Is Rick Sanchez CE according to 5e standards? Sure he is.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Straight and easy. According to 5e axis alignments, is Rick Sanchez from Rick & Morty Chaotic Evil?

(Rick Sanchez from dimension C-137).

I do think so.

I'll justify my claim. Warning: Spoilers coming.

To those of you arguing he's not because he cares about some members of his family, take into account that:

0. He cares only about himself and his own praise. If he cares about some members of his family (as Morty) it's because of direct need (his moronic brain waves).
1. Chaotic Evil characters aren't unable to love.
2. Ricks tends to have more a need than a love for his family.
3. Toxic Rick (pure CE) needs and loves Morty more than any of his versions.
4. There is no any statement in 5e axis alignment claiming that if you are capable of loving someone you can't be CE.

[Talamare]

Chaotic Good

He acts as his conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

[HolyDraconus]

He's NE. He does what he wants, but can follow others if it suits him. He's firmly evil though.

[No brains]

Well with only 3 seasons, a full alignment audit shouldn't be impossible. He's definitely not lawful and I wouldn't call him good. I just don't know if his acts of chaos and evil are greater than that of your basic murderhobo, especially given the bleak world he lives in.

His nihilism probably makes him neutral since he just doesn't care enough to really go all-in on any alignment.

[Desteplo]

Out of the 100 ricks he was 51 or 49 (number 50 was weird)

-putting him more in the neutral category. Probably chaotic

-he loves his family but he loves himself more

-he has shown he will put his family over himself (when the universe split into billions of copies) but ultimately will only do it on his terms.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Those political alignments are the worst thing. America NE, the USSR LN? Liberalism is CN, but actual anarchy is CG? ****ing retarded.

Rick is CN trending CE. But the alignment system is terrible, as your sig demonstrates.

[Unoriginal]

Rick Sanchez is nothing according to 5e standards, because he is not a D&D character.

5e alignments only apply to 5e characters.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

When chapter 1x10 Evil Rick appears and make a measurement of hundreds of Ricks, Rick C-137 is only two degrees farther in the scale of evilness... Anyway, I already stated at the title of this thread "according of D&D standards", there's no crucial need in pointing me Rick doesn't belong to D&D universe.:smallwink:

If being evil in D&D means possibility of hurting others for your own profit then C-137 is truly evil (enslaving a whole planet for using it as a battery?). The real problem here is that many people tend to negate that Rick is CE because he's a charismatic character to sympathize with. And of course, people feel unconfortable if the sympathize with an evil character, thus negating one important point within human soul. So yes, as I read, some people have tried to mislead the thread, but the rest tend to agree that Rick is at least evil, or at minimun, with strong tendencies to it.

[sightlessrealit]

When chapter 1x10 Evil Rick appears and make a measurement of hundreds of Ricks, Rick C-137 is only two degrees farther in the scale of evilness... Anyway, I already stated at the title of this thread "according of D&D standards", there's no crucial need in pointing me Rick doesn't belong to D&D universe.:smallwink:

If being evil in D&D means possibility of hurting others for your own profit then C-137 is truly evil (enslaving a whole planet for using it as a battery?). The real problem here is that many people tend to negate that Rick is CE because he's a charismatic character to sympathize with. And of course, people feel unconfortable if the sympathize with an evil character, thus negating one important point within human soul. So yes, as I read, some people have tried to mislead the thread, but the rest tend to agree that Rick is at least evil, or at minimun, with strong tendencies to it.

Correction, he didn't enslave said planet. He "made" the mini verse. So he's essential it's god. Personally, at least that example it's a grey area at worst.

[vexedart]

Right, if he's evil for the battery world, so are all the good and evil aligned gods in the d&d universe, since they literally use worshippers as a source of their divine power. Aka soul batteries, for eternity, for ever ever ever ever, no escape, no pass go, your ass is owned.

I think Rick Sanchez is C/N more so than chaotic evil. He takes what he wants when he wants it, and opposes the unnatural order of other beings, like governments. The only things he does care about are his family and friends, and that's a stretch, as he states they're replaceable because of the infinite multiverses. He's chaotic neutral because he doesn't give a damn about anyone else's opinion. He's free for the most part. He doesn't do things for good or evil reasons, mostly, he does things just to entertain himself.

[Talamare]

If being evil in D&D means possibility of hurting others for your own profit then C-137 is truly good (He stopped all hostilities on a planet, created global peace, and got nothing from it). The real problem here is that many people tend to negate that Rick is CG because he's sometimes says selfish things. And of course, people feel uncomfortable calling a selfish character Good, thus negating one important point within human soul. So yes, as I read, some people have tried to mislead the thread, but the rest tend to agree that Rick is at least good, or at minimun, with strong tendencies to it.

[Finlam]

If being evil in D&D means possibility of hurting others for your own profit then C-137 is truly good (He stopped all hostilities on a planet, created global peace, and got nothing from it). The real problem here is that many people tend to negate that Rick is CG because he's sometimes says selfish things. And of course, people feel uncomfortable calling a selfish character Good, thus negating one important point within human soul. So yes, as I read, some people have tried to mislead the thread, but the rest tend to agree that Rick is at least good, or at minimun, with strong tendencies to it.

He also carelessly destroyed an entire planet because he didn't care to take the effort to ask Morty if someone had the flu. He tried to fix it, made it worse, and then said **** it and moved to a new world where it doesn't really seem to bother him. He also shows no conscience or remorse at all about murder i.e. watch even the first minute of this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUxNQlvzuL8) and tell me you still think he's either good or not chaotic.

It's sort of hard to argue that he's good, but I've seen enough alignment threads in my day to know that someone will make the argument, vehemently.

[Knaight]

Alignment is a terrible tool for a bunch of reasons. With that said, were I to use it to define Rick I'd go with CE as well. The reasons are a bit different (reason 1 in particular I think falls flat; taking Rick at his word for his motivations seems questionable at best), but the core of Rick being someone who goes through the galaxy breaking stuff and killing people as a largely incidental effect of following his own interests and just not caring puts him solidly in CE for me.

[Talamare]

He also carelessly destroyed an entire planet because he didn't care to take the effort to ask Morty if someone had the flu. He tried to fix it, made it worse, and then said **** it and moved to a new world where it doesn't really seem to bother him. He also shows no conscience or remorse at all about murder i.e. watch even the first minute of and tell me you still think he's either good or not chaotic.

It's sort of hard to argue that he's good, but I've seen enough alignment threads in my day to know that someone will make the argument, vehemently.

I'm saying he's Chaotic Good
Killing Evil things doesn't make you Evil, DnD101
Killing 'Good' or 'Neutral' henchmen who are working for Evil, also doesn't make you Evil

[Blas_de_Lezo]

"We have committed numerous atrocities in the name of freedom".

Hands down.

[Talamare]

"We have committed numerous atrocities in the name of freedom".

Hands down.

Another confirmation to Chaotic Good.

[Nidgit]

I'd say he's pretty firmly CN. Pretty much everyone seems to agree he's Chaotic considering how allergic he is to authority. I really doubt an unbiased person can really call him Good consider the amount of neutral peoples he's remorselessly gotten killed or disfigured. He sees pretty much everyone else as a means to an end whom he lives beside only because it would be an inconvenience to eliminate them.

The major exception is his family. While Rick often gives excuses about how he's using them for one purpose or another, he's pretty clearly lying to shield himself from appearing vulnerable. Rick frequently makes sacrifices to keep them happy, ranging from simply giving them some of his time to risking death for their wellbeing. Even though he doesn't like to admit it, Rick values his relationship with his family even more than his own selfish needs. The fact he puts certain others above himself, along with the fact that he doesn't usually intend to harm civilians in general, keeps him from being Evil.

[Unoriginal]

Anyway, I already stated at the title of this thread "according of D&D standards", there's no crucial need in pointing me Rick doesn't belong to D&D universe.:smallwink:


If you already know that Rick doesn't belong to the D&D universe, why are you making a thread that ask Rick's alignment, which ONLY applies to things that belongs to the D&D universe?

You might as well ask: "by Transformers standards, is Rick a Decepticon or an Autobot?"

Or: "by Mass Effect standards, is Rick more a Paragon or a Renegade ?"


Sorry if I sound aggressive, but gods and angels, those alignment threads are always the same old dance.

[LaserFace]

If you already know that Rick doesn't belong to the D&D universe, why are you making a thread that ask Rick's alignment, which ONLY apply to things that belongs to the D&D universe?

You might as well ask: "by Transformers standards, is Rick a Decepticon or an Autobot?"

Or: "by Mass Effect standards, is Rick more a Paragon or a Renegade ?"

To be fair, you need an INT score of 22+ to appreciate Rick & Morty.

[Knaight]

I'm saying he's Chaotic Good
Killing Evil things doesn't make you Evil, DnD101
Killing 'Good' or 'Neutral' henchmen who are working for Evil, also doesn't make you Evil

This is hardly a comprehensive list of what Rick's killed. He sells weapons to contract killers to fund casino visits, released a morphogenic plague on a world because of his own carelessness and arrogance as a side affect of making a mind control drug, and is just generally fine with incidentally killing civilians or putting them in a great deal of danger, including his own family (sending Morty, the Lincoln-Hitler clone, and Summer's friend to go get drugs from a dangerous wilderness for a party comes to mind).

[Unoriginal]

This is hardly a comprehensive list of what Rick's killed. He sells weapons to contract killers to fund casino visits, released a morphogenic plague on a world because of his own carelessness and arrogance as a side affect of making a mind control drug, and is just generally fine with incidentally killing civilians or putting them in a great deal of danger, including his own family (sending Morty, the Lincoln-Hitler clone, and Summer's friend to go get drugs from a dangerous wilderness for a party comes to mind).

You're arguing with someone who just claimed committing atrocities in the name of freedom was chaotic good behavior.

[polymphus]

I think characters like Rick expose the weaknesses of alignment charts.

The whole point is that he's a man who is evil without intending to be: he's a broken person who acts in destructive ways because he hates himself. He does 'evil' things intentionally because he has serious mental health issues and doesn't think he deserves better.

In strict D&D terms, he's Chaotic Evil on both major counts: his intentions are evil, and his acts are evil BUT I'm not sure there's room in alignment charts for people who are violently self-sabotaging because of their alienation and intense self-loathing. He's a Meursault/Raskolnikov figure and alignment charts can't handle that, even though Rick and Morty dumbs it down some.

[No brains]

I think there's good cause to think of Rick in D&D terms because he does very D&D things.

He goes to strange lands to pick up rare components.
He battles demons from other dimensions.
He's found himself locked up with mind-reading doppelgangers.
He takes advantage of morally grey killing.
His best friend is a bird person.
He shapeshifted into something weird because he could.
He got into a pissing match with another party of adventurers.
He has effectively cast Plane Shift, Teleport, Mirror Image, Time Stop, and a bunch of other spells, often in an abusive manner befitting a Theoretical Optimizer.

I think there's a level of kinship between Rick and every full-caster psychopath who has posted on this board. We've worn each other's shoes and it's not awful to think about the walk we've taken in them.

[samcifer]

One of the players in my group plays Rick as a human artificer. He tends to be forceful and a bit reckless, but somewhat less so during the last few sessions, but still tends to dominate social encounters

[Unoriginal]

In strict D&D terms, he's Chaotic Evil on both major counts: his intentions are evil, and his acts are evil BUT I'm not sure there's room in alignment charts for people who are violently self-sabotaging because of their alienation and intense self-loathing.

Sure there is.

This describe several of the charming people you find in charge of places in Ravenloft.

Hell, Lord Soth is like this, and he's the (allegedly) iconic Death Knight.

Point is, alignments doesn't apply to Mister Sanchez for the same reason it doesn't apply to Darth Vader or Optimus Prime or Black Widow.


I think there's good cause to think of Rick in D&D terms because he does very D&D things.

He goes to strange lands to pick up rare components.
He battles demons from other dimensions.
He's found himself locked up with mind-reading doppelgangers.
He takes advantage of morally grey killing.
His best friend is a bird person.
He shapeshifted into something weird because he could.
He got into a pissing match with another party of adventurers.
He has effectively cast Plane Shift, Teleport, Mirror Image, Time Stop, and a bunch of other spells, often in an abusive manner befitting a Theoretical Optimizer.

I think there's a level of kinship between Rick and every full-caster psychopath who has posted on this board. We've worn each other's shoes and it's not awful to think about the walk we've taken in them.

And Legend of Zelda's Link goes into dungeons, make things explode just to check if he can, manipulate people, the environment and time itself to make his far-fetched ideas possible, kills monsters when he needs pocket changes and spend a lot of time on random sidequests.

There might be similarities, but it doesn't make Link a D&D character.

[Kane0]

What is Rick's alignment?

The answer is don't think about it Morty.

[Malifice]

Chaotic Good

He acts as his conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

What? He commits genocide out of spite! Destroying an entire civilisation that only existed to power his car battery. He literally kills millions if not billions of creatures (and brings down the entire galactic government) just to get his daughter's husband out of the house! He rigs up neutrino bombs, and places his companions in deathtraps, killing several of them. He has blatantly committed murder without a second thought.

What on earth are you smoking man?

[Talamare]

What? He commits genocide out of spite! Destroying an entire civilisation that only existed to power his car battery. He literally kills millions if not billions of creatures (and brings down the entire galactic government) just to get his daughter's husband out of the house! He rigs up neutrino bombs, and places his companions in deathtraps, killing several of them. He has blatantly committed murder without a second thought.

What on earth are you smoking man?

Destroying insignificant living beings doesn't make you Evil.
A PC who uses Fireball on an Ant Pile wouldn't be classified as Evil.

He brought down an Oppressive Government that was clearly shown to be Orwell levels of Evil.

Lives are lost during Revolutions, but Revolution lead to a better future.
That is the true spirit of the Chaotic Good.

[Kane0]

I'm with Mal here, Rick barely ever acts out of anything but his own self interest. He's a protagonist, but he ain't Good with a capital G.

[Malifice]

Destroying insignificant living beings doesn't make you Evil.

Insignificant? They're a galaxy containing at least one entire species (sentient, sapient, technologically advanced people). Rick first creates them, then enslaves them, and rules them through fear and deception... and then when they learn the truth and ask to be set free, he wipes the entire species out in a moment of genocidal stubbornness.

To kill one man who discovered his secret and against whom he had a grudge.


A PC who uses Fireball on an Ant Pile wouldn't be classified as Evil.

A PC who created a demi-plane (effectively what Rick did) in which an entire species of sentient people evolves, then proceeds to enslave those people, and rule them through fear, before wiping them out in a genocidal rage over a car battery is ****ing EVIL.

That I even have to explain this to you is deeply deeply worrying.


He brought down an Oppressive Government that was clearly shown to be Orwell levels of Evil.


What? Dont be revisionist. He brough down the Citadel of Ricks and the Galactic government, committing hundreds of murders (personally) in the process, and resulting in the deaths of millions if not billions of people.

For the sole reason of breaking up his Daughter and her husband. He then trolls his grandson about what he did and why (while saying he also wants some Sechuan sauce).


That is the true spirit of the Chaotic Good.

No. Just no.

Youre conflating the fact that (from our perspective as viewers of the show) Rick Sanchez is the protagonist.

To everyone else in the universe (barring his grandson and daughter) he is the principal villian and protagonist who can (and often does) kill people, whole planets, and from time to time entire universes, often on nothing more than an existentialist whim.

For the love of God man, he rigs a neutrino bomb (in a labrynth of death traps he also made) and puts his son and current adventuring companions (the Vindicators) inside this death trap (killing several of them, and very nearly the entire planet the bomb is on) simply to prove a point.

Morty says this isnt the first time he's done it.

Jesus dude. I mean come on.

[No brains]

And Legend of Zelda's Link goes into dungeons, make things explode just to check if he can, manipulate people, the environment and time itself to make his far-fetched ideas possible, kills monsters when he needs pocket changes and spend a lot of time on random sidequests.

There might be similarities, but it doesn't make Link a D&D character.

But Link and Rick could be D&D characters. All it takes is someone leaping for a springboard of inspiration. It might be seen as gauche to make an expy, but if the character grows beyond their inspiration, they can become a good character in their own right. Rick himself started as a terrible parody of Doc Brown.

So it may still be useful to ask what D&D parameters a fictional character aligns with. Maybe somebody wants to know if their Rick Expy would be able to shank a Rakshasha to death, since that's the only way alignment really matters anymore. If someone wants to know if this pattern of behavior would result in the fruitful stabbing of a causality-violating tiger, that's relevant to both roleplay and optimization in D&D.

[Malifice]

I'm with Mal here, Rick barely ever acts out of anything but his own self interest. He's a protagonist, but he ain't Good with a capital G.

That said, status as a protagonist or antagonist has nothing to do with alignment.

Tony Soprano is the protagonist of the Sopranos, and he is very (very) much Evil. Same with Dexter, Walter White (after starting as Good in early seasons), the Punisher, Titus Pullo etc.

All protagonists, and all evil.

One of the antagonists in Breaking Bad is Walts brother Hank who is clearly LG. Walt (the protagonist) winds up very much NE.

[Malifice]

I could possibly buy CN.

Which is truly unusual for a genocidal monster.

[Talamare]

Insignificant? They're a galaxy containing at least one entire species (sentient, sapient, technologically advanced people). Rick first creates them, then enslaves them, and rules them through fear and deception... and then when they learn the truth and ask to be set free, he wipes the entire species out in a moment of genocidal stubbornness.

To kill one man who discovered his secret and against whom he had a grudge.



A PC who created a demi-plane (effectively what Rick did) in which an entire species of sentient people evolves, then proceeds to enslave those people, and rule them through fear, before wiping them out in a genocidal rage over a car battery is ****ing EVIL.

That I even have to explain this to you is deeply deeply worrying.



What? Dont be revisionist. He brough down the Citadel of Ricks and the Galactic government, committing hundreds of murders (personally) in the process, and resulting in the deaths of millions if not billions of people.

For the sole reason of breaking up his Daughter and her husband. He then trolls his grandson about what he did and why (while saying he also wants some Sechuan sauce).



No. Just no.

Youre conflating the fact that (from our perspective as viewers of the show) Rick Sanchez is the protagonist.

To everyone else in the universe (barring his grandson and daughter) he is the principal villian and protagonist who can (and often does) kill people, whole planets, and from time to time entire universes, often on nothing more than an existentialist whim.

For the love of God man, he rigs a neutrino bomb (in a labrynth of death traps he also made) and puts his son and current adventuring companions (the Vindicators) inside this death trap (killing several of them, and very nearly the entire planet the bomb is on) simply to prove a point.

Morty says this isnt the first time he's done it.

Jesus dude. I mean come on.

I don't know why I have to repeat myself.
Killing insignificant lifeforms does not make you Evil.

There is no revisionism, they spend an entire episode when they conquered Earth to prove that the Galactic Government was Orwellian. I'm not sure how you missed that.

I think you took the Szechuan sauce throw away joke too seriously

Stop trying to dismiss the things I'm saying by including lines such as
"That I even have to explain this to you is deeply deeply worrying."
"Jesus dude. I mean come on."
"Youre conflating the fact that (from our perspective as viewers of the show) Rick Sanchez is the protagonist."
If you disagree with me, that's fine. There is no compulsion to respond to everything.

Rick is by definition Chaotic Good
"He acts as his conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

[Kane0]

"Act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust"
"Do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms"
"Follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else"

These also describe Rick.

[Talamare]

"Act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust"
"Do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms"
"Follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else"

These also describe Rick.

He has shown to have occasional qualms

Example where he is shown to be centrally motivated by Greed, Hatred, and/or Bloodlust?
- He didn't destroy the Council of Ricks or Galactic Government out of Hatred, since he would have done it sooner.
- He did it solely to protect his family.
- I shouldn't even need to mention Greed.

He has shown to hold his family above his personal freedom.

[Malifice]

I don't know why I have to repeat myself.
Killing insignificant lifeforms does not make you Evil.

They were not insignificant life forms!

They were the (sentient, sapient, technologically advanced) population of an entire planet!

If they're insignificant, arent also homo-sapiens?

Aside from size, whats the difference?


Rick is by definition Chaotic Good

No he is not. He is a murderous, genocidal monster.

If you think otherwise, you're wrong.


"He acts as his conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

So... you're saying if my PCs conscience directed him to murder, rape and enslave people (without regard for what others expect) you would call me 'Chaotic Good'.

Cool story bro. Youre wrong.

**** me mate. How are you even arguing this with a straight face?

[Dyndrilliac]

Rick is a nihilist, which makes him Chaotic Neutral. The only thing he's dedicated to destroying are McNuggets dipped in Szechuan sauce, via his mouth. The only thing he hates is the stupidity of others. The only thing he truly cherishes is his own personal freedom. Everything else is merely the collateral damage of his shenanigans, which on the cosmic scale are utterly unimportant and meaningless. His actions lead to an entire species being eradicated? Who cares, the multiverse continues on as if nothing happened. There are an infinite number of universes where that same species is alive and kicking, no harm, no foul. It's indifference, not malice. He doesn't care if one universe is irreparably damaged because there are infinitely more waiting in the wings.

[Knaight]

Rick is a nihilist, which makes him Chaotic Neutral. The only thing he's dedicated to destroying are McNuggets dipped in Szechuan sauce, via his mouth. The only thing he hates is the stupidity of others. The only thing he truly cherishes is his own personal freedom. Everything else is merely the collateral damage of his shenanigans, which on the cosmic scale are utterly unimportant and meaningless. His actions lead to an entire species being eradicated? Who cares, the multiverse continues on as if nothing happened. There are an infinite number of universes where that same species is alive and kicking, no harm, no foul. It's indifference, not malice. He doesn't care if one universe is irreparably damaged because there are infinitely more waiting in the wings.

"The universe doesn't care" can be used to justify basically anything. Murder a dozen people? Whatever, that's a dozen out of billions, of one species on one planet. No biggie. The universe doesn't care. It's a thoroughly unimpressive argument.

As for indifference and malice, indifference is a better position. That doesn't mean it's not still terrible, and when the sort of collateral damage being talked about here is being caused by indifference it's still an indication that the person doing is is a terrible person.

It's also not even accurate. Rick is all about petty, stupid enmity. The scientist in the miniverse he made is probably the single most blatant example.

[Malifice]

Rick is a nihilist, which makes him Chaotic Neutral.

Nihlist? Like Tharizdun and Shar?

They aint 'neutral'. Not morally. They're NE.


The only thing he's dedicated to destroying are McNuggets dipped in Szechuan sauce, via his mouth. The only thing he hates is the stupidity of others. The only thing he truly cherishes is his own personal freedom.

Upon which reasoning.... he engages in murder, slavery and genocide.

He is totally happy enslaving an entire species of people to walk on treadmills for eternity to power his car battery.

A car that he's equipped with muderous AI.

After genociding 2 seperate universes, and extinguishing all life therein (presumably to kill a single man, his microverse rival), he then forces the miniverse people to walk on treadmills as slaves forever on pain of gencocide.

He imprisons associates in deathraps wired with neutrino bombs just to teach them a lesson. On more than one occasion.

He is depicted pushing his grandson down stairs just to get a laugh.

During his (many) criminal enterprises, he's shown hinself to be perfectly prepared to murder people to get away with it.

His girlfriend assimilated an entire planets worth of people, enslaving them. Rick then proceeded to have sex with the enslaved people.

I could go on and on and on. The man is CE.

He literally has one redeeming feature and its his love for his daughter. Who he abandoned in his home dimension full of Cronenbergs. And then abandoned her in a second universe when he pissed off the squirells. And the third one he has now possibly cloned. And stared a galactic civil war, killing millions of people (personally murdering dozens himself) simply to wreck her marriage.


It's indifference, not malice.

If I repeatedly rape people out of indifference to their suffering, instead of raping them out of malice, am I 'morally neutral'?

If I repeatedly murder people out of indifference to their suffering, instead of murdering them out of malice, am I 'morally neutral'?

If I repeatedly torture people... you get the idea.

[Dyndrilliac]

I'm not saying he isn't bad or immoral. He is both of those things and worse. But evil, in the D&D sense, requires malevolence. Rick has none. Therefore your argument is invalid.

[Malifice]

I'm not saying he isn't bad or immoral. He is. But evil, in the D&D sense, requires malevolence.

No, it doesnt

For ****s sake.

Are you saying I can act immoraly (rape, murder, torture, genocide, slavery), but as long as I lack malevolence (genuinely think Im a good person, and doing those things for good reasons or for reasons other than malevolence)... I am not evil?

[RedMage125]

What I find amusing about Rick -and I love this thread, I've mused on this in my own time before this- is what happens when you look at Toxic Rick.

Let me preface this by stating that Rick does, indeed, evince all the outward characteristics of a sociopath. A Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil one at that.

But Toxic Rick LOVES Morty, and Cleansed Rick actually-despite seeming more gentle and humane-does not. Cleansed Rick is actually the sociopath, with no empathy, love, or emotion. He's just not a d*ck, so it's hard to tell.

Cleansed Rick and Morty were purged of what THEY considered "toxic". Morty, obviously, considered his conscience as something that was keeping him from being "healthy", right up there with his insecurity. But Rick...Rick thought that his love for his family was a "toxin" in his system. His emotional attachment to his biological kin was something he viewed as a pathogen to be purged.

Rick isn't a sociopath...but he wishes he was. He tries with all his might to kill callously, emotionally scar everyone around him, and espouse a stance that rejects "giving a f***". He does this in the hopes that he will become a true sociopath. We've also seen in other episodes that he's actually HEAVILY weighed down with the weight of not only what he's done, but what he's lost. He has been occasionally suicidal (the end of the episode where he passes out drunk while trying to kill himself). He's also constantly engaging in self-destructive acts (not the least of which is his drinking, which is leading to psoriasis of his liver-just compare the color of his skin to that of Cleansed Rick), hoping to eventually find a challenge that he can't overcome that will end him.

As per the OP's original question, Rick Sanchez would, indeed be Chaotic Evil by a D&D metric. Because alignment in D&D stems from actions and outlook, not the other way around. For my personal summary of him, I'd say he's Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Neutral tendencies, because deep-down, he's not a callous murder-hobo. But he hates that about himself, and has been trying to make himself into one.

[RedMage125]

I'm not saying he isn't bad or immoral. He is both of those things and worse. But evil, in the D&D sense, requires malevolence. Rick has none. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Malifice and I disagree a lot about alignment issues, but I need to stand with him on this one. You, sir, are 100% factually incorrect.

Don't take offense, I'm not insulting you, but your facts are in error.

One of the most classic definitions of evil is "selfish, without regard for others." Neutral Evil is often this. There has never been a requirement for "malevolence". No book says that. If you think it does, I challenge you to provide a page number as proof. Until then:

3.5e PHB: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Rick does all of these things.

4e PHB: "Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want." Oh, looky, the rules even seem to say malevolence is not a prerequisite to Evil.

5e PHB: "Neutral Evil is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." Rick to a T, and nothing about malevolence.

The last 3 editions of D&D say you are wrong, sir. Your move.

[DeadMech]

To be fair, you need an INT score of 22+ to appreciate Rick & Morty.

*Sigh* ... I was gonna make that joke.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand D&D 5e alignment threads. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical philosophy most of the jokes will go over a typical readers head. There's also Xanathar's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike D&D 5e Alignment truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Xanathars's existential catchphrase "So why can't people who use magic do it all the time? I can disintegrate things whenever I want. Like now. And now. and now. And now... here where'd everyone go?" which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenevs Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Mike Mearls' genius wit unfolds itself on their tabletops. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂

And yes, by the way, i DO have a D&D 5e alignment tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎

[Unoriginal]

Rick is by definition Chaotic Good
"He acts as his conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

You can't commit torture, genocide and other atrocities and be acting "as your conscience directs".

Conscience would prevent you from doing those things if you listened to it, by the very definition of the concept.

Also, just to say, but in D&D it's totally possible to kill evil people and do evil in the process.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

*Sigh* ... I was gonna make that joke.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand D&D 5e alignment threads. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical philosophy most of the jokes will go over a typical readers head. There's also Xanathar's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike D&D 5e Alignment truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Xanathars's existential catchphrase "So why can't people who use magic do it all the time? I can disintegrate things whenever I want. Like now. And now. and now. And now... here where'd everyone go?" which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenevs Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Mike Mearls' genius wit unfolds itself on their tabletops. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂

And yes, by the way, i DO have a D&D 5e alignment tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎

That was a nice joke when it first appeared, but now it has quickly become the new "I watch R&M so I'm smart"...

Back to line, I find the analysis of Toxic Rick as very appealing. Toxic Rick is the epitome of evil, and he kinda "loves" Morty... That bring us back to the fact that evil characters (remember, using a D&D metric) are indeed capable of loving. Many atrocities have been comitted in the name of love, and that doesn't make characters less evil!

[S_A_M I AM]

I don't know why I have to repeat myself.
Killing insignificant lifeforms does not make you Evil.


"...And that's what your holy men discuss, is it?" [asked Granny Weatherwax.]
"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin. for example." [answered Mightily Oats.]
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."

Source. (http://brer-powerofbabel.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/granny-weatherwax-on-sin-favorite.html)

People are not insignificant.

I get that you may be trying to talk within the ethical boundaries that are established within the context of the show, frankly, you're not being very coherent without that assumption and you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And to be fair, Rick does find that kind of sentiment aspirational, even if that's not what the show communicates it's various morals. It is explicit within the text of the show: Rick is a ****ing broken person, because, amongst other things, he's capital-E Evil.

I am genuinely shocked and appalled at the **** you're saying, Mate.
Is there some context we're missing?

[S_A_M I AM]

Those political alignments are the worst thing. America NE, the USSR LN? Liberalism is CN, but actual anarchy is CG? ****ing retarded.

Rick is CN trending CE. But the alignment system is terrible, as your sig demonstrates.

To elaborate on this point without having to actually get into a political argument? I'd put anarchism (or at least social and socialist anarchism) somewhere in the neutral spectrum thanks to how it's underlying expectations of behaviour remove hierarchical structures and then emphasises the social contract and then, what is definitionally vigilantism as a way to reinforce non-hierarchical order.



I hope that comes of as being a statement without moral judgement.

[Naanomi]

Which afterlife would he fit best in... I’d say the howling selfish madness of Pandemonium or the tortured self-loathing of Carceri... putting him at CE (though not Abyss-archetypical CE) with tinges/possibility of CN and NE

[Sigreid]

IMO he would be CE. His driving character trait is that he believes the universe is so vast that nothing in it matters. Because of this he is miserable, hating nearly everything almost as much as he hates himself. Birdman even pointed out that it's because he doesn't care that he has great power to save or destroy. Birdperson also let Morty know that Rick's catchphrase means "I am in great pain".

Rick is at his core a vicious wounded animal with a godlike intellect.

[Rhedyn]

I would say CN.

For example, the death game with the vindicators. That group also destroyed world's. They were just as bad as Rick in the grandscale. Yet before destroying them, Rick killed their galactic threat enemy. He destroys both sides on a drunken whim.

Another example, he destroys the galactic government and the council of Ricks. Both entities are neither good or evil completely, but both threatened his freedom. The government improved quality of life but was also pretty dystopian in their control of people to the point a human resistance existed. The Ricks are pretty evil on the whole but kept all the Ricks within certain rules and contained the damage they could be doing.

Rick's actions veer the universe towards chaos, but in terms of good and evil his overall impact can be argued as neutral. By no means is Rick a good man. His cause is not just. He saves and destroys worlds on a whim and he disregards all authority.

Basically a murderhobo by DnD standards and they always claim to be CN.

[Dankus Memakus]

What I find amusing about Rick -and I love this thread, I've mused on this in my own time before this- is what happens when you look at Toxic Rick.

Let me preface this by stating that Rick does, indeed, evince all the outward characteristics of a sociopath. A Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil one at that.

But Toxic Rick LOVES Morty, and Cleansed Rick actually-despite seeming more gentle and humane-does not. Cleansed Rick is actually the sociopath, with no empathy, love, or emotion. He's just not a d*ck, so it's hard to tell.

Cleansed Rick and Morty were purged of what THEY considered "toxic". Morty, obviously, considered his conscience as something that was keeping him from being "healthy", right up there with his insecurity. But Rick...Rick thought that his love for his family was a "toxin" in his system. His emotional attachment to his biological kin was something he viewed as a pathogen to be purged.

Rick isn't a sociopath...but he wishes he was. He tries with all his might to kill callously, emotionally scar everyone around him, and espouse a stance that rejects "giving a f***". He does this in the hopes that he will become a true sociopath. We've also seen in other episodes that he's actually HEAVILY weighed down with the weight of not only what he's done, but what he's lost. He has been occasionally suicidal (the end of the episode where he passes out drunk while trying to kill himself). He's also constantly engaging in self-destructive acts (not the least of which is his drinking, which is leading to psoriasis of his liver-just compare the color of his skin to that of Cleansed Rick), hoping to eventually find a challenge that he can't overcome that will end him.

As per the OP's original question, Rick Sanchez would, indeed be Chaotic Evil by a D&D metric. Because alignment in D&D stems from actions and outlook, not the other way around. For my personal summary of him, I'd say he's Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Neutral tendencies, because deep-down, he's not a callous murder-hobo. But he hates that about himself, and has been trying to make himself into one.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. For those who keep referencing Ricks past and how he was a revolutionary, he may have been good once but now he isn't. Alignment is subject to change so don't get so upset when others say he's evil which he is. He may one day not be so evil. We know there's a glimmer of hope somewhere down in Ricks soul to do the right thing, it's just suppressed by his self hatred and uncaring attitude. For now though I agree with the fact he's CE with a CN bent

[Sigreid]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. For those who keep referencing Ricks past and how he was a revolutionary, he may have been good once but now he isn't. Alignment is subject to change so don't get so upset when others say he's evil which he is. He may one day not be so evil. We know there's a glimmer of hope somewhere down in Ricks soul to do the right thing, it's just suppressed by his self hatred and uncaring attitude. For now though I agree with the fact he's CE with a CN bent

Personal theory is that Morty is not a moron and Rick recognizes that Morty could be just like him, something he's determined to stop. He puts Morty down in the hopes that he does not realize his full potential, which Rick sees as a path to loneliness and misery.

[Submortimer]

Just so this is here to see...

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.


Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.


Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.


Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.


Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.


Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.


Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are Lawful evil.


Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutraI evil.


Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

Now, by that, I'd say Rick C-137 fits mostly into Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil: Yes, he does do terrible things and kill people indiscriminately, but he's never violent for the sole purpose of being violent.

Krombopulus Michael? Sure. He just loves killing, and does so for money. But not Rick.

It's somewhere in the nebulous region between Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil. Most episodes, I'd probably classify him as the former, but otherwise he's certainly the latter.

[willdaBEAST]

I haven't been on these forums long enough to see how cyclical these arguments are, but this thread reminds me of all the people justifying Walter White's behavior throughout Breaking Bad. As illustrated by this thread, people have an extremely hard time recognizing an evil protagonist. When we see almost everything through a main character's perspective, we tend to sympathize with their plight and are trained by most media to see them as a hero. Any well written fictional character will have moments where they deviate from whatever alignment you wish to categorize them as (if you choose to undergo that labeling), but I think that when you take all their actions into account, both Walter White and Rick Sanchez would be defined as evil by DnD standards. Rick may have a redemption arc in future seasons, but currently I think there's no doubt that the show's writers/creators fully intend for him to be perceived as evil and season three seemed to be focused on reinforcing how toxic he can be.

[Rhedyn]

I haven't been on these forums long enough to see how cyclical these arguments are, but this thread reminds me of all the people justifying Walter White's behavior throughout Breaking Bad. As illustrated by this thread, people have an extremely hard time recognizing an evil protagonist. When we see almost everything through a main character's perspective, we tend to sympathize with their plight and are trained by most media to see them as a hero. Any well written fictional character will have moments where they deviate from whatever alignment you wish to categorize them as (if you choose to undergo that labeling), but I think that when you take all their actions into account, both Walter White and Rick Sanchez would be defined as evil by DnD standards. Rick may have a redemption arc in future seasons, but currently I think there's no doubt that the show's writers/creators fully intend for him to be perceived as evil and season three seemed to be focused on reinforcing how toxic he can be.

Walter White is evil. He even admits he did it all because he liked it. CE/NE at it's finest.

Rick is not a psychopath, but he is so chaotic that it seems evil to us law abiding citizens. He doesn't believe in socal order or the social contact. Through that lens, his actions are less malicious. He's more random than anything, just powerful enough that such things can save or end worlds. CN

[willdaBEAST]

Walter White is evil. He even admits he did it all because he liked it. CE/NE at it's finest.

Rick is not a psychopath, but he is so chaotic that it seems evil to us law abiding citizens. He doesn't believe in socal order or the social contact. Through that lens, his actions are less malicious. He's more random than anything, just powerful enough that such things can save or end worlds. CN

I don't have a problem with Rick being CN or somewhere between CN, NE and CE, but I think he's done a lot more intentionally malicious acts than you're crediting him. He's willing to do anything, at any cost, to prove that he's right. I also think that ultimately he does believe in a form of social order, but social order in the sense that he's at the apex and should be able to do whatever he wants with no oversight from anyone else. Ultimately I think he needs a rigid sense of social order to rebel against and feel superior to, which approaches the theme popularized by the Dark Knight: "some men just want to watch the world burn". I agree that Rick isn't a psychopath, but he intentionally behaves like one and uses that as a mask to cover up how sensitive he is. I guess that would boil down to a more personal question, how much action vs intent matters to each of us.

[Zene]

Neutral (leaning toward chaotic) Evil (leaning toward neutral).

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Now, by that, I'd say Rick C-137 fits mostly into Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil: Yes, he does do terrible things and kill people indiscriminately, but he's never violent for the sole purpose of being violent.



what about THIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j9x_vPefn8

[MadBear]

People arguing for Rick being in any way shape or form to be good, are either completely unaware of what good means, or are trolling so hard, that it's applause worthy.

What's funny is I don't tend to agree often with Mal on alignment threads, he's hit the nail on the head with this one.

And as always I'll point out that intentions are separate from the deed itself. Both should be taken into account and lead to weird scenarios when you discount either completely. Rick might not always have evil intent, but he sure as hell commits many evil deeds.


If only deeds mattered: A person who steals a precious gem to sell and make themselves rich, who comes to find out it was cursed and they saved the person they stole from did commit a "good" deed, even if it was with evil intent. It'd be weird to label this person good.

If only intent mattered: A person who blew up a comet that looked like it was going to collide with earth, only to find out is was a spaceship containing millions of civilians, committed an evil deed, even if their intention was good. It'd be weird to label them good as well.

Trying to cess out a person actual alignment takes into account both their intent and deeds. Usually they match, although not always (as in the case of the examples above). There's a reason that people have spent their lives devoted to creating a way to make a perfectly moral system, and there still isn't consensus.

[Naanomi]

As illustrated by this thread, people have an extremely hard time recognizing an evil protagonist. When we see almost everything through a main character's perspective, we tend to sympathize with their plight and are trained by most media to see them as a hero
This is true in real life as well; that people have a hard time seeing someone as ‘evil’ and still sympathizing with them... I work in mental health specializing in problem behavior, and have worked with some people who have done (would do if able) horrific things. Yet almost all have deep neurological issues and/or intensive trauma history of their own.

Keeping context of both in mind is important for effective treatment... but people incline to think of them as unsympathetic monsters, or romanticize them as unfortunetly victims; when in ways neither (and both) are true

Likewise with fictional characters. People want others to fit in neat boxes of ‘evil’ or ‘relatable’, the conflux of both makes people uncomfortable and sends people seeing only one or the other

[GlenSmash!]

Rick may occasionally work with authorities, but he will never recognize their authority of him.

Bad people can love their families too. Rick does, but still selfishly uses them for his own purposes regularly.

I think Rick is Chaotic and Evil and relate-able and, most importantly for a protagonist, a compelling character.

[Talamare]

They were not insignificant life forms!

They were the (sentient, sapient, technologically advanced) population of an entire planet!
If they're insignificant, arent also homo-sapiens?
Aside from size, whats the difference?


Homosapiens probably would be considered insignificant to a different being.
Homosapiens are considered to be only 1-2% more complex than the smartest primate.
If there was an alien race that was even only 1-2% more complex than us, and another that was 1-2% more complex than them
The probably would see the human race as being insignificant.



So... you're saying if my PCs conscience directed him to murder, rape and enslave people (without regard for what others expect) you would call me 'Chaotic Good'.

"conscience"
a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct or intentions.

They literally spend dozens of episodes with the premise of

Rick does something that appears Evil
Morty points it out or calls Rick Evil
The show proceeds to prove that the act wasn't Evil


what about THIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j9x_vPefn8
Perfect example of Rick helping to free another Population from an Oppressive Regime
A True Chaotic Good Force in the Universe.

[Malifice]

Homosapiens probably would be considered insignificant to a different being.
Homosapiens are considered to be only 1-2% more complex than the smartest primate.
If there was an alien race that was even only 1-2% more complex than us, and another that was 1-2% more complex than them
The probably would see the human race as being insignificant.



"conscience"
a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct or intentions.

They literally spend dozens of episodes with the premise of

Rick does something that appears Evil
Morty points it out or calls Rick Evil
The show proceeds to prove that the act wasn't Evil


Perfect example of Rick helping to free another Population from an Oppressive Regime
A True Chaotic Good Force in the Universe.

Mate the show doesn't prove it wasn't evil. You just think it does.

And that says something truly disturbing about you.

I'm truly sickened by what you say here.

I'm out.

[Naanomi]

DnD alignment isn’t consequentialist, at least not in full... Evil action can further the cause of Good, Good actions and advance Evil. That an evil empire is overthrown doesn’t make an action to get there automatically Good on the cosmic scale; and in fact thinking so is what causes about half of all fallen Celestials to fall in the first place.

Thinking that humans are too dumb to count morally is basically DnD demon reasoning, and again when celestials start thinking that way they tend to fall. The only creatures that sometimes get a pass on that regard is truley Alien Aberrations, who occasionally get a Neutral Alignment of some type because they literally can’t comprehend other races as being sentient (or in some cases, existing at all)

[Unoriginal]

Thinking that humans are too dumb to count morally is basically DnD demon reasoning

And even then, a lot of demons think humans do count. Even if it's mostly a "what's the point of hurting something that doesn't count?" fashion.



The only creatures that sometimes get a pass on that regard is truley Alien Aberrations, who occasionally get a Neutral Alignment of some type because they literally can’t comprehend other races as being sentient (or in some cases, existing at all)


Well, Lizardfolk do kill and eat people while being neutral, but it's made very clear that a) they only do that to creatures that intrude on their hunting grounds, which should be known, and don't attack settlements or travelers outside their territory like orcs or goblinoids, and b) that the Lizardfolk who are under a leader who send them to kill and plunder (like an evil dragon or a Lizardfolk blessed by a dark god) are evil.

[Talamare]

Mate the show doesn't prove it wasn't evil. You just think it does.

And that says something truly disturbing about you.

I'm truly sickened by what you say here.

I'm out.

Are you kidding me?

You're the one that said


If I repeatedly rape people out of indifference to their suffering, instead of raping them out of malice, am I 'morally neutral'?

If I repeatedly murder people out of indifference to their suffering, instead of murdering them out of malice, am I 'morally neutral'?

If I repeatedly torture people... you get the idea.

Saying that was sickening and disturbing.

[Unoriginal]

Are you kidding me?

You're the one that said



Saying that was sickening and disturbing.


Asking people if they consider someone who commits rapes and murders while being indifferent to be "morally neutral" is supposed to be sickening and disturbing?

Really?

[Malifice]

Are you kidding me?

You're the one that said



Saying that was sickening and disturbing.

Comprehension is not your strong point I see.

Seeing as it appears as if you missed it, I was clearly inferring that rape, murder and torture are evil. Regardless of your reasons or justification why.

Just like genocide or child abuse.

You know; things Rick Sanchez engages in during nearly every episode.

Rick Sanchez is a protagonist, but he is an evil protagonist. It is incredibly disturbing that you can't see that. It is even more disturbing that you prepared to excuse him engaging in multiple mass murders, genocide, child-abuse, mind control, physical emotional and mental abuse, destroying entire universes, directly and intentionally causing the death of millions if not billions (indeed probably trillions) of people, sex with enslaved people (rape), enslaving an entire planet to run on treadmills on fear of genocide (in order to power a car battery), and the list goes on and on.

I mean I have seen some ****ed up **** justified as 'good' on these forums. But you my friend, take the cake.

[Talamare]

Asking people if they consider someone who commits rapes and murders while being indifferent to be "morally neutral" is supposed to be sickening and disturbing?

Really?

No, bringing up those statements in the way he did it.
It was in incredibly poor form. Especially for such subjects.


Comprehension is not your strong point I see.

Seeing as it appears as if you missed it, I was clearly inferring that rape, murder and torture are evil. Regardless of your reasons or justification why.

Just like genocide or child abuse.

HOW you said it was in poor taste.

[Unoriginal]

No, bringing up those statements in the way he did it.
It was in incredibly poor form. Especially for such subjects.



HOW you said it was in poor taste.

Really?

I wonder how doing this is "poor form" or "poor taste", but declaring that someone who commits mass murders, genocides and rapes is good isn't.

Perhaps you could explain it?

[Malifice]

No, bringing up those statements in the way he did it.
It was in incredibly poor form. Especially for such subjects.



HOW you said it was in poor taste.

Go back and read it again, and see why you're wrong.

I was responding to a post where someone was saying that not caring about an evil act (such as genocide murder or rape) makes the act morally neutral.

I was clearly inferring that I reject that argument and such acts are always evil.

Now you are the one saying that acts such as genocide of trillions of people, repeated and frequent murder, child abuse, enslavement of a planet, sex with several mind controlled women (rape), terrorism, etc can be committed by man who is in your clearly stated opinion, a 'morally good' man.

Get it yet? I say those acts are evil. I don't care why a person engages in those acts. Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler can talk to me about why they did what they did all they damn well want. They are evil, end of story. I don't care what their justification is or was.

That position (those acts are evil and so is Rick Sanchez) is rather uncontroversial in this thread.

For some reason you seem to think they are morally good, and that's a morally good person can run around engaging in such acts frequently.

A position I find deeply deeply disturbing.

[Talamare]

declaring that someone who commits rapes is good isn't.

Perhaps you could explain it?
I have NEVER and will NEVER declare that

I have been arguing with very concise and emotionally neutral form, but this line does piss me off more and more.


Mate the show doesn't prove it wasn't evil. You just think it does.
Go rewatch the show then
Half the episodes are basically pointless and intended for fun; thus skipable
So it shouldn't even take very long

[Unoriginal]

I have NEVER and will NEVER declare that


Seriously, Talamare?



Rick is by definition Chaotic Good



A True Chaotic Good Force in the Universe.

Also, if you're going to edit my sentence, please make it obvious you did so.

Though dunno why you removed the parts about murder and genocide.



Half the episodes are basically pointless and intended for fun; thus skipable

... the point of the show is to have fun. Why would anyone skip the fun?

[Talamare]

I was clearly inferring that I reject that argument and such acts are always evil.

Now you are the one saying that acts such as genocide of trillions of people, repeated and frequent murder, child abuse, enslavement of a planet, sex with several mind controlled women (rape), terrorism, etc can be committed by man who is in your clearly stated opinion, a 'morally good' man.

Get it yet? I say those acts are evil. I don't care why a person engages in those acts. Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler can talk to me about why they did what they did all they damn well want. They are evil, end of story. I don't care what their justification is or was.

That position (those acts are evil and so is Rick Sanchez) is rather uncontroversial in this thread.

For some reason you seem to think they are morally good, and that's a morally good person can run around engaging in such acts frequently.

A position I find deeply deeply disturbing.

So you take the Deed are Evil, regardless of the context.

So if you genocide trillions of insignificant beings, then you're Evil
Killed an Ant Pile? - Evil
Killed bacteria? - Evil

I know, obviously not... because you draw the line arbitrarily somewhere.
What about Killed millions Chickens and Cows? Evil or Good?
What about Killed millions Cats and Dogs? Evil or Good?

Well, you did say people...
An Alien race has told you that they are going to destroy your planet killing everyone in it if you don't destroy them first
(Every single member of this Alien Race has willingly signed a document agreeing to this stance)
(I'll take it another step, "Alien" Race are 100% human for whatever reason)
Genociding them is the only way to save the trillions of people in your world

Evil or Good?

The stance of Deeds = Evil or Good is an incredibly shallow one that philosophy students grow out of in their first year.
Intentions and Context matter significantly more.



Seriously, Talamare?

Also, if you're going to edit my sentence, please make it obvious you did so.

Though dunno why you removed the parts about murder and genocide.


smh...
facepalm...
I edited your posted to make it clear what I never declared...
ffs man


... the point of the show is to have fun. Why would anyone skip the fun?
Then rewatch it all, I just meant are skippable for the context of an alignment discussion

[Kantaki]

snip

Yeah, can't say I'm surprised.
Considering that on this forum* people have argued that casting familicide- a friggin mass murder spell on a genocidal scale -on black dragons wasn't evil because of the targets or that guys like Belkar Bitterleaf and Thog are good or at least non-evil because... I don't know.
Cause they're funny?:smallconfused:

So this kind of argumentation? I pretty much expect it whenever the (theoretical) Alignment of morally... „ambiguous” characters comes up.

*The Playground as a whole that is.

[Unoriginal]

smh...
facepalm...
I edited your posted to make it clear what I never declared...
ffs man


My point is that when you edit a sentence, you should make it clear you did so.

Anyway.

You DID declare that, outspokenly so.

Rick had sex with people mind-controlled by Unity, right? Aside from it being, you know, slavery, having sex with someone without their consent is rape, and those people certainly didn't agree to it

[Temperjoke]

Did you ever open a thread despite knowing exactly what was going to happen in it, and then find out that it managed to actually sink lower than your already low expectations?

[Unoriginal]

Did you ever open a thread despite knowing exactly what was going to happen in it, and then find out that it managed to actually sink lower than your already low expectations?

Sure. This very thread, for exemple.

[Talamare]

My point is that when you edit a sentence, you should make it clear you did so.

Anyway.

You DID declare that, outspokenly so.

Rick had sex with people mind-controlled by Unity, right? Aside from it being, you know, slavery, having sex with someone without their consent is rape, and those people certainly didn't agree to it
This subject is insanely complex, and pushing the bounds of human thinking and morality.
Does this body belong to us?
Are we our minds? our thinking? our brains
If you and I switched bodies, does that new body became us, or are we still our old bodies?
This subject could easily spawn 10 pages of serious discussion, and probably has spawned 100 pages by people far more intelligent than you or I in forums specifically dedicated to discussions about such subjects.

A few primers if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4

[Scripten]

This subject is insanely complex, and pushing the bounds of human thinking and morality.
-snip-

No, it really isn't that complex. All of this is nothing but sophomoric posturing to try to get around the concepts of bodily autonomy, consent, and basic human decency as understood by modern society. There is absolutely no rational argument that Rick Sanchez is a "Good" character.

The fact that your entire argument rests on dehumanizing sentient beings (fictional or not) is what is disturbing. That you can't see that is equally worrying.

[Naanomi]

The stance of Deeds = Evil or Good is an incredibly shallow one that philosophy students grow out of in their first year.
Intentions and Context matter significantly more.
In real life, perhaps. In DnD Cosmology they are objective, and in some ways measurable cosmic forces with challenging to navigate (from a Prime perspective) but tangible definitions... definitions that allow killing of nonsentient animals (who have animuses but not souls) for food and not industry, but hold that as measurably distinct killing beings with souls for fun

Arbitrary from some outside philosophical perspectives? Sure... but not from an in-universe perspective

[Talamare]

In real life, perhaps. In DnD Cosmology they are objective, and in some ways measurable cosmic forces with challenging to navigate (from a Prime perspective) but tangible definitions... definitions that allow killing of nonsentient animals (who have animuses but not souls) for food and not industry, but hold that as measurably distinct killing beings with souls for fun

Arbitrary from some outside philosophical perspectives? Sure... but not from an in-universe perspective

Arguably the Moral Implication from a DnD perspective is incredibly shallow by comparison to that of a real life perspective.

Which is why we don't put any thought into killing "Henchman #467".
Henchman #467 is working for the Prime Evil, so it doesn't matter if he dies.
His life is insignificant from a DnD perspective.

One of the core concepts of DnD is that of a Game
A Game implies that the Player of the Game is to have Fun
Thus killing Henchman #467 will have a measure of Entertainment

Henchman #467 could just treat his Henchmanning like a day job, he has never hurt a soul (he is Vegan), and really just does manual labor around the Lair. He's never even seen any of his other Henchmen hurt anyone either.

Then a group of PCs burst in the door, as adventurers often do, and proceed to kill the "Evil Henchmens".

[Unoriginal]

This subject is insanely complex, and pushing the bounds of human thinking and morality.

"Having sexual intercourse with the bodies of people who cant' give consent = rape" is neither insanely complex nor does it push the bounds of human thinking and morality.

Trying to pretend the contrary is empty rhetoric.

But then again you're apparently trying to defend an entity who takes over people's bodies and use them for its enjoyment.


Arguably the Moral Implication from a DnD perspective is incredibly shallow by comparison to that of a real life perspective.

Which is why we don't put any thought into killing "Henchman #467".
Henchman #467 is working for the Prime Evil, so it doesn't matter if he dies.
His life is insignificant from a DnD perspective.

One of the core concepts of DnD is that of a Game
A Game implies that the Player of the Game is to have Fun
Thus killing Henchman #467 will have a measure of Entertainment

What if a PC decides to torture and rape Henchman #467?

Hell, what if the PC cast some mind control spells to make Henchman #467 be more compliant durig this torture and rape?

I've seen players which would be entertained by doing that.



No, PCs and players don't care about bad guy henchmen because those people have chosen to be nasty pieces of **** and follow the villain. If they're slaves instead of willing henchmen, the good PCs will care about it, and try to free them rather than kill them, when possible.



Henchman #467 could just treat his Henchmanning like a day job, he has never hurt a soul (he is Vegan), and really just does manual labor around the Lair. He's never even seen any of his other Henchmen hurt anyone either.

Then a group of PCs burst in the door, as adventurers often do, and proceed to kill the "Evil Henchmens".

Ah yes. The old "actually the people who serve the bad guys and will kill the PCs if given the chance are actually the good guys who are persecuted for doing their jobs" absurd argument.

[Naanomi]

Arguably the Moral Implication from a DnD perspective is incredibly shallow by comparison to that of a real life perspective.
It has more depth, Cosmologically, than people give it credit for... but yeah, by the nature of being an objective morality system it is less complex than the myriad of subjective morality systems we can explore in real life. That doesn’t invalidate it though, or make it meaningless for evaluation from an in-game perspective in situations like this

[Suicune]

Arguably the Moral Implication from a DnD perspective is incredibly shallow by comparison to that of a real life perspective.

Which is why we don't put any thought into killing "Henchman #467".
Henchman #467 is working for the Prime Evil, so it doesn't matter if he dies.
His life is insignificant from a DnD perspective.

One of the core concepts of DnD is that of a Game
A Game implies that the Player of the Game is to have Fun
Thus killing Henchman #467 will have a measure of Entertainment

Henchman #467 could just treat his Henchmanning like a day job, he has never hurt a soul (he is Vegan), and really just does manual labor around the Lair. He's never even seen any of his other Henchmen hurt anyone either.

Then a group of PCs burst in the door, as adventurers often do, and proceed to kill the "Evil Henchmens".

I’m pretty sure most Good-aligned characters try to restrict their killing as much as possible. Most LG characters try to actively avoid it, if possible, and most CG characters take great discretion in who they do it to - the common one would be a dictator or slaver, of course, but there’s more examples than that. A CG character, unlawful as they may be, is not going to kill randoms or execute genocide on anyone out of spite. Their intentions are good, and though they may screw it up a few times, most of their actions will also result in good.

Also - Evil Henchman #467, who has to work for a living, will probably surrender if he feels as though his previous ‘job market’ is going to go down the drain. I don’t think any good character is going to attack a helpless bystander - maybe restrain him or something, just in case, but killing? Probably not.

[Talamare]

No, it really isn't that complex. All of this is nothing but sophomoric posturing to try to get around the concepts of bodily autonomy, consent, and basic human decency as understood by modern society. There is absolutely no rational argument that Rick Sanchez is a "Good" character.

The fact that your entire argument rests on dehumanizing sentient beings (fictional or not) is what is disturbing. That you can't see that is equally worrying.

"Having sexual intercourse with the bodies of people who cant' give consent = rape" is neither insanely complex nor does it push the bounds of human thinking and morality.

Trying to pretend the contrary is empty rhetoric.

But then again you're apparently trying to defend an entity who takes over people's bodies and use them for its enjoyment.

You're both borderline denying the existence of this scientific field of understanding. That is what is horrifying to me.
Essentially equivalent to the Religious forces from olden days that denied the existence of other sciences that are common place today.

If you're mentally ill equipped to even approach such subjects and have to rely on minor, superficial, and honestly childish attacks on the person on the other side.

I presented you very easy to understand videos on the subject matter, and instead of taking any information into consideration you burned the books and attacked the informant.

I bet you believe my stance is that of "'Forced Sexual Acts' as Good" when I have repeatedly said that it isn't.
but I don't doubt you feel that you have some moral high ground by attempting to frame me as holding that stance.

[sightlessrealit]

Rick's actions in an infinite number of universe's will be considered lawful good by thier standards. The will be said of the opposite.

Does this answer the question?

[Talamare]

I’m pretty sure most Good-aligned characters try to restrict their killing as much as possible. Most LG characters try to actively avoid it, if possible, and most CG characters take great discretion in who they do it to - the common one would be a dictator or slaver, of course, but there’s more examples than that. A CG character, unlawful as they may be, is not going to kill randoms or execute genocide on anyone out of spite. Their intentions are good, and though they may screw it up a few times, most of their actions will also result in good.

Also - Evil Henchman #467, who has to work for a living, will probably surrender if he feels as though his previous ‘job market’ is going to go down the drain. I don’t think any good character is going to attack a helpless bystander - maybe restrain him or something, just in case, but killing? Probably not.

We live in the age of video games, but I realize that isn't exactly a justification.

However, when you present to your players that the information that the Tower over there is an Evil Lair of the Evil Guy. It's not an uncommon reaction to see the players kill most of them and attempt to get information from maybe 1 of them.

Just like it's is an extremely rare reaction for a DM to present that information of #467 to the players, as anything more or less than a joke.

The game is to have fun, and the game is arguably fairly combat driven. So screw it, let's do the combat, to do the rolls, to get some crits, and give each other a few high fives.
Then afterwards, the Good PC can give like 5 gold to the Poor or some other cosmically good act.

[Naanomi]

Rick's actions in an infinite number of universe's will be considered lawful good by thier standards. The will be said of the opposite
But when discussing ‘alignment’ in any meaningful sense, we don’t care about most infinite Universes... only the Greater Cosmology of the Great Wheel and its objective system of Alignment. Different Cosmologies have different rules, sure... no doubt about it. But it is next to irrelevant to the discussion of Alignment as a DnD construct

[Unoriginal]

I bet you believe my stance is that of "'Forced Sexual Acts' as Good" when I have repeatedly said that it isn't.

Oh?

Then why don't you tell us what your stance is?

Please, enlighten us, we blind dogmatic bigots. Please, tell us how, for you, having sex with the body of someone under the control of an outside entity does not qualify as rape.




but I don't doubt you feel that you have some moral high ground by attempting to frame me as holding that stance.

You've already declared the genocide, mass murder and slavery that Rick Sanchez inflicts on "people that don't matter" as good.

We don't need to attempt nor frame anything

[Suicune]

We live in the age of video games, but I realize that isn't exactly a justification.

However, when you present to your players that the information that the Tower over there is an Evil Lair of the Evil Guy. It's not an uncommon reaction to see the players kill most of them and attempt to get information from maybe 1 of them.

Just like it's is an extremely rare reaction for a DM to present that information of #467 to the players, as anything more or less than a joke.

The game is to have fun, and the game is arguably fairly combat driven. So screw, let's do the combat, to do the rolls, to get some crits, and give each other a few high fives.
Then afterwards, the Good PC can give like 5 gold to the Poor or some other cosmically good act.

If the DM doesn’t present the fact that Henchman #467 isn’t just a groundskeeper (e. g. “You open to door to the next room and see a man sweeping the floor, whistling to himself”), you can’t really blame the players for that, especially not if he doesn’t cry out in fear and tries to fight back with a weapon. Entrapping your players to make them do bad deeds is bad DM form unless they’re fighting a devil or something.

Either way, you’re sidetracking us and ignored the crux of my argument: that is, Good characters, more often than not, have good intentions with good results, and it’s pretty clear Rick does not fit that category.

[Scripten]

You're both borderline denying the existence of this scientific field of understanding. That is what is horrifying to me.
Essentially equivalent to the Religious forces from olden days that denied the existence of other sciences that are common place today.


No we're not. Pretending that the neurosciences invalidate basic morality is far more insulting to the field that stating that they are unrelated. And you can knock off the baseless comparisons to "Religious forces", especially since that is bordering on breaking the rules of the board.

And no one is insulting you personally, save for refuting your argument. We've done nothing but taken what you've said in context and made value judgements on it. That those judgements tend to sway toward "the values espoused by these arguments are disturbing" is on you, bud.



I presented you very easy to understand videos on the subject matter, and instead of taking any information into consideration you burned the books and attacked the informant.

I bet you believe my stance is that of "'Forced Sexual Acts' as Good" when I have repeatedly said that it isn't.
but I don't doubt you feel that you have some moral high ground by attempting to frame me as holding that stance.


Arguing against bodily autonomy with youtube videos about neuroscience is laughable. And yes, arguing for basic human(sentient) rights gives one a moral high ground. Sorry to break it to you. If you are going to argue that a fictional character like Rick Sanchez is "Good", then you've got a warped sense of what "Good" is. You can try to lawyer your way out of it, but there's really no other way about it.

[Talamare]

If the DM doesn’t present the fact that Henchman #467 isn’t just a groundskeeper (e. g. “You open to door to the next room and see a man sweeping the floor, whistling to himself”), you can’t really blame the players for that, especially not if he doesn’t cry out in fear and tries to fight back with a weapon. Entrapping your players to make them do bad deeds is bad DM form unless they’re fighting a devil or something.

Either way, you’re sidetracking us and ignored the crux of my argument: that is, Good characters, more often than not, have good intentions with good results, and it’s pretty clear Rick does not fit that category.

Wasn't intentional to ignore your argument's crux; I thought my response sort of addressed it.
"You sneak into the Lair and find several people around. They are just sweeping, tidying shelves, and a few of them are playing cards."
Tell me that a common response isn't "Ooh Surprise Round!"

Because people aren't overly concerned about the moral ramifications of their actions a majority of the time
It's only when truly heinous acts begin to pop up is when people start bringing it into consideration.

That circles back to Rick.
Rick performs a lot of acts that often end up with fairly Morally Good results without really considering that his specific actions might be Evil
When Rick performs a truly heinous, we often have Morty to point out that action to the Audience.
Morty is the conscious of the Audience, calling Rick out that his action is Evil.
Then the show proceeds to demonstrate, that it really wasn't.


Oh?

Then why don't you tell us what your stance is?

Please, enlighten us, we blind dogmatic bigots. Please, tell us how, for you, having sex with the body of someone under the control of an outside entity does not qualify as rape.
Do you consider the body you live in every day to be "your" body?
Why?
That collection of cells and organisms change every few years, that body is 100% different than that body from a decade ago.
There are millions of living cells and organisms in that body, and that make up that body, but you don't feel the need to ask their consent.
Even your own brain, your left and right brain have vastly different thought processes that when surgically cut will act as vastly different 'people' sharing the same body.

If your consciousness was switched with the consciousness of another, who's body belongs to who?
Does the answer change if it was temporary? If it was for 5 minutes? 5 days? 50 years?

This subject is complex.

[Unoriginal]

Do you consider the body you live in every day to be "your" body?
Why?
That collection of cells and organisms change every few years, that body is 100% different than that body from a decade ago.
There are millions of living cells and organisms in that body, and that make up that body, but you don't feel the need to ask their consent.
Even your own brain, your left and right brain have vastly different thought processes that when surgically cut will act as vastly different 'people' sharing the same body.

If your consciousness was switched with the consciousness of another, who's body belongs to who?
Does the answer change if it was temporary? If it was for 5 minutes? 5 days? 50 years?

This subject is complex.

So you're saying that if a NPC hires a demon to possess my PC's body then have sex with it while the demon is in control, you wouldn't say that it was rape and would totally buy that this NPC is a good guy?

[Naanomi]

Even your own brain, your left and right brain have vastly different thought processes that when surgically cut will act as vastly different 'people' sharing the same body.
Post-commissurotomy syndrome isn't really that extreme, you have to do some big sensory tricks to get different responses and even those fade relatively quickly in most circumstances post-surgery (as new connections between the hemispheres are formed in the brainstem through the corpora quadrigemina). I've worked with people who have had the procedure. It is a neat parlor trick for psychology 201 classes, but really isn't all that extreme in practice.

And, in a universe where consciousness is tied to an actual, detectable, manipulatable soul like the DnD Cosmology is; the underlying neurology is basically meaningless

[Talamare]

So you're saying that if a NPC hires a demon to possess my PC's body then have sex with it while the demon is in control, you wouldn't say that it was rape and would totally buy that this NPC is a good guy?

No, I'm saying it's more complex than that and there is no easy answer.

If a NPC hires an Angel to transfer your consciousness into a different body. You live in that body for 20 years. Eventually you find a sweet girl, get married, and want to start a family with her.

Would she be having Forced Sex with the body you're inside?

[Naanomi]

No, I'm saying it's more complex than that and there is no easy answer.

If a NPC hires an Angel to transfer your consciousness into a different body. You live in that body for 20 years. Eventually you find a sweet girl, get married, and want to start a family with her.

Would she be having Forced Sex with the body you're inside?
Depends on if your soul was transferred, and the soul was still in the body you inhabited. Probably also matters if she is aware it happened.

Also, an Angel doing such things is probably falling in most circumstances; and if it ‘crossed the line’ or not is just an objective Heart Sight away, or barring that just tracking where you end up in the afterlife

[Talamare]

Post-commissurotomy syndrome isn't really that extreme, you have to do some big sensory tricks to get different responses and even those fade relatively quickly in most circumstances post-surgery (as new connections between the hemispheres are formed in the brainstem through the corpora quadrigemina). I've worked with people who have had the procedure. It is a neat parlor trick for psychology 201 classes, but really isn't all that extreme in practice.

And, in a universe where consciousness is tied to an actual, detectable, manipulatable soul like the DnD Cosmology is; the underlying neurology is basically meaningless

I'm guessing auto correct changed it from Callosotomy.
I see it as a look into our understanding of who (or what) we are.
Its a subject that needs more time and research.

Tho you're right that it may not matter much in terms of straight DnD the specific event in question might bring some of it into question

Basically, who is in control, and what level of ownership we attribute to these other living organisms.


Depends on if your soul was transferred, and the soul was still in the body you inhabited. Probably also matters if she is aware it happened.

Also, an Angel doing such things is probably falling in most circumstances; and if it ‘crossed the line’ or not is just an objective Heart Sight away, or barring that just tracking where you end up in the afterlife

I honestly love that answer.
(Tho find the Angel falling part to be... irrelevant?)

The annoying part is if we start bringing in to it issues of Love (that would probably also be irrelevant to the core subject matter, but...)
Did the Girl fall in love with 'you'?
You being a question of both the body you're currently in, and the conscious that directs the body

Would she have fallen in love with 'you' in your original body as well?

[Unoriginal]

No, I'm saying it's more complex than that and there is no easy answer.

Oh, really?

My PC got possessed and some creep had sex with their body without any input of the PC's part, but "it's more complex than that and there is no easy answer"?



If a NPC hires an Angel to transfer your consciousness into a different body.

First, you're still pretending that it's a question of bi-lateral transferred consciousness, when the subject of the discussion is actually an outside entity taking over the body with leaving no control for the person the body belonged to. THIS is attempting to frame the discussion in your favor.

Second, doing this without the consent of the persons involved would be at minimum a colossal **** move and almost certainly villainous. Unless maybe it's the only way to save the lives of both persons and there is no way to ask us if we agree, a D&D Angel would never agree to perform it on their own free will.




You live in that body for 20 years. Eventually you find a sweet girl, get married, and want to start a family with her.

Would she be having Forced Sex with the body you're inside?

If

a) this body belonged to a different person (as opposed to a body being created without a mind/spirit/soul to hold the person)

b) this different person desires to switch back

c) it's possible to switch back

d) this supposedly sweet girl knows I've occupied for decades a body the person it belongs to wants back and still has sex

then yes.

If the person doesn't want to switch back, they're obviously giving you ownership of this body as you give them ownership of yours. If it's not possible to switch back, then it sucks, but it's impossible to give the bodies back to the persons they belong. And if the girl didn't know, well, you're even more of a scumbag, but you can't blame her. Same way you can't blame someone who has sex with someone shapeshifted as their lover who tricked them.

[Naanomi]

I'm guessing auto correct changed it from Callosotomy.
I see it as a look into our understanding of who (or what) we are.
Its a subject that needs more time and research.
A neural commissurotomy is identical to a corpus callosotomy... surgeons tend to call it the later, but neurologists tend towards the former term. All things considered it is fairly well researched, getting a lot of attention to the unique (though generally temporary) sensory and cognitive well studied both in the late 1940s and early 1980s.

Because full commissurotomies are rare (being largely replaced by either the less extreme partial severing of the corpus callosum, or full hemispherectomies; as well as advances in anti-seizure medications) the population receiving the procedure to be studied has gone down significantly.

I have a masters in cognitive neuroscience (though mostly specializing in ASD and, and associated neuroendocrinology and neuroimaging) and have actually worked with a few people who have had the procedure. Even immediately after the surgery, you have to really set up unique sensory situations to even notice the effect. As I said, more parlor trick than demonstrative of deep neurological 'truths' about the nature of self

[Finlam]

This is a fun thread!

Anyone care to take a stab arguing a Lawful Good alignment for Rick?

=)

[Talamare]

A neural commissurotomy is identical to a corpus callosotomy... surgeons tend to call it the later, but neurologists tend towards the former term. All things considered it is fairly well researched, getting a lot of attention to the unique (though generally temporary) sensory and cognitive well studied both in the late 1940s and early 1980s.

Because full commissurotomies are rare (being largely replaced by either the less extreme partial severing of the corpus callosum, or full hemispherectomies; as well as advances in anti-seizure medications) the population receiving the procedure to be studied has gone down significantly.

I have a masters in cognitive neuroscience (though mostly specializing in ASD and, and associated neuroendocrinology and neuroimaging) and have actually worked with a few people who have had the procedure. Even immediately after the surgery, you have to really set up unique sensory situations to even notice the effect. As I said, more parlor trick than demonstrative of deep neurological 'truths' about the nature of self

Apologies, didn't mean it as an insult. Tho I believe that it is a little dismissive to the philosophical aspects of the field to consider it just a parlor trick.
I wouldn't be surprised if early forms of Electricity was mostly considered a parlor trick by some as well.


If

a) this body belonged to a different person (as opposed to a body being created without a mind/spirit/soul to hold the person)

b) this different person desires to switch back

c) it's possible to switch back

d) this supposedly sweet girl knows I've occupied for decades a body the person it belongs to wants back and still has sex

then yes.

If the person doesn't want to switch back, they're obviously giving you ownership of this body as you give them ownership of yours. If it's not possible to switch back, then it sucks, but it's impossible to give the bodies back to the persons they belong. And if the girl didn't know, well, you're even more of a scumbag, but you can't blame her. Same way you can't blame someone who has sex with someone shapeshifted as their lover who tricked them.

I think B is where questions arrive.
In the Unity Episode in question it does seem that the person still seems to hold desires while controlled, and are able to fulfill them and have a fulfilling life. (Altho 'Evil' desires are 'removed')
The episode shows resistance to being initially controlled, but didn't display that they had a desire to be released even after they were released.

Perhaps you just used a poor choice of words, since if let's say an Demon stole your body and you desired to switch back, then your B would qualify.
If an Angel stole your body, and removed all desires, (hell removed your soul completely from that body), your B would no longer qualify.
Yet, in such a situation, you would probably find it morally reprehensible to commit the act.

In a non-supernatural representation (which is what both this talk of Angels and Demons, and Rick and Unity is), this is more or less equivalent to 'Date Rape'.
Which is absolutely reprehensible.


D brings up "Fuzzy" arguments.
If this girl knew that the transfer happened 20 years ago, but was never reminded of it. Eventually falling in love with this "person"; just as this "person" fell in love with her.
If this girl was told that the transfer happened, but has no proof of it existing.
If this girl knew that the transfer happened, but doesn't care (or is glad) because the personality of the previous was disgustingly silly levels of Evil.
If this girl knew that the transfer happened and every week the original comes back; and reminds her.
If this girl was the one who asked the Angel for this Evil person to become Good, and the Angel never explains how it happened.
... This is starting to remind me of philosophical debates of Bruce Banner and The Hulk; but I'll avoid getting into it.

[Naanomi]

Apologies, didn't mean it as an insult. Tho I believe that it is a little dismissive to the philosophical aspects of the field to consider it just a parlor trick.
I wouldn't be surprised if early forms of Electricity was mostly considered a parlor trick by some as well.
By 'parlor trick' what I mean is...
~the effects are very temporary, more accurate to call them post surgical side effects than revealing deeper underlying systems and structures
~the effects do not reveal themselves under normal circumstances, you have to take very intentional and artificial steps to isolate sensory input to even notice it, and even then it doesn't present strongly in all cases

Combined, this (at least to me) means that it is fascinating, but ultimately speaks to how the brain recovers from trauma rather than revealing deeper truths about the neurological nature of the self... most of the cool 'nature of self' stuff happens with damage to either the supporting thalamic structures, the hippocampus, or orbito-prefrontal cortex

But it is (even more) inconsequential in a DnD Cosmology since the 'meat' of the brain is barely involved in the more mystical/soul/psionic nature of the self in such a universe anyways

[Rhedyn]

This is a fun thread!

Anyone care to take a stab arguing a Lawful Good alignment for Rick?

=) Well Rick strictly follows a personal code, therefore he is super duper lawful.

The overarching theme of the show is that nothing matters in the multiverse. But Morty is taken care of instead of replaced by any other Morty's. Rick has already jumped two realities with kronenberg Earth and upsetting the squirrels for this Morty. So really Rick is selflessly helping Morty and only gives him excuses for their relationship so Morty doesn't feel guilty. In fact all of Rick's action are about helping Morty grow and learn.
So nothing matters except Morty and Rick. Rick is helping the only person that matters. Ergo Rick is good with a hard G.

/s

[Finlam]

Well Rick strictly follows a personal code, therefore he is super duper lawful.

The overarching theme of the show is that nothing matters in the multiverse. But Morty is taken care of instead of replaced by any other Morty's. Rick has already jumped two realities with kronenberg Earth and upsetting the squirrels for this Morty. So really Rick is selflessly helping Morty and only gives him excuses for their relationship so Morty doesn't feel guilty. In fact all of Rick's action are about helping Morty grow and learn.
So nothing matters except Morty and Rick. Rick is helping the only person that matters. Ergo Rick is good with a hard G.

/s
Well... I'm convinced.

[Kane0]

Heh, “the best of all possible worlds”
Just replace worlds with either rick or morty as appropriate.

[sightlessrealit]

But when discussing ‘alignment’ in any meaningful sense, we don’t care about most infinite Universes... only the Greater Cosmology of the Great Wheel and its objective system of Alignment. Different Cosmologies have different rules, sure... no doubt about it. But it is next to irrelevant to the discussion of Alignment as a DnD construct

I don't see how.

[Naanomi]

I don't see how.
Because in realities without alignment, discussions of alignment don’t apply?

[Kane0]

Like our own?

[Naanomi]

Like our own?
As far as we know, sure; though in DnD canon our Earth is part of the Great Wheel (with several portals connecting it to Aber-Toril... Elminster visits sometimes)

We weren’t asking if Rick has an Alignment on Earth though, just what his Alignment would be as a DnD character.

[Unoriginal]

Like our own?

And like the one of the Rick & Morty cartoon.

[Naanomi]

And like the one of the Rick & Morty cartoon.
Though given that both DnD and Rick & Morty universes allow for 'crossovers' between different Universes; it isn't inconceivable they might interact in some capacity

[Kane0]

I raised it during conversation at my game table last night, everyone either responded 'Yup he evil AF' or 'Don't think about it Morty'.

So I pretty much stand by what I said on page 1.

[GlenSmash!]

Of course he's evil.

To quote a brilliant man, or at least one with a very large helmet: "Good is dumb."

And Rick ain't no dummy.

[S_A_M I AM]

Did you ever open a thread despite knowing exactly what was going to happen in it, and then find out that it managed to actually sink lower than your already low expectations?

First time for everything, I guess. :/

[Malifice]

You've already declared the genocide, mass murder and slavery that Rick Sanchez inflicts on "people that don't matter" as good.

We don't need to attempt nor frame anything

To be fair, everyone that has ever committed genocide has dehumanised the victims first.

What Talamere is doing is sadly not unusual. It's why horrific crimes like genocide exist.

[Rhedyn]

I raised it during conversation at my game table last night, everyone either responded 'Yup he evil AF' or 'Don't think about it Morty'.

So I pretty much stand by what I said on page 1.

This is the correct answer.

[MadBear]

Rick is evil. That is really all that should need to be said. All this talk of Unity and that episode is a complete Red Herring. It's a distraction and smokescreen meant to cover up the glaring fact that Rick as committed many awful deeds for evil reasons.

To show that Rick is evil, lets look at the Rickshankredemption. In it you have 2 things happen:

1. Rick destroys the galactic government and he destroys the citadel of Ricks. His actions both directly and indirectly kill many many people. In fact, his teleportation of the citadel killed many many Morty's, who are human, and not as evil as Rick.

2. Rick does this to take trick his family so that he could take control of them. That was his only intent, and he made that very clear.

We now have a very clear scenario where Rick committed an evil act, for at best mildly evil intentions. Evil action with evil intent is evil.

[RedMage125]

Homosapiens probably would be considered insignificant to a different being.
Homosapiens are considered to be only 1-2% more complex than the smartest primate.
If there was an alien race that was even only 1-2% more complex than us, and another that was 1-2% more complex than them
The probably would see the human race as being insignificant.
Do you know what "sophistry" means?

Because everything you say is absolutely riddled with it.


"conscience"
a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct or intentions.
You have failed to prove that Rick even believes in or cares about "moral goodness". In fact, Rick even views the questions of moral postulating to be beneath him. Ergo, how can Rick be said to act as ANY kind of "conscience" directs?


They literally spend dozens of episodes with the premise of

Rick does something that appears Evil
Morty points it out or calls Rick Evil
The show proceeds to prove that the act wasn't Evil

There are literally zero episodes wherein the show "proves that the act wasn't evil".

Just because the show concocts a serious of hilarious and farcical events that convince Rick that his twisted moral relativism is justified (by his personal metric), does not equal "proving the act was not evil".


So you take the Deed are Evil, regardless of the context.

So if you genocide trillions of insignificant beings, then you're Evil
Killed an Ant Pile? - Evil
Killed bacteria? - Evil

I know, obviously not... because you draw the line arbitrarily somewhere.
What about Killed millions Chickens and Cows? Evil or Good?
What about Killed millions Cats and Dogs? Evil or Good?

Given that this thread is about questioning Rick's alignment from a D&D perspective, drawing the line is not "arbitrary".

D&D classifies "murder" as "the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like".

So Ants and bacteria are non-intelligent. And the banality of your point about equating HUMAN BEINGS to ANTS, on the sole basis that "there could be a species that could view us that way" is sophistry, and intellectually dishonest as a debate tactic.


The stance of Deeds = Evil or Good is an incredibly shallow one that philosophy students grow out of in their first year.
Intentions and Context matter significantly more.
BOTH matter.

Did you not read what MadBear said in post #61?



Arguably the Moral Implication from a DnD perspective is incredibly shallow by comparison to that of a real life perspective.
And yet, that is EXACTLY what this thread is supposed to be. If you don't like it, leave.



Wasn't intentional to ignore your argument's crux; I thought my response sort of addressed it.
"You sneak into the Lair and find several people around. They are just sweeping, tidying shelves, and a few of them are playing cards."
Tell me that a common response isn't "Ooh Surprise Round!"
That's a common response from MURDERHOBOS.

Most D&D games are not that, but yes, murderhobo tropes are a thing for a reason.

Once again, sophistry. The existence of people who act in callous and immoral fashions does not validate the morality of those actions.

That circles back to Rick.
Rick performs a lot of acts that often end up with fairly Morally Good results without really considering that his specific actions might be Evil
When Rick performs a truly heinous, we often have Morty to point out that action to the Audience.
Morty is the conscious of the Audience, calling Rick out that his action is Evil.
Then the show proceeds to demonstrate, that it really wasn't.
And again, the show never ACTUALLY shows that Rick's actions are non-Evil.

His callous pragmatism often just ends up being effective as far as results. The morality of his actions is never validated.



Do you consider the body you live in every day to be "your" body?
Why?
That collection of cells and organisms change every few years, that body is 100% different than that body from a decade ago.
There are millions of living cells and organisms in that body, and that make up that body, but you don't feel the need to ask their consent.
Even your own brain, your left and right brain have vastly different thought processes that when surgically cut will act as vastly different 'people' sharing the same body.

If your consciousness was switched with the consciousness of another, who's body belongs to who?
Does the answer change if it was temporary? If it was for 5 minutes? 5 days? 50 years?

This subject is complex.
Sophistry.

You are using sophistry, word semantics, and pseudo-scientific hypotheses (unless you'd care to back up your claim about the separation of left and right brain with an actual, scientific case study) to justify rape.

Let that sink in for a moment. You are twisting words, using intellectually dishonest debate tactics, and using the absolute WORST form of moral relativism (by any ethical standard) to not only defend a person who committed rape, but the act of the rape itself.


So you're saying that if a NPC hires a demon to possess my PC's body then have sex with it while the demon is in control, you wouldn't say that it was rape and would totally buy that this NPC is a good guy?

That's a little morally charged, as-by a D&D metric-Dealing with Fiends is an objectively Evil act. And for our purposes, the morality of Rick in this instance is more pertinent than the morality of Unity.

Let's say an NPC hires a mercenary wizard to cast magic jar to possess my body, and then said NPC proceeds to have sex with it while the wizard is in control.

Talamare-is this rape? And is this NPC a "good guy"?

EDIT: MadBear, you and I have disagreed vehemently in the past, even about alignment. But I wish I could click "Like" on everything you've said in this thread.

[Unoriginal]

Do you know what "sophistry" means?

Because everything you say is absolutely riddled with it.

True. Except for the for the meaning of the word that implies cunning/skill at the task of deception.




That's a little morally charged, as-by a D&D metric-Dealing with Fiends is an objectively Evil act.

Not true. Ordering a Fiend around with Planar Binding, for exemple isn't evil, nor is making business with a Balor evil per itself (if the business is about committing an evil act in exchange for reward, then sure, it's evil). But I see what you mean.



And for our purposes, the morality of Rick in this instance is more pertinent than the morality of Unity.

True.

[hamishspence]

Not true. Ordering a Fiend around with Planar Binding, for exemple isn't evil, nor is making business with a Balor evil per itself (if the business is about committing an evil act in exchange for reward, then sure, it's evil). But I see what you mean.

It's evil if it's used to summon the fiend to the material plane, at least -doing so gives the spell the [evil] tag:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm

The main reason for "doing business with fiends is evil" is not PHB, but BOVD - "allowing a fiend to exist, let alone helping it or associating with it in any way, is clearly evil".

That's based on the presumption that you are indeed powerful enough to reliably kill the fiend you've just met. If you're not, then it becomes more blurry.

Most adventures in Dungeon, allow you to at least negotiate with fiends when you are comparable in power to them, or slightly weaker, without it specifically being called out as Evil, though.

for example, in Savage Tide Adventure Path, the finale pretty much requires you to get at least some Demon Lords (and Eladrins) on your side (by doing services for them) before going up against Demogorgon.

[Unoriginal]

It's evil if it's used to summon the fiend to the material plane, at least -doing so gives the spell the [evil] tag:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm

No.

Those are 3.X rules. They have no impact on 5e.

There is no [evil] tag in 5e. Even on spells whose sole purpose is to summon fiends.

5e and 3.X don't have the same alignment systems, nor do they have the same lore about extraplanar beings.



The main reason for "doing business with fiends is evil" is not PHB, but BOVD - "allowing a fiend to exist, let alone helping it or associating with it in any way, is clearly evil".

There is no BoVD in 5e as of yet. And the existing books clearly contradict this.



for example, in Savage Tide Adventure Path, the finale pretty much requires you to get at least some Demon Lords (and Eladrins) on your side (by doing services for them) before going up against Demogorgon.

Savage Tide Adventure Path is not a 5e adventure path, it doesn't apply.

[Talamare]

Do you know what "sophistry" means?

Because everything you say is absolutely riddled with it.

You have failed to prove that Rick even believes in or cares about "moral goodness". In fact, Rick even views the questions of moral postulating to be beneath him. Ergo, how can Rick be said to act as ANY kind of "conscience" directs?

There are literally zero episodes wherein the show "proves that the act wasn't evil".

Just because the show concocts a serious of hilarious and farcical events that convince Rick that his twisted moral relativism is justified (by his personal metric), does not equal "proving the act was not evil".


Given that this thread is about questioning Rick's alignment from a D&D perspective, drawing the line is not "arbitrary".

D&D classifies "murder" as "the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like".

So Ants and bacteria are non-intelligent. And the banality of your point about equating HUMAN BEINGS to ANTS, on the sole basis that "there could be a species that could view us that way" is sophistry, and intellectually dishonest as a debate tactic.


BOTH matter.

Did you not read what MadBear said in post #61?



And yet, that is EXACTLY what this thread is supposed to be. If you don't like it, leave.



That's a common response from MURDERHOBOS.

Most D&D games are not that, but yes, murderhobo tropes are a thing for a reason.

Once again, sophistry. The existence of people who act in callous and immoral fashions does not validate the morality of those actions.

And again, the show never ACTUALLY shows that Rick's actions are non-Evil.

His callous pragmatism often just ends up being effective as far as results. The morality of his actions is never validated.


Sophistry.

You are using sophistry, word semantics, and pseudo-scientific hypotheses (unless you'd care to back up your claim about the separation of left and right brain with an actual, scientific case study) to justify rape.

Let that sink in for a moment. You are twisting words, using intellectually dishonest debate tactics, and using the absolute WORST form of moral relativism (by any ethical standard) to not only defend a person who committed rape, but the act of the rape itself.



That's a little morally charged, as-by a D&D metric-Dealing with Fiends is an objectively Evil act. And for our purposes, the morality of Rick in this instance is more pertinent than the morality of Unity.

Let's say an NPC hires a mercenary wizard to cast magic jar to possess my body, and then said NPC proceeds to have sex with it while the wizard is in control.

Talamare-is this rape? And is this NPC a "good guy"?

EDIT: MadBear, you and I have disagreed vehemently in the past, even about alignment. But I wish I could click "Like" on everything you've said in this thread.
Sophistry is when you attempt to declare that everything your opponent says is Sophistry when you didn't say why it was Sophistry or when you specifically take it out of context.
Half the things you quoted were in DIRECT RESPONSE to someone. Taking it out of context then adding a little blurb doesn't automatically make you correct.

I rewatched the Unity episode specifically to argue from it.
Rick randomly after reconnecting with Unity recommends that she needs to stop her attempts at 'mind controlling' the universe.
Unity decides to randomly blow up a town for fun, and Rick is immediately worried. When she explains that she evacuated the town he calms down, but then becomes worried again about where his kids are.

Those are all examples of conscious.

I tried to find more examples of Rick showing conscious, but honestly the show is like 60% random filler-esque stuff that arguably doesn't affect Morals in either direction.
Altho the Krombopulus Michael episode Rick does try to explain to Morty that selling a Gun to Michael isn't inherently Evil since Michael will kill with or without the gun. Not to mention that Michael's target was a being who wanted to destroy all carbon life in the universe. I'm not even saying that being was Evil either, since their species treats it similarly to wanting to remove an infection in the body. Tho their goals definitely don't align with the goals of others. (Note, I did not have enough time to rewatch every episode)

DnD Classifies murder as... Going to need Source on that definition. Remember only 5th Edition Sources count.

I never equated Human beings to Ants, I equated a species of insects to another species of insects (Galactic Federation). I also equated Battery Race to Ants. Not BECAUSE there could be a Species that might equate us to Ants. You keep bringing up Sophistry, yet you're practicing it quite a bit by chopping up my arguments and piecing it together in a broken fashion that is inherently illogical.

Another example of you completely misunderstanding... well everything.
Unoriginal's argument was that only Deeds matter. I said that Deeds, Intention, and Context matter.

Back to back examples of you misunderstanding things.
The point of that reply was to bring it back to DnD levels. I was the one attempting to pull the argument back into DnD levels because it was being taken into cosmic scales.

No, that's the common response of a normal player. Trying to equate a normal group to murderhoboing is just an insult to the majority of DnD players. DnD is a combat orientated game, which is why the vast majority of books have information on combat. You're expected to have combat in your game. The PCs arriving at the Lair of the BBEG and expecting combat is not an example of murderhoboing.

Not we get to this part, the part that I have attempted to drop multiple times now. Yet people keep bringing it up like beating a dead horse. This is the only time in your entire post that you italicized the Act in question, probably because you already seen I've tried to avoid it. That's disgusting tactics.
I have never and will NEVER justify it.

[MadBear]

Sophistry is when you attempt to declare that everything your opponent says is Sophistry when you didn't say why it was Sophistry or when you specifically take it out of context.
Half the things you quoted were in DIRECT RESPONSE to someone. Taking it out of context then adding a little blurb doesn't automatically make you correct.

I rewatched the Unity episode specifically to argue from it.
Rick randomly after reconnecting with Unity recommends that she needs to stop her attempts at 'mind controlling' the universe.
Unity decides to randomly blow up a town for fun, and Rick is immediately worried. When she explains that she evacuated the town he calms down, but then becomes worried again about where his kids are.

Those are all examples of conscious.

I tried to find more examples of Rick showing conscious, but honestly the show is like 60% random filler-esque stuff that arguably doesn't affect Morals in either direction.
Altho the Krombopulus Michael episode Rick does try to explain to Morty that selling a Gun to Michael isn't inherently Evil since Michael will kill with or without the gun. Not to mention that Michael's target was a being who wanted to destroy all carbon life in the universe. I'm not even saying that being was Evil either, since their species treats it similarly to wanting to remove an infection in the body. Tho their goals definitely don't align with the goals of others. (Note, I did not have enough time to rewatch every episode)

DnD Classifies murder as... Going to need Source on that definition. Remember only 5th Edition Sources count.

I never equated Human beings to Ants, I equated a species of insects to another species of insects (Galactic Federation). I also equated Battery Race to Ants. Not BECAUSE there could be a Species that might equate us to Ants. You keep bringing up Sophistry, yet you're practicing it quite a bit by chopping up my arguments and piecing it together in a broken fashion that is inherently illogical.

Another example of you completely misunderstanding... well everything.
Unoriginal's argument was that only Deeds matter. I said that Deeds, Intention, and Context matter.

Back to back examples of you misunderstanding things.
The point of that reply was to bring it back to DnD levels. I was the one attempting to pull the argument back into DnD levels because it was being taken into cosmic scales.

No, that's the common response of a normal player. Trying to equate a normal group to murderhoboing is just an insult to the majority of DnD players. DnD is a combat orientated game, which is why the vast majority of books have information on combat. You're expected to have combat in your game. The PCs arriving at the Lair of the BBEG and expecting combat is not an example of murderhoboing.

Not we get to this part, the part that I have attempted to drop multiple times now. Yet people keep bringing it up like beating a dead horse. This is the only time in your entire post that you italicized the Act in question, probably because you already seen I've tried to avoid it. That's disgusting tactics.
I have never and will NEVER justify it.

So just to re-ask, because I know posts get lost when there's a lot of replies, but I have a simple example showing that Rick is in fact evil.

Rickshankredemption

1. Evil Action: Killed many Mortys and Ricks (humans) and aliens (non-human but sentient beings), as well as collapsed a government destroying its structure, which predictably resulted in more deaths.
2. Evil Intent (or at best non-good intent): His stated goal was to turn the family against Jerry.

Those 2 things make what he did evil.

[Rhedyn]

Rick is LG because he follows a Divine mandate.

/s

[Whit]

From how I see it he’s lawful good.
He has his own set of laws that he follows and just beCause your good doesn’t mean you dont kill. Ask the lawful good paladin. Why did you kill. Oh because the creature is evil. Oh really. How so? Because it has a different set of values and views that yuu perceive as evil.

You enter the dungeon and see a group of orcs living in their home. What do yuh do. Thief I sneak in and backstab. Ranger I shoot arrows at 1 as soon as the thief backstabs. Mage I cast sleep in the others. Paladin I Attack the biggest one. Cleric I bash the ones sleeping. Ok yiu win what next. All together we loot the bodies and tear the home apart for hidden doors and more treasure

[Sigreid]

So just to re-ask, because I know posts get lost when there's a lot of replies, but I have a simple example showing that Rick is in fact evil.

Rickshankredemption

1. Evil Action: Killed many Mortys and Ricks (humans) and aliens (non-human but sentient beings), as well as collapsed a government destroying its structure, which predictably resulted in more deaths.
2. Evil Intent (or at best non-good intent): His stated goal was to turn the family against Jerry.

Those 2 things make what he did evil.

He didn't collapse either the citadel or the galactic government to turn the family aga8nst Jerry. That was just a bonus. He destroyed both because they crossed him and got all up in his business. At his core Rick believes his reality bending knowledge gives him the right to do whatever he wants, regardless of who gets hurt.

He's actually summed up his philosophy in an ABC of Beth, explaining that the universe is basically an animal that creates people just so it can eat them. If you're smart enough you can throw a saddle on your universe and ride it until it gets you and it always will. He can make the universe do what he wants and he's never met a universe that's into it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

He didn't collapse either the citadel or the galactic government to turn the family aga8nst Jerry. That was just a bonus. He destroyed both because they crossed him and got all up in his business. At his core Rick believes his reality bending knowledge gives him the right to do whatever he wants, regardless of who gets hurt.

He's actually summed up his philosophy in an ABC of Beth, explaining that the universe is basically an animal that creates people just so it can eat them. If you're smart enough you can throw a saddle on your universe and ride it until it gets you and it always will. He can make the universe do what he wants and he's never met a universe that's into it.

And that (by D&D standards) is an absolutely, irredeemably, evil philosophy. It's basically identical to that of the (canonically) CE demons. Do what you want, take what you want, only bend to a power that can crush you (and then do so sullenly). Take pleasure in causing pain.

[Sigreid]

And that (by D&D standards) is an absolutely, irredeemably, evil philosophy. It's basically identical to that of the (canonically) CE demons. Do what you want, take what you want, only bend to a power that can crush you (and then do so sullenly). Take pleasure in causing pain.

Yep. I've not seen him as anything but CE or maybe NE.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yep. I've not seen him as anything but CE or maybe NE.

As I wrote that, I could see NE (shading to CE), but definitely not any non-evil alignment. And not lawful. That's entirely based on the descriptions from this thread--I don't watch the show.

[Sigreid]

As I wrote that, I could see NE (shading to CE), but definitely not any non-evil alignment. And not lawful. That's entirely based on the descriptions from this thread--I don't watch the show.

The show is pretty good when you get into it, but it's certainly not for everyone.

[Naanomi]

There are some individual episodes that, taken in isolation from the rest of the series, could be indicative of Chaotic Neutral... but as a whole Evil is pretty dominant

[Friv]

Anyone who might actually believe that Rick is not fundamentally an evil person is someone who has missed the point of Rick and Morty so spectacularly that I have no words for them.

Like, the entire premise of Rick and Morty is that if you're smart and funny, but also awful to everyone around you, the result is that you are an awful person, and all your self-justifications and attempts to divert responsibility will not, ultimately, provide you with any solace or relief.

[Talamare]

So just to re-ask, because I know posts get lost when there's a lot of replies, but I have a simple example showing that Rick is in fact evil.

Rickshankredemption

1. Evil Action: Killed many Mortys and Ricks (humans) and aliens (non-human but sentient beings), as well as collapsed a government destroying its structure, which predictably resulted in more deaths.
2. Evil Intent (or at best non-good intent): His stated goal was to turn the family against Jerry.

Those 2 things make what he did evil.
First is the premise that needs to be dismayed
Just the act of Killing is not inherently Evil
In DnD people kill all the time, including Lawful Good characters. So just Killing isn't enough to affect anyone morally.

Evil Intent, while there might have been Evil Intent behind his action. I think you're putting too much weight on what was essentially a throw away joke.

We need to remember that the Galactic Federation was arguably Evil.
They enslave planets thru Orwellian measures.
They have robots to pacify the population.
They infuse and force upon the population with an insane amount of drugs to control them.
They actively practice Debt Enslavement.

Chaotic Good is constantly referred to as a force for liberation. The idea of bringing down tyrannical governments.


A chaotic good character does what is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. - This quote is from 2003 DnD, so probably from 3.5e or 4e. So it may not technically qualify as a 5e Alignment. However we can see that disdain for bureaucratic organizations and personal freedom for all is a characteristic for a Chaotic Good character.

This source is straight up 3.5, so definitely doesn't count (and it's an opinion piece). http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook
However we can see again that there is a great importance for the freedom of others and liberation from governments.

Now one could make an argument "His motivation to destroying the Government was selfish."
Was it really? He has been fighting them for the last 20? years or so. His epiphany for success might have come from a selfish source, but he has been fighting the good fight for a LONG time.


That's where my logic for him being a Chaotic Good Force comes from. He is absolutely a *insert whatever negative insult you want here*. However, as a Force he is Chaotic Good. Which is why his alignment he is Chaotic Good.


Anyone who might actually believe that Rick is not fundamentally an evil person is someone who has missed the point of Rick and Morty so spectacularly that I have no words for them.

Anyone who might actually believe that Rick is not fundamentally a Good person is someone who has missed the point of Rick and Morty so spectacularly that I have no words for them.

What was that joke again? That your INT score might not be 22? or something?

[hamishspence]

From how I see it he’s lawful good.
He has his own set of laws that he follows and just beCause your good doesn’t mean you dont kill. Ask the lawful good paladin. Why did you kill. Oh because the creature is evil. Oh really. How so? Because it has a different set of values and views that yuu perceive as evil.

The traditional paladin's code doesn't demand "kill evil beings" it demands "punish those who harm or threaten innocents".

[Friv]

What was that joke again? That your INT score might not be 22? or something?

You mean the joke poking fun at the self-absorbed Rick and Morty fans who think that the show is an endless, deep well of super-genius, rather than a pretty straightforward take on broken people?

[Unoriginal]

First is the premise that needs to be dismayed
Just the act of Killing is not inherently Evil
In DnD people kill all the time, including Lawful Good characters. So just Killing isn't enough to affect anyone morally.

Killing innocents or killing arbitrarily just because you've decided this person needed to die without other reasons are both evil.

Rick has done the former, knowingly, and probably the later.



We need to remember that the Galactic Federation was arguably Evil.
They enslave planets thru Orwellian measures.
They have robots to pacify the population.
They infuse and force upon the population with an insane amount of drugs to control them.
They actively practice Debt Enslavement.

Chaotic Good is constantly referred to as a force for liberation. The idea of bringing down tyrannical governments.


And your argument collapses because Rick has enslaved people through deception and threats of death, has allowed hundreds then thousands of people to be mind-controlled just because he was friendly with the mind controller, and similar instances.

[Sigreid]

You mean the joke poking fun at the self-absorbed Rick and Morty fans who think that the show is an endless, deep well of super-genius, rather than a pretty straightforward take on broken people?

Yep, Morty summed it up "Nobody is born on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Nothing matters. Come watch t.v."

[MadBear]

First is the premise that needs to be dismayed
Just the act of Killing is not inherently Evil
In DnD people kill all the time, including Lawful Good characters. So just Killing isn't enough to affect anyone morally.

Evil Intent, while there might have been Evil Intent behind his action. I think you're putting too much weight on what was essentially a throw away joke.

We need to remember that the Galactic Federation was arguably Evil.
They enslave planets thru Orwellian measures.
They have robots to pacify the population.
They infuse and force upon the population with an insane amount of drugs to control them.
They actively practice Debt Enslavement.


1. I agree that killing alone isn't enough for an act to be evil
2. So you at least essentially agree that his intent was evil (even if you only consider it a throw away joke).
3. Ok, for the sake of the argument let's agree that the galatic federation was evil and every single one of them deserved a horrific death. How do you explain the innocent Morty's who were massacred as well?

Wouldn't the killing of all those Mortys + Evil intent= evil character decision?

[Rhedyn]

You mean the joke poking fun at the self-absorbed Rick and Morty fans who think that the show is an endless, deep well of super-genius, rather than a pretty straightforward take on broken people?
Yeah Rick uses college level science and philosophy from time to time in his speech.

But the point is how all of that doesn't matter. You don't want to be Rick or Morty. Rick isn't a hero. Birdperson isn't wise. All of Rick's friends are trash people/terrorists. All of Rick's intelligence, all of his gadgets and powers, and he is still unhappy. Not because the universe is meaningless or that he "is too smart" but because he is a broken mess of a human being that only makes everyone around him worse.

Rick isn't a hero.

[Naanomi]

That's where my logic for him being a Chaotic Good Force comes from. He is absolutely a *insert whatever negative insult you want here*. However, as a Force he is Chaotic Good. Which is why his alignment he is Chaotic Good.
DnD Alignment isn't consequentialist in nature though... you are not Good because Good happened as a result of your actions. You are Good because you do things in Good ways for Good reasons, almost irregardless of the bigger picture consequences (especially if you are not aware of or don't particularly care about those consequences).

If I am a serial killer who targets orcs, and eradicates a whole generation of them... it doesn't matter if the kingdom, or even the world itself, is saved from the ravenous and evil orcish menace; both my actions and motivations were Evil and so am I.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Chaotic Good is constantly referred to as a force for liberation. The idea of bringing down tyrannical governments.

Just because someone opposed a LE empire does not automatically make them Good aligned. Rick is undoubtedly a chaotic character, but he's not a morally good one. He abandoned his family, he regularly kills people for no good reason, he enslaved an entire sentient race, he sold weapons to an assassin who made it quite clear that he was a for profit killer who enjoyed his job and who targets just about anyone. In no universe does that make Rick CG.

99% of all alignment threads have the same problem - the DnD alignment system is not very good. It doesn't do a good job of encapsulating the complexity of human morality and motivations. The second you have a situation more complicated than "The followers of the death God KILLREX are attacking on the good folk of pleasant-ville!" it starts to fall apart.

Rick is a complicated character. Selfish, amoral, self-absorbed and arrogant, but with flashes of empathy, compassion, and a strong heartfelt opposition to any entity that he sees as crushing individualism or free-will. Such a character doesn't easily fit in one of nine fairly arbitrary boxes.

[sightlessrealit]

Because in realities without alignment, discussions of alignment don’t apply?In a infinite number of non alighment realities yes but the opposite is also true. ^-^

[Kane0]

Rick's TVTropes page is also great, just as an aside.

I won't link it for fear of bewitching newcomers though.

[Finlam]

Rick is a complicated character. Selfish, amoral, self-absorbed and arrogant, but with flashes of empathy, compassion, and a strong heartfelt opposition to any entity that he sees as crushing individualism or free-will. Such a character doesn't easily fit in one of nine fairly arbitrary boxes.

He is an interesting character and a good representation of a unique point where morality (objective and subjective types) both intersect and start to fall apart. In this case it's an omnipotent being "Rick" (who's as close to an omnipotent being as we've ever been shown) but who lacks omniscience. In other words, a being who can do almost anything but lacks the corresponding knowledge required to use that power responsibly.

Every small action he makes has profound consequences on himself, his family, planets, species, the universe, and sometimes even the multiverse. Yet he rarely knows the outcomes of the choices he makes and he, in fact, seeks out uncertanty so that he can never really predict what's going to happen.

He's irresponsible with near omnipotence and it's the only way he could ever want to live.

But even if he wasn't a self-destructive thrill seeker, he'd still have nigh-unlimited power and no way to ever fully know the consequences of using it. Worlds, species, entire universes would still be affected by his actions for better or worse. No matter his intentions, the side-effects would ripple across the multiverse and unfold in ways he could have never predicted.

So he rejects morality because he's damned if he does and damned if doesn't. He can't or won't give up his omnipotence since it is the defining part of him (from his persepctive) and he will forever lack the ability to act with the necessary foresight to be a force for anything, let alone good or evil. He's essentially a toddler holding a nuclear weapon; scaled up to a multi-versal scale.

As a neccessity to live, he rejects morality, because he's an edge case that no system of morality can fully classify. The show constantly confronts the audience with the ripple effects of Rick's choices, and ultimately presents the solution to the conundrum of classifying an omnipotent entity that lacks omniscience: Don't think about it, Morty

[Trum4n1208]

I agree with Mal in an alignment thread and that makes me slightly uncomfortable. Rick is an evil being, frequently to a monstrous degree. I also agree with the people who're saying that any good consequences that result from one's actions don't automatically make one good. Stalin doesn't suddenly become a good person because he led the USSR against Imperial Japan & Nazi Germany.

Rick's good traits only matter if he puts them to use in good actions, for good ends. His ends are rarely good, his actions almost never are.

[Rhedyn]

Let's flip it around.

Would Rick make a good BBEG?

Would good D&D gods actively smite him? Would evil ones love him?

I think he would make a terrible BBEG because he is more random than evil. He doesn't want to run an evil empire or even assert dominance. He only wants the freedom to do whatever he wants.
I think both angels and demons would banned together to fight Rick. He is an entity that would easily destroy all sides of a conflict for merely being in his way. Only forces of true pure chaos would WANT Rick in their universe.
I think Rick has more in common with The Great Old Ones than any other outsider. Does this make him evil with a hard E? For all intents and purposes he may as well be evil, but so vile and unknowable that traditional evils like Demons, Devils, and Satan himself fear/loathe him. If you can buy that Lovecraft's gods are beyond morality, then perhaps Rick is as well. If those beings are also evil, then Rick is pretty evil as well.

[Kane0]

Rick would be the perfect role model for the Slaadi though :smallbiggrin:

[Meepo_]

I know I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to throw my two cents in and say that I wished people would stop adding insults as accents to their points, like saying “your views deeply worry me” or permutations thereof. All they do is derail the discussion and dilute your argument by adding an ad hominem, and it makes people a bit too emotional for the level of thoughtful debate one would expect on a thread about the world’s most intellectual show.

Jokes aside, I don’t think a thread about a fictional character’s rating in a fictional system should have as much bad blood as this one seems to.

I don’t actually have much of a stance on this issue, as I don’t know enough about 5e’s alignment system and I thoroughly dislike the concept of alignment systems. But it is always interesting to see how adamant people can be about their stances on it.

[Naanomi]

Rick is no more disruptive and harmful to everyone ion every ‘side’ than most demon lords, and the universe doesn’t band together to fight them (usually... the Queen of Chaos didn’t really start that fight after all)

[willdaBEAST]

Let's flip it around.

Would Rick make a good BBEG?

Would good D&D gods actively smite him? Would evil ones love him?

I think he would make a terrible BBEG because he is more random than evil. He doesn't want to run an evil empire or even assert dominance. He only wants the freedom to do whatever he wants.
I think both angels and demons would banned together to fight Rick. He is an entity that would easily destroy all sides of a conflict for merely being in his way. Only forces of true pure chaos would WANT Rick in their universe.

That's a good question. I think he could make a good BBEG, but it would be immensely challenging to capture his character nuance within standard DnD framework. The simplest way would be to run a campaign from the perspective of Jerry, or Jerry like protagonists. Have BBEG Rick come in and disrupt life as normal, gradually usurping your place in a kingdom/family/culture and corrupting people you care about. The stakes would have to be vastly different than for most BBEG.

My initial thoughts would be to start the campaign with a standard group, running them through a quick dungeon. Afterwards Rick shows up connected to a player's love interest or someone in a position of power and forcibly inserts himself into the party. You then go on another adventure where he constantly points out every mistake and poor decision you make, belittling you at every opportunity. Simultaneously he shows how capable he is in any situation. Gradually you start getting excluded and members of your party start spending more time with him as he makes a name for himself being the best adventurer ever. He quickly grows bored of that, basically trivializing your entire life, mocking you for pursuing such a meaningless and empty existence. He then develops some kind of scheme that you slowly become aware of, setting you up for a more traditional final confrontation with Rick.

[willdaBEAST]

I know I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to throw my two cents in and say that I wished people would stop adding insults as accents to their points, like saying “your views deeply worry me” or permutations thereof. All they do is derail the discussion and dilute your argument by adding an ad hominem, and it makes people a bit too emotional for the level of thoughtful debate one would expect on a thread about the world’s most intellectual show.

Jokes aside, I don’t think a thread about a fictional character’s rating in a fictional system should have as much bad blood as this one seems to.

I don’t actually have much of a stance on this issue, as I don’t know enough about 5e’s alignment system and I thoroughly dislike the concept of alignment systems. But it is always interesting to see how adamant people can be about their stances on it.

I agree and I don't think you should ever try to insult someone over something like this. That said, it is worrying when someone justifies the actions of a fictional character who is intended to at the very least, not be good. Saying "your views deeply worry me" may dilute your argument, but it's not an ad hominem. Your views are literally part of your argument in this case, it directly relates to the subject matter. If I attack your choice of ice cream by saying, "you dress terribly", that's an ad hominem. If we're having a debate about fashion, your wardrobe choice matters and is related to the discussion.

[Consensus]

snip

That sounds like a very unenjoyable campaign scenario.

[Finlam]

That sounds like a very unenjoyable campaign scenario.

Just wait until the next 5E supplement comes out, "Elminster's Guide to Fashion".

Then we'll see how enjoyable it is. =)

[Meepo_]

I agree and I don't think you should ever try to insult someone over something like this. That said, it is worrying when someone justifies the actions of a fictional character who is intended to at the very least, not be good. Saying "your views deeply worry me" may dilute your argument, but it's not an ad hominem. Your views are literally part of your argument in this case, it directly relates to the subject matter. If I attack your choice of ice cream by saying, "you dress terribly", that's an ad hominem. If we're having a debate about fashion, your wardrobe choice matters and is related to the discussion.

Debating ice cream choice with "you dress terribly" is more of a non sequitur - it has no place in a debate about ice cream.

Debating fashion with "you dress terribly" is still an ad hominem - all 'ad hominem' means is an attack on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. If I were to say that fedoras look fashionable and you responded with "you have terrible fashion sense", that would be attacking me rather than the idea of wearing fedoras. A well-constructed argument would try to prove me wrong even if I didn't actually wear fedoras, because the character of the person making an argument isn't relevant to the substance of the argument (or at least it shouldn't be, but since when has internet debate ever been formal or logical?). Actually addressing the argument in this case would revolve solely around the fedora, not the debater who's wearing one.

If the debate were specifically about the other person's fashion sense, then "you dress terribly", if supported, would be a valid point to make. But this thread isn't about what soneone's stance on the issue of Rick's alignment says about their character; it's about the stance itself.

Speaking of non sequiturs, sorry I brought up fedoras in a thread about Rick Sanchez.

[Malifice]

Debating ice cream choice with "you dress terribly" is more of a non sequitur - it has no place in a debate about ice cream.

Debating fashion with "you dress terribly" is still an ad hominem - all 'ad hominem' means is an attack on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. If I were to say that fedoras look fashionable and you responded with "you have terrible fashion sense", that would be attacking me rather than the idea of wearing fedoras. A well-constructed argument would try to prove me wrong even if I didn't actually wear fedoras, because the character of the person making an argument isn't relevant to the substance of the argument (or at least it shouldn't be, but since when has internet debate ever been formal or logical?). Actually addressing the argument in this case would revolve solely around the fedora, not the debater who's wearing one.

If the debate were specifically about the other person's fashion sense, then "you dress terribly", if supported, would be a valid point to make. But this thread isn't about what soneone's stance on the issue of Rick's alignment says about their character; it's about the stance itself.

Speaking of non sequiturs, sorry I brought up fedoras in a thread about Rick Sanchez.

Saying 'fedoras look terrible' is not the same thing as saying 'genocide/ mass murder/ rape is objectively morally good if your worldview is nihilism or existentialism, and you can rationalise away the importance of your victims'.

I don't find statement A worrying.

Statement B on the other hand, troubles the **** out of me.

[Talamare]

Here is a question for everyone on the Rick is Evil team

Should Unity, and her Race, be allowed to live or should they all be Genocided?

Think about your answer

[S_A_M I AM]

I know I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to throw my two cents in and say that I wished people would stop adding insults as accents to their points, like saying “your views deeply worry me” or permutations thereof. All they do is derail the discussion and dilute your argument by adding an ad hominem, and it makes people a bit too emotional for the level of thoughtful debate one would expect on a thread about the world’s most intellectual show.l

Normally I agree, I really do BUT; "Those civilians were standing too close to justice and apathy or support is the appropriate response when the powerful throw their weight around" is not a position that is worthy of respect.

Edit: And that's the most chariable possible interpretation of the stuff that has been said here.

[S_A_M I AM]

Here is a question for everyone on the Rick is Evil team

Should Unity, and her Race, be allowed to live or should they all be Genocided?

Think about your answer

Now. See. Oscillating between two extremes of "Stand By and Watch as Civilisation Scale Tragedies to Play Out" and "Commit A Civilisation Scale Tragedy" is one of the reasons we're taking issue with you.

Unity is a gosh-darned supervillian but the evil stuff is also something she can just flat out stop doing. She could couple with only willing hosts as a kind of gestalt entity. She could request/ purchase* access to people after they've been declared brain dead in a similar way to how organ donation works. She could transition to vat grown bodies without the capacity for agency and determination so she's not necessarily inflicting harm upon somebody.* She could ask Rick or any one of a million potential clever people for help in creating some kind of evolutionary distinct offspring of her species that has the same continuity of consciousness/ being a hive mind but grows its own body.

If you wanna get really simple with it: She could, flat out, just stop trying to expand or release some or all** of her hostages/ slaves/ rape victims and cause measurably less harm in doing so.

She does seem to be giving into some kind of biological urge to be "Compleat" but it's the manner in which she is comporting herself that is the problem not necessarily her ongoing existence.

You'll note this is similar to the distinction between sex and rape but you've said you don't actually understand how consent works. (To clarify my synonym: They're both urges that seem to have once been an evolutionary necessity that has become more complicated because we now have a more nuanced understanding of harm and the moral dimension to our actions.)

If you or somebody else wants to say that there are ways in which this is more complicated than I've made out or compare it to a certain level of cultural chauvinism. That's actually fine and valid.

My point is:
A) Your example is an even less useful simplification than the
B) Unity is a person adjacent entity who we can have this as a conversation with. Not a culture made up of a thousand distinct individuals with conflicting desires, values and needs.

Also: Don't say that Unity is also good because the manner in which she is mind raping people is stopping people from commiting attrocties in a race war. It's a lazy, stupid trap.

Also: Also: I know that The Microverse Episode gets a lot of praise for being an effective critique of capitalism. Unity works pretty well there too, even if it's way more in charitable towards it. (Or perhaps being about the sort of person who values social order over what's right? It's honestly not an episode I'm fond of because it's... Kinda very ugly and awful.)

*I understand that these examples are still kinda morally iffy.
**This may actually be suicide, I'm not sure. That is also an appropriate answer to The Unity Moral Conundrum.

[GreyBlack]

Rick Sanchez is chaotic evil for the sole purpose that he is willing to commit horrendous acts at a whim; he casually commits genocide for even momentary benefit, has enslaved entire universes in an effort to power his car, and is so completely detached from any idea of cohesion that he cannot even get along with himself from other universes.

He is a being ruled completely by his id and base desires because, to his mind, he has seen the true character of the universe and decided to become more like it: uncaring, unsympathetic, and sometimes kinda dickish.

If that isn't the textbook Chaotic Evil, I don't know what is. Even his caring for his family is ruled by that same selfish desire.

[Talamare]

Now. See. Oscillating between two extremes of "Stand By and Watch as Civilisation Scale Tragedies to Play Out" and "Commit A Civilisation Scale Tragedy" is one of the reasons we're taking issue with you.

Unity is a gosh-darned supervillian but the evil stuff is also something she can just flat out stop doing. She could couple with only willing hosts as a kind of gestalt entity. She could request/ purchase* access to people after they've been declared brain dead in a similar way to how organ donation works. She could transition to vat grown bodies without the capacity for agency and determination so she's not necessarily inflicting harm upon somebody.* She could ask Rick or any one of a million potential clever people for help in creating some kind of evolutionary distinct offspring of her species that has the same continuity of consciousness/ being a hive mind but grows its own body.

If you wanna get really simple with it: She could, flat out, just stop trying to expand or release some or all** of her hostages/ slaves/ rape victims and cause measurably less harm in doing so.

She does seem to be giving into some kind of biological urge to be "Compleat" but it's the manner in which she is comporting herself that is the problem not necessarily her ongoing existence.

You'll note this is similar to the distinction between sex and rape but you've said you don't actually understand how consent works. (To clarify my synonym: They're both urges that seem to have once been an evolutionary necessity that has become more complicated because we now have a more nuanced understanding of harm and the moral dimension to our actions.)

If you or somebody else wants to say that there are ways in which this is more complicated than I've made out or compare it to a certain level of cultural chauvinism. That's actually fine and valid.

My point is:
A) Your example is an even less useful simplification than the
B) Unity is a person adjacent entity who we can have this as a conversation with. Not a culture made up of a thousand distinct individuals with conflicting desires, values and needs.

Also: Don't say that Unity is also good because the manner in which she is mind raping people is stopping people from commiting attrocties in a race war. It's a lazy, stupid trap.

Also: Also: I know that The Microverse Episode gets a lot of praise for being an effective critique of capitalism. Unity works pretty well there too, even if it's way more in charitable towards it. (Or perhaps being about the sort of person who values social order over what's right? It's honestly not an episode I'm fond of because it's... Kinda very ugly and awful.)

*I understand that these examples are still kinda morally iffy.
**This may actually be suicide, I'm not sure. That is also an appropriate answer to The Unity Moral Conundrum.

We have no idea if her species work on people who are brain dead.
Which covers the next one too, with vat grown bodies that are essentially brain dead.

The last one has potential, but the idea of "Let's evolve you past your failures." Is a potentially disturbing one.
Which kinda of surprises me that it didn't have an asterisk.

It's pretty implied that growth in her species is based on the idea of adding more people to her collective.
She mentions and shows multiple times that she has a stance of "I would do anything for Rick", and even Rick was fairly worried about asking her to stop expanding her Collective.
So asking her to start letting people go isn't going to happen. As well as asking her to stop expanding probably would akin for someone asking you to stop growing.



1. I agree that killing alone isn't enough for an act to be evil
2. So you at least essentially agree that his intent was evil (even if you only consider it a throw away joke).
3. Ok, for the sake of the argument let's agree that the galatic federation was evil and every single one of them deserved a horrific death. How do you explain the innocent Morty's who were massacred as well?

Wouldn't the killing of all those Mortys + Evil intent= evil character decision?

As they say, for Evil to win; Good only needs to do Nothing.
When fighting Evil, Innocents will die; however if Good People choose to do Nothing because they are afraid that Innocents will die, then Evil wins.
It's almost a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't situation.

Also, on 3.
Agreeing that the Galactic Federation is Evil, doesn't mean that every single one of them deserves to Die.
It's not like Rick released some virus that exterminated the Race that controlled the Galactic Government.
He destroyed the Government itself.

On the Council of Ricks it's a little different. There isn't really a Real World equivalent to this one.
The majority of Ricks in the Council are essentially Super SUPER Soldiers.
Each one capable of untold amounts of revenge destruction.

[S_A_M I AM]

We have no idea if her species work on people who are brain dead.
Which covers the next one too, with vat grown bodies that are essentially brain dead.

The last one has potential, but the idea of "Let's evolve you past your failures." Is a potentially disturbing one.
Which kinda of surprises me that it didn't have an asterisk.

It's pretty implied that growth in her species is based on the idea of adding more people to her collective.
She mentions and shows multiple times that she has a stance of "I would do anything for Rick", and even Rick was fairly worried about asking her to stop expanding her Collective.
So asking her to start letting people go isn't going to happen. As well as asking her to stop expanding probably would akin for someone asking you to stop growing.

First up: If you're citing in universe logic you're both missing the point of a moral discussion about the content and context of art and failing to understand the in universe logic of the shows premise. Rick and by extension; a well enough prepared and supplied group of "Lesser" scientists given enough time can do an arbitrarily large set of things. They are bound almost exclusively by their will, not

Secondly: I do not necessarily understand the issue with modifying yourself in order to better comport with your own desires/ a moral truth? For example, there are issues in the desires of somebody who undergoes plastic surgery to meet with a societal expectation of beauty. There is less of an issue with somebody using gene therapy in order to stop themselves from necessarily enslaving civilisations.

Finally: The viability of anything I suggested doesn't necessarily matter to the content of my argument.
(Edit: I was in a rush and kept a malformed, older version of a paragraph in. Rewrote the following to be actually sensible.) You're not using something like a trolley problem here: You're not using a limited possibility space to gain information on the moral context of a problem because you're including non-explicit variables, which I've tried to elaborate upon. The fact that Unity's murder is neither a desirable outcome (depending on the person) nor a necessary one deserves to be looked at.

Second edit: I wrote something that I think is true but was still kinda unfair and rude. Got rid of it.

(I don't think it's been mentioned here yet? The fact of the matter is that Unity and Rick can both do much, much, much, much more to aid themselves and others and are nowhere near their limits of marginal utility, which I feel is important to judge their moral character. I feel that it's fairly important to judge a moral agent not just by the harm they inflict upon people or how much good they do but also by the manner in which they can minimise unintentional harm and most effectively do good.*)

*That's one of the reasons most paladins honestly kinda suck.

[RedMage125]

True. Except for the for the meaning of the word that implies cunning/skill at the task of deception.



Not true. Ordering a Fiend around with Planar Binding, for exemple isn't evil, nor is making business with a Balor evil per itself (if the business is about committing an evil act in exchange for reward, then sure, it's evil). But I see what you mean.

As was mentioned, casting Planar Binding in past editions was Evil, because the spell gained the [Evil] tag. Also by that edition's rules, making any kind of deal with a Balor is at least somewhat of an evil act, because you're benefitting an Evil (capital "E") creature. But that is nitpicking. You got my point, and agreed with it.


Sophistry is when you attempt to declare that everything your opponent says is Sophistry when you didn't say why it was Sophistry or when you specifically take it out of context.
Half the things you quoted were in DIRECT RESPONSE to someone. Taking it out of context then adding a little blurb doesn't automatically make you correct.
Just because you were responding to someone else with sophistry doesn't mean I'm out of line for calling you out on it. And I was taking your "context" into account.
You want specifics? Fine, let's dig in to each example I was quoting you on and calling you out:

1st example: Your claim that homo sapiens could be considered "insignificant" as we consider ants "insignificant" was predicated on the possibility that another species could potentially be two or more iterations of "1-2% more complex" than homo sapiens. The context of which was that you were defending murder of a human being (or human-like being) as being equivalent to the "killing of an insignificant creature" like an insect. So because Rick considers himself so much smarter and more complex than the rest of the species of the universe, that his view of them as "insignificant" makes his murder of them morally equivalent to a regular human killing an ant. That was the context of your claim, and it's sophistry because it's entirely rooted in moral relativism the lynchpin of which is validation of a sociopathic outlook. That is, the only way what you say is true is if the audience accepts that the sociopath's perspective is a valid one vis a vis the rest of society.

2nd example: the second time I mentioned sophistry was another repetition of this same argument by you, so everything I said just now stands for this as well. I also added in that D&D is more clear about where lines are drawn on killing creatures. Killing non-intelligent creatures is not a morally charged act by D&D rules. And since we've clarified for you that Intent and Context matter, your questions should have been answered. Is one killing thousands of chickens and cows because one is the owner of a factory where those animal carcasses are processed into packaged meat to sell to people as food? Then the act carries no moral weight whatsoever. Killing a food animal for the sole purpose of making it into food is Neutral. If you kill all those chickens and cows overnight because you want to deplete a nation's food supply to starve those people to death, then yes, it's evil.

The 3rd time I called you out on sophistry I actually DID clarify what I meant by it, and it's more of the same. The context of your example was that-in D&D-some players will see an innocent, like a janitor, who is clearly NOT an armed henchman, and kill him anyway. The existence of people who act in an immoral fashion does not validate those immoral acts as "moral". Just because some players would break into a room full of janitors cleaning or playing cards and think "surprise round!" does not make such actions moral. For your argument to have any valid weight, we-the audience-would be required to accept that such actions are-in fact-moral. That is the only way your example could potentially have any weight in this conversation. As your example is morally repugnant by any non-sociopathic standards (including by D&D morality), your example is null.

The 4th time was pretty much the most awful on your part. You were using the cyclical ratio (which is approximately 7 years ) of cellular replacement in the human body to actually attack the concept of ownership of one's own body. That, in and of itself is sophistry, and I don't know how you can defend it as otherwise. You LITERALLY said that because you have different cells making up your body than you did 10 years ago, that you may not have the right to consider the body "yours". You also then tried to use the cells and microorganisms in one's body (not-sentient parts of a whole, might I add) not "giving consent" to sort of imply that ANY sexual conduct would then be rape. This is not "out of context", this is EXACTLY the context which you meant, to claim anything else now would be insulting to the intelligence of everyone who read that, not to mention make you a liar. To top it off, you made a pseudo-scientific claim about the left and right halves of the brain, a hypothesis that I've never heard of as actually being confirmed. Could you, perhaps, link us to the scientific study wherein the left and right halves of the brain in a person were severed and they acted like "vastly different 'people' sharing one body"? (your EXACT words). Please, share that info with us. Lest we forget, the context of ALL OF THIS was to challenge the notion that ANYONE has a right to call a body "their own". Which, if we were-hypothetically- to accept, would exonerate Rick's sexual acts with the people possessed by Unity. Which the rest of us view-unequivocally-as rape.

This is disgusting because it's one thing to defend a person accused of rape. Especially until they have been proven guilty of it. But it's a wholly different (and much worse) thing to defend the act. And that-in summation-is what you were trying to do in that last example. You were trying to challenge the notion an individual's ownership of their body determined by their sense of "self", in order to make sex with a mind-controlled individual equitable with consensual sex with another, free-willed humanoid.

As I have proved, NOTHING I called you out on was "out of context". To claim otherwise is to be a dishonest and pretentious cretin, and insults the intelligence of everyone in this discussion.

Sophistry, there you have it.


I rewatched the Unity episode specifically to argue from it.
Rick randomly after reconnecting with Unity recommends that she needs to stop her attempts at 'mind controlling' the universe.
Unity decides to randomly blow up a town for fun, and Rick is immediately worried. When she explains that she evacuated the town he calms down, but then becomes worried again about where his kids are.

Those are all examples of conscious.
I have already espoused that I believe Rick -deep, deep down- has a conscience. He is not a sociopath, but he wants to be. The very fact that he is shown to consider his love for his family a "toxin" means that he ISN'T a sociopath. A true sociopath feels no actual empathy nor genuine care and affection for anyone. They may pretend to, they may act like they do, but deep-down, it simply isn't there. Rick is the opposite. He WANTS to be a sociopath. When he was purged of "toxins", Cleansed Rick very clearly stated that he did not care about the safety or well-being of his family at all, so he knew that Toxic Rick must. Also, like I said before, Rick is shown to be heavily burdened by the weight of what he has done, and what he has lost.

But he doesn't WANT to feel that way. He WANTS to be a true sociopath. So he constantly espouses that the finds moral issues to be beneath his concern, because that's how a sociopath would act. He kills callously, f***s wantonly, and acts like a heartless b*stard, because he wants to not care. If he can manage to not care, he won't hurt anymore.

The very fact that he ISN'T a sociopath (so he DOES have a conscience), but that he consistently behaves in a manner that shows he's ignoring his conscience means he is not "acting as his conscience directs", which was the quote from the rules that you used to claim that Rick was Chaotic Good.




I tried to find more examples of Rick showing conscious, but honestly the show is like 60% random filler-esque stuff that arguably doesn't affect Morals in either direction.
Altho the Krombopulus Michael episode Rick does try to explain to Morty that selling a Gun to Michael isn't inherently Evil since Michael will kill with or without the gun. Not to mention that Michael's target was a being who wanted to destroy all carbon life in the universe. I'm not even saying that being was Evil either, since their species treats it similarly to wanting to remove an infection in the body. Tho their goals definitely don't align with the goals of others. (Note, I did not have enough time to rewatch every episode)

Do not mistake me, I did not say that Rick "does not have a conscience", go back and look if you don't believe me. I said "how can he be said to acts as any kind of 'conscience' directs?". Which he does not. He constantly acts in opposition to his conscience, because he views it as a weakness. Ergo, he is not Chaotic Good.


DnD Classifies murder as... Going to need Source on that definition. Remember only 5th Edition Sources count.
Fair enough, that was a 3.xe source I pulled that from.


I never equated Human beings to Ants, I equated a species of insects to another species of insects (Galactic Federation). I also equated Battery Race to Ants. Not BECAUSE there could be a Species that might equate us to Ants. You keep bringing up Sophistry, yet you're practicing it quite a bit by chopping up my arguments and piecing it together in a broken fashion that is inherently illogical.
You either don't know what sophistry means, or your so deep into a hole with this that no matter how much we prove that you DID, in fact, say something, you're going to deny it, like you think we're all too stupid to scroll up and see that you're now trying to lie through your teeth. Please do not claim that you "did not say" something we can all see that you did. It's beneath the dignity of yourself and everyone here. You can say you wish to redact the statement.

You did, in fact, try to defend genocide by comparing sentient, free-willed humanoids with "insignificant beings", going on later to EXPLICTLY use the analogy to an "Ant Pile".

The fact that the federation are insect-like humanoids means nothing vis-à-vis actual, non-intelligent insects. To use D&D examples, stepping on a preying mantis is not morally equivalent to murdering a Thri-Kreen. Drowning an ant hill and casting Meteor Swarm on a colony of Formians are not morally the same thing. Sentient beings and mindless insects do not carry the same value of life by ANY ethical system. And furthermore, any attempt to claim that the person wiping them out considers them to be equally insignificant has no bearing on the objective, moral weight of the act. And since we are talking about Rick from a D&D alignment perspective, there is such a thing as objective moral weight and judgment. Your juvenile attempts at moral relativism (and that's what it is. REAL moral relativism still recognizes moral absolutes with the weight of things like murder. Take a college-level ethics course if you don't believe me) do not hold any water in this discussion. All you are doing is making yourself look like an adolescent that just wants a character HE thinks is "cool" to be the Good Guy, just because he likes him. Don't be that guy.



Another example of you completely misunderstanding... well everything.
Unoriginal's argument was that only Deeds matter. I said that Deeds, Intention, and Context matter.
First off, Unoriginal has NOT said that "only Deeds matter", now you're lying about what other posters have said. I re-read everything he posted in this thread, never once did he say that. Please refrain from doing this.

Furthermore, let's bring Intent and Context into the equation.

What possible "Intent" and "Context" did Rick show in the Unity episode that makes what he not "not rape"?

HUH? Can you answer that? You say Context and Intent are the keys here to understanding why you're defending this act. Well then, take the stage. Defend it. What is the context? If one of those women from the stadium or the orgy were to be freed from Unity's control and was able to remember everything that happened while her consciousness watched like movie...what could you POSSIBLY SAY to that woman to make her feel like she wasn't sexually assaulted?

I eagerly await your rebuttal.


Back to back examples of you misunderstanding things.
The point of that reply was to bring it back to DnD levels. I was the one attempting to pull the argument back into DnD levels because it was being taken into cosmic scales.
I misunderstood nothing, do not try and backpedal and be intellectually dishonest, and think it will be acceptable like I'm some sort of ignorant cretin. This was in response to your dismissal of using D&D alignment to judge Rick.

You've made it clear that you don't even understand clearly how those D&D alignment rules actually work. How can you POSSIBLY claim to know the answer to this better than those that do?



No, that's the common response of a normal player. Trying to equate a normal group to murderhoboing is just an insult to the majority of DnD players. DnD is a combat orientated game, which is why the vast majority of books have information on combat. You're expected to have combat in your game. The PCs arriving at the Lair of the BBEG and expecting combat is not an example of murderhoboing.
No, it certainly is not "the common response of a normal player". The specific case example to which I was referring was "break into a room, fins people sweeping, tidying up, and playing cards". Even a BBEG's lair needs a janitorial staff. If these beings were clearly guards on their break, still in armor, with weapons close at hand, then MAYBE. But most non-murderhobo types would offer the janitorial staff a chance to surrender and leave, because they're about to be unemployed.

Just because YOUR experience of "most players" is apparently mostly murderhobos does not mean that's common everywhere.



Not we get to this part, the part that I have attempted to drop multiple times now. Yet people keep bringing it up like beating a dead horse. This is the only time in your entire post that you italicized the Act in question, probably because you already seen I've tried to avoid it. That's disgusting tactics.
I have never and will NEVER justify it.
Maybe you're not seeing the connection.

When you try and challenge our notions of "ownership of our bodies", you are directly insinuating-whether you realize it or not-that ANY sex between consenting adults is equitable to Rick having sex with a Unity-controlled female. Since the majority of us non-sociopaths understand that sexual conduct with a person who is incapable of giving consent equates to sexual assault, we see your insinuation as saying "it's not rape because it's no different than when consenting adults do it, because consenting adults' bodies change cells every 7 years-or because the individual cells didn't give consent".

Maybe you didn't think you were saying that. maybe you just went down a rabbit hole, focusing solely on debating "ownership of one's body" from a philosophical standpoint and maybe you were thinking about that out of context with the Rick/Unity case. Maybe. But that means that YOU lost sight of the big picture with what you were debating, and you'd have to admit that.

So what is it? Did you lose sight of the context of the discussion and forget WHY we were discussing "ownership of our bodies"? Or were you saying that Rick having sex with a Unity-slave was the same as consensual sex between two adults?



First is the premise that needs to be dismayed
Just the act of Killing is not inherently Evil
In DnD people kill all the time, including Lawful Good characters. So just Killing isn't enough to affect anyone morally.

Evil Intent, while there might have been Evil Intent behind his action. I think you're putting too much weight on what was essentially a throw away joke.

We need to remember that the Galactic Federation was arguably Evil.
They enslave planets thru Orwellian measures.
They have robots to pacify the population.
They infuse and force upon the population with an insane amount of drugs to control them.
They actively practice Debt Enslavement.
So you recognize Evil Intent, but you want to dismiss "evil act" part, because killing "isn't always evil"? You do recognize that killing is SOMETIMES evil, right? And that in this instance it was. Since this WAS one of the instances where killing was evil, we are left with Evil Action AND Evil intent.

For the record, this is also sophistry. You say that because killing "isn't inherently evil" (which by the way, is failing to make a distinction between "killing" and "murder"), we should "never" count killing as an evil act. Even though, by the virtue of the words you used, you seem to recognize that it CAN be evil. You are attempting to use word semantics to dismiss a point that could be used against you by feebly attempting to undermine the value of the words used in the statement you are opposing. You only want "killing" to "not count" because -on some level- you recognize that the killing that MadBear is referencing in this post you are responding to was, in fact, evil. But you don't want to admit it, because you admitted Evil Intent, and Evil Act+Evil Intent=Evil, right? that's the whole reason you are trying to undermine the moral weight of "killing"? Sophistry.


You do understand that "murder" is inherently evil, right? I'm distinguishing between "killing" and "murder" here. Well, Rick murdered hundreds of Ricks and Mortys. With Evil Intent.



Chaotic Good is constantly referred to as a force for liberation. The idea of bringing down tyrannical governments.
But, like you said, Intent matters, too. That's in the RAW of D&D, and it's part of what you've been saying, so let me highlight for you why you are-in fact-DEAD WRONG.

Rick did not topple a tyrannical regime with the intent of freeing people who were oppressed. He did it because that regime was in the way of him getting what he wanted. And lest we forget, what he wanted was to oust Jerry and completely control his family. He did it for selfish reasons. All your backpedalling and moral posturing about "fighting the good fight" is null and void when you realize that Rick simply doesn't want anyone else to tell him what to do.

So, to hoist you by your own petard here...your argument for him being Chaotic Good would require you to say only Deeds matter when he toppled a tyrannical regime for selfish and evil reasons, but that Intent matters MORE than Deeds when it comes to having sex with mind-controlled women. Which would mean that the value of Intent is based on an arbitrary metric based solely on what you WANT it to be worth at the time.

Which would be hypocritical, at best.

So which is it? Are you a hypocrite, or are you wrong?


- This quote is from 2003 DnD, so probably from 3.5e or 4e. So it may not technically qualify as a 5e Alignment. However we can see that disdain for bureaucratic organizations and personal freedom for all is a characteristic for a Chaotic Good character.

This source is straight up 3.5, so definitely doesn't count (and it's an opinion piece). http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook
However we can see again that there is a great importance for the freedom of others and liberation from governments.

The 5e definition of Chaotic Good is "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

Now, as you pointed out, the definition of "conscience" REQUIRES "consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct or intentions". Rick disregards ideas of "moral goodness" and tries to get Morty to do the same. He also never acknowledges moral accountability (i.e. blameworthiness) of his own actions. Ergo, Rick CANNOT be said to act "as his conscience directs". Furthermore, if he were actually acting "as his conscience directed", he wouldn't be tortured to the point of being suicidal.

Now, by contrast, 5e's definition of Neutral Evil is: "the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms."

But 5e's definition of Chaotic Evil is: "creatures [which] act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust."

I would even argue that, by 5e's definition, Rick is not Chaotic Evil. But he IS Neutral Evil.


That's where my logic for him being a Chaotic Good Force comes from. He is absolutely a *insert whatever negative insult you want here*. However, as a Force he is Chaotic Good. Which is why his alignment he is Chaotic Good.

So? Riddick did very similar things, toppled an Evil Empire, and yet, by a 3.5e D&D metric he is Chaotic Evil (source: Complete Scoundrel).

Just because someone topples Evil Regimes does not automatically make the person Chaotic Good. That's asinine. If I topple a tyrannical regime to institute my OWN tyrannical regime, I would be Lawful Evil. If someone topples a tyrannical regime because they are on a campaign of total anarchy and they believe each individual should live like the whole universe is the g*dd*mn Thunder Dome, that would be Chaotic Evil. If a noble knight toppled a tyrannical regime to replace it with a just and fair (but still as authoritarian) one, that would be Lawful Good.

Just because a tyrannical regime was conquered as a blowback from Rick's murder-spree doesn't make HIM Chaotic Good.



Anyone who might actually believe that Rick is not fundamentally a Good person is someone who has missed the point of Rick and Morty so spectacularly that I have no words for them.
Quite possibly the most asinine thing said about this show, ever. The "point" is to have an adult cartoon with a sort of sci-fi theme that is funny, featuring an amoral brilliant scientist. At no point is "the point" that "Rick is a good person".



DnD Alignment isn't consequentialist in nature though... you are not Good because Good happened as a result of your actions. You are Good because you do things in Good ways for Good reasons, almost irregardless of the bigger picture consequences (especially if you are not aware of or don't particularly care about those consequences).

If I am a serial killer who targets orcs, and eradicates a whole generation of them... it doesn't matter if the kingdom, or even the world itself, is saved from the ravenous and evil orcish menace; both my actions and motivations were Evil and so am I.
My God, YES! Yes, yes, yes!

Now, if only he could be made to understand that.

[Rhedyn]

The point of Rick and Morty is that Rick is a **** person.

Is he maniacally evil? No. His intents and purposes are not for the sake of evil. He lacks responsibility for his actions and mercy for anyone that has crossed him.

He's a bad person. He's a monster. But much of that comes from his ability not his morality. Any CN god in a universe by himself would be understood as an evil entity. Rick's morals given to a mortal don't lead to genocide. If Ron Swanson was given godlike powers and had the ability to oppose a galactic government as a military threat, he might end up just like Rick.

[MadBear]

Also, on 3.
Agreeing that the Galactic Federation is Evil, doesn't mean that every single one of them deserves to Die.
It's not like Rick released some virus that exterminated the Race that controlled the Galactic Government.
He destroyed the Government itself.

ok this one's easy. I was saying I'm happy to concede any discussion about the galactic government. I wasn't telling you my position. Basically, whether they deserved it or not, it wasn't worth the time or effort going over, when a better avenue of discussion could be had.


As they say, for Evil to win; Good only needs to do Nothing.
When fighting Evil, Innocents will die; however if Good People choose to do Nothing because they are afraid that Innocents will die, then Evil wins.
It's almost a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't situation.


So to make sure I'm understanding your position. It was ok for Rick to teleport the citadel into a galactic prison because, in doing so while he killed innocents, he also took down evil.

If that's what you believe (and to be honest I don't think you honestly hold this position), then would the following scenario be "good" in your eyes:

- Tim knows that Jim is truly evil (and for the sake or arguement Jim is in fact evil). Tim is driving a bus full of school kids on a trip, and see's Jim driving by. Tim, crashes the bus against Jim, killing most everyone involved.

Was that good? I mean "As they say, for Evil to win; Good only needs to do Nothing.
When fighting Evil, Innocents will die; however if Good People choose to do Nothing because they are afraid that Innocents will die, then Evil wins. "



On the Council of Ricks it's a little different. There isn't really a Real World equivalent to this one.
The majority of Ricks in the Council are essentially Super SUPER Soldiers.
Each one capable of untold amounts of revenge destruction.

so what if the Rick are Super SUPER soldiers? How does that excuse killing tons of them and their Morty's (who are basically hostages going along with their grandpa). I mean, I know you're not saying that it's ok because their "evil" because that'd defeat your entire argument.

[Sigreid]

Rick Sanchez is chaotic evil for the sole purpose that he is willing to commit horrendous acts at a whim; he casually commits genocide for even momentary benefit, has enslaved entire universes in an effort to power his car, and is so completely detached from any idea of cohesion that he cannot even get along with himself from other universes.

He is a being ruled completely by his id and base desires because, to his mind, he has seen the true character of the universe and decided to become more like it: uncaring, unsympathetic, and sometimes kinda dickish.

If that isn't the textbook Chaotic Evil, I don't know what is. Even his caring for his family is ruled by that same selfish desire.

To be fair, I'm not sure I would get along with another me.

Also, I think it's relevant that when Beth asked if she was evil Rick responded "worse, you're smart". This indicates to me that Rick sees himself as worse than evil. Also, in the vindicater episode Million Ants sensed him as a greater evil than the galactic supervillain they assembled to stop.

[Finlam]

To be fair, I'm not sure I would get along with another me.


Douglass Adams may be relevant here:


The Restaurant at the End of the Universe is one of the most extraordinary ventures in the entire history of catering.

...

At the Restaurant you can meet and dine with ... a fascinating cross-section of the entire population of space and time.

This, it can be explained patiently, is also impossible.

You can visit it as many times as you like ... and be sure of never meeting yourself, because of the embarrassment this usually causes.

[Talamare]

1st example: Your claim that homo sapiens could be considered "insignificant" as we consider ants "insignificant" was predicated on the possibility that another species could potentially be two or more iterations of "1-2% more complex" than homo sapiens. The context of which was that you were defending murder of a human being (or human-like being) as being equivalent to the "killing of an insignificant creature" like an insect. So because Rick considers himself so much smarter and more complex than the rest of the species of the universe, that his view of them as "insignificant" makes his murder of them morally equivalent to a regular human killing an ant. That was the context of your claim, and it's sophistry because it's entirely rooted in moral relativism the lynchpin of which is validation of a sociopathic outlook. That is, the only way what you say is true is if the audience accepts that the sociopath's perspective is a valid one vis a vis the rest of society.

An Alien Being being 1-2% more complex than us would see us as animals. An Alien Being being 1-2% more complex than that species, would see that previous species as animals, and us as insignificant. Understand the point. I am a human being, so I cannot equate other humans as insignificant.
Rick can consider himself 100% more complex than other Humans, but he is still Human.

Finally, "it's entirely rooted in moral relativism the lynchpin of which is validation of a sociopathic outlook."
Is completely illogical. You're following the idea of...
"sociopaths have used moral relativisim"
"thus moral relativism is sophistry" ?
People use Moral Relativism all the time, and it's completely valid. Are you saying you believe in Moral Absolutes? Do I need to point you to the trolley problem?


2nd example: the second time I mentioned sophistry was another repetition of this same argument by you, so everything I said just now stands for this as well. I also added in that D&D is more clear about where lines are drawn on killing creatures. Killing non-intelligent creatures is not a morally charged act by D&D rules. And since we've clarified for you that Intent and Context matter, your questions should have been answered. Is one killing thousands of chickens and cows because one is the owner of a factory where those animal carcasses are processed into packaged meat to sell to people as food? Then the act carries no moral weight whatsoever. Killing a food animal for the sole purpose of making it into food is Neutral. If you kill all those chickens and cows overnight because you want to deplete a nation's food supply to starve those people to death, then yes, it's evil.

The 3rd time I called you out on sophistry I actually DID clarify what I meant by it, and it's more of the same. The context of your example was that-in D&D-some players will see an innocent, like a janitor, who is clearly NOT an armed henchman, and kill him anyway. The existence of people who act in an immoral fashion does not validate those immoral acts as "moral". Just because some players would break into a room full of janitors cleaning or playing cards and think "surprise round!" does not make such actions moral. For your argument to have any valid weight, we-the audience-would be required to accept that such actions are-in fact-moral. That is the only way your example could potentially have any weight in this conversation. As your example is morally repugnant by any non-sociopathic standards (including by D&D morality), your example is null.
You did not clarify it for me that Intents and Context matter.
I clarified it for you that Intents and Context matter. <-- Altho to be honest, this is something that most people already know. But since you're clearly being dishonest in an attempt to frame me poorly, I'm saying it.

and what about killing those Chickens and Cows for Food, but realizing you have too much. Let's say half those Chickens and Cows are thrown straight into the Trash. Bit of a Moral Grey there huh.
Tho, since it's pretty standard for Humans (especially in the West, maybe not so much in the East and Cows) to feel they have no Moral Obligation to Cows and Chickens, it doesn't really matter.
Even in your own example "You kill all those Chickens and Cows ==to deplete a Nation's food supply to starve people=="
Your own example didn't really care about the Lives of Chickens and Cows. You cared about the effect that their deaths would have on the Lives of People.

You called me out for 'lying about what I've said' so I'm seriously curious if I said Janitor at any point. Did I give #436 any physical attributes. I believe I just said he was Vegan.
Either way, the point of #436 was that moral weight of certain actions (such as killing) is significantly reduced for Entertainment Purposes.
This is pretty important when Speaking about Morals and Speaking about DnD Morals.
Calling the Standard DnD player a Sociopath is pretty excessive don't you think?


The 4th time was pretty much the most awful on your part. You were using the cyclical ratio (which is approximately 7 years ) of cellular replacement in the human body to actually attack the concept of ownership of one's own body. That, in and of itself is sophistry, and I don't know how you can defend it as otherwise. You LITERALLY said that because you have different cells making up your body than you did 10 years ago, that you may not have the right to consider the body "yours". You also then tried to use the cells and microorganisms in one's body (not-sentient parts of a whole, might I add) not "giving consent" to sort of imply that ANY sexual conduct would then be rape. This is not "out of context", this is EXACTLY the context which you meant, to claim anything else now would be insulting to the intelligence of everyone who read that, not to mention make you a liar. To top it off, you made a pseudo-scientific claim about the left and right halves of the brain, a hypothesis that I've never heard of as actually being confirmed. Could you, perhaps, link us to the scientific study wherein the left and right halves of the brain in a person were severed and they acted like "vastly different 'people' sharing one body"? (your EXACT words). Please, share that info with us. Lest we forget, the context of ALL OF THIS was to challenge the notion that ANYONE has a right to call a body "their own". Which, if we were-hypothetically- to accept, would exonerate Rick's sexual acts with the people possessed by Unity. Which the rest of us view-unequivocally-as rape.
This is the problem with difficult subjects. Someone always takes it out of context and uses it to demonize.
I absolutely am challenging the concept of body ownership. Not with the intents of justifying rape. With the intent of challenging body ownership.
Something important is that I tried making sure not to 'say' anything definitively on this subject. It's a complex subject and it has no easy answers.
These discussions aren't really relevant perhaps to our current technology levels. However when(if?) we develop the technology to switch bodies, it would definitely bring questions to bear.
Humans have no experience, nor direct case studies in such examples so any arguments made are made with a sort of backwards relativism. (I might be wording this poorly, but moving on)


Also, even the first case study with Gazzaniga and Sperry (Yes, I had to google their names) proved that there are different likes and dislikes from each half. Even Naanomi has acknowledged that she has seen it first hand. Do we understand the full weight of this? Of course not, the Science is at it's infancy. Tho if people keep calling it a Pseudo Science it might never leave it it's infancy.


For the record, this is also sophistry. You say that because killing "isn't inherently evil" (which by the way, is failing to make a distinction between "killing" and "murder"), we should "never" count killing as an evil act. Even though, by the virtue of the words you used, you seem to recognize that it CAN be evil. You are attempting to use word semantics to dismiss a point that could be used against you by feebly attempting to undermine the value of the words used in the statement you are opposing. You only want "killing" to "not count" because -on some level- you recognize that the killing that MadBear is referencing in this post you are responding to was, in fact, evil. But you don't want to admit it, because you admitted Evil Intent, and Evil Act+Evil Intent=Evil, right? that's the whole reason you are trying to undermine the moral weight of "killing"? Sophistry.


You do understand that "murder" is inherently evil, right? I'm distinguishing between "killing" and "murder" here. Well, Rick murdered hundreds of Ricks and Mortys. With Evil Intent.


But, like you said, Intent matters, too. That's in the RAW of D&D, and it's part of what you've been saying, so let me highlight for you why you are-in fact-DEAD WRONG.

Rick did not topple a tyrannical regime with the intent of freeing people who were oppressed. He did it because that regime was in the way of him getting what he wanted. And lest we forget, what he wanted was to oust Jerry and completely control his family. He did it for selfish reasons. All your backpedalling and moral posturing about "fighting the good fight" is null and void when you realize that Rick simply doesn't want anyone else to tell him what to do.

So, to hoist you by your own petard here...your argument for him being Chaotic Good would require you to say only Deeds matter when he toppled a tyrannical regime for selfish and evil reasons, but that Intent matters MORE than Deeds when it comes to having sex with mind-controlled women. Which would mean that the value of Intent is based on an arbitrary metric based solely on what you WANT it to be worth at the time.
Killing is not inherently Evil.
You can kill for a Good Cause. Such as rescuing Children
You can kill for a Neutral Cause. Such as being a Soldier in a War

Rick has been a Freedom Fighter for a large portion of his life. His life as a Freedom Fighter is arguably part of the reason why he is such a broken figure. Trying to say that zero of the intent of destroying the Galactic Government had nothing to do with Freeing the Oppressed is just inherently incorrect. If the only reason you're going to espouse is the throw away Szechuan sauce rant. Then you have not made a compelling argument.

He straight up acknowledges that his plan was to mind control one of the Insect Race and destroy the Government from the Inside. He acknowledges that when the Council of Rick attempted to Assassinate Him (and captured Morty and Summer) that his plan was screwed up from that point forward and that he no longer had the ability to improvise. So we absolutely see that his Mission and Goal was to Destroy the Government first and foremost. His Intent aligns perfectly with that of a Chaotic Good figure.

Hell, upto the point that the Rick Assassins hit, he more or less didn't even kill anyone. You might make an arguable and weak point that he 'killed' the person who was left inside his body.
After that Rick goes to the Council of Ricks to save Morty and Summer, and the only Ricks and Morty he directly kills are the Council Leader of Ricks.
We absolutely creates a Warzone in which many Ricks and Morty dies. Tho at that point we have to equate it morally to something similar.
If we equate the Galactic Government to an Evil Empire of your favorite flavor, would a political leader declaring War on them (which causes the innocents to die in the cross fire), be Evil?

I had to rewatch that Episode to get information to make this reply, but after rewatching it definitely proved fairly worth it.
I do consider if at this point I'm Arguing from an Entrenched Position. After all, the more a person feels attacked, the more Entrenched they become.
The fact that this thread has arguably been dozens vs one, would definitely give reason for me to feel attacked, and become Entrenched.
Tho after rewatching the clear motivations during the episodes. It's pretty clear through out the episode that his primary intention was to destroy the Galactic Government.


I know I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to throw my two cents in and say that I wished people would stop adding insults as accents to their points, like saying “your views deeply worry me” or permutations thereof.

Thank you by the way.


ok this one's easy. I was saying I'm happy to concede any discussion about the galactic government. I wasn't telling you my position. Basically, whether they deserved it or not, it wasn't worth the time or effort going over, when a better avenue of discussion could be had.



So to make sure I'm understanding your position. It was ok for Rick to teleport the citadel into a galactic prison because, in doing so while he killed innocents, he also took down evil.

If that's what you believe (and to be honest I don't think you honestly hold this position), then would the following scenario be "good" in your eyes:

- Tim knows that Jim is truly evil (and for the sake or arguement Jim is in fact evil). Tim is driving a bus full of school kids on a trip, and see's Jim driving by. Tim, crashes the bus against Jim, killing most everyone involved.

Was that good? I mean "As they say, for Evil to win; Good only needs to do Nothing.
When fighting Evil, Innocents will die; however if Good People choose to do Nothing because they are afraid that Innocents will die, then Evil wins. "

so what if the Rick are Super SUPER soldiers? How does that excuse killing tons of them and their Morty's (who are basically hostages going along with their grandpa). I mean, I know you're not saying that it's ok because their "evil" because that'd defeat your entire argument.
It's basically scale at that point. I hate the Trolley problem, but it's basically the Trolley problem.
Left side has Evil Tim ready to nuke a city, and a bus full of Children. Right Side has an open path to where all the innocent kids go free and they live.
What does Jim do? Does he stop Evil but his actions lead to the death of Innocent Children.
Does he allow Evil to directly cause the deaths of millions in a City?

I know your example didn't include that Evil Tim has a Nuke, but scale is important.
If Evil Tim's Evilness never amounts to anything significant, then Jim did not do Good.
If Evil Tim's Evilness will absolutely amount to significantly more Evil than the death of a bus full of innocent Children. Then Jim doing nothing will mean that Evil will win.
I also understand that some may try to dodge the example, [not saying you will] but by dodging it you're basically not adding to the conversation.

[MadBear]

It's basically scale at that point. I hate the Trolley problem, but it's basically the Trolley problem.
Left side has Evil Tim ready to nuke a city, and a bus full of Children. Right Side has an open path to where all the innocent kids go free and they live.
What does Jim do? Does he stop Evil but his actions lead to the death of Innocent Children.
Does he allow Evil to directly cause the deaths of millions in a City?

I know your example didn't include that Evil Tim has a Nuke, but scale is important.
If Evil Tim's Evilness never amounts to anything significant, then Jim did not do Good.
If Evil Tim's Evilness will absolutely amount to significantly more Evil than the death of a bus full of innocent Children. Then Jim doing nothing will mean that Evil will win.
I also understand that some may try to dodge the example, [not saying you will] but by dodging it you're basically not adding to the conversation.

I see what you're saying, and while I don't intend to dodge you example, I am going to a little bit, just to make my example more clear. The reason I'm doing this, is that the trolley problem sets up a scenario where you have a binary set of options. You do nothing, or you pull a lever. While it's useful in showing the complexities of morality, it doesn't really translate well to my original example.

In my example, I was trying to convey a scenario where Tim is making a choice that will kill Jim, and kill a bus full of children, when he had other options. It'd be more analogous to a trolley problem where:

1. Don't do anything and a trolley containing an evil person goes free
2. you pull lever 1 and it switches tracks, runs into another train killing the evil person and all the innocents aboard it.
3. you pull any number of different available levers at your disposal that don't result in killing a bunch of innocent people and stop the train

Rick is the smartest person in the galaxy and he casually kills tons of innocent people in that episode. You are never given any indication that he does this because it's the only way to stop an evil government. He does it for his own selfish reasons, and without regard to the innocents he killed.

In other words the reason the trolley problem doesn't apply here is that it is a binary choice, and you'd need to show that Rick had only 2 options.

[Unoriginal]

Any attempt to claim that Rick is Chaotic Good because he freed people from oppression falls flat on its face because Rick is himself an oppressor.

As said over and over again, Rick will trick, manipulate, threaten with death, kill and enslave others with no issue, and help others do the same to others, as long as it's convenient for him to do so.

Also, no one is claiming "moral relativism = sociopathy", only that you've been using the former to justify the latter.


Also bis, your claim that evil actions are lessened if a character does them for the player's/viewer's entertainment is wrong.

Liking a fictional bad guy who does horrible things because said bad guy is entertaining is normal. It doesn't make the action any less evil. If Two-Face murders someone a funny way, it's still murder.

[Talamare]

I see what you're saying, and while I don't intend to dodge you example, I am going to a little bit, just to make my example more clear. The reason I'm doing this, is that the trolley problem sets up a scenario where you have a binary set of options. You do nothing, or you pull a lever. While it's useful in showing the complexities of morality, it doesn't really translate well to my original example.

In my example, I was trying to convey a scenario where Tim is making a choice that will kill Jim, and kill a bus full of children, when he had other options. It'd be more analogous to a trolley problem where:

1. Don't do anything and a trolley containing an evil person goes free
2. you pull lever 1 and it switches tracks, runs into another train killing the evil person and all the innocents aboard it.
3. you pull any number of different available levers at your disposal that don't result in killing a bunch of innocent people and stop the train

Rick is the smartest person in the galaxy and he casually kills tons of innocent people in that episode. You are never given any indication that he does this because it's the only way to stop an evil government. He does it for his own selfish reasons, and without regard to the innocents he killed.

In other words the reason the trolley problem doesn't apply here is that it is a binary choice, and you'd need to show that Rick had only 2 options.
It's difficult to just straight up examine the amount of options he had.
Let's set up the circumstances that were presented.

1 There is a limited amount of Time
- Every moment spent is another moment that the Children's Lives are in danger, and that Galactic Reinforcement increases.

2 - The Primary Goal is to Destroy the Galactic Government
- Since they are the primary source of Evil in this example

3 - You have spent the last 20? 30? Years failing to make any impact in stopping the Galactic Government
- So any conventional attempts that he might have attempted have already failed.

I did rewatch that episode. He doesn't directly kill tons of innocents, but he does create a situation in which innocent Mortys die.
The only people he directly kills are any assassins or guards actively stopping him. As well as the Leaders of the Council of Rick.

[Naanomi]

In the real world, ethics of treatment of animals is a great topic of ethical conversation. In DnD Cosmology, the answers are pretty objectively clear. Animals don’t have souls, and lack the moral agency of other species... on death, with few exceptions, they all end up in the Beastlands to join with the Animal Lords. While they have animus, and therefore torture and needless cruelty of animals can be Evil, they lack the ‘stuff’ that makes killing them a moral question at all.

That’s the big rub, that Alignment doesn’t exactly equal morality, and in areas that are grey in real life have concrete and clear answers cosmologically in the DnD universe. The idea that ‘Good’ doesn’t perfectly equate to ‘right’ is actually a point of discussion between in-universe philosophers

In this way, the classic Trolley problem isn’t a great measure of Alignment... Good Aligned people may go ‘either way’ depending on their motivation and still be Good; it doesn’t help us differentiate much on the objective Alignment questions

[Talamare]

Also bis, your claim that evil actions are lessened if a character does them for the player's/viewer's entertainment is wrong.

Liking a fictional bad guy who does horrible things because said bad guy is entertaining is normal. It doesn't make the action any less evil. If Two-Face murders someone a funny way, it's still murder.

I didn't say that. I said that the moral weight of killing is reduced in Games.
That is not equivalent to "If 2Face murders someone in a funny way then it's okay"
That is equivalent to "If players end up killing a dozen people, they aren't automatically Evil."

In the vast majority of DnD Adventures, players are expected to kill.
The DM has the stats for creatures, and players are expected to kill those creatures. (Remember that Humanoids are considered Creatures by DnD Definition)
You don't go to a game of Adventure League, wait for the other PCs in your group to kill stuff, then argue the alignment implication of all the things they killed.

[Unoriginal]

In the real world, ethics of treatment of animals is a great topic of ethical conversation. In DnD Cosmology, the answers are pretty objectively clear. Animals don’t have souls, and lack the moral agency of other species... on death, with few exceptions, they all end up in the Beastlands to join with the Animal Lords. While they have animus, and therefore torture and needless cruelty of animals can be Evil, they lack the ‘stuff’ that makes killing them a moral question at all.

That’s the big rub, that Alignment doesn’t exactly equal morality, and in areas that are grey in real life have concrete and clear answers cosmologically in the DnD universe. The idea that ‘Good’ doesn’t perfectly equate to ‘right’ is actually a point of discussion between in-universe philosophers

In this way, the classic Trolley problem isn’t a great measure of Alignment... Good Aligned people may go ‘either way’ depending on their motivation and still be Good; it doesn’t help us differentiate much on the objective Alignment questions

There is many ways to do good, just as there are many ways to do evil. Even if you asked two Solars their opinions on how to handle a situation, they could give radically different answers, yet both would acknowledge the other answer is also good.

Also now I want a scenario involving the PCs meeting one of the Animal Lords.


I didn't say that. I said that the moral weight of killing is reduced in Games.
That is not equivalent to "If 2Face murders someone in a funny way then it's okay"
That is equivalent to "If players end up killing a dozen people, they aren't automatically Evil."

In the vast majority of DnD Adventures, players are expected to kill.
The DM has the stats for creatures, and players are expected to kill those creatures. (Remember that Humanoids are considered Creatures by DnD Definition)
You don't go to a game of Adventure League, wait for the other PCs in your group to kill stuff, then argue the alignment implication of all the things they killed.

I was not talking about killing, I was talking about murder.

If a PC goes in a bar and kill 20 people in cold blood, they're evil. Because it's murdering people. If your Skyrim protag goes around killing non-hostile NPCs just for the heck of it, said protag is committing evil.

If a fictional character kills people in a morally justifiable way, the moral weight is not lessened because it's entertainment. If a fictional character kills people in a morally unjustifiable way, the moral weight is not lessened because it's entertainment.

Also, nice to see that you completely skipped over the argument that demonstrate why your stance has no leg to stand on, so I'm going to re-post it:

Any attempt to claim that Rick is Chaotic Good because he freed people from oppression falls flat on its face because Rick is himself an oppressor.

As said over and over again, Rick will trick, manipulate, threaten with death, kill and enslave others with no issue, and help others do the same to others, as long as it's convenient for him to do so.

[MadBear]

I did rewatch that episode. He doesn't directly kill tons of innocents, but he does create a situation in which innocent Mortys die.
The only people he directly kills are any assassins or guards actively stopping him. As well as the Leaders of the Council of Rick.

Let's focus in on this bolded statement.

While this statement isn't dishonest, it sidesteps the point. If I tossed a child into a lions pit, you could very well say "I didn't directly kill the child, I just put him in a situation where he was killed".

Rick teleported the citadel into the prison where the worst of the worst prisoners were kept. He's the smartest man in the universe, so he knew what would happen when he did that. He's ultimately responsible for the violent deaths that those Morty's suffered.

[Talamare]

I was not talking about killing, I was talking about murder.

If a PC goes in a bar and kill 20 people in cold blood, they're evil. Because it's murdering people. If your Skyrim protag goes around killing non-hostile NPCs just for the heck of it, said protag is committing evil.

If a fictional character kills people in a morally justifiable way, the moral weight is not lessened because it's entertainment. If a fictional character kills people in a morally unjustifiable way, the moral weight is not lessened because it's entertainment.

Also, nice to see that you completely skipped over the argument that demonstrate why your stance has no leg to stand on, so I'm going to re-post it:

Any attempt to claim that Rick is Chaotic Good because he freed people from oppression falls flat on its face because Rick is himself an oppressor.

As said over and over again, Rick will trick, manipulate, threaten with death, kill and enslave others with no issue, and help others do the same to others, as long as it's convenient for him to do so.
I didn't skip over, I just felt that statement was more egregious and that the skipped statement was already addressed. (Like 3 times already...)
Even if your PC kills people for morally unjustifiable reasons, it doesn't inherently cause an Alignment change.

A Squad of Bandits stop your PC in the Road and demands for money and threaten to kill you if you don't. They brandish Daggers.
Game Response - Your Rogue and Ranger who are hidden instantly shoot to kill in a Surprise Round.
Real Life Response - You give them the money, and call the authorities. The authorities arrest them. No one dies.

On the second subject. I don't recall an episode where Rick enslaved Humanity, but feel free to point me to it.
I know it's a bother but could you list the times Rick has enslaved?



Let's focus in on this bolded statement.

While this statement isn't dishonest, it sidesteps the point. If I tossed a child into a lions pit, you could very well say "I didn't directly kill the child, I just put him in a situation where he was killed".

Rick teleported the citadel into the prison where the worst of the worst prisoners were kept. He's the smartest man in the universe, so he knew what would happen when he did that. He's ultimately responsible for the violent deaths that those Morty's suffered.

I wasn't trying to sidestep, which is why I included that line. I felt that the previous line alone would make it appear that I was trying to sidestep.
I acknowledge that he was absolutely knowingly putting Morty (an Innocent Child) in such a dangerous situation that death was essentially inevitable.
Even if the weight of their deaths is in his hands. The decision doesn't inherently become Evil.

What other solution was there to Destroy the Galactic Government?
This is a problem in which the smartest man in the universe has failed to achieve a countless amount of times.

You said that the Trolley problem has additional Rails. What are they?

[Trum4n1208]

I know it's a bother but could you list the times Rick has enslaved?

It's been mentioned multiple times already, but the end of the Microverse episode stands out pretty strongly in my mind. Rick states that if the people in his microverse didn't work to power his car, he would "get rid of a dead battery," which strongly implies that he would destroy the microverse just like he did the teenie-verse or whatever it was called earlier in the episode. Any situation that can be summed up with "group A works for person B or else person B will kill group A" sounds like enslavement to me. That's enslavement on a planet-wide scale, and that's not even the worst thing he did in that episode (the aforementioned destruction of a universe that definitely had intelligent life). There may well be other examples in the show, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

It's been mentioned multiple times already, but the end of the Microverse episode stands out pretty strongly in my mind. Rick states that if the people in his microverse didn't work to power his car, he would "get rid of a dead battery," which strongly implies that he would destroy the microverse just like he did the teenie-verse or whatever it was called earlier in the episode. Any situation that can be summed up with "group A works for person B or else person B will kill group A" sounds like enslavement to me. That's enslavement on a planet-wide scale, and that's not even the worst thing he did in that episode (the aforementioned destruction of a universe that definitely had intelligent life). There may well be other examples in the show, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

Not to mention the "party" where he viciously kills some rich people just to have fun and then dances in their blood. Or that time when, being old again after becoming a teenager, he destroys his "Operation Phoenix", and kills his baby-self with a sadistic look in his eyes in a bloodshed.

[Unoriginal]

I didn't skip over, I just felt that statement was more egregious and that the skipped statement was already addressed. (Like 3 times already...)

"I didn't skip over the skipped statement". Really?



Even if your PC kills people for morally unjustifiable reasons, it doesn't inherently cause an Alignment change.

Alignments describe your typical behavior. If they do that several times, it becomes typical.



A Squad of Bandits stop your PC in the Road and demands for money and threaten to kill you if you don't. They brandish Daggers.
Game Response - Your Rogue and Ranger who are hidden instantly shoot to kill in a Surprise Round.
Real Life Response - You give them the money, and call the authorities. The authorities arrest them. No one dies.

Ahahaha.

Because D&D is totally a modern Western world country, and not a pseudo-medieval setting where travelers are expected to defend themselves on the road to survive. And bandits totally don't kill you even if you pay. And bandits always surrender peacefully to the authorities. And those who are captured are never condemned to death depending on the place and time.

Also, this has nothing to do with anything I've said. Killing people who are threatening you with murder (and often worse) if you don't pay isn't unjustified killing.



On the second subject. I don't recall an episode where Rick enslaved Humanity, but feel free to point me to it.
I know it's a bother but could you list the times Rick has enslaved?

How does his car's battery work, again?

[Friv]

Not to mention the "party" where he viciously kills some rich people just to have fun and then dances in their blood. Or that time when, being old again after becoming a teenager, he destroys his "Operation Phoenix", and kills his baby-self with a sadistic look in his eyes in a bloodshed.

Also there's the enslaved tech support aliens in his giant/shrink ray. And the time that it turns out Rick got an entire planet enslaved and turned into an amusement park and now they want revenge against him.

[MadBear]

I wasn't trying to sidestep, which is why I included that line. I felt that the previous line alone would make it appear that I was trying to sidestep.
I acknowledge that he was absolutely knowingly putting Morty (an Innocent Child) in such a dangerous situation that death was essentially inevitable.
Even if the weight of their deaths is in his hands. The decision doesn't inherently become Evil.

What other solution was there to Destroy the Galactic Government?
This is a problem in which the smartest man in the universe has failed to achieve a countless amount of times.

You said that the Trolley problem has additional Rails. What are they?

Can I just ask point blank then:
Do you think Rick's actions were not evil, in what he did during the Rickshank Redemption?

[RedMage125]

An Alien Being being 1-2% more complex than us would see us as animals. An Alien Being being 1-2% more complex than that species, would see that previous species as animals, and us as insignificant. Understand the point. I am a human being, so I cannot equate other humans as insignificant.
Rick can consider himself 100% more complex than other Humans, but he is still Human.

Finally, "it's entirely rooted in moral relativism the lynchpin of which is validation of a sociopathic outlook."
Is completely illogical. You're following the idea of...
"sociopaths have used moral relativisim"
"thus moral relativism is sophistry" ?
People use Moral Relativism all the time, and it's completely valid. Are you saying you believe in Moral Absolutes? Do I need to point you to the trolley problem?
Not all Moral Relativism is sophistry, no. Take a college-level course in Ethics sometime. REAL Moral Relativism is more than just "as long as I don't believe I'm evil, I'm not".

No, THIS PARTICULAR example of you trying to use [a parody of] Moral Relativism relies on you validating a sociopathic outlook. And it requires the audience to likewise accept such as being just as valid as the rest of society's view, in order to accept your defense of his behavior as "morally good" when he murders people.



You did not clarify it for me that Intents and Context matter.
I clarified it for you that Intents and Context matter. <-- Altho to be honest, this is something that most people already know. But since you're clearly being dishonest in an attempt to frame me poorly, I'm saying it.
None of us said they do not matter.

You tried to claim that some of us said "only deeds matter". No one did, you were making a Straw Man, so you could act like saying "Intent and Context matter" was your idea. Unless you count the fact that you apparently think Rick's perception of himself as a superior life form ACTUALLY excuses him from being morally accountable for murder. Which, since this is a discussion about D&D alignment, it does not.



and what about killing those Chickens and Cows for Food, but realizing you have too much. Let's say half those Chickens and Cows are thrown straight into the Trash. Bit of a Moral Grey there huh.
Tho, since it's pretty standard for Humans (especially in the West, maybe not so much in the East and Cows) to feel they have no Moral Obligation to Cows and Chickens, it doesn't really matter.
Even in your own example "You kill all those Chickens and Cows ==to deplete a Nation's food supply to starve people=="
Your own example didn't really care about the Lives of Chickens and Cows. You cared about the effect that their deaths would have on the Lives of People.
Naanomi explained this perfectly. Refer to her statement on Ethical Treatment of Animals by D&D morality.



You called me out for 'lying about what I've said' so I'm seriously curious if I said Janitor at any point. Did I give #436 any physical attributes. I believe I just said he was Vegan.
Either way, the point of #436 was that moral weight of certain actions (such as killing) is significantly reduced for Entertainment Purposes.
This is pretty important when Speaking about Morals and Speaking about DnD Morals.
Calling the Standard DnD player a Sociopath is pretty excessive don't you think?

Except-once again, CONTEXT-the part that led to my response was the NEW example that spawned off "henchman #436". Wherein a party bursts into a room and sees people cleaning, sweeping, and playing cards, and you said a "normal" response was "surprise round!".

And again, unless you have a MOUNTAIN of documentation to prove your claim, I am trying to tell you that this response is not "standard" or even "typical" of D&D players. This is a murder hobo response. Maybe most of your play experience is with murder hobos, I have no way of knowing. But that's not "typical" by any means.



This is the problem with difficult subjects. Someone always takes it out of context and uses it to demonize.
I absolutely am challenging the concept of body ownership. Not with the intents of justifying rape. With the intent of challenging body ownership.
Something important is that I tried making sure not to 'say' anything definitively on this subject. It's a complex subject and it has no easy answers.
Full stop for a moment here. I asked this again later in my post but you did not address it specifically.

Let's examine this. You were challenging the concept of "body ownership" in and of itself. Fine, whatever.

Do you now understand that the rest of us were still talking about Rick and Unity having sex, because that was the meta that spawned "body ownership" as a topic? And Furthermore, do you understand that within the context of Rick having sex with a Unity slave, "challenging body ownership" means you were trying to exonerate Rick having sex with a woman's body in a circumstance she could not give consent to, because anyone who accepts your premise of "we don't even own our own bodies" as valid means that what Rick did was equitable with consensual sex between adults? I am just asking if you now understand the context. Because THIS is why everyone was accusing you of defending rape. Maybe it was just a miscommunication. But if you understand the "why" now, I still think you should say something to the effect of "my bad, I am sorry. I wasn't even thinking you could take my words as defending rape. I understand why now" or something.


These discussions aren't really relevant perhaps to our current technology levels. However when(if?) we develop the technology to switch bodies, it would definitely bring questions to bear.
Humans have no experience, nor direct case studies in such examples so any arguments made are made with a sort of backwards relativism. (I might be wording this poorly, but moving on)


Also, even the first case study with Gazzaniga and Sperry (Yes, I had to google their names) proved that there are different likes and dislikes from each half. Even Naanomi has acknowledged that she has seen it first hand. Do we understand the full weight of this? Of course not, the Science is at it's infancy. Tho if people keep calling it a Pseudo Science it might never leave it it's infancy.
Ok, so that's a real study (and kind of a disturbing set of experiments, but hey...progress). I'll give you that, but it still doesn't mean we don't own our own bodies.



Killing is not inherently Evil.
You can kill for a Good Cause. Such as rescuing Children
You can kill for a Neutral Cause. Such as being a Soldier in a War
AND you can kill for Evil purposes.

Just because killing isn't ALWAYS Evil doesn't mean we should never consider it when we are looking at whether or not someone is Evil. Let me put it this way, because I don't want to build a Straw man here, but this is actually my perception of what you are saying: Bob is a LG paladin, and only kills in self defense, or defense of the innocent or other Good cause, but Zed is a twisted sociopath and serial killer. We should not weigh "killing" into any kind of moral judgment of Zed, on the sole basis of the fact that Bob exists, even though Bob and Zed have nothing to do with each other and have never met.

Is this an accurate way to express your point? Because that is how I read what you are trying to say. If I'm off base, please clarify.



Rick has been a Freedom Fighter for a large portion of his life. His life as a Freedom Fighter is arguably part of the reason why he is such a broken figure. Trying to say that zero of the intent of destroying the Galactic Government had nothing to do with Freeing the Oppressed is just inherently incorrect. If the only reason you're going to espouse is the throw away Szechuan sauce rant. Then you have not made a compelling argument.
And yet, you are not privy to ALL the details of Rick's life, just as I am not. An equally valid summation, based on the information we both have is to say:
"Rick has been a Criminal and a Terrorist for a large portion of his life. His life as a Criminal and a Terrorist are arguably part of the reason why he is such a broken figure. He was never welcome anywhere, and he had abandoned his only family. Trying to say that the ONLY intent of destroying the Galactic Government was Freeing the Oppressed is just inherently incorrect. He blatantly acknowledges his plans to gain control of his family, and revels in his success."

Based on the information we both have from the show, both of our statements hold equal weight. that is, to say, neither of them mean squat because we don't actually KNOW what Rick was like during those years he was away from Beth. He may paint himself and his friends as "Freedom Fighters", but a lot of real-world terrorists do, too.

I noticed you don't actually respond to the meat of my points. I'm going to ask the more pertinent ones again:

What possible "context" is so vital to your case in the Unity episode that makes what he did morally okay?

If one of those women was to be freed from Unity's slavery, and remembered everything that happened while she was helpless to do anything, what could you say to such a woman to make her feel like what happened was not sexual assault?

And especially this:
The 5e definition of Chaotic Good is "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

Now, as you pointed out, the definition of "conscience" REQUIRES "consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct or intentions". Rick disregards ideas of "moral goodness" and tries to get Morty to do the same. He also never acknowledges moral accountability (i.e. blameworthiness) of his own actions. Ergo, Rick CANNOT be said to act "as his conscience directs". Furthermore, if he were actually acting "as his conscience directed", he wouldn't be tortured to the point of being suicidal.

Now, by contrast, 5e's definition of Neutral Evil is: "the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms."

But 5e's definition of Chaotic Evil is: "creatures [which] act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust."

By 5e's definition, Rick is not Chaotic Evil. But he IS Neutral Evil.

Furthermore, you neglected to respond to Naanomi's or my point about Consequentialism. Consequences don't determine alignment, Action and Intent do.

As I said:
Just because someone topples Evil Regimes does not automatically make the person Chaotic Good. That's asinine. If I topple a tyrannical regime to institute my OWN tyrannical regime, I would be Lawful Evil. If someone topples a tyrannical regime because they are on a campaign of total anarchy and they believe each individual should live like the whole universe is the g*dd*mn Thunder Dome, that would be Chaotic Evil. If a noble knight toppled a tyrannical regime to replace it with a just and fair (but still as authoritarian) one, that would be Lawful Good.

Just because a tyrannical regime was conquered as a blowback from Rick's murder-spree doesn't make HIM Chaotic Good.


I didn't skip over, I just felt that statement was more egregious and that the skipped statement was already addressed. (Like 3 times already...)
Even if your PC kills people for morally unjustifiable reasons, it doesn't inherently cause an Alignment change.

A Squad of Bandits stop your PC in the Road and demands for money and threaten to kill you if you don't. They brandish Daggers.
Game Response - Your Rogue and Ranger who are hidden instantly shoot to kill in a Surprise Round.
Real Life Response - You give them the money, and call the authorities. The authorities arrest them. No one dies.
Error, facts not in evidence. D&D is not the Real World. Even by objective D&D mores of Good and Evil, when threatened with lethal force, defending yourself with lethal force is non-evil. As soon as the bandits threaten to kill you and brandish weapons capable of doing lethal damage, you are morally carte blanche to respond with lethal force. Obviously, if you outclass them so much that combat with them is not actually a lethal threat, then the most Lawful and Good thing to do would be to subdue them and turn them into the authorities. But the way D&D morality works is pretty simple when it comes to someone threatening your life.


On the second subject. I don't recall an episode where Rick enslaved Humanity, but feel free to point me to it.
I know it's a bother but could you list the times Rick has enslaved?

I'm going to second what others have said and point you to the entire universe that powers his car battery.
They may not be homo sapiens, but they are sentient, free-willed humanoids.



I wasn't trying to sidestep, which is why I included that line. I felt that the previous line alone would make it appear that I was trying to sidestep.
I acknowledge that he was absolutely knowingly putting Morty (an Innocent Child) in such a dangerous situation that death was essentially inevitable.
Even if the weight of their deaths is in his hands. The decision doesn't inherently become Evil.

From this I can only infer that you do not understand how D&D alignment works.

If you have Evil Action + Evil Intent the result is an Evil Act. Let's keep in mind that the SCOPE of this Evil Act was the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent children.

I'll agree all day long that Rick, by 5e's definition, is not Chaotic Evil. He distinctly lacks 5e's definition that his violence be "arbitrary" and "spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust".

But he doesn't meet 5e's Chaotic Good definition, either. You, yourself even posted the definition of "conscience". Rick fails to care, let alone be concerned with, the "moral goodness" of his actions, and he rejects accepting any kind of "blameworthiness" for his actions or his intentions. Ergo, he does not "act as his conscience directs".

He fits 5e's definition of Neutral Evil to a T, though.

[Corneel]

Hi, Talamare. I agree your point.
Talamare, when only the bots agree with you, you might think of reconsidering your point.

[sightlessrealit]

Talamare, when only the bots agree with you, you might think of reconsidering your point.

I agree with his points does that mean I'm a bot too?

[Finlam]

I agree with his points does that mean I'm a bot too?

Maybe...
http://cdn.player.one/sites/player.one/files/2016/04/02/fry-meme.jpg

[thorgrim29]

Wow this thread is a mess. An entertaining one though, reminiscent of the thread in friendly banter that always get closed, usually because of someone who feel the need to Capitalize Words To Sound More Erudite (Pretentious) Than They Are. Funny how these thing go...

Anyway, my (super original I know) take is that it mostly varies from episode to episode from CE (the Vindicators for example), NE (selling guns, relationship with Unity), and CN (Pickle Rick, the Purge episode, the devil episode) which makes him CE overall rather than CN IMO. Sure sometimes he does heroic things but that's mainly to humour one of the 5 people he actually gives a crap about or to prove a point.

Also, because this isn't enough of a mess yet I don't agree that Walter White started out the series as any flavour of Good. He always was selfish and overly prideful but he had basically given up most of his agency because of wounded pride. I'd peg him as NN with evil tendencies in the beginning of season 1. Then again I think most people fall under neutral, I don't think you can really qualify as good until you've gone out of your way to do something hard for altruistic reasons. Just being a regular person doesn't qualify you.

[Silvernale]

Now that season 7 is out and we know his "crybaby origin story", what alignment does everyone think he is now?

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: can't say for alignment but I know he's not a Necromancer.