of good?
This might sound like a cop-out answer, but it depends on your DM. If he says 'yes', then it does. If he says 'no', then it doesn't. You need to ask your DM directly.

graymachine
2009-04-05, 10:04 PM
The D&D Alignment system is... defined. It's not well-defined, but it's defined, and it doesn't mesh well with Randian Objectivism. If your DM wants to use Randian ethics, then he's no longer using the D&D alignment system, and should stop pretending as such.

Well, I certainly wasn't wanting to offend the high morality of the D&D alignment system... :smallconfused:

kjones
2009-04-05, 10:26 PM
Well, I certainly wasn't wanting to offend the high morality of the D&D alignment system... :smallconfused:

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. What I meant was that if you're completely redefining the alignment system, there's no reason to frame it in terms of the D&D alignment system, which is, when all is said and done, not that great. (What alignment is Batman again? Or Dr. Horrible?)

If you're going to throw out the alignment system, throw it out.

But all this is secondary to the question of your Ur-Priest... bring it up with your DM. Since this alignment system is pretty much his concoction, he's probably the only one that really understands its bounds.

Semidi
2009-04-05, 10:33 PM
Does the most aravice desire (godhood) with side-hopes of it benefiting the world fulfill a Randian sense of good?

To be considered good by Rand he must get Godhood A) Honestly (not stealing it for instance) and through free exchange, B) independently and from his own work (not simply getting it as charity. Others can help him, but they must all be acting in their own self-interest), and C) he must want to benefit the world by instituting objectivism and not simply giving out altruistic charity (think laissez faire capitalism/extreme libertarianism).

So yeah, I don't see any reason why it couldn't work if played right.

hamishspence
2009-04-06, 01:31 PM
Objectivism has its flaws, but there are some points where it meshes with D&D alignment system quite closely. And some where it heads the opposite direction.

BoED:

Mesh: "An evil act is an evil act. There are no excuses"
"Sacrificing others to save yourself is evil."
"You are not required to help evil people"

Reverse: "Selfish motives make a normally Good act Neutral"
"sacrificing yourself for others is Good"
"Good people should be charitable."

To give an example, both an Objectivist, and a BOED exalted person, given the "is it evil to murder a few people to save the many" would go "It certainly is.- whether or not you are among the many or the few."

the Objectivist equivalent of self-sacrifice is, putting your life on the line, when you think failure to do so would make your life unbearable- the slave fighting for freedom, the husband risking his life to save his wife/children, etc.

also, helping others isn't forbidden- only making your life/happiness significantly worse by doing so is. If your friend is in trouble- you help him, because you value his welfare more than a bit of time and money. But once he's back on his feet, you don't spend your life continuing to help him. "Reciprocal altruism" for the win- help based on the assumption that some day, you will need help in return.

the phrase used in The Virtue of Selfishness was "benevolence is whats owed to intelligent life, by intelligent life" and it went on to say- if a stranger is in danger of their life, and you can help them, without putting yourself at unacceptable risk, you should.

Some forms of charity might be justified on the grounds that "poverty leads to crime and disease- it can be worth it to pay to keep it minimal"

Kalirren
2009-04-06, 03:23 PM
I'm in a campaign in which the DM views the alignment system through the mores of objectivism.

I'm going to articulate a viewpoint that your DM would probably object to, but it deserves to be said anyway. If your DM views the D&D alignment system of Law-Chaos and Good-Evil through the mores of Objectivism, then your DM is making the exact same mental fumble as that Chinese scholar who attempted to understand the historical Jesus through a Buddhist-Confucian framework. The problem is that Randian philosophy, being a product of a different culture and a different time, convolutes the ideas of ethics and morality in an entirely different way than the D&D alignment system does.

The very D&D alignment breakdown comes out of a Viking mentality of adventuring, where when summer comes and you hop in your boat and go pillaging: being Lawful Good essentially means that you enforce it upon yourself to only go after the church silver and whatever food you need to make it back home, being Chaotic Good means you steal their winter foodstocks too, because you're going to be just as hungry as they are come winter, being Lawful Evil means you make a point of terrorizing the populace while you do so, and being Chaotic Evil means you rape, kill, and pillage from the defeated -because- people are watching.

I can understand attempting to explore Randian philosophy by making it into another alignment descriptor; something like "Individualist" versus "Communalist" would probably work, and it would probably largely obviate the law-chaos axis. Then the rogue altruist who would give a starving man a fish would be a Good Communalist, and someone who expects that the starving man should be given a fish would be an Evil Communalist, and one who teaches a starving man to fish would be a Good Individualist, and one who lets the starving man starve would be an Evil Individualist.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-06, 03:40 PM
What IS so interesting about Objectivism anyway? From what I hear over the internet, it's just a terribly flawed belief system that comprises some very heavy-handed (and physically heavy) books that only gained interest because a watered-down form of it (no pun intended) appeared in BioShock.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-06, 03:51 PM
If your DM is Randian, then all you have to do is flip the Evil side with the Good side, and you have it.

Seriously.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.


Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshipping "selfishness-without-a-self." She held that the former is good, and the latter evil, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.[27] A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of August Comte's altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others.

Like "Evil," Randians refuse to sacrifice the self for the good of others. OK, that could make them Neutral too, but there is more:


Rand defined a value as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep." The rational individual's choice of values to pursue is guided by his need, if he chooses to live, to act so as to maintain and promote his own life.

Emphasis mine. A "Good" Randian would not only refuse to help others altruistically, but would also consider their own life first and foremost, meaning that they are willing to, at an extreme, let others die (or kill) for their own ends. "Neutral" Randians may not behave altruistically, but aren't willing to completely exploit others for their own ends.

Naturally, the converse of Good is Evil. Law & Chaos need not swap around, since they don't describe morality, per se. Of course, a "CG" Randian would be the "perfect" Randian, instead of LG - you can swap Law and Chaos if you'd like to maintain that feature of D&D.

hamishspence
2009-04-06, 04:01 PM
actually, there is an element of "no sacrificing others to save yourself" in the doctrine. Its argued that there is no excuse whatsoever for the initiation of force against someone. By strict rules, an Objectivist would strongly disapprove of someone willing to murder and steal, even to keep themselves alive.

In the classic "lifeboat dilemma" when you've just arrived but the boat has just been filled, but hasn't been lowered yet, an Objectivist would say that violence in order to gain someone else's place in the lifeboat, who is already in place, would be wrong.

Eakin
2009-04-06, 04:01 PM
So going back to the original orcs-attack-village example, would the good think be maybe to train them to defend themselves, with the expectation of some kind of reward if they successfully fend off the attack (the fair exchange thing)?

hamishspence
2009-04-06, 04:07 PM
Pretty much: retaliation against those who initiate physical force.

the "if the orcs keep getting away with it, I will be in danger- stopping the raids benefits me in the long run" attitude.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-06, 04:37 PM
actually, there is an element of "no sacrificing others to save yourself" in the doctrine. Its argued that there is no excuse whatsoever for the initiation of force against someone. By strict rules, an Objectivist would strongly disapprove of someone willing to murder and steal, even to keep themselves alive.

In the classic "lifeboat dilemma" when you've just arrived but the boat has just been filled, but hasn't been lowered yet, an Objectivist would say that violence in order to gain someone else's place in the lifeboat, who is already in place, would be wrong.

So, here's the morality from Atlas Shrugged.

The concept may be original in the thinking of Ayn Rand and is foundational to her moral theory. She holds that evil is a parasite on the good and can only exist if the good tolerates it. To quote from Galt's Speech, as presented in the novel: "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us," and, "I saw that evil was impotent...and the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it." Morality requires that we do not sanction our own victimhood, Rand claims. In adhering to this concept, Rand assigns virtue to the trait of rational self-interest. However, Rand contends that moral selfishness does not mean a license to do whatever one pleases, guided by whims. It means the exacting discipline of defining and pursuing one's rational self-interest. A code of rational self-interest rejects every form of human sacrifice, whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself.
This does track your statement, but I can't reconcile it with the fact that the "heroes" of Atlas Shrugged allowed civilization to crumble (causing incredible amounts of death and suffering) rather than be further "oppressed." Isn't that sacrificing others for oneself? :smallconfused:

Starbuck_II
2009-04-06, 04:52 PM
What IS so interesting about Objectivism anyway? From what I hear over the internet, it's just a terribly flawed belief system that comprises some very heavy-handed (and physically heavy) books that only gained interest because a watered-down form of it (no pun intended) appeared in BioShock.

Same as Communism, but you still people supporting it.

The idea of it is good so even though it never works in practice well... it is suppported or something like that.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-06, 05:31 PM
Same as Communism, but you still people supporting it.

The idea of it is good so even though it never works in practice well... it is suppported or something like that.

That doesn't answer my question. Why do people talk about it like it's the most interesting thing since sliced bread? I never heard of Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand or any of this stuff until after BioShock came out.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-06, 05:38 PM
That doesn't answer my question. Why do people talk about it like it's the most interesting thing since sliced bread? I never heard of Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand or any of this stuff until after BioShock came out.

It's because it has a fairly large institutional base. There's the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index) which supports regional organizations and hosts conventions and so-forth. You actually see a lot more of this at colleges than in high school, in my experience, but I've known Randians who've been at it since 9th Grade.

Now, why is it attractive? First of all, it heavily implies that followers of Objectivism are Superior to everyone else (See Atlas Shrugged). Secondly, it is based around the core belief that you should do what you want to do, and that is Good. Thirdly, in times of economic hardship in America the rich-bashing usually triggers a resurgence in Rand's popularity. See, I have graphs (http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13185404) :smallbiggrin:

I hold no grudge against Randians, but I have serious problems with the foundations of their philosophy. The above was intended to be informative, not prejudicial.

graymachine
2009-04-06, 08:12 PM
Starbuck, I think you just broke my mind, comparing Objectivism and Communism.

As for Objectivism experiencing a resurge based off Bioshock, I have been told that is, "obsence."

Aside from that, it seems that there is a lot of drive to call Objectivism as, "childish," or similiar to that effect. While name-calling is all fun an good, there doesn't seem to be much substance to these claims, so back on point: Will my character be able, within the limited of the outlined morality, be able to maintain his alignment while pursuing his goals?

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-06, 08:17 PM
Well, if it's not BioShock that's rekindled interest in Objectivism, then what has? Like I said, I'd never, in the twenty years of my existence, heard about it until BioShock came along. I didn't know what Objectivism was, who Ayn Rand was or any of that.

arguskos
2009-04-06, 08:27 PM
Well, if it's not BioShock that's rekindled interest in Objectivism, then what has? Like I said, I'd never, in the twenty years of my existence, heard about it until BioShock came along. I didn't know what Objectivism was, who Ayn Rand was or any of that.
Likely nothing. It's more likely that you simply encountered it for the first time, not that the philosophy is gaining ground or something. Don't worry about it. :smallbiggrin:

krossbow
2009-04-06, 08:32 PM
Here's the thing about objectivism; Sure, the Dm can say the world runs on that. But does that really change your character?



If your character believes in Helping those in need, in protecting the downtrodden, in defending the defenseless and Standing up for what he believes in, the rest of the world be damned, does it really matter if He's called Evil Or good? You won't really care; you'll do as you please holding tight to what you KNOW is right, regardless of the world itself.


The most that would come of this would be your character being a Vigilante, despised by the rest of the world but staying strong nonetheless.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-06, 08:41 PM
Aside from that, it seems that there is a lot of drive to call Objectivism as, "childish," or similiar to that effect. While name-calling is all fun an good, there doesn't seem to be much substance to these claims, so back on point: Will my character be able, within the limited of the outlined morality, be able to maintain his alignment while pursuing his goals?

Like I said, if the DM is seriously running an Objectivist Alignment System (which you should confirm) then by acting NE you should "maintain" your alignment of NG. Any alignment can "change the world" - it is the methods that you use that are important.

Aquillion
2009-04-06, 10:26 PM
Starbuck, I think you just broke my mind, comparing Objectivism and Communism.It's actually a very common comparison. Defining yourself in opposition to something is still defining yourself relative to it; as a result, both philosophies share fundamental aspects of their world-view. They are both based on an absolutist world-view centered around what they see as an idealized framework for interactions between individuals and society, they both express their ideals in extremely simple, supposedly common-sense statements of what they take to be the "obvious" good, and critics attack both for taking a fundamentally unrealistic view of human nature.

nightwyrm
2009-04-06, 10:50 PM
Well, if it's not BioShock that's rekindled interest in Objectivism, then what has? Like I said, I'd never, in the twenty years of my existence, heard about it until BioShock came along. I didn't know what Objectivism was, who Ayn Rand was or any of that.

Just read Terry Goodkind. As long as you have "Moral Clarity" you can slaughter evil pacifists to your heart's content and still be the hero.

Just coz I like linking to tvtropes:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AynRand

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-06, 10:52 PM
...Who's Terry Goodkind?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-06, 10:54 PM
...Who's Terry Goodkind?

Terry Goodkind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_goodkind) He wrote the Sword of Truth (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SwordOfTruth) series.

Come now, I know you can use Wikipedia just fine on your own :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-06, 11:04 PM
Yes, but I'm lazy. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-06, 11:09 PM
Yes, but I'm lazy. :smalltongue:

Too lazy to use Wikipedia!

Why, when I was a lad I actually needed to go find the answer in a book. And if I didn't own a book with the answer, I needed to go downtown to the public library to see if they had a book with the answer! If I was lucky, the reference librarian (hallowed be their names) may know the answer off the top of her head. If not, I'd have to sort through a physical card catalog (using the Dewey Decimal system) and then track down the book... only to find that it was checked out!

Kids these days... *shakes cane*

SurlySeraph
2009-04-07, 02:37 AM
Aside from that, it seems that there is a lot of drive to call Objectivism as, "childish," or similiar to that effect. While name-calling is all fun an good, there doesn't seem to be much substance to these claims,

Urge to insult Objectivism rising.


so back on point: Will my character be able, within the limited of the outlined morality, be able to maintain his alignment while pursuing his goals?

Oh, fine, I'll control myself. Yes. Under Objectivist morality, overthrowing the gods would not be an immoral act. You'll do fine.


That doesn't answer my question. Why do people talk about it like it's the most interesting thing since sliced bread? I never heard of Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand or any of this stuff until after BioShock came out.

A lot of very influential people, mostly American conservative politicians and economists, subscribe to it.


Why, when I was a lad I actually needed to go find the answer in a book. And if I didn't own a book with the answer, I needed to go downtown to the public library to see if they had a book with the answer! If I was lucky, the reference librarian (hallowed be their names) may know the answer off the top of her head. If not, I'd have to sort through a physical card catalog (using the Dewey Decimal system) and then track down the book... only to find that it was checked out!

Kids these days... *shakes cane*

And the road to the library was always chest-deep in snow while you got soaked by the rain and the scorching desert sun beat down upon your head. And you were grateful!

krossbow
2009-04-07, 02:46 AM
The thing is here, the alignment system shouldn't be what you define your character by; you should design him, THEN classify him. It shouldn't matter what others think about them if they truly have beliefs.

Kalirren
2009-04-07, 11:31 AM
Character design isn't the problem here, though. The problem is that the OP's playing an Ur-priest, and as such, the DM has a certain say over what the character can do/can be expected to do to earn/retain his powers.

If what the OP thinks of the alignment system and what the DM thinks of it don't jive enough, it may become impossible for the OP to have his character to pursue the goals he wants to pursue in that game.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 12:17 PM
] allowed civilization to crumble (causing incredible amounts of death and suffering) rather than be further "oppressed." Isn't that sacrificing others for oneself? :smallconfused:

Not according to Rand. They didn't cause the death and suffering, they just stopped preventing it. They didn't sacrifice anyone, they just left. Just like you have the right to die, to emigrate, etc you also have the right to stop working. If someone is leaning on you, according to conventional morality, then you have a duty to keep propping them up. If someone is leaning on you, according to Objectivism, then your duty is to tell them to learn how to stand on their own two feet.



Well, if it's not BioShock that's rekindled interest in Objectivism, then what has?

Giant bailouts.


A Good Objectivist helps others all the time. He/she does so not by sacrificing himself, but by creating wonderful things and teaching others to do the same. If you Heal someone and charge them a reasonable fee, you are doing a Good act. If you replace the tyranny of the gods with a reasonable system based on merit (or become a god yourself but do not demand that others worship you), you are doing something Good.

Now, an Ur-priest depends. If the energy is created by the gods or by their worshippers, and you take it for your own, you are committing an Evil act. There is absolutely no way for an Objectivist to justify that (even to save lives). If the energy exists in itself, and the gods simply refuse to allow non-gods to use it, then doing good things with it is Good.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-07, 12:43 PM
Not according to Rand. They didn't cause the death and suffering, they just stopped preventing it. They didn't sacrifice anyone, they just left. Just like you have the right to die, to emigrate, etc you also have the right to stop working. If someone is leaning on you, according to conventional morality, then you have a duty to keep propping them up. If someone is leaning on you, according to Objectivism, then your duty is to tell them to learn how to stand on their own two feet.

Yeah, I have a problem with reconciling "good" with "allowing people to die that you could easily save."

Isn't the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" particularly apropos here?

IMHO, a "good" John Galt would have tried to alter the society he was in, for the better, instead of taking his ball and going home. His new society was made up of all the "chosen" people of the world; the people who actually kept society going. The only people they were helping were themselves; the dead and suffering "parasites" were not going to be saved by Galt - they had to, somehow, save themselves while starving in the shell of a dead civilization.

Even revolution (which is bloody) is a better choice because it is actively trying to make the lives of someone else better. Galt's actions are directly comparable to the image of "Nero fiddling while Rome burned."

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-07, 12:49 PM
Yeah, I have a problem with reconciling "good" with "allowing people to die that you could easily save."

Isn't the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" particularly apropos here?

IMHO, a "good" John Galt would have tried to alter the society he was in, for the better, instead of taking his ball and going home. His new society was made up of all the "chosen" people of the world; the people who actually kept society going. The only people they were helping were themselves; the dead and suffering "parasites" were not going to be saved by Galt - they had to, somehow, save themselves while starving in the shell of a dead civilization.

Even revolution (which is bloody) is a better choice because it is actively trying to make the lives of someone else better. Galt's actions are directly comparable to the image of "Nero fiddling while Rome burned."
So, have we all played Bioshock? No?

Well I think the notable inversion was that the elite of Rapture were similar to Galt's elite. The problem is that the elite were behaving as parasites, doing as they pleased while showering contempt on the working man beneath them and living off them like feudal lords. (Fishery workers complaining about Andrew Ryan's exploitative working conditions.)

Then the irony of the game is when Andrew Ryan gets his city cheated from him by Fontaine, a con-man and a "parasite," but living exactly according to Andrew Ryan's thoughtlessly capitalistic ideal.

It's a massive contradiction that the strong should be permitted carte blanche freedom to profiteer then turn around and demand special privileges when somebody stronger comes along and tries to dominate you.

Essentially, Ayn Rand's political philosophy espouses a very parasitical ethic that it pretends to denounce.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-07, 01:01 PM
Essentially, Ayn Rand's political philosophy espouses a very parasitical ethic that it pretends to denounce.

I dunno if I'd go so far.

I do agree that society is about interdependence, not a few linchpins, but not that Randian Objectivism is some manner of farce.

Anyhoo, this is quite a bit afield. I have not actually read Atlas Shrugged so it could very well be true that Galt planned on returning to Civilization and creating a Utopia instead of sitting on his island with his fellow chosen and celebrating their superiority.

My personal problem with Randian Objectivism is that it is a "me-first" ethical system. I agree with Hobbes that humanity already has a natural "me-first" mentality and that society (and therefore, ethical systems) seek to bend people away from that "natural" view into one where people can live together with some manner of security, if not harmony.

I think Riffington probably has the OP's question best answered - though for general RP questions, you really can just play your "mirror" alignment (NG-NE, for example) if you need a Randian interpretation of the alignment system. It may not be perfect, but it is a simple and effective response that will serve you well.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-07, 01:12 PM
I dunno if I'd go so far.
You just did. Your problem with Randian Objectivism, according to you, is the "me-first" attitude. Selfishness often means the thoughtless destruction of people around you for your benefit. How is that not parasitical?

Ayn Rand is, in reality, demanding that more privileges be accorded to "merit" though she has no rule for determining what "merit" is. And more often than not, pure capitalism works at cross purposes with goods like science and art.


I do agree that society is about interdependence, not a few linchpins, but not that Randian Objectivism is some manner of farce.
I'd say it's a farce, since it's Rand herself explicitly made her own "philosophy" immutable and not subject to debate. It's original intent was to justify her behavior, an a priori position, not out of any real academic interest in exploring semantics accurately.

The few people who don't treat her work that way, nonetheless persist on retaining the label. It's fine if you think she's subject to some sort of academic revision, but giving her credit for more legitimate work by retaining her name really degrades our cultural lexicon.


Anyhoo, this is quite a bit afield. I have not actually read Atlas Shrugged so it could very well be true that Galt planned on returning to Civilization and creating a Utopia instead of sitting on his island with his fellow chosen and celebrating their superiority.
Well if it isn't clear, Ayn Rand should have made that clear in her novel. Which alludes to another fact: she's a pretty bad writer.

As a thinker it would still show a lack of foresight if she didn't explore that possibility in the domain of her "philosophy."


My personal problem with Randian Objectivism is that it is a "me-first" ethical system. I agree with Hobbes that humanity already has a natural "me-first" mentality and that society (and therefore, ethical systems) seek to bend people away from that "natural" view into one where people can live together with some manner of security, if not harmony.
I think it's perfectly natural that there's some tension between self-interest and altruism. Personally, I think the whole things is, by necessity, irrational. Human identity is an illusion, as there are people who live without this "illusion" and lack a conceptual notion of personal identity. (Autism, if I'm not incorrect, is something like this.)


I think Riffington probably has the OP's question best answered - though for general RP questions, you really can just play your "mirror" alignment (NG-NE, for example) if you need a Randian interpretation of the alignment system. It may not be perfect, but it is a simple and effective response that will serve you well.
My brain pretty much self-destructs when you combine D&D's crude morality axis with Randian Objectivism. A game like that sounds pretty much like pure pain. It's mind poison is what it is.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 01:15 PM
Now, you can accuse Rand of a lot of things, but espousing parasitism isn't one. She definitely taught that you need to pay your way, and avoid exploiting any other people.

I don't agree with her about how much duty we have to our fellows. She would claim that it's ok to let people die if you have better things to do than save them, and I would disagree.

By the way, Galt had no interest in causing suffering. He wanted to stop being exploited, and was basically going "on strike". Once the rest of the world saw that they could no longer depend on productive people to work for them, and would have to actually deserve their help, he'd be helping them.

hamishspence
2009-04-07, 01:16 PM
Main reason "trying to fix things" fails- it pretty much requires massive use of violence, which is one of the things you're not supposed to initiate against others, by Objectivist rules.

though yes, the indifference to the sufferings of others required was pretty chilling.

It depends on if you feel that the presence of a suffering person (or thousands of suffering people) places upon you a moral obligation to help them, no matter the cost.

the point of the story is that its virtually impossible for the "good people" to tear themselves away from the collapsing society- they tend to prop it up until they are nearly drained dry- Those who cling to hope almost to the end, Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, are rather more sympathetic because of this, than the "hero" of the story.

On combining D&D with Objectivism- aside from the strong focus on self-sacrifice, the BoVD/BoED pair has a lot in common with it. Murder is wrong, theft, cheating, revenge, etc. are wrong, and the needs of the many never justify violating the rights of the few.

Similarly with the "if people surrender, you must take them prisoner", and you may not mete out justice yourself, but leave it to the courts (the logical conclusion from "Execution is not evil" but "Killing prisoners is evil")

Interesting note- law, rather than Good, was strongly associated with altruism in 2nd ed. CG was described as "selfish but basically good people"

LurkerInPlayground
2009-04-07, 01:26 PM
Now, you can accuse Rand of a lot of things, but espousing parasitism isn't one. She definitely taught that you need to pay your way, and avoid exploiting any other people.
Wrong. She may not have thought so, but she was self-justifying her antisocial behaviors. A cursory examination of her personal life pretty much confirms that her following was cultish. She eventually got burned on it too, which suggest to me a deep ignorance of what she was actually saying.

There is more to language than what is explicitly stated, there is also what is implied. She espouses might by right and throws a veneer of ennobling meritocracy over it.


I don't agree with her about how much duty we have to our fellows. She would claim that it's ok to let people die if you have better things to do than save them, and I would disagree.
So you're not maliciously harming a person, you're just being willfully negligent for your own personal satisfaction.

Okay, how is that not parasitism?


By the way, Galt had no interest in causing suffering. He wanted to stop being exploited, and was basically going "on strike". Once the rest of the world saw that they could no longer depend on productive people to work for them, and would have to actually deserve their help, he'd be helping them.
So Galt is a cliched rebel-hero and messianic figure in Rand's poorly thought out Aesop.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 01:43 PM
Wrong. She may not have thought so, but she was self-justifying her antisocial behaviors.

This is totally unfair. You can never hold a writer up as the best example of their work, it would be like calling an anti-smoking advocate "really uninterested in health" if she happens to be overweight.

The actual objectivists that I know are not antisocial, and are certainly not parasites. They believe in creation for its own sake, and for helping others without creating dependency.


She espouses might by right and throws a veneer of ennobling meritocracy over it.
I'm not sure at all what this means, but she espouses a change in what we consider merit - away from those who control others, and towards the people who are actually productive.



So you're not maliciously harming a person, you're just being willfully negligent for your own personal satisfaction. Okay, how is that not parasitism?

This is not negligent. If you have a paper due tomorrow, and I refuse to write it for you, I'm not being negligent for my own personal satisfaction. It's your job to do your paper, not mine.

Galt is the guy who's refusing to write your papers for you any more, but will let you borrow his _Strunk & White_ if you want to learn to write yourself.

hamishspence
2009-04-07, 01:54 PM
Has anyone ever read Rand's ideas and gone "Huh? I came up with very similar idea as a thought experiment when I was younger?"

I did. the "all good things can be justified in terms of self-interest" concept. Save the environment- because it will benefit you, and your descendants, to live in a world not wrecked. Help others- because when you are in trouble- they will help you.

I then dismissed it as overly idealistic. So when reading the books, I had major case of deja vu.

I suspect a few university idealists have similar "how would the world be fixed" ideas though.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-07, 02:27 PM
You just did. Your problem with Randian Objectivism, according to you, is the "me-first" attitude. Selfishness often means the thoughtless destruction of people around you for your benefit. How is that not parasitical?

Because a "me-first" attitude does not require you to be a parasite on society. Well, not a complete one, anyhow; you just don't take advantage of voluntary government welfare systems (Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc.). You can't really avoid things like national defense, local police, city services, etc. but you can minimize your parasitism.

It's a fine point, but an important one.

Anyhoo, we shouldn't bash any philosophy needlessly in the RPG forum. I'll just note that I don't find an ethical division between "kill yourself / let die by negligence" that would justify Randian Objectivism espousing both "me-first" and "but not at the expense of others."

Yeah, that's my final post on the matter. Srsly.

hamishspence
2009-04-07, 02:55 PM
It may also be a case of Rands tending to pick an obsure meaning for a word and use it exclusively.

Her version of "selfish" is "act in your own rational self-interest" and her argument is that robbery, murder, exploiting others, isn't in your self-interest- it cuts your own base out from under you.

Her version of "sacrifice" is "exchange that is against your self-interest"
Saving your children at the cost of your own life- is not a sacrifice, is a fair trade, assuming you loved them that much.

Myrmex
2009-04-07, 03:05 PM
If you gain a great deal of utility from being altruism, ie, you help people because it makes you feel good, so do it for selfish reasons, is that ok by Rand?

What about holding doors for people? Would Rand hold a door for a stranger?

hamishspence
2009-04-07, 03:13 PM
Depends on circumstances. in emergency situations, Rand said helping people, without sacrificing your own life to do so, was the normal thing to do "the debt all intelligent life owes to other intelligent life." So being a "Good Samaritan" is well within what's expected. Spending your life searching for people who need help on the other hand, that might be taking it a bit too far.

Same could apply in normal social interaction "kindness comes back threefold" is the favourite phrase of those who subscribe to reciprocal altruism.

Its only "living wholly for the sake of others" and "sacrificing your own happiness to others" that objectivists look on with mild horror. Helping others because the sight of happiness is pleasant to you and makes you happy, is quite reasonable.

Little courtesies could be called the grease of the wheels of society- let everything run just a little better and it will pay you in the long run.

A point to remember is- aside from harming others, little is forbidden. as somebody pointed out when asked "what happens to the poor in an objectivist society" "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."

EDIT:
What annoys me is when "Objectivist" authors like Terry Goodkind are horribly inconsistant on compassion and redemption. Goes all gooey over Nikki and other Villains Turned Good (the Mord-Sith), but shows absolutely no sympathy whatsover of anyone else who have been brought up in the "evil" society and hasn't learned any better. Despite the fact that they are very similar.
Terry Goodkind is perhaps not the best exemplar of Objectivism, though.

Blackfang108
2009-04-07, 03:32 PM
If looking out for my own Self-Interests is wrong, I don't want to be right.

hamishspence
2009-04-07, 03:38 PM
which, I think, was why Rand wrote it in the first place- people saying other people's interests must come before your own, to be Good.

What she did say (which prevents it slipping from a 2nd ed CG/ 3rd ed Neutral philosophy, to an Evil one) is: Never violate the rights of others- not even in what you think is your own "self-interest" Murdering or robbing people, even when you are hungry and in need, would be evil.

as someone said "Evil is not "Look Out For Number One" - thats Neutral. "Look out for Numbr one While Crushing Number Two" - thats Evil.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 03:39 PM
If you gain a great deal of utility from being altruism, ie, you help people because it makes you feel good, so do it for selfish reasons, is that ok by Rand?

What about holding doors for people? Would Rand hold a door for a stranger?

There's nothing wrong with helping people, according to Rand. Holding a door open for a stranger, giving a street performer whose music you enjoy some dollars, giving out a scrumptious bread recipe... all are good things.

The problem is when you get so into helping others that you start to think you have to keep doing it whether or not it keeps feeling good. At that point, Objectivism states, you may have done two bad things. You have tricked yourself into becoming a servant. And you may be making the other person dependent on you instead of realizing their true potential. This is a problem when you give a man a stream of welfare checks that'll continue as long as he can avoid getting a job. This is not a problem with ad hoc helpfulness.

hamishspence
2009-04-07, 03:53 PM
The old "give a man a fish and he's fed for a day- teach a man to fish and he's fed for a lifetime" phrase seems appropiate here.

When reading 2nd ed PHB I thought that 2nd ed Chaotic Good was very close to 3rd ed Neutral, and objectivism, in ethos.

What was the Planescape faction supposedly based on objectivism- any details.

Jastermereel
2009-04-07, 06:37 PM
I can't say I'm familiar with Ur-Priests, but through the lens of Objectivism, if you aren't playing it like a cliched Chaotic Neutral Rogue who back-stabs friends and steals all the loot, you're doing it wrong.

And Marx help you if you ever even think about buffing or healing anyone other than yourself!

Also, to those claiming Rand was opposed to violence might want to look into her views on William Edward Hickman, whom Rand described as "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard"
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

But really, for all the discussions of violence v. non-violence, causing harm v. not preventing harm, the philosophy is simple. In Rand's own words, from early notes for The Fountainhead (Journals, p. 78.):
"One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself."

Forget the wizard. Play a rogue.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 07:06 PM
Jastermeel, you are misrepresenting Objectivism and Rand.
Rand liked a thing that Hickman said, not Hickman's actions. She wrote admiring things of him prior to learning much about him, and soon noted "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't."

Rand opposes backstabbing, and the initiation of violence. Once someone else initiates violence one may respond with deadly force, however. Likewise, she is firmly against breaking one's word or stealing.

As to buffing or healing others, you absolutely can. What you can't do is to become a crutch to others.


There is enough to dislike about Objectivism; let's not make up problems that don't exist.

Myrmex
2009-04-07, 07:25 PM
as someone said "Evil is not "Look Out For Number One" - thats Neutral. "Look out for Number one While Crushing Number Two" - thats Evil.

Ehhh, it's only evil if you get caught (or there's a higher authority who disapproves). We only talk up "doing good" so a) we convince others to do good and help us and b) don't become pariahs because we don't pay lip service to "doing good".

Morality's mostly a scam.

Jastermereel
2009-04-07, 07:30 PM
Jastermeel, you are misrepresenting Objectivism and Rand.
Rand liked a thing that Hickman said, not Hickman's actions. She wrote admiring things of him prior to learning much about him, and soon noted "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't."

Rand opposes backstabbing, and the initiation of violence. Once someone else initiates violence one may respond with deadly force, however. Likewise, she is firmly against breaking one's word or stealing.

As to buffing or healing others, you absolutely can. What you can't do is to become a crutch to others.


There is enough to dislike about Objectivism; let's not make up problems that don't exist.

Given a bit more context, she did. "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't...But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough." And even if she was unsure after getting a little more information, that would just mean she was on the fence about a man who kidnapped a 12-year old and mutilated the body. Do we need more evidence that she doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals or ethics?

As for the violence, she may well be, but her philosophy isn't really strong on that point (see last post's end quote), and, for gameplay purposes, this would just mean that the player would have to forefit the first round of combat and take the last place in initiative. Whether this is due to a need to only respond to, not initiate, violence, or because most Rand-ians seems a little "slow", is up to others to decide.

The thing about "being a crutch" is that it's defined so generously, that yes, helping others (unless, I suppose, your allies compensate you for your skills) would be an act counter to the philosophy.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 07:43 PM
Given a bit more context, she did. "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't...But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough." And even if she was unsure after getting a little more information, that would just mean she was on the fence about a man who kidnapped a 12-year old and mutilated the body. Do we need more evidence that she doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals or ethics?

No, that's totally out of context. She was looking at him as a character study, and looking at his personality to write about later. The point of your bolded remark is that she didn't care who the real person was, she was just making up a guy in her head based off something she read that he said. Nothing about him has to do with her - he just made a cameo in her private journal.




As for the violence, she may well be, but her philosophy isn't really strong on that point (see last post's end quote), and, for gameplay purposes, this would just mean that the player would have to forefit the first round of combat and take the last place in initiative. Whether this is due to a need to only respond to, not initiate, violence, or because most Rand-ians seems a little "slow", is up to others to decide.

That's not true either. She is very strong on the noninitiation of violence, but that hardly means you need to take last place in initiative (any more than a Paladin does). If either an Objectivist or a Paladin sees an orc reaching for his sword to attack them, both can potentially behead the orc before it finishes drawing. Now, you can argue that she sees theft as violence, and thus allows you to behead pickpockets. That would be an exaggeration but would at least have a kernel of truth.



The thing about "being a crutch" is that it's defined so generously, that yes, helping others (unless, I suppose, your allies compensate you for your skills) would be an act counter to the philosophy.
No, it just isn't. You can't live for them or ask them to live for you (i.e. no servitude). That doesn't mean you can't help them out. Besides, being your allies automatically means that you are helping yourself when you help them. If someone is on your side, buffing or healing them is self-interested and intelligent behavior. Not that you can't heal nonallies as well.

Starbuck_II
2009-04-07, 07:45 PM
I can't say I'm familiar with Ur-Priests, but through the lens of Objectivism, if you aren't playing it like a cliched Chaotic Neutral Rogue who back-stabs friends and steals all the loot, you're doing it wrong.

Gary Gygax says that is how a rogue should be played. If he doesn't he is playing his characer wrong. It is in the AD&D books.
Thieves have to steal more or they are poor performance ratings.



Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, “cautious” characters who do not pull their own weight – these are all clear examples of a POOR [performance] rating.
--- AD&D1 DMG, by Gary Gygax, pg 86

Jastermereel
2009-04-07, 08:05 PM
No, that's totally out of context. She was looking at him as a character study, and looking at his personality to write about later. The point of your bolded remark is that she didn't care who the real person was, she was just making up a guy in her head based off something she read that he said. Nothing about him has to do with her - he just made a cameo in her private journal.
So you're saying that she didn't care who he really was, she just liked the fantasy that she developed from him out of her initial reaction to a man who mutilated a 12-year old?


That's not true either. She is very strong on the noninitiation of violence, but that hardly means you need to take last place in initiative (any more than a Paladin does). If either an Objectivist or a Paladin sees an orc reaching for his sword to attack them, both can potentially behead the orc before it finishes drawing. Now, you can argue that she sees theft as violence, and thus allows you to behead pickpockets. That would be an exaggeration but would at least have a kernel of truth.
Paladins aren't opposed to violence, unlike Rand in your opinion. A paladin may initiate violence, as long as doing so isn't evil). One could nitpick over what counts as initiating violence, but I can't imagine an objectivist objecting to pickpocketing categorically. Someone pickpocketing you, perhaps, but not categorically. However, pickpocketing someone else is acting in your best interest, and after all, "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself."


No, it just isn't. You can't live for them or ask them to live for you (i.e. no servitude). That doesn't mean you can't help them out. Besides, being your allies automatically means that you are helping yourself when you help them. If someone is on your side, buffing or healing them is self-interested and intelligent behavior. Not that you can't heal nonallies as well.
One could argue that it helps you indirectly, but there are two counterpoints. In most circumstances you could just buff yourself receiving a direct benefit. More importantly, yes, if you buff others, you're being an enabler. Just as John Galt and his band of me-firsters left, the only ethical option from an objectivist perspective would be for all magic users to "Go Galt" and leave the material plane to watch the world crumble and burn (without "Protection from Energy", it's only a matter of time).

The only difference, is that in D&D, this could work with each creating their own pocket dimentions, going Lich and living forever without relying on others.

In any reality based system, Objectivism is a sick joke.

Riffington
2009-04-07, 08:26 PM
So you're saying that she didn't care who he really was, she just liked the fantasy that she developed from him out of her initial reaction to a man who mutilated a 12-year old?
I doubt it was the mutilation that turned her on. But lots of people have found bad men attractive based on limited information (like a quote, their hair, or their biceps). That doesn't have to do with morality, it has to do with sexuality.



but I can't imagine an objectivist objecting to pickpocketing categorically. Someone pickpocketing you, perhaps, but not categorically. However, pickpocketing someone else is acting in your best interest, and after all, "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself."
Objectivists object categorically to theft. You may pickpocket someone to retrieve goods they stole from you. That's about it. Your out-of-context quotation from a rough draft is unhelpful.



One could argue that it helps you indirectly, but there are two counterpoints. In most circumstances you could just buff yourself receiving a direct benefit. More importantly, yes, if you buff others, you're being an enabler. Just as John Galt and his band of me-firsters left, the only ethical option from an objectivist perspective would be for all magic users to "Go Galt" and leave the material plane to watch the world crumble and burn (without "Protection from Energy", it's only a matter of time).

Galt was being enslaved. If all magic users are forced to continually cast spells for the protection of their nation, they should leave and Go Galt. Otherwise, not so much.

Jastermereel
2009-04-07, 09:10 PM
Objectivists object categorically to theft. You may pickpocket someone to retrieve goods they stole from you. That's about it. Your out-of-context quotation from a rough draft is unhelpful.

Galt was being enslaved. If all magic users are forced to continually cast spells for the protection of their nation, they should leave and Go Galt. Otherwise, not so much.
Objectivism being a philosophy, it's quite easy to shift contexts around actually.
"I didn't kill someone, I just didn't prevent his death" "I didn't steal it, I just remedied my lack of it". Objectivists don't object to theft. They just object to it by that name. The looting of the US economy is proof enough of that.

And it's not for the protection of their nation, but of their party. Party members are generally obligated, by custom or by circumstance, to aid others. Why should a magic-user even put themselves in a situation where they would need to support lesser beings?

Myrmex
2009-04-07, 09:19 PM
Objectivism being a philosophy, it's quite easy to shift contexts around actually.
"I didn't kill someone, I just didn't prevent his death" "I didn't steal it, I just remedied my lack of it". Objectivists don't object to theft. They just object to it by that name. The looting of the US economy is proof enough of that.

You're struggling with activity/passivity distinctions, I see. NOT helping someone is different than hurting them. You could be out saving people right now, but for whatever reason, you aren't You know it only takes like 50 cents a day to save a little kid's life? How many little kids are you saving right now? I bet you could spend this time right now working instead of arguing on internet forums to make more money, to rescue more kids. Innocent, starving children. That you are murdering. By sitting here chatting on the internet.

Or you could make a distinction between choosing not to help someone and actual murder. Like most sane people do.

Or you could declare that actually helping the starving children is morally bankrupt to get out of the conundrum.

Or you could just not care.

Which is it, do you go by?


And it's not for the protection of their nation, but of their party. Party members are generally obligated, by custom or by circumstance, to aid others. Why should a magic-user even put themselves in a situation where they would need to support lesser beings?

Because a hasted, improve invis'd rogue will do far more damage than any of your spells will at 7th level?

Jastermereel
2009-04-07, 09:43 PM
You're struggling with activity/passivity distinctions, I see. NOT helping someone is different than hurting them. You could be out saving people right now, but for whatever reason, you aren't You know it only takes like 50 cents a day to save a little kid's life? How many little kids are you saving right now? I bet you could spend this time right now working instead of arguing on internet forums to make more money, to rescue more kids. Innocent, starving children. That you are murdering. By sitting here chatting on the internet.

Or you could make a distinction between choosing not to help someone and actual murder. Like most sane people do.

Or you could declare that actually helping the starving children is morally bankrupt to get out of the conundrum.

Or you could just not care.

Which is it, do you go by?

***

Because a hasted, improve invis'd rogue will do far more damage than any of your spells will at 7th level?

Hey, you don't have to tell me twice about that rogue. I play a monk! :smallbiggrin: I'm just glad I don't play with any Objectivists.

And I don't "struggle" with the distinction. I was highlighting the logic I've seen used by those who would live by this philosophy. For all the claims you've made about it, I've never seen those put in practice by an Objectivist.

As for the children, I work for an organization that provides aid around the world and has for over 90 years. I chose my job specifically so that I could help others. Right now I'm resting after an especially long day so that I may better serve tomorrow.

How about you? Do you work to help others, do you not care or do you follow a morally bankrupt philosophy and feel that helping the needy is morally bankrupt?

Back off, man. I’m a scientist...err activist! :smallcool:

Riffington
2009-04-07, 09:45 PM
The looting of the US economy is proof enough of that.

Um, no looting has been done by Objectivists. Also, let's stay off the politics.


Why should a magic-user even put themselves in a situation where they would need to support lesser beings?
Ask Tippy :)

answering questions that I think you meant to ask me rather than Myrmex:
1. I'm a doctor. Rand would not approve of a lot of the things I do. I think there are significant flaws in Objectivism, just not the ones you name.

2. Objectivists believe that every productive person is good. That includes heroes like Akston who fry hamburgers. It's honest work, and he made a good burger.

Jastermereel
2009-04-07, 10:06 PM
Um, no looting has been done by Objectivists. Also, let's stay off the politics.

Ask Tippy :)

answering questions that I think you meant to ask me rather than Myrmex:
1. I'm a doctor. Rand would not approve of a lot of the things I do. I think there are significant flaws in Objectivism, just not the ones you name.

2. Objectivists believe that every productive person is good. That includes heroes like Akston who fry hamburgers. It's honest work, and he made a good burger.

Fair enough. I'll stay off politics and you stay off Ayn Rand's turn-ons.:smalltongue:

I'd meant the return volley of the question to Myrmex who'd asked it originally, but I applaud your work and agree that Rand probably wouldn't approve. I also agree that there are further flaws in objectivism, but not all fall naturally from a D&D oriented conversation.

I'd argue about the hamburger hero, but the issue at hand would seem not to be productivity, but charity. Though, I've been awake a bit too long, so I may well be wrong in that assessment.

SurlySeraph
2009-04-07, 10:15 PM
Ehhh, it's only evil if you get caught (or there's a higher authority who disapproves). We only talk up "doing good" so a) we convince others to do good and help us and b) don't become pariahs because we don't pay lip service to "doing good".

Morality's mostly a scam.

Prepare thyself to be smote.

Agrippa
2009-04-07, 10:32 PM
Interesting note- law, rather than Good, was strongly associated with altruism in 2nd ed. CG was described as "selfish but basically good people"


"[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."

Technically speaking that's what altruism initially was. The belief that the only truly moral way to live was to abandon all self-interest and concepts of individualism and individual rights. Basically individual people have no moral right to happiness or self fufillment. Now does that sound Good or Lawful?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-07, 11:33 PM
Technically speaking that's what altruism initially was. The belief that the only truly moral way to live was to abandon all self-interest and concepts of individualism and individual rights. Basically individual people have no moral right to happiness or self fufillment. Now does that sound Good or Lawful?

Grr... making me violate my claim of non-interference!

But yes, it is very Good

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Emphasis mine.

Neutral Good is probably Altruism in its purest form:

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.

And NG's converse is... well a pretty good rejection of Altruism

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
The killing issue aside, it does sound rather Randian, no?

Agrippa
2009-04-07, 11:50 PM
Grr... making me violate my claim of non-interference!

But yes, it is very Good


You mean that rejecting the idea of individual rights and freedom is a good thing? That all self-interest is evil, or personal happiness is worthless. That doesn't sound Neutral Good, that sounds Lawful Neutral.


"[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."

So do you think that the concept of individual rights is inherently evil? If so, why?

Frosty
2009-04-07, 11:57 PM
Not according to Rand. They didn't cause the death and suffering, they just stopped preventing it. They didn't sacrifice anyone, they just left.

Wait, does this mean Doctor Manhattan subscribed to Ayn Rand's philosophy to a certain extent, and that the villain counted on that?

Ayn Rand would've HATED the villain, for violating everyone's rights "for their own good."

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-08, 12:17 AM
You mean that rejecting the idea of individual rights and freedom is a good thing? That all self-interest is evil, or personal happiness is worthless. That doesn't sound Neutral Good, that sounds Lawful Neutral.

No, but that is not the whole of the quotation. The important part is this:

[Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.
Altruism is something you choose for yourself; you choose to dedicate your life to the service of others. The Good Man is one who does not hesitate to give up something of his own to help out someone else. Other people's happiness and well-being should be your primary concern - your own is irrelevant, in the strongest version.

LN is not that at all:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

LN does not care about whether the interests of others is served - doing what The Law says must be done is paramount. If the Law says to kill all red-headed children, then so be it. An Altruist would never follow such an arbitrary law, nor would Altruism demand it.

Of course, Self-Interest is not necessarily Evil; Neutrals are certainly not Altruistic

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

But they do care about the welfare of others, they just won't make sacrifices to maintain it.


So do you think that the concept of individual rights is inherently evil? If so, why?

Of course not. However, Auguste Comte appears to be making a finer point than that.

It would appear that Comte is referring to what are known as Negative Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) - Rights that allow the individual to remain passive in certain situations. Comte clearly is concerned with the invisible chain of obligations society places on individuals ("We are born under a load of obligations of every kind") and would reject any Right that allowed individuals to dodge their obligations to the many. At least, that is an argument that seems consistent with his other points.

N.B. I am not, of course, talking about "real world" good and evil; I am speaking exclusively within the moral framework of the Nine Alignments System (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment). In such a world, Altruism is seen as a Good quality, while Selfishness is seen as an Evil one - it says so right on the tin.

Presuming that WotC means altruism to mean, well, Altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism), it would seem that Randian philosophy must, by its absolute rejection of Altruism, be Evil.

krossbow
2009-04-08, 12:19 AM
You do realize that objectivism requires you to put all fighters on a bus to their doom due to their absolute reliance on the wizard, and that everyone not a wizard, cleric, druid or other pure caster would essentially be trash in such a world right?

Myrmex
2009-04-08, 12:21 AM
Hey, you don't have to tell me twice about that rogue. I play a monk! :smallbiggrin: I'm just glad I don't play with any Objectivists.

And I don't "struggle" with the distinction. I was highlighting the logic I've seen used by those who would live by this philosophy. For all the claims you've made about it, I've never seen those put in practice by an Objectivist.

As for the children, I work for an organization that provides aid around the world and has for over 90 years. I chose my job specifically so that I could help others. Right now I'm resting after an especially long day so that I may better serve tomorrow.

How about you? Do you work to help others, do you not care or do you follow a morally bankrupt philosophy and feel that helping the needy is morally bankrupt?

Back off, man. I’m a scientist...err activist! :smallcool:

Hahaha! Figures you actually are doing it for the children. Good on you, man. Personally, I don't get any utility out of helping strangers a world a way, so I don't worry about it. I subscribe to a much more emotivist metaethical theory, so view Rand's normative ethics differently than most.


Prepare thyself to be smote.

Pfff, yeah right. I'll be gone in my Nautiloid after I'm done investigating what makes you irritating apes tic. :smalltongue:

Dervag
2009-04-08, 12:37 AM
One could argue that it helps you indirectly, but there are two counterpoints. In most circumstances you could just buff yourself receiving a direct benefit. More importantly, yes, if you buff others, you're being an enabler. Just as John Galt and his band of me-firsters left, the only ethical option from an objectivist perspective would be for all magic users to "Go Galt" and leave the material plane to watch the world crumble and burn (without "Protection from Energy", it's only a matter of time).That's not quite fair.

As I understand it, Rand deliberately set up Atlas Shrugged as an extreme limiting case. The system was exactly what Objectivists loathe- one designed to tap into the successful/able to support the not-successful/able. Rand presumed that this would lead to specific kinds of problems: no incentive to succeed, brutal oppression of the successful to keep them from changing the system, things like that. In short, Rand set up her 'villain' society as one that made everyone a slave, and then made it impossible to work for abolition of slavery within the system.

In that context, the only appropriate thing for the producers to do under Randism is to leave in disgust.

nightwyrm
2009-04-08, 01:18 AM
That's not quite fair.

As I understand it, Rand deliberately set up Atlas Shrugged as an extreme limiting case. The system was exactly what Objectivists loathe- one designed to tap into the successful/able to support the not-successful/able. Rand presumed that this would lead to specific kinds of problems: no incentive to succeed, brutal oppression of the successful to keep them from changing the system, things like that. In short, Rand set up her 'villain' society as one that made everyone a slave, and then made it impossible to work for abolition of slavery within the system.

In that context, the only appropriate thing for the producers to do under Randism is to leave in disgust.


So....strawman then.

Nightson
2009-04-08, 01:19 AM
Magic users would leave in a society in which the government decided their spell slots for them and picked when they would cast their spells. That would be the parallel, not whether the spellcaster decides to buff the fighter or rogue. If that was the case then anyone following Objectivism would be unable to interact with anybody else.

Nefarion Xid
2009-04-08, 01:32 AM
My professor for Intro Philosophy and Intro Ethics actually had Ayn Rand as a visiting professor. He told her to go to hell.

I have never been more proud of a teacher.

nightwyrm
2009-04-08, 01:52 AM
My professor for Intro Philosophy and Intro Ethics actually had Ayn Rand as a visiting professor. He told her to go to hell.

I have never been more proud of a teacher.

That's awesome.:smallbiggrin:

Riffington
2009-04-08, 03:33 AM
So....strawman then.

Given that she personally lived in and then escaped a society that was even more extreme... not so much.

krossbow
2009-04-08, 11:25 AM
Magic users would leave in a society in which the government decided their spell slots for them and picked when they would cast their spells. That would be the parallel, not whether the spellcaster decides to buff the fighter or rogue. If that was the case then anyone following Objectivism would be unable to interact with anybody else.


Not really; objectivism the philosophy never states that the government must tell you what to do, its about society in general. the point of objectivism is to create the greatest good by not enabling parasites and by allowing the elite to function unfettered.

Most people will agree that past early levels fighters can only get by with aid from the wizard, thereby making him a parasite. A wizard should function unhindered by this, and thereby this world would segregate such individuals, forcing fighters to work far away from wizards so as not to possibly hold back a wizard, allowing him to only fraternize with other elite, such as the cleric or druid, so as to enable them to perform to their fullest and enrich the world.





I just am pointing out how similiar objectivism is to arguments about how fighters and base melee classes shouldn't be allowed in parties (requiring tome of battle, ect.)

Jastermereel
2009-04-08, 11:52 AM
Not really; objectivism the philosophy never states that the government must tell you what to do, its about society in general. the point of objectivism is to create the greatest good by not enabling parasites and by allowing the elite to function unfettered.
I think you misunderstood him. He wasn't describing Objectivism, but instead how the societies were in Rand's books that illustrated the need for objectivist "thought".

hamishspence
2009-04-08, 03:59 PM
An absence of altruism, combined with an absence of evil acts, would be "solidly Neutral" by BoED rules- never committing an evil act doesn't make you Good, but it does make you non-evil, even if you are fixated on your own self-interest.

Since "an act done to further your own self-interest, even if it helps others, is Neutral at best."

Conversely, an act done solely out of altruistic motives is not "Good by definition" since such an act could be an evil act- the classic "For the Greater Good" motive for evil deeds.

Interesting point- Rand strongly disapproved of vigilantism- "the rule of the mob" arguing it is not the duty of the individual to punish crimes. you have the right to protect your own life and property (or the lives of others directly in front of you, especially those important to you), but thats all.

Protect- not punish, not revenge- for the individual- only permissible violence is in self-defence, and ideally, only the minimum necessary. Retaliation must be left to the Law.

the three justifiable things for taxation- army, police, judiciary- tie into this- crimes must be proven, and punished, by an objective, impartial authority, according to the evidence.

(her views on government were- must be heavily restricted and limited- with minimum power over people. "Anything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden- for the government" the reverse for individuals "Anything that is not a crime is permitted"- very libertarian)

Person_Man
2009-04-08, 04:18 PM
I think the OP means Empiricism, not Objectivism.

On Objectivism, I think it's a bunch of garbage. But I've created exactly zero philosophical movements (so far) and Rand has created at least one. So I'm probably not the best person to consult on the subject.

hamishspence
2009-04-08, 04:40 PM
yes- most of my (somewhat limited) sympathies toward the philosophy had to do with its similarity to my own musings, which gave me a double-take when reading it for the first time-

something only the lines of "best way to encourage people to be excellent to each other is to prove that its in their own self interest- nearly any "nice" thing to do, to others, can be justified that way."

Wiccan philosophies had a bit of that too- "any help you give to others returns to you threefold- likewise with any harm"

Jastermereel
2009-04-08, 05:10 PM
yes- most of my (somewhat limited) sympathies toward the philosophy had to do with its similarity to my own musings, which gave me a double-take when reading it for the first time-

something only the lines of "best way to encourage people to be excellent to each other is to prove that its in their own self interest- nearly any "nice" thing to do, to others, can be justified that way."

Wiccan philosophies had a bit of that too- "any help you give to others returns to you threefold- likewise with any harm"
I don't think Rand would approve of the first half of the Wiccan quote. The second, perhaps, but the former would seem to support the those who would leech off her imaginary society.

hamishspence
2009-04-08, 05:16 PM
I think thats the whole point of any form of co-operation- help others and in so doing, help yourself.

Reciprocal altruism, rather than plain altruism, is fundemental to many lifeforms- and they punish cheating by not helping the cheater again. Vampire bats are the classic example.

Rand argued in favour of helping others in emergencies especially- we're all intelligent living beings- and the living have more value than the non-living, so they should be preserved wherever possible.

Only sacrificial help- where the cost to you is high, is discouraged. And even then, its not forbidden- objectivist might think you made a poor bargain if you save someone else's life at the cost of crippling yourself.

(for example, by shoving a man out of path of car and so being hit by it), but they would not deny your right to act as you choose.

(Whether Rand would consider comparing her society to a colony of vampire bats an insult or a compliment, we don't know)

Jastermereel
2009-04-08, 06:12 PM
Sure, helping others and in so doing helping yourself is the point of co-operation, but the concept of co-operation is to Objectivism, what the concept of buoyancy is to the Titanic.

At the very least, you're vastly overestimating Rand's tolerance for helping others. Objectivism is about helping ones self. It's not about helping others, especially in emergencies, except when the cost is too high. For the most part, helping others is too high a cost in Objectivist thought.

Yahzi
2009-04-08, 11:06 PM
Why do people talk about it like it's the most interesting thing since sliced bread?
Another reason is that it is the precusor to modern, biological morality.

Rand had one thing right: true altruism is evil. To commit an act that does not benefit you in any way is an act of madness. The fact that it happens to help someone else is only accidental; and any standard of behavior that only does good by accident is going to eventually do evil by accident, too.

Of course, altruism is usually defined as doing things that benefit you very little, which is a big difference.

Under the modern view, morality is an evolved response to the pressures of social existence. What's good is what maximizes your chance to reproduce your genes. Now some people might say we're pretty lucky that what maximizes our chances at reproduction (ie fairness, niceness, cooperation, etc.) also just happens to be what we think of as good; but of course, that's missing the point. We think of it as good because it helps us survive and flourish.

To the extent Rand realized that self-interest is the root of all morality, she was very interesting. To the extent she misunderstood just how deep self-interest goes, and how it can produce altruistic behavour, she was only a product of her time.

The moral of the story is: Atlas Shrugged is a pretty neat story, if you skip the 38 page radio speech in the middle of the book.

SurlySeraph
2009-04-09, 01:30 AM
What you just said does not make sense.

To elaborate:


Another reason is that it is the precusor to modern, biological morality.

Rand had one thing right: true altruism is evil. To commit an act that does not benefit you in any way is an act of madness.

Madness =/= evil. I have never heard of anyone who believed that madness was evil.


The fact that it happens to help someone else is only accidental;

The fact that altruism helps someone else is accidental? The definition of altruism is that it helps someone else. The point of altruism is that it helps someone else. How does it make sense to call that accidental?


and any standard of behavior that only does good by accident is going to eventually do evil by accident, too.

This does not follow logically. Just because an accident can produce a good outcome does not mean it will inevitably eventually produce an evil outcome.


Of course, altruism is usually defined as doing things that benefit you very little, which is a big difference.

I find that the difference between very little and not at all is a very little difference, what with it being very little. If you want to look at it mathematically, you can define "very little" as "X" and "nothing" as "0." The difference between X and 0 is X.


Under the modern view, morality is an evolved response to the pressures of social existence.

"The modern view"? Whose view is that, apart from yours? Neither you nor the behavioralists that you presumably acquired this view from have a monopoly on views of morality.


What's good is what maximizes your chance to reproduce your genes. Now some people might say we're pretty lucky that what maximizes our chances at reproduction (ie fairness, niceness, cooperation, etc.) also just happens to be what we think of as good; but of course, that's missing the point. We think of it as good because it helps us survive and flourish.

To an extent, but many of us also consider acts that do not increase the odds of spreading your genes - say, feeding homeless people who are unrelated to you or raising an adopted child who is unrelated to you - good acts. You could say that these are acts that increase the odds of spreading our genes insofar as it increases the odds of spreading human genes, but that's rather less selfish than a strict formulation of spreading your own genes, isn't it?

hamishspence
2009-04-09, 11:56 AM
the main reason I say Rand was pro-helping others where the situation demands it, is that that is actually what she wrote.

The Virtue of Selfishness
p54-55:
a rational man regards strangers as innocent until proven guilty, and grants them that initial goodwill in the name of their human potential.

A man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life)

suppose one hears that the man next dooor is ill and penniless. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies- they are part of the normal risks of existence: but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neignbours to help him out.

Jastermereel
2009-04-10, 09:53 AM
the main reason I say Rand was pro-helping others where the situation demands it, is that that is actually what she wrote.
The text you quoted felt like a disclaimer. The business about neighbors in need not being "metaphysical emergencies" reads to me like she's telling her readers "of course objectivism has no relation to reality, you sillies"

That is, since she's writing out such broad exceptions (i.e. "Should you not find yourself in a badly written distopia..."), it would seem that it's an admission that it's a useless philosophy. Good neighbors help each other; that Rand has to spell out this basic idea in contrast to the rest of her philosophy would seem to suggest that the rest of it is rubbish.

Riffington
2009-04-10, 12:47 PM
seem to suggest that the rest of it is rubbish.

Or, in this case, that she knows it's confusing.
Especially to people who are used to using words differently than she uses them.

Jastermereel
2009-04-10, 01:49 PM
Or, in this case, that she knows it's confusing.
Especially to people who are used to using words differently than she uses them.

Something can be both confusing and nonsense. Fortunately, Objectivism isn't the former, just the latter.


Edit: That said, returning to the D&D side of it all, after rereading the PHB, Chaotic Neutral would seem to be the best fit.

Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character
follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his
own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids
authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic
neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part
of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated
either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a
desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Riffington
2009-04-10, 02:54 PM
CN from the PHB isn't exactly an objectivist, and it doesn't help the OP at all.
We're assuming that Good and Evil are defined by Objectivism, meaning that we are using objectivist ideals to define good and evil. Just saying "but I don't like Objectivism" is unhelpful for that. It only works if we give Objectivism the benefit of the doubt.

And so:
doing good things for other people is a Good thing, provided it serves the Highest Good (reason). Subverting Reason in order to engage in self-destructive behavior (whether one believes it helps or harms other people) is is Evil. Those who try to subvert the reason of others are in many ways comparable to murderers. This is what Objectivists (including, most likely, the Objectivist DM that the OP is talking about) believe.

I just have no idea how Objectivism changes the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

Blackfang108
2009-04-10, 03:13 PM
I just have no idea how Objectivism changes the Lawful/Chaotic axis.
I don't think it would.

At least, in my group, Law/Chaos has more to do with consistency/predictibility of actions than any actual morality.

I fall under CN for D&D mores, but using Objectivism, I'd likely fall under CG, or still CN.

Jastermereel
2009-04-10, 03:25 PM
CN from the PHB isn't exactly an objectivist, and it doesn't help the OP at all.
We're assuming that Good and Evil are defined by Objectivism, meaning that we are using objectivist ideals to define good and evil. Just saying "but I don't like Objectivism" is unhelpful for that. It only works if we give Objectivism the benefit of the doubt.

And so:
doing good things for other people is a Good thing, provided it serves the Highest Good (reason). Subverting Reason in order to engage in self-destructive behavior (whether one believes it helps or harms other people) is is Evil. Those who try to subvert the reason of others are in many ways comparable to murderers. This is what Objectivists (including, most likely, the Objectivist DM that the OP is talking about) believe.

I just have no idea how Objectivism changes the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

While I don't like it, I try to argue that it doesn't make sense to use it in or out of game.

However, as we've seen a variety of takes on Objectivism in this thread, all we've shown is that there are a variety of perspectives on it including some introduced in that last post (You're the first I've seen to put forth that "reason" would supersede "self-interest" is the acting force of objectivism).

So it could be that the OP's DM believes that Rand endorses helping one's neighbors when they're in trouble and advocates non-violence. Or it could be that he's a big fan of the Greed is Good perspective and might penalize a player who aids another without receiving something directly in return.

Unless we know what brand of Rand-ian "thought" the OP's DM holds to, we can't really make any useful suggestions.

Riffington
2009-04-10, 04:34 PM
(You're the first I've seen to put forth that "reason" would supersede "self-interest" is the acting force of objectivism).


Reason can't "supercede" self-interest, because reason:self-interest as underwater:submerged.

The problem with this thread is that I don't think anyone (other than Hamishspence and I) have actually read Rand. Not that I suggest you bother reading her since you've already made up your mind, but you won't get a very full picture from internet sources.

Jastermereel
2009-04-10, 04:58 PM
Reason can't "supercede" self-interest, because reason:self-interest as underwater:submerged.

The problem with this thread is that I don't think anyone (other than Hamishspence and I) have actually read Rand. Not that I suggest you bother reading her since you've already made up your mind, but you won't get a very full picture from internet sources.

It may be reasonable to work in your self-interest most of the time, but reason neither begins or ends with self-interest. Likewise, actions taken in your self-interest need not always be otherwise reasonable. The two certainly have overlap, but are in no way synonymous.

Your simile is to a fallacy as recursive similes are to your simile is to a fallacy as recursive similes are to your simile is to a fallacy as recursive similes are to your simile is to a fallacy as recursive similes are to your simile is to a fallacy as recursive similes are to...well...you get the idea.

Also, we're going to have to disagree on the problem with the thread. You believe that it's that too few people have read rand's tomes. I believe it's that anyone has.

Riffington
2009-04-10, 07:09 PM
It may be reasonable to work in your self-interest most of the time, but reason neither begins or ends with self-interest. Likewise, actions taken in your self-interest need not always be otherwise reasonable. The two certainly have overlap, but are in no way synonymous.

You are working with the conventional English definitions of these words, not with Rand's. You will never understand Rand if you do not work with her definitions, any more than you can understand Newtonian physics while relying on the conventional English definition of Work.

Jastermereel
2009-04-10, 07:27 PM
You are working with the conventional English definitions of these words, not with Rand's. You will never understand Rand if you do not work with her definitions, any more than you can understand Newtonian physics while relying on the conventional English definition of Work.
When studying physics, you understand that in the context of discussing physics "work" doesn't mean a day's labor, but instead force times distance. In physics, the concept of "a day's labor" doesn't really come up, so there's no conflict. It's largely the same as when you name a variable X. It's a shorthand version of another thing (such as distance, time, or the number of suckers born every minute) and not meant to imply that the twenty fourth letter of the alphabet is equal to some numerical value. I accept and understand that fully.

However, in philosophy, there are few terms that don't already have meaning. If you or Rand wish to say that "acting in one's self interest" can be written as "reason", then pray tell, what will we do with poor "reason"? We can't let a definiton go homeless, now can we? No, unless we make a distinction between Rand's concept and the real word, I'm not willing to do such grievous harm to so noble a word.

If you need a shorter word for "acting in one's self interest", may I direct your attention to "selfishness"? If you aren't a fan of the word, we can find another to suit your needs, but don't use "reason". Our cognitive facilities are needed most when Rand would rob us of the word.

JonestheSpy
2009-04-10, 08:21 PM
Interesting discussion. Feel the need to comment on this:



Rand opposes backstabbing, and the initiation of violence. Once someone else initiates violence one may respond with deadly force, however. Likewise, she is firmly against breaking one's word or stealing.


This is actually completely untrue. The sad fact is that Rand was all in favor of violence, stealing, etc, if the "superior" person was doing so. She talked a good game most of the time, but occasionally let her real feelings slip. The best example I know of this was a rather famous lecture she gave at West Point in 1974, where she was asked this question:

"When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War Two, how can you have such a positive view of America?"

This was part of her answer:

"Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using...What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights."

Quoted from the book Ayn Rand Answers.

In other words- violence, theft, treaty-breaking over and over again, etc, were all OK because the Native Americans didn't have a legal system that had the kind of private property rules Europeans used or their technology.

For all her talk of the rights of the individual, she seemed quite happy to place one class of people over another when it suited her.

Anyway, as for DnD I'd say Objectivism is a wayyyy Chaotic Neutral philosophy, even if it labels itself as 'good'.

Agrippa
2009-04-10, 08:46 PM
Actually the Native Americans did have a concept of property. It's just that when we Europeans bought land from them, they assumed that we only were buying limited useage rights and not full land rights. In their minds the settlers only bought the rights to live and farm on the land, not exclusive rights to the land itself. The Indians still reserved the right, or thought they did, to hunt on and travel over the land.

Jastermereel
2009-04-10, 08:47 PM
Anyway, as for DnD I'd say Objectivism is a wayyyy Chaotic Neutral philosophy, even if it labels itself as 'good'.

Contrary to my previous opinions, I might think the whole neutral row might apply, even Lawful Neutral due to the placement of a conjunction.


A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Were it not for the easily overlooked "or" in "or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong organized government", it would be absurd on the face of it. However, objectivists can certainly lay claim to having personal codes and standards, even if they widely differ from one to another.

So yeah, count this as another vote for D&D Objectivism generally (though not completely) swapping Good for Neutral. Though, I think it might be arguable that it doesn't swap, but rotate through. After all, if altruism is forbidden, then regular good, would be objectivist evil. It'd be harder to argue that regular good would become objectivist neutral, but that's the only position that'd be left to it.

JonestheSpy
2009-04-10, 09:08 PM
Actually the Native Americans did have a concept of property. It's just that when we Europeans bought land from them, they assumed that we only were buying limited useage rights and not full land rights. In their minds the settlers only bought the rights to live and farm on the land, not exclusive rights to the land itself. The Indians still reserved the right, or thought they did, to hunt on and travel over the land.

Very true - just didn't want to get into that whole topic on the previous post.

Rand relied on the most ignorant stereotypes to justify her view of what the Europeans did to the Native Americans - I wonder how much of that was willful ignorance, as to think otherwise would have come into too much conflict with her "AMERICA IS TEH AWESOME!" cheerleading.

And Jastermereel, I just think that having a strong personal code doesn't automatically mean lawful - it really depends on the nature of the code. A code that places the highest importance on what the individual wants seems inherently chaotic to me.

Riffington
2009-04-11, 12:53 AM
However, in philosophy, there are few terms that don't already have meaning. If you or Rand wish to say that "acting in one's self interest" can be written as "reason", then pray tell, what will we do with poor "reason"? We can't let a definiton go homeless, now can we? No, unless we make a distinction between Rand's concept and the real word, I'm not willing to do such grievous harm to so noble a word.


If you would spend half as much time learning about Rand as you have writing about her, you'd know that it's "self interest" that she's defining significantly differently than laypeople (while reason is pretty much the same old thing). Given that half the point of her philosophy is to teach you what your self-interest really is (properly understood), it's totally fair for her to have a different understanding of it than many Americans have.


--
re: Native Americans, it is true that Rand has very little understanding of early American history (almost as little as she does of science). This is not a problem with her philosophy per se (except insofar as it permits the kind of arrogance that allows people to write about things they know little about).

Yahzi
2009-04-11, 01:37 AM
What you just said does not make sense.
Surly indeed! :smalltongue:


Madness =/= evil. I have never heard of anyone who believed that madness was evil.
People who behave irrationally are dangerous. People who are dangerous when they don't need to be are irresponsible. Hence, evil.


This does not follow logically. Just because an accident can produce a good outcome does not mean it will inevitably eventually produce an evil outcome.
Perhaps it is not strictly entailed; but surely you would agree that acting at random is unlikely to produce more good than harm.


I find that the difference between very little and not at all is a very little difference, what with it being very little. If you want to look at it mathematically, you can define "very little" as "X" and "nothing" as "0." The difference between X and 0 is X.
To continue the mathematical analogy:

(Arbitrarily large number) * 0 = 0.

(Arbitrarily large number) * (very small number) = (Arbitrarily large number).

The difference between infinitesimal and none is in fact the difference between something and nothing, and that is pretty dang big!


"The modern view"? Whose view is that, apart from yours? Neither you nor the behavioralists that you presumably acquired this view from have a monopoly on views of morality.
It's not a monopoly; it's just the current view. It's no more "right" or "privileged" than the modern view of physics.

Oh wait... :smallbiggrin:


You could say that these are acts that increase the odds of spreading our genes insofar as it increases the odds of spreading human genes, but that's rather less selfish than a strict formulation of spreading your own genes, isn't it?
What has less selfish got to do with it? The point is that the act is not without benefit to yourself. It is not of zero self-interest. Hence, it is not altruistic by the simplistic interpretation.




Rand relied on the most ignorant stereotypes to justify her view
Not to defend her views, but they were the conventional views of her day. It's really amazing when you go back even 40 years and see what most people took for granted.

hamishspence
2009-04-11, 10:58 AM
she was also strongly anti-racism (and anti-affirmative action) in a time when racism was much commoner than it is now.

Mystic Muse
2009-04-11, 10:38 PM
Surly indeed! :smalltongue:


People who behave irrationally are dangerous. People who are dangerous when they don't need to be are irresponsible. Hence, evil.




irresponsibility does not = evil it simply equals irresponsibility unless taken to an extreme in which case it CAN equal evil. some extreme irresponsibilities are not good but they aren't really evil either.

evil and good are a lot more complex than what you're suggesting.

Roland St. Jude
2009-04-11, 11:11 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: While this thread stayed away from religion, it's become too political. Real world politics is an inappropriate topic on this forum.