Is Strict Adherence to Darwinism Lawful?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I've got a player that's about to join my gestalt and free LA 3 game. We've decided on his race, classes, and alignment. He's a lawful neutral natural weretiger human monk/warlock.

Now, he (and I) loves this build. But I was wondering what kind of "laws" something like this might follow. I'm thinking a very strict "survival of the fittest" code where he hates and battles all things that damage or disrupt the natural order of the multiverse. He has no qualms with magic of any kind except when it's abused and believes in a balance between good and evil.

Does this fit within the lawful neutral alignment?

[Bouldering Jove]

Strict adherence to "Darwinism" constitutes doing everything exactly as you would have anyway, and trusting that if your genetics are worth passing on, they'll find their way to future generations.

Really, I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting. If you're talking about the "survival of the fittest" associated with social Darwinism (which has nothing to do with actual evolutionary science or Darwin, I should mention), there is no "natural order" to preserve except that which the strong make for themselves. If you're talking about a "natural order" in the sense of a balance in the natural world, that also has little to do with survival of the fittest; if something is powerful enough to disrupt the "natural order" and carve out a place for itself, it's probably the "fittest" thing around.

[oriong]

Lawful is pretty much about how you think, if you believe in, and attempt to enforce, a percieved 'heirarchy' or stable within nature (for instance predators should not be killed by prey, animals native to one environment should not be brought into another environment, the 'status quo' of the local environment should be maintained: deserts should not spread, forests should not be chopped down, and the populations of animals should stay roughly in balance.) then yes, it is a good example of lawful neutral. However, as Jove pointed out this isn't Darwinism, it's just imposing your view of how things 'should' be onto nature (which might share than view, given it's more-than-passive state within D+D), whether the view is correct or not is irrelevant to lawful alignment, just whether it is one of order or chaos.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Hmm. That does make sense. So, if he simply did everything to be as strong as possible to make sure that he was the fittest and had a disdain for those he considers weak, would that work?

I also figure the character's rather honest and always keeps his promises. Does that tip it any?

[oriong]

Well, keep in mind that Good and Evil are involved too, disdaining and stepping on the weak to do what you want is definitely Evil by D+D standards (keep in mind Darwinism /= morality). Just look at all the problems Social Darwinism created.

Also, just because he has a 'justification' (I do this because it's darwinian) for his actions doesn't mean it's lawful. In fact, darwinism is a highly chaotic 'philosophy', at best it's neutral. 'survival of the fittest' isn't really what darwinism is about, it's just 'survival'. The only thing that matters in strict darwinian behavior is mating (to pass on your genes), survival (so you can mate to pass on your genes), and survival of your offspring (since they are your genes).

There is no order in that, just the imperative that all species share anyway: survive and continue your line.

Darwinism isn't about respecting those stronger than you ('strong' is a misleading term, anything faster, smarter, better camoflauged, more poisonous, scarier, or just better at breeding can be 'strong') and definitely not about 'contempt' for the weak, after all if there was nothing weaker than you then what would you eat? good luck trying to tackle those stronger ones.

[bosssmiley]

To answer the question you pose in your title. Adherence to Darwinism as a life-governing philosophy would be LN, merely living according to Darwinian laws without a conscious choice to do so is typically 'animal' Neutral.

The character as you've presented it sound almost cliche lawful neutral in his outlook; "Acts > Morality or Motivation". You might want to get the player to add a philosphical fig-leaf to this character's apparent pseudo-Darwinism, which is a little shallow as a life-defining worldview ("I do what I do because that's what I do").

He might want to explore ways of reconciling his mish-mash origins (human, lycanthrope, infernal). You could also get him to look through some of the old "Planescape" stuff for philosophies of one's place in the universe that are independent of alignment, race or religion. I recommend material on the Cipher Adapts ('perfection through reflexive action') as a go-to resource for your player.

Another great source of LN philosophies is DiceFreaks. They have a thread called "The Lawful Project" which describes about 5 different outlooks on LN (Vaati hegemony, Parai uniformity, Modron observational non-interference, Formian hierarchy). It gets into some pretty clever "wish I'd thought of that" stuff.

v-- "king of the world"? Awww, that is sweeeeeet! You must pickle this guy so he is preserved for future generations.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Talking with him on the issue, he had his own, er, odd idea.

Basically, his character is extremely vain and somehow got it in his head that he's the king of the world, literally. He helps his "subjects" and punishes "bandits" and "usurpers". Ultimately, his goal is to assert himself in his rightful place as the recognized king of the world, so his good deeds are a far cry from selfless acts and he oftens demands obedience and undying loyalty for them. He thus follows a lot of laws, but he doesn't believe any rulers truly belong in their positions, thus considering them chaotic and wishing to depose them.

I'm pretty sure that's lawful. Thing is, it's sort of only a step down from evil in that he's a mostly benevolent dictator. So I'm not sure how he's going to avoid being evil like that.

[oriong]

I imagine in that case it mostly comes down to how 'crazy' he is (he's apparently pretty crazy I assumes)

For Good/Evil: Are his 'laws' just and kind? If so, he's on a good start, even if he considers all other leaders false but prefers to attempt a peaceful resolution with them (peaceful subject rebellion, possibly even attempts to get them to renounce their claim and proclaim him king) then he could probably manage Good, just crazy Good.
If he prefers peaceful resolution (for pragmatic or moral reasons) but is willing to kill, ruin, or harm those who truly oppose his will then he's probably neutral, so long as he at least attempts less bloody paths.
If anyone who disobeys him (whether through true trespass of just laws or ignorant obedience to their rulers) is subject to severe punishment then he's probably Evil.

a big issue is just how deluded he is. If he understands that his claims of royalty seem far-fetched and ridiculous and is willing to tolerate the disbelief of others until he achieves proof of his kingship ("I know it sounds crazy, and I don't expect you to believe me now. But one day you will see") then he probably leans more towards good, after all he understands his subjects disobey not out of rebeliousness or evil but out of ignorance.

If he believes that ANYONE who does not recognize his royalty (or at least humor him about it) is a rebel or a bandit, and that all other 'royalty' are vicious and traitorous usupers of his crown then he's more evil, since he sees everyone as deliberately blocking him or disobeying him. ("How dare you disobey an order from your royal soveriegn! traitorous swine!")

for a good example of a (probably) Good individual with just this delusion look at emperor Norton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton )

on the law/chaos side the big issue is if his 'laws' are consistent, if he just believes his word to be law then he's chaotic, but if he has a fairly well-defined set of rules that he follows and wishes others to follow (although not necessarily the same set for both) then he's Lawful.

[Closet_Skeleton]

There's nothing lawful about natural selection. If he adheres strictly to Darwinism then he shouldn't care about the natural order being destroyed because in natural selection everything is replaced eventually. Remember that natural selection is nothing more than a theory of how evolution happens. There's nothing in true Darwinism that says the fittist have a moral right to survive over the less fit. Socialism is a good example of a Lawful Good political theory. Paladins are all about helping the weak not letting them be eaten by dragons because dragons are better in their environment. Lawful Evil is about keeping everyone in their place with a small group at the top.

In a Lawful Good society there is no evolution by natural selection because the government helps the weak. In a Lawful Evil society there is no evolution by natural selection because the government doesn't want the social order to change. In a Lawful Neutral Society there may be natural selection but on the whole it's still a Lawful society and therefore doesn't like the change (evolution) that is the whole point of natural selection. Evolution only needs to happen when there's a change of environment, which is something lawful societies don't want because it usually envolves their collapse.

Natural selection is more of a chaotic or neutral sort of thing. It's called a law because that's what scientists call things, not because it's lawful. Natural selection is chaotic since an organism's dominance is based of chance mutations that are suitable for the current enviroment that could change any moment. In a lawful society hierarchy is based of a predetermined class system where everyone has a role and no one should evolve into another one.

I would say that a benevolent dictator is the very model Lawful Good King. He wants everyone to be happy but thinks that happyness needs to dispensed in a regulated fashion. That sounds like Law + Good to me.

[Narmoth]

I've got a player that's about to join my gestalt and free LA 3 game. We've decided on his race, classes, and alignment. He's a lawful neutral natural weretiger human monk/warlock.

Now, he (and I) loves this build. But I was wondering what kind of "laws" something like this might follow. I'm thinking a very strict "survival of the fittest" code where he hates and battles all things that damage or disrupt the natural order of the multiverse. He has no qualms with magic of any kind except when it's abused and believes in a balance between good and evil.

Does this fit within the lawful neutral alignment?

"Darwinism" is a theory that explains evolution. The belief that the strongest SHOULD survive (as opposed to stating the fact that that is how thigs are at present) is called fascism, and would be a lawfull evil set of believes.


Talking with him on the issue, he had his own, er, odd idea.

Basically, his character is extremely vain and somehow got it in his head that he's the king of the world, literally. He helps his "subjects" and punishes "bandits" and "usurpers". Ultimately, his goal is to assert himself in his rightful place as the recognized king of the world, so his good deeds are a far cry from selfless acts and he oftens demands obedience and undying loyalty for them. He thus follows a lot of laws, but he doesn't believe any rulers truly belong in their positions, thus considering them chaotic and wishing to depose them.

I'm pretty sure that's lawful. Thing is, it's sort of only a step down from evil in that he's a mostly benevolent dictator. So I'm not sure how he's going to avoid being evil like that.

I would say that he is strongly tipping to Lawfull Evil from Lawfull Neutral.
Again, be warned that he will most likely not want to try to do anything else but to reclaimhis throne, and thereby all the other players will have to follow him or fight without him. Think about this before you allow his character as described at present in the game.

[Matthew]

Does this fit within the lawful neutral alignment?

The thing is, that's up to you. Moral Codes that fit the Lawful Alignment are best defined by the individual Dungeon Master. Alignments are notoriously cumbersome and unsuitable. If he adheres to a strict code of conduct, he might be described as Lawful. If he does so regardless of morality, he might be Lawful Neutral. If he does so with evil intent, he is probably Lawful Evil. If he does so with Good intent, he is probably Lawful Good.

[Levant]

Talking with him on the issue, he had his own, er, odd idea.

Basically, his character is extremely vain and somehow got it in his head that he's the king of the world, literally. He helps his "subjects" and punishes "bandits" and "usurpers". Ultimately, his goal is to assert himself in his rightful place as the recognized king of the world, so his good deeds are a far cry from selfless acts and he oftens demands obedience and undying loyalty for them. He thus follows a lot of laws, but he doesn't believe any rulers truly belong in their positions, thus considering them chaotic and wishing to depose them.

I'm pretty sure that's lawful. Thing is, it's sort of only a step down from evil in that he's a mostly benevolent dictator. So I'm not sure how he's going to avoid being evil like that.

When I read this I was reminded of the code of honor for the Paladin of Tyranny. I'll have to look it up but I'd say he's Lawful Evil.


A paladin of tyranny must be of lawful evil alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of tyranny's code requires that he respect authority figures as long as they have the strength to rule over the weak, act with discipline (not engaging in random slaughter, keeping firm control over those beneath his station, and so forth), help only those who help him maintain or improve his status, and punish those who challenge authority (unless, of course, such challengers prove more worthy to hold that authority).

Well, not really a good fit, but sort of close. And paladins are supposed to represent the extremes of their alignments, so he could still be lawful evil while not being totally like one.

[Telok]

Practice true Darwinisim, visit every brothel you can and refer to your adventuring companions as "pre-loot". Except the cleric, be very very nice to your cleric.

Simple way for a character to be D&D Lawful: Be systematic and orderly in pursuing your goals. Plan ahead and prepare for encounters. Keep your word and fufill your oaths.

Morals don't enter into Law/Chaos, they are pretty much the realm of Good/Evil. Goals and methods are much better Law/Chaos measurements.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Alright. So, to sum up everything here-

In order to not be evil with the choice he's chosen, he has to be seriously deluded and not realize that he isn't actually king of the world. In order to be not good, he can't just go around helping people for the hell of it, but in order to not be evil, he can't go killing people just because it fits into his delusions.

There has to be a good/evil balance to truly keep him at neutral, since he doesn't want to play evil and good is outside of his alignment restriction. I'm thinking that's best summed up as he's a very just ruler, but he's also extremely intolerant of other kings and rulers that don't recognize him. He'll try his best to see diplomatic ways through his disputes with other rulers, but he's also not ruling out invasion as a last resort. On the other hand, he won't outright murder anyone because that's against his own morale codes and laws, and he never breaks an oath or pact because he's lawful.

He still wants a very primal rule, however. To mix this in, back to survival of the fittest, he has very little respect for those weaker then himself, though he doesn't go out of his way to harm them unless they're standing between him and a goal or he believes they need to be "taught a lesson". He pities the weak because they're destined to die off. The natural order is important to him, since he believes in the natural order that he's king. He studies economies and populations to make sure that everyone is growing to their fullest without encroaching on the progress of anything else, and he'll find means legal to his own rules to fix these issues.

That said, he isn't actually very bright. Just a 10 in intelligence, pretty normal.

[Tokiko Mima]

I can't help but see Darwin's principles, taken into a social context, as evil. "Survival of the fittest" translates into validating any tactic that insures the continued existance of the individual, whatever the cost to others.

All of the things that a 'good' aligned creature is expected to do (e.g. defending the weak, sacrificing of ones self for others, charitable works, devotion to community, not taking advantage of anothers weakness, and showing mercy to foe) all fall squarely into the catagory of reducing one's overall fitness and odds for survival. If you act selfishly instead, the personal benefit is nearly always greater.

I read "Survival of the fittest" social darwinism as a simple restatement of "Might makes Right," which is the principle evil warlords, despots, and dictators have used since time immemorial.

Now, if all this character is doing it protecting the natural order of nature, then that's a very Neutral sentiment but how does one disrupt the natural order of the multiverse? Presumably, he lives in a universe where magic exists, and can be used to bring the dead back to life, animate corpses, grant life to mere objects, allow all manner of landbound creatures to fly, or hold their breath indefinately, or survive in enviroments antithetical to the process of living.

Do you mean this character is going to be against magic itself? Or the ones who use to to do unnatural things? How does one pervert a force that exists to change things, and that's really it's ultimate purpose? A necromancer in this respect is really no different than a beaver changing the natural course of a river. Is the river now unnatural?

[TheOOB]

Darwinism isn't so much a philosophy as it is a fact of life. People and things more suited to the world thrive while things not suited suffer and eventually die out.

However, you can have a personal philosophy based on darwinism, but remember, alignment isn't based on ideas or philosophy, it's based on action. If a character belives in a very strict idea of natural order and unwaveringly sticks to that idea, never changing his outlook or actions even when it would be advantageous for him to do so, he is probally lawful. Likewise if his moral structure is flexible and he tends to modify his actions based on the situation at hand rather then a firm code they are probally chaotic.

[Bouldering Jove]

Darwinism isn't so much a philosophy as it is a fact of life. People and things more suited to the world thrive while things not suited suffer and eventually die out.
Quite right, and I hate the use of the term "Darwinism" in discussions like these because of it. The "ism" and the way people use the world typically imply some kind of ideology or moral system, neither of which has anything to do with Darwin or his research.

[oriong]

All of the things that a 'good' aligned creature is expected to do (e.g. defending the weak, sacrificing of ones self for others, charitable works, devotion to community, not taking advantage of anothers weakness, and showing mercy to foe) all fall squarely into the catagory of reducing one's overall fitness and odds for survival. If you act selfishly instead, the personal benefit is nearly always greater.


Well, actually many of those behaviors are extremely darwinian, it's more or less the problem with attemptign to make evolution into a moral code. It's just about what works, there are literally millions of different ways to be 'fit' by darwinian standards, and not all are selfish. A community or group of creatures that is extremely self-sacrificing and act to protect and support one another is much stronger than one where each looks out for #1 alone because in the first case the species as a whole is more likely to continue (and that's what matters in the long run). There are species out there which have turned self-sacrifice into their only defense, like moths or bugs whose only natural defense is their horrible taste or poison, an animal eats one and it won't try eating any of the others. This is certainly not 'selfish' behavior, that single eaten bug has sacrificed himself (if not knowingly) for the good of his species.

There is no one way to be evolutionarily sucessful, and it's just too vague to make a true philosophy, almost all attempts to moralize darwinism (such as social darwinism) are simply self-serving misinterpretations of the system.

[Tor the Fallen]

A darwinist would be neutral evil. Entirely selfish. He would not wish to uphold any law or make to much stink about anything, as it would be social suicide. A netural evil creature would do whatever benefitted it most, including performing good deeds (healing the sick, etc). A lawful evil creature would be opposed to helping those weaker than it, out of principle.

Eh, social creatures and darwinistic principles often interact counter-intuitively.

[TheOOB]

Even if darwinism was a philosophy, which it is not, (there is no such thing as a darwinist, only people who call them selves such), it would not determine alignment. The alignment system as written can only exist if actions rather then philosophy/intent determine alignment.

Heres a (very) abridges list of what alignment means

Good/Evil

Good: Makes significant personal sacrifice/takes significant person risk to help and innocent(ie someone they don't know that as far as they know has done nothing wrong)

Neutral: Doesn't not harm innocents, but will not take significant risks to help them.

Evil: Willing to harm innocents to advance their own goals.

Law/Chaos

Lawful: Has a strict moral/ethical/personal code and tends to follow it even if doing so would be disadvantageous to them

Neutral: Has a moral/ethical/personal code but will break it if it would be very advantagous to/very disadvantageous not to

Chaos: Has a weak moral/ethical/personal code and tends to do what they think is best at the moment rather then what is dictated by their code.

[JaronK]

It's a bizzare concept, similar to saying "My character is a Newtonist. He has a stict legal code that when anything tries to fly, he attacks it and takes it to the ground." "Darwinists" don't exist. There are people who understand the theory of evolution and people who don't, but nobody follows the guy who made a lot of major breakthroughs in the subject... they just think he did some neat work.

So, what would this character be? Totally your call, but irrelevant to alignment. Evolution is just a natural process, one that dictates that things that reproduce best make more of themselves. I guess a "Darwinian" character would run around having sex with lots of things, or something. Whether he does that through rape or by saving lots of maidens will determine his alignment.

Now, if you mean a character that decides that "the species most easily adaptable to change should survive most" and then runs around killing off evolutionary deadends, I'd say he's some weird version of Lawful Evil.

JaronK

[Tor the Fallen]

Even if darwinism was a philosophy, which it is not, (there is no such thing as a darwinist, only people who call them selves such)

Sort of like how there are no atheists, just people that call themselves such?

[JaronK]

Sort of like how there are no atheists, just people that call themselves such?

No, nothing like that. "Atheism" is the lack of belief in a god or gods, so an Athiest is a person who doesn't believe in a god or gods... and those exist. "Darwinism" is actually a creationist label for people who paid attention in science class... it's not a philosophy, no more than "Newtonism" or "Copernicism." As such, there are no Darwinists, just people who know what the fossil record means.

A real "Darwinist" would have to be someone who treats the Origin of Species like a bible and worships it as being inerrant... which no one actually does. It's just a ground breaking bit of scientific work. It's not a philosophy. It doesn't tell you how to behave or try to give meaning to the world, it just presents one man's research on evolution.

So yeah, I'm not sure how a character could be Darwinist.

Is the character just a strong believer that the strong should survive and the weak should perrish (which isn't actually how evolution works, but that's another issue)? If so, again, that could be multiple alignments. If it's just "I'm strong, I can do what I want" then it's kinda chaotic, either nuetral or evil. If it's "I must make sure that weaker things don't multiply, and will forgo personal goals to make sure that doesn't happen" then it's probably Lawful Evil.

JaronK

[Tor the Fallen]

No, nothing like that. "Atheism" is the lack of belief in a god or gods, so an Athiest is a person who doesn't believe in a god or gods... and those exist. "Darwinism" is actually a creationist label for people who paid attention in science class... it's not a philosophy, no more than "Newtonism" or "Copernicism." As such, there are no Darwinists, just people who know what the fossil record means.

Alright.
There are no Christians. Just people that call themselves Christians. Does that logic make any more sense?

And as long as you're arguing about 'what exists', ie, Darwinists don't exist, well, do you have any problem with lawful neutral natural weretiger human monk/warlocks?


A real "Darwinist" would have to be someone who treats the Origin of Species like a bible and worships it as being inerrant... which no one actually does. It's just a ground breaking bit of scientific work. It's not a philosophy. It doesn't tell you how to behave or try to give meaning to the world, it just presents one man's research on evolution.

So yeah, I'm not sure how a character could be Darwinist.

That's silly.
You don't have to worship something to be an -ist. What do Existentialists worship? Dualists? Platonicists?

Someone that treats Darwinistic principles as a personal philosophy would, indeed, be a Darwinist.
Perhaps a more apt term would be a Naturalist, or a follower of Naturalism. Darwin and Wallace were both naturalists, little n.


Is the character just a strong believer that the strong should survive and the weak should perrish (which isn't actually how evolution works, but that's another issue)? If so, again, that could be multiple alignments. If it's just "I'm strong, I can do what I want" then it's kinda chaotic, either nuetral or evil. If it's "I must make sure that weaker things don't multiply, and will forgo personal goals to make sure that doesn't happen" then it's probably Lawful Evil.

Oi, that works.

[oriong]

I think his point is that anyone who attempts to 'follow' Darwinist theory is makign a misinterpretation. Darwinist theory is no more a philosophy (such as Existentialism) or a religion (such as christianity) than the law of gravity or the theory or relativity.

You can certianly believe in the theory or disbelieve it, but anyone who attemtps to 'live by it' doesn't get it, as it's no more a guide to life than gravity. There ARE those who have claimed to be 'darwinists' in the philosophical sense, but they mis-use the theories by doing so.

[Tor the Fallen]

I think his point is that anyone who attempts to 'follow' Darwinist theory is makign a misinterpretation. Darwinist theory is no more a philosophy (such as Existentialism) or a religion (such as christianity) than the law of gravity or the theory or relativity.

Scrubbing Bubbles.


The law of gravity has far fewer implications on morality and what it is to be a person than darwinism.

Newtonian physics explains why rocks fall. It doesn't explain why people die.
Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive.
Clearly, people die and people fall. But which has more bearing on alignment, dying or falling?

[edit]
This all comes down to: is a person's beliefs what he professes to believe?
Is a follower of Lloth who refuses to kill still a follower of Lloth? Is a follower of Pelor who engages in violence still a follower of Pelor? Is a follower of Pelor who is ignorant of a rule of Pelor still a follower of Pelor?
(Better illustrations of this would be similar queries of real world believers who disobey scripture– are they still believers? In D&D, there are no believers, only followers. Belief isn't an issue, as there's proof of existence.)
Likewise, if darwinist principles exist in D&D, can you not follow them? Why can't they be a philosophy?

[Dhavaer]

Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive.

Since the people who should die, according to natural selection, are the people who do die, I don't see how this is applicable to any kind of morality.

[MrNexx]

There was, however, a theory called "Social Darwinism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism). It was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Something like that may be more appropriate for a character to follow as his viewpoint... though I don't know if it would work as a monk's philosophy.

[oriong]

Scrubbing bubbles.


The law of gravity has far fewer implications on morality and what it is to be a person than darwinism.

Newtonian physics explains why rocks fall. It doesn't explain why people die.
Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive.
Clearly, people die and people fall. But which has more bearing on alignment, dying or falling?

Here I'm afraid you're very wrong.

First, darwinism doesn't explain why people die, that's called basic medicine.

Second the fact that you think " Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive." shows that you are VASTLY misinterpreting darwin's theories. This. Is. Wrong.

Darwinian theory has NEVER. EVER. made a claim as to 'should', it makes a claim as to what 'does' happen. Those who are capable of survival live, and pass on the traits that make them capable, those who are incapable of surivival do not, and therefore do not pass on their traits. Therefore, over time the traits of those who are capable of survival will become dominant throughout a breeding population. DARWINISM DOES NOT SAY THIS IS 'RIGHT'. It just is a statement of the observation about how nature operates, just the same as the theory of gravity. The fact that animals unfit for survival are likely to die is just a amoral as the fact that rocks will fall when dropped. THESE ARE OBSERVATIONS.

Darwinian theory does not call for people to 'help' evolution and weed out the weak, or help the strong, or even to intervene and stop the death of the weak. There are many people who DO call for that, and claim that Darwin's theories justify this. BUT THEY ARE WRONG. They are either misunderstanding the theory, or intentionally misrepresenting it.

[Bouldering Jove]

The law of gravity has far fewer implications on morality and what it is to be a person than darwinism.
Neither has any moral implications, if "Darwinism" is a synonym for "Darwin's insights into evolution" there.


Newtonian physics explains why rocks fall. It doesn't explain why people die.
This is true. Biology in general has better explanations for why people die.


Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive.
Absolutely not. Evolutionary theory says nothing whatsoever about what traits "should" persist, which "should" die out, which specific organisms "should" survive. It is a description of the mechanisms of genetic change over time as produced by the natural dynamics of reproduction and resource competition. That has no bearing on who shoud live or die any more than understanding the chemical origins of explosions has a bearing on who "should" win a war.


Clearly, people die and people fall. But which has more bearing on alignment, dying or falling?
The sciences of how things fall, how people die, and how genetic traits pass out of a population are all irrelevant to alignment and moral judgments.

[Khantalas]

So, worshipping Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is like worshipping the fact that the sun rises from the east every day. No point in either of them.

[JaronK]

Scrubbing Bubbles.



The law of gravity has far fewer implications on morality and what it is to be a person than darwinism.

Newtonian physics explains why rocks fall. It doesn't explain why people die.
Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive.
Clearly, people die and people fall. But which has more bearing on alignment, dying or falling?

Evolution doesn't explain who should die and who should survive at all, actually. It just says that those who do die without reproducing don't last, and those that reproduce a lot before dying make more of themselves. There's no moral judgement in that, even though life and death are mentioned in the theory... just like there's no morality to Germ Theory, dispite the way it describes illness and death.

You seem to be confusing evolutionary theory with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism means taking the natural evolutionary mechanisms, deciding that they're talking about how things should work instead of how things tend to function, and then trying to draw moral conclusions from them to justify racist beliefs... I suppose a similar group could be Social Newtonism, where a bunch of people decide that Newtonian laws of gravity mean that things naturally "should" fall down, and then using that constructed morality to justify running around pushing people off cliffs. Just like Social Darwinists, such a group would be Lawful Evil.

Anyway, this is all getting rather far from D&D. If you want to discuss how evolution really works, and why "Darwinism" isn't a real belief, I suggest this forum instead: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66 It's filled with top biologists and other experts who can answer any question you might have (including the guys who found the Tiktalik recently, that new fish/land walker intermediary species).

JaronK

[TheOOB]

Since the people who should die, according to natural selection, are the people who do die, I don't see how this is applicable to any kind of morality.

Exactally. Basing your morality off of darwinism is like basing off of the letter C, sure the letter C is nice and useful, but it really has nothing to do with morality.

[Tor the Fallen]

first I'm not sure if you're attacking religions or trying to claim I am, but either way I don't think it's appropraite, and it's irrelevant.

You missed the point.
Religions claim other religions are wrong all the time, because they interpret things differently (or incorrectly, however you wish the case to be).

It's the "you're not a true follower, you don't do XYZ." Sorry to offend any Pentecostals.


Here I'm afraid you're very wrong.

First, darwinism doesn't explain why people die, that's called basic medicine.

Did anyone here make any claims otherwise?


Second the fact that you think " Darwinism explains who should die and who should survive." shows that you are VASTLY misinterpreting darwin's theories. This. Is. Wrong.

Oh?
Those ill suited to their environment have lower fitness, either because of fewer resources to be spent on reproduction, or they die.
So, yes, Darwinism explains, outside of conscious intervention, who should and shouldn't die in a given situation.


Darwinian theory has NEVER. EVER. made a claim as to 'should', it makes a claim as to what 'does' happen.

It's a prediction. What should happen, given 1 2 3 and 4.


Those who are capable of survival live, and pass on the traits that make them capable, those who are incapable of surivival do not, and therefore do not pass on their traits. Therefore, over time the traits of those who are capable of survival will become dominant throughout a breeding population.

Very good.



DARWINISM DOES NOT SAY THIS IS 'RIGHT'. It just is a statement of the observation about how nature operates, just the same as the theory of gravity. The fact that animals unfit for survival are likely to die is just a amoral as the fact that rocks will fall when dropped. THESE ARE OBSERVATIONS.

Yes.
And a Darwinist would say that unfit animals dying is also right.
Really, I think Naturalist would be a better term here. That which is natural is right.


Darwinian theory does not call for people to 'help' evolution and weed out the weak, or help the strong, or even to intervene and stop the death of the weak. There are many people who DO call for that, and claim that Darwin's theories justify this. BUT THEY ARE WRONG. They are either misunderstanding the theory, or intentionally misrepresenting it.

Yes, Naturalists that use Darwinism to explain nature, would be Darwinists.

[oriong]

Did anyone here make any claims otherwise?


"Newtonian physics explains why rocks fall. It doesn't explain why people die."


Oh?
Those ill suited to their environment have lower fitness, either because of fewer resources to be spent on reproduction, or they die.
So, yes, Darwinism explains, outside of conscious intervention, who should and shouldn't die in a given situation.

No. it's not a matter of should. Should implies that somehow, if it doesn't happen then something has gone wrong. Darwin's theory is an observation of what does tend to happen, and what is likely to happen. Should implies that this tendency is somehow the way things must, or need to be. This is not the case.




Yes.
And a Darwinist would say that unfit animals dying is also right.
Really, I think Naturalist would be a better term here. That which is natural is right.

no

Darwinism says nothing of right and wrong. it says that an animal that is unfit, will likely die and expounds on the consequences of this. RIGHT has nothing to do with it. Basic physics says that when an object is brought to a certain temperature it will ignite, but it makes no claim that this is right, it just claims that it is the way it is. Right and wrong are absolutely meaningless when applied to scientific facts because it somehow implies that things can be another way. Gravity says objects fall when dropped within a gravitational field and not acted upon by an outside force, it does not claim this is right because there is no wrong, it is jsut what will happen. And if for some reason that is not what happens that just means that theories on gravity is incorrect or incomplete, not that something is wrong.

naturalism is completely different, and while they certainly may be propononets of evolution this does not make evolution a moral system.

[Bouldering Jove]

Those ill suited to their environment have lower fitness, either because of fewer resources to be spent on reproduction, or they die.

So, yes, Darwinism explains, outside of conscious intervention, who should and shouldn't die in a given situation.

It's a prediction. What should happen, given 1 2 3 and 4.
A prediction is not at all the same thing as what "should" happen, and that seems to be the stumbling block here. Any heinous event in history was predictable based on a number of factors. For example: "Group A had the superior resources and military development, needed the land occupied by group B, had a long historical grudge with group B, and was under tyrannical militant leadership that made dissent difficult." That we can predict group A will engage in some kind of act of vicious conquest on group B does not mean that is what "should" happen, just that it probably will.

This is not an idle point of terminology. This is something that people with an axe to grind against scientific facts they don't like have used to demean real progress and accomplishment in popular opinion. Science concerns itself strictly with "is" and "how," never "should."

[Closet_Skeleton]

So, worshipping Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is like worshipping the fact that the sun rises from the east every day. No point in either of them.

Seeing as how the Egyptians worshiped the sun rising every day as the life cycle of Re and the Aztecs regularly slaughtered people to the sun would rise every day I'm not sure this is so right.

You could make a religion based on keeping natural selection going just as there have been religions about making sure the sun rises. However Darwin was an agnostic tending towards Christianity and believed in morals far removed from such things. Calling such a religion Darwinism would be pissing on the poor fellow's grave.

So go ahead and use a fantasy religion promoting survival of the fittest in a DnD game but NEVER confuse it with real world scientific theory.

It's nice to know that there are quite a few other people on these boards who are willing to get a bit angry about this topic.

[Bouldering Jove]

How can you possibly "keep natural selection going," though? By definition, it's happening constantly, whether you want it to or not. No matter what actions you take, you contribute to the process, and it's not possible for any action to "contribute more" than another.

[Demented]

Perhaps, as a believer in survival of the fittest, you decide to hate the gods because they meddle in mortal affairs. Thus, you end up really, really, really, really, really, really hating clerics. And possibly similar divine classes.

Then you see clerics of darwinism popping up everywhere. It hurts. It really does.

[Tor the Fallen]

How can you possibly "keep natural selection going," though? By definition, it's happening constantly, whether you want it to or not. No matter what actions you take, you contribute to the process, and it's not possible for any action to "contribute more" than another.

What about domesticated organisms?
If natural selection is the product of nonhuman interference, are milk cows with big udders "unnaturally" selected for, by breeders?

[JaronK]

What about domesticated organisms?
If natural selection is the product of nonhuman interference, are milk cows with big udders "unnaturally" selected for, by breeders?

Nope. Humans are simply changing the selective preasures that effect the evolution of the cow. Whether it's a human causing it or a weather change causing it or a meteor from space causing it has no relevance. It may be humans intentially using the mechanisms by which natural selection operates to make different cows, but natural selection is always in effect.

It's like airplanes. To the untrained eye, one might think man is changing gravity or making gravity go away, but if you know what's really going on, you realize gravity is working normally.

Again, I strongly recommend you go to the forum I suggested earlier if you want to learn how this works. They're usually patient, and can explain absolutely everything in any amount of detail you like, and that forum includes some of the top experts in various related fields (and a few Young Earth Creationists thrown in for good luck).

But back into D&D, I actually like the idea of Gods as existing in opposition to natural order... since they are by definition supernatural, I suppose their very existance really does oppose natural selection and the like (after all, a Gnome God that helps out Gnomes, despite the Gnomes having no other reason to survive, would be messing with it... sort of), so that would lead to a pretty funny character. Maybe one that runs around attacking anyone who just got targetted by a heal spell and healing those targeted by harmful divine magic? Could make for a pretty cool Ur-Priest...

JaronK

[Tor the Fallen]

"Newtonian physics explains why rocks fall. It doesn't explain why people die."

Ok?




No. it's not a matter of should. Should implies that somehow, if it doesn't happen then something has gone wrong. Darwin's theory is an observation of what does tend to happen, and what is likely to happen. Should implies that this tendency is somehow the way things must, or need to be. This is not the case.

Well, yes, actually.
Have you ever heard of the Hardy-Weinberg principle? If no selective mechanisms are acting on a locus, you'll find the frequency of that locus constant throughout generations in a specific ratio. This is why recessive alleles persist, and even become dominant through out a population.

Should implies prediction and expectation. Should implies falsification.


naturalism is completely different, and while they certainly may be propononets of evolution this does not make evolution a moral system.

Naturalists believe that that which is natural is right (in the moral sense).
Some Naturalists accept Darwinian principles (in that this is how nature is).
People who accept Darwinian principles as called Darwinists.

Therefore, some Naturalists are Darwinists.

Some Naturalists are Darwinists.
Naturalists believe that that that which is natural is right (in the moral sense).

Therefore, some Darwinists believe that evolution is right, morally.

[JaronK]

You've just logicked your way into a false conclusion. Good job there. Usually that's an idication that you've just falsified one of your assumptions. Me, I'd start with your definition of Naturalism, that Naturalists believe that what is natural is morally right. Here's the real definition:

Naturalism (Philosophy): Any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.

See any moral judgement in there? Anything that in any way indicates that naturalism has anything to do with morality? You don't, because naturalism means the belief that everything that we can observe happens due to natural causes, and thus that we shouldn't attribute effects to supernatural causes.

Darwin, by the way was a Methodological Naturalist: the belief that the natural sciences are a proper way to study the world.

Here's a challenge: find one of these Darwinists you claim to know so much about. Go find a "Darwinist" who believes "that evolution is right, morally." I want to meet this guy... and no darn Social Darwinists either.

JaronK

[Bouldering Jove]

What about domesticated organisms?
If natural selection is the product of nonhuman interference, are milk cows with big udders "unnaturally" selected for, by breeders?
Here we start running into a thicket of terminological foul-ups.

Domesticated organisms are an example of a very succesful survival strategy. Simply by being valuable to humans, they will survive as long as humans survive and they remain valuable, and the traits that make them valuable to humans are constantly being selected for. The fact that cattle are basically a "slave" species exploited for food and then slaughtered is irrelevant. All you have to do is compare cattle to species of similar size that don't like being domesticated. Specifically, compare their populations. A distinct trend will emerge.

When you start throwing the term "natural" into things, confusion often results because people have a lot of associations with the word, such as thinking of "nature" as somehow inherently distinct from anything associated with human activity. It's possible to have a meaningful discussion about the difference between those genetic selection processes governed by the flow of circumstance and the conscious modification efforts of humans, but ultimately that's a distinction of method, not type. But people will still go and construct elaborate, meaningless notions of "natural selection," "natural order" and the confines of nature based on human exceptionalism.

[The Valiant Turtle]

This is a very intellectually stimulating thread.

I've always thought it odd to be discussing evolution in a fantasy world. I am not aware of any fantasy world where anything remotely similar to the theory of evolution is likely to arise. Largely because Naturalism as defined earlier would seem downright silly in any fantasy world.

I happen to like as much realism as possible in my fantasy worlds, so I would likely rule out evolutionary ideas existing in the world. I do allow fun to take priority over realism, and frequently let totally unrealistic things go just because they are fun, but I'd have a hard time with evolutionary theories in a fantasy world.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: Okay, folks, this is going to be the one and only warning this thread gets. If more moderating needs to be done on it, it will simply be locked at that point.

This thread has already violated at least one rule and has toed the line on several others. So, please keep in mind that:
Discussions and debates on this forum are meant to be friendly ones; if you cannot remain courteous on this subject, don't post on it.
Discussion of real world religion in any way is not allowed.
Discussion of real world politics in any way is not allowed.
Please keep these rules in mind (and it's always a good idea to refer to the Forum Rules (http://tinyurl.com/yalzxu) in general).

[Telok]

Gor-pwned.

Hehehehe. Ok, to answer the subject of the thread: Yes.

Strict and absolute adherence to Darwinisim is D&D Lawful behavior. This is because the strict and absolute adherence to any philosophy, code of conduct, or belief system in an orderly and/or methodical manner is Lawful by D&D standards. The accuracy, validity, or sanity of that paticular philosophy is totally irrelevant to whether or not the character is acting in a D&D Lawful manner.

The fact that trying to use scientific observations and measurements designed to attempt to understand the universe, in order to try and define a subjective moral code, is (opinion: mine) silly and futile has no bearing on whether or not strict adherence to a set of rules is Lawful in D&D.

[JaronK]

You know, Raldor has a great point. In a D&D world, there is no Darwin. Gods (and Wizards) made people and animals to look how they wanted. There's no evolution... if something a god made dies out, that god will simply make a few more.

JaronK

[Devils_Advocate]

Here we start running into a thicket of terminological foul-ups.
No, that happened way earlier. :smalltongue:

Consider the following sentences:

1. "Well, the wood is a bit damp, but if we get the fire going hot enough, it should still burn."

2. "Y'know, we really should give Marcus some of this money, since without him we never would have been able to recover it."

3. "Lidda should scout ahead so that we are prepared for any hostile creatures we encounter."

The "predictive should" (X will probably happen), the "moral should" (X is the morally right thing to do), and the "suggestive should" (It's a good idea to do X) are all valid concepts and all valid uses of the word "should". "Should" is a homonym.

Similarly, "natural" may refer to how the world behaves without the intervention of intelligent beings (natural as opposed to artificial) or how the world behaves without the intervention of the non-material (natural as opposed to supernatural).

Please do try to remember that a word can have more than one meaning. It's rather silly to wind up arguing with someone you actually agree with just because neither of you realizes what the other person really means by what he says.

[Bouldering Jove]

My disagreement was not just over terminology. The word "should" was being used to yoke scientific theory to moral implications, which I very strongly disagree with.

Which isn't to say that you couldn't make and play a "Darwinist" character with different opinions than me. I would just disagree that he had anything to do with Darwin.

[JaronK]

The problem is people taking the scientific "should" (meaning, in this situation, the following is what is expected to occur) and confusing it with the moral "should" (meaning, in this situation, it is morally right for the following to occur).

Doing so leads to concepts like taking evolution as a moral code, which is a bit silly.

JaronK

[ArmorArmadillo]

Strict adherence to anything is lawful. A chaotic character would be willing to abandon his faith in natural selection if the situation demanded, but if was unable to do so, he must be lawful.

Furthermore, on the question of opposing natural selection being impossible, in D&D there is magic. Magic is opposed to nature in this setting, and can wildly disrupt it (see every campaign involving a druid ever.)

A good way to roleplay this would be stopping Cleric's from healing people, or refusing to grant any mercy to captured NPCs, not out of cruelty but because "if they are to die they are to die. It is for the best."

Worship Wee Jas. Tailor-made for this.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The problem with this train of thought is that is means that strict adherance to chaos is lawful.

It's like there are only lawful alignments because the truely chaotic wouldn't conform to the idea of an alignment system.

The way I get around that problem is to say that all alignments are labels made up by lawful people and non-lawful people don't care much for them.

[Tokiko Mima]

True. By contrast, you could also have a chaotic person that didn't believe in following laws, but always followed every single law anyway. Is this person lawful or chaotic?

Following a code that limited your behaviour is lawful. Following a philosophy that doesn't do anything to restrict you is chaotic. Law/chaos axis is probably a lot more predicated on your actions, whereas your motivations and intentions are more important in a good/evil respect.

[ArmorArmadillo]

The problem with this train of thought is that is means that strict adherance to chaos is lawful.
How do you strictly adhere to chaos?

A character who believes that no laws should exist and all of society should be under a system of unfettered personal freedom is lawful, because he supports a universal ethic being applied everywhere.

A truly chaotic character does what is important to him whether laws allow it or not.

Law and Chaos are dependant on whether or not you are restricted in your behavior, but Chaos does not mean that you are against society or laws, it means that your behavior is not determined by them.

[JaronK]

I actually have a simpler definition of Lawful vs Chaos.

A lawful character has a code which is more important than his goals. Thus, a Lawful Good character has the goal of doing more good in the world, but won't break his code to do so. An example: a sickly man is in a great deal of pain. The man is innocent, and has been beset with an uncurable, magical disease that causes him to die slowly over the course of a year while being incredibly weak. It causes enourmous pain all the time, and the man wants to die now and skip the whole thing. Also the disease is contageous, so the man might infect others. A Lawful Good Paladin might recognize that the merciful thing to do here is to kill this man painlessly, but if his moral code says he can never kill an innocent, he is helpless in this situation, and instead must do something like take this man into the wilderness where he won't pass on the disease, and then take care of him, perhaps keeping him unconcsious as much as possible, until he dies naturally.

A chaotic character's goals are more important than any code he follows. This doesn't mean he'll stop over babies to get there... a chaotic good character wants to make the world a better place, but he won't let the rules get in his way. In the situation above, upon hearing the man wants to die, he'd give the guy a chance to say his last goodbyes (from a distance, to avoid contageon) and then kill him swiftly in his sleep. He may have a code too that says that killing an innocent is wrong, but he's absolutely fine with ignoring that code in situations where he judges it to be wrong, and he won't lose any sleep over it.

JaronK

[Devils_Advocate]

A character who believes that no laws should exist and all of society should be under a system of unfettered personal freedom is lawful, because he supports a universal ethic being applied everywhere.
Um, since when are ethics the exlusive domain of Lawful characters? Opposition to unprovoked coercion is a Chaotic value. The Lawful attitude is that you have a duty to behave the right way, and saying that you have a right to behave the wrong way is silly. The Chaotic attitude is that you have no duties that you don't willingly accept, for how else could one be obliged to do anything? (One can be obliged to not do something -- e.g. harm others or restrict their freedom -- but that's not so much a matter of "following a code of conduct" as "not being a jerk.")


A truly chaotic character does what is important to him whether laws allow it or not.
So... Someone who valued and promoted personal freedom without regard for authority, tradition, or the approval of others would be "truly Chaotic", then? :smallwink:

"I do not agree with what you say, sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it!"


Chaos does not mean that you are against society or laws, it means that your behavior is not determined by them.
Nor need one encourage community and/or government to be Lawful. But some individuals do deliberately promote Law or Chaos.