Love is LE?? WTF Roy??

[Impikmin]

Of course, either way both of them will fall. Love is LE .


Uhh... Someone said that in a thread about drinks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2774138#post2774138). The one about the two new redshirts getting a cup of -.

So you guys clarified that he/she was lying, confirmed by


hahaaaaa
lol
I said that, it was a joke.


I can't believe you actually thought I was serious, man...thats funny...
>_<

but since you guys think this is an insteresting topic, here's my original post:

So what is Roy doing with Celia? (or was) He's LG! I'm new to all this, and the comic is confusing enough since I've had to learn all about D&D from it. Sorry, I'm a Runescapian:smalleek: Well, thanks for helping me out on this:smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

...What?

No, seriously... what? :smallconfused:

[basilisk 89]

Everything I know about DnD I learned from OotS.

Erh, (s)he means that (s)he wants to know why someone said love was Lawful Evil, because Celia and Roy are both Lawful Good (Celia could be Chaotic, but as a Lawyer, she most likely switched to Lawful if she was). It was brought up on the thread about what drink the redshirts were going to have.

[DrowWolfrider]

Um, If you dont mind, please explain what you mean by "Love Is Lawful Evil?? WTF Roy??"

[Gundato]

I saw that post, and I am pretty sure the person in question was full of the poopy :p

Love (as a concept) is definitely not good or evil. Now, it is arguably chaotic, but good and evil are irrelavent

[TigerHunter]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2774138#post2774138
I'm fairly certain that this thread is either a poor attempt at a joke, trolling, or both.

[BisectedBrioche]

Everything I know about DnD I learned from OotS.

Erh, (s)he means that (s)he wants to know why someone said love was Lawful Evil, because Celia and Roy are both Lawful Good (Celia could be Chaotic, but as a Lawyer, she most likely switched to Lawful if she was). It was brought up on the thread about what drink the redshirts were going to have.

A lawful lawyer? Don't make me laugh.

[Impikmin]

Ty for sorting that out guys:smalltongue: That guy was a load of crock!:smallyuk:

[Myiven]

I disagree that love is neither good nor evil.

In my opinion, love is good, because it is unselfish. Evil is selfish.
Now, an evil person can experience genuine love, and a good person could have feelings of lust (selfish) and mistake it for love.

Alignment-wise, I agree. You don't have to be good or evil to love. But I think the genuine article is pure good.

[Setra]

Twue wove is good.

Lust is neutral. Every man lusts, this does not make them evil. Acting on lust alone, however, could be evil.

Both are chaotic.

Just my opinions.

[Elliot Kane]

Twue wove is good.

Lust is neutral. Every man lusts, this does not make them evil. Acting on lust alone, however, could be evil.

Both are chaotic.

Just my opinions.

Sounds right to me :)

[The_Hunting_Enemy]

Wone twoo wove that bwings us together today?

[Bogardan_Mage]

A lawful lawyer? Don't make me laugh.
It's a structured profession, requiring a head for pointless rules and silly regulations. What, exactly, is funny about considering it lawful?

[Setra]

Wone twoo wove that bwings us together today?
Exactly :smalltongue:

hahaaaaa
lol
I said that, it was a joke.


I can't believe you actually thought I was serious, man...thats funny...
>_<
You'd be surprised at some of the people we get here, iI could see a lot of them saying something like that seriously.

[tahu88810]

hahaaaaa
lol
I said that, it was a joke.


I can't believe you actually thought I was serious, man...thats funny...
>_<

[EvilElitest]

Of course, either way both of them will fall. Love is LE .


Uhh... Someone said that in a thread about drinks. So what is Roy doing with Celia? (or was) He's LG! I'm new to all this, and the comic is confusing enough since I've had to learn all about D&D from it. Sorry, I'm a Runescapian:smalleek: Well, thanks for helping me out on this:smallbiggrin:

.................................................. ..................................................


Hear that sound, you just broke my mind
from,
EE

[EvilElitest]

I disagree that love is neither good nor evil.

In my opinion, love is good, because it is unselfish. Evil is selfish.
Now, an evil person can experience genuine love, and a good person could have feelings of lust (selfish) and mistake it for love.

Alignment-wise, I agree. You don't have to be good or evil to love. But I think the genuine article is pure good.

Ever heard of jealous love? That is evil. Love is just an emotion, and is not good or evil in the least
from,
EE

Edit: sorry double post

[Setra]

Ever heard of jealous love? That is evil. Love is just an emotion, and is not good or evil in the least
from,
EE

Edit: sorry double post
Hm, interesting way to put it.

I still would say True Love is good, however there are aspects of it that could be considered evil.

Maybe
Good: True Love, Familial Love
Evil: Jealous, or Forbidden Love (Like with a married woman).

Which would balance out with Neutral.

[Tolkien_Freak]

I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a joke we were all taking completely seriously.
...maybe these boards should lighten up a bit...

[Demented]

Love is no more good/evil than petting a cat.

On the good side, petting the cat makes the cat happy.
On the evil side, cats are devilish, fiendish, evil, cunning predators that exist for their own pleasure and amusement at the expense of others, and making one happier is the greatest of evils known to man.

Not to mention, plenty of people don't care what the cat thinks, so long as they get to pet the little furry kitty.

(And if you can't tell, I'm a cat person.)

[Drakron]

Love is a emotion, "good" and "evil" are simply concepts ... and not even absolute concepts.

[Setra]

I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a joke we were all taking completely seriously.
...maybe these boards should lighten up a bit...
I thought discussing the Good/Evil of love was lightening up. I mean, we're talking about LOVE on the Good/Evil Axis.

It's funny.

[berrew]

Love is a emotion, "good" and "evil" are simply concepts ... and not even absolute concepts.Uhh... You don't play D&D or read these forums much, do you? :)

[TheGrimace]

Maybe
Good: True Love, Familial Love
Evil: Jealous, or Forbidden Love (Like with a married woman).

Which would balance out with Neutral.

I took the liberty of bolding part of the comment.
Does that apply to forbidden love in the way that Romeo and Juliet's love was forbidden?
is it "evil" to go against the whims of your family?
is it even innately "chaotic", since it shows a lack of respect for the laws you grew up with?

(just trying to get this thread fired up!)

[mockingbyrd7]

I took the liberty of bolding part of the comment.
Does that apply to forbidden love in the way that Romeo and Juliet's love was forbidden?
is it "evil" to go against the whims of your family?
is it even innately "chaotic", since it shows a lack of respect for the laws you grew up with?

(just trying to get this thread fired up!)

My opinions:

He meant forbidden love as in sleeping with a married partner/cheating on a partner/willingly sleeping with someone you know is evil simply because they're attractive, stuff like that. Romeo and Juliet was a case of Chaotic Good: true lovers that attempted to break free from tradition and their parents' will to be together.

It isn't always evil to go against your family's will (going out and killing people against your family's will is, of course) but it is Chaotic in most circumstances; it defies what your elders and parents have taught you and told you to do, a classically chaotic act.

To get the ball rolling again:

Just how severe are the evil acts of cheating on a partner, etc. etc.? Enough to force an alignment change? So weak that doing it three times might only get one point towards Chaotic or Evil? Discuss!

[Gundato]

Indeed. Something a lot of people are doing in this thread (and on the board in general :p) is confusing evil and chaotic.

Cheating on your spouse is generally chaotic (ignoring the "rules" of matrimony). Sending your spouse a video of you doing that is probably evil (or really kinky, but that is for a different debate).

I still say that good and evil have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of love. Now, the specifics of said love (donkeys, football teams, gimp suits, etc) definitely have alignments associated with them, but not the concept itself.

ie. The concept of a quest is alignment neutral (although one could argue it as being marginally closer to lawful than chaotic). But the specifics of that quest are what determines if it is good or evil, lawful or chaotic.

[Woof]

Uh, I'd say cheating on your partner definitely has evil tendencies cause you obviously choose to ignore the fact that you're about to terribly hurt your partner (and chances are they'll find out at some point anyway).

That being said, I'd agree that Love is neither good nor evil, it depends on what people make out of it. It can be "good", certainly, but it can also be utterly "evil" - as in the case of someone killing their ex because they chose to live with a different partner. Or someone killing someone they dearly love because they're afraid of losing them. Or someone committing a crime out of love. Or... lots of possibilities. I think Dame Agatha Christie had some character say "Love is one of the most frightful things in the world" in one of her novels, and I'd tend to agree with that statement.

[Gundato]

But what if your love for the person you are having an affair with is much greater, or you are in a modern marriage where it was "just something to do"?

[Sylian]

But what if your love for the person you are having an affair with is much greater, or you are in a modern marriage where it was "just something to do"?

You'll end it with the other person. That way you won't be cheating.

[Mc. Lovin']

.................................................. ..................................................


Hear that sound, you just broke my mind
from,
EE

So True. Also what does Roy have to do with it?

[TheNovak]

You'll end it with the other person. That way you won't be cheating.

What about the classic, "young princess forced into marriage to an older, evil king, but who still yearns for her One True Love" situation? Is it evil to run to Prince Charming? She can't exactly "end it" with the king.

Cheating is Chaotic.

[Drakron]

Uhh... You don't play D&D or read these forums much, do you? :)

I did play D&D (quit with 3.5 revision) and that is a reason why I do not like "alignment as a straitjacket", a LG character is allowed to hate right? so why cannot a LE character be allowed to love?

Character should not be basic stereotypes of their listed alignments.

[Gundato]

Yup. Cheating itself is chaotic, but your rationales and actions can make it good or evil.

[berrew]

I did play D&D (quit with 3.5 revision) and that is a reason why I do not like "alignment as a straitjacket", a LG character is allowed to hate right? so why cannot a LE character be allowed to love?

Character should not be basic stereotypes of their listed alignments.You missed the point. You said, "...'good' and 'evil' are simply concepts ... and not even absolute concepts" - it's not true, in an AD&D setting. Good and Evil are defined absolutes on which the multiverse runs.

Besides, PC alignments aren't "straitjackets". It's only you that is claiming that a LE character cannot love. PCs (or all mortals, for that matter), are a combination of conflicting desires. The character's thoughts and actions place them in a particular position in the alignment wheel, but don't nail them there.

[tahu88810]

I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a joke we were all taking completely seriously.
...maybe these boards should lighten up a bit...

Apparently you didn't read my post in this thread.
It was a joke, I posted it.
O_O

[Drakron]

You missed the point. You said, "...'good' and 'evil' are simply concepts ... and not even absolute concepts" - it's not true, in an AD&D setting. Good and Evil are defined absolutes on which the multiverse runs.


WotC left the definition of Good and Evil in relative abstract terms for a good reason, "Good" and "Evil" are not absolute concepts (as, for example, pain) and so what people consider good or evil will vary.

For example, slavery can be considered evil but arguable nothing really stops having a LG society with slavery as long it shows "concern for the dignity" of said slaves.

You have a point of in D&D good and evil are absolutes but you forget its us that decide exactly what is "Good" and "Evil".



Besides, PC alignments aren't "straitjackets". It's only you that is claiming that a LE character cannot love. PCs (or all mortals, for that matter), are a combination of conflicting desires. The character's thoughts and actions place them in a particular position in the alignment wheel, but don't nail them there.

I think the word you are looking is "sentient" and not "mortal" and I am certainly not going to disagree that alignment can change but what I was trying to say is as "Good" and "Evil" are definitions that can change from person to person (in the real world, in D&D they are what the DM says) the same cannot be said for emotions were there is usually a agreement on what emotions are.

Emotions by themselves should not impact alignment, that is my point.

[berrew]

I used "mortals" because it might be that extra-planar beings (not self-willed dead mortals) are straitjacketed to some extent.

AD&D has to deal with the disconnect between reality, where many believe Evil and Good to be relative, and the game, in which they are absolutes (but defined by real world people).

But as this is a BB that is specifically designed to talk about AD&D/OoTS, and RL issues are sufficient cause for message editing/banning, I would rather limit my discussion to AD&D issues, where Good and Evil are "absolutes".

I am unsure what the impact of intent is on the AD&D system. It's flexible enough to allow for DM wiggle room either way, but as a RL DM, it would be pretty difficult to judge PC intent, and I imagine that most would rely on the action/consequence rule.

[Gundato]

Well, this is actually 3.5e, not AD&D :p

In my PnP experiences, good and evil are relavent between worlds and situations, but it is almost always black, white, or a specific shade of grey (neutral). In one campaign setting, murder may be perfectly acceptable (and thus not evil). In another, prayer could have far too high of a probability of success and be treated as an evil act (too easy to screw the world up). But once you get into that world, good and evil are quite stable. Murder won't be good one day and evil the next (ignoring the concept of NPCs' Rights :p).

Now, the IMPACT of these acts can vary drastically. A paladin might be allowed to perform an evil act if it serves a greater good (and the GM doesn't have a stick up his butt). A blackguard might defend a village of innocents for completely selfish reasons (trying to get into the mayor's pants, needs an individual for a sacrifice, etc). Still evil and good (for the time being :p) respectively, but it is unlikely that a GM would penalize them.

[Desilva]

The only things that can be "good" or "evil" are intentions. Love is like a sword, it can be used for either end, just like all emotions - jealousy, anger, hate, and pain can all be used for good, given the right intentions.

"Love is good," I find, is by and large an irrational opinion.

[Drakron]

Love is good because its considered a positive emotion as hate is viewed as a negative emotion.

I understand why people can view that as irrational opinion but ... it certainly feels good, what follows up can be a tad problematic ...

[Gundato]

Positive and negative, maybe. But good and evil?

Belkar seems to enjoy killing. That ain't a good act :p
Paladins hate evil. Is that evil in itself?

[Drakron]

I meant "it certainly feels good" in the sense of pleasant, enjoyable and not in the ethical sense.

[Gundato]

Yes, but why would that make it good? Again, if anything, love can be listed as chaotic.

[Setra]

Paladins hate evil. Is that evil in itself?
Technically.

If they hate someone just because they find he's evil.. Yes, probably.

If they hate someone because he's evil in the fact he's killed many innocent people... Yes.

Example for A: Cast Detect Evil on someone you just met, Evil, Instant Hate = Bad.
Example for B: I would not blame anyone for hating the Zodiac Killer.

[Tor the Fallen]

Technically.

If they hate someone just because they find he's evil.. Yes, probably.

If they hate someone because he's evil in the fact he's killed many innocent people... Yes.

Example for A: Cast Detect Evil on someone you just met, Evil, Instant Hate = Bad.
Example for B: I would not blame anyone for hating the Zodiac Killer.

Depends.
Does an Evil alignment mean you've committed a terrible atrocity, such as rape or murder? Or does it just mean that you look out for #1?

[Setra]

Depends.
Does an Evil alignment mean you've committed a terrible atrocity, such as rape or murder? Or does it just mean that you look out for #1?
I was presuming it means you'd be willing, if need be, to harm others for your own gain, regardless of whether or not you have.

Or somethin like that.

[Tor the Fallen]

I was presuming it means you'd be willing, if need be, to harm others for your own gain, regardless of whether or not you have.

Or somethin like that.

What if you think you're willing, but it turns out you don't have the spine?
Is Detect Evil also prescient, or would you come up as Evil if you only had wicked thoughts?

[Gundato]

What defines evil?

That is the question one must never ask :p

At its core, evil is what evil traditionally is. Any time you are in the ambiguous range, you are either a PC or neutral (or your motives are questionable, but your actions are blatantly evil).

A good guideline is to read the alignment descriptions in the handbooks and CRPGs. Those give rather good guidelines.

[Setra]

What if you think you're willing, but it turns out you don't have the spine?
Is Detect Evil also prescient, or would you come up as Evil if you only had wicked thoughts?
Then you're still evil.

Judge Not by a man's actions, but by his hearts intent.

Edit: To clarify, this is just the definition of evil I use.

[Demented]

You're evil, and it's perfectly acceptable to kill you, because your continued existence can only mean further evil residing on the local plane, and that you're likely to promote evil the moment the opportunity presents itself. No matter how spineless you are, you can still do evil through inaction.

At least, according to the Good-aligned.
And what I've heard about D&D. I can only judge by the SRD, which doesn't have that little clause (that killing Evil is not Evil). But, apparently, killing Evil people because they're Evil isn't Evil. Or something like that.

According to the Neutral-aligned, killing Evil may be unjustified, unnecessary, or unintuitive, in the situation.

"Whine, whine, whine. That's all they do. Why don't they stop bugging us and let us do our jobs?"
- Anonymous Paladin, on Neutral Lawmakers

[Drakron]

Funny ... the alignment section says neutral is the lack of commitment, its neither wanting to help or oppress by itself and only on personal commitment.

Also killing people because they register as evil is a evil act because it shows a utter lack of respect for life, the only time it should be acceptable to kill another sentient being is on self-defense or in the defense of others.

[Spiky]

Yes, but why would that make it good? Again, if anything, love can be listed as chaotic.

Love is good. Anything else, like many things mentioned in this thread, is not love. "Jealous love" someone said...that's an oxymoron, they are opposites. And sex is not love, either, just sex.

[Gundato]

Love is good. Anything else, like many things mentioned in this thread, is not love. "Jealous love" someone said...that's an oxymoron, they are opposites. And sex is not love, either, just sex.


Why is love good? What makes it good? And why is one definition of love better than the others?

[TheNovak]

I call a compromise. Love is Chaotic Good.

Hence why, y'know...all the Gods and Goddesses of Love in D&D are CG (see: Sune, Aphrodite).

[SITB]

Why do you think that love is "good"? 'Love' describes an emotional attachment which varies from "the need to protect" to "the need to emulate" and "the need to hide" and much more; which all can be stretched to which alignment you want.

[Mewtarthio]

What about the classic, "young princess forced into marriage to an older, evil king, but who still yearns for her One True Love" situation? Is it evil to run to Prince Charming? She can't exactly "end it" with the king.

Cheating is Chaotic.

We're talking about regular marriages here. If somebody is coerced into a loveless marriage, things change a lot. Cheating in this case is morally neutral, though (probably) ethically chaotic. The ethical alignment is even more shady: It could very well be Lawful if, for instance, by claiming her as his wife, the tyrant has violated generations of tradition, and the marriage would not be recognized under normal circumstances.

[Setra]

Love is good. Anything else, like many things mentioned in this thread, is not love. "Jealous love" someone said...that's an oxymoron, they are opposites. And sex is not love, either, just sex.
What about if two people love the same person, and one kills the other out of "love" for the person.

That's still love, albeit insane love.

[Mewtarthio]

What about if two people love the same person, and one kills the other out of "love" for the person.

That's still love, albeit insane love.

For it to be love, the murder couldn't be out of jealousy. He'd have to commit the murder because he honestly believes that allowing his opponent to live will cause the girl to fall for a trap that will lead to her suffering. The killer's still Chaotic Evil, but he does have love as a motive. Therefore, jealous love is still an oxymoron (unless you're talking about how lovers don't like it when other people ogle their significant others).

[Gundato]

Oy.

Just going off the dictionary.com definition of love, it is alignment neutral. Nothing there says it has to be selfless or whatever.

Like almost everyone has said, love is alignment neutral. It can easily be twisted into every possible combination.

Please keep in mind that this is the generic definition of love. Not true, unrequited, lustful, kinky, self, or man flavored. Just the most generic possible definition.

[Setra]

For it to be love, the murder couldn't be out of jealousy. He'd have to commit the murder because he honestly believes that allowing his opponent to live will cause the girl to fall for a trap that will lead to her suffering. The killer's still Chaotic Evil, but he does have love as a motive. Therefore, jealous love is still an oxymoron (unless you're talking about how lovers don't like it when other people ogle their significant others).
I never said it was because of jealousy. I was trying to introduce a new situation in which love could be considered 'evil' or 'bad'.

I used to dislike it when other people ogled my girlfriend, but she told me not to worry about it, so I don't anymore.

[mohair_ninja]

The alignment of love is a mystery that will be revealed together with MitD and V's gender :smalltongue:
You've done a great philosophical mess in this thread, congratulations.

[TheNovak]

Let's just say that D&D's alignment rules can't cover or define love, and leave it there. Neither can it define happiness, anger, sadness, or fear. Emotions just ain't covered in a 3-by-3 grid.

Okay? Can we all accept that? 'Cause the alternative is more and more pointless argument contributing to an absolute philosphical mess (like mohair_ninja said), and I don't think anyone wants to go to the effort of sorting it out.

...But I still say love would be inherently Chaotic.

[Impikmin]

I'm glad some people are using this thread as a philosophical gym, because those places are very fun:smalltongue: Anyway, I agree that any type of love, E.I. caring for someone and willing to do anything to protect them, is chaotic good. Even with Sabine and Nale, although their alignment is evil, caring for someone and dedicating yourself to them is not.

Haley + Elan is a great example. Haley is in danger, so Elan does whatever it takes(chaotic) to save her(good).

Nothing about real love is bad. A stalker, or jealous love as I heard mentioned, does not really love that person. If you really love someone, you can let them go and will do what's in their best interest. Love is about sacrificing everything for that person, even if it means sacrificing love itself:smallwink:

[Setra]

I can see Love as Lawful, though.

Love is when you know beyond all doubt that you care for someone, that you wish for their happiness. At the core, it seems more Lawful to me. Things you may do FOR love may be chaotic, but I still see Love in itself as Lawful.

Ps. I enjoy arguing.

[Spiky]

Seriously, where do you kids come up with the thoughts in your head? Are we going to argue over "floor" vs "ceiling" next? Words have meanings, you saying something else doesn't change that. It just shows you don't understand their meanings.

Here's my question for those of you saying love is not good: Why do you think that "good" is good? Is "good" defined carefully in your mind, but "love" is not?

[Snipers_Promise]

[QUOTE=TheNovak;2786833]Let's just say that D&D's alignment rules can't cover or define love, and leave it there. Neither can it define happiness, anger, sadness, or fear. Emotions just ain't covered in a 3-by-3 grid.

Okay? Can we all accept that? 'Cause the alternative is more and more pointless argument contributing to an absolute philosphical mess (like mohair_ninja said), and I don't think anyone wants to go to the effort of sorting it out.[QUOTE]


Amen

[Setra]

Let's just say that D&D's alignment rules can't cover or define love, and leave it there. Neither can it define happiness, anger, sadness, or fear. Emotions just ain't covered in a 3-by-3 grid.

Okay? Can we all accept that? 'Cause the alternative is more and more pointless argument contributing to an absolute philosphical mess (like mohair_ninja said), and I don't think anyone wants to go to the effort of sorting it out.


Amen
Aww, but philosphical messes are fun.

[SITB]

Seriously, where do you kids come up with the thoughts in your head? Are we going to argue over "floor" vs "ceiling" next? Words have meanings, you saying something else doesn't change that. It just shows you don't understand their meanings.

So every word has one absolute unchangeable meaning? And to top it, do you know what that absolute meaning is? (Note that this mostly only applies to abstract concepts)


Here's my question for those of you saying love is not good: Why do you think that "good" is good? Is "good" defined carefully in your mind, but "love" is not?

Simple, 'good' is a concept brow beaten into your mind by your education and upbringing. It's being discussed and dissected in a lot of conversations and as such each individual has its own code of 'good and evil' which probably conforms to the code prevalent around him (though probably not a direct copy). Hell, it's provides it's own reward by making you feel satisfied for yourself for doing 'good' and probably could be termed as a masturbation for the ego.

Love on the other hand? It's way under discussed compared to 'good' and 'evil' and as such while the prevalent code reigns supreme, it's not as unified as 'good' and 'evil'.

[Gundato]

Seriously, where do you kids come up with the thoughts in your head? Are we going to argue over "floor" vs "ceiling" next? Words have meanings, you saying something else doesn't change that. It just shows you don't understand their meanings.

Here's my question for those of you saying love is not good: Why do you think that "good" is good? Is "good" defined carefully in your mind, but "love" is not?

Am I the only one who started laughing uncontrollably after reading that? :p

Here is the thing, if we go straight off of a definition of love (ie. the one in the dictionary), it says nothing about selflessness or anything commonly associated with what most people feel D&D "good" or D&D "evil" is. Ergo, it is neutral.

And to the guy trying to pretend he is the voice of reason (bah, like we need reason :p): I really don't see why the alignment grid couldn't cover it. Is it good? No. Is it evil? No. Then it is neutral. It might lean towards one side more than the other (I personally feel it to be neutral with chaotic leanings), but it is definitely on the grid.

The grid is actually not as limiting as people like to say. What is limiting are GMs and players who don't understand the concept of motivation and intentions, and a refusal to allow things to "live on the edge" (Lawful Neutral with good leanings, etc).

[Impikmin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiky
Seriously, where do you kids come up with the thoughts in your head? Are we going to argue over "floor" vs "ceiling" next? Words have meanings, you saying something else doesn't change that. It just shows you don't understand their meanings.

Here's my question for those of you saying love is not good: Why do you think that "good" is good? Is "good" defined carefully in your mind, but "love" is not?
:End quote:



Lol, yes, I was laughing too Gundato!

Kids? You know my age better than I do? Oh noez!:smalleek:

Anyway, a sound or a combination of letters needs a definition. We give it that definition. That definition can be changed. Furthermore, by arguing (ehem, discussing) we can learn about ourselves and the world around us.
I.E., we discuss how the word love best suites a series of alignments. Doing this, we develop opinions and learn about love itself and our perspective on it. Dictionaries have different definitions, does that mean they are a waste?

Lack of knowledge doesn't equal lack of intelligence. Lack of yearning for knowledge might. (oooo... Quotable!)

Sorry if that seems a little too "thought out" (if you know what I mean:smallwink:) I just thought I should fully explain some things to this obvious flamer who thinks criticizing arguments themselves is worth his time of day. (esspecially when he is making an argument himself against those who think love can be evil!)

Well guys, I have to side with V on this one:smallbiggrin:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html

And no, just because some made up comic personality said it doesn't make it true. But, it's nice to know that this certain made up comic personality shares my opinion:smalltongue:

[Spiky]

S
Simple, 'good' is a concept brow beaten into your mind by your education and upbringing.

...

Love on the other hand? It's way under discussed compared to 'good' and 'evil' and as such while the prevalent code reigns supreme, it's not as unified as 'good' and 'evil'.

Hmm, not in the circles I come from. Love is well defined to me. Obviously not to everyone.

Dictionary? Gimme a break. Why don't you figure out where the concept first came from, or at least the first language that used the term, then we can discuss it. (hint: it's older than Mr. Webster) But not on this board, my hands are tied by rules meant for 15 year olds.

[Spiky]

Lack of knowledge doesn't equal lack of intelligence. Lack of yearning for knowledge might. (oooo... Quotable!)

Sorry if that seems a little too "thought out" (if you know what I mean:smallwink:)
You want an abstract concept? Intelligence is #1 in my list to discuss. Intelligence can perhaps best be described as the ability to store knowledge and access it when necessary. (sorry if that seems a little mechanized) But please, that would be a useful debate, let's have it instead of one over love.

Also, knowledge is far more valuable than a misty concept like intelligence. So if I ever imply that someone ought to go out and get themselves more knowledge, don't assume I mean they are unintelligent. Misinformed or underinformed is far worse than being dumb in my mind. So we agree on that point.

[Impikmin]

That we do:mitd: Well anyway, I made this thread originally because of some guy who felt like messing with the new guys head. I need a hint of lol or sarcasm here or there to know if someone is really lying without facial expression or any other clues, and I am still a newbie to this all so I took him seriously. There isn't any delete button on that now. But, since some people seem to enjoy discussing love, why not encourage it? Sure, intelligence might make a better discussion for you, but I'm just working with what I have.

When life give you lemons, grab some sweetener, some ice cubes, a pitcher, and make sure to charge a minimum of 2 bucks a glass.

[Grizzt]

Love is Chaotic Good, BUT emotions and actions are characterized by the INTENT not the action itself.

Examples:
Good/Evil:
Murder:Evil? Generally, yes, but Murder of <insert criminal here>:Good

Murder:Evil? Generally, yes, but Murder with the INTENT of good:Good

Love: Generally Good, but Love which results to an evil act is Evil

Lawful/Chaotic:
Murder: Generally Chaotic, but Murder of a condemned criminal or the invader of your Homaland is Lawful.

[Dalenthas]

You want an abstract concept? Intelligence is #1 in my list to discuss. Intelligence can perhaps best be described as the ability to store knowledge and access it when necessary. (sorry if that seems a little mechanized) But please, that would be a useful debate, let's have it instead of one over love.

Also, knowledge is far more valuable than a misty concept like intelligence. So if I ever imply that someone ought to go out and get themselves more knowledge, don't assume I mean they are unintelligent. Misinformed or underinformed is far worse than being dumb in my mind. So we agree on that point.

I think you have that backwards here. Knowledge is just information. Intelligence is the ability to use that knowledge to some ends. By your definition, we already have Artificial Intelligence because pretty much the only things computers really do is store and access knowledge.

A truely intelligent person would not presume to know something they don't know, and therefore would seek to increase their knowledge rather than just spout off gibberish (though the occasional psychobabble is always fun). Indeed, intelligent conversation is only intelligent if both sides of an argument are willing to analyze their opponent's view and gather new information. If neither side listens to the other, you get in dumb internet fights (a.k.a. flame wars).

As far as love goes, I'd say its Chaotic Good, in general, but Lawfull Evil people can be in love just fine (look at Nale and Sabine) and still be evil and lawfull.
The only thing we know for sure is that love is an epic level challenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html).

[Impikmin]

The only thing we know for sure is that love is an epic level challenge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html).

Oooohh!! You quote stealer!:smallannoyed:

[Aris Katsaris]

Love, in its generic sense (including love towards friends, children, family, your country, or even random individuals), is pretty much the definition of Goodness, but it's not aligned on the Law-Chaos scale, the way I see it.

You can't use arguments like "Cheating on your wife because of the love of another is bad" because such an event demonstrates *insufficient* love towards your wife, and an excess of *lust* towards another.

Likewise if you do something evil like sacrifice ten lives in favour of the one you feel romantically towards -- that's insufficient love for *those* people you are killing, it's not an excess of love for the one you're doing it for.

People that don't love anyone, are pretty much like Belkar.
People that don't love *anything* live existences even worse than Belkar or Xykon, because they at least seem to love a good joke.

[Jayabalard]

...What?

No, seriously... what? :smallconfused:seconded


a LG character is allowed to hate right? Can they?

[Impikmin]

*cough* Well, a prime example is any old paladin. Just for kicks, let's take Miko. She had some sort of raging blood lust for Belkar's death but she didn't fall until she killed Shojo. So Paladin = LG, and I guess that answers your question.

To clarify, any alignment is allowed to hate anyone they want, unless it's their own god or something.

:smallbiggrin:

[Lord_Yawgmoth]

Wone twoo wove that bwings us together today?

But the only thing better than true love is a brain sandwich with a glass of oil to wash it down.

:xykon:

[basilisk 89]

But the only thing better than true love is a brain sandwich with a glass of oil to wash it down.

:xykon:

Mind Flayer?
Illthid?
Psyonic Danger?

SQUID THINGY!

[TheAlmightyOne]

Hold everything. Prehaps this is a typo. Love is not Le but EL. Durkon said that love as an epic level challenge. EL - epic level. Im just putting in my opinion here so please dont yell at me.

[DM ClemLOR]

Well ...

Love is chaotic. So far, so good. :smallconfused:
It is neither neutral nor good ... So what is left ...? :smallbiggrin:
Why is that so? Simple thing: Love has something to do with killing your loneliness, satisfying your greed for lust, getting at least partial control over someone else and finally finding shelter or protection (or shielding) from someone else.
Someone else = the target being loved... :smallamused:

Greetings
DM ClemLOR

[Impikmin]

Hold everything. Prehaps this is a typo. Love is not Le but EL. Durkon said that love as an epic level challenge. EL - epic level. Im just putting in my opinion here so please dont yell at me.

Yah I'm not sure that's an alignment... And no it wasn't a typo. Please read the thread:smallbiggrin:

[Impikmin]

Well ...

Love is chaotic. So far, so good. :smallconfused:
It is neither neutral nor good ... So what is left ...? :smallbiggrin:
Why is that so? Simple thing: Love has something to do with killing your loneliness, satisfying your greed for lust, getting at least partial control over someone else and finally finding shelter or protection (or shielding) from someone else.
Someone else = the target being loved... :smallamused:

Greetings
DM ClemLOR

Love = CE is going to get you a lot of flaming bud.

Love is never neutral or good? I disagree.

So a mother who loves her child is killing her loneliness, satisfying her greed for lust, getting control over her child, and finally finding shelter or protection (or shielding) from her child.

I don't think you have the slightest clue about what love is. I think your confusing love with a psychopath chaining a women in his basement so he can have sex with her every night.

And that is not love at all, but that's what it sounds like your describing.

Have you ever been in love? My guess is that you haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: P.S., if that was some weirdo joke like the one that started this thread, save it. I really didn't think I would need to put in my title "serious discussion!" to actually get some intelligent conversation. I may be exaggerating, but I'm a little fed up with people lying and making it sound serious just to watch the mayhem.

[SomeLich]

Love = CE is going to get you a lot of flaming bud.

Love is never neutral or good? I disagree.

* Well, I have to disagree with you. Whenever you really fall in love, you project / image in how far this particular relationship is going to augment your life. You'd be a masochist or Mother Theresa otherwise. The vast majority of relationships enclose strong feelings which lead to unpredictable displays of love, hate, grief, joy, indifference maybe. A neutral lover is either a liar or loves inanimate objects.

So a mother who loves her child is killing her loneliness, satisfying her greed for lust, getting control over her child, and finally finding shelter or protection (or shielding) from her child.

* No, if I get his point right, he did say that someone might love someone based upon one or more of these aspects. Aren't there for example no mothers who find it hard when the child decides to live its life independently? How many mother-in-laws don't like their child's partner?

I don't think you have the slightest clue about what love is. I think your confusing love with a psychopath chaining a women in his basement so he can have sex with her every night.

* Well, be the way, your idea of love seems be be strongly influenced by Dutch florist on Valentine's Day. :smallsmile:

And that is not love at all, but that's what it sounds like your describing.

Have you ever been in love? My guess is that you haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: P.S., if that was some weirdo joke like the one that started this thread, save it. I really didn't think I would need to put in my title "serious discussion!" to actually get some intelligent conversation. I may be exaggerating, but I'm a little fed up with people lying and making it sound serious just to watch the mayhem.

Michael, over and out.

[DM ClemLOR]

Hello.

Ok, I agree. My posting may result in flaming ... until now it hasn't.

1. I don't like it, if people try to figure things out about my personality and relations - especially if they don't know me yet.
2. Love as any other reallife stuff is something you cannot reduce to the simplified methods behind alignments of a game.
3. The alignment system of the game is something adressing especially the consciousness of a personality, with 'true neutral' being a little closer to the subconsciousness. Love as many other things are no matter of the consciousness; it is controlled by a force behind you, within you, out of your reach ...
4. I stick to it: Love is one of the most egoistic feelings a person might have; but egoism does not automatically imply that it is evil or bad; your example was fair enough.
5. What has this subject to do with ooooooooooots????

Thank you.
DM ClemLOR

[Impikmin]

Hello.

Ok, I agree. My posting may result in flaming ... until now it hasn't.

From what I was seeing before, I would have expected something by now, but I guess all the flamers went away >.<

5. What has this subject to do with ooooooooooots????

I swear, it once was about OOTS:smallamused: It just happened that it was erm, made by mistake, and I don't see a delete button. Do you?

Thank you.
DM ClemLOR

Apparently, the thingy won't let me post. Ah well. Is this ten characters now?

[Tobrian]

Twue wove is good.

Lust is neutral. Every man lusts, this does not make them evil. Acting on lust alone, however, could be evil.

Both are chaotic.

Don't forget chaste chivalric love, which clearly is Lawful and Good. :smallwink:



(snip) Simple thing: Love has something to do with killing your loneliness, satisfying your greed for lust, getting at least partial control over someone else and finally finding shelter or protection (or shielding) from someone else.
Someone else = the target being loved... :smallamused:

And that sounds exactly like a textbook example of how a Psychopath thinks of "love". To him, everyone else is not a person, merely a convenience that can be exploited. :smallyuk:

so I hope you wrote your posting in a spirit of satire.

[Impikmin]

And that sounds exactly like a textbook example of how a Psychopath thinks of "love". To him, everyone else is not a person, merely a convenience that can be exploited. :smallyuk:

so I hope you wrote your posting in a spirit of satire.

The ten letter limit, while hindering my "blank response" effect, does not hinder my pure amusement.

[Setra]

Don't forget chaste chivalric love, which clearly is Lawful and Good. :smallwink:
Bleh, overrated. :smalltongue:

I like my love like I like.. er.. something. Sexy.

Actually I like my love kind, sweet, with an odd sense of humor, and I favor "cute" over "sexy". Not that I dislike sexy, or chivalry.

[nothingclever]

It was a joke. No need to invent new sciences and try to test theories.

[cavemaker]

The ten letter limit, while hindering my "blank response" effect, does not hinder my pure amusement.
You have your philosophical gym; he has his descriptions of love. Or she and her, as the case may be.

Don't forget chaste chivalric love, which clearly is Lawful and Good.
I would think that chivalric love describes a system of regulating love - which is, as you say, lawful - more than it describes love itself. I don't know all that much about it, though.

Love = CE is going to get you a lot of flaming bud.
I stand ready.

Imagine you have a crush on A. The things that this crush inspires you to do are not acts of general charity. Quite the opposite, in fact; you'll become more centered on A, possibly disregarding responsibilities or even friends and making the occasional ethical sacrifice to get closer to or improve yourself in the estimation of A. This is true unless, of course, A inspires you to good works - this, however, is essentially the same as saying that you wish to do good works so that A will think well of you, or so that you will be worthy of A.

If this crush develops into a deeper kind of love, feelings of attachment, the desire to protect, and so forth can arise. Much of this could be explained as the result of dependence. Even if this set of feelings does arise altruistically - of which I am not convinced - it is not a force for good. It's specific to A; if you're in a burning building, it encourages you to look after A instead of trying to save as many as is possible. If A is evil, it still encourages you to look after him or her. This is not a good impulse; at best I would call it morally Neutral.

There is a decent argument to be made, in fact, that it is Evil. The SRD lists two categories of Evil; doing harm for its own sake and doing harm uncaringly in pursuit of a goal. The love described above falls into the second category. You might scruple at committing various acts of evil out of love, but such restraint would be a function of other aspects of your mind - other instances of love, perhaps, but certainly not the love that tempted you to evil in the first place. That makes love Evil. Note that the arguments about deeper romantic love apply also to familial love, love between friends, and so forth.

There is one type of love to which the above descriptions do not apply - disinterested love directed at everyone. It is altruistic by definition and it cannot tempt you to make bad sacrifices in its name because it is all-encompassing. As an emotion, however, I would consider it extremely rare, or at least almost always weak to the point of being trivial. It is a simple matter to find examples universal altruistic love as a moral philosophy, but that is intellectual, not emotional. To get an idea of the weakness of such love, compare your feelings about the well-being of your family or significant other to your feelings about the well-being of the far-off people who figure in distasteful statistics.

Love, then, is for the most part Evil. It seems we've reached a consensus that it is Chaotic. I agree with this, so I say that love is mostly Chaotic Evil.

<3<3<3

[Luklan]

There is a decent argument to be made, in fact, that it is Evil. The SRD lists two categories of Evil; doing harm for its own sake and doing harm uncaringly in pursuit of a goal. The love described above falls into the second category. You might scruple at committing various acts of evil out of love, but such restraint would be a function of other aspects of your mind - other instances of love, perhaps, but certainly not the love that tempted you to evil in the first place. That makes love Evil. Note that the arguments about deeper romantic love apply also to familial love, love between friends, and so forth.

[snip]

Love, then, is for the most part Evil. It seems we've reached a consensus that it is Chaotic. I agree with this, so I say that love is mostly Chaotic Evil.

<3<3<3

Bolding done by me.

Just because an emotion can lead to evil acts doesn't mean the emotion is evil.

By your own definition, Charity is evil because it robs others of the chance to work hard for their own rewards, and makes people dependent on others. Perhaps 'Chivalry' is also bad. Because you could kill a guy for insulting a woman. Friendship is also Evil, because you're more inclined to help a friend before any one else. OR you're more likely to yell at a friend for betraying your trust in some way.

There are multiple examples of emotions and ideals going wrong. There are, more than likely, an incredible number of emotions and ideals going right as well.

I'm gonna be gutsy here and give an example out of my own life.

I love a girl in Canada. I think about her every few days, and it would make my life complete if I just randomly met her on the street, and she stayed with me. We inspire each other to greatness, and we're there for each other to vent and help through our struggles. In her own words, we were soulmates.

Well, we were, at least. Two years ago, she decided it was better if we parted ways and didn't contact each other. She said I was a distraction, a dream, and that she wanted to focus on her life there. She was even sad about it, but she thought it was for the best. I pleaded with her to keep talking to me, or at least say 'try again in two years' or whatever. She didn't budge, so I let her go, with my blessing.

I would still love to chat to her again, or to just bump into her, somehow, randomly. But I'm content in the knowledge that, whatever she's doing now, she's more than likely happy. That's my hope, at least, and it doesn't worry me that it's just a hope.

Evil, is it? Chaotic, maybe, but it's highly doubtful it is Evil. Neutral? Maybe. Evil? No. If it were Evil, I'd drop my life here completely and hunt her down. I'd find her. Then... Well, who knows. But I'm content to be here, away from her, unable to speak to her. Content in the knowledge she is happy living her life.

One of your arguments annoys me greatly.


This is true unless, of course, A inspires you to good works - this, however, is essentially the same as saying that you wish to do good works so that A will think well of you, or so that you will be worthy of A.

And? Paraphrasing a quote here, but; 'Good done in Satan's name is still the work of God. Evil done in God's name is still the work of Satan'.

You may as well say that all athlete's only play their sport for the money, and only love their sport because it pays well. That they don't play the sport because they actually enjoy it.


This is not a good impulse; at best I would call it morally Neutral.

Congratulations, but that doesn't make it evil.


You might scruple at committing various acts of evil out of love, but such restraint would be a function of other aspects of your mind - other instances of love, perhaps, but certainly not the love that tempted you to evil in the first place. That makes love Evil.

Unless of course one of these 'other aspects' is the knowledge that who you are is why that person loves you. That doing the wrong thing would be betraying their trust in you.

That makes Love not-evil. Doesn't make it Good, but it doesn't make it Evil either.

Love, to me, is CN at the worst.

(edits to make more sense, since I started typing this at 6:30am, and it's now 7am)

[DM ClemLOR]

Hi, all.

I am amused. :smallbiggrin:

@Admins: How about closing this thread to prevent people smacktalking at each other? :smalleek:

Greetings

DM ClemLOR

[Luklan]

Who's smacktalking to each other? :smallconfused:

[DM ClemLOR]

I need to apologize.

The precise phrase instead of 'prevent people from smacktalking' would be: ... before people start smacktalking. :smallcool:

On the one hand I am used to people using forums for serious and probably heated debates on none-serious topics. :smallamused:
On the other hand I hoped that the members of this forum would've aligned with the relaxed and not serious tune of the comic strip ... :smalleek:

I was wrong. And that's why I ask the admin to close this topic. :smallbiggrin:
The topic about "Stop flaming" tells me I am not that wrong about my thoughts. :smallwink:


Another reason to close this thread would be that we are allready far off the basic topic ...:smallsmile:

Roger that? :elan:

Greetings
DM ClemLOR

[Gundato]

Ignore him. He is just the standard "I know better than the admins, let's make them think that" archetype.

And I think that the root cause of the debate here is the same as in the "Elan is Chaotic Good" thread. People don't understand the difference between law and Lawful, and evil, Evil, and Chaotic. Everyone badmouths Miko for having a stick up her butt about her alignment and the refusal to accept fluidity in the alignment table, but then they argue Miko's stance in threads like this.

[DM ClemLOR]

Great.

I found a new friend. :smallamused:

[Impikmin]

Ha ha! This is good stuff guys! Keep rolling out those comments!:smallamused:

But really, you give me all a warm tingly feeling that this thread is now 4 pages. Just have to get my Redcloak one a bit higher now.:smallwink: