PDA

View Full Version : Your RL alignment?



Inevitability
2014-09-19, 10:24 AM
What would you consider your Real-Life alignment? Mine would be Lawful Neutral.

LG: 4
LN: 5
LE: 3
NG: 9
TN: 12
NE: 2
CG: 3
CN: 2
CE: 2

Far Realms: 1

DM Nate
2014-09-19, 10:27 AM
According to this test, (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator) I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

Aedilred
2014-09-19, 10:40 AM
True Neutral, with a slight lean towards Lawful Good. I imagine the majority of respondents would be True Neutral and, one would hope, would tend towards Neutral or Good on the moral axis. Law vs Chaos could be interesting, though.

GPuzzle
2014-09-19, 11:10 AM
True Neutral, heading outwards to all directions but particulary Neutral Good with a hint of Lawful Good.

Bulhakov
2014-09-19, 12:02 PM
LG all the way (but not lawful stupid)

ComaVision
2014-09-19, 12:32 PM
According to this test, (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator) I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

I got Neutral Evil on this, which I can see. I'm interested in the acquisition of power and wealth but don't generally care much for people who are in a lously place in life because of their own incompetence.

I think laws have purpose and value but there are several that are stupid or outdated and aren't worth abiding by.

Murk
2014-09-19, 12:43 PM
It's quite interesting that I think life in general would, on our world, be more neutral-oriented. Looking out for yourself is mostly rule nr. 1 in this universe. Even worse, "doing good" isn't as clear, or as easy. As a PC, smiting one evil goblin is something you can do before breakfast and wouldn't cost you anything. In the real world good deeds most of the time actually costs you something. Now I know that's in the definition of good, but PC's have unlimited time, don't have to work for their foods and get loot everywhere.

So, yeah, this rant comes down to "I'm neutral, because I'm too lazy to be good." Sorry.

Esprit15
2014-09-19, 12:56 PM
As much as I'd like to be a screw the rules guy, I'm pretty much TN with a LG tendency.

Aliquid
2014-09-19, 01:08 PM
I have always had a problem with how to deal with Law vs Chaos.

I feel very strongly about keeping my word, never lying, following through on commitments, and other "Lawful" things like that.

BUT... I also have a bit of a "screw authority" mentality. I don't like others telling me what to do, and I don't follow rules unless I agree with the values behind a rule. Which is Chaotic.

Delwugor
2014-09-19, 01:17 PM
I'm Chaotically Lawful, Goodly Evil and Falsely Neutral.

Sartharina
2014-09-19, 01:41 PM
I'm Chaotically Lawful, Goodly Evil and Falsely Neutral.

I'm Lawfully Chaotic, Evilly Good, and Neutral Hot.

I end up all over the place in alignment charts - and not in the wishy-washy 'doesn't veer far in either direction' that most people think Neutral needs to be.

Aotrs Commander
2014-09-19, 01:44 PM
Solidly and actually Lawful Evil.

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-19, 01:55 PM
I've been a scout for 14 years. During that period, I've upgraded from participating in charity events to organizing them. I'm the sort of guy who gives random strangers a ride when out at night, wakes up passed out people and escorts them home, and gets his ass beaten for daring to get between bickering couples or in the way of some neo-nazi who beating an unknown foreigner.

While I may have drifted a bit from the "clean in thought, word and deed" part, I'm still about as Lawful Good as you can get. Expect when holding a game, that's when I turn Lawful Evil, because watching my players squirm brings tears of joy to my eyes. :smalltongue:

Amphetryon
2014-09-19, 01:56 PM
Either LG or LN, depending on the day and which specific alignment test is taken.

Aedilred
2014-09-19, 02:40 PM
I have always had a problem with how to deal with Law vs Chaos.

I feel very strongly about keeping my word, never lying, following through on commitments, and other "Lawful" things like that.

BUT... I also have a bit of a "screw authority" mentality. I don't like others telling me what to do, and I don't follow rules unless I agree with the values behind a rule. Which is Chaotic.
This is essentially the reason why I say I'm neutral on the law/chaos axis rather than Lawful. That said I don't know that an anti-authoritarian streak in itself necessarily has to be Chaotic, so long as there is a consistency to your reasoning and defiance of it. If you disagree with authority because you adhere to a "higher" set of principles (even if they're your own creation) - and so long as you actually do adhere to those principles and don't just change them depending on what's convenient - that's still broadly Lawful, I think. Of course, the Law/Chaos axis is fairly poorly-defined in official materials, so it's difficult to be clear.

Unfortunately the OKCupid alignment test isn't working for me today, but I have taken it in the past and got neutral with a tendency towards LG: I just can't remember the figures.

SiuiS
2014-09-19, 03:06 PM
Neutral. While I understand and respect humanity's bent toward Law, I choose to stand apart in the cosmic conflict. Chaos is deplorable but, objectively, equally valid.


I have always had a problem with how to deal with Law vs Chaos.

I feel very strongly about keeping my word, never lying, following through on commitments, and other "Lawful" things like that.

BUT... I also have a bit of a "screw authority" mentality. I don't like others telling me what to do, and I don't follow rules unless I agree with the values behind a rule. Which is Chaotic.

Are you okay with the idea that because entropy exists, nothing matters, and all of human progress is just a mistake that further makes anything really valuable or interesting much harder to do? Would you rather live in a world where instead of trials and rational thought, any grievance by somehing more powerful than you is capable of rendering you into amorphous goo if your willpower flags? If no, not lchaos.

Are you willing to give your life, namelessly and without commendation. Fighting such things tooth and nail for the greater good of all people? If no, not lawful.

Averis Vol
2014-09-19, 03:39 PM
I would say neutral good. I go out of my way to help people as best I can, even when it requires less than exemplary means to do so.

Aliquid
2014-09-19, 03:46 PM
That said I don't know that an anti-authoritarian streak in itself necessarily has to be Chaotic, so long as there is a consistency to your reasoning and defiance of it. If you disagree with authority because you adhere to a "higher" set of principles (even if they're your own creation) - and so long as you actually do adhere to those principles and don't just change them depending on what's convenient - that's still broadly Lawful, I think. Of course, the Law/Chaos axis is fairly poorly-defined in official materials, so it's difficult to be clear.
Maybe I'm more lawful than I thought then... but yes the problem is the poor definition.


Are you okay with the idea that because entropy exists, nothing matters, and all of human progress is just a mistake that further makes anything really valuable or interesting much harder to do? Would you rather live in a world where instead of trials and rational thought, any grievance by somehing more powerful than you is capable of rendering you into amorphous goo if your willpower flags? If no, not lchaos.

Are you willing to give your life, namelessly and without commendation. Fighting such things tooth and nail for the greater good of all people? If no, not lawful.This is exactly why I get confused.

That sounds to me like a AD&D 2nd edition definition of Law and Chaos (I may be wrong). Where as some other definitions say:
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."

SiuiS
2014-09-19, 04:31 PM
That was intentional. The answer to what is your real life alignment is always "alignment compared to what?"

Am I to describe which planets are ascendent in which houses? Which factions I have deals with?

Alignment has always been about who you are aligned with, nt what. It needs context. Answers without context and questions without context are all just meaningless self-adulation.

Aliquid
2014-09-19, 04:37 PM
That was intentional. The answer to what is your real life alignment is always "alignment compared to what?"

Am I to describe which planets are ascendent in which houses? Which factions I have deals with?

Alignment has always been about who you are aligned with, nt what. It needs context. Answers without context and questions without context are all just meaningless self-adulation.Which makes it kind of pointless asking "what is your RL alignment". This isn't Planescape... there are no factions. Who am I aligned with? Nobody.

ImperatorV
2014-09-19, 04:56 PM
According to that test? Strongly Chaotic (exactly what I expected) and slightly Evil (somewhat suspected).

Tiktik Ironclaw
2014-09-19, 05:13 PM
I got Lawful Neutral, with a tendency to Evil. I respect rules and laws, but my complete apathy towards the most worthless degenerates of our society points me to a more drow-like attitude.

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-19, 05:31 PM
Which makes it kind of pointless asking "what is your RL alignment". This isn't Planescape... there are no factions.

I can, like, hear a million philosophy teachers and religious authorities standing up in unison to shout how wrong you are.


Who am I aligned with? Nobody.

Poor lonely you. :smalltongue:

5a Violista
2014-09-19, 06:28 PM
According to this test, (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator) I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

I took the test too, and it was long but somewhat exciting.

In the end, I got Chaotic Good.

So...first one in the thread! Yes!

Aliquid
2014-09-19, 06:36 PM
I can, like, hear a million philosophy teachers and religious authorities standing up in unison to shout how wrong you are.Yeah but RL religion and philosophy are a bit different. Very few people would say they are aligned with an evil or even a neutral religion/philosophy. Most everyone will say they are aligned with “good”, they just define it differently.


Poor lonely you. :smalltongue:Heh, it's not that bad. I can't say more than that without pushing the forum rules limits.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-19, 06:47 PM
Every quiz/test I've ever taken* has said Lawful Neutral, so probably that.

* Except this one:


According to this test, (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator)

--which just gave me a blank page. I might try it again later.

Dienekes
2014-09-19, 07:01 PM
So, yeah, that test gave me a blank page and clicking results asked me if I want to join OKCupid.

I do not.

Anyway, I wasn't much a fan of the test. Several questions had answers where I thought to myself, I don't agree with any of them. The medieval role one was pretty glaring; I wouldn't be a prince, or a king, if anything a scholar and/or a knight, both important roles and neither on the list. The words of wisdom one was also pretty much useless snippets without any real wisdom to them, and a bunch more.

Still curious what I got though.

As to my own mind. I'm true neutral, I believe Lawful Good is the best ideal, and I would like to be it, but I know I don't come close to attaining that. I'm too spiteful, and I enjoy the misfortunes of others too much.

Mastikator
2014-09-19, 07:13 PM
--which just gave me a blank page. I might try it again later.

Me too. It seems broken.

Quizes typically give me neutral good. Which I agree with.

Angel Bob
2014-09-19, 08:45 PM
I consistently get True Neutral (slight bent towards Lawful Neutral, but it's very slight).

Turns out that, while I love playing the villain, I do actually have a conscience. Who knew? :smalltongue:

Jay R
2014-09-19, 09:50 PM
The D&D alignment system is not consistent with real-world morality or ethics, and therefore no real person can be accurately described in D&D alignment terms.

[And if it were consistent with any real-world moral systems, we wouldn't be allowed to discuss it here.]

Tengu_temp
2014-09-19, 10:00 PM
Neutral good with chaotic tendencies. I wanted to say "neutral with good leanings", but, honestly, that's good. I do not subscribe to the "you have to be a living saint to count as good, you have to be a monster to count as evil" school of thought.

Daishain
2014-09-19, 10:13 PM
neutral, fairly strong bent towards lawful and good end of the scale

Dienekes
2014-09-19, 10:27 PM
Neutral good with chaotic tendencies. I wanted to say "neutral with good leanings", but, honestly, that's good. I do not subscribe to the "you have to be a living saint to count as good, you have to be a monster to count as evil" school of thought.

Living saint? Nah, but for me you have to be active in your good-ness. A normal person, will say, give a beggar some cash or food. Or hold a door open for someone behind them. Or any minor little things that just come up. A good person at least tries to take steps to be good or better than they otherwise were. That's where I fail, in my mind. If something comes up, I'll generally speaking step up. But I've never gone looking to help others.

Well, I fail there, and my general enjoyment at laughing at people when they screw up.

Tengu_temp
2014-09-19, 10:38 PM
Living saint? Nah, but for me you have to be active in your good-ness. A normal person, will say, give a beggar some cash or food. Or hold a door open for someone behind them. Or any minor little things that just come up.

Actually, the way I see it, someone who does various minor acts of kindness towards strangers, especially acts that cost them money or effort, and doesn't do anything evil that'd nullify them, is good. A neutral person will just pass by, because they're strangers and you don't care about strangers, or would help once in a blue moon.

Being good or evil doesn't require going out of your way to look for situations where you can make things better or worse for other people. You can be either while just living a normal life and just reacting to whatever it throws at you.

EvilAnagram
2014-09-19, 10:39 PM
Neutral Good. I enjoy studying philosophy, and I tend to put a fair bit of consideration into what constitutes moral behavior. I also have both lawful and chaotic tendencies, like I imagine most people do. Balance is important, but so is morality.

Venom3053000
2014-09-19, 11:59 PM
I got a blank page :smallconfused:

but if I had to guess Neutral Good or True Neutral

Inevitability
2014-09-20, 12:13 AM
No CN people? That's... surprising at the very least.

Dienekes
2014-09-20, 01:09 AM
Actually, the way I see it, someone who does various minor acts of kindness towards strangers, especially acts that cost them money or effort, and doesn't do anything evil that'd nullify them, is good. A neutral person will just pass by, because they're strangers and you don't care about strangers, or would help once in a blue moon.

Being good or evil doesn't require going out of your way to look for situations where you can make things better or worse for other people. You can be either while just living a normal life and just reacting to whatever it throws at you.

I respectfully disagree. I think we both see this stuff as a spectrum, there are many different levels where people are marginally better than the one before, or marginally worse. Trying to cut that into good or neutral is a lot of finagling. Now personally, I see actually labeling someone as Good means that this person does stand head and shoulders above the rest. Not nice, not better, this individual is actually Good. Now that doesn't mean they have to be a saint, but they have to try, to put in the effort to be better.

That's just how I see it anyway.

golentan
2014-09-20, 01:18 AM
According to the test I took, I am always more good than evil and always more lawful than chaotic, in that order. (seriously, my number of answers in descending order by alignment was LG, NG, CG, LN, TN, CN, LE, NE, CE).

Doesn't fool me though. I'm LE. There are some things you can't recover from, alignment wise. Plus I laugh more maniacally than anyone else I know, and have been told I'm one lab accident from becoming a supervillain.

Sartharina
2014-09-20, 02:30 AM
No CN people? That's... surprising at the very least.

I am True Neutral. Too much respect for my Social Contract, Deity, and Clan to be Chaotic. Too hateful of my nation's laws and legal system to be Lawful (My brother went through Police Academy. His experience related to me from that made me terrified of police and our law system). Too compassionate and forgiving to others to be Evil (I was helping one of the three guys who nearly killed me two years ago by the end of the month, and refused to press charges against him for shooting+stabbing me), but too fight-happy, amoral, and "Morality is written by the winners" to be Good (Or so others say of me.).
I respectfully disagree. I think we both see this stuff as a spectrum, there are many different levels where people are marginally better than the one before, or marginally worse. Trying to cut that into good or neutral is a lot of finagling. Now personally, I see actually labeling someone as Good means that this person does stand head and shoulders above the rest. Not nice, not better, this individual is actually Good. Now that doesn't mean they have to be a saint, but they have to try, to put in the effort to be better.

That's just how I see it anyway.You've not seen just how much you take for granted 'good' behaviors. Try living in a bad neighborhood for a few years. Good and Evil start to stand out action-wise, but tend to muddy individual-wise.

SiuiS
2014-09-20, 02:39 AM
Which makes it kind of pointless asking "what is your RL alignment". This isn't Planescape... there are no factions. Who am I aligned with? Nobody.

Pish-posh, that's only true if you take "align" and "faction" in a way that's literal to the point of absurdity.


Living saint? Nah, but for me you have to be active in your good-ness. A normal person, will say, give a beggar some cash or food. Or hold a door open for someone behind them. Or any minor little things that just come up. A good person at least tries to take steps to be good or better than they otherwise were. That's where I fail, in my mind. If something comes up, I'll generally speaking step up. But I've never gone looking to help others.

Well, I fail there, and my general enjoyment at laughing at people when they screw up.

One needs must distinguish between a choice and a rote. People give money not because it's a good deed, but because people accept is as a good deed and it allows one to pass on responsibility. Money isn't a good thing, money is an excuse.

As a total aside, I don't give money, and make a point of saying so directly when people approach me with a hand out. I've bought someone food, gas, I've given clothes off my back, and similar. But that's direct, and makes sure that they get help if they need it and neatly avoids the people who are in the same spot, every day, drink as sin, and always asking for 63 cents to make the bus to get to their baby-daddy's to pick up their kid.

MrConsideration
2014-09-20, 03:12 AM
Chaotic Good, maaaaaan.

Or at least, I try to be Good, and I'm reasonably sure I'm not actively Evil.

Erik Vale
2014-09-20, 03:41 AM
I would say somewhere between TN and CE.
*Does Test*
I got a Error. So apparently I'm Far Realms.

SiuiS
2014-09-20, 03:43 AM
You've not seen just how much you take for granted 'good' behaviors. Try living in a bad neighborhood for a few years. Good and Evil start to stand out action-wise, but tend to muddy individual-wise.

Maybe. Hmm. Actually I think I was going to respond to the quote you quoted? Heh.

I think something that should be noted, several something's really, is that you won't necessarily like a good person; a good person won't necessarily like you; good does not preclude selfishness or aggression.

We think of good people in the alignment sense as like, being good, man. But we don't realize that they may well hate is for out failings. For our allowing racism and bigotry. For our prejudices we are blind to. For being functionally just another wicked wheel in the machinery, our clique dismissing and insulting everyone else's clique just like every other clique does, and how from the outside it's all useless, stupid and petty, this fighting over points and superiority instead of just being good.

Good will allow redemption, but it won't sit there and sigh laboriously when you declare you're not in the wrong and don't need to be redeemed. It will do to you what it does to all unrepentant and irredeemable wickedness, as severity demands. "there is a harsh white flame at the heart of the Light", they say.


Chaotic Good, maaaaaan.

Or at least, I try to be Good, and I'm reasonably sure I'm not actively Evil.

I do. Not in the overtly moral sense but in the "willingt o do what I feel is right, damn the cost" sense. That directly leads, by hypothetical extension, a sort of selfishness, a narcissism that transcends mere self adulation, and allows for the hypocrisy of accepting that without objective morality you're not really evil, but I am going to punish you anyway.

But I also try for good so, I'm sticking with my Druidic neutrality.

Killer Angel
2014-09-20, 03:48 AM
Without using the test, i'd say that I'm certainly Good, and basically lawful, with tendencies toward neutral. Or neutral, with lawful tendencies... :smalltongue:
So, LG and/or NG.

gutza1
2014-09-20, 09:03 AM
I'm lawful good, but I usually choose good over law.

Dienekes
2014-09-20, 10:19 AM
You've not seen just how much you take for granted 'good' behaviors. Try living in a bad neighborhood for a few years. Good and Evil start to stand out action-wise, but tend to muddy individual-wise.

I have. I don't think it's all that relevant, there were still people who took time and resources to help others, many who did not. That does not alter my opinion on where the line is drawn between a decent human being and a Good one.


One needs must distinguish between a choice and a rote. People give money not because it's a good deed, but because people accept is as a good deed and it allows one to pass on responsibility. Money isn't a good thing, money is an excuse.

As a total aside, I don't give money, and make a point of saying so directly when people approach me with a hand out. I've bought someone food, gas, I've given clothes off my back, and similar. But that's direct, and makes sure that they get help if they need it and neatly avoids the people who are in the same spot, every day, drink as sin, and always asking for 63 cents to make the bus to get to their baby-daddy's to pick up their kid.

I agree, mostly. Not entirely relevant to my main point though.

Ettina
2014-09-20, 10:27 AM
Chaotic Good

I find it a bit alarming how many Evil alignments there are here. Kind of like how whenever I see a psychopath test posted in a forum, there's always at least some high-scorers...

SiuiS
2014-09-20, 11:32 AM
Chaotic Good

I find it a bit alarming how many Evil alignments there are here. Kind of like how whenever I see a psychopath test posted in a forum, there's always at least some high-scorers...

Moral subjectivity will do that. It's not objectively bad to be evil, so people feel it's valid.

Of course, moral objectivity just gets you dogmatic evil people, so maybe the problem is "people" and not "subjective"? :smalltongue:


Although honestly I'm less worried about the number of people who ping as evil and more about the lack of insight and actual decision making in the process. But hey.

DM Nate
2014-09-20, 12:05 PM
Well, I don't use the same heuristics for each situation, and I find morality to be incredibly subjective. Hence my previously-stated score of TN. (Of course, being objective about morality can also give false "evil" positives.)

golentan
2014-09-20, 12:41 PM
Well, I don't use the same heuristics for each situation, and I find morality to be incredibly subjective. Hence my previously-stated score of TN. (Of course, being objective about morality can also give false "evil" positives.)

I don't know. I've always found morality pretty simple to assess. Step 1: Are you taking action that you know will notably harm other people? Step 2: If yes to step 1, are you preventing a greater harm to those other than yourself by your actions, I.E. if I don't take this intervention more people will die? Step 3: If no to step 2, you are committing evil. If yes to step 2, are your actions disproportionate to the harm needed to be inflicted, I.E. shooting a person dead to prevent a property crime? If yes, you are committing evil.

Good is more intangible, admittedly, but in general it's the inverse of evil: Taking actions that will help people. Neutral I'd say is looking out for number 1, not going out of your way to hurt people but also not going out of your way to help people, occasionally helping yourself at the expense of others or giving to benefit people (most often people you know).

Amphetryon
2014-09-20, 12:58 PM
I don't know. I've always found morality pretty simple to assess. Step 1: Are you taking action that you know will notably harm other people? Step 2: If yes to step 1, are you preventing a greater harm to those other than yourself by your actions, I.E. if I don't take this intervention more people will die? Step 3: If no to step 2, you are committing evil. If yes to step 2, are your actions disproportionate to the harm needed to be inflicted, I.E. shooting a person dead to prevent a property crime? If yes, you are committing evil.

Good is more intangible, admittedly, but in general it's the inverse of evil: Taking actions that will help people. Neutral I'd say is looking out for number 1, not going out of your way to hurt people but also not going out of your way to help people, occasionally helping yourself at the expense of others or giving to benefit people (most often people you know).

The first issue that generally comes up is lack of consensus on what constitutes 'harm,' and how an action's capacity to harm can be quantified in both the short term and long term. For example, a paladin's heroic smiting of the overlord - who actually pings as Evil - could well set off a chain of events leading to widespread starvation, which sounds a lot like 'harm' regardless of whether or not you give the paladin a pass on killing the overlord in the first place.

DM Nate
2014-09-20, 01:02 PM
Also, by that proposed definition, "good" is simply "helping maintain current society." That's not really a moral.

Tragak
2014-09-20, 01:22 PM
EasyDamus gave me: Chaotic Neutral (72% Chaotic, 62% Good)
OKCupid didn't show my results, but I feel like the answers I gave there would've gotten a similar rating
HelloQuizzy (http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator/) gave me: Neutral Good (+2 Chaos, -19 Evil, 12 Balance)
MJYoung gave me Chaotic Neutral (61% Chaotic, 55.7% Good)

golentan
2014-09-20, 01:25 PM
Also, by that proposed definition, "good" is simply "helping maintain current society." That's not really a moral.

Course not. Society can be harmful to its participants. Good can involve breaking or opposing laws, it just can't involve trying to hurt people more than helping them.


The first issue that generally comes up is lack of consensus on what constitutes 'harm,' and how an action's capacity to harm can be quantified in both the short term and long term. For example, a paladin's heroic smiting of the overlord - who actually pings as Evil - could well set off a chain of events leading to widespread starvation, which sounds a lot like 'harm' regardless of whether or not you give the paladin a pass on killing the overlord in the first place.

Double check. The criteria I used require you to know that you're causing harm. In your scenario, the paladin would have to know that his act would lead to starvation for him to take a ding to his alignment, and wouldn't take the ding if he honestly had reason to believe that hunger would be less damaging to the citizens of the nation than the overlord's rule (not likely, but there are some tyrants in fantasy who are ruthless and cruel enough towards their subjects that it's possible). It's the same reason nonsapient animals can't be anything other than neutral, they lack the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. And harm isn't that hard to define, a pretty good start is "If I ask the person affected how they feel about this happening to them, will they be horrified?" It's not a perfect test (for example, is someone with enough money that their children will never need to work even after the act of theft actually harmed by someone running off with a portion of their money?), but it's a pretty solid one for 99% of situations.

DM Nate
2014-09-20, 01:40 PM
Course not. Society can be harmful to its participants. Good can involve breaking or opposing laws, it just can't involve trying to hurt people more than helping them.

Wait, so you're saying that you are allowed to reject the norms of society in order to bring about what your personal code deems "best" for other individuals?

And how is this different from "evil"?

Amphetryon
2014-09-20, 01:42 PM
Double check. The criteria I used require you to know that you're causing harm. In your scenario, the paladin would have to know that his act would lead to starvation for him to take a ding to his alignment, and wouldn't take the ding if he honestly had reason to believe that hunger would be less damaging to the citizens of the nation than the overlord's rule (not likely, but there are some tyrants in fantasy who are ruthless and cruel enough towards their subjects that it's possible). It's the same reason nonsapient animals can't be anything other than neutral, they lack the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. And harm isn't that hard to define, a pretty good start is "If I ask the person affected how they feel about this happening to them, will they be horrified?" It's not a perfect test (for example, is someone with enough money that their children will never need to work even after the act of theft actually harmed by someone running off with a portion of their money?), but it's a pretty solid one for 99% of situations.
1. "Know you're causing harm" allows for willful ignorance, unless you're going to further refine your definition. Stubbornly refusing to consider the outcome of your actions should not allow for them to be Good on the cosmic scale. By your definition, involuntary manslaughter is never Evil, for example, while the paladin I described knows he's committing murder and should fall. Granted, I've seen some alignment debates that essentially concluded that any paladin who uses lethal force should instantly fall, but. . . .

2. Your definition of "harm" clearly works. . . for you. It's not a universal definition, and I'll go on record as believing the margin of difference of opinion is a good bit higher than the 1% you're positing.

Inevitability
2014-09-20, 01:59 PM
I would say somewhere between TN and CE.
*Does Test*
I got a Error. So apparently I'm Far Realms.

Far Realms alignment added. :smalltongue:

And because I like percentages:

So far a little over 30% of the posters is Lawful, exactly 50% is Neutral (on the Law-Chaos axis), and a little under 20% are Chaotic.

Additionally, a little above 42% of the posters is Good, just as many are Neutral (on the Good-Evil axis) and a little above 15% is Evil.

So that means that if this forum is an indication, 3 out of 20 people would happily harm or even kill others to get what they want. Have fun sleeping tonight. :smalltongue:

golentan
2014-09-20, 02:05 PM
DM Nate: Because helping people is judged by what the recipient of the help desires?

Amphetryon: How is "Harm is that which the recipient finds harmful" not universal? And willful ignorance requires one to be aware of the facts you're denying, which would in this case ping (you're trying to rationalize away your harm rather than being unaware of it).

Speaking of willful ignorance...

Sartharina
2014-09-20, 02:07 PM
Course not. Society can be harmful to its participants. Good can involve breaking or opposing laws, it just can't involve trying to hurt people more than helping them.
Unless they're someone who needs/deserves to be hurt. Good isn't "Be a doormat".

DM Nate
2014-09-20, 02:08 PM
DM Nate: Because helping people is judged by what the recipient of the help desires?

The recipient of the help desires that fewer people of minority exist in his neighborhood.

So does everyone on his block.

Sartharina
2014-09-20, 02:14 PM
DM Nate: Because helping people is judged by what the recipient of the help desires?

Amphetryon: How is "Harm is that which the recipient finds harmful" not universal? And willful ignorance requires one to be aware of the facts you're denying, which would in this case ping (you're trying to rationalize away your harm rather than being unaware of it).

Speaking of willful ignorance...

Because:
1. We're not psychic. I can take a lot of stuff that others would consider 'harmful'
2. By that definition, any parent who tells their child to clean their room on a regular basis or go to school is Evil. Some people treat beneficial things as 'harmful', because it pushes them out of the comfort zone of mediocrity and non-accomplishment.

golentan
2014-09-20, 02:16 PM
The recipient of the help desires that fewer people of minority exist in his neighborhood.

So does everyone on his block.

Doing so in most ways I can imagine would harm the minorities in question, to uncertain benefit to the recipient. Harm > Good. Helping him in this way would be an evil act, whereas gently guiding him to acceptance of others would satisfy his underlying desire (to not be made uncomfortable by minorities in his neighborhood) and at the same time help the minorities gain acceptance (helping them). Everybody wins.

DM Nate
2014-09-20, 02:21 PM
Doing so in most ways I can imagine would harm the minorities in question, to uncertain benefit to the recipient. Harm > Good. Helping him in this way would be an evil act, whereas gently guiding him to acceptance of others would satisfy his underlying desire (to not be made uncomfortable by minorities in his neighborhood) and at the same time help the minorities gain acceptance (helping them). Everybody wins.

Minorities are called such because they're in the minority. More people want to hurt/harm them than people that don't. He doesn't WANT your help to satisfy what you think is his underlying desire. And to assert that what the majority wants is "wrong" is a moral judgment that you are making, independent of what the majority asserts.

Which goes to show, as I said, that morality is subjective.

golentan
2014-09-20, 02:21 PM
Because:
1. We're not psychic. I can take a lot of stuff that others would consider 'harmful'
2. By that definition, any parent who tells their child to clean their room on a regular basis or go to school is Evil. Some people treat beneficial things as 'harmful', because it pushes them out of the comfort zone of mediocrity and non-accomplishment.

Disciplining a child up to a point better equips them to deal with the world as it is, giving them a net benefit to life. The initial definition I used would qualify this as a "mitigating circumstance," a small harm to do a greater good.

Also, what's wrong with mediocrity? Half of people are below average, doesn't make them bad people or less worthy of respect. Even in a world of superheroes, someone would need to take the garbage out.

Inevitability
2014-09-20, 02:25 PM
Also, what's wrong with mediocrity? Half of people are below average, doesn't make them bad people or less worthy of respect. Even in a world of superheroes, someone would need to take the garbage out.

For that, we have Garbage Guy!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qDuSgUOtyJk/SkAy9kikZnI/AAAAAAAAACE/8G7TGIp-Xbk/S230/garbageguy640x480.jpg

golentan
2014-09-20, 02:28 PM
Minorities are called such because they're in the minority. More people want to hurt/harm them than people that don't. He doesn't WANT your help to satisfy what you think is his underlying desire. And to assert that what the majority wants is "wrong" is a moral judgment that you are making, independent of what the majority asserts.

Which goes to show, as I said, that morality is subjective.

No, it goes to show you're trying to obfuscate the issue. A majority vote does not make hurting people right. It means that the majority are trying to hurt people for their own perceived benefit, and are thus behaving in an evil way.

Nagash
2014-09-20, 02:33 PM
According to this test, (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator) I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

According to that I'm neutral evil.

DM Nate
2014-09-20, 02:36 PM
No, it goes to show you're trying to obfuscate the issue. A majority vote does not make hurting people right. It means that the majority are trying to hurt people for their own perceived benefit, and are thus behaving in an evil way.

Evil by whose definition? Yours? Where do you get your definition of help vs. harm? This society states "help them" = "give them what they want." Your definition is "make them all change to accept people they don't like."

Is your definition better than theirs? Why? What makes it better, other than your believing that it is better?

Amphetryon
2014-09-20, 02:49 PM
Amphetryon: How is "Harm is that which the recipient finds harmful" not universal? And willful ignorance requires one to be aware of the facts you're denying, which would in this case ping (you're trying to rationalize away your harm rather than being unaware of it).


I can think of multiple examples where the recipient's perception of what's causing them harm is a poor indicator. Kids eating their vegetables/cleaning their room is the easy one. So is the boss requiring a salaried person to come in to work rather than going to an important family event; I'll wager the family dynamic with the kids gets harmed, subtly, every time that happens.

Other examples will likely come closer to running afoul of the real-world politics/religion area that we're not to discuss on this forum.

golentan
2014-09-20, 02:52 PM
Evil by whose definition? Yours? Where do you get your definition of help vs. harm? This society states "help them" = "give them what they want." Your definition is "make them all change to accept people they don't like."

Is your definition better than theirs? Why? What makes it better, other than your believing that it is better?

Helping people makes them feel better, meets their needs for food, companionship, shelter, and all of the other things that makes life livable, and helps them survive in the world while respecting their idiosyncracies and differences from yourself. In the example given, the slight benefit to the majority is a matter of comfort, while the issue for the minorities was one of survival (without a stable living environment, with the negative attentions of a hostile majority, an inability to survive is a real threat). Comfort is impossible without survival, survival is not impossible without comfort, survival trumps comfort in the calculus of good. A single human life is worth more than most other concerns, because without life there's no way to help someone. The fact you tried to invoke this as an example implies to me that you understand this and are being obstreperous and obstructive rather than truly believing it. And further discussion here is likely to edge into politics, so I'm going to stop reading this thread to avoid temptation.

Leviting
2014-09-20, 06:00 PM
I got lawful evil from a that test (though from a different site, I think), though I tend to see myself as lawful neutral. That is, until I remember that I have difficulty feeling any noticeable form of empathy or guilt.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-20, 06:26 PM
No CN people? That's... surprising at the very least.

I don't know about in general, but I'd be surprised if anyone came up as CN on the quiz in the second post, since that quiz is based on 1e AD&D where CN is the "certifiably insane" alignment.

Tragak
2014-09-20, 06:27 PM
If anybody else is having trouble with the OKCupid link, the same test is on HelloQuizzy and working better

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator/

Razanir
2014-09-20, 08:29 PM
LG or LN. I've gotten both on tests.

Unless we're talking Civilization. Then I'm NE. I generally play by the rules of diplomacy, but I can be sadistic and Machiavellian at times. Marching GDRs against musketmen, backstabbing allies for diplomatic gain, eliminating an entire civilization in only 20 turns...

Dienekes
2014-09-20, 08:37 PM
If anybody else is having trouble with the OKCupid link, the same test is on HelloQuizzy and working better

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator/

Yay, now I know that I am... True Neutral. With slight tendencies toward law and good. So what I expected.

I am curious how some of these questions play out. For instance, I have no desire to start a romantic relationship, sex is nice and all, but hardly worth the obsession people seem to have for it, while money can be used for many useful things. So of the three I chose money. I have no idea how that at all reflects whether I'm good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.

Aedilred
2014-09-20, 09:30 PM
I did the test and came out Lawful Good, very narrowly over neutrality in both axes. Whether that means I've improved as a person since I last took that test or whether it just varies depending what day it is and I can't guarantee to put in the same answers every time, who knows. In any case it tends to confirm my original assumption about my alignment, albeit slightly further from central than I initially thought.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-20, 09:45 PM
If anybody else is having trouble with the OKCupid link, the same test is on HelloQuizzy and working better

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator/

According to this then, my 1e alignment is on the fence between NG and LG. Definitely different.

QuintonBeck
2014-09-20, 10:10 PM
I almost always (and this time around on this quiz was no different) come out as Lawful Neutral on alignment quizzes and in this case with the caveat of some Evil and Balance tendencies which doesn't surprise me either. People say Lawful Neutral is boring, but Lawful Neutral builds nations and LN characters are tons of fun to play (for me anyway) Being reasonable and decent without the restrictions and baggage that comes with LG and able to make some more questionable decisions for the sake of order without tilting over into full super villain LE.

Taet
2014-09-20, 10:29 PM
Chaotic Neutral
18 chaos, -1 evil and 14 balance
Lots of high answers for good and for evil. It is the middle of the possibilities and not the possibility I pick.
The separate balance was very interesting idea for alignment.

I would say somewhere between TN and CE.
*Does Test*
I got a Error. So apparently I'm Far Realms.
:smallbiggrin:

...
2014-09-21, 12:18 AM
According to the test, I'm a Far Realm, but I like to think of myself as LN/LE. To put it straight, I'm planning to be a lawyer for the sole purpose of getting money. I really don't care if my actions let the guilty get away without punishment or give the innocent undue suffering as long as it doesn't get me in jail.

Ettina
2014-09-21, 09:59 AM
Helping people makes them feel better, meets their needs for food, companionship, shelter, and all of the other things that makes life livable, and helps them survive in the world while respecting their idiosyncracies and differences from yourself. In the example given, the slight benefit to the majority is a matter of comfort, while the issue for the minorities was one of survival (without a stable living environment, with the negative attentions of a hostile majority, an inability to survive is a real threat). Comfort is impossible without survival, survival is not impossible without comfort, survival trumps comfort in the calculus of good. A single human life is worth more than most other concerns, because without life there's no way to help someone. The fact you tried to invoke this as an example implies to me that you understand this and are being obstreperous and obstructive rather than truly believing it. And further discussion here is likely to edge into politics, so I'm going to stop reading this thread to avoid temptation.

How about anything that interferes with that person's fulfilment of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? And the lower on the scale it is, the worse it is to interfere with?

http://therecoveringpolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs.jpg

When weighing two different people's needs/wants, whoever is affected at a lower level on the hierarchy takes precedence. If they're affected at the same level, go for the majority.

So in the example of the majority wanting to discriminate, you might put the majority's desire on the 'Social' or 'Esteem' level, depending on their reasons. Whereas the implications of discrimination for the minority are pretty clearly at the 'Safety' or even 'Physiological' level.

Angel Bob
2014-09-21, 10:27 AM
Using the HelloQuizzy test, I get Lawful Neutral/Good, which is... interesting. I don't really see myself as more Lawful than Chaotic. Politically, sure, I'm pretty Lawful, but I don't give blind obedience to the state. I do have a strong sense of what's right and what's wrong, but I'd like to think that I'm wise enough to consider things on a case-by-case basis instead of defaulting to some rigid moral system. I would have thought I'd score more than -6 Chaos; I like to be spontaneous and keep plenty of free time in my life, and too much structure stresses me out.

A Neutral/Good alignment is right on, though. I do love playing the villain, and I don't bend over backwards to help people, but ultimately, I do have a conscience. Which is a shame, since Evil is so much fun! :smalltongue:

All in all, I guess I'm not convinced of this test's accuracy. The questions are either vague or have really blatant answers. Eh. I guess I prefer the EasyDamus one. :smallconfused:

SiuiS
2014-09-21, 03:51 PM
Well, I don't use the same heuristics for each situation, and I find morality to be incredibly subjective. Hence my previously-stated score of TN. (Of course, being objective about morality can also give false "evil" positives.)

Of course. Every situation must be critically judged on it's own merits. That's hard for a lot of people though, which is why good is so rare, they say; most people will resort to heuristics and not actually think it through. Rules to fall back on.

One must always be mindful.


Wait, so you're saying that you are allowed to reject the norms of society in order to bring about what your personal code deems "best" for other individuals?

And how is this different from "evil"?

It is different from evil in the way "best" is defined. Pretty simple really.


Far Realms alignment added. :smalltongue:

And because I like percentages:

So far a little over 30% of the posters is Lawful, exactly 50% is Neutral (on the Law-Chaos axis), and a little under 20% are Chaotic.

Additionally, a little above 42% of the posters is Good, just as many are Neutral (on the Good-Evil axis) and a little above 15% is Evil.

So that means that if this forum is an indication, 3 out of 20 people would happily harm or even kill others to get what they want. Have fun sleeping tonight. :smalltongue:

I always do!

Self defense knowledge means never having to fear a random invasion of home.


Unless they're someone who needs/deserves to be hurt. Good isn't "Be a doormat".

There's a valid moral frame from which it can be said no one ever needs to be hurt.


Evil by whose definition? Yours? Where do you get your definition of help vs. harm? This society states "help them" = "give them what they want." Your definition is "make them all change to accept people they don't like."

Is your definition better than theirs? Why? What makes it better, other than your believing that it is better?

Alreay handled, sir Nate. See;



I think something that should be noted, several something's really, is that you won't necessarily like a good person; a good person won't necessarily like you; good does not preclude selfishness or aggression.

We think of good people in the alignment sense as like, being good, man. But we don't realize that they may well hate is for our failings. For our allowing racism and bigotry. For our prejudices we are blind to. For being functionally just another wicked wheel in the machinery, our clique dismissing and insulting everyone else's clique just like every other clique does, and how from the outside it's all useless, stupid and petty, this fighting over points and superiority instead of just being good.

Good will allow redemption, but it won't sit there and sigh laboriously when you declare you're not in the wrong and don't need to be redeemed. It will do to you what it does to all unrepentant and irredeemable wickedness, as severity demands. "there is a harsh white flame at the heart of the Light", they say.

They're free to say 'but morality is subjective!' All yrreG like. They will still be smote.

MLai
2014-09-22, 01:27 AM
This question is skewed due to the fact that we're mostly all law-abiding citizens because we don't want to get fined/ go to jail, regardless our personal "alignment." Years of living this way can give us delusions about our own "goodness."
For example, I consider myself a neutral-to-good person IRL. But I know that if I had a genie wish that made me God-Emperor of Earth with no possibility of repercussions, I would start doing whatever the **** I want. And some of those things can start getting pretty extreme.


They're free to say 'but morality is subjective!' All yrreG like. They will still be smote.
This sounds like an in-character or a dogmatic assertion, rather than a debate on morality. "I don't care what you think/ say. I don't have to think about it; I know you'll be smote because--" *thumps on religious text of choice*

I don't have to raise IRL examples for you to realize that can get real evil real quick.

Sartharina
2014-09-22, 01:58 AM
I don't have to raise IRL examples for you to realize that can get real evil real quick.
Which is why Cosmic Good is as hostile to life as Cosmic Evil is - it has no room for mortal failures and foibles (Because those are inherently wrong, and screw up people's lives)

Jeff the Green
2014-09-22, 02:40 AM
I dislike that quiz—it pegs me at NG leaning LG, but I tend to think of myself as LN. First, it doesn't do a good job of measuring lawfulness as adherence to a personal doctrine. Second, the fact that I haven't taken drastic measures that would put me solidly in the "doing Evil for Good ends" camp is because I don't have the personal power to do so without consequences far worse than the status quo.

SiuiS
2014-09-22, 02:48 AM
This question is skewed due to the fact that we're mostly all law-abiding citizens because we don't want to get fined/ go to jail, regardless our personal "alignment." Years of living this way can give us delusions about our own "goodness."
For example, I consider myself a neutral-to-good person IRL. But I know that if I had a genie wish that made me God-Emperor of Earth with no possibility of repercussions, I would start doing whatever the **** I want. And some of those things can start getting pretty extreme.

Yup. We are conditioned to accept our society.

I find it odd that everyone is like "I would totally become wicked and evil if I was omnipotent". Alignment is what you are when no one is watching. Is no one else actually good?



This sounds like an in-character or a dogmatic assertion, rather than a debate on morality. "I don't care what you think/ say. I don't have to think about it; I know you'll be smote because--" *thumps on religious text of choice*

Strawman. "I don't care what you think or say" is not part of the statement. This sort of reduction by stripping detail and context is what prompted the response to self-justification in the first place.


Which is why Cosmic Good is as hostile to life as Cosmic Evil is - it has no room for mortal failures and foibles (Because those are inherently wrong, and screw up people's lives)

Yep ! Beig good aligned means that you are in the same club or army or cult as the wrathful angels which descend on the planes with swords of fire and beatific smiles, not that you're moral.

Jeff the Green
2014-09-22, 03:13 AM
I find it odd that everyone is like "I would totally become wicked and evil if I was omnipotent". Alignment is what you are when no one is watching. Is no one else actually good?

In my case, it's more a matter of my ethics not lining up with D&D's. My preferred system is a combination of utilitarianism and virtue ethics (with a highly egoistic metaethics behind it), which is quite different from the deontological ethics of D&D.

The reason I say I don't do much Evil because I don't have the personal power is that some of the things that I think would help the world would set a really bad precedent if people thought they could get away with them. If someone assassinates a large number of politicians, it serves as evidence that it's open season on politicians, and that's not something I want to encourage. If a bunch of politicians suddenly drop dead from clearly natural causes (actually caused by magic/psychic powers/whatever) there is no precedent.

Boci
2014-09-22, 03:23 AM
Lawful neutral with rare chaotic tendencies. I'm not devoting my life to help others, I can be selfish, but I've never done anything truly evil by the standards of D&D or my society. I like civilization and try to follow the rules, but sometimes I've had enough and need to let off some steam.


I find it odd that everyone is like "I would totally become wicked and evil if I was omnipotent". Alignment is what you are when no one is watching.

Those two things are completely different. Of course alignment is what we are when no one is watching, but that has nothing to do with being all powerful. The idea that being all powerful makes you evil is an established trope at this point, but there is logic behind it. It is based on these two points:

1. The assumption that being all powerful will not remove your human biases, or if it does, it will merely replace them with a new set
2. It will be impossibly to value the opinion of other, non-omnipotent beings, and as such you will gradually start to believe only you are right, which will lead to you being evil.

That at least is my understanding of the process, and it makes sense to me.

SiuiS
2014-09-22, 03:39 AM
Of course it does. What you would do if you are all powerful – if you had no consequences – is a sign of what you would do if no one saw you – and you had no consequences.

Boci
2014-09-22, 03:46 AM
Of course it does. What you would do if you are all powerful – if you had no consequences – is a sign of what you would do if no one saw you – and you had no consequences.

But why would use being all powerful, a purely academic concept with widely ranging theories on exactly what changes it would produce in the humanmind, as oppose to far more real real and less subjective example of no one is watching?

Say, being armed with a gun and finding an old couple and their young attractive daughter/son, all of them unarmed, carrying their valuable possessions through war torn (insert country name) whose police force is corrupt, incompetent and has little to no forensic capabilities?

Personally I imagine that being all powerful I would eventually turn evil, but I would not do anything evil in the second scenario.

SiuiS
2014-09-22, 04:02 AM
You can spin hypotheticals all you like. Divining someone's character by what they would do if they could do anything isn't some bizarre concept. It's pretty straightforward. No amount of redefining technicalities is going to really change that.

Boci
2014-09-22, 04:36 AM
You can spin hypotheticals all you like. Divining someone's character by what they would do if they could do anything isn't some bizarre concept. It's pretty straightforward. No amount of redefining technicalities is going to really change that.

What? No it isn't straightforwards. The concept of unlimited power is many things, straight forwards is not one of them. To an extent we are of course limited in this discussion, but if we look at someone born human and then given unlimited power, you have several very not straightforwards issues. The fallacy of unlimited power (can they make something so X not even they can Y it). You can say its childish, but it raises that valid point that omnipotence doesn't make sense in the human mind, and thus maybe shouldn't be used to determine someone's alignment. Then you have the issues of are biases carried forwards. If they were racist do they remain that? If they were petty do they remain that? What about insecure? What does unlimited power do to insecurity? Finally there is the issue of emotions and control. They have unlimited power, how much control do they have over it? If they wish someone dead in the heat of the moment, will that person die? If he imagines "I wonder what it is like to be burnt alive?" Would he be burned alive/receive the exact sensation? Can he use his power to give himself the one true understanding of life? Is there even a one true understanding of life?

And yes it is a bizarre concept. The idea of divining someones morality from an comprehensible scenario that will in all likelihood never happen to them but is possible (encounter in a war torn nation) is already questionable, divining it from something beyond our understanding that could never happen and if it did would be a curve ball to our whole civilization, is bizarre, no matter how much you insist it isn't.

MLai
2014-09-22, 04:51 AM
Sadly, in your "Wartorn Country" example, I would also not do anything evil. I would probably help them to the extent that it does not impact my own safety/ welfare, and will heavily imply the need for payment. But my frame of mind as it is currently, would not spur me to evil as soon as I see them crossing the wartorn city ruins.
I say "sadly" because even while helping them, a part of me would likely definitely bemoan the wasted opportunity to indulge in bestial evil.

The "Magical Omnipotence" example is indeed bizarre, but I think an apt analogy is what you would start doing if you suddenly realize you're in a lucid dream, i.e. a Grand Theft Auto situation. You may say that the situations aren't equivalent, but I think they are. When you're a godlike being, after a short while the small mortal fleshbags below you stop being "real." I can step on an ant at a whim.

Boci
2014-09-22, 04:58 AM
Sadly, in your "Wartorn Country" example, I would also not do anything evil. I would probably help them to the extent that it does not impact my own safety/ welfare, and will heavily imply the need for payment. But my frame of mind as it is currently, would not spur me to evil as soon as I see them crossing the wartorn city ruins.
I say "sadly" because even while helping them, a part of me would likely definitely bemoan the wasted opportunity to indulge in bestial evil.

Pretty much same as me I imagine, which shows a neutral outlook and an upbringing in a culture that has a strange relationship with the culture of evil in its ideology and pop culture. That#s my guess at least.


The "Magical Omnipotence" example is indeed bizarre, but I think an apt analogy is what you would start doing if you suddenly realize you're in a lucid dream, i.e. a Grand Theft Auto situation. You may say that the situations aren't equivalent, but I think they are. When you're a godlike being, after a short while the small mortal fleshbags below you stop being "real." I can step on an ant at a whim.

Not worth much for me, because I've never Lucid dreamed. Or if I have I either missed the opportunity or forgot about it. Furthermore I would take with a pinch of salt the idea that what you do in your dreams is any true reflection of your actual self. Do you become evil in your lucid dreams?

SpectralDerp
2014-09-22, 05:47 AM
Alignment questions are problematic, because definitions change. At some point, true neutral used to be about being concerned about balance. Anyone remember how Baldur's Gate described it? It was ridiculous.


The fallacy of unlimited power (can they make something so X not even they can Y it).

1) That's a paradox, not a fallacy (You keep using that word ...)
2) There are many answers to this paradoy, some involve losing omnipotence, some involve claiming the given task isn't defined and some just give a {Link Scrubbed} better definition of omnipotence. Claiming that the concept makes no sense in the human mind is just begging the question.

Anyhow, the idea to judge an individual on what he or she would do if that person were to find itself in a situation where it's possibly to get away with a lot of things that would previously result in negative concequences is a good one. It's important to ask not only what someone is doing, but why.

This also makes it somewhat questionable if there is such a thing as "an alignment", but again, depending on the definition de jour.

NichG
2014-09-22, 06:24 AM
Omnipotence will skew someone's responses. Being in a situation of extreme stress will skew someone's responses. Being in a completely day-to-day situation will skew someone's responses. Real people don't have a static alignment in the D&D sense or a particular 'true character'. You might have someone who is great to everyone around them and also wants to be, but when a situation of extreme stress descends (for example, something that forces them to choose between two things they value as highly important such as their family and their friends) then it can produce a complete change in behavior.

Or in other words, someone can be LG until the world turns into a post-apocalyptic landscape, at which point they're NE because they're forced to rank things that they previously gave completely equal value and the decisions induce a sort of hardness. And if they gained omnipotence maybe they'd be CG, because the 'L' part of their alignment was always the fear that they could make a mistake they couldn't fix if they took their own path, but with literal omnipotence they know they can always put things back together if they screw it up.

Not to mention things like embracing order and law in order to understand how to slip their bonds and gain true individuality and other such cross-alignment philosophies.

Boci
2014-09-22, 06:59 AM
1) That's a paradox, not a fallacy (You keep using that word ...)

Right you are.


2) There are many answers to this paradoy,

I know, but "many answers" tends to imply something is not straightforward, which is what SiuiS claimed. If it were straightforward it would not produce multiple potential answers.


Claiming that the concept makes no sense in the human mind is just begging the question.

I stand by my statement. "People have ideas about it" hardly proves we can comprehend unlimited power, and I do think there are too many implications of omnipotence for humans, being of such limited power, to properly grasp. Also, see above. "Many ideas" tends to prove we cannot comprehend something, because if we could, there would only be one answer.


Anyhow, the idea to judge an individual on what he or she would do if that person were to find itself in a situation where it's possibly to get away with a lot of things that would previously result in negative concequences is a good one. It's important to ask not only what someone is doing, but why.

Potentially yes, but I don't think this situation should involve omnipotence. Hence my counter example of the war torn nation with a police force that would never catch you.

MLai
2014-09-22, 07:09 AM
Not worth much for me, because I've never Lucid dreamed. Or if I have I either missed the opportunity or forgot about it. Furthermore I would take with a pinch of salt the idea that what you do in your dreams is any true reflection of your actual self. Do you become evil in your lucid dreams?
When you lucid dream, you're no longer guided by your subconscious. You become consciously aware, as if awake. Best analogy is as if you're playing the most immersive video game ever.
I say that because I'm getting the impression that you're mistaking my meaning. I don't mean lucid dreaming being a reflection of your actual self because we peek into your subconscious. No, you're quite "conscious".

Do I become evil in my lucid dreams? Yes, because I suddenly realize I'm playing Grand Theft Auto in my brain. But also because the situation was conducive.
For example, if a particular dream had me being a big damn hero, and I just saved the world, and I'm basking in my ticker tape parade when I suddenly become lucid... I'm not going to go postal and start mowing down my adoring fans. Because it took hard work for me to get this far and have my own parade, dammit! In that case, the situation wasn't conducive and I would remain lawful.

Edit: I don't know, but... maybe... That is the same reason why I wouldn't immediately do evil things to that hapless family in the wartorn ruins scenario? Not because I'm squeamish, but because I place an intrinsic value on my own humanity? That is, it took my entire life of being moral to become the Me that I am today. It was "hard work", an "achievement". I've done good things in my life: Save a kid's life, gave a homeless man back the money he dropped, made a girl smile, etc etc. If I do something obscenely evil, all those things I like to look back on are lost. I have to weigh the pros and cons of throwing that entire self-identity away, for a moment's perverse pleasure.

Dienekes
2014-09-22, 08:37 AM
Which is why Cosmic Good is as hostile to life as Cosmic Evil is - it has no room for mortal failures and foibles (Because those are inherently wrong, and screw up people's lives)

Doesn't this presuppose that your Cosmic Good does not have mercy, forgiveness, kindness, love and all that crap. Which many folk find rather define good. It also seems to be hostile to life because of things that screw up life. Which means it places some value on life so why would it be hostile to it?

The stance the Cosmic Good puts up a false equalization. Someone can dislike aspects of someone or want them to not make the same mistakes and not despise and want to kill them.

Sartharina
2014-09-22, 09:53 AM
Say, being armed with a gun and finding an old couple and their young attractive daughter/son, all of them unarmed, carrying their valuable possessions through war torn (insert country name) whose police force is corrupt, incompetent and has little to no forensic capabilities?If you're implying most people would kill said couple, I think you're way, way off.
Doesn't this presuppose that your Cosmic Good does not have mercy, forgiveness, kindness, love and all that crap. Which many folk find rather define good. It also seems to be hostile to life because of things that screw up life. Which means it places some value on life so why would it be hostile to it? Because real people lack mercy, kindness, forgiveness, love, and all that crap, which it stops tolerating as Evil is reduced. I guess I should say it's "Hostile to life as we know it".

Boci
2014-09-22, 10:05 AM
If you're implying most people would kill said couple, I think you're way, way off.

I'm not, I think most people would not kill or rob them. I presented this scenario as an alternative one to omnipotence for the purpose of resting someone's behavior when no one is looking.

Tragak
2014-09-22, 10:57 AM
I just found a new test if anybody's interested: http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/javalign.html

I got Chaotic Neutral again.

Jeff the Green
2014-09-22, 12:07 PM
Say, being armed with a gun and finding an old couple and their young attractive daughter/son, all of them unarmed, carrying their valuable possessions through war torn (insert country name) whose police force is corrupt, incompetent and has little to no forensic capabilities?

Personally I imagine that being all powerful I would eventually turn evil, but I would not do anything evil in the second scenario.

I agree that's a better measure of evil, but I think it's not a sensitive enough test. War, and particularly more modern (post-WWI) military training and propaganda, is very good at making people conditional psychopaths. This is a good thing from the point of view of actually getting soldiers to fire their weapons, but bad from the point of view of preventing war crimes like My Lai or the (thankfully quite rare compared to Vietnam) atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of this it's really hard to predict in advance who is going to be capable of limiting that ability to kill without regret to people who are actually shooting at you or harming other people and you can't really present this scenario to someone sitting on their couch and expect a useful answer (even if you could expect an honest one, and I doubt that too).

Tl;dr:
War changes you, man.

Boci
2014-09-22, 12:15 PM
I agree that's a better measure of evil, but I think it's not a sensitive enough test. War, and particularly more modern (post-WWI) military training and propaganda, is very good at making people conditional psychopaths.

Sorry for being unclear, I didn't intend for the individual to be a soldier in that scenario, just someone traveling down a road in a war torn nation and carrying a gun for protection.

Dienekes
2014-09-22, 12:21 PM
Because real people lack mercy, kindness, forgiveness, love, and all that crap, which it stops tolerating as Evil is reduced. I guess I should say it's "Hostile to life as we know it".

Even then, your version of a Cosmic Good is equating all life as we know it with a select group of people who lack all that crap. Which means your Cosmic Good is using a logical fallacy first off. It also creates the assumption that good's ultimate purpose is to destroy evil as opposed to teaching others how to be good. So your version of a Cosmic Good is missing a few of the key traits to be good, so it's not really a Cosmic Good it's a Cosmic Thing, that destroys without mercy, and all that crap necessary to actually be Good.

Sartharina
2014-09-22, 12:27 PM
Even then, your version of a Cosmic Good is equating all life as we know it with a select group of people who lack all that crap. Which means your Cosmic Good is using a logical fallacy first off. It also creates the assumption that good's ultimate purpose is to destroy evil as opposed to teaching others how to be good. So your version of a Cosmic Good is missing a few of the key traits to be good, so it's not really a Cosmic Good it's a Cosmic Thing, that destroys without mercy, and all that crap necessary to actually be Good.

Nah. It rewrites where it can, instead of destroys. But there is nobody that is free of evil, because life lives at the expense of life.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 01:28 PM
there is nobody that is free of evil, because life lives at the expense of life.
I'm pretty sure the DMG definition of Evil is not so rigorous as to define accidentally killing the microbes in the food you eat as an Evil act - otherwise Paladins would be constantly falling, even if they were vegetarians.

So why define "an evil act" so rigorously here?

Sartharina
2014-09-22, 01:30 PM
I'm pretty sure the DMG definition of Evil is not so rigorous as to define accidentally killing the microbes in the food you eat as an Evil act - otherwise Paladins would be constantly falling, even if they were vegetarians.

So why define "an evil act" so rigorously here?

I'm not talking about microbes. There's an inherent problem simply because of scarcity of resources. And that's before we get onto crimes of passion, ingratitude, and other evils that cannot be completely purged.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 01:35 PM
There's an inherent problem simply because of scarcity of resources.

Not all scarcity is due to people robbing other people though.

If a person has earned their way to the top, especially from poverty- never robbing or cheating anybody - their mere possession of resources can hardly be deemed "life living at the expense of life".

Boci
2014-09-22, 01:41 PM
Not all scarcity is due to people robbing other people though.

If a person has earned their way to the top, especially from poverty- never robbing or cheating anybody - their mere possession of resources can hardly be deemed "life living at the expense of life".

In order for their to be winners, there must be losers. Consciously or not, willingly or not, anyone who has succeeded at anything has done so at the expense of others, because in doing so they participated in the system of an imperfect society.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 02:00 PM
In order for their to be winners, there must be losers. Consciously or not, willingly or not, anyone who has succeeded at anything has done so at the expense of others, because in doing so they participated in the system of an imperfect society.

That's one theory. Another is that "winners" make life easier for everyone else, not harder - and that the world is not a zero-sum game.

Tragak
2014-09-22, 02:08 PM
In order for their to be winners, there must be losers. Consciously or not, willingly or not, anyone who has succeeded at anything has done so at the expense of others, because in doing so they participated in the system of an imperfect society. So in a perfect society - one molded over billions of years by the forces of Cosmic Good - life would not have to live at the expense of life, and the game would not have to be zero-sum?

Boci
2014-09-22, 02:15 PM
That's one theory. Another is that "winners" make life easier for everyone else, not harder - and that the world is not a zero-sum game.

Right, and have people who hold this theory studied history or the current economic climate?


So in a perfect society - one molded over billions of years by the forces of Cosmic Good - life would not have to live at the expense of life, and the game would not have to be zero-sum?

I have no idea. I don't even know if a perfect system could exist. I just know ours isn't.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 02:22 PM
Right, and have people who hold this theory studied history or the current economic climate?


I got that impression. Admittedly it tends to be individualist-types like Heinlein and Rand - still, the basic idea is that wealth can be made - it doesn't have to be looted.

A factory worker has a much better standard of living than a medieval blacksmith, was one example given. And that factories cannot exist without "winners" - industrialists. With it being because of them, that the workers have their elevated standard of living - and don't have to work with metal at an "individual scale" - a much less productive one.

Dienekes
2014-09-22, 02:27 PM
I got that impression. Admittedly it tends to be individualist-types like Heinlein and Rand - still, the basic idea is that wealth can be made - it doesn't have to be looted. A factory worker has a much better standard of living than a medieval blacksmith, was one example given.

This is incorrect. Well, ok, depending on the time period. Today? Maybe. During the industrial revolution? Hell no. Medieval underclass had about 5 to 15 years longer life expectancy.

Boci
2014-09-22, 02:30 PM
I got that impression. Admittedly it tends to be individualist-types like Heinlein and Rand - still, the basic idea is that wealth can be made - it doesn't have to be looted.

A factory worker has a much better standard of living than a medieval blacksmith, was one example given. And that factories cannot exist without "winners" - industrialists. With it being because of them, that the workers have their elevated standard of living - and don't have to work with metal at an "individual scale" - a much less productive one.

Right, and the factory system ruined loads of smaller business. No winners without losers. I'm not saying winners cannot then be generous or beneficial to society, but the system that allowed them to get there is not its casualties.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 02:39 PM
Right, and the factory system ruined loads of smaller business. No winners without losers. I'm not saying winners cannot then be generous or beneficial to society, but the system that allowed them to get there is not its casualties.

If myself and another person apply for a job - and the other person gets it - and doesn't refuse so the employer can give it to me - I certainly wouldn't say they have "cheated me" or that their decision to keep the job was "an evil act".

Same principle applies on bigger scales.

Boci
2014-09-22, 02:46 PM
If myself and another person apply for a job - and the other person gets it - and doesn't refuse so the employer can give it to me - I certainly wouldn't say they have "cheated me" or that their decision to keep the job was "an evil act".

Same principle applies on bigger scales.

Not the same princicple. A more apt comparison would be you are both going to be hired, but the other guy has a system whereby he can do both his job and yours whilst only working 20% more hours, so the company hires him for 150% of his original salary. He gets more money for proportionally less work, the company saves money, and you lose out on a job. Winners and losers.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 03:03 PM
Not the same princicple. A more apt comparison would be you are both going to be hired, but the other guy has a system whereby he can do both his job and yours whilst only working 20% more hours, so the company hires him for 150% of his original salary. He gets more money for proportionally less work, the company saves money, and you lose out on a job. Winners and losers.

If he's ingenious enough to do that - a case can be made that he deserves that money - and one can always look for a job elsewhere.

And I doubt very much that the world will end up full of both exceptionally productive people, and "out-of-work people" - that kind of intelligence can make other people more productive in the same fashion - and it's in the person's own best interest to use it in that way.

Going back to the thread title - I come out as LN in most of the alignment tests I take.

Boci
2014-09-22, 04:01 PM
If he's ingenious enough to do that - a case can be made that he deserves that money

Sure, but that does mean he is "life living at the expense of life". To say nothing of the fact that he probably got the idea in part because of his education, an education that was denied to others. I never said this was a bad thing, I certainly cannot think of a better system. But the idea that someone didn't exploit others, intentionally or not, on their rise to the top is questionable at best.

Also:


and one can always look for a job elsewhere.

No, one cannot. There have been several points in history when this was not true.

hamishspence
2014-09-22, 04:15 PM
Periods of massive unemployment, like the Great Depression?

Boci
2014-09-22, 04:28 PM
Or the industrial revolution.

JBPuffin
2014-09-22, 05:15 PM
So I just came here to answer the question :smallsmile:.

Anyway, I've been proven to be Neutral Good with a Chaotic Bent (N[C]G). Seeing as how I'm a Red-White(Blue) on the mythical MtG axis, it lines up just about right. Go me!

SiuiS
2014-09-22, 07:47 PM
What? No it isn't straightforwards. The concept of unlimited power is many things, straight forwards is not one of them.

Unlimited power is not in question. The actions of an individual when they are limited only by their own mores is. Your obfuscation is terrible.

{Scrubbed} Like I said, you can argue that morality is subjective all you like, it doesn't matter. In the end people will act in accordance with their principles – and their principles will show through their actions.

Jeff the Green
2014-09-22, 08:15 PM
Or the industrial revolution.

Or now. While the unemployment rate for people with a college education is manageable if not encouraging, it's absurdly high for unskilled workers.

Vaynor
2014-09-22, 08:32 PM
The Red Towel: Please don't discuss real-world religion and politics.

Taet
2014-09-22, 09:24 PM
Tne evil who speak up and are happy about it seem to be lawful or neutral evil. People who argue in the thread that their evil result is not evil earn a point towards Evil, yes. But should arguing also count as a point towards Chaotic? :smallconfused:

I just found a new test if anybody's interested: http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/javalign.html

I got Chaotic Neutral again.
Is New the best word for that site and test? :smallwink: Yes. Another chaotic neutral. Or just chaotic.

Tragak
2014-09-22, 09:48 PM
Is New the best word for that site and test? :smallwink: Maybe not "recent," it just didn't seem like people were talking about it as much as the other two :smalltongue:

Velaryon
2014-09-22, 11:41 PM
According to this test, (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-1st-edition-advanced-dungeons-amp-dragons-alignment-calculator) I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

This test indicates that I'm Neutral Good. I think that's a pretty good fit for me.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 12:49 AM
Sure, but that does mean he is "life living at the expense of life".

If one argues that it is "evil" (in the D&D sense of the word) to be "life living at the expense of life" and at the same time, one argues that it is impossible to not be "life living at the expense of life"

- then - isn't that basically an argument that "life is evil"?

Yet, to be Good, one must have "respect for life".

In a D&D context, being "self-sacrificing" is a Good trait - but it is not the absence of self-sacrificing behaviour that is an Evil trait - it is actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends that is.

Ordinary life - the life of the average person - is Neutral, not Good or Evil.

Gamgee
2014-09-23, 01:13 AM
I used to be neutral good and was for a long time. However I seem to have slipped to pure neutral. At least on this test. A minor bent towards chaos and evil.

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 01:14 AM
If one argues that it is "evil" (in the D&D sense of the word) to be "life living at the expense of life" and at the same time, one argues that it is impossible to not be "life living at the expense of life"

- then - isn't that basically an argument that "life is evil"?

Yet, to be Good, one must have "respect for life".

In a D&D context, being "self-sacrificing" is a Good trait - but it is not the absence of self-sacrificing behaviour that is an Evil trait - it is actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends that is.Except merely living requires actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends. And there are very few people who can live an absolutely 'good' lifestyle without being miserable. And, a lot of what we consider "Good" cannot hold up if we try to extend it beyond our own species. We have to make up arbitrary and largely baseless distinctions between living beings to decide whether their lives are 'worth respecting' or 'free to destroy/use as we please'.

Also - Alignments are fundamentally inconsistent. This is just as true for Good+Evil as it is for Law+Chaos.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 01:21 AM
Except merely living requires actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends.

Writers like Rand and Heinlein would argue that it really doesn't.

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 01:26 AM
Writers like Rand and Heinlein would argue that it really doesn't.Ignoring the harm you cause others on a regular basis is not the same as not doing it.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 02:07 AM
They have a different definition of what constitutes "harm you cause others."


Alignments are fundamentally inconsistent. This is just as true for Good+Evil as it is for Law+Chaos.What we're discussing, by virtue of using the term "alignment" is the D&D definition - no matter how inconsistent. And it's our job to wring some level on consistency out of it.

"Life" in this case, may be "Conscious Intelligence". Killing a tree is not murder (a tree is an object in D&D). Killing an independent, intelligent construct, would be - even if that construct has no living cells in its body.

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 02:18 AM
"Life" in this case, may be "Conscious Intelligence". Killing a tree is not murder (a tree is an object in D&D). Killing an independent, intelligent construct, would be - even if that construct has no living cells in its body.But what measure is a non-conscious intelligence?

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 02:26 AM
But what measure is a non-conscious intelligence? that, while it's (probably) not an evil act for a peasant farmer to kill crows preying on his crops, or the pig he's been raising for bacon come winter, it is evil for the farmer to brutalize and mistreat his animals.

I'm going with the assumption that a paladin, or character with one Exalted feat, can take up farming and not instantaneously Fall, or Fall the moment they kill an animal.

SiuiS
2014-09-23, 02:31 AM
I dunno. I think it can fairly be said that if it's an object – which includes "ignores fort save effects which do not also affect objects" – then it cannot be 'murdered'.

Of course, for this to be productive at all we need definitions of words which make sense both to emotional reasoning and to D&D's setting assumptions, at least nominally counting that this thread covers all versions of D&D.

• harm
• murder
• life

For example, murder gets thrown around a lot but it's used to mean 'killing something in a way I don't approve of'. That's not really murder though, unless by 'you' I'm referring to a society or society-level construct. Harm can also be viewed as entropy, whereby any action which diminishes any other thing by three degrees or less even at a technically accurate but no actionable level is still harm. Which is ridiculous and as said, nonaction able.

Alignment will not be decided in any meaningful way by pedantry and technicalities. It will be decided by whatever a stems have been internalized enough to make any actions taken 'right' or 'wrong'.

Boci
2014-09-23, 02:34 AM
Unlimited power is not in question. The actions of an individual when they are limited only by their own mores is.

I can see the potential merit in this approach, hence my counter example, which achieves roughly the same thing without a dozen unanswerable question about the very nature of the scenario.


Your obfuscation is terrible.

Fair enough, you are allowed to believe that. Can you explain why my argument is terrible, or bring some new points of your own to the table? Because until you do, there's not much I can do with "You are wrong, trust me", except point out that I was not the only one to find your insistence on the validity of an example involving omnipotence bizarre/result skewering.

Jeff the Green
2014-09-23, 02:37 AM
I'm going with the assumption that a paladin, or character with one Exalted feat, can take up farming and not instantaneously Fall, or Fall the moment they kill an animal.

Excepting Vow of Peace, of course.

D&D morality is pretty clear that the death of animals and vermin through the normal traditional farming practice isn't Evil. This is the case regardless of whether this aligns with anyone's real-life ethics (and it does not, for a large number of people). It might be evil to torture a cow, but I'm not certain there's anything in the rules to suggest that. It's because of mismatches like this and the other way around that I say I'm likely not Good.

Haluesen
2014-09-23, 02:48 AM
Well I took a test a couple months back that said I'm True Neutral, and that feels close enough. Some of my friends consider me the token Good Teammate. But I honestly have some fairly cold-hearted ideas for making the world "better" in my eyes, though only for myself, my friends and family, and potentially for random people. I won't go into it for fear of breaching rules. But I feel like I am True Neutral, leaning more to Good while in a happy or benevolent mood, and more to Evil when depressed.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 03:16 AM
It might be evil to torture a cow, but I'm not certain there's anything in the rules to suggest that.

You've got the line in BOED that says "Torture is always evil" and the table in Fiendish Codex 2 that lists all "levels" of torture as Corrupt Acts.

Way I see it - any interpretation that claims that "

the act of living is an evil act because it cannot be anything other than "at the expense of others"

is incompatible with the D&D definitions of Good and Evil, loose as they are.

Jeff the Green
2014-09-23, 03:29 AM
Way I see it - any interpretation that claims that "

the act of living is an evil act because it cannot be anything other than "at the expense of others"

is incompatible with the D&D definitions of Good and Evil, loose as they are.

Considering that there exist explicitly Good living beings, I think it's fairly safe to say that opportunity cost isn't a factor until you get to the point of gluttony and Willing Deformity (obese)

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 03:33 AM
Considering that there exist explicitly Good living beings, I think it's fairly safe to say that opportunity cost isn't a factor until you get to the point of gluttony and Willing Deformity (obese)Given that there's a "Willing Deformity - Emaciated" feat (named something along those lines, anyway) it may be less a case of "gluttony" and more a case of "disrespect for one's own life and body" that makes such a feat Vile.

Suppose a character used spells in order to overeat until they qualified for the feat - and then took the feat. There would be no case of "opportunity cost".

Inevitability
2014-09-23, 04:38 AM
Could we PLEASE try to stay on topic? If you want to discuss alignment, make a thread yourself for that.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 04:52 AM
Problem is - this is an alignment thread.

Though I suppose the statements could be that "In my opinion, based on my own reading of D&D alignment texts, if I was translated into the D&D-verse I would be X alignment" - and leave it at that, with no discussion of whether that reading is correct or not.

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-23, 05:07 AM
But what measure is a non-conscious intelligence?

In terms of D&D 3.x. : anything with a Wisdom and Charisma score of 3 or more and Int score of 2 or less.

The difference between Int 2 and Int 3 is the ability to speak, read and write. Int is also primarily associated with analytical thinking and memory. In real world terms, it best corresponds to general intellect, measured by IQ. From this, we can gather any person or creature ranking below 0.46 percentile in terms of IQ is not considered a conscious, moral operator, and as per the rules for animals in D&D 3.x., defaults to being True Neutral in alignment.

As most animals lack linguistic ability and compare poorly to humans in terms of analytical thinking, the Animal type in D&D 3.x. is by default considered to have 2 or less Int and be True Neutral. Plants, if I recall correctly, are by default considered to be Mindless, meaning Int is a non-ability for them. Hence they too are non-conscious and True Neutral.

Killing these creatures for sustenance or self-defense does not count as Evil under any reasonable reading of the alignment rules. Hence, a strict vegetarian would almost certainly count as Good, and a carnivore limiting its killing to Animals would count at worst Neutral.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 05:15 AM
Plants, if I recall correctly, are by default considered to be Mindless, meaning Int is a non-ability for them. Hence they too are non-conscious and True Neutral.

Killing these creatures for sustenance or self-defense does not count as Evil under any reasonable reading of the alignment rules. Hence, a strict vegetarian would almost certainly count as Good, and a carnivore limiting its killing to Animals would count at worst Neutral.

Plant Creatures are sometimes intelligent, but not often.

However "ordinary" trees tend to be portrayed as Objects.

BoED had a Vow that required the character to "not touch dead flesh" of any kind - assuming that the flesh has to be that of a creature, and "fruit flesh" doesn't count - that would be a Vow that basically requires strict vegetarianism. Even if you swallowed something alive, its dead flesh would be touching the inside of your stomach shortly afterward.

Mastikator
2014-09-23, 06:55 AM
Plant Creatures are sometimes intelligent, but not often.

However "ordinary" trees tend to be portrayed as Objects.

BoED had a Vow that required the character to "not touch dead flesh" of any kind - assuming that the flesh has to be that of a creature, and "fruit flesh" doesn't count - that would be a Vow that basically requires strict vegetarianism. Even if you swallowed something alive, its dead flesh would be touching the inside of your stomach shortly afterward.

Real life plants are always non-intelligent, unless you can find a plant with a central nervous system, and then eat it. But potatoes, cabbage, rice, apples aren't intelligent.

Hell, if you could genetically engineer a pig so that it does not have a brain then it is basically a meat plant and you could have your bacon and keep your promise to do no harm.

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-23, 09:38 AM
BoED had a Vow that required the character to "not touch dead flesh" of any kind - assuming that the flesh has to be that of a creature, and "fruit flesh" doesn't count - that would be a Vow that basically requires strict vegetarianism.

You are correct. Vows like that exist in real life and their adherents limit their diet to fruits and plants.

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 09:46 AM
Excepting Vow of Peace, of course.

D&D morality is pretty clear that the death of animals and vermin through the normal traditional farming practice isn't Evil. This is the case regardless of whether this aligns with anyone's real-life ethics (and it does not, for a large number of people). It might be evil to torture a cow, but I'm not certain there's anything in the rules to suggest that. It's because of mismatches like this and the other way around that I say I'm likely not Good.

And yet, Dragons and certain Undead(Such as Vampires) are considered Evil if they try to do the same things.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 09:48 AM
Mostly because humanoids aren't animals or vermin - there's no discontinuity between INT 10 and INT 30 the way there is between INT 2 and INT 3.

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-23, 09:56 AM
And yet, Dragons and certain Undead(Such as Vampires) are considered Evil if they try to do the same things.

Carnivorous Animals would be considered Evil just as well if they had Int of 3 or above. They are only excused for their instinctive behaviour because they lack rational capacity to rise above it. This is *the* reason why so many carnivorous humanoids and the like are "always" or "usually evil" in alignment. By D&D 3.x. definition, an evil person is someone who "debases or destroys innocent, whether for fun or profit". Well what do you know, most predatorous animals are actually keyed to feel satisfaction for killing and torturing their prey animals, most of which have done absolutely nothing to them. Think of a cat, playing with a mouse. That feline bastard gets active delight from watching that little thing trying to scamper away from its paws in mortal terror.

hamishspence
2014-09-23, 10:00 AM
Carnivorous Animals would be considered Evil just as well if they had Int of 3 or above. They are only excused for their instinctive behaviour because they lack rational capacity to rise above it. This is *the* reason why so many carnivorous humanoids and the like are "always" or "usually evil" in alignment.

D&D Human societies with a meat-heavy diet to the point of carnivory (like ice-dwellers) generally aren't considered Evil though - maybe because "fun" doesn't come into it.

And plenty of Good dragons (bronze in particular) are carnivorous.

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 10:34 AM
Mostly because humanoids aren't animals or vermin - there's no discontinuity between INT 10 and INT 30 the way there is between INT 2 and INT 3.So, D&D's animals are not actually supposed to be real animals, which are significantly more intelligent and sapient than D&D assumes.

Actually - Illithid predation's the one I can't see as inherently 'evil', because they are just as dependent on intelligent brains as other creatures are on meat.

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-23, 10:38 AM
That is correct.

AD&D used to have more nuanced view of intelligence, with each species having its Intelligence graded separately. As a result, many animals in earlier editions had intelligence above "animal" and, consequently, Alignment other than True Neutral. Animals like that also tended to have language of their own, several types of primates and Giant Beaver come to mind most prominently.

If we applied cutting-edge real-life knowledge of animal cognition to D&D 3.x. ruleset, quite many species would gain Int 3 or above and consequently qualify for alignments other than True Neutral. Corvids, dolphins and primates come to mind. Consequently, hunting them for food would not be without moral weight anymore; a player character would have to place much greater emphasis on non-violence and vegetarianism to remain Good or even Neutral.

SiuiS
2014-09-23, 01:02 PM
So, D&D's animals are not actually supposed to be real animals, which are significantly more intelligent and sapient than D&D assumes.

Actually - Illithid predation's the one I can't see as inherently 'evil', because they are just as dependent on intelligent brains as other creatures are on meat.

Illithids are evil due to the murder and blatant disregard for life and well being they show, not for eating at all. They're sustained psionically and all have pretty easy access to magical sustenance (every single one is a planes walking super genius with magical powers) that would rather harvest, Herd and murder humans for enjoyment of a gourmet meal or just for some potato chips with the added benefit of having murdered someone.

They are also eugenic mutants from the far apocalyptic future who are directly attempting to murder the entire human species through consistent, cyclic repeating of history with cumulative iterative tweaks to guarantee they come about sooner, stronger and won't actually have to fear the coming apocalypse, an end to which they apply their magical powers of slavery and their entire society's resources.

Where is the 'not evil' in that?

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 01:17 PM
Illithids are evil due to the murder and blatant disregard for life and well being they show, not for eating at all. They're sustained psionically and all have pretty easy access to magical sustenance (every single one is a planes walking super genius with magical powers) that would rather harvest, Herd and murder humans for enjoyment of a gourmet meal or just for some potato chips with the added benefit of having murdered someone.Actually, Illithids require an intelligent brain per week to survive at minimum. No different than a fisherman who decides to catch a few extra for snacks.


They are also eugenic mutants from the far apocalyptic future who are directly attempting to murder the entire human species through consistent, cyclic repeating of history with cumulative iterative tweaks to guarantee they come about sooner, stronger and won't actually have to fear the coming apocalypse, an end to which they apply their magical powers of slavery and their entire society's resources.

Where is the 'not evil' in that?Meh. I'm more concerned about how they treat each other than how they treat what amount to wild game to them. Though I could see deliberately murdering the human species as a problem. Of course, I think humans might be trying to do the same to them, and it's a Heinleinian "Us or Them" situation. They have just as much right to fight to be the dominant species as any other. Human morality is geared to marginalize and destroy anything that gets in the way of Human Grey Gooing

And ultimately, the Illithids have two goals that their actions are driven toward:
- Be #1 in the universe. It's easy to say that this is "Evil" when your own species defaults to this position if everyone plays by your definition of "Good"
- Cancel the Apocalypse.

I'm seeing "Inhumanly Neutral" here.
As far as "Culture of slavery" - Humans have a comparable number of inferior-intellect species bent to serve us. Illithids are no different. Except we think that animals are too dumb to consider their lives as actually worth anything simply because of communication gaps - when an Illithid deigns to speak with a human, it's the equivalent of an animal tamer talking down a wild animal/livestock/pet - reducing their normal communication to something that the creatures beneath them can understand.

jedipotter
2014-09-23, 04:08 PM
I'm Chaotic Evil! But I already knew that!

SiuiS
2014-09-23, 08:14 PM
Actually, Illithids require an intelligent brain per week to survive at minimum. No different than a fisherman who decides to catch a few extra for snacks.


source? This isn't the 3.5 forum, my information from 1e & 2e is just as relevant. And unlike fish, humans are sophonts, and possess actual souls (no, animals don't have souls as such, yes, this means elves in old school games could be considered subhuman). And while being intelligent and having a soul is not necessarily able to take you off the menu, it does predicate a certain amount of mercy while killing, which they studiously lack.


Meh. I'm more concerned about how they treat each other than how they treat what amount to wild game to them.

No, not wild game; children. Humans are the same species as them, humans are their wombs, and humans are a preferred but unnecessary food source. Ilithids are not noble and misunderstood; they're pedophile cannibal rapists.

That's sort of the thing with the terms "monster" and "evil" in an objective sense; no, they don't have just as much right to live as everyone else. For that, we would have to rewrite just about everything from the ground up, starting with modern moral sensibilities. Porting those sensibilities backward to a world or setting quite literally designed as a Socratic experiment to take the morals of fifty or more years ago as objectively true is going to get compiling errors.

Note this is as much to establish the silliness of mind flayers as people (or even existing creatures) as it is to argue.

jedipotter
2014-09-23, 08:33 PM
source? This isn't the 3.5 forum, my information from 1e & 2e is just as relevant.

This was true in 2E, in the Illithad book and Spelljammer, to name just two places. 1E is very fluff light, but the Ecology of the Mind Flayer in Dragon #78 says the Illithids relish the brains of humans and similar beings the way you eat the meat of cattle and fowl.



And unlike fish, humans are sophonts, and possess actual souls (no, animals don't have souls as such, yes, this means elves in old school games could be considered subhuman). And while being intelligent and having a soul is not necessarily able to take you off the menu, it does predicate a certain amount of mercy while killing, which they studiously lack.

In 2E, both animals and elves (and orcs) have spirits, not souls.

Sartharina
2014-09-24, 12:20 AM
source? This isn't the 3.5 forum, my information from 1e & 2e is just as relevant. And unlike fish, humans are sophonts, and possess actual souls (no, animals don't have souls as such, yes, this means elves in old school games could be considered subhuman). And while being intelligent and having a soul is not necessarily able to take you off the menu, it does predicate a certain amount of mercy while killing, which they studiously lack.The 3.5 Aberrtion splatbook Lords of Madness.


No, not wild game; children. Humans are the same species as them, humans are their wombs, and humans are a preferred but unnecessary food source. Ilithids are not noble and misunderstood; they're pedophile cannibal rapists.

That's sort of the thing with the terms "monster" and "evil" in an objective sense; no, they don't have just as much right to live as everyone else. For that, we would have to rewrite just about everything from the ground up, starting with modern moral sensibilities. Porting those sensibilities backward to a world or setting quite literally designed as a Socratic experiment to take the morals of fifty or more years ago as objectively true is going to get compiling errors.

Note this is as much to establish the silliness of mind flayers as people (or even existing creatures) as it is to argue.Illithids are to humans what humans are to the rest of the natural world, for the most part. Except with a little bit more added. Humans are not "Illithid children", though they are a combination of womb and food source. I also contest the claim that animals lack souls.

From a "Monsters(Such as Goblins, Orcs, and Illithids) are Creatures/People Too" viewpoint (A pretty popular one, expressed by Rich Burlew and many others), Illithids are sort of the Most Human. I actually like them because of that inhumanly human perspective they add. We're pretty much The Flood meets Chicken Run to them.

hamishspence
2014-09-24, 01:26 AM
Illithids are to humans what humans are to the rest of the natural world, for the most part. Except with a little bit more added. Humans are not "Illithid children", though they are a combination of womb and food source. I also contest the claim that animals lack souls.

Illithid tadpoles are Heinlein's "Puppet masters" - entering the body of a human, warping it, and "riding" it.

And the "Us or them" position only applied to the most aggressively expansionistic aliens - the Bugs, the Puppet Masters. Humans got along fine in his books with the Martians, Venusians, and various other factions.

SpectralDerp
2014-09-24, 03:54 AM
Meh. I'm more concerned about how they treat each other than how they treat what amount to wild game to them. Though I could see deliberately murdering the human species as a problem.

Could we please stop talking about illithid alignment as if real world morality applies? In DnD, good is about "altruism, respect for life, [...] a concern for the dignity of sentient beings [and] personal sacrifies". Evil is about "harming, oppering, [...] killing others, [lack of] compassion for others, [killing] without qualms if doing so is convecient or if it can be set up" (3rd edition PHB). Illithid's are evil, end of discussion.

Yes, the situation is set up in such a way that illithids are evil. That's because DnD is agame and illithids are supposed to be the villains. Good and evil are cosmic forces in the DnD universe. If Gary Gygax had decided "good gods want to see their followers turn vegetarian" then eating meat is evil in DnD.

You are free to think that real-world morality works differently and I wouldn't tell you that you are wrong.

hamishspence
2014-09-24, 04:17 AM
Could we please stop talking about illithid alignment as if real world morality applies? In DnD, good is about "altruism, respect for life, [...] a concern for the dignity of sentient beings [and] personal sacrifies". Evil is about "harming, oppering, [...] killing others, [lack of] compassion for others, [killing] without qualms if doing so is convecient or if it can be set up" (3rd edition PHB). Illithid's are evil, end of discussion.

Yes, the situation is set up in such a way that illithids are evil. That's because DnD is agame and illithids are supposed to be the villains. Good and evil are cosmic forces in the DnD universe. If Gary Gygax had decided "good gods want to see their followers turn vegetarian" then eating meat is evil in DnD.

Yup - thread is about what "we" would look like seen through the lens of D&D morality (even if it is a bit inconsistent) - but not vice versa.

SiuiS
2014-09-24, 05:57 PM
This was true in 2E, in the Illithad book and Spelljammer, to name just two places. 1E is very fluff light, but the Ecology of the Mind Flayer in Dragon #78 says the Illithids relish the brains of humans and similar beings the way you eat the meat of cattle and fowl.


The word relish works for me, not against me; we may relish cattle and fowl but vegetarians and vegans get along just fine. Mind flayers may relish human brains but do not require them.



In 2E, both animals and elves (and orcs) have spirits, not souls.

That is what I said, yes. And it predates 2e; it is why elves couldn't be resurrected in older games.

Sartharina: why do you object? Do you value souls more than spirits? If so, why? Being effused of spirit facilitates elven transition to their preferred afterlife. It's not a bad thing by any means, just not humanocentric.

Areswargod139
2014-09-24, 08:20 PM
Took the quiz. Put me down as Neutral Good, which I must say, fits me good.... *puts on sunglasses*


Eeeyaaaaa!

Soarel
2014-09-24, 10:57 PM
Neutral good, chaotic-leaning, according to the pa.msu.edu test.

Tragak
2014-09-25, 12:45 PM
I just looked at another system that Yenek just linked to

http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2h8hn8/can_we_make_a_better_model_for_the_goodevil_x/ckqi1m3

It doesn't ask specific questions like the tests we've mentioned earlier, but it does have you rate yourself from 1-5 on 3 different qualifiers for each end of each spectrum.

Myself, for example:

Law: 6 (Discipline 1 + Respect for Authority 1 + Communalism 4)
Chaos: 10 (Curiosity 5 + Anarchy 4 + Wanderlust 1)

Good: 11 (Generosity 3 + Patience/tolerance for differences 5 + Loyalty 3)
Evil: 6 (Sadism 1 + Greed 3 + Hatred 2)

Not only is this consistent with a lot of my other tests (62.5% Chaotic, 64.7% Good // I tend to get either Neutral Good or Chaotic Neutral), but it also fleshes out that I tend to care about general concepts more than real-world details:

Very High Curiosity: I want to know things
but Very Low Wanderlust: I don't care about seeing things

Above Average Communalism, High Tolerance, Average Generosity and Average Loyalty: I think everybody should take care of each other
but Above Average Anarchy, Low Discipline and Low Respect for Authority: I don't like being told how to do it (even when I haven't come up with anything myself yet)

Somebody else might be TN/CG like me, but cares more about the real world than abstract concepts
(higher Discipline + higher Wanderlust /// lower Tolerance and higher Hatred + higher Generosity and Loyalty)

Somebody else might prefer abstract concepts to the real world like me, but could be LE
(higher Hatred than Sadism or Greed /// higher Discipline/Respect for Authority, but not as high as Communalism)

___

I can certainly quibble with the specific criteria used, but I love the emphasis on how two people with the same alignment can manifest it completely differently.

Pan151
2014-09-25, 08:14 PM
True Neutral with tendencies towards Chaos and Evil.

PS. Apparenly, the above mentioned test says I'm Neural Evil with tendencies towards Chaos and Neurality. Close enough :)

Tetraplex
2014-09-27, 11:06 AM
I describe myself as Neutral Good, though that's a gross simplification that most DM's I've known would take issue with we're someone playing me in their (really boring) game.