Alignment in 5E still causes arguments

[Cyberzombie]

Well, you totally could. You'd just need a legal system based on some inverted moral code such that helping people was a crime. Or whatever. It would be quite dystopian, but probably effective.

You could have intense therapy to get rid of those good tendencies.

I could see some innately evil race in D&D having that, especially devils.

[nockermensch]

Funny how people never use the insanity excuse for doing something _good_.

Well, you totally could. You'd just need a legal system based on some inverted moral code such that helping people was a crime. Or whatever. It would be quite dystopian, but probably effective.

You could have intense therapy to get rid of those good tendencies.

"Son... The police called. There was a report that you helped an old woman to pick up her groceries after she fell down. Are you crazy or something?!"

"I... I only wanted her to feel indebted to me, mom. "

"Oh, I'm glad then."

(they can't find out my secret!)

[Chamomile]

Judge: You are accused of sharing food with the starving! How do you plea?

Defendant: Not guilty by way of insanity. I was not in my right mind and unable to distinguish between starving peasants and cruel overlords.

Prosecutor: Your honor, I have photographic proof of intimate relations between the defendant. The woman wishes to remain anonymous, but I have from her a signed testimonial for your eyes only confirming that the defendant was, and I quote, "really sensitive and understanding."

Jury: *gasps*

Mother: Where did I go right?!

[deaddmwalking]

The whole plot of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (the original) is that because someone wants to do good things, people try to have him committed. Rush's Cinderella Man has the same theme. Not that it's a crime to rush into a burning building to save people, but I think a lot of people look at someone who does that as 'crazy'. Doubly so if it's to save a pet.

[kzt]

Pretty much. Getting killed trying to save your kid = hero, getting killed trying to save your pet rat = crazy.

Interestingly you can come up with motivations for people to behave in ways you would expect, but with a totally different moral outlook. For example, the evil noble who goes after the orcs who kidnapped a girl from his estate because "she's mine and nobody gets away with messing with my property".

[nockermensch]

Interestingly you can come up with motivations for people to behave in ways you would expect, but with a totally different moral outlook. For example, the evil noble who goes after the orcs who kidnapped a girl from his estate because "she's mine and nobody gets away with messing with my property".

AKA: Dr. Doom or Laharl's behavior, or why, while alignments are in general bad for the game, Lawful Evil is good.

Actually, since the the Good - Evil axis is on AD&D probably because what Three Hearts for Three Lions implies for Elves, a workable D&D alignment chart could very well have just 5 steps.

Evil
Noble Evil
Neutral
Rebellious Good
Good

And then you explicitly ban people from playing Evil, because that's for backstabbing bastards.

[Omegonthesane]

Interestingly you can come up with motivations for people to behave in ways you would expect, but with a totally different moral outlook. For example, the evil noble who goes after the orcs who kidnapped a girl from his estate because "she's mine and nobody gets away with messing with my property".

AKA: Dr. Doom or Laharl's behavior, or why, while alignments are in general bad for the game, Lawful Evil is good.

Actually, since the the Good - Evil axis is on AD&D probably because what Three Hearts for Three Lions implies for Elves, a workable D&D alignment chart could very well have just 5 steps.

Evil
Noble Evil
Neutral
Rebellious Good
Good

And then you explicitly ban people from playing Evil, because that's for backstabbing bastards.

I dunno. I tend to think Neutral Evil if going for a mercenary murder-hobo who will stick around and play nice so long as it's good for him and have no objection to whatever happens to be the most mechanically efficient option.

[John Magnum]

In D&D, everyone, including Paladins and various other exemplars of virtue, is a murderhobo. So nothing about that description is actually "Evil"--that's just Neutral.

[infected slut princess]

Actually that old argument was pretty interesting up until the point where Stalin-fappers started circle jerking abu0ot SOULS, "natural rights", and whatever else. Which was completely irrelevant and strawman/strawwoman. At that point things went off the rails, with the Stalin-fappers getting increasingly stupid and preposterous, staying things like saying 1+1 does not equal 2 (because adding vectors together is the same as counting and arithmetic, apparently).

So here is the list of retarded shit the Stalin-fappers (i.e. majority of the insular, misanthropic community at TGDMB) believe:

> You have the right to rape a kid if a guy with a badge and a gun says you can. Or if you yourself have a badge and a gun.
> 1+1 does not equal 2
> "Law of contradiction" is false.
> Japanese women getting raped by drunk American soldiers is funny.
> Philosophically embarrassing, self-contradictory empiricist and relativist crap.
> Stalin is awesome.
> Scarcity doesn't apply to capital.
> You can't be murdered in yuor sleep if there is a government.
> People cannot stop murdering each other unless they stop murdering each other to create a state.
> Murdering japanese people is aweosme because anarchism is dumb.
> We should train dudes who rape and murder children to "deal with their problems."

I'm missing a few, I am sure. Those are just some of the most crazy ones. But really, this shit just refutes itself because it is absurd and/or self-contradictory. So I won the argument about 30 times over just by letting you guys say crazy shit and choke yourselves with bullshit. LOL! So go back to being racist and leave the serious philosophy to us sluts.

[Kaelik]

> You have the right to rape a kid if a guy with a badge and a gun says you can. Or if you yourself have a badge and a gun.
> 1+1 does not equal 2
> "Law of contradiction" is false.
> Japanese women getting raped by drunk American soldiers is funny.
> Philosophically embarrassing, self-contradictory empiricist and relativist crap.
> Stalin is awesome.
> Scarcity doesn't apply to capital.
> You can't be murdered in yuor sleep if there is a government.
> People cannot stop murdering each other unless they stop murdering each other to create a state.
> Murdering japanese people is aweosme because anarchism is dumb.
> We should train dudes who rape and murder children to "deal with their problems."

You know, there is literally another example of this in the other thread, where whenever someone asks ISP to ever provide and argument, or any evidence, or even a fucking definition for any of his beliefs, he just makes a list of lies in an attempt to character assassinate people.

But in the prefect example of broken clocks:

>Scarcity doesn't apply to capital.
>We should train dudes who rape and murder children to "deal with their problems."

He accidentally got two right out of his 11 attempted lies.

[nockermensch]

crazy rant

Is this an aggressive bid to fill the currently vacant village idiot spot? If so, good job.

[Kaelik]

crazy rant

Is this an aggressive bid to fill the currently vacant village idiot spot? If so, good job.

Thank god isp was always this dumb, or I would have to assume the conservation principle of Den stupidity exists.

Certainly when Elensar got banned, Shad got stupider and forgot how punctuation and capitalization and paragraphs work.

[Omegonthesane]

> You have the right to rape a kid if a guy with a badge and a gun says you can. Or if you yourself have a badge and a gun.
> 1+1 does not equal 2
> "Law of contradiction" is false.
> Japanese women getting raped by drunk American soldiers is funny.
> Philosophically embarrassing, self-contradictory empiricist and relativist crap.
> Stalin is awesome.
> Scarcity doesn't apply to capital.
> You can't be murdered in yuor sleep if there is a government.
> People cannot stop murdering each other unless they stop murdering each other to create a state.
> Murdering japanese people is aweosme because anarchism is dumb.
> We should train dudes who rape and murder children to "deal with their problems."

You know, there is literally another example of this in the other thread, where whenever someone asks ISP to ever provide and argument, or any evidence, or even a fucking definition for any of his beliefs, he just makes a list of lies in an attempt to character assassinate people.

But in the prefect example of broken clocks:

>Scarcity doesn't apply to capital.
>We should train dudes who rape and murder children to "deal with their problems."

He accidentally got two right out of his 11 attempted lies.

Two point two at least, his "lie" about how rights are based on the opinions of the people with badges and guns sounds surprisingly close to what was actually argued.

[Kaelik]

Two point two at least, his "lie" about how rights are based on the opinions of the people with badges and guns sounds surprisingly close to what was actually argued.

Surprisingly close in the sense that it is completely false and deliberately designed to be a lie to discredit.

The difference between "governments establish rights" and "people with guns and badges establish rights" is a deliberate lie on his part to make people sound crazy. He is stating that 5 minutes at costume shop and 10 minutes at a gun show is the same as passing a bill through congress. Spoiler alert, it isn't.

You don't give partial credit for the character assassination lies being deceptive lies instead of obviously false lies. That just means that that example is at least close to competent character assassination. Unlike the Stalin example, where literally no one but him ever brings up Stalin at any point.

[Mord]

ISP (and the other idiots in this thread) makes me want to replace my sig with a "Hello new person, the following people are terrible, and you should put them on ignore. Each name is a link to evidence of their horribleness" message for when people find the Den.

I principally lurk and I have shadzar, silva, and now ISP on ignore. I'd do the same to Shitmuffin, but he drops in infrequently and I kind of enjoy watching him get dogpiled every time he posts.

I'd pretend I'm going to miss shadzar, but seriously that guy was ass.

[Dean]

I think it's funny that he doesn't seem to understand that you totally could have the legal right to rape a kid, and that right has totally existed in many countries in the last 5000 years of civilization. The fact that it's abhorrent to think about to anyone with a normal moral compass doesn't mean those rights haven't existed, or that they haven't existed in his own country just a couple of hundred years ago.

Legal rights are things people agree on and sometimes people agree to terrible things. The thing to do is to try to abolish the horrible laws and make better ones, the opposite thing to do is assume that legal rights are somehow magical and immortal because that position is actually the one that will make you defend child rape in the times it happens to be legal.

I just think it's interesting than even the strawman he's made is more correct than his actual position. I am more willing to sit inside his strawman and argue that position than argue his.

[nockermensch]

Two point two at least, his "lie" about how rights are based on the opinions of the people with badges and guns sounds surprisingly close to what was actually argued.

Surprisingly close in the sense that it is completely false and deliberately designed to be a lie to discredit.

The difference between "governments establish rights" and "people with guns and badges establish rights" is a deliberate lie on his part to make people sound crazy. He is stating that 5 minutes at costume shop and 10 minutes at a gun show is the same as passing a bill through congress. Spoiler alert, it isn't.

I may be giving too much credit to ISP, but I don't think he was talking about impersonators. I think the idea was: "If you have executive and legislative powers in a place, then you can order others to do horrible things, or do horrible things yourself."

Which is true, but again this is another argument for more government oversight and international treaties, not less. He makes the point extreme by making it about rape, but since we live in the planet where Saudi Arabia is located, even that is true.

The point still stands that ISP believes that once you remove governments, Freedom Fairies appear to give out Freedom Candy and people's lives improve. Of course, in the real world, once governments are gone, warlords mini roving governments appear instead and so I can't shake the impression that ISP didn't grow up from his "but this is so unfair!" phase yet.

[Occluded Sun]

I think it's funny that he doesn't seem to understand that you totally could have the legal right to rape a kid, and that right has totally existed in many countries in the last 5000 years of civilization.

I think it's funny that you don't seem to understand that the principles you seem to be upholding as universal moral ideals are fads that arose and will fall away.

[Covent]

I think it's funny that he doesn't seem to understand that you totally could have the legal right to rape a kid, and that right has totally existed in many countries in the last 5000 years of civilization.

I think it's funny that you don't seem to understand that the principles you seem to be upholding as universal moral ideals are fads that arose and will fall away.

I am slightly offended.

Also does anyone else see a "N.A.M.B.L.A. unite!" banner appear when Occluded Sun talks?

[nockermensch]

I think it's funny that he doesn't seem to understand that you totally could have the legal right to rape a kid, and that right has totally existed in many countries in the last 5000 years of civilization.

I think it's funny that you don't seem to understand that the principles you seem to be upholding as universal moral ideals are fads that arose and will fall away.

Maybe they will, but so what? They're currently the best moral models we have, so we use them.

Oh right, you get to laugh at us right now because you possess a Revealed Truth telling you that your own moral truths will survive until the universe ends. Because they're evolutionarily perfect.

Tell us in which objective sense are you different from a born again Christian laughing at the unsaved who'll soon be burning in Hell for all eternity.

[Kaelik]

I may be giving too much credit to ISP, but I don't think he was talking about impersonators. I think the idea was: "If you have executive and legislative powers in a place, then you can order others to do horrible things, or do horrible things yourself."

No, the idea, which you can clearly see from everything he typed, is to lie about what other people have said in order to character assassinate them in a pathetic attempt to distract from his complete inability to justify, or even define, his actual beliefs without proving everyone right when they laugh at him for believing in magic property fairies.

[Occluded Sun]

Oh right, you get to laugh at us right now because you possess a Revealed Truth telling you that your own moral truths will survive until the universe ends. Because they're evolutionarily perfect.

I don't even have the words to express how stupid your purported characterization of my views is. It's... I am left speechless.

In any case, it's more like a person who understands evolutionary theory laughing at the Creationist bumpkins and their pathetic misrepresentations of the actual concepts.

Y'all are hilarious. Please, continue.

[sarcasmoverdose]

I think it's funny that you don't seem to understand that the principles you seem to be upholding as universal moral ideals are fads that arose and will fall away.

Disliking pedophilia is a fad? Hey, love knows neither age of consent nor restraining order.

[Dean]

I think it's funny that he doesn't seem to understand that you totally could have the legal right to rape a kid, and that right has totally existed in many countries in the last 5000 years of civilization.

I think it's funny that you don't seem to understand that the principles you seem to be upholding as universal moral ideals are fads that arose and will fall away.

Please explain to me, in your own words, at your own pace, what the fuck you're blathering about.

Take your time.

The sentence you quoted demonstrates that I do not hold a position of universal ideals, universal morals, or of immortality. That single sentence actually references both change through time, legality opposite most people's morality, and societies existing that no one would describe as ideal. So kindly tell me what the fuck you're talking about.

Clearly you've figured out that morality is relative and all things change and eventually die. Good for you and your Philosophy 102 course. Now tell me how any of that relates to whatever the fuck you're saying.

[GnomeWorks]

Interestingly you can come up with motivations for people to behave in ways you would expect, but with a totally different moral outlook. For example, the evil noble who goes after the orcs who kidnapped a girl from his estate because "she's mine and nobody gets away with messing with my property".

This is one of the mental constructs sociopaths can use to overcome the lack of empathy and figure out how to fake it.

Sociopaths lack empathy for others, but they - usually - have an awareness of their own emotional state (usually a flat affect, but still some emotional variability) and own sense of being. So sociopaths can join social groups and basically extend their thoughts regarding themselves to the whole of the group, resulting in something that looks kinda like empathy if you squint at it, and functions similar to it, but has weird situations that won't match real empathy (if a member is ostracized from the group, the sociopath can revert back to non-empathic interaction, whereas "normal" folks' empathy doesn't have that kind of on/off switch).

This is part of why I feel that the whole argument that thoughts and intent matter more than action is complete bullshit. If a sociopath is acting for the betterment of others, who gives a fuck if he's doing so due to enlightened self-interest? If a non-sociopath stabs the fuck out of somebody, who cares if he's sorry about it, he still stabbed the fuck out of somebody. Trying to judge people on intent and what they were thinking veers way too close to thoughtcrime, and that should be an obviously terrible idea.