If Ayn Rand created an Objectivist D&D society, what would it's alignment be?

[Mr. Friendly]

I think it would start off Neutral (Evil), steadily grinding it's way to Chaotic Evil within a year.

In case you need it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

[Nerd-o-rama]

Neutral Boring.

[Joran]

You would get... Rapture...

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'
'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well."

[Shishnarfne]

Look, Ayn Rand's society works best only if Objectivists live there.

If it were to be a "Galt's Gulch" society, populated only by those sorts of people willing to play by her philosophy, it'd probably be True Neutral.

You get an occaisional "less-principled" individual, it turns evil in a hurry. Once the society goes evil, there is nothing that will stop it from deteriorating into chaos.

I guess I could just have quoted the OP and said "I agree."

[Craig1f]

The Society Alignment would be Chaotic Neutral, with no laws prohibiting Evil or Good. The laws that exist would be there primarily to prevent the "Chaos" from overwhelming the rules of society, but society would be structured towards encouraging innovation, growth, and strength, and the expense or structure and control.

Capitalism is pretty Chaotic, since people can change their level in society pretty easily. You're not born a serf, or a noble. You're born rich, middle-class, or poor, but can elevate yourself as long as you can provide a service people are willing to pay for, or can drop if you make bad decisions and squander your money. That's Chaotic.

The ambitious people in the society, whether they're evil, neutral, or good, will recognize that the quickest way to power is to serve a product that people are willing to pay for. Good people will provide services people want, as will neutral people. Evil people will do whatever is the easiest for them. If selling drugs or contraband is the easiest, they'll do that. If they're good at sports, they'll play a sport. If they're good at medicine, they'll probably become a cosmetic surgeon since that makes more money than other kinds of doctors, and they don't care about helping people as much as they care about making money. But hey, society can use cosmetic surgeons, regardless of the motivations of those surgeons.

The non-objectivists will become artists, psychologists, and fast-food employees, and find their place in society, and are free to leave if they can't. Government is not responsible for providing for them, only for assuring that opportunities exist. If they squander opportunities, government does nothing to bail them out.

That's my rational for Chaotic Neutral.

[Yogi]

Well, looking at the real world, we can see what happens when the Government does not intervene. Essecially, the power vaccum will be replaced with private orignizations such as corporations, religions, militias etc. Hence, the alignment will be determined by the policies of these orginizations and not by he government, so we can't really say.

[Iku Rex]

I'll give it a go.

In DnD "Good", "Evil", "Law" and "Chaos" are (loosely) defined game terms. You have to go by the PHB text.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment .

So:

Probably not Good, as "altruism" and "personal sacrifices to help others" would be seen as downright immoral.

Definitely not Evil, as society would come down hard on "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (except in self-defense).

Leaning towards Law in the sense that there would be belief in absolute Truth, not to mention Right and Wrong.

Leaning towards Chaos in the sense that people will be expected to "follow their conscience" and "favor new ideas over tradition" (if the new ideas are better).

I'd go with Neutral.

[Indon]

You would get... Rapture...

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'
'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well."

If I'm not mistaken, this is a city that has bullets and napalm in vending machines?

Not inaccurate...

[Dervag]

You would get... Rapture...

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'
'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well."

Randism appeals most not to those who work the hardest, but to those who believe that they work the hardest and that they'd be wonderfully successful if not for all those pesky other human beings in their way.

Building an entire culture out of people like that does not strike me as a recipe for success.

I'd say that the society would start out at True Neutral- Randism is largely indifferent to the distinctions between the forces called good and evil and law and chaos in D&D terms. However, it would be far more likely to evolve towards chaos than law, and substantially more likely to evolve towards evil than good, because Randism is not many steps away from the Hobbesean war of all against all.

[bosssmiley]

A Rand style Objectivist society would be Lawful Soapbox.

(kidding)

Chaotic Neutral (after Craig1f). People would have the option of either buying into the society, or 'dropping out' of their own free will. As I understand Rand (mainly from "The Fountainhead"), no one has the moral/ethical right to constrain or misdirect another's creative ability.

Sounds like an almost ideal junction of Anarchist/Libertarian ideals; but Rand somehow manages to make the potentially wonderful society sound unappealing. Now that takes (negative) talent in a writer.

[Telonius]

It would probably say that it has no alignment, as it would find such restrictions constraining to the creative instincts of its people. Who am I to call his creativity evil, or chaotic, or good, or lawful?

Assuming you could get such a society to function for more than a year or two and not have devolved into riots or dictatorship, it would probably be true neutral. The individual actors would (presumably) lash out at any attempt to either constrain the society by good or evil, law or chaos.

[Charles Phipps]

Didn't Terry Goodkind already make one?

And no, the society thrives. You see, in Objectivistland, the Objectivists are allowed to do whatever the Hell they want and claim the moral high ground. You know, killing pacifists and conquering neighboring realms for spoils.

[TheElfLord]

Chaotic good or chaotic neutral

Rand isn't indifferent to the difference between good and evil, she doesn't think that society should force somoene to act a certain way. If people choose to help one another, thats fine with her, but she would object if the government forced people to give to charities.

[Joran]

If I'm not mistaken, this is a city that has bullets and napalm in vending machines?

Not inaccurate...

I can buy a gun and bullets at a Walmart, close enough ;)

How would you define lawful/chaotic? Personally in people, I define it as "if your character is presented with a difficulty, is your first response to follow the rules or to break the rules?" What would a society be? "Let the people do what they want vs. make a rule?"

[Nowhere Girl]

Capitalism is pretty Chaotic, since people can change their level in society pretty easily.

Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage. Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded. Grinding others under your heel, all technically within the rules (or else secretly outside of the rules, but don't get caught! ... because there still are rules) is the best way to get ahead. "It's a dog eat dog world," goes the saying.

It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).

Yes, I think lawful evil.

[Charles Phipps]

Randian Society would consider itself extremely Lawful. It's fundamentally built around the idea that they are attempting to treat things as they are rather than idealized.

So, I'd probably say Lawful Neutral.

Objectivism's ideals are *meant* to be extremely practical. However, they're tainted by Rand's rather "go the opposite direction" political views based on her justified horror at communism in her homeland.

Disturbingly, D&D is actually pretty close to how Ann Rand saw the world.

The Objectivist D&D

A group of courageous beings are entitled to keep the treasure they've won from morally inferior beings through the virtue of their hard work, sweat, and intelligence. These beings are superior to the rest of mankind not because of being born this way but being willing to face the morally inferior horde of disgusting slavering creatures that seek to destroy civilization while the rest of mankind cowers.

A fundamental conflict is the fact that such beings, especially High Level PCs, are expected to obey Lower Level Monarchs despite the fact that they are innately superior in Ability while the other has gained their position solely through society. Further, it is likely these monarchs will attempt to seize the PCs wealth or keep them from a position of power despite the fact that they deserve it.

The ideal objectivist arc results in the PCs at first defending a Kingdom then seizing control to guide it through Utopia through the institution of a pragmatic meritocracy with themselves as head.

[Iku Rex]

Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage. Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded. Grinding others under your heel, all technically within the rules (or else secretly outside of the rules, but don't get caught! ... because there still are rules) is the best way to get ahead. "It's a dog eat dog world," goes the saying.

It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).

Yes, I think lawful evil.

Boy, that is one badly beaten straw man.

[Prometheus]

Chaotic good or chaotic neutral

Rand isn't indifferent to the difference between good and evil, she doesn't think that society should force somoene to act a certain way. If people choose to help one another, thats fine with her, but she would object if the government forced people to give to charities.

Seconded. Ayn Rand's whole point of view is that the value is in individualism, ie. you are doing right if you are doing what you want.

This leaves somethings usually considered objective to instead be evaluated arbitrarily. Ayn Rand would random "promote" or "demote" her closest group of followers based on whether or not they loved or hated art that she loved or hated. Although that kind of rigidity is ordinarily considered lawful, I think objective values have to be determined no matter the society, and this is certainly the most chaotic way of doing it.

While believing such may have negative results, I don't think it could be said to be intrinsically Evil.


As for Capitalism, that seems to me more like True Neutral. Evil capitalism would actively encourage people to advance at the exploitation of others, which would mean monopolies, child labor, slave labor. Good capitalism would have to have high social mobility and strong middle class without taxing the prosperity of the system. Economic systems could be argued as inherently lawful, but as far as economic systems go a more regulated one would be Lawful and a less regulated one would be Chaotic. Capitalism maximizes wealth for the whole (good) but does so by distributing this good unevenly to those with power (evil).

[Nowhere Girl]

Boy, that is one badly beaten straw man.

Please don't take offense, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry you linked in order to learn what that term actually means. As it is, you're not using it correctly.

I'm not, in fact, propping up a fabricated argument for someone else's position in order to then knock it down. Instead, I'm giving my honest opinion of what pure, unrestrained capitalism is and what alignment properly represents it.

I suppose you're implying that I'm misrepresenting the concept of capitalism in general (and thereby propping up a straw man at the expense of all of its supporters), but I'm not sure how you could think that. What about my description of it was incorrect? And why?

[TimeWizard]

I'm disappointed that no one has mentioned Rush yet.

@Rand's Economy:

Well, you can stake that claim --
Good work is the key to good fortune
Winners take that praise
Losers seldom take that blame

[Toliudar]

Based on its focus on individual expression and its abhorrence with collectively-imposed authority, I'd suggest that an objectivist society would be extremely chaotic. Probably tending towards CN or CE, but that might be showing my fondness for the rule of law.

[Dervag]

Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage.

Of what type of society is this not true? Societies always have rules; otherwise there are no boundaries defining what the society is, and it becomes impossible to tell where it ends and the neighboring societies leave off. And the most powerful people in any society are generally the ones who are most effective at using the rules to their advantage; if the rules worked against them they wouldn't be powerful.

Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded.

Actually, being greedy or selfish doesn't really help you in capitalism unless you have a talent for succeeding or (more likely) organizing success. Nobody gives you a sack of money for being found to be the most greedy person in your hometown. There's a good reason for this: vices such as greed and selfishness exist more or less independent of class. Being poor doesn't make you virtuous; some poor people are indeed very greedy and selfish, just like some rich people. They'd make very nasty billionaires, but they're never going to be billionaires because desire doesn't produce talent.

Now, the ability to organize success doesn't normally march hand in hand with altruism or honesty. Unfortunately, many of the tricks by which people lead and organize others are tricks, and it isn't reliably nice to those others to use those tricks. But that problem is universal- priests, bureaucrats, aristocratic warlords, and tribal chieftains have all proven consistently unable to be altruistic and honest while leading people.

It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).

And yet, most of the genuinely rich people in a capitalist society got rich by doing things that other people consented to, not by outright thievery. Trade is a more efficient way to get rich than theft. And while trade isn't good-aligned, it isn't evil-aligned either.

Randian Society would consider itself extremely Lawful. It's fundamentally built around the idea that they are attempting to treat things as they are rather than idealized.

Yes, but:
a)The fact that you think you're being rational doesn't mean you are lawful, any more than the fact you think you're doing the right thing makes you good.
b)Randian societies would encourage people to do just about whatever they damn well please, without trying to force them into organizations. A society so individualistic would have a hard time calling itself D&D-Lawful with a straight face.

The Objectivist D&D

A group of courageous beings are entitled to keep the treasure they've won from morally inferior beings through the virtue of their hard work, sweat, and intelligence. These beings are superior to the rest of mankind not because of being born this way but being willing to face the morally inferior horde of disgusting slavering creatures that seek to destroy civilization while the rest of mankind cowers.

So any heroic fantasy is inherently Randist?

A fundamental conflict is the fact that such beings, especially High Level PCs, are expected to obey Lower Level Monarchs despite the fact that they are innately superior in Ability while the other has gained their position solely through society. Further, it is likely these monarchs will attempt to seize the PCs wealth or keep them from a position of power despite the fact that they deserve it.

Do they? A high-level adventurer may be a destructive fool; indeed this appears to be quite a common phenomenon. Adventurers gain power through fighting, not through being morally superior.

Please don't take offense, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry you linked in order to learn what that term actually means. As it is, you're not using it correctly.

I'm not, in fact, propping up a fabricated argument for someone else's position in order to then knock it down. Instead, I'm giving my honest opinion of what pure, unrestrained capitalism is and what alignment properly represents it.

Well, someone who believes that your picture of capitalism to be greatly oversimplified (i.e. "CEOs are all thieves!") might reasonably call it constructed, rather than being the product of an intellectually honest assessment.

By analogy, if I were to condemn socialism on the grounds that it involves the government doing whatever it can to force every individual into slavery by planned famines and a system of prison/labor camps, I would be engaged in a strawman argument. While this does indeed accurately describe the Stalinist Soviet Union, it does not accurately describe all socialism, nor does it accurately describe the views of most currently living socialists.

[Iku Rex]

(Dervag has already explained some of this. I'll try to be brief.)

Please don't take offense, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry you linked in order to learn what that term actually means. As it is, you're not using it correctly.

You're arguing that capitalism is Evil because of a long list of traits that are not, as a matter of fact, inherent to capitalism. For example, nothing about capitalism says that "grinding others under your heel" is the best way to get ahead. It's a parodic falsehood.

I'm not, in fact, propping up a fabricated argument for someone else's position in order to then knock it down. Instead, I'm giving my honest opinion of what pure, unrestrained capitalism is and what alignment properly represents it.

Anyone using straw man arguments can claim that it's their "honest opinion".

II suppose you're implying that I'm misrepresenting the concept of capitalism in general (and thereby propping up a straw man at the expense of all of its supporters), but I'm not sure how you could think that. What about my description of it was incorrect? And why?

You're claiming, for example, that "twisting the rules" and "grinding others under your heel" are inherent results of capitalism. And you can't possibly imagine how anyone could see that as a misrepresentation. In a thread about Randian objectivism.

Right.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The Native Am-- er, Orcs deserved to die, they didn't care enough about their own happiness!
So says Ayn Rand.

Really, though, the question is immaterial. No one would ever play the adventure; it'd be very poorly written.

[Charles Phipps]

The Native Am-- er, Orcs deserved to die, they didn't care enough about their own happiness!
So says Ayn Rand.

Really, though, the question is immaterial. No one would ever play the adventure; it'd be very poorly written.

Well I'll avoid getting sucked into the Orcs argument. :-)

But yes, Randian viewpoints coat Fantasy and adventuring. They also made a successful book series according to Terry Goodkind.

[Corlis]

I would object to classifying a society as being any particular alignment; I think the closest you can get is to take the average of the majority of the citizens

[Charles Phipps]

I would object to classifying a society as being any particular alignment; I think the closest you can get is to take the average of the majority of the citizens

I dunno, I think that a nation can become a living thing in D&D. The policy of a country may be dictated well beyond the wishes of an individual President or Leader because that's how it works.

[Kompera]

I'll give it a go.

In DnD "Good", "Evil", "Law" and "Chaos" are (loosely) defined game terms. You have to go by the PHB text.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment .

So:

Probably not Good, as "altruism" and "personal sacrifices to help others" would be seen as downright immoral.

As I recall my reading of Atlas Shrugged, altruism and helping others was not seen as being immoral, so much as it was posited that greater good came of allowing each individual to perform whatever good works they might choose to perform. The industrialist felt that he was helping his workers by his own hard work to build up the success of his enterprise. He wasn't doing this specifically (or even obliquely) for them out of any sense of charity, but it was said that he had a loyal and hard working crew because they recognized that his company offered them better wages and opportunities than competing companies operated by those of non-Randian philosophy.

Definitely not Evil, as society would come down hard on "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (except in self-defense).

Leaning towards Law in the sense that there would be belief in absolute Truth, not to mention Right and Wrong.

Leaning towards Chaos in the sense that people will be expected to "follow their conscience" and "favor new ideas over tradition" (if the new ideas are better).

I'd go with Neutral.

My vote is for Lawful Impossible. But if forced to make a choice, LN.

The book was rather a lame read, btw. The "main characters" (those following the Objectivist philosophy) were trite, contrived characters, with shallow or two-dimensional motivations. Those of non-Objectivist leanings were by and large incompetents who were completely unable to understand the most basic of economic principals, and who relied almost exclusively on a sort of herd mentality to guide their personal and business lives.

[graymachine]

Well, assuming that the society kept to the heart of the philosophy, it would be Neutral Awesome, or possibly Chaotic Awesome, although I lean toward Neutral. In some level of seriousness, though, the society would be developed to give the maximum freedom to an educated individual while maintaining absolute assurance of the social structure. At least you wouldn't have to spend so much time listening to people attribute almost everything to magical sky fairies (unless, of course, magical sky fairies could be proven to exist with evidence.)

[Riffington]

Rand's system is so deeply incompatible with D&D alignments, that you can't fit the one on the other. You can't even fit both into your head at the same time. It's like asking whether theodicy has the Buddha-nature.