PDA

View Full Version : What alignment are you?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Teapot Salty
2014-02-28, 04:32 PM
Hey guys, title says it all, so I'll just head to what I think I am.
I personally think of myself as CG or CN. (Not sure which, I like to think I'm good, but doesn't everybody?) That coming from I try to be a good person, but for the life of me, I can't obey authority.

And as always, go nuts.

Mordokai
2014-02-28, 04:34 PM
At the moment, I'd say solid neutral.

With some goodish tendencies.

But not too many.

Siosilvar
2014-02-28, 04:36 PM
Neutral Good leaning Lawful in behavior and Chaotic in outlook.

Socksy
2014-02-28, 05:06 PM
Too lazy to link you guys to the What Character Am I test, but it's in my sig.

I'm CG with NE tendencies not going to succeed on that bluff even with a nat.20 after I told people to look at my sig.

Jay R
2014-02-28, 05:47 PM
My first thought was that if you care what category you fit into, you aren't Chaotic.

Ravens_cry
2014-02-28, 05:49 PM
I aim for Lawful Good. Whether I reach it, eh, that's another matter.

Esprit15
2014-02-28, 05:49 PM
I'm true neutral with good tendencies. Law appeals, but chaos appeals as well, and both have their times and places.

Mrc.
2014-02-28, 05:51 PM
My first thought was that if you care what category you fit into, you aren't Chaotic.

Not necessarily, it could just be that such things amuse you. However, seeing as I have no desire to see this thread go the way of so many others that pointlessly debated what quantified what alignment, I'll leave it there.

I suppose the above makes me Pedant Evil, right?

Dienekes
2014-02-28, 06:11 PM
True Neutral with some lawful tendencies. I have a personal code of conduct that I stick to very strongly. It's just my personal code allows for some things that would probably not fall under a normal lawful individual.

On the good/evil axis. I don't know, I've been told that I have a habit of doing the nicest things in the meanest possible way. So, I'll just even it out to neutral.

sktarq
2014-02-28, 06:18 PM
Ask almost any of my friends they will say CG. I'm used as an exemplar of that when introducing people we know to the DnD world. Personally I think I'm more true Neutral....I have a CODE but it is MY code and while I've thought about it a lot that has not brought it closer to society's generally preferred behavior but farther from it. In large part that comes from my aiming to be what society says it wants of people not what society rewards or tries to make people into. "Be careful what you wish for" has been used about my addition to more than a couple projects. Those seem lawful tendencies to me. and I've got a mean streak a mile wide that I can usually keep in tight check. So a loose CG or NG probably or a true neutral leaning to that region or the spectrum.

Fortuna
2014-02-28, 06:32 PM
Depending on how you evaluate alignment, I'm somewhere in the top left. L tending N (or N tending L) G tending N (or N tending G).

TriForce
2014-02-28, 06:38 PM
lawful good.

im the person who first offers to help, and my first instinct is to try and solve problems "the way they should be solved" whatever that might be in that situation, now, if thats not possible, i have no problem thinking out of the box, but i always try the "normal" way first

Mrc.
2014-02-28, 06:43 PM
With a name like Triforce, one would hope you uphold the balance between Power, Wisdom and Courage in a thoroughly Lawful Good manner! Cool name btw.

Tetraplex
2014-02-28, 06:45 PM
I like to think NG. I tend to put others ahead of myself, and believe that a balance of law and personal freedom is necessary to help the most people possible. That said, it's all a matter of perspective. Someone more chaotic might see me as Lawful, for instance.

Deffers
2014-02-28, 06:54 PM
True Neutral with Good tendencies, inasmuch as I aim for Neutral Good. I don't think I make the mark, though.

GPuzzle
2014-02-28, 06:58 PM
I took the same test as Socksy over there - Lawful Good with strong tendencies in both Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good.

Incanur
2014-02-28, 07:00 PM
I aim for chaotic good (CG) but may be true neutral (N) if not neutral evil (NE) in practice. It's all a matter of trying to force a square peg into a round hole, but it can be an amusing exercise.

mistformsquirrl
2014-02-28, 07:02 PM
I try to be Neutral Good. A lot of time I'm just Chaotic Neurotic however.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-02-28, 07:09 PM
I don't believe in alignments. Therefore I must be Chaotic Evil, according to those loonies who do.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-28, 07:10 PM
Chaotic Depressed.

BrokenChord
2014-02-28, 07:27 PM
I highly doubt anyone online is going to tell you in a non-joking manner that they consider themselves Evil.

... Except someone already has, and I'm about to :smallbiggrin:

I'd classify myself as Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies. I'm on that borderline between just crazy and utterly irrational, I tend to act and speak without regard for others' feelings, I lie compulsively (or do I? Dunn dunn dunn) and while I abhor causing people physical pain I love metaphorically stepping on people and watching them squirm, and I do some... Heh, questionable things, to avoid other people taking superiority over me.

... Except the mods, of course! *looks around worriedly* Have mercy, ye gods! :smalleek:

Dienekes
2014-02-28, 07:36 PM
I don't believe in alignments. Therefore I must be Chaotic Evil, according to those loonies who do.

Ehh, I don't really think the world runs by D&D alignments either. However, in it's most basic terms, I do think there are people who are more moral and altruistic than others, or who are more likely to break the rules. You can feel free to argue about whether that's an inherently good thing to do either, or whether being moral is worthwhile, or whatnot, but that some people are more likely than others to behave in a certain why seems pretty a pretty reasonable statement.

OldTrees1
2014-02-28, 07:36 PM
True Neutral with good tendencies (moral) but not Good tendencies (immoral Celestial faction)

Pex
2014-02-28, 08:54 PM
Lawful Neutral

Lord Raziere
2014-02-28, 09:10 PM
Chaotic Neutral.

Not just me that thinks this, I've taken alignment tests (for however reliable they might be) and my friends think so to.

I also have many good reasons to support this, as I am a great lover of art, individuality, freedom and imagination. I go my own way first and foremost. I live life like how I want to, and don't worry all that much about it. if people don't like me for who I am, too bad, at least I'm still me, and at least I'm following my own drumbeat, why limit myself after all?

Fabletop
2014-02-28, 09:18 PM
True Neutral.

I can go wherever I want, twisting whatever as I go.

Honestly, most people fit right here:smallwink:

Honest Tiefling
2014-02-28, 09:21 PM
True Neutral, for I am truly the RL equivalent of a TN level 1 commoner.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-28, 09:29 PM
The only quiz I've ever taken that didn't say Lawful Neutral kept spitting out Neutral Good even when I changed about half my answers to their polar opposites to test it, so... Pretty sure LN.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the fact that my first response to an outlying quiz result was "Test the quiz in question's validity" is itself worth some Lawful points.

5a Violista
2014-02-28, 09:55 PM
I've gotten only Chaotic Good and Lawful Good on different tests (and also depending on what person I was asking), (and for classes I've gotten Paladin, Ranger, and Bard, and sometimes combinations of the above). I'm not sure I understand D&D enough to say for myself what I am between those. I don't really care enough to pin it down.

So, I guess that means my alignment is Awesome-Aligned.

Hytheter
2014-02-28, 10:00 PM
I think I'm true neutral. I like to think that I lean towards good, but...

YossarianLives
2014-02-28, 10:57 PM
I'm usually pretty nice. However not really the type to go NOOOOOO RANDOM PERSON THAT I'VE NEVER MET I'LL SAVE YOU FROM THE RAGING INFERNO.

No not like that at all, so most likely NG.

BrokenChord
2014-02-28, 11:01 PM
I'm usually pretty nice. However not really the type to go NOOOOOO RANDOM PERSON THAT I'VE NEVER MET I'LL SAVE YOU FROM THE RAGING INFERNO.

No not like that at all, so most likely NG.

Sounds pretty TN to me to be honest. It's not like True Neutral characters are apathetic by necessity, they can be very nice people.

Leviting
2014-02-28, 11:14 PM
LG with neutral tendencies both ways. On some days Ill be robotic lawful neutral, and on other days, Ill be lawfulish decent. Usually though, I hit LG. Usually.

Blue Ghost
2014-03-01, 12:03 AM
I would say I'm pretty strongly lawful. I believe in doing things the 'proper' way, unless there is an overriding reason not to, and I squirm at the thought of breaking rules for no reason. I would hope that I'm Good, as I have high ideals, but I haven't really done all that much lately to make the world a better place. Hoping that'll change soon.

The Oni
2014-03-01, 12:03 AM
Lawful Sexy

Averis Vol
2014-03-01, 12:16 AM
The test says I'm a lawful good fighter/paladin, which pretty much sums up how I play DnD (though I sprinkle in the occasional evil character. but not the hissing from under a hood kind, more of the kind who holds onto something minor for a really long time until it came up as his get out of jail free card.)

But I would say I'm closer to neutral good, because I am not against breaking someones face for no reason other than they verbally provoked me or one of those close to me.

Jay R
2014-03-01, 12:18 AM
Lawful Pedantic.

[I once defined a PC as Lawful Noble. And as far as I'm concerned, wolves are Neutral Hungry.]

Iana Obsidian
2014-03-01, 05:16 AM
Lawful Cowardly
If I weren't a coward I'm not sure which way I'd lie, which makes me even more afraid of myself. Guess it fits me to a T

Bit Fiend
2014-03-01, 06:04 AM
Somewhere between N and NG (generally very fond of putting others' success over mine, but wouldn't necessarily put my life at stake for it)... never been too much for either Law or Chaos.

GPuzzle
2014-03-01, 06:12 AM
Well, Law does not necessarily mean following the laws of the government, but rather following a personal code of conduct. I am Lawful, even if I don't give a damn on the government, because I'm rigid with everyone, especially me. In the same meaning, we all have strong Neutral tendencies. We all seek out for number one. Really few of us seek out for number one while utterly destroying numbers two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten and dropping an atomic bomb in the rest down the line (metaphorically).

BWR
2014-03-01, 06:50 AM
True Neutral.

I believe that a solid, fair set of laws is a necessity for a functioning society of humans, and a fairly strong government is generally the best way to go about ensuring equality. I want people to be equal before the law, I want the government and society to give help to those who need it at the expense of the taxpayer, and those with more should be taxed more heavily than those with less. I generally want for people to be able to believe and act the way they wish so long as this does not infringe upon others (but feel free to infringe upon their sense of moral outrage).

I don't follow every single little law - I'll jaywalk if there are no cars that could possibly hit me, or close shop a few minutes early if there is no one in the store - and I should be more personably charitable and dedicate my spare time to helping others.

Socksy
2014-03-01, 07:00 AM
Is anyone else looking at some of the views on here and thinking How could anyone believe THAT?! No no no!
I'm not picking at any post in particular, I'm just asking about in general.
I guess it shows how different we all are.

Mrc.
2014-03-01, 07:15 AM
Is anyone else looking at some of the views on here and thinking How could anyone believe THAT?! No no no!
I'm not picking at any post in particular, I'm just asking about in general.
I guess it shows how different we all are.

People have wildly different views on almost everything. Seriously, I challenge you to name any topic that I could not find at least one person in this playground with polar opposite views to someone else. (don't actually, this would violate forum rules). Due to the number of things which make us unique such as upbringing, experiences, associates, nationality etc., people are so diverse that we cover so many fields.

This is, generally, a good thing. For instance, I am rather good at the Sciences for my age, but at lots of the more creative subjects I fail miserably. Because of this diversity, there are people who are good at areas I struggle at and vice versa. Such is the strength of humanity.

AgentofHellfire
2014-03-01, 08:41 AM
I've currently tested as both Chaotic and Neutral Good, so...I guess I'm a weaker-C Chaotic Good?

Aedilred
2014-03-01, 08:52 AM
I think I'm essentially True Neutral, leaning Lawful Good. I've been classified everything along that range by various assessments in the past, usually depending what questions they ask and what weight they assign to different factors.


Well, Law does not necessarily mean following the laws of the government, but rather following a personal code of conduct.
Indeed, but even then it can be difficult to judge what's enough to make somebody Lawful for alignment purposes (one of the reasons the alignment system is flawed). For instance, I am generally hopelessly disorganised and have a deep mistrust of routine, but in one or two areas I am completely inflexible with tendencies people who didn't know better would say were OCD. Indeed, you could even make the (slightly perverse) argument that my insistence on not being tied into a routine verges on the inflexible - and lawful - in itself.

When it comes to national laws and the like I will obey them (indeed, build a career around interpreting them) but I do so out of obligation and convenience, frequently resent having to do so and would break or twist many of them if I thought I could get away with it, without such activity weighing heavy on my conscience. However I have a strong personal code which I take seriously.

Consequently, I'd say that on that axis I'm Neutral with a tendency towards lawful, but it's difficult to know your own character that well. Some of my friends would probably call me Lawful, and people who know me only in certain contexts might even call me Chaotic.

Tengu_temp
2014-03-01, 09:14 AM
Neutral good with chaotic tendencies or true neutral with CG tendencies, depending on what your benchmark for good is. I'm too lazy to do stuff like charity work, but I do help random strangers who need help, even giving them money a few times.

dps
2014-03-01, 09:15 AM
Too lazy to link you guys to the What Character Am I test, but it's in my sig.

I'm CG with NE tendencies not going to succeed on that bluff even with a nat.20 after I told people to look at my sig.

I tend to think of myself as NG, but my friends would generally describe me as LG. Other tests in the past have pegged me as LG, but this one has me as LN. It also says I'm a Dwarf Wizard/Cleric 3rd/3rd level, with abiltiy scores of 14, 11, 12, 16, 14, 11. Those scores probably actually fit me pretty well, except my Cha is nowhere near that high.

Aedilred
2014-03-01, 10:22 AM
Having just done the What Character Am I test, it struggles with lawfulness just as much as anything else. For instance, take this question:


113. Do you respect the lawful authority of the government?
Yes, I support the government wholeheartedly.
Yes, our leaders are generally fair and just.
No, a politician is no better than anyone else.
No, politicians are invariably corrupted by power.
The problem here should be obvious. You can respect the government's lawful authority while recognising that every individual within that government is a flawed and corrupt human being. Respect for an institution or the authority of that institution is a completely different matter to respect for the members of that institution. And this is where my problem lies, because I have a lot of respect for the government in principle but much less for the government in practice on any given day.

According to which quiz, incidentally, I am Neutral Good.

Seto
2014-03-01, 10:49 AM
I talked a lot about my friends about that. General agreement : very firmly TN, with mild CG tendencies (but there's no alignment I'm absolutely alien to)

Amphetryon
2014-03-01, 11:07 AM
LN, stronger Good tendencies than Evil.

Beowulf DW
2014-03-01, 11:50 AM
According to that test, I'm a Lawful Good Monk 2/Cleric 1.

Fits what all my friends have ever said about me, I guess. Still, you never know exactly what kind of person you are until the chips are down, which has only happened to me a few times in my life. Not much to go on.

Sith_Happens
2014-03-01, 12:38 PM
Having just done the What Character Am I test, it struggles with lawfulness just as much as anything else. For instance, take this question:

The problem here should be obvious. You can respect the government's lawful authority while recognising that every individual within that government is a flawed and corrupt human being. Respect for an institution or the authority of that institution is a completely different matter to respect for the members of that institution. And this is where my problem lies, because I have a lot of respect for the government in principle but much less for the government in practice on any given day.

When I got to that question I figured that the above position at least reasonably closely fits option 2. It's perfectly possible to be both "fair and just" and extremely misguided.

Question 50 is the one that I outright skipped due to the fact that the choices are not mutually exclusive, and if you present them as if they are then there is literally no way I can accurately answer the question.:smallannoyed:

TheOrangeWizard
2014-03-01, 06:06 PM
Lawful Neutral. I like to think I lean towards Good, but I have a much more Neutral (and very Lawful) approach to it: "These are the laws! They exist for your own good! Follow them or you will burn in righteous fire!"

FabulousFizban
2014-03-01, 06:18 PM
CN, maybe NE

mythmonster2
2014-03-01, 08:01 PM
I've gotten literally every non-evil alignment over the years on those tests (Chaotic Good this time), but I would like to think of myself as Lawful Good, though I also know I may tend to be overzealous and go into Lawful Neutral from time to time.

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-01, 08:14 PM
True Neutered...I mean Neutral.

Stoneback
2014-03-02, 01:42 AM
Hmm. The Magic d20 Ball says, "Awful Stupid."

Like this joke.

Rion
2014-03-02, 03:19 AM
I took the test a few months ago when I was with some friends and got Chaotic Lawful.

Technically it was True Neutral, but if so it's the "forgotten" True Neutral that no one ever mentions in alignment threads because they are too busy describing True Neutrals as either apathetic or schizophrenic types worshippinh balance in all ways.

50/50 CN/LN* not out of some sense of "balance" but because that's just how you are? Never mentioned.

*Technically it was 25 TN, 21 LN, 20 CN, 18 CG with all other alignments under 10.

Beowulf DW
2014-03-02, 11:29 AM
I've gotten literally every non-evil alignment over the years on those tests (Chaotic Good this time), but I would like to think of myself as Lawful Good, though I also know I may tend to be overzealous and go into Lawful Neutral from time to time.

Makes sense. A person's beliefs can change quite a bit as the years tick by. Although, the last time I took a quiz like that, I got LG, so I guess maybe I haven't changed too much. Don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing.

Jay R
2014-03-02, 11:53 AM
According to the mystic talisman I used to determine it, my alignment is:

"Reply hazy. Ask again later"

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-02, 01:36 PM
I am Ironic Evil. I rob and murder people, but I do so ironically. I'm not actually a bad person, you guys.

Edit:

Hmm. The Magic d20 Ball says, "Awful Stupid."

Like this joke.

I thought it was funny.

Stoneback
2014-03-02, 03:18 PM
I am Ironic Evil. I rob and murder people, but I do so ironically. I'm not actually a bad person, you guys.

Edit:


I thought it was funny.

Lol! Hipster "bad" guy! Run away! Ironically! ;)

Aedilred
2014-03-02, 04:45 PM
Lol! Hipster "bad" guy! Run away! Ironically! ;)
Bah, I was Evil before it was cool.

I'm actually something of a fan of unconventionally described alignments; they give you something to put in the box and an idea of the character without all the unsatisfactory baggage that comes with the alignment system. Admittedly my group doesn't tend to play particularly alignment-centric games (after the unfortunate experience with the paladin) nor take some elements of the RP as seriously as some... but it's not done entirely for giggles. Alignments previously used have included "Chaotic Lol", "Lawful Profit" and "Lawful Good ?".

StabbityRabbit
2014-03-02, 06:30 PM
I've taken a few tests, and apparently I'm Lawful Neutral with heavy Lawful Evil tendencies. I guess this makes sense as I've only once been untrustworthy in my life[ I told my best friend a secret someone told me because I needed advice, and he's trustworthy], I have a few beliefs/rules that I absolutely hate breaking, and my friends tell me there are times when I've been a complete jerk.

Fabletop
2014-03-02, 06:55 PM
As a player, NG.

As a GM, LN.

Lorsa
2014-03-03, 08:23 AM
Which is the best alignment? That's the one I have!

Maugan Ra
2014-03-03, 10:39 AM
It depends how cynical I'm feeling, but generally, either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. Very rarely Lawful Good, if I'm feeling idealistic.

Yeah, the Lawful part is pretty much set in stone. The morality part, not so much.

Jay R
2014-03-03, 10:49 AM
Which is the best alignment? That's the one I have!

Love it.

In one of the Discworld books, Terry Pratchett discusses the "Monks of Cool". They spend years on a mountaintop comtemplating what it means to be cool. When their initiation is ended, they are given a final test. They are taken to a large room, filled with every type of clothing ever worn, and asked, "What would be the coolest thing to wear?"

The correct answer, of course, is, "Hey, man, whatever I put on."

Evidently, Lorsa's alignment is True Cool.

Amaril
2014-03-03, 11:06 AM
I like to think I'm NG. Obviously I struggle with the Good part sometimes, because everybody does. It bothers me when people imply that a single non-Good act automatically disqualifies you from being good, or that almost everyone is TN because being Good-aligned means being Good all the time--the fact that that's impossible for a mortal is acknowledged in the rules.

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-03-03, 11:34 AM
Like the rest of humans, I'm NN.

To anyone who says they're not NN, I say: Prove it.
Show me the habitual disregard for your own comfort that you undertake to champion your alignment axis. I may even believe you.

Sure, I like freedom (chaos) and good, and the rule of law and all that - but do I put myself in harm's way to defend those things? Do I put special concerted effort into achiving my preferred alignment axes?

I think it takes one hell of an effort to get out of NN's gravity well.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 12:32 PM
Like the rest of humans, I'm NN.

To anyone who says they're not NN, I say: Prove it.
Show me the habitual disregard for your own comfort that you undertake to champion your alignment axis. I may even believe you.

Sure, I like freedom (chaos) and good, and the rule of law and all that - but do I put myself in harm's way to defend those things? Do I put special concerted effort into achiving my preferred alignment axes?

I think it takes one hell of an effort to get out of NN's gravity well.

I've went to war, so I can prove that I would be willing to undertake personal risk for the things that I believe in. I find the assertion that people aren't a little bit overwrought and indefensible. I don't think that the majority of humans are unwilling to take risks, my experience has been decidedly to the contrary.

Furthermore the alignment system is descriptive, it doesn't matter how little you value that things are orderly over that they're not, then you're still lawful. It doesn't matter that you value compassion only enough to donate 10 dollars a month, that's still good. Anything else would set the bar at a ludicrous place and would suggest that even in D&D nobody should have alignments.

Aedilred
2014-03-03, 12:50 PM
Like the rest of humans, I'm NN.

To anyone who says they're not NN, I say: Prove it.
Show me the habitual disregard for your own comfort that you undertake to champion your alignment axis. I may even believe you.

Sure, I like freedom (chaos) and good, and the rule of law and all that - but do I put myself in harm's way to defend those things? Do I put special concerted effort into achiving my preferred alignment axes?

I think it takes one hell of an effort to get out of NN's gravity well.
Irrespective of whether it's true, I think that is possibly the most boring response to the question possible. Just sayin'. Although I also think it's missing the point slightly. I don't think you necessarily have to champion your alignment actively, nor is it something you aspire to be; you just have to be it. As AMFV says, the system is descriptive, and by extension, it's not prescriptive.

Somebody who unwittingly ruins their life through a complete failure of organisation and disinterest in society and the law is still probably Chaotic even if they aren't deliberately putting themselves on the line for it. Those people who would hypothetically call me Lawful (which is up for debate) would do so on the basis of my decisions and behaviour that help to make my life difficult, but I didn't do any of it just to be Lawful; I did it because that's who I am and it seemed like the right thing to do.

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-03-03, 03:14 PM
Irrespective of whether it's true, I think that is possibly the most boring response to the question possible. Just sayin'. Although I also think it's missing the point slightly. I don't think you necessarily have to champion your alignment actively, nor is it something you aspire to be; you just have to be it. As AMFV says, the system is descriptive, and by extension, it's not prescriptive.

Somebody who unwittingly ruins their life through a complete failure of organisation and disinterest in society and the law is still probably Chaotic even if they aren't deliberately putting themselves on the line for it. Those people who would hypothetically call me Lawful (which is up for debate) would do so on the basis of my decisions and behaviour that help to make my life difficult, but I didn't do any of it just to be Lawful; I did it because that's who I am and it seemed like the right thing to do.
Well, then by those wish fulfilment fantasy standards, I suppose I'm LG.

I'm dedicated to improving the lot of my fellow humans through the promotion of product safety regulation - every day I save lives by doing my job.
I'm also a morally committed vegetarian, charity ultra-marathoneer, and a peace protester.

I just reject the idea that this makes me a "Good" or "Lawful" person: I'm just doing my job. I'm just using my hobby to raise money. I'm just following a march of like-minded protesters.

If I went and volunteered at a soup kitchen to provide nutritious veggie food to the homeless, gave as much of my income to charity as I could literally afford, and organised a bunch of meaningful peace protest events for myself and others - then I'd be Good.

But I'm not going out of my way to do the right thing. I'm just doing what's within easy reach.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 03:52 PM
Well, then by those wish fulfilment fantasy standards, I suppose I'm LG.

I'm dedicated to improving the lot of my fellow humans through the promotion of product safety regulation - every day I save lives by doing my job.
I'm also a morally committed vegetarian, charity ultra-marathoneer, and a peace protester.

I just reject the idea that this makes me a "Good" or "Lawful" person: I'm just doing my job. I'm just using my hobby to raise money. I'm just following a march of like-minded protesters.

If I went and volunteered at a soup kitchen to provide nutritious veggie food to the homeless, gave as much of my income to charity as I could literally afford, and organised a bunch of meaningful peace protest events for myself and others - then I'd be Good.

But I'm not going out of my way to do the right thing. I'm just doing what's within easy reach.

And that's enough to be good, if you had to be willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING to be good, as I've said no one would be. Literally nobody, and that would make the standards meaningless.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-03, 11:05 PM
hey man, I know I'm Chaotic Neutral simply because I go around and honestly express my viewpoint, which is often different from the majority and the fact that I do not limit myself to thinking in boxes. its just in my gut- I know that I a person of freedom, of individuality and thats all I ever will be. anything else wouldn't be me.

I do what I want, take the consequences as they come, smile and move on. walk my own path, no matter what, walk it smart and walk it wise. to me that is Chaotic Neutral.

to my viewpoint however, many people are self-depreciatory about their own alignment, think they are less good than they actually are, just because they don't hold up to a particular standard or whatever, when I'd say they're actually pretty good, they are just being humble and whatnot, like Good folks know to be. the stuff Altair does? I'm impressed that Altair is that dedicated. I'd give that an LG, if he/she doesn't, I know that I can't see myself doing so much. too focused on freedom and individuality.

GungHo
2014-03-04, 11:52 AM
I'm generally NG in my outlook and actions in my private life. Unless someone cuts me off in traffic. Then I make some rather CE hand signals.

My job requires me to engage in LN behavior for the most part. Except when I'm goofing off by posting during work hours, which is rather CN.

Amidus Drexel
2014-03-04, 01:13 PM
Not an easy question. I'd say TN leaning lawful, but only because I tend to display a fairly even mix of behaviours that correspond to the different alignments (although very rarely CG or CE). If I had to pin my alignment solely on my own account of my actions (taking my motivations into account), it'd be NE or LE, but if it's based on other people's accounts of me and my actions, it's probably closer to NG. I mix the two.

I like rules and such (and I tend to follow them mostly because they're rules), but I often end up looking more to the spirit of the rules when I have to make a decision - if I break the letter of the rules but adhere to what I perceive as the spirit of them, I can justify going around rules as long as it's not causing any trouble. I believe systems of rules/laws/etc. should be used to maintain order (and I believe that order's a good thing), but I have some pretty strong feelings about personal freedoms (in a practical and an absolute sense), and I get really bothered when something infringes upon those.

As for the good/evil axis... I don't really think of myself as a good person, but other people have repeatedly told me that I am. I'm selfish to a fault, and I don't really care about anyone else (save for about 5 people I'm emotionally close to) at all, but I often do nice things for people (strangers, friends - anyone) if it doesn't seriously inconvenience me.


Seriously, I challenge you to name any topic that I could not find at least one person in this playground with polar opposite views to someone else.

At some point, everyone on this board wanted (on some level) to be a part of this community. :smalltongue: I've found common ground. :smallbiggrin:

AMFV
2014-03-04, 01:57 PM
Not an easy question. I'd say TN leaning lawful, but only because I tend to display a fairly even mix of behaviours that correspond to the different alignments (although very rarely CG or CE). If I had to pin my alignment solely on my own account of my actions (taking my motivations into account), it'd be NE or LE, but if it's based on other people's accounts of me and my actions, it's probably closer to NG. I mix the two.

I like rules and such (and I tend to follow them mostly because they're rules), but I often end up looking more to the spirit of the rules when I have to make a decision - if I break the letter of the rules but adhere to what I perceive as the spirit of them, I can justify going around rules as long as it's not causing any trouble. I believe systems of rules/laws/etc. should be used to maintain order (and I believe that order's a good thing), but I have some pretty strong feelings about personal freedoms (in a practical and an absolute sense), and I get really bothered when something infringes upon those.

I would call that lawful, since you care about general principles, rather than a changing set of interpretations, and because you believe that order is a good thing, that sounds lawful to me, although it could be otherwise.

Mrc.
2014-03-04, 02:07 PM
At some point, everyone on this board wanted (on some level) to be a part of this community. :smalltongue: I've found common ground. :smallbiggrin:

Spambots? They have no wish to be part of the community, just to rape it of all it stands for. And many of those are partially manned so as to appear less conspicuous. But I concede the point, albeit begrudgingly.

Silva Stormrage
2014-03-04, 02:08 PM
Hm, Probably NG leaning towards TN. I like to help people but sometimes people are just idiots…

RedMage125
2014-03-04, 06:07 PM
Lawful Neutral. In so many ways.

Wife's Lawful Good. Good, absolutely. Lawful, not so much as an adherence to civil laws, but in her orderly, disciplined mannerisms.


As a player, NG.

As a GM, LN.
IMHO, LN GMs are some of the greatest, because they combine a strict adherence to rules (even if they modify a rule for the best, they usually stick with it), combined with a dedication to "what is fair" over "what a given person would like".

Of course, being as I am declared LN myself, my opinion on the matter may be biased...

Like the rest of humans, I'm NN.

To anyone who says they're not NN, I say: Prove it.
Show me the habitual disregard for your own comfort that you undertake to champion your alignment axis. I may even believe you.

Sure, I like freedom (chaos) and good, and the rule of law and all that - but do I put myself in harm's way to defend those things? Do I put special concerted effort into achiving my preferred alignment axes?

I think it takes one hell of an effort to get out of NN's gravity well.
My service to my country and dedication to preservation of what I feel make this country great. I am a United States Sailor, I have served in 3 squadrons in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, I was among the first responders to Japan's Tsunami in March of 2011, and I just re-enlisted for another 4 years.

I like the order, and discipline of military life. It suits me. Structure, plans, lists, schedules...without these things I do not function well.


Aedilred: I just want to add a personal "thank you" for use of the word "irrespective", when so many people use "irregardless", which isn't evena word and drives me up the wall. Next time I hear it, I'm going to offer them "irrespective" instead.

GPuzzle
2014-03-04, 06:20 PM
I fluctuate between Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil.

I know, it's weird. I do lose my temper a lot, but I have a strict code of conduct that I try to follow as much. It pisses me off when someone is picked upon and the mocker gets away with it or the person being picked upon doesn't even react and just tries to ignore. At those moments, even if I don't like the person being picked upon, I will protect the one being mocked and tell the mocker to f*** off.

You know, it's the right thing to do. People just shouldn't get away with screwing up with others' lifes, be it murder, robbery, burglary, mockery... And if the authorities are doing nothing about it, someone's got to act.

And I would like to be one of the first ones to do something.

Lorsa
2014-03-04, 06:53 PM
Love it.

In one of the Discworld books, Terry Pratchett discusses the "Monks of Cool". They spend years on a mountaintop comtemplating what it means to be cool. When their initiation is ended, they are given a final test. They are taken to a large room, filled with every type of clothing ever worn, and asked, "What would be the coolest thing to wear?"

The correct answer, of course, is, "Hey, man, whatever I put on."

Evidently, Lorsa's alignment is True Cool.

:smallcool:

I am not sure that if it helps my case or not by pointing out that the 3.5 Player's Handbook describes every alignment as being "the best one". :smallsmile:

HolyCouncilMagi
2014-03-04, 07:10 PM
Well, then by those wish fulfilment fantasy standards, I suppose I'm LG.

I'm dedicated to improving the lot of my fellow humans through the promotion of product safety regulation - every day I save lives by doing my job.
I'm also a morally committed vegetarian, charity ultra-marathoneer, and a peace protester.

I just reject the idea that this makes me a "Good" or "Lawful" person: I'm just doing my job. I'm just using my hobby to raise money. I'm just following a march of like-minded protesters.

If I went and volunteered at a soup kitchen to provide nutritious veggie food to the homeless, gave as much of my income to charity as I could literally afford, and organised a bunch of meaningful peace protest events for myself and others - then I'd be Good.

But I'm not going out of my way to do the right thing. I'm just doing what's within easy reach.

I think your view of the alignments is a bit overbearing. Borrowing from D&D 3.5 definitions, you are describing the minimum standard for Good at the standard for Exalted (BoED, not the game) characters. I would still call you neutral, personally, but Good isn't quite as restrictive as you imply.

That said, I'd consider myself Lawful Neutral with tendencies in every direction, though very few in the case of chaotic and probably a bit more good than evil, though maybe I'm just telling myself that. I'm extremely regimented, my house works like a factory, I tend to severely punish myself for breaking a single one of my house rules (I think I'm more strict on myself than my kids) and I strongly support lawful societies more for the sake of order itself than for how much Good they might be doing. As long as the laws are relatively consistent, I can work with and plan within them.

shotglasscannon
2014-03-05, 01:55 PM
Is it bad that i honestly consider myself to be lawful evil? like really fo shizzle

AMFV
2014-03-05, 02:32 PM
:smallcool:

I am not sure that if it helps my case or not by pointing out that the 3.5 Player's Handbook describes every alignment as being "the best one". :smallsmile:

Well except the evil ones, those are all described as being "the worst one".

Tengu_temp
2014-03-05, 03:47 PM
Is it bad that i honestly consider myself to be lawful evil? like really fo shizzle

You're asking honestly, so I'll answer honestly.

Yes, it's bad. Evil is not cool, or edgy, or smart. It just means you make life miserable for other people.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 03:49 PM
Evil is not selfish. That is something we all should remember. After all, we all seek out for number 1, but I highly doubt that there's someone here that seeks out for number 1 while simultaneously crushing numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and dropping an atomic bomb on the rest.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 04:19 PM
Evil is not selfish. That is something we all should remember. After all, we all seek out for number 1, but I highly doubt that there's someone here that seeks out for number 1 while simultaneously crushing numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and dropping an atomic bomb on the rest.

Evil IS selfish, it's just extremely self-interested to the point that it's willing to act against the interests of others for even a sliver of it's own interest. Your scenario is still primarily motivated by self-interest. Usually people who are extremely self-interested are willing to act against the interests of others to further their own, ergo many real world people are evil. You don't have to twirl your moustache to be D&D evil. You just have to pass onto the boss that Jimmy was five minutes late and had been talking behind his back, so that way Jimmy isn't a competitive for raises or promotion. You just have to be dishonest about your intentions to get what you want, like lying and saying you love somebody so that they'll be intimate when they otherwise wouldn't, or lying on your taxes so that you can benefit while other people don't (this one could also be chaotic but if it's motivated by self-interest rather than a disagreement in principle it'd be evil).

Joe the Rat
2014-03-05, 04:42 PM
This is a tricky one. I mean, I always see myself as the type that would take dirty money or goods from criminals to use against them, but it's never really come up. Nor the killing thing. I can be loose with promises sometimes. On the balance, I'd go with Unprincipled over Scrupulous, mostly because I'm more Selfish than Good, and nowhere near Miscreant levels of disregard and vindictiveness.
Seriously? Three pages and nobody busted out another published alignment system?

Tengu_temp
2014-03-05, 05:28 PM
Evil is not selfish. That is something we all should remember. After all, we all seek out for number 1, but I highly doubt that there's someone here that seeks out for number 1 while simultaneously crushing numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and dropping an atomic bomb on the rest.

Evil is not just selfish, you mean.

OverdrivePrime
2014-03-05, 05:46 PM
I'm very comfortably neutral good with slight leanings toward lawful good for some things, and slight leanings toward chaotic good for others. I believe in altruism for reasons that I consider rational and intellectual, and I put a high value on self-sacrifice for the purpose of making life better for others. I believe that society exists for the greater good of all, though I constantly push myself to an ever-higher position of strength so that I contribute more to society than I take.

I've spent my life practicing the martial arts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartialPacifist) so that I can protect the people around me from physical harm, and have spent an equal amount of effort learning the arts of persuasion so that I can guide people to more harmonious outcomes. To this day I've never intentionally injured anyone outside of a sport setting. I do whatever I can to minimize or eliminate the suffering of those around me, though I usually limit my efforts to my immediate community.

I'm no saint, and don't have any illusions that I can help all of the people all of the time. I do my best to help some of the people most of the time.

Cynics tell me that there's no such thing as altruism, and that I do what I do because it makes me feel good or superior, which is possible. Pride is ever my sin (look how many sentences up there start with 'I'), but I do my best to keep my quietly enormous ego out of the public eye. I have a low opinion of cynics, though I'll still go out of my way to help them too. :smallwink:

AMFV
2014-03-05, 06:06 PM
Evil is not just selfish, you mean.

What's worse is that the example provided is just selfish, the only reason that evil wants to thin the competition is out of a motivated self-interest, or capriciousness, or enjoyment of the suffering of others, all of which are motivations that are entirely selfish.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 06:08 PM
No, you guys are misinterprating it. Evil is selfish, yes, almost all of the time. But being selfish doesn't necessarily mean "Evil".

Actually, I misphrased that badly, it was an error in my part.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 06:16 PM
No, you guys are misinterprating it. Evil is selfish, yes, almost all of the time. But being selfish doesn't necessarily mean "Evil".

Actually, I misphrased that badly, it was an error in my part.

Being selfish is evil if it involves putting your own interests above those of others. Passively selfish, like not reporting a victimless crime that benefits you, is non-evil, but if it hurts somebody, then it's evil, and most forms of aggrandized self-interest do.

Aedilred
2014-03-05, 07:36 PM
Being selfish is evil if it involves putting your own interests above those of others. Passively selfish, like not reporting a victimless crime that benefits you, is non-evil, but if it hurts somebody, then it's evil, and most forms of aggrandized self-interest do.
You're on a sinking ship, and there aren't enough lifeboats for everyone. Is it evil to do your utmost to get on a boat? To get on a boat at all? To prevent people from getting on the boat after it's full because they'd put your life at risk?

If putting your own interests above others is evil, then the above is all evil. Barring a miracle, there's no non-evil way to survive that scenario. But if that's the case, there's no neutral either.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 07:53 PM
You're on a sinking ship, and there aren't enough lifeboats for everyone. Is it evil to do your utmost to get on a boat? To get on a boat at all? To prevent people from getting on the boat after it's full because they'd put your life at risk?

If putting your own interests above others is evil, then the above is all evil. Barring a miracle, there's no non-evil way to survive that scenario. But if that's the case, there's no neutral either.

If you cause other (innocent) people to die so that you can survive, then it's evil, killing innocents is explicitly evil as per D&D alignments. Yes if you shove past the women and children to get on the lifeboat it's evil. There is no non-evil way to survive that scenario.

paddyfool
2014-03-05, 08:12 PM
NG, leaning lawful.

Incidentally, this is what that silly quiz said:

Neutral Good Human Wizard (5th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 13
Dexterity- 11
Constitution- 14
Intelligence- 15
Wisdom- 11
Charisma- 11

... now I want to play that character, less-than-ideal statline be damned (and it can be damned, because Wizard).

TuggyNE
2014-03-05, 08:24 PM
There is no non-evil way to survive that scenario.

I would correct it to say that there is no Good way to survive that except sheer dumb luck. There are neutral ways to survive (i.e., be a woman or child), and also Evil ways (i.e., push past people and cut ropes early and so on).

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 08:38 PM
the kind of thinking that comes from thinking morality as math. :smallyuk: that right folks! your all evil for wanting to live! if your not doing the most absolute goodliest thing ever every single second, your not doing good at all! the only good people in this world are complete saints who do only stupid things for the sake of everyone else.

because clearly that is what good is all about. :smallsigh:

Amidus Drexel
2014-03-05, 08:47 PM
The kind of thinking that comes from thinking of morality as math. :smallyuk: That's right folks! You're all evil for wanting to live! If you're not doing the most absolute goodliest thing ever every single second, you're not doing good at all! The only good people in this world are complete saints who do only stupid things for the sake of everyone else.

Because clearly that is what good is all about. :smallsigh:

Either you're being sarcastic, you're being obtuse, or you're missing the point of what most people here have said entirely. If you meant to respond to the one person that said that, then go ahead (although you should have made yourself clearer), but please don't attribute that nonsense to the rest of us unjustly.

That said, there are situations where taking a "good" action will lead to certain death. Sometimes one's survival really does hinge on taking evil (or at least morally questionable) actions. There's nothing wrong with that (well, in my opinion, at least) - but taking those actions to survive doesn't keep them from being non-good actions.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 08:54 PM
that is still thinking of it as math. if you need to survive to continue doing more good another day than to stupidly do less good by just sacrificing yourself there, then the act of survival is good. a ship sinking is a wildly chaotic situation where you have very little control over the outcome, and morality only matters when you do have control over things enough to decide what is right and what is wrong.

morality is a thing of choice, and in survival you have no choice, no freedom to choose right or wrong. to think that you do is extremely foolish in that kind of situation. morality only matters when survival is not on the line.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 08:59 PM
Okay, take the sinking ship scenario. What would YOU do in that situation?

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 09:00 PM
get on a lifeboat. duh. why would I need more thought than that?

Razanir
2014-03-05, 09:02 PM
I've taken those personality tests. Historically, I was LN. But recently I've drifted into LG.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 09:02 PM
No, I was talking to the others, Raziere.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 09:04 PM
okay, sorry. my bad.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:05 PM
I would correct it to say that there is no Good way to survive that except sheer dumb luck. There are neutral ways to survive (i.e., be a woman or child), and also Evil ways (i.e., push past people and cut ropes early and so on).

Alright, I stand corrected, I was mostly imagining myself in the scenario, so the "be a woman or child" option hadn't occurred to me, but I will concede that this is neutral or even good.


the kind of thinking that comes from thinking morality as math. :smallyuk: that right folks! your all evil for wanting to live! if your not doing the most absolute goodliest thing ever every single second, your not doing good at all! the only good people in this world are complete saints who do only stupid things for the sake of everyone else.

because clearly that is what good is all about. :smallsigh:

Yes, being good involves self-sacrifice sometimes. Sorry it's not always easy.


that is still thinking of it as math. if you need to survive to continue doing more good another day than to stupidly do less good by just sacrificing yourself there, then the act of survival is good. a ship sinking is a wildly chaotic situation where you have very little control over the outcome, and morality only matters when you do have control over things enough to decide what is right and what is wrong.

morality is a thing of choice, and in survival you have no choice, no freedom to choose right or wrong. to think that you do is extremely foolish in that kind of situation. morality only matters when survival is not on the line.

Survival is important, survival at the expense of INNOCENTS is evil.


No, I was talking to the others, Raziere.

Die. Prevent other men from getting onto the boat at the expense of women and children. Absolutely, every single time.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-03-05, 09:12 PM
Die. Prevent other men from getting onto the boat at the expense of women and children. Absolutely, every single time.

So why are women more important than men? We don't live in a society that tells us that we should maximize the female population because we only need a few men to make them all pregnant. Medieval society isn't like that either: for thousands of years we've lived in societies that marriage is a big part of.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:13 PM
So why are women more important than men? We don't live in a society that tells us that we should maximize the female population because we only need a few men to make them all pregnant.

Because that is what is honorable, well we can limit it to children.

However, Men are more likely to be able to survive in the water for that period of time, they are stronger and have superior endurance, biological differences in this case provide the difference.

Edit: In any case... the point is that I would die so that others would live, and I would protect those who are weaker from those who are stronger. Because that is the right thing to do.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 09:16 PM
Yes, being good involves self-sacrifice sometimes. Sorry it's not always easy.


sure its not always easy, but y'know whats an easy way out? death.

death is light as a feather. duty heavier than a mountain.

self-sacrifice is a good way to avoid continuing to live the hard life of a good person. I would not call it courageous or virtuous.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:18 PM
sure its not always easy, but y'know whats an easy way out? death.

death is light as a feather. duty heavier than a mountain.

self-sacrifice is a good way to avoid continuing to live the hard life of a good person. I would not call it courageous or virtuous.

In this case your duty is to death... Sometimes that happens. There is no duty to survive at any cost, if innocent people die because you live, then that's explicitly defined as evil. It's tantamount to murder.

Mastikator
2014-03-05, 09:23 PM
Either you're being sarcastic, you're being obtuse, or you're missing the point of what most people here have said entirely. If you meant to respond to the one person that said that, then go ahead (although you should have made yourself clearer), but please don't attribute that nonsense to the rest of us unjustly.

That said, there are situations where taking a "good" action will lead to certain death. Sometimes one's survival really does hinge on taking evil (or at least morally questionable) actions. There's nothing wrong with that (well, in my opinion, at least) - but taking those actions to survive doesn't keep them from being non-good actions.

Those situations are so rare and so far in between that most people don't even know anyone who's been in them, a statistical anomaly. For the most part and for most people being good yields best results over the long run.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-03-05, 09:24 PM
sure its not always easy, but y'know whats an easy way out? death.

death is light as a feather. duty heavier than a mountain.

self-sacrifice is a good way to avoid continuing to live the hard life of a good person. I would not call it courageous or virtuous.

Ah, but politicians do many questionable things to attempt to get voted (if democracy) or promoted (if not), on the basis that once they're in power they can really do good. I am not going to talk about specific politicians, but this is true for the vast majority of them, regardless of political system. How many politicians would you say are good-aligned?

And who says that this death is not also duty? People naturally fear the unknown, and death is the ultimate unknown.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:24 PM
Those situations are so rare and so far in between that most people don't even know anyone who's been in them, a statistical anomaly. For the most part and for most people being good yields best results over the long run.

I know people who have had to make a decision that hurt them, but is something that I would argue is morally correct.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 09:31 PM
Ah, but politicians do many questionable things to attempt to get voted (if democracy) or promoted (if not), on the basis that once they're in power they can really do good. I am not going to talk about specific politicians, but this is true for the vast majority of them, regardless of political system. How many politicians would you say are good-aligned?

And who says that this death is not also duty? People naturally fear the unknown, and death is the ultimate unknown.

I don't see how these questions about politicians have anything to do with this discussion.

death is also an instant of pain, then an eternity of painlessness. life with all its complicated challenges and whatnot, is far more tormenting than death, and good men live to suffer for the good of others another day.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-03-05, 09:32 PM
I don't see how these questions about politicians have anything to do with this discussion.

It's about doing deeds that definitely aren't good-aligned for the hope of doing more good-aligned deeds later.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:32 PM
I don't see how these questions about politicians have anything to do with this discussion.

death is also an instant of pain, then an eternity of painlessness. life with all its complicated challenges and whatnot, is far more tormenting than death, and good men live to suffer for the good of others another day.

Not in Dungeons and Dragons where this question is framed. If you're interpreting this in terms of some real world morality where there is or is not an afterlife, that would be entirely outside of the scope of this forum.


It's about doing deeds that definitely aren't good-aligned for the hope of doing more good-aligned deeds later.


Which is still evil, because they might not do those deeds. And in the case of politicians that's often true. You can't weigh evil deeds against future possible good deeds.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 09:46 PM
Not in Dungeons and Dragons where this question is framed. If you're interpreting this in terms of some real world morality where there is or is not an afterlife, that would be entirely outside of the scope of this forum.

oh but there is an afterlife in DnD, and it is why I say its not courageous to do so in DnD

sacrifice yourself and you find yourself in a place where you don't have to worry about helping anyone anymore. the concerns of the living are no longer yours. kick back. relax. its not as if that if you lived, you could've done more good instead of sitting around, enjoying the afterlife while your friends who could've used your help, might fail without you.

I don't see how it is good for someone to sacrifice themselves to afterlive in comfort with no worries while everyone else keeps having to do good, I mean what good person would choose perfect comfort over the potential to help more people? its an enticing reward yes. but one that I personally would turn down if I were a heroic adventurer.

@ Jade Dragon: well I have a question for you: how much good would it do if a vast majority of politicians went out and sacrificed themselves all at once, thus leaving governmental systems without anyone to govern them and thus leading to the collapse of society and thus causing more chaos, death, suffering and so on and so forth than they prevented?

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 09:51 PM
Aligments aren't scales, you know? You can't weigh Evil deeds against Good deeds because there is no such thing as compensating for other. Much like Neutral isn't Neutral Stupid, which is making the same number of good deeds as you do bad deeds, a person cannot be measured by an act.

You stay and die, but as you said, you're stopping other people from getting in. That is worse than going to the boats as fast as you can. How many people will die because of you? Which human life is more worthy?

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:52 PM
oh but there is an afterlife in DnD, and it is why I say its not courageous to do so in DnD

sacrifice yourself and you find yourself in a place where you don't have to worry about helping anyone anymore. the concerns of the living are no longer yours. kick back. relax. its not as if that if you lived, you could've done more good instead of sitting around, enjoying the afterlife while your friends who could've used your help, might fail without you.

I don't see how it is good for someone to sacrifice themselves to afterlive in comfort with no worries while everyone else keeps having to do good, I mean what good person would choose perfect comfort over the potential to help more people? its an enticing reward yes. but one that I personally would turn down if I were a heroic adventurer.

Yes, which is why you would make the argument then immedately retract it. In any case the point is that your living requires the DEATH, the DEATH OF INNOCENTS. Are you arguing that murdering innocent people so that you can survive is appropriate? Is that the case? Your argument implies that your own survival is more important the survival of innocents. I cannot see any
way that that is anything other than evil.


Aligments aren't scales, you know? You can't weigh Evil deeds against Good deeds because there is no such thing as compensating for other. Much like Neutral isn't Neutral Stupid, which is making the same number of good deeds as you do bad deeds, a person cannot be measured by an act.

You stay and die, but as you said, you're stopping other people from getting in. That is worse than going to the boats as fast as you can. How many people will die because of you? Which human life is more worthy?


You aren't blocking the path, that's stupidity, which is outside of the purview of alignment. You are not taking a spot on the boat, but you aren't hindering the departure of others, in fact you should be able to assist them in this respect, which is again the path of good.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 09:57 PM
You wanna see it in a way that's not evil?

You're innocent too.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 09:59 PM
You wanna see it in a way that's not evil?

You're innocent too.

No... the responsibility is to the lives of others. If you are furthering your own self-interest, that's evil, that one act makes you no longer innocent.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 10:00 PM
Should everyone stay behind so others can escape, then?

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 10:01 PM
Yes, which is why you would make the argument then immedately retract it. In any case the point is that your living requires the DEATH, the DEATH OF INNOCENTS. Are you arguing that murdering innocent people so that you can survive is appropriate? Is that the case? Your argument implies that your own survival is more important the survival of innocents. I cannot see any way that that is anything other than evil.

Unless I'm the one who caused the sinking of the ship, I don't see how I'm murdering anyone. why would I stop to prevent others from surviving? that would take up precious time where I could use to survive myself. why would I try to self-sacrifice? the situation is beyond my control. there is no guarantee that my death will actually save anyone, there is no time to figure out who "deserves" to live more than anyone else. If I stop to think about the situation, I'm just being useless through inaction. I must try to survive. that is what matters, not choosing WHO survives, which I consider far more evil, because your clearly picking favorites and showing bias in who lives and who dies.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:02 PM
Should everyone stay behind so others can escape, then?

The stronger should stay behind so that those who are weaker can escape, the infirm, children, then if there is yet room on the boats lots can be drawn so that it's fair. That would be neutral. But if one infirm person, one child, one woman dies because you were selfish, that's evil.

veti
2014-03-05, 10:02 PM
Yes, which is why you would make the argument then immedately retract it. In any case the point is that your living requires the DEATH, the DEATH OF INNOCENTS. Are you arguing that murdering innocent people so that you can survive is appropriate? Is that the case? Your argument implies that your own survival is more important the survival of innocents. I cannot see any
way that that is anything other than evil.

Welcome to the logical insanity that is "certainty of an afterlife".

If you kill innocents, they go straight to heaven. Therefore, killing innocents is good.

If you kill evil people, they go to hell. Therefore, killing evil people is evil. The only morally defensible course is to rehabilitate them, then kill them.

Does it make a lick of sense? Well, no. But it's the logic of D&D cosmology.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:05 PM
Welcome to the logical insanity that is "certainty of an afterlife".

If you kill innocents, they go straight to heaven. Therefore, killing innocents is good.

If you kill evil people, they go to hell. Therefore, killing evil people is evil. The only morally defensible course is to rehabilitate them, then kill them.

Does it make a lick of sense? Well, no. But it's the logic of D&D cosmology.

I believe in a certainty of afterlife, in the real world. Killing innocents doesn't suddenly become moral under my world view (which I won't discuss but I'm pointing out the contradiction).

Sending somebody to heaven is not good, it's evil, you don't know the end state of their soul, and you are preventing them from any good they might later do, the right to experience the remainder of their moral life.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 10:09 PM
Sending somebody to heaven is not good, it's evil, you don't know the end state of their soul, and you are preventing them from any good they might later do, the right to experience the remainder of their moral life.

then aren't you preventing yourself from your right to experience the remainder of your moral life by sacrificing yourself? what makes you so much better than anyone else?

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:11 PM
then aren't you preventing yourself from your right to experience the remainder of your moral life by sacrificing yourself? what makes you so much better than anyone else?

I'm not any better, but I made that choice for me. I don't get to make it for others. In fact allowing yourself to be the one that suffers, is good, self-sacrifice is good. Explicitly good in fact as is listed in the rules. So that's a pretty solid defense of it.

In any case the point is that I'd be willing to make that choice, a child can't, and I would certainly argue with somebody else to try to save them over me, because that's the correct thing to do, self-sacrifice is good in this case.

GPuzzle
2014-03-05, 10:13 PM
Wait, what rules?

Dienekes
2014-03-05, 10:13 PM
Unless I'm the one who caused the sinking of the ship, I don't see how I'm murdering anyone. why would I stop to prevent others from surviving? that would take up precious time where I could use to survive myself. why would I try to self-sacrifice? the situation is beyond my control. there is no guarantee that my death will actually save anyone, there is no time to figure out who "deserves" to live more than anyone else. If I stop to think about the situation, I'm just being useless through inaction. I must try to survive. that is what matters, not choosing WHO survives, which I consider far more evil, because your clearly picking favorites and showing bias in who lives and who dies.

This is where I disagree, a bit. The guy who tries to save their own skin on a sinking ship isn't evil, but nor is he good. The guy who sees the sinking ship and tries to save as many as he can is good (or at least taking a good action).

To use a different example, the man who jumps on the grenade to save his squad is a hero. Sure it wasn't his fault the grenade nearly killed everyone, and I would not fault everyone else who dove out of the way to survive. But the good response is the self sacrificing one.

Attempting to justify that morality only matters when survival is not on the line seems a rather cowardly interpretation of morality. You can be moral when it doesn't burden you too much, when it doesn't cost you the price you're not willing to pay. I do not think that's how morality works.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:14 PM
Wait, what rules?

The BoED, the sections on alignment, they state that self-sacrifice is good. It's also throughout several other books.

Amaril
2014-03-05, 10:14 PM
In any case the point is that I'd be willing to make that choice, a child can't, and I would certainly argue with somebody else to try to save them over me, because that's the correct thing to do, self-sacrifice is good in this case.

So, with your earlier statements in mind, is a woman or an infirm person also unable to make the choice to sacrifice themselves, in the same way a child is?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just think this is an important thing to address.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:16 PM
So, with your earlier statements in mind, is a woman or an infirm person also unable to make the choice to sacrifice themselves, in the same way a child is?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just think this is an important thing to address.

It's debatable, I think that in this case a woman or an infirm person could make that same choice. Of course I'm extremely lawful, so cultural mores inform my decisions regarding who should sacrifice themselves. So the "women" bit of women and children has more to do with law and codes of honor than good.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-03-05, 10:19 PM
@ Jade Dragon: well I have a question for you: how much good would it do if a vast majority of politicians went out and sacrificed themselves all at once, thus leaving governmental systems without anyone to govern them and thus leading to the collapse of society and thus causing more chaos, death, suffering and so on and so forth than they prevented?

Am I saying that they should commit mass suicide? No, I am saying they should be focused on doing the right thing now, rather than later.

Doing anything you can, even if you rule out murder, to survive at the expense of someone else is not a good act. I disagree with it being evil, this really is a situation where a life has to be given and there's no other option, but it is not a good act. Survival instinct is not moral. It is survival.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:20 PM
Am I saying that they should commit mass suicide? No, I am saying they should be focused on doing the right thing now, rather than later.

Doing anything you can, even if you rule out murder, to survive at the expense of someone else is not a good act. I disagree with it being evil, this really is a situation where a life has to be given and there's no other option, but it is not a good act. Survival instinct is not moral. It is survival.

Survival AT ANY COST isn't moral. If I'm accused of murderer and I'm facing the death penalty, should I then kill witnesses, that is tantamount to my survival, and is clearly immoral.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 10:27 PM
yes but if everyone was self-sacrificing everyone would die, to use Kant's universality principle. so I cannot consider self-sacrifice moral, because as soon as everyone does it, its not moral. its only moral from a utilitarian point of a view, where everyone else is happy at the cost of yourself.

everyone trying to survive however is on the other hand, fairer and more equal, even if not everyone makes it. world's imperfect. you gotta take what you can get.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:28 PM
yes but if everyone was self-sacrificing everyone would die, to use Kant's universality principle. so I cannot consider self-sacrifice moral, because as soon as everyone does it, its not moral. its only moral from a utilitarian point of a view, where everyone else is happy at the cost of yourself.

everyone trying to survive however is on the other hand, fairer and more equal, even if not everyone makes it. world's imperfect. you gotta take what you can get.

You can't apply universality to it. Because everybody can't kill themselves to save somebody else, eventually that fails, it's a logical fallacy.

Furthermore Kantian Ethics and Utilitarian ethics are not the only two systems of ethics in philosophy.

Dienekes
2014-03-05, 10:30 PM
yes but if everyone was self-sacrificing everyone would die, to use Kant's universality principle. so I cannot consider self-sacrifice moral, because as soon as everyone does it, its not moral. its only moral from a utilitarian point of a view, where everyone else is happy at the cost of yourself.

everyone trying to survive however is on the other hand, fairer and more equal, even if not everyone makes it. world's imperfect. you gotta take what you can get.

There's a reason why Kant is not universally regarded as the be all end all of morality, just one (brilliant) philosopher among many.

Needless to say, I disagree with him on this and a few more points.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 10:36 PM
In any case, I'm going to have to excuse myself from this discussion since we are now firmly in real world morality. As opposed to D&D morality, since Kant and Utilitarianism would not be present in D&D where the moral laws would be different.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-05, 10:43 PM
oh I know all that.

but survival is still the best moral option. if however AMFV is so willing to die, then I would let him, for its clearly his choice to do so, I wouldn't have time to argue with him over this, I would have a lifeboat to catch. I don't consider good people who would gladly rid themselves of the world and deprive it of a person who could potentially do more good living and than dead, all that moral anyways, could've done more, but alas, he chose the option where he doesn't get to live another day. not smart, and therefore not good in my opinion.

edit: also I don't really see any difference between the real world and not-real world moralities. they're all interpretations of morality, and using one morality to interpret another doesn't seem bad to me.

Amidus Drexel
2014-03-05, 11:22 PM
Okay, take the sinking ship scenario. What would YOU do in that situation?

Survive at all costs. I mean, there's probably a point where even I would say, "Alright, I can die to save this many people.", but I don't know where that point is, or if it would even apply to this situation (as a matter of scale).


The stronger should stay behind so that those who are weaker can escape, the infirm, children, then if there is yet room on the boats lots can be drawn so that it's fair. That would be neutral. But if one infirm person, one child, one woman dies because you were selfish, that's evil.

I have an issue with your argument that the women and children should be first in this scenario (as a necessity for it being a good act) - what makes them any more deserving of life than me? (or men in general, for that matter). I'll agree that actively preventing them from getting on a life boat (i.e. pushing them overboard) is an evil act (although that goes for literally anyone, not just women and children), and that passively preventing people from getting on a life boat (i.e. occupying the space yourself and helping other people on instead) is neutral, but I don't see why you're giving women and children a free pass on the moral decision here.

Regarding the argument that they're weaker and therefore more deserving of life - I find that a bit silly. Why are the weakest the most valuable? Shouldn't they be the least valuable, by virtue of their weakness? I would argue that the most valuable person is the one that's most useful - someone who is not weak.

Also, who's to say that the people you're saving are innocent? You have no idea. They could be just as selfish as the ******* that's throwing people out of lifeboats to get his spot, only a little more subtle about it, and you're only encouraging them. I refuse to exempt them from the moral dilemma in this scenario just because they're perceived as weaker or innocent.

In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that it could be considered the moral duty of a weak person in such a situation to recognize that their survival is less helpful to the group at large than the survival of those who are not weak, and therefore they should stay behind, to maximize the chance of survival for those who are stronger and more able.

--
Alright, enough bending of your logic to walk around in circles. That's a bit more extreme than what I actually believe, but I hope you see my point.

Jeff the Green
2014-03-05, 11:24 PM
I think I'm true neutral. I like to think that I lean towards good, but...

Funny, I'm LG but aim for LN.

Basically, I fundamentally disagree with D&D morality, and what I consider good (a combination of value ethics and consequentialism) D&D would call LN. I just haven't had to make a lot of hard choices and have been lucky to mostly have situations where the right thing is also the Good thing.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 12:42 AM
oh I know all that.

but survival is still the best moral option. if however AMFV is so willing to die, then I would let him, for its clearly his choice to do so, I wouldn't have time to argue with him over this, I would have a lifeboat to catch. I don't consider good people who would gladly rid themselves of the world and deprive it of a person who could potentially do more good living and than dead, all that moral anyways, could've done more, but alas, he chose the option where he doesn't get to live another day. not smart, and therefore not good in my opinion.

edit: also I don't really see any difference between the real world and not-real world moralities. they're all interpretations of morality, and using one morality to interpret another doesn't seem bad to me.

Returning briefly to address this, real world morality is not under the purview of the forum and is therefore banned, as such I cannot effectively present the arguments that I would like to in regards to this issue. Since I can't present the set of arguments that I would present I am unable to effectively debate this rather loaded issue with my hands tied behind my back, as such there is little point in continuing the discussion, since I am not allowed to address this discussion in such a way that would permit to properly address the points being raised.


Survive at all costs. I mean, there's probably a point where even I would say, "Alright, I can die to save this many people.", but I don't know where that point is, or if it would even apply to this situation (as a matter of scale).



I have an issue with your argument that the women and children should be first in this scenario (as a necessity for it being a good act) - what makes them any more deserving of life than me? (or men in general, for that matter). I'll agree that actively preventing them from getting on a life boat (i.e. pushing them overboard) is an evil act (although that goes for literally anyone, not just women and children), and that passively preventing people from getting on a life boat (i.e. occupying the space yourself and helping other people on instead) is neutral, but I don't see why you're giving women and children a free pass on the moral decision here.

Regarding the argument that they're weaker and therefore more deserving of life - I find that a bit silly. Why are the weakest the most valuable? Shouldn't they be the least valuable, by virtue of their weakness? I would argue that the most valuable person is the one that's most useful - someone who is not weak.

Also, who's to say that the people you're saving are innocent? You have no idea. They could be just as selfish as the ******* that's throwing people out of lifeboats to get his spot, only a little more subtle about it, and you're only encouraging them. I refuse to exempt them from the moral dilemma in this scenario just because they're perceived as weaker or innocent.

In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that it could be considered the moral duty of a weak person in such a situation to recognize that their survival is less helpful to the group at large than the survival of those who are not weak, and therefore they should stay behind, to maximize the chance of survival for those who are stronger and more able.

--
Alright, enough bending of your logic to walk around in circles. That's a bit more extreme than what I actually believe, but I hope you see my point.

You've only bent my logic by ignoring roughly half of what I've posted. Particularly vis a vis the women and children thing where I acknowledged that the women were a societal issue (and therefore a matter of law) if you would like to discuss this further then I am available via PM.

And yes it is the duty of everybody, to self-sacrifice, but it is NEVER, my duty to make that choice on somebody else's behalf.

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-06, 12:54 AM
My alignment is Passive Aggressive Good. I do good deeds and then guilt people into returning the favor.

BrokenChord
2014-03-06, 01:03 AM
My alignment is Passive Aggressive Good. I do good deeds and then guilt people into returning the favor.

You have had three alignments since this thread started, all of which are hilarious. This is what real character development is about, people. Thank you for sharing your wisdom, sir ma'am goblinoid.

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-06, 01:08 AM
You have had three alignments since this thread started, all of which are hilarious. This is what real character development is about, people.

Thank you.


Thank you for sharing your wisdom, sir ma'am goblinoid.

You're welcome.

Lorsa
2014-03-06, 03:59 AM
Okay, take the sinking ship scenario. What would YOU do in that situation?

I don't know for sure what I would do unless I get there. I can tell you what I would LIKE to do.


Die. Prevent other men from getting onto the boat at the expense of women and children. Absolutely, every single time.

Which is more or less this. I would modifiy it slightly though because I would also prevent the aforementioned evil women of getting into lifeboats. Helping good women to get on ahead of the evil ones seems like a worthy cause to me.

Socksy
2014-03-06, 04:08 AM
I'm barely five feet, just over 100lb, and I look about fourteen. I can also act NG for days at a time when it benefits me.

So say I get the place on the lifeboat (which I would happily shove someone overboard for), and someone hits the area with some equivalent of Detect Evil.

To all you LGs out there: what do you do? Value the life of an Evil individual (despite being a child) less than someone else's? Let evil/chaos take the place?

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-03-06, 05:31 AM
On the sinking ship, it's vital that strong, competent people get into those life boats, to save the weak. If the life boat is full of kids, it isn't going to last long.

Now, I may be a bit competent (I remember my lessons from Scouting), but I'm not strong, and I'm no sailor. So I'd give up my place to a professional sailor, once I'd seen my family aboard.
Given the weight of popular opinion on this thread, I imagine this makes me lawful good.
But deep down, I know I'm just protecting my genes by way of protecting my family. I'm just being selfish by proxy...

Consider another apocalyptic scenario: The world has gone to hell, and all conventional society and order has broken. We are a species of scavenging hunter gatherers again.

Show how your actions in this setting support your claim to your professed alignment.

Socksy
2014-03-06, 06:03 AM
Consider another apocalyptic scenario: The world has gone to hell, and all conventional society and order has broken. We are a species of scavenging hunter gatherers again.

Show how your actions in this setting support your claim to your professed alignment.

Use martial arts and Scouts/Explorers training to screw over everyone who isn't helpful to my survival and gaining power, anyone who looks like they're a threat. Take their food, clothing, supplies for myself and my younger brother. If there were no schools, I'd teach all the maths I knew in order to improve the survival chances of whatever group I'm in (and therefore my own survival). Knowledge(Maths) isn't the most useful skill, but some parts of stats and mechanics could be.

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-03-06, 06:16 AM
Use martial arts and Scouts/Explorers training to screw over everyone who isn't helpful to my survival and gaining power, anyone who looks like they're a threat. Take their food, clothing, supplies for myself and my younger brother. If there were no schools, I'd teach all the maths I knew in order to improve the survival chances of whatever group I'm in (and therefore my own survival). Knowledge(Maths) isn't the most useful skill, but some parts of stats and mechanics could be.
And what alignment does this make you..?

Me, I'm thinking it's lawful evil - since instead of just doing enough to protect your group, you're talking about screwing over everyone who isn't helpful (evil), and you are trying to organise a group, with training, and protecting your family (lawful).

Lorsa
2014-03-06, 07:49 AM
Consider another apocalyptic scenario: The world has gone to hell, and all conventional society and order has broken. We are a species of scavenging hunter gatherers again.

Show how your actions in this setting support your claim to your professed alignment.

I'd make sure to always have a pair of sunglasses at hand to go with my True Cool alignment. :smallcool:

Also, I figured you mean post-apocalyptic? Because in a truly ongoing apocalyptic scenario there is very little any of us can do.

I would do my best to rebuild "society", that is try to organise people into a functioning group of cooperation where everyone looks after each other. Humans can always accomplish more by working together than working alone.

Failing that I would use my intelligence to figure out a way to prevent those that try to violently take advantage of others in this situation from doing so. Whether or not I'd resort to violence myself to fight off the bullies is another matter. I've always had trouble motivating any form of violence so we'll see about that.

Altair_the_Vexed
2014-03-06, 08:23 AM
Consider another {post-}apocalyptic scenario: The world has gone to hell, and all conventional society and order has broken. We are a species of scavenging hunter gatherers again.

Show how your actions in this setting support your claim to your professed alignment.
{Update: clarified "post-apocalypse" setting.}

Me, I'd probably try to act LG in this sort of setting - helping organise some sort of subsistence farming / hunting community.

Trouble is, I'm not sure my personality is strong enough (I guess I have a middling CHA: 12 or so; and a middling low WIS: 9 or 10) to stand up to pushy folk wanting to get their way.

The other thing for me is that I need regular doses of medicine to stay healthy - so I would know that my time to create a robust self-sufficient community would be limited.
I could last a month of so before I became physically useless, and would then become a serious burden. I'm not sure how long I would live beyond that.

Would this make me more inclined to be ruthless? I really hope not. I don't really imiagine myself being in charge, anyway.

BrokenChord
2014-03-06, 09:11 AM
Aw, man! Settings that are caught mid-apocalypse are always more fun that post-apocalyptica.

Anyway, in that situation, I'd... Well, do a few things I ought not mention in the view of the public eye. But for things I can say, well, depending on gender/personality of the individual I'd appear to either be in need of help or alternatively independently useful, or just seduce them, so I'm eventually in close quarters with people. Then I use them in a number of ways for my amusement, and assuming this is a zombie-esque apocalypse in the sense that the apocalypse causing thing is still there, I'd use the bodies as a distraction/sacrifice so I can get the hell out of dodge.

Admittedly, I might occasionally keep one person alive as a pet so I don't get lonely, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make me Neutral :smallwink:

Aedilred
2014-03-06, 10:05 AM
I have considered the post-apocalyptic scenario myself. In theory I'd try to organise some sort of survival community, and do my best to assist people in reaching it and helping it to prosper. But the problem there is that I'd already need to have enough resources at my disposal to survive both the apocalypse itself and those more individually powerful than me trying to take my stuff in the aftermath. I don't mind about dying for a point of principle, but there's no point in this scenario standing up to someone and getting myself killed just for the hell of it - and furthermore putting the lives of my companions at risk as a result. It's difficult to know what alignment my actions would actually ping as; most likely, neutral.

With the sinking ship scenario, I must admit to a slight disconnect in thinking with AMFV. Obviously I designed the scenario to exclude the possibility of a neutral outcome by his definition of evil. But I can't for the life of me see how stopping other (innocent!) people getting on the boat (regardless of gender) is in any way a Good act. If you're stopping people from overloading boats that are already full and sinking them, then that's probably ok. Stopping people getting on because you're making arbitrary moral judgments that they're not deserving enough to survive, or trying to take away their own agency in determining whether they survive - well, that's no better than killing them yourself. And there's no reason to presuppose these people aren't innocent.

The point is that taking that view of what constitutes evil is to eliminate neutrality as a viable alignment. Response in a life-or-death scenario should surely be an acid test of an alignment and to construct the alignment definitions in such a way that there is no non-evil way to survive is to reduce the good-evil spectrum to a binary distinction. As someone mentioned earlier, evil is selfish, of course, but it's not just selfish.

Looking out for your own interests, putting your own interests above those of others, is the default, it's human nature; it's not in any way immoral. Were that the case you would withdraw from job or university applications if you discovered there were more applications than candidates, because by getting in you would be by definition putting your own interests first. Even a Good person wouldn't do that, surely! The world couldn't operate on that basis any more than it could if everyone were actively undermining each other. What distinguishes evil is that there's no regard for other people's interests at all, or even an active disregard.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 10:55 AM
Looking out for your own interests, putting your own interests above those of others, is the default, it's human nature; it's not in any way immoral. Were that the case you would withdraw from job or university applications if you discovered there were more applications than candidates, because by getting in you would be by definition putting your own interests first. Even a Good person wouldn't do that, surely! The world couldn't operate on that basis any more than it could if everyone were actively undermining each other. What distinguishes evil is that there's no regard for other people's interests at all, or even an active disregard.

And if that is harmful to others then in D&D it is evil. I would argue that putting our own interests over others is not the default state for people. You're muddying the issue with the application thing, since one could justify that scenario by presenting that the interests of the group to which you are applying is best served by having the most qualified applicant, ergo not your own interests but the interests of society as a whole are improved by having the best applicants in the best jobs.

BrokenChord
2014-03-06, 11:19 AM
And if that is harmful to others then in D&D it is evil. I would argue that putting our own interests over others is not the default state for people. You're muddying the issue with the application thing, since one could justify that scenario by presenting that the interests of the group to which you are applying is best served by having the most qualified applicant, ergo not your own interests but the interests of society as a whole are improved by having the best applicants in the best jobs.

Which is more of a Lawful distinction, and plenty of Lawful Neutral people in D&D care about getting the most capable people into job positions to maximize the success of society. Now, it's much less likely for a LE person to support somebody they can't use as a puppet or tool, but the issue as a whole is more Law/Chaos than Good:Evil.

Aedilred
2014-03-06, 11:31 AM
And if that is harmful to others then in D&D it is evil. I would argue that putting our own interests over others is not the default state for people. You're muddying the issue with the application thing, since one could justify that scenario by presenting that the interests of the group to which you are applying is best served by having the most qualified applicant, ergo not your own interests but the interests of society as a whole are improved by having the best applicants in the best jobs.

But that's part of the point. There are a lot of factors at play which enter into any individual situation. Even in the sinking ship, surely the "best" action to take would on the same principle be to ensure that the people who survived were those most useful to society, rather than either (a) random selection or (b) arbitrary selection by gender, age, disability, etc. (Moreover, these answers are assuming that utilitarianism is ethically valid, which is questionable.)

In reality, in the vast majority of cases, a job applicant is not applying for a given job because it will suit society better for the best people to be in the most appropriate jobs and etc. Even if they say that, it's not really true; it's so abstracted from their individual circumstances that it's functionally meaningless. In reality, people apply because they need a job, and the money (and/or other benefits) that comes from it. There will be other factors weighing in, of course, but in reality the overriding factor is that it's in the individual's interest. People do apply for jobs for other reasons, but usually only when they are already financially secure or where other factors are equal or moot.

You can take this as far as you like. My day-to-day survival is harmful to others by default because I'm consuming resources of which there are insufficiently many to support everyone on the planet. Therefore I (and by extension, everyone on the planet) am evil for not killing myself immediately and increasing availability of those resources for any survivors (who will, as it happens, be either evil for not having done so, or mentally or physically incapable of killing themselves, and thus of supporting themselves, and will likely die anyway). Is this reductio ad absurdum? Maybe, but I think it's valid, based on your statements so far.

Like I say, my problem is not with your apparent definition of "good". It's with the binary distinction drawn which rules out neutrality in the ultimate assumption that anything that is not actively good is evil, including taking basic precautions to ensure one's own survival.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 11:34 AM
But that's part of the point. There are a lot of factors at play which enter into any individual situation. Even in the sinking ship, surely the "best" action to take would on the same principle be to ensure that the people who survived were those most useful to society, rather than either (a) random selection or (b) arbitrary selection by gender, age, disability, etc. (Moreover, these answers are assuming that utilitarianism is ethically valid, which is questionable.)

In reality, in the vast majority of cases, a job applicant is not applying for a given job because it will suit society better for the best people to be in the most appropriate jobs and etc. Even if they say that, it's not really true; it's so abstracted from their individual circumstances that it's functionally meaningless. In reality, people apply because they need a job, and the money (and/or other benefits) that comes from it. There will be other factors weighing in, of course, but in reality the overriding factor is that it's in the individual's interest. People do apply for jobs for other reasons, but usually only when they are already financially secure or where other factors are equal or moot.

You can take this as far as you like. My day-to-day survival is harmful to others by default because I'm consuming resources of which there are insufficiently many to support everyone on the planet. Therefore I (and by extension, everyone on the planet) am evil for not killing myself immediately and increasing availability of those resources for any survivors (who will, as it happens, be either evil for not having done so, or mentally or physically incapable of killing themselves, and thus of supporting themselves, and will likely die anyway). Is this reductio ad absurdum? Maybe, but I think it's valid, based on your statements so far.

Like I say, my problem is not with your apparent definition of "good". It's with the binary distinction drawn which rules out neutrality in the ultimate assumption that anything that is not actively good is evil, including taking basic precautions to ensure one's own survival.

In the boat scenario the neutral action is inaction, to take no active attempt to get on the lifeboat (but not objecting when it's your turn) and to take no active attempt to survive, there is a neutral option. It's classified but NOT having either altruism or motivated self-interest.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 11:38 AM
Which is more of a Lawful distinction, and plenty of Lawful Neutral people in D&D care about getting the most capable people into job positions to maximize the success of society. Now, it's much less likely for a LE person to support somebody they can't use as a puppet or tool, but the issue as a whole is more Law/Chaos than Good:Evil.

Caring for society as a whole is neither lawful nor chaotic, if one works towards organized society, then that'd be lawful, but if one is working for the best outcome for everybody, then that's good.

RedMage125
2014-03-06, 12:46 PM
Alignment really works best under the default assumptiopn of D&D, that is, objective morality. In "core" D&D (any edition), Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are objective forces, and the deeds of any individual are judged accordingly, irrespective of that individual's personal idiom.

To wit: You may feel that performing an Evil deed to accomplish a Good end is Good, but the D&D universe still acknowledges that the deed itself was Evil. If you accomplished your Good end, that is taken into account, too, but an Evil deed is still an Evil deed.

In the real world, morality and ethics are not so cut and dried. What one culture considers "evil", another may consider "morally neutral but acceptable" or even "good". To judge a deed or person in real-life by alignment descriptors is an exercise in futility if one uses real-life moral and ethical byes, because those things are too subjective.

Given the topic of this thread, I was under the impression that part of the question was "if you were in a D&D world...", where Good/Evil/Law/Chaos would be defined the way they are defined in D&D RAW. That is the only valid way to categorically define any real-world subject (or any non-D&D subject, for that matter, like Batman) in terms of alignment. That is how I answered with own response of "Lawful Neutral", which was according to D&D byes of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.

By D&D RAW, sacrificing yourself to save others is Good. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is. Self-interest, in terms of self-preservation, is neither Good nor Evil. Self-interest for gain to the detriment of others is Evil.

Murder is Evil, for example. Doesn't mean all killing is. Killing someone to preserve one's own life or save the lives of others is not Evil. If a paladin attacks you because the magic crown you wear around your neck radiates Evil, and you kill that paladin, have you commited an Evil act? NO. It was self-defense, even though you kiled a LG individual.

Re: the sinking ship. The only Good action is to allow others to board the lifeboat before you, even if that means you go down with the ship. Alternately, you could reject the "one way" scenario, and spend your time lashing together a makeshift raft to save others who won't fit on the lifeboat.

Boarding a lifeboat to save your own life is Neutral. You are in a life-or-death situation, and you are obeying a biological imperitive to survive. While you may feel guilty, and the deaths of those who were left on the boat may weigh on your conscience, you are no more a murderer than V in OotS Book 3, when he fled the battle for Azure city by casting invisibility (not addressing Familicide, we all know what that led to). The deaths of those soldiers haunted V, but V did not commit an actual Evil act by fleeing. V could do no more to help them, and fled like the rest of the refugees.

Throwing anyone off the lifeboat, keeping anyone from boarding it, or cutting it free early to save yourself when there was still room for more people, would be Evil. So to the poster who said "I would keep other males from boarding the lifeboat", that would actually be an Evil act. Because who are you to judge which life is worth more than another? If that boat is going to wander or be stuck on a deserted island, and your actions kept the Bear Grylls type guy from getting on, or the medical professional, have you not doomed the people you were trying to save? Stopping ANYONE from saving themself because you think that YOUR values are more important than their lives is putting yourself above others at the expense of their lives. Your personal values are appeased, and their lives are over. Sorry, but that's the objective view of that situation.

Bottom line is: Survival is a morally-neutral imperitive of living creatures. The panic of being on a sinking ship, facing death, will trigger, for most people, a fight-or-flight response in order to preserve one's own life. Attempting to be one of the people who makes it to a lifeboat is non-Evil. You're not trying to harm others, but trying to survive. Harming others for personal gain is different from allowing others to be harmed when it was your life or theirs. It's still not Good, but neither is it Evil.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 01:07 PM
Alignment really works best under the default assumptiopn of D&D, that is, objective morality. In "core" D&D (any edition), Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are objective forces, and the deeds of any individual are judged accordingly, irrespective of that individual's personal idiom.

To wit: You may feel that performing an Evil deed to accomplish a Good end is Good, but the D&D universe still acknowledges that the deed itself was Evil. If you accomplished your Good end, that is taken into account, too, but an Evil deed is still an Evil deed.

In the real world, morality and ethics are not so cut and dried. What one culture considers "evil", another may consider "morally neutral but acceptable" or even "good". To judge a deed or person in real-life by alignment descriptors is an exercise in futility if one uses real-life moral and ethical byes, because those things are too subjective.

Given the topic of this thread, I was under the impression that part of the question was "if you were in a D&D world...", where Good/Evil/Law/Chaos would be defined the way they are defined in D&D RAW. That is the only valid way to categorically define any real-world subject (or any non-D&D subject, for that matter, like Batman) in terms of alignment. That is how I answered with own response of "Lawful Neutral", which was according to D&D byes of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.

By D&D RAW, sacrificing yourself to save others is Good. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is. Self-interest, in terms of self-preservation, is neither Good nor Evil. Self-interest for gain to the detriment of others is Evil.

Murder is Evil, for example. Doesn't mean all killing is. Killing someone to preserve one's own life or save the lives of others is not Evil. If a paladin attacks you because the magic crown you wear around your neck radiates Evil, and you kill that paladin, have you commited an Evil act? NO. It was self-defense, even though you kiled a LG individual.

Re: the sinking ship. The only Good action is to allow others to board the lifeboat before you, even if that means you go down with the ship. Alternately, you could reject the "one way" scenario, and spend your time lashing together a makeshift raft to save others who won't fit on the lifeboat.

Boarding a lifeboat to save your own life is Neutral. You are in a life-or-death situation, and you are obeying a biological imperitive to survive. While you may feel guilty, and the deaths of those who were left on the boat may weigh on your conscience, you are no more a murderer than V in OotS Book 3, when he fled the battle for Azure city by casting invisibility (not addressing Familicide, we all know what that led to). The deaths of those soldiers haunted V, but V did not commit an actual Evil act by fleeing. V could do no more to help them, and fled like the rest of the refugees.

Throwing anyone off the lifeboat, keeping anyone from boarding it, or cutting it free early to save yourself when there was still room for more people, would be Evil. So to the poster who said "I would keep other males from boarding the lifeboat", that would actually be an Evil act. Because who are you to judge which life is worth more than another? If that boat is going to wander or be stuck on a deserted island, and your actions kept the Bear Grylls type guy from getting on, or the medical professional, have you not doomed the people you were trying to save? Stopping ANYONE from saving themself because you think that YOUR values are more important than their lives is putting yourself above others at the expense of their lives. Your personal values are appeased, and their lives are over. Sorry, but that's the objective view of that situation.

Bottom line is: Survival is a morally-neutral imperitive of living creatures. The panic of being on a sinking ship, facing death, will trigger, for most people, a fight-or-flight response in order to preserve one's own life. Attempting to be one of the people who makes it to a lifeboat is non-Evil. You're not trying to harm others, but trying to survive. Harming others for personal gain is different from allowing others to be harmed when it was your life or theirs. It's still not Good, but neither is it Evil.

I disagree, there are limited spots on that lifeboat, and therefore taking any spots prevents somebody else from getting onto the lifeboat, ergo evil, by your own definition. In the Azure City example, V could not have done anything therefore survival did not endanger others any more than his death would have saved others.

In the lifeboat scenario, your own survival directly endangers others, because there are limited spots on the lifeboat, so for you to survive others must die, and making an active effort towards that effect is evil.

GPuzzle
2014-03-06, 01:17 PM
So to be truly good we need to commit mass heroic sacrifice?

We're not heroes. If you die so others can escape, you're not a hero. You're someone that sacrificed himself. An Evil person can sacrifice himself (never heard of the Thanatos Gambit?) too.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 01:20 PM
So to be truly good we need to commit mass heroic sacrifice?

We're not heroes. If you die so others can escape, you're not a hero. You're someone that sacrificed himself. An Evil person can sacrifice himself (never heard of the Thanatos Gambit?) too.

The Thanatos Gambit would require other scenarios that aren't present in this one. You'd have to add stipulations to the scenario for that to be a workable thing. Yes if your survival causes somebody else, presumably an innoncent to die, then it is evil, in D&D that's how it is.

GPuzzle
2014-03-06, 01:22 PM
D&D isn't real life. D&D is Epic Fantasy.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 01:48 PM
D&D isn't real life. D&D is Epic Fantasy.

That's hardly relevent to the scenario AS PRESENTED. If you want to write up a different scenario, then obviously the good-evil may shift. If you've caused the boat to sink and then drowning is your ascension to Lichdom, then obviously that'd be evil, but... it wasn't the scenario presented.

In any case the point is that there are only a limited number of spaces on the boat, D&D terms you are causing somebody to die, so that you can live. Which evil, not a big evil, but evil. Of course if you have other ways of saving yourself and others it might not be evil. If you can teleport people and save them, then not evil.

Hell, if you can teleport yourself, that would not be evil, only neutral, since you're saving a spot on the boat, although you're not helping anybody else.

Amidus Drexel
2014-03-06, 01:59 PM
You've only bent my logic by ignoring roughly half of what I've posted. Particularly vis a vis the women and children thing where I acknowledged that the women were a societal issue (and therefore a matter of law) if you would like to discuss this further then I am available via PM.

And yes it is the duty of everybody, to self-sacrifice, but it is NEVER, my duty to make that choice on somebody else's behalf.

I must have missed that, then - apologies. We are agreed on how one's actions in this scenario are represented on the good vs. evil axis, at least.

BrokenChord
2014-03-06, 02:00 PM
If the Good-est thing you can do is maximize the amount of space for women and children, clearly the only righteous option is to chop the women and children into little pieces, feed them to the men, and arrange the pieces that weren't eaten into as little a space as possible so that all the pieces as well as the men can fit on the boat. You haven't been prejudiced about who gets to go on the lifeboats, you've made no assumptions about who might be Good or Evil...

And since we have pieces of everyone, I think we might need to open a diamond mine. And maybe a church.

Tengu_temp
2014-03-06, 07:50 PM
<stuff>

I agree with petty much everything you said, only I think that real life morality is not entirely subjective. There are some things that pretty much everyone, except some disturbed people and those who come from cultured that perverted some values, can acknowledge as good or evil: for example, murder is evil, while offering a hungry man food is good.

RedMage125
2014-03-06, 08:07 PM
I disagree, there are limited spots on that lifeboat, and therefore taking any spots prevents somebody else from getting onto the lifeboat, ergo evil, by your own definition. In the Azure City example, V could not have done anything therefore survival did not endanger others any more than his death would have saved others.

In the lifeboat scenario, your own survival directly endangers others, because there are limited spots on the lifeboat, so for you to survive others must die, and making an active effort towards that effect is evil.

"By my own definition"? Clearly you did not read all of what I posted.

That is, that there is a distinction between "harming others for personal gain" and "allowing others to be harmed in order to preserve one's own life".

The Azure City example fits perfectly, because V could have cast invisibility on one of the other soldiers, thus sacrificing himself/herself to benefit another, which would have been a Good act. But using it on himself/herself was using a limited resource (his last remaining spell slot of invisibility) to his/her own benefit, instead of that of others. By YOUR definition, what V did was Evil.

Killing in self-defense is not Evil. Doing what one must to survive is not Evil. It's not Good, either, but I never said it was. It's morally-neutral. What if I have Bear Grylls-type skills that I know will greatly increase the probability of survival of the people on the lifeboat if I am on board? Is it Evil to try to get on the boat? What about the women and children? They're taking up space on the lifeboat, are THEY Evil? Of course not.

The poster who said he would "prevent other men from getting aboard until ll women and children were loaded"...THAT is an Evil act. He's putting his desire to satisfy his own conscience over the lives of others. Staying off the boat himself and giving up a space he could have taken to someone else is Good, but every man he prevents from being able to be saved so he can have HIS WAY is an Evil act.

As far as "your own survival endangers others", that's how Nature works, man. Is it Evil for a lion to eat a gazelle? No. But if the lion does not eat the gazelle, it starves to death. One of the gazelles will die for the lion to live another day. That's how the world works sometimes.

EVERYONE who gets on the lifeboat is "endangering others" by taking up a limited space on the lifeboat. People cannot be faulted for wanting to live. If one of the characters on the boat was, say, a druid who could Wild Shape into an aquatic creature and survive the water and STILL took up a spot on the lifeboat, then yes, you would be correct, because that person had another option. But if the lifeboat is the ONLY way for someone to have a chance at survival, trying to get on it is an act of self-preservation, and is thus just as morally neutral as killing in self-defense.

Volos
2014-03-06, 08:10 PM
Lawful Evil. I have a personal code but when it comes to other people, I couldn't care less. I look out for myself and my wife, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves. There are certain lines I won't cross but aside from that I'll do anything to advance my own interests.

veti
2014-03-06, 09:11 PM
I disagree, there are limited spots on that lifeboat, and therefore taking any spots prevents somebody else from getting onto the lifeboat, ergo evil, by your own definition. In the Azure City example, V could not have done anything therefore survival did not endanger others any more than his death would have saved others.

Remember who else fled Azure City on the last boat out of town? Durkon, Elan, Hinjo and Lien, that we know personally. Are you saying they all committed an evil act?

AMFV
2014-03-06, 09:22 PM
Remember who else fled Azure City on the last boat out of town? Durkon, Elan, Hinjo and Lien, that we know personally. Are you saying they all committed an evil act?

If you'll read what I read you'll see that is most emphatically NOT what I said. I pointed out that this was different from the lifeboat scenario in several ways. Additionally they could not have remained there without endangering those people already on the boat. Making it at best a moral wash. Tying the lifeboats up to try to to keep them there when that endangers everybody on them is probably at best foolhardy and at worst evil.


"By my own definition"? Clearly you did not read all of what I posted.

That is, that there is a distinction between "harming others for personal gain" and "allowing others to be harmed in order to preserve one's own life".

The Azure City example fits perfectly, because V could have cast invisibility on one of the other soldiers, thus sacrificing himself/herself to benefit another, which would have been a Good act. But using it on himself/herself was using a limited resource (his last remaining spell slot of invisibility) to his/her own benefit, instead of that of others. By YOUR definition, what V did was Evil.

Killing in self-defense is not Evil. Doing what one must to survive is not Evil. It's not Good, either, but I never said it was. It's morally-neutral. What if I have Bear Grylls-type skills that I know will greatly increase the probability of survival of the people on the lifeboat if I am on board? Is it Evil to try to get on the boat? What about the women and children? They're taking up space on the lifeboat, are THEY Evil? Of course not.

The poster who said he would "prevent other men from getting aboard until ll women and children were loaded"...THAT is an Evil act. He's putting his desire to satisfy his own conscience over the lives of others. Staying off the boat himself and giving up a space he could have taken to someone else is Good, but every man he prevents from being able to be saved so he can have HIS WAY is an Evil act.

As far as "your own survival endangers others", that's how Nature works, man. Is it Evil for a lion to eat a gazelle? No. But if the lion does not eat the gazelle, it starves to death. One of the gazelles will die for the lion to live another day. That's how the world works sometimes.

EVERYONE who gets on the lifeboat is "endangering others" by taking up a limited space on the lifeboat. People cannot be faulted for wanting to live. If one of the characters on the boat was, say, a druid who could Wild Shape into an aquatic creature and survive the water and STILL took up a spot on the lifeboat, then yes, you would be correct, because that person had another option. But if the lifeboat is the ONLY way for someone to have a chance at survival, trying to get on it is an act of self-preservation, and is thus just as morally neutral as killing in self-defense.


Animals do not have moral agency in D&D. Is it evil for me to eat a cow? No. But is it evil for me to bash in somebody's head and eat them because I am hungry and not wait for the to go for a long walk, YES, most emphatically YES.

You're making an argument out of wanting to not fault people for wanting to survive, but this is a game where surviving kills ANOTHER PERSON, furthermore another innocent person, not a gazelle, and that's evil. Self-Preservation can be completely evil, see the example with bashing a guys head in to eat, that'd be evil, and it is entirely motivated by self-preservation, just because something is done to preserve the self does not make it non-evil.

BrokenChord
2014-03-06, 09:37 PM
I'm pretty sure killing and eating someone if it is literally the only way to survive is actually expressly nonevil by the game's rules, actually. It becomes Evil only if you torture the person or do it for any reason other than because it is the only possible way to live.

Now, it is in no way, shape, or form Good. But while killing yourself and letting the other person eat you is probably the most Good option depending on the circumstances, the option your logic might consider Neutral (i.e. sitting there and starving to death) is aligned entirely based on motivation, not even being Neutral in and of itself by the rules.

veti
2014-03-06, 09:43 PM
Animals do not have moral agency in D&D. Is it evil for me to eat a cow? No.

Whoa, wait a minute. Animals don't have moral agency, but you do. Just because the cow is incapable of moral choices, doesn't give you a free pass to eat it.

I'm not saying it's wrong to eat it, just that the above quote is a complete non-sequitur.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 09:43 PM
I'm pretty sure killing and eating someone if it is literally the only way to survive is actually expressly nonevil by the game's rules, actually. It becomes Evil only if you torture the person or do it for any reason other than because it is the only possible way to live.

Now, it is in no way, shape, or form Good. But while killing yourself and letting the other person eat you is probably the most Good option depending on the circumstances, the option your logic might consider Neutral (i.e. sitting there and starving to death) is aligned entirely based on motivation, not even being Neutral in and of itself by the rules.

No.. it's non-evil when they volunteer for it, or when you are eating the dead to survive, killing somebody to make them food is evil.

Elbeyon
2014-03-06, 09:44 PM
The boat scenario is tough in that it is a trick scenario. Really. As a person concerned with the making sure that there is more good matter than evil matter in the planar verse any truly good person might reach this conclusion. Each person entering a lifeboat is committing an evil act of pure selfishness and as such dragging their afterlife to the lower planes. A once good person might be a lemure in a couple hours if the lifeboat idea doesn't pan out. The most beneficial thing for the good verse is to stop this mass pledge towards the darkways. If I was playing a paladin or cleric they would personally stop every person from tainting their afterlife. Children being the number one to stop. They might only have a few good acts under their belt and so one evil act would proportionally have the greatest effect on their souls. Sure, the paladin or cleric might fall but with that same tragedy he might of just prevented hundreds of falls. Sacrificing himself for the greater good. Sure, they might not write stories about him, but being good isn't easy. Sometimes it's tough to do the right thing.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 09:51 PM
The boat scenario is tough in that it is a trick scenario. Really. As a person concerned with the making sure that there is more good matter than evil matter in the planar verse any truly good person might reach this conclusion. Each person entering a lifeboat is committing an evil act of pure selfishness and as such dragging their afterlife to the lower planes. A once good person might be a lemure in a couple hours if the lifeboat idea doesn't pan out. The most beneficial thing for the good verse is to stop this mass pledge towards the darkways. If I was playing a paladin or cleric they would personally stop every person from tainting their afterlife. Children being the number one to stop. They might only have a few good acts under their belt and so one evil act would proportionally have the greatest effect on their souls. Sure, the paladin or cleric might fall but with that same tragedy he might of just prevented hundreds of falls. Sacrificing himself for the greater good. Sure, they might not write stories about him, but being good isn't easy. Sometimes it's tough to do the right thing.

Children don't have moral agency (or even stats), and it's your job to protect the lives of others, particularly those weaker. Non-Paladins don't fall for a single minor evil act.

Elbeyon
2014-03-06, 09:55 PM
I've seen plenty of kids in games. They have to have stats. Anyways, they might not fall from one act, but they could fall from that one act. The larger the boat the more likely that is to be true. Keeping the scales tipped towards good is more important than keeping people alive.

GPuzzle
2014-03-06, 09:57 PM
...
You act like it's a big deal, and then suddenly "Non-Paladins don't fall when they commit a minor Evil act."

It's not Evil, it's Neutral. What he said above was Evil. What you said you would do (stopping people from getting on the boats) is incredibly Evil, nowhere near Good. Sorry, Neutral doesn't mean "apathetic".

AMFV
2014-03-06, 09:58 PM
I've seen plenty of kids in games. They have to have stats. Anyways, they might not fall from one act, but they could fall from that one act. The larger the boat the more likely that is to be true. Keeping the scales tipped towards good is more important than keeping people alive.

Nope, and the one act rule is ONLY for paladins. I don't think that any non-paladins would become evil for that particular act, it's not that evil, just a little evil.


...
You act like it's a big deal, and then suddenly "Non-Paladins don't fall when they commit a minor Evil act."

It's not Evil, it's Neutral. What he said above was Evil. What you said you would do (stopping people from getting on the boats) is incredibly Evil, nowhere near Good. Sorry, Neutral doesn't mean "apathetic".


In the presented scenario it is. I would prevent the stronger people from getting on the boats at the expense of the weaker, protecting the weak is GOOD. I suppose you could have a neutral scenario where you forced equal good and evil people onto the lifeboats, but that's bizarre in this case neutrality requires inaction.

GPuzzle
2014-03-06, 10:06 PM
Neutral isn't balance between Evil and Good.

Gonna bring something here - 4e's "unaligned" alignment. It has described normal better than anything else.
"Just let me follow my own way."

Neutrality isn't apathy. It's also not trying to balance between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos.

Neutrality is following what you think that should be done for you without actively hurting the others.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 10:10 PM
Neutral isn't balance between Evil and Good.

Gonna bring something here - 4e's "unaligned" alignment. It has described normal better than anything else.
"Just let me follow my own way."

Neutrality isn't apathy. It's also not trying to balance between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos.

Neutrality is following what you think that should be done for you without actively hurting the others.

YEP, AND THE ONLY ACTION THAT DOESN'T DIRECTLY HURT OTHERS IN THIS SCENARIO IS DOING NOTHING.

I rest my case.

Elbeyon
2014-03-06, 10:10 PM
Nope, and the one act rule is ONLY for paladins. I don't think that any non-paladins would become evil for that particular act, it's not that evil, just a little evil.

Ah, I must be using the wrong key words or something. When I say one act I mean one action. On a boat there could very well people people on the moral ropes and one action away from having to change that big old N on their sheet to E for evil. The last straw in the hat that turns them into evil stuff. On a boat of increasing large size the changes of that being true also increases. Physically stopping them might very well be the thing that makes sure they don't get sent to the lower planes, keeping another source of power out of evils hands. The only question is how much good is the guy winning. A particularly amoral batch of crew could be a lot of saved souls.

AMFV
2014-03-06, 10:11 PM
Ah, I must be using the wrong key words or something. When I say one act I mean one action. On a boat there could very well people people on the moral ropes and one action away from having to change that big old N on their sheet to E for evil. The last straw in the hat that turns them into evil stuff. On a boat of increasing large size the changes of that being true also increases. Physically stopping them might very well be the thing that makes sure they don't get sent to the lower planes, keeping another source of power out of evils hands. The only question is how much good is the guy winning. A particularly amoral batch of crew could be a lot of saved souls.

That's possible, but using that to condone what is effectively mass murder instead of protecting the innocent, is hardly good, and even if you save ONE person, you've doomed many more people. The afterlife is not an excuse for murder.

veti
2014-03-06, 10:18 PM
In the presented scenario it is. I would prevent the stronger people from getting on the boats at the expense of the weaker, protecting the weak is GOOD. I suppose you could have a neutral scenario where you forced equal good and evil people onto the lifeboats, but that's bizarre in this case neutrality requires inaction.

OK, "protecting the weak is good". The SRD doesn't say so, that's purely your interpretation - but let's take it as a moral touchstone. Seems reasonable as far as it goes.

But a lifeboat full of nothing but weak people is going to die. So you're not 'protecting' them in that scenario. Some strong people have to be on board as well, and I would have thought it's better if those strong people are also good, so they are motivated to look out for the weak and not just exploit them. A strong, good person is not only entitled, they should be obliged to make sure they're on that boat.

As for "forcing equal good and evil people into the lifeboat" - wherever did that come from? Why do you suddenly switch focus from "weak/strong" to "good/evil"?

Elbeyon
2014-03-06, 10:20 PM
Sometimes sacrifice is necessary. As I said lives aren't important, the end result of good and evil is what is important. Saving souls is more important than saving lives. What type of good person would watch hundreds of acts of evil just happen without trying to stop them?

Lord Raziere
2014-03-06, 10:27 PM
YEP, AND THE ONLY ACTION THAT DOESN'T DIRECTLY HURT OTHERS IN THIS SCENARIO IS DOING NOTHING.

I rest my case.

nope. If I get on before somebody else without actively hindering anyone else, I'll have indirectly hurt others by getting on first, but lifeboats are there for a reason. its to save as many people as possible, not to be perfect. you have to take what you can get, and if you can't accept that no matter how well the scenario goes down, people will die whether you want them to or not. Its not helping anybody by choosing to be one of them.

your holding people in this scenario to unreasonably high standards, ones that would get them killed if they followed your morality. I am morally against following any code that commands me to die for a meaningless cause because of something beyond my control- that sounds evil to me. If I myself would not follow it, and therefore would not exhort anyone else to do so.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 12:28 AM
nope. If I get on before somebody else without actively hindering anyone else, I'll have indirectly hurt others by getting on first, but lifeboats are there for a reason. its to save as many people as possible, not to be perfect. you have to take what you can get, and if you can't accept that no matter how well the scenario goes down, people will die whether you want them to or not. Its not helping anybody by choosing to be one of them.

your holding people in this scenario to unreasonably high standards, ones that would get them killed if they followed your morality. I am morally against following any code that commands me to die for a meaningless cause because of something beyond my control- that sounds evil to me. If I myself would not follow it, and therefore would not exhort anyone else to do so.

You wouldn't die for a meaningless reason, you're not dying so that the boat can sink, or because the boat is sinking, you're dying so that other people can live. Now it's possible I have unreasonable standards in this regard. I'm probably very much lawful good at least in my belief structure. But allowing other people to die through your action is clearly evil, if they haven't done anything wrong. I would even say that allowing people to die through inaction is morally very on the edge of evil, and that's not even what's being discussed here.

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-07, 01:10 AM
You wouldn't die for a meaningless reason, you're not dying so that the boat can sink, or because the boat is sinking, you're dying so that other people can live. Now it's possible I have unreasonable standards in this regard. I'm probably very much lawful good at least in my belief structure. But allowing other people to die through your action is clearly evil, if they haven't done anything wrong. I would even say that allowing people to die through inaction is morally very on the edge of evil, and that's not even what's being discussed here.

To break away from my usual schtick, I'm just going to say that there is a big difference between getting on a lifeboat and throwing someone off of a lifeboat. In the latter, you are actively and directly hurting someone, while the former you are maybe indirectly hurting someone. You seem to be missing that point.

TuggyNE
2014-03-07, 01:23 AM
It may also be helpful to distinguish between getting on a lifeboat and obstinately holding your place vs getting on a lifeboat and being willing to give it up if certain other people manage to make it to the spot in time. After all, not getting on the lifeboat even if there's room that no one else can occupy in time is pretty silly.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 02:20 AM
To break away from my usual schtick, I'm just going to say that there is a big difference between getting on a lifeboat and throwing someone off of a lifeboat. In the latter, you are actively and directly hurting someone, while the former you are maybe indirectly hurting someone. You seem to be missing that point.

By preventing somebody from getting on the lifeboat the result is the same. So while there may be a question of degree or intent, the end result is the same, and is evil in both cases. I would argue that taking a spot on the lifeboat when you are more able to survive than the other individuals is still morally wrong, while maybe not as morally wrong, it's still morally wrong.


It may also be helpful to distinguish between getting on a lifeboat and obstinately holding your place vs getting on a lifeboat and being willing to give it up if certain other people manage to make it to the spot in time. After all, not getting on the lifeboat even if there's room that no one else can occupy in time is pretty silly.

I acknowledge this distinction. And I concur with your assessment.

amalager
2014-03-07, 02:38 AM
Chaotic Neutral here! :smallsmile:

http://i1055.photobucket.com/albums/s513/Evaunit12/Av0V2_zps79af1da4.jpg (http://s1055.photobucket.com/user/Evaunit12/media/Av0V2_zps79af1da4.jpg.html)

hamishspence
2014-03-07, 03:15 AM
I'm pretty sure killing and eating someone if it is literally the only way to survive is actually expressly nonevil by the game's rules, actually.

BoVD: "Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act".

Now, "being the first onto the lifeboat" might not count as "sacrificing others".

But stealing another person's seat (say, by grabbing them and flinging them back onto the ship), probably would.

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 03:48 AM
But a lifeboat full of nothing but weak people is going to die. So you're not 'protecting' them in that scenario. Some strong people have to be on board as well, and I would have thought it's better if those strong people are also good, so they are motivated to look out for the weak and not just exploit them. A strong, good person is not only entitled, they should be obliged to make sure they're on that boat.

It's interesting how you can dismiss all women as not being strong enough to handle a lifeboat.

Aedilred
2014-03-07, 04:25 AM
You wouldn't die for a meaningless reason, you're not dying so that the boat can sink, or because the boat is sinking, you're dying so that other people can live. Now it's possible I have unreasonable standards in this regard. I'm probably very much lawful good at least in my belief structure. But allowing other people to die through your action is clearly evil, if they haven't done anything wrong. I would even say that allowing people to die through inaction is morally very on the edge of evil, and that's not even what's being discussed here.
OK, let's just throw it out there. What would you call Neutral? Because it seems you're defining anything that's not Good as Evil, and you're arguably holding even Good to an unreasonably high standard.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 04:32 AM
OK, let's just throw it out there. What would you call Neutral? Because it seems you're defining anything that's not Good as Evil, and you're arguably holding even Good to an unreasonably high standard.

I don't think I am holding good to a high standard. The neutral path here is inaction, you let yourself get herded onto the lifeboat if it happens but you make no effort to obtain a seat ahead of anybody else. There is not really a lot of room for neutrality in this particular situation. Sometimes they pan out that way. Just as there can be scenarios where the best option a good person can manage is the most neutral one, some scenarios have no neutral aspect.

Aedilred
2014-03-07, 06:01 AM
I don't think the boat scenario is actually that exceptional a case. The decision about whether to prioritise oneself or others is actually a pretty basic one in any society that isn't post-scarcity. The lifeboat situation just brings that into a sharp focus. If all the alignments are equally valid as discrete entities then there should be a course of action to follow in any given situation; if they can't survive that sort of acid test then they're not really a true alignment. Moreover, it should be more than just the absence of other alignments or actions. As someone has previously mentioned, neutrality is not just inaction or apathy. If the best a neutral person can do is lie there and let stuff take its course, that's not really an alignment so much as an absolution of agency.

Majoritarianism isn't often the answer in life, I think, but it does give us some pretty strong clues. D&D indicates that the vast majority of people are neutral, so observing the actions of the majority gives us a clue as to what the neutral course of action is. The majority of people would be doing their best to ensure they got a place on the lifeboat; does that make them Evil?

No, I really don't think so. I'd argue that the fundamental difference between Good and Neutral is the self-interest factor. In a way, Neutrality is defined by selfishness, because if you're acting against your own self-interest for the needs of others, surely that's Good.

Basically, the way I've always perceived the alignment system (and understood others to perceive it on this forum and elsewhere) is roughly that Good will prioritise the interests of others, Neutral will prioritise its own interests, and Evil will prioritise its own interests to the exclusion of all others. I think what you're doing is classifying anything south of that Good as Evil, and then trying to make Neutral fit in the gaps between (hence why in a life-or-death scenario your definition of neutrality is no more than passivity). I think it's actually the other way round - that Neutral is the default (i.e. looking to yourself first, and then to others, as the vast majority of people do) and Good/Evil are the exceptions to that recognisable by their divergence and extremity.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 06:06 AM
I don't think the boat scenario is actually that exceptional a case. The decision about whether to prioritise oneself or others is actually a pretty basic one in any society that isn't post-scarcity. The lifeboat situation just brings that into a sharp focus. If all the alignments are equally valid as discrete entities then there should be a course of action to follow in any given situation; if they can't survive that sort of acid test then they're not really a true alignment. Moreover, it should be more than just the absence of other alignments or actions. As someone has previously mentioned, neutrality is not just inaction or apathy. If the best a neutral person can do is lie there and let stuff take its course, that's not really an alignment so much as an absolution of agency.

Majoritarianism isn't often the answer in life, I think, but it does give us some pretty strong clues. D&D indicates that the vast majority of people are neutral, so observing the actions of the majority gives us a clue as to what the neutral course of action is. The majority of people would be doing their best to ensure they got a place on the lifeboat; does that make them Evil?

No, I really don't think so. I'd argue that the fundamental difference between Good and Neutral is the self-interest factor. In a way, Neutrality is defined by selfishness, because if you're acting against your own self-interest for the needs of others, surely that's Good.

Basically, the way I've always perceived the alignment system (and understood others to perceive it on this forum and elsewhere) is roughly that Good will prioritise the interests of others, Neutral will prioritise its own interests, and Evil will prioritise its own interests to the exclusion of all others. I think what you're doing is classifying anything south of that Good as Evil, and then trying to make Neutral fit in the gaps between (hence why in a life-or-death scenario your definition of neutrality is no more than passivity). I think it's actually the other way round - that Neutral is the default (i.e. looking to yourself first, and then to others, as the vast majority of people do) and Good/Evil are the exceptions to that recognisable by their divergence and extremity.

No neutrality is acting in your own self-interests in a way that does not directly harm others. Since there is no option in the lifeboat scenario that fulfills that criteria, there is no neutral option.

Aedilred
2014-03-07, 06:48 AM
No neutrality is acting in your own self-interests in a way that does not directly harm others. Since there is no option in the lifeboat scenario that fulfills that criteria, there is no neutral option.
I think that your definition of not just "neutrality" but also "direct" is different to mine. Taking a space in a lifeboat is harming others indirectly, sure, but not directly unless you're throwing them out of the boat to make space for you (which I agree would be evil). If people die for want of space in the boat, the cause of their death will be the sinking ship; you haven't directly harmed anybody.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 06:55 AM
I think that your definition of not just "neutrality" but also "direct" is different to mine. Taking a space in a lifeboat is harming others indirectly, sure, but not directly unless you're throwing them out of the boat to make space for you (which I agree would be evil). If people die for want of space in the boat, the cause of their death will be the sinking ship; you haven't directly harmed anybody.

Well if you get onto the boat you are acting, no? So then by your actions, you are causing direct harm to another. The same result exactly as throwing them off the boat back onto the ship. Just because something is not violent or forced does not make it non-evil.

Aedilred
2014-03-07, 07:32 AM
Well if you get onto the boat you are acting, no? So then by your actions, you are causing direct harm to another. The same result exactly as throwing them off the boat back onto the ship. Just because something is not violent or forced does not make it non-evil.
You are acting, yes. But you're confusing action with directness. If I board a train and my footfall weakens the boarding step so that a few days later it breaks and someone falls to their death, I didn't directly kill them, even though my action contributed to their dying.

In the lifeboat scenario, if you get in the boat, you might be indirectly responsible for the death of one of the people left on the ship. But you didn't kill them. It's in fact impossible to identify which individual died as a consequence of your boarding a lifeboat. There is to my mind a clear difference between boarding a boat knowing that you're preventing another person from doing so, and throwing someone who's already on the boat off. In the case of peaceful boarding, it's a matter of luck, or perhaps skill or what have you, that you reached the boat first. In the latter case, you're kicking them out of the refuge they've already reached knowing that that person will die as a result.

There is a difference - a substantial one, especially in law - between killing somebody yourself and merely not intervening to save them. It was mentioned earlier that sacrificing someone else to save yourself is evil, but in this situation you're not sacrificing anyone except in the most abstract sense. It's more comparable to a situation where someone else is to be sacrificed and you're given the opportunity to substitute yourself.

hamishspence
2014-03-07, 07:37 AM
Indeed. Even the "obligation to sacrifice oneself for Others" that good aligned characters may feel - has limitations:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.

RedMage125
2014-03-07, 10:58 AM
Tuggy and Aedilred have it right.

Neutral on the Good/Evil axis still looks to itself first, then others.

AMFV, you are holding on to a high standard, but Good IS a high standard.

Are people hurt by taking up a spot on the lifeboat? Yes, but INDIRECTLY. And it's not like I board a lifeboat with the intent of "I want other people to suffer and die", but rather "I want to live". If you look at the BoVD, page 6, "Intent Vs Action", intent is not EVERYTHING, but it counts. And intent can change the moral weight of an act. I want to live. If I could make it so everyone could safely board the lifeboat and survive, I would, but I can't. I just want to live. If I had to choose between staying on the boat, and making space for my wife, I'd give my place up for her. Evil is selfish to the exclusion of others. Neutral looks to itself first, and others after. Good looks to the interest of others first. Giving up a spot on the boat to someone else is Good. Throwing someone off the boat is Evil. Taking up a spot on the boat for yourself because it's the only way to survive, is neither.



Animals do not have moral agency in D&D. Is it evil for me to eat a cow? No. But is it evil for me to bash in somebody's head and eat them because I am hungry and not wait for the to go for a long walk, YES, most emphatically YES.
Killing someone to eat them because you're lazy? Yes, evil. But in a Donner Party scenario, where someone has died already, eating their body to survive is not.


You're making an argument out of wanting to not fault people for wanting to survive, but this is a game where surviving kills ANOTHER PERSON, furthermore another innocent person, not a gazelle, and that's evil. Self-Preservation can be completely evil, see the example with bashing a guys head in to eat, that'd be evil, and it is entirely motivated by self-preservation, just because something is done to preserve the self does not make it non-evil.
Your "bashing someone's head in scenario" is motivated by selfishness and laziness, not self-preservation.

I didn't say "anything done to preserve the self is non-evil", I said "an action that is necessary to survive is not emphatically Evil". You bashing someone's head in to eat them out of laziness is not necessary. That's a key distinction.

You value the Good path. Which is Good for you. But, like a bad stereotype of a Paladin, you are equating anything that is not Good as Evil. Is taking up a spot because I want to live the Good thing to do? No. But it's not Evil, either. I just want to live. Maybe I have kids back home I need to get back to. Should I orphan my children over YOUR perception of the "right choice"?

Remember, the only way an alignment discussion works is if we assume an objective moral/ethical framework, like exists in D&D. And Good in D&D is a very high standard. But that doesn't mean anything that is not Good is Evil. Survival, even in D&D, is a biological imperitive of living things. The desire to continue living is not Evil, even if others get hurt as a consequence. It is not the intent of people boarding the lifeboat to hurt or kill others, it is their intent to survive. That others get hurt is regrettable. The survivors may feel guilty. But that's not the goal. They were doing what they had to, with no other option. Totally different from "bashing someone's head in because you're too lazy to go get food".

AMFV
2014-03-07, 01:13 PM
Tuggy and Aedilred have it right.


Actually Tuggy agreed with me, but stipulated that if you got to the boat and there were no others present that it would be neutral, a stipulation with which I agreed. He then added that not getting off the boat if somebody else came was evil/




Neutral on the Good/Evil axis still looks to itself first, then others.

AMFV, you are holding on to a high standard, but Good IS a high standard.

Are people hurt by taking up a spot on the lifeboat? Yes, but INDIRECTLY. And it's not like I board a lifeboat with the intent of "I want other people to suffer and die", but rather "I want to live". If you look at the BoVD, page 6, "Intent Vs Action", intent is not EVERYTHING, but it counts. And intent can change the moral weight of an act. I want to live. If I could make it so everyone could safely board the lifeboat and survive, I would, but I can't. I just want to live. If I had to choose between staying on the boat, and making space for my wife, I'd give my place up for her. Evil is selfish to the exclusion of others. Neutral looks to itself first, and others after. Good looks to the interest of others first. Giving up a spot on the boat to someone else is Good. Throwing someone off the boat is Evil. Taking up a spot on the boat for yourself because it's the only way to survive, is neither.


You do something, it causes the death of another person, This is direct. There is NO neutral option because there is no self-centered option that does not hurt others. Neutral does not result in the death of others, or the damaging of their interests, that's the distinction between neutral and evil. There is no option in this scenario that qualifies for neutral since you have two options:

1.) Don't get on the boat, this causes yourself to die (probably), but saves others. This good, although intent could matter.

2.) Get on the boat, this causes the death of others through your direct actions. Which would be evil.

I concede that intention and mental state could factor in. Which is great. BUT NOT A PART OF THE SCENARIO AS PRESENTED. It seems that everybody is assuming a certain degree of moral absoluteness that doesn't exist, we have no mitigating factors presented and so we have no way of assigning a moral stance to the actions that would include them, if you want to provide mitigating factors, I may adjust my viewpoint.



Killing someone to eat them because you're lazy? Yes, evil. But in a Donner Party scenario, where someone has died already, eating their body to survive is not.


Yes, but they did not kill, only ate what had already died, that's not causing death at all and isn't an equivalent scenario since the other person involved is already dead.



Your "bashing someone's head in scenario" is motivated by selfishness and laziness, not self-preservation.

I didn't say "anything done to preserve the self is non-evil", I said "an action that is necessary to survive is not emphatically Evil". You bashing someone's head in to eat them out of laziness is not necessary. That's a key distinction.


It's not an equivalent scenario.



You value the Good path. Which is Good for you. But, like a bad stereotype of a Paladin, you are equating anything that is not Good as Evil. Is taking up a spot because I want to live the Good thing to do? No. But it's not Evil, either. I just want to live. Maybe I have kids back home I need to get back to. Should I orphan my children over YOUR perception of the "right choice"?


If you don't want to commit a minor evil act, yes. And I don't think that manslaughter through action is an unreasonable standard for an evil act. Also the bad stereotype of the Paladin is incapable of thinking through his moral structure, I have extensively done so. Which might make me uncompromising (Lawful) but still good, and not necessarily a Lawful Anal, as I've said, surviving isn't directly evil, but surviving at the expense of anothers' life, if you act, and somebody dies and you survive because of it, is.



Remember, the only way an alignment discussion works is if we assume an objective moral/ethical framework, like exists in D&D. And Good in D&D is a very high standard. But that doesn't mean anything that is not Good is Evil. Survival, even in D&D, is a biological imperitive of living things. The desire to continue living is not Evil, even if others get hurt as a consequence. It is not the intent of people boarding the lifeboat to hurt or kill others, it is their intent to survive. That others get hurt is regrettable. The survivors may feel guilty. But that's not the goal. They were doing what they had to, with no other option. Totally different from "bashing someone's head in because you're too lazy to go get food".

They had ANOTHER options, to not get on the lifeboats and tread water, to try to survive using driftwood, and the like. Or to die. The scenario is more equivalent to murdering a witness because you are facing the death penalty than it is to eating an already a dead corpse. Since your actions both result in somebody dying (if you had not got on the boat they would be alive), and are are direct (you got on the boat, that's a direct action). Yes, the starting situation (the sinking ship) is not your fault, but an emergency does not give on the license to cause the deaths of others for your own survival.

Your scenario is equivalent to coming to the lifeboats and having enough spots, which is the scenario Tuggy pointed out, and that's neutral, but if there aren't enough, then you are forced to decide between good and evil.


You are acting, yes. But you're confusing action with directness. If I board a train and my footfall weakens the boarding step so that a few days later it breaks and someone falls to their death, I didn't directly kill them, even though my action contributed to their dying.

That's not a fair comparison since you have no way of knowing that your footfall causes that result, it's an accident. In the lifeboat scenario, you know.



In the lifeboat scenario, if you get in the boat, you might be indirectly responsible for the death of one of the people left on the ship. But you didn't kill them. It's in fact impossible to identify which individual died as a consequence of your boarding a lifeboat. There is to my mind a clear difference between boarding a boat knowing that you're preventing another person from doing so, and throwing someone who's already on the boat off. In the case of peaceful boarding, it's a matter of luck, or perhaps skill or what have you, that you reached the boat first. In the latter case, you're kicking them out of the refuge they've already reached knowing that that person will die as a result.

There is a difference - a substantial one, especially in law - between killing somebody yourself and merely not intervening to save them. It was mentioned earlier that sacrificing someone else to save yourself is evil, but in this situation you're not sacrificing anyone except in the most abstract sense. It's more comparable to a situation where someone else is to be sacrificed and you're given the opportunity to substitute yourself.


This is directly causing somebody to die. I'm not sure how you could argue that something you are doing actively is indirect. Yes if there were no lifeboats present you would both die, but this is still direct. And it isn't equivalent to the sacrifice scenario in D&D for a variety of reasons.

Edit: In there is a "reasonableness" clause, ergo if a reasonable person knows that something would kill somebody, then they are treated as such. Furthermore the law is less strict with regards to protecting your own interests than D&D alignment.

hamishspence
2014-03-07, 01:31 PM
BoVD is actually not clear on what constitutes "sacrificing another to save yourself" and what does not - hence it's up to the DM.

BrokenChord
2014-03-07, 01:40 PM
So a merchant is Evil for not giving away his merchandise for free, because the people need what he's selling?

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 01:44 PM
I'm not sure there's a neutral way to just happen to get on a lifeboat in this scenario. If you run, jump, climb or otherwise use your superior athletic ability to get to the boats first (or if you just happen to have been lucky and was standing right next to them) you have actively used something to get advantage over others. The only real neutral way is if you leisurly stroll towards the lifeboats and arrive at the last moments before they leave, or wait around until they are about to leave and take a spot if there happens to be one.

Otherwise you have in effect stolen a spot from someone who is less capable than you (like a child or a parent carrying one).

AMFV
2014-03-07, 01:45 PM
So a merchant is Evil for not giving away his merchandise for free, because the people need what he's selling?

If people are going to die if he doesn't give away his merchandise, yes. IF they are going to die as a direct result.

hamishspence
2014-03-07, 01:46 PM
The only real neutral way is if you leisurly stroll towards the lifeboats and arrive at the last moments before they leave, or wait around until they are about to leave and take a spot if there happens to be one.
Or queue up in an orderly fashion.

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 01:47 PM
So a merchant is Evil for not giving away his merchandise for free, because the people need what he's selling?

No, a merchant is Evil if he is overcharging substantially, in order to earn more than he actually needs when there are people dying from starvation (or lack of the goods he is selling). Just doing your job in order to support yourself and your family isn't Evil. Going that extra mile to improve your own lot on the suffering of others is.

GPuzzle
2014-03-07, 01:47 PM
Well, I'm sorry, then the entirety of humanity is Evil.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 01:50 PM
Well, I'm sorry, then the entirety of humanity is Evil.

I'm not by that definition. As was pointed out I would not get on the lifeboats and would actively try to prevent those who had a good chance of surviving longer in the water from doing so. I've been to war, my convictions have been tested, and to imply that nobody is able to rise above the survival impulse is ridiculous. Altruism is evolutionarily favored. It is, ergo survival of others can sometimes take precedence.

By that definition approximately 1/3 would be evil, that seems entirely reasonable, and in line with expectations.

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 01:50 PM
Or queue up in an orderly fashion.

That works too.


Well, I'm sorry, then the entirety of humanity is Evil.

Far from it. Or at least I don't think so.

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 01:55 PM
I'm not by that definition. As was pointed out I would not get on the lifeboats and would actively try to prevent those who had a good chance of surviving longer in the water from doing so. I've been to war, my convictions have been tested, and to imply that nobody is able to rise above the survival impulse is ridiculous. Altruism is evolutionarily favored. It is, ergo survival of others can sometimes take precedence.

While my convictions haven't been tested in similar fashion, I'm quite certain that seeing you do this would give me courage to do the same.

Although I'm starting to think it would be a good idea to look through the ship for other things that can be used to help keep people afloat and get them into the water asap. Improvised rafts can certainly help.

Elbeyon
2014-03-07, 02:04 PM
Do you eat food? I'm afraid I'm going to have to classify whoever eats as evil. Those in need are everywhere and there is always someone who needs that food more. Higher population density means that person is ever closer and even easier to help.

People are in innumerable situations to help each other everyday. Every second is another opportunity wasted that could of been used to help another person. Instead of helping people right now people are on the internet discussing a lifeboat scenario. Sounds evil to me. :smallconfused:

AMFV
2014-03-07, 02:08 PM
Do you eat food? I'm afraid I'm going to have to classify whoever eats as evil. Those in need are everywhere and there is always someone who needs that food more. Higher population density means that person is ever closer and even easier to help.

People are in innumerable situations to help each other everyday. Every second is another opportunity wasted that could of been used to help another person. Instead of helping people right now people are on the internet discussing a lifeboat scenario. Sounds evil to me. :smallconfused:

I give to other people, and through my actions I work towards ensuring they have food. I don't see that eating would make me evil. Especially because I am not directly causing death, as in the lifeboat scenario.

Edit: Furthermore, people do not directly starve because I eat. Ergo, I am not directly causing death, and I am working to prevent discomfort wherever I can, which in turn is non-evil.

2nd Edit: People really should stop presenting non-analogous scenarios as though they are analogous. If you are not causing death directly by your actions it is not equivalent to the lifeboat scenario.

Elbeyon
2014-03-07, 02:19 PM
It's only as indirect as a person makes it. If a person has food and someone is starving, a more fortunate person could stand up walk outside and go feed them. The fact that they aren't could very well be the reason they just died. Sounds pretty direct to me.

Getting on a boat when someone will die without it. Eating a sandwich when someone will die without it. Both are denying a person life in order for the evil person to live.

Aedilred
2014-03-07, 02:22 PM
Edit: Furthermore, people do not directly starve because I eat. Ergo, I am not directly causing death, and I am working to prevent discomfort wherever I can, which in turn is non-evil.
Are you actively eating the food? If so, by your definition, that's direct, because your eating the food causes someone else not to have it and starve to death.

I really think you need to re-examine the difference between direct and indirect causation. Action or inaction has nothing to do with the directness of the consequences. But I think we've reached an impasse here. I can't think of a way to make my point any more clearly than I already have. Suffice to say, I disagree with your reasoning.


OK, let's say I'm in the lifeboat scenario, and I get on the boat, and the ship sinks and people die. The bodies are recovered. Which person did I kill? I didn't kill all of them; just show me the one person I killed so I know whose family I have to apologise to. It's not possible; my victim can't be distinguished. I don't see how a killing can be direct if it is logically impossible to identify the victim.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 02:26 PM
Are you actively eating the food? If so, by your definition, that's direct, because your eating the food causes someone else not to have it and starve to death.

I really think you need to re-examine the difference between direct and indirect causation. Action or inaction has nothing to do with the directness of the consequences. But I think we've reached an impasse here. I can't think of a way to make my point any more clearly than I already have. Suffice to say, I disagree with your reasoning.

If I did not eat the food... would somebody live or die? Depends, but they would not starve directly as a result of my eating or not eating. That makes it non equivalent. If I did not get on the lifeboat would somebody live? YES....

The equivalent scenario would be that I saw somebody starving to death and refused to give them food, which I have not done.

That's what makes this evil over neutral.


It's only as indirect as a person makes it. If a person has food and someone is starving, a more fortunate person could stand up walk outside and go feed them. The fact that they aren't could very well be the reason they just died. Sounds pretty direct to me.

Getting on a boat when someone will die without it. Eating a sandwich when someone will die without it. Both are denying a person life in order for the evil person to live.

See my above point, I have no way of directly giving the sandwich to a starving person, furthermore even if I did not eat the food it would be constructed and go to waste, so non-equivalency.

The food scenario is complex with a myriad of different outcomes. If I have a way to deliver the food, if I know a person is starving, if the food would not have been made if it were not for me.

The lifeboat scenario is simple. If you get on the boat, somebody else dies.

There is no scenario I can think of where "If I eat a sandwich somebody will die", not even a starvation scenario really, since a sandwich is not enough to keep somebody alive.

Aedilred
2014-03-07, 02:30 PM
If I did not eat the food... would somebody live or die? Depends, but they would not starve directly as a result of my eating or not eating. That makes it non equivalent. If I did not get on the lifeboat would somebody live? YES....

The equivalent scenario would be that I saw somebody starving to death and refused to give them food, which I have not done.

This doesn't necessarily follow. Whether or not the situation occurs within your field of vision or even whether or not you are physically present doesn't alter any incumbent responsibility.

Also, see my spoiler-edit in the last post. But anyway, that's my last word on the subject. I don't think we're getting anywhere.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 02:34 PM
This doesn't necessarily follow. Whether or not the situation occurs within your field of vision or even whether or not you are physically present doesn't alter any incumbent responsibility.

Also, see my spoiler-edit in the last post. But anyway, that's my last word on the subject. I don't think we're getting anywhere.

To your spoiler, you've killed one other person. In the food scenario responsibility is distributed among millions of people, it's a very different scenario in terms of scale and your ability to directly affect it. I've volunteered my time to feed people, which is the limit of my ability to act, if I starved myself, not buying any food, there would be no result from that, nobody would live on account of my not eating, food production wouldn't even change. It's not a scenario I can directly change. In this particular scenario the best you can get is a neutral-evil split, since you can't do anything that would directly change the outcome.

In the lifeboat scenario you have a good-evil split, since you only have two appropriate actions. To answer your spoiler, the person you killed is whichever person would have gotten on the boat when you did not, just because you'd be exempt from legal responsibility does not exempt your moral responsibility.

Edit: Actually Tuggy presented us with the equivalent scenario for the food scenario, that would be not getting on the lifeboat when there is an excess of seats available. So there'd be no gain in self-sacrifice, it wouldn't be good, only poorly advised.

Edit 2: Correction, it would be a neutral-neutral split, since there's no direct action you could take to cause the others to starve, unless you have a great deal of power, or were deliberately wasting food on a scale that is beyond the individual.

dethkruzer
2014-03-07, 02:36 PM
True neutral, borderline chaotic neutral, with slight evil tendencies.

SeekAndDestroy
2014-03-07, 02:47 PM
Allegedly, Lawful Good. I think I'm closer to Neutral Good myself, but I'm fine with either.

Elbeyon
2014-03-07, 02:47 PM
See my above point, I have no way of directly giving the sandwich to a starving person, furthermore even if I did not eat the food it would be constructed and go to waste, so non-equivalency.

The food scenario is complex with a myriad of different outcomes. If I have a way to deliver the food, if I know a person is starving, if the food would not have been made if it were not for me.

The delivery method is walking. A person is starving, the world isn't perfect. As you said the food is made with or without you. It's only a waste if you don't give it away. Something anyone is capable of doing if they are mobile.


limit of my ability to act It's really not. One of the only good ways to handle this situation is if a person spends all of their resources (one of which is time) until they have nothing else. At that point when a person has nothing (including life) is the one in which they are incapable of helping another. Until that point a person is choosing to not help someone and thus evil.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 02:49 PM
The delivery method is walking. A person is starving, the world isn't perfect. As you said the food is made with or without you. It's only a waste if you don't give it away. Something anyone is capable of doing if they are mobile.

It's really not. One of the only good ways to handle this situation is if a person spends all of their resources (one of which is time) until they have nothing else. At that point when a person has nothing (including life) is the one in which they are incapable of helping another. Until that point a person is choosing to not help someone and thus evil.

There is no action I can take that results in the person not starving, it is outside of my resources, and therefore it's not neutral to be unable to prevent that. Survival is not evil, but survival at the direct expense of others is. I have fed the poor, I have volunteered my time, that is the limit of what I could do, starving myself has no positive effect on the scenario, since the others also starve, it's just stupidity, not honor or goodness.

It's a scenario where no action you take as an individual barring exceptional resources is going to have an impact, ergo it's a neutral split at best, there is no action you can take that would prevent people from starving, and no action you can take that would make them starve faster.

Elbeyon
2014-03-07, 03:01 PM
There is no action I can take that results in the person not starving, it is outside of my resources, and therefore it's not neutral to be unable to prevent that. Survival is not evil, but survival at the direct expense of others is. I have fed the poor, I have volunteered my time, that is the limit of what I could do, starving myself has no positive effect on the scenario, since the others also starve, it's just stupidity, not honor or goodness.

It's a scenario where no action you take as an individual barring exceptional resources is going to have an impact, ergo it's a neutral split at best, there is no action you can take that would prevent people from starving, and no action you can take that would make them starve faster.

Their is no action someone could take to prevent someone from starving? Um, giving them food seems pretty simple. Giving someone else all my food prevents them from starving. Choosing myself over them is pure selfishness and thus evil.

There being a lack of an obvious direct harm doesn't mean nothing else is evil. Btw it's possible to make a person starve faster. Taking what ever little food food they have, poisoning them, inflicting an aliment on them which causes them to need more resources, but that's besides the point.

Edited: You to My

RedMage125
2014-03-07, 03:14 PM
You do something, it causes the death of another person, This is direct. There is NO neutral option because there is no self-centered option that does not hurt others. Neutral does not result in the death of others, or the damaging of their interests, that's the distinction between neutral and evil. There is no option in this scenario that qualifies for neutral since you have two options:

1.) Don't get on the boat, this causes yourself to die (probably), but saves others. This good, although intent could matter.
Agreed.


2.) Get on the boat, this causes the death of others through your direct actions. Which would be evil.
Not if "getting on the boat" is the only way to survive. For example, the water is so cold that no one could survive by swimming for more than a minute or two.

The deaths of those others would be caused by the sinking of the ship, which is presumably not your fault. You are taking action to try and keep yourself alive. In a "them or me" scenario, where one's survival is literally on the line, acting in self-interest in order to survive is not Good or Evil. Identical to killing a person in self-defense. Your life is in as much danger.


I concede that intention and mental state could factor in. Which is great. BUT NOT A PART OF THE SCENARIO AS PRESENTED. It seems that everybody is assuming a certain degree of moral absoluteness that doesn't exist, we have no mitigating factors presented and so we have no way of assigning a moral stance to the actions that would include them, if you want to provide mitigating factors, I may adjust my viewpoint.
Alignment discussions are ONLY relevant in a state of moral absoluteness, such as the "objective morality" default of D&D, because perceptions of "good" and "evil" in the real-world are so subjective. The only way to quantify "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" in any discussion is to use the objective definitions of those things as laid out by D&D RAW. Otherwise, we're all discussing opinions, which are like ***holes, after all...


Yes, but they did not kill, only ate what had already died, that's not causing death at all and isn't an equivalent scenario since the other person involved is already dead.
They didn't off themselves earlier, either, to allow the person who DID die to have survived by eating their own corpse. Which would be the self-sacrficing option in that scenario.


It's not an equivalent scenario.
It absolutely is.
In the life boat scenario, it is the environment which those people die from, just like the Donner Party scenario. You claim that any action other than "self-sacrifice so that others can live" is Evil.
By RAW definitions of Good/Evil, "non self-sacrifice" options are not Good, but unless they involve intentionally and DIRECTLY harming another (as Aedilred said), they are not Evil, either.


If you don't want to commit a minor evil act, yes. And I don't think that manslaughter through action is an unreasonable standard for an evil act. Also the bad stereotype of the Paladin is incapable of thinking through his moral structure, I have extensively done so. Which might make me uncompromising (Lawful) but still good, and not necessarily a Lawful Anal, as I've said, surviving isn't directly evil, but surviving at the expense of anothers' life, if you act, and somebody dies and you survive because of it, is.
Don't you mean "manslaughter throughinaction"? Because it is inaction and not action on my part that causes the deaths of those people. Their deaths were caused by hypothermia/drowning, not by being murdered by me. Just because I value my own life enough to try and survive in a life-and-death scenario does not make me Evil, just Neutral.

And "surviving at the expense of another's life" is NOT Evil if it is the only way to survive. If you had other options to survive and chose to take up a spot on the lifeboat instead of exploring your other options, then yes, it would be an evil act. Accepting the premise that "not getting on the lifeboat=you die", means that it is not an evil act to get on one. Otherwise, every woman and child whom YOU deem worthy to get a spot on the boat has committed an evil act by getting on the boat themself.


They had ANOTHER options, to not get on the lifeboats and tread water, to try to survive using driftwood, and the like. Or to die. The scenario is more equivalent to murdering a witness because you are facing the death penalty than it is to eating an already a dead corpse. Since your actions both result in somebody dying (if you had not got on the boat they would be alive), and are are direct (you got on the boat, that's a direct action). Yes, the starting situation (the sinking ship) is not your fault, but an emergency does not give on the license to cause the deaths of others for your own survival.
The scenario did not imply that swimming was an option that could lead to survival. And it isn't "my actions" causing the deaths of those people, it was the sinking ship that caused them to die. I simply did not want to be one of those people. Throwing someone out of a lifeboat to get in myself would be Evil, yes. Arriving at a lifeboat that had at least one spot open and getting in and staying in, even if more people arrived after it filled up, is not Evil, it is Neutral. Certainly not Good, because the Good choice would be to give up my spot for another. But "not Good" =/= "Evil".


Your scenario is equivalent to coming to the lifeboats and having enough spots, which is the scenario Tuggy pointed out, and that's neutral, but if there aren't enough, then you are forced to decide between good and evil.
WHAT? You mean this whole time, you've been assuming that the lifeboat is already full when you arrive? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

If there are 100 people left on board the ship as it sinks with one lifeboat remaining that seats 20, and you are one of the first 10 people to arrive at said lifeboat, it is not Evil to be one of those 20. No matter what you do, 80 people are going to die.
The Good choice is to be self-sacrificing and be one of the 80, giving up your spot (which by virtue of first-come-first serve in this emergency scenario, you have a right to) to someone who arrived after you.
Keeping your spot, unswayed by any begging or pleas for sympathy, is not Evil, because you got there early enough that there were still spots left. The PHB explicitly states "Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral". So, the RAW explicitly state that it is not Evil to be apathetic to the demands of those in need.
Arriving as the 21st person at the lifeboat and throwing someone else off to get on would be Evil. Arriving as the 1st person, and giving up your spot may be Good, but acting as some kind of judge to filter the next 20 people to arrive so that only those YOU deem worthy get to board is also Evil. Each person who arrived when there was room and was denied access to the boat by you would be an Evil act. You would be placing YOUR personal preference for "no males aboard until all females and children are loaded" over the lives of those males who arrived early to the boat, fair and square.


That's not a fair comparison since you have no way of knowing that your footfall causes that result, it's an accident. In the lifeboat scenario, you know.It's still not direct action, which was the point that you apprently missed.


This is directly causing somebody to die. I'm not sure how you could argue that something you are doing actively is indirect. Yes if there were no lifeboats present you would both die, but this is still direct. And it isn't equivalent to the sacrifice scenario in D&D for a variety of reasons.
It is NOT "directly causing someone to die". It IS "indirectlky causing someone to die". The only way it would be "direct" is if you murdered them personally, such as with a weapon, or throwing them overboard. By leaving choosing to be one of the 20 and not one of the 80, you have not "directly" killed any one of those 80 people. Indirectly, you are reasponsible for the death of one of them, although which one is vague and ephemeral.


Edit: In there is a "reasonableness" clause, ergo if a reasonable person knows that something would kill somebody, then they are treated as such. Furthermore the law is less strict with regards to protecting your own interests than D&D alignment.
Except that I have shown-using RAW-that D&D alignment says that "not being swayed by the demands of those in need" is morally Neutral, and not Evil.


I'm not sure there's a neutral way to just happen to get on a lifeboat in this scenario. If you run, jump, climb or otherwise use your superior athletic ability to get to the boats first (or if you just happen to have been lucky and was standing right next to them) you have actively used something to get advantage over others. The only real neutral way is if you leisurly stroll towards the lifeboats and arrive at the last moments before they leave, or wait around until they are about to leave and take a spot if there happens to be one.
I would call that "survival of the fittest" not "using an unfair advantage". As long as you are not using your superior strength to throw someone off the lifeboat who already made it on, it's not Evil to use the means at your disposal to try and reach a boat first.


Otherwise you have in effect stolen a spot from someone who is less capable than you (like a child or a parent carrying one).
Human beings are the only animals in all of Nature that would value a gravid female carrying an unborn baby (who may or may not survive to adulthood) over a healthy, physically fit individual in the prime of their life.
At any rate, if a pregant woman arrived as person number 21, the obviously Good action is to give up the spot to her. Hell, a Neutral person may decide to do it (as she amoutns to 2 lives to his one). HOWEVER, as has been demonstrated, simply being unsympathetic does not equate to an evil act, by RAW. Otherwise, the other 19 people opn the lifeboat besides you would have commited an Evil act by not being the ones to volunteer their spot.

If people are going to die if he doesn't give away his merchandise, yes. IF they are going to die as a direct result.
So, a food merchant who has to stay in business to feed his family, has fair prices, but does not haggle, has a pair of starving people enter his shop, asking for a handout. He refuses, because he feels that if he gives in, then every starving homeless person will come to his shop, get free food, and then eventually his own family will starve.
For the sake of argument, let's say I'm right. He gives them food. Eventually, every starving hobo in the city comes to his shop and he gives them all food. He may have committed a bunch of Good acts, but now his own family-including his children-are starving and no other merchant in town is as generous as him. He and his family starve to death. He has now caused the death of his own family. Was it a Good act? What about "charity starts at home"?

Society's laws don't demand that starving beggars be given free food. Even a Good person has to look to their own livelihood.
Refusing to give them your wares is Neutral.
Giving them food would be Good, yes. But so would giving them a JOB so they can earn the food.
Killing them to end their suffering would be Evil. That, by the way, is the only way that those people die as a "direct result". "Direct" means "A then B", such as "I stab him, he dies". "I refuse to give him somethign for free, he goes without, he dies from starvation/exposure" is not "direct" because the merchant did not cause his initial situation of starvation. He was starving and essentially dying when he came to the merchant. Ergo, not "direct cause".
Let's say someone falls down in front of you, bleeding out from a wound, and needs emergency medical care RIGHT NOW (like a tourniquet at least). Now, you are not trained to do give such care (you don't know how to properly apply a tourniquet), so what you do is yell for help, or run and try to find it, but by time you get back, person is dead. Using the logic you demonstrate in the merchant scenario, because YOU REFUSED to apply a tourniquet, and he died, YOU have "directly killed him". You see how silly that is?What "directly" caused his death was whatever caused the wound, not your inaction.


I'm not by that definition.
Self-sacrifice is Good...

As was pointed out I would not get on the lifeboats and would actively try to prevent those who had a good chance of surviving longer in the water from doing so.
...But this is Evil. If the water was so cold as to cause hypothermia and death within minutes, such that NO ONE had a chance of surviving in the water, your prevention of people from getting on the lifeboats when there was room for them is an Evil act. You are placing your ideals over their lives. Which is selfish, becaue YOU want your conscience (i.e. your desires) appeased, at detriment to others.
So every male you prevent from getting on that boat is an Evil act. By RAW definition.


I've been to war, my convictions have been tested, and to imply that nobody is able to rise above the survival impulse is ridiculous.
No one said that "no one can rise above the survival impulse".
I said "not rising above the survival impulse", is Not Evil. Just because someone doesn't rise to the standard of Good, does not make them Evil.


Altruism is evolutionarily favored.
That's complete bull. No animal would save an untested child over a proven fit and healthy adult except humans. Adults that have proven the ability to survive to adulthood and mate successfully are more important, evolution-wise, than an untested child which may not survive. Every other animal on the planet would sacrifice the young in a crisis in order to save the parents.


It is, ergo survival of others can sometimes take precedence.
Only by "enlightened self-interest" is what you call "altruism" ever objectively a good idea, as far as animals go. That is: a wolf allows other wolves in the pack to get some food, too, so everyone is up to strength, which will allow them to hunt successfully in the future. As opposed to: the biggest wolf gorging itself by virtue of physical dominance, and the other animals not getting enough to keep their strength up, now the pack is too weak to bring down the next elk. That's Enlightened Self-Interest, not Altruism.
Altruism is the exact opposite of what is favored by evolution. By Evolution's standards, the people who deserve the lifeboat spots ARE the ones who are most physically fit and healthy.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 03:19 PM
Their is no action someone could take to prevent someone from starving? Um, giving them food seems pretty simple. Giving someone else all my food prevents them from starving. Choosing myself over them is pure selfishness and thus evil.

There being a lack of an obvious direct harm doesn't mean nothing else is evil. Btw it's possible to make a person starve faster. Taking what ever little food food they have, poisoning them, inflicting an aliment on them which causes them to need more resources, but that's besides the point.

Edited: You to My
Giving them food isn't always a permanent solution though, and when I come into contact with a starving person I do that. So where is my moral failing here. I've worked for hungry and starving people, which is the limit of my responsibility. Your statement that eating causes other to starves had been demonstrably debunked. Since my own starving would do nothing, ergo eating is non-evil.

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-07, 06:24 PM
My alignment is Neutral Lifeboat. I log on to internet fora and talk about hypothetical lifeboat situations.

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 06:54 PM
I fear the eating food makes you Evil thing can not be properly discussed without breaching forum rules. If you have other more hypotheticals that's another matter.

As for the 'what character are you?' test, this is how I turned out:

Neutral Good Elf Bard (4th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 15
Dexterity- 15
Constitution- 13
Intelligence- 15
Wisdom- 14
Charisma- 13

Not very optimised, that's for sure.

TuggyNE
2014-03-07, 08:09 PM
Actually Tuggy agreed with me, but stipulated that if you got to the boat and there were no others present that it would be neutral, a stipulation with which I agreed. He then added that not getting off the boat if somebody else came was evil/

Strictly speaking, that's not quite right. Rather, I indicated that being willing to get off the boat in at least some cases is definitely non-Evil, while being unwilling to get off under any circumstances is not definitely non-Evil. If, for the sake of argument, you are a young princess of some troubled country somewhere, it would be irresponsible in most cases for you to give up your spot for some strapping sailor.


...But this is Evil. If the water was so cold as to cause hypothermia and death within minutes, such that NO ONE had a chance of surviving in the water, your prevention of people from getting on the lifeboats when there was room for them is an Evil act. You are placing your ideals over their lives. Which is selfish, becaue YOU want your conscience (i.e. your desires) appeased, at detriment to others.

Considering a conscience to be a selfish desire is pretty strange. In particular, this means that it's impossible to ever rightly put what's good over someone else's life … even if "what's good" is "lots of people living" and the person is the one trying to kill them.


My alignment is Neutral Lifeboat. I log on to internet fora and talk about hypothetical lifeboat situations.

Seems legit!

RedMage125
2014-03-07, 10:45 PM
Considering a conscience to be a selfish desire is pretty strange. In particular, this means that it's impossible to ever rightly put what's good over someone else's life … even if "what's good" is "lots of people living" and the person is the one trying to kill them.
A conscience can be selfish when you use it to force others to obey your code at the cost of their lives.
By forcing all males to abdicate their spots on the boat in favor of females, he is using his conscience to justify killing them, in effect. It is wrong for him to insist that EVERYONE act according to his conscience to the cost of their lives.

AMFV
2014-03-07, 11:38 PM
A conscience can be selfish when you use it to force others to obey your code at the cost of their lives.
By forcing all males to abdicate their spots on the boat in favor of females, he is using his conscience to justify killing them, in effect. It is wrong for him to insist that EVERYONE act according to his conscience to the cost of their lives.

No, it is wrong for me to allow those who are stronger, and males tend to be stronger and more enduring to be put in a scenario where those are not stronger are less likely to survive. Males would be more likely to survive treading water or adrift than a woman would.

Edit: Furthermore if you'd have read back further, I pointed out that the women first is more a matter of law than of good, the other matter is a more a matter of good (that would be children).

Edit 2: Free will is NOT important to Good in D&D, that's chaos, me allowing somebody freedom, has nothing to do with the Good - Evil axis, so my action is clearly lawful, but has no bearing on the other axis in that regard.

veti
2014-03-08, 01:22 AM
It's interesting how you can dismiss all women as not being strong enough to handle a lifeboat.

When did I say anything about women? The description I was addressing was "the weak". If you think that category automatically includes all women, that's your judgment, not mine.

BrokenChord
2014-03-08, 02:41 AM
I agree with the prioritizing the weak mentality, though weak men are still weaker than strong women, so I won't make the gender distinction. Children... About .1% of people 13 or younger will not be significantly less capable than any non-crippled/elderly adult, so that's a safe choice to make in Good terms.

I must say, though, a few people here appear to be arguing Good Must Be Stupid, which the game itself clearly defines as not the case. You hold the only hope for saving the world, so you don't sacrifice yourself in a battle against Evil outsiders no matter how Paladin you are. The boat of weaker people will basically die without any strong among them. That's where drawing lots comes in, though. For "fairness" or something.

... Alternatively, if you view this as a very binary and transparent simplicity of "boat = live, non-lifeboat = die" then nobody deserves any special treatment and the entire thing should either be drawing lots or hoping you're close enough (that's more L/C than G/E). I start to agree with "prioritizing the weak" only when realistic things are factored in, like the possibility of the stronger people staying alive thanks to driftwood/staying afloat. But just being frail or less capable doesn't give your life more or less value inherently.

AMFV
2014-03-08, 02:55 AM
I agree with the prioritizing the weak mentality, though weak men are still weaker than strong women, so I won't make the gender distinction. Children... About .1% of people 13 or younger will not be significantly less capable than any non-crippled/elderly adult, so that's a safe choice to make in Good terms.

I must say, though, a few people here appear to be arguing Good Must Be Stupid, which the game itself clearly defines as not the case. You hold the only hope for saving the world, so you don't sacrifice yourself in a battle against Evil outsiders no matter how Paladin you are. The boat of weaker people will basically die without any strong among them. That's where drawing lots comes in, though. For "fairness" or something.

... Alternatively, if you view this as a very binary and transparent simplicity of "boat = live, non-lifeboat = die" then nobody deserves any special treatment and the entire thing should either be drawing lots or hoping you're close enough (that's more L/C than G/E). I start to agree with "prioritizing the weak" only when realistic things are factored in, like the possibility of the stronger people staying alive thanks to driftwood/staying afloat. But just being frail or less capable doesn't give your life more or less value inherently.

It's not a question of value, it's a question of the responsibility that is imposed on one by the virtue of having strength.

Tessman the 2nd
2014-03-08, 03:37 AM
True neutral as a person
Lawful evil as a DM

TuggyNE
2014-03-08, 03:51 AM
A conscience can be selfish when you use it to force others to obey your code at the cost of their lives.

Only if the code in question is in fact selfish. If it's wrong or unjustified, forcing others to obey it may indeed be wrong, but not due to selfishness. After all, someone who considers it best for everyone to follow the principles of X is not motivated by their own self-interest, but by the interest of X, which in many cases involves the interests of those they are attempting to force compliance on — unless you consider all possible sorts of motivation to be self-interested, in which case the question is moot, since you do not act without motivation and thus all acts are equally selfish and the term "selfish" becomes of no value.


By forcing all males to abdicate their spots on the boat in favor of females, he is using his conscience to justify killing them, in effect.

As previously noted, essentially the same problem arises using your reasoning for a paladin using his conscience to justify killing a demon who is about to try to corrupt/kill a country. Your reasoning is over-broad.

Lorsa
2014-03-08, 04:13 AM
When did I say anything about women? The description I was addressing was "the weak". If you think that category automatically includes all women, that's your judgment, not mine.

AMFV had said he was going to make sure women and children got on the lifeboats, so when the sentiment was expressed that "it is important to have strong people on the boats too" I assumed the issue was that women weren't seen as strong enough in this scenario.

If that was not your intentention or what you said I apologise for my comment.

RedMage125
2014-03-08, 05:00 PM
No, it is wrong for me to allow those who are stronger, and males tend to be stronger and more enduring to be put in a scenario where those are not stronger are less likely to survive. Males would be more likely to survive treading water or adrift than a woman would.

Edit: Furthermore if you'd have read back further, I pointed out that the women first is more a matter of law than of good, the other matter is a more a matter of good (that would be children).

Edit 2: Free will is NOT important to Good in D&D, that's chaos, me allowing somebody freedom, has nothing to do with the Good - Evil axis, so my action is clearly lawful, but has no bearing on the other axis in that regard.

And if the water is so cold that hypothermia is certain?

If, regardless of their strength as a swimmer, not being in a lifeboat is a death sentence? Which is, by the way, the assumption of the original premise?

What about what happens to the people in the lifeboat until they are rescued? Will they not need strong people to help them survive?

You cited evolution earlier, claiming that altruism is supported by it, which is false. By evolutionary standards, only the strongest SHOULD get on the lifeboat.

Women first may be a matter of Law, but what about people who do not adhere to that philosophy? Why should they die to satisfy YOUR preference? What about a single father with his kids? Do you allow his children on, but orphan them by forbidding their father?

RedMage125
2014-03-08, 05:04 PM
Only if the code in question is in fact selfish. If it's wrong or unjustified, forcing others to obey it may indeed be wrong, but not due to selfishness. After all, someone who considers it best for everyone to follow the principles of X is not motivated by their own self-interest, but by the interest of X, which in many cases involves the interests of those they are attempting to force compliance on — unless you consider all possible sorts of motivation to be self-interested, in which case the question is moot, since you do not act without motivation and thus all acts are equally selfish and the term "selfish" becomes of no value.
I see what you're saying, but in this instance, forcing others to adhere to his code is costing them their lives. Objectively, the lives of those innocent people are over, but his conscience is assuaged.


As previously noted, essentially the same problem arises using your reasoning for a paladin using his conscience to justify killing a demon who is about to try to corrupt/kill a country. Your reasoning is over-broad.
That's argumentum ad ridiculum. Demons are literally MADE OF EVIL. Killing a demon is a Good act.

TuggyNE
2014-03-08, 06:04 PM
I see what you're saying, but in this instance, forcing others to adhere to his code is costing them their lives. Objectively, the lives of those innocent people are over, but his conscience is assuaged.

And how is this substantially different from what I was saying? Of course his conscience is assuaged; that's what you expect from someone who believes they did the right thing*. Leaping from that to "well obviously they did the wrong thing" is very strange, and you seem to be missing one or more very important steps in your reasoning that are quite clear to you and entirely opaque from this end.

*Barring potential crises of faith, obviously.


That's argumentum ad ridiculum.

Actually ad reductio, but who's counting.


Demons are literally MADE OF EVIL. Killing a demon is a Good act.

According to whom? The paladin's conscience? :smallamused: Objective good? How does the paladin know what objective good really says, if not by training their conscience? (If, for some reason, the demon is somehow unsuitable, substitute some mortal tyrant or other. Same thing applies.)

Aedilred
2014-03-08, 08:03 PM
Hmm. I think I might agree with TuggyNE here, pending clarification of his exact position. A demon is Evil, and therefore killing it is Good (by the objective standards that make D&D alignment function). A paladin can in fact identify that this is the case via Detect Evil, but assuming the demon is known to be a demon it is already self-evident. The paladin's conscience doesn't really come into it.

By contrast, preventing individuals from reaching safety out of arbitrary preference according to the paladin's own code is Lawful. The question of where it falls on the Good-Evil spectrum actually reflects the answer given to the earlier question of whether it's Neutral or Evil to get on the lifeboat yourself, thanks to that "follows the code without being moved by the plight of the desperate" or whatever it was. If getting on the lifeboat and refusing to move is a Neutral Act, then arbitrarily sorting the surviving passengers according to your own code (assuming the distinction is based on something other than Good/Evil) and refusing to be budged is a Neutral act. If prioritising your own survival above that of others is an Evil act, then how can prioritising your own code and conscience above the survival of others not be an Evil act?

It might, in theory, be possible to make the sorting of passengers onto the boat into a Good act, if you were to come up with a flawless formula which took into account the relative innocence, Goodness, utility to society, and optimised chance of survival and selected the group of passengers best-equipped to score highly overall. But that's quite difficult to do at all under any circumstances (and is the sort of thing that has eluded moralists and ethicists since their disciplines have existed) so you're unlikely to come up with one in an emergency. Trying to do so might get you bonus Good points even if you fail. But anything less than that would be a Lawful act only.

N.B. that sorting the passengers isn't necessarily the Lawful thing to do. It's the Lawful thing to do if your code indicates that the passengers should be sorted, rather than just running with survival of the fittest, or if there are recognised rules for handling this situation that you insist are followed. Going by my earlier assertion that boarding a boat yourself (without use of force etc.) is fundamentally Neutral, I'd have to say that trying to manage the passengers onto the boat would also be Neutral. But it's not Good, regardless of whether you yourself board a boat or not.

On the other hand, trying to manage the passengers onto the boat merely to ensure that progress was orderly and avoided overcrowding, people being murdered for their spot, knocked over the rail to their death, that all the spaces on the lifeboats were filled resulting in no unnecessary deaths etc. might well be Good, so long as you're not making life-or-death decisions based on your own criteria.

AMFV
2014-03-08, 10:42 PM
Hmm. I think I might agree with TuggyNE here, pending clarification of his exact position. A demon is Evil, and therefore killing it is Good (by the objective standards that make D&D alignment function). A paladin can in fact identify that this is the case via Detect Evil, but assuming the demon is known to be a demon it is already self-evident. The paladin's conscience doesn't really come into it.

By contrast, preventing individuals from reaching safety out of arbitrary preference according to the paladin's own code is Lawful. The question of where it falls on the Good-Evil spectrum actually reflects the answer given to the earlier question of whether it's Neutral or Evil to get on the lifeboat yourself, thanks to that "follows the code without being moved by the plight of the desperate" or whatever it was. If getting on the lifeboat and refusing to move is a Neutral Act, then arbitrarily sorting the surviving passengers according to your own code (assuming the distinction is based on something other than Good/Evil) and refusing to be budged is a Neutral act. If prioritising your own survival above that of others is an Evil act, then how can prioritising your own code and conscience above the survival of others not be an Evil act?

It might, in theory, be possible to make the sorting of passengers onto the boat into a Good act, if you were to come up with a flawless formula which took into account the relative innocence, Goodness, utility to society, and optimised chance of survival and selected the group of passengers best-equipped to score highly overall. But that's quite difficult to do at all under any circumstances (and is the sort of thing that has eluded moralists and ethicists since their disciplines have existed) so you're unlikely to come up with one in an emergency. Trying to do so might get you bonus Good points even if you fail. But anything less than that would be a Lawful act only.

N.B. that sorting the passengers isn't necessarily the Lawful thing to do. It's the Lawful thing to do if your code indicates that the passengers should be sorted, rather than just running with survival of the fittest, or if there are recognised rules for handling this situation that you insist are followed. Going by my earlier assertion that boarding a boat yourself (without use of force etc.) is fundamentally Neutral, I'd have to say that trying to manage the passengers onto the boat would also be Neutral. But it's not Good, regardless of whether you yourself board a boat or not.

On the other hand, trying to manage the passengers onto the boat merely to ensure that progress was orderly and avoided overcrowding, people being murdered for their spot, knocked over the rail to their death, that all the spaces on the lifeboats were filled resulting in no unnecessary deaths etc. might well be Good, so long as you're not making life-or-death decisions based on your own criteria.

I agree with the majority of this. Although I still dispute that boarding the boat yourself if there is a limited number of spots is fundamentally neutral rather than evil. And allowing those who would be otherwise unable to board the boat to board it, is fundamentally good. Since you are defending the weak, which is generally a good thing as far as the alignment system goes.

Edit: However reexamining your argument, you're not taking intent into account which is an important part of the alignment system, actually I think that that may clear up a lot of this. If you are boarding the lifeboat because you feel that your life is important than others it'd be evil, if you are boarding a lifeboat so that you can protect your children who are on the boat, it'd be (ostensibly) good. If you are boarding the boat because you're following directions and are in shock, it'd be neutral since you don't have the agency to make moral decisions at this point (although I'd argue for closer to evil than center neutral, since lacking agency does not to my mind equate to lacking responsibility [although by the rules I think it does]).

GoblinArchmage
2014-03-08, 11:09 PM
I find it amusing that everyone is trying to have a philosophical debate, but is doing so in terms of the D&D alignment system.

Aedilred
2014-03-08, 11:31 PM
I agree with the majority of this. Although I still dispute that boarding the boat yourself if there is a limited number of spots is fundamentally neutral rather than evil. And allowing those who would be otherwise unable to board the boat to board it, is fundamentally good. Since you are defending the weak, which is generally a good thing as far as the alignment system goes.
Absolutely, helping those to board who would otherwise be incapable of doing so is a Good act. But I'm not convinced that it's a Good act if you're stopping others from boarding so that "the weak" can get on. You're essentially selecting survivors based on your own arbitrary criteria, and valuing the lives of "the weak" higher than those of anyone else.

Defending the weak against the strong is a useful rule of thumb for Good, but it's not the be and end all. Defending weak evildoers against strong heroes seems more like a neutral or evil act than anything else. Moreover, just because the weak often need protection against the oppression of the strong, it doesn't necessarily follow that the life of a strong individual is worth any less than that of a weak one (I'd have thought a Good position was that all life is pretty much equally valuable).

I also think the issue of directness is coming into play here again: unless the stronger crew/passengers are shoving the weaker ones aside or throwing them overboard to get onto the lifeboats, they're not directly oppressing them, and intervening in favour of "the weak" is exercising a personal preference rather than - necessarily - preventing an injustice. ('Course, "justice" is itself more a matter of Law than Good, and I think that's also causing problems here.)

(That's without addressing what actually constitutes "the weak" in this scenario, but let's assume there's an obvious empirical scale).

Edit: However reexamining your argument, you're not taking intent into account which is an important part of the alignment system, actually I think that that may clear up a lot of this. If you are boarding the lifeboat because you feel that your life is important than others it'd be evil, if you are boarding a lifeboat so that you can protect your children who are on the boat, it'd be (ostensibly) good. If you are boarding the boat because you're following directions and are in shock, it'd be neutral since you don't have the agency to make moral decisions at this point (although I'd argue for closer to evil than center neutral, since lacking agency does not to my mind equate to lacking responsibility [although by the rules I think it does]).
I'm not really interested in continuing to discuss the "is boarding the boat yourself neutral or evil" debate, since I think I (and others) have made my point as clearly as possible, and unless the substance of your argument radically changes I don't think you're ever going to convince me. Obviously the base scenario can be altered if you take other factors into account and add additional motivations, and that will affect the position on the alignment spectrum, but that's all heavily circumstantial - the original premise was merely to do with survival.


I find it amusing that everyone is trying to have a philosophical debate, but is doing so in terms of the D&D alignment system.
Well that's what started this off, although I agree with you in spirit. It is proving quite a nice illustration of the limits of that system, mind.

AMFV
2014-03-09, 01:05 AM
Absolutely, helping those to board who would otherwise be incapable of doing so is a Good act. But I'm not convinced that it's a Good act if you're stopping others from boarding so that "the weak" can get on. You're essentially selecting survivors based on your own arbitrary criteria, and valuing the lives of "the weak" higher than those of anyone else.

Defending the weak against the strong is a useful rule of thumb for Good, but it's not the be and end all. Defending weak evildoers against strong heroes seems more like a neutral or evil act than anything else. Moreover, just because the weak often need protection against the oppression of the strong, it doesn't necessarily follow that the life of a strong individual is worth any less than that of a weak one (I'd have thought a Good position was that all life is pretty much equally valuable).

I also think the issue of directness is coming into play here again: unless the stronger crew/passengers are shoving the weaker ones aside or throwing them overboard to get onto the lifeboats, they're not directly oppressing them, and intervening in favour of "the weak" is exercising a personal preference rather than - necessarily - preventing an injustice. ('Course, "justice" is itself more a matter of Law than Good, and I think that's also causing problems here.)

(That's without addressing what actually constitutes "the weak" in this scenario, but let's assume there's an obvious empirical scale).


The problem is that the scenario creates a situation where those who are weaker are going to be less likely to make it to the boats expediently, or defend their own interests. It is very likely that those who are weaker would be oppressed in such a scenario, which would require a good individual to act on their behalf since they (particularly children) are not able to.