Alignment Sucks

[Digestor]

1154022701[/unixtime]]

"survival of the fittest", ie Natural Selection, isn't a philosophy, its a provable law of reality. Deductive logic style. I could probably demonstrate it in 300 words or less.

How is believing reality is real (eg, that things we can prove to be true are real) an evil act? I don't get it.

He doesn't mean Darwinism, he means social darwinism. It's not about evolution or some such, but rather the asshole who thinks it's okay to double-cross you/stab you in the back 'cause "it's a dog eat dog world".

[Username17]

There is a philosophy that attempts to use Natural Selection to explain why power discrepencies within societies and how they are somehow Good. It calls itself "Social Darwinism" (although it lacks the scientific validity of actual Darwnian Natural Selection), and is both a philosophy and Evil.

A lot of people don't understand that "Survival of the Fittest" actually means "removal of those unfit and unlucky" and that is alone enough to explain all of the diversity of life and every vestigal appendix. It's not going anywhere, it doesn't have a plan, it's just the fact that creatures which don't reproduce don't reproduce.

As soon as people start trying to use that as justification for why it's OK for them to inherit 2% of the national economy - yeah, that's totally Evil. Actual evolution doesn't give a damn, that's the whole point.

Edit: Yeah, what Digestor said.

-Username17

[squirrelloid]

1154023486[/unixtime]]There is a philosophy that attempts to use Natural Selection to explain why power discrepencies within societies and how they are somehow Good. It calls itself "Social Darwinism" (although it lacks the scientific validity of actual Darwnian Natural Selection), and is both a philosophy and Evil.

A lot of people don't understand that "Survival of the Fittest" actually means "removal of those unfit and unlucky" and that is alone enough to explain all of the diversity of life and every vestigal appendix. It's not going anywhere, it doesn't have a plan, it's just the fact that creatures which don't reproduce don't reproduce.

As soon as people start trying to use that as justification for why it's OK for them to inherit 2% of the national economy - yeah, that's totally Evil. Actual evolution doesn't give a damn, that's the whole point.

Edit: Yeah, what Digestor said.

-Username17

Yes, but say Social Darwinism if you mean Social Darwinism. Survival of the Fittest just happens. Its a descriptor.

[Crissa]

But Darwin doen't have anything to do with it and 'Social Darwinism' is misnomer.

-Crissa

[Digestor]

1154033563[/unixtime]]But Darwin doen't have anything to do with it and 'Social Darwinism' is misnomer.

-Crissa

Not to sound the least bit condescending... but ... of what consequence is that?

[erik]

1153984631[/unixtime]]
Is a Lich's shirt by definition, "evil" if he's doing his laundry? If so, when does his shirt stop being evil?

I suppose if he cleans it using a metamagic'd prestidigitation that adds the evil descriptor (dunno if such a feat is out there but the principle is sound), then the cleaning act becomes evil. So that would be one evilly clean shirt.

[edit: I forgot the follow-up! Prestidigitation has a duration of 1 hour. So one hour after the evil cleaning I guess the shirt would stop being evil.]

[PhoneLobster]

Not to sound the least bit condescending... but ... of what consequence is that?

Well. If you'll let me field that one...

On the one hand. Assholes like social inequality and doing bad things. They call it social darwinism and by associating it with something legitimate gain legitimacy.

On the other hand. Nutbags hate evolution and science. They point out that social inequality and doing bad things are, well, bad things. Then they call it Social Darwinism and use the false association to discredit evolution, science and the enlightenment in general.

[Digestor]

1154065216[/unixtime]]

Not to sound the least bit condescending... but ... of what consequence is that?

Well. If you'll let me field that one...

On the one hand. Assholes like social inequality and doing bad things. They call it social darwinism and by associating it with something legitimate gain legitimacy.

On the other hand. Nutbags hate evolution and science. They point out that social inequality and doing bad things are, well, bad things. Then they call it Social Darwinism and use the false association to discredit evolution, science and the enlightenment in general.

Oh, I know all that... I'm just curious as to why it stood to point out that social darwinism, basically an asshole's attempt at rationalization, has nothing to do with an actual scientific theory... I'm sure everyone knew that, I've seen nothing but intelligent posts on this forum in the 3 or so days I lurked before registering/posting.

That is unless it's just extra pie for the eating (conversation, chit-chat, etc.), at which point I withdraw my statement.

[Save_versus_Stupid]

1154065063[/unixtime]]

1153984631[/unixtime]]
Is a Lich's shirt by definition, "evil" if he's doing his laundry? If so, when does his shirt stop being evil?

I suppose if he cleans it using a metamagic'd prestidigitation that adds the evil descriptor (dunno if such a feat is out there but the principle is sound), then the cleaning act becomes evil. So that would be one evilly clean shirt.

[edit: I forgot the follow-up! Prestidigitation has a duration of 1 hour. So one hour after the evil cleaning I guess the shirt would stop being evil.]

Well during that one hour, is it up to the local Paladin to spearhead a noble crusade to 'cleanse' it?

Counter-productive if you ask me.

[Crissa]

1154066842[/unixtime]]Well during that one hour, is it up to the local Paladin to spearhead a noble crusade to 'cleanse' it?

That's how it gets clean, you see. While it's evil, the paladin sees an evil shirt, cleanses it, and then it's neither evil nor dirty so then it's fine and dandy for tomorrow.

-Crissa

[Save_versus_Stupid]

I see Paladins and their philosophy as being big bullies. That same Lich might just be going about his business, trying to make ends meet while some jerk with a Holy sword and mandate comes in to impose his will on him.

That stuff doesn't fly when the same Chaotic Evil Berserker tries to enslave a village for whatever reason (He's evil, I guess that's reason enough apparently), so I don't understand why the populace would support one and not the other.

Isn't it part of the Paladin code to respect the laws of the land? Or is that only if the laws coincide with his beliefs?

[Digestor]

Won't somebody think of the (Kobold) children!?

[Nidhogg]

1154022682[/unixtime]][T]ake for instance an evil warrior - he's literally out for evil, sort of. He wants to massacre the town that shunned him out. On his journeys he acquires alot of gold, but he doesn't care about the gold - so he pays overly handsomely for everything, including the insanely large tips of platinum coins to the 9 year old who's fetching his drinks - he never says thank you or anything, but drops it like he "just don' care". That really doesn't fit into the current alignment... I think something like "vengeful" with a sub heading of "on wrong path" or something is more fitting... he's not really evil, he's just blinded by rage.

Well, this fellow isn't realy all that evil. He's chaotic, because he was so removed from society that he was thrown out, and because he seems big on self sufficiency. He's not good aligned, because he wishes other people ill, but he's not evil aligned either, because he's not killing babies for fun or engaging in nefarious moustache twisting. Since he's too selfish to be good aligned, and not spiteful enough to be evil, you have actually come up with a perfect example of a chaotic neutral character. Once he actually goes all killy and nuts back in his home town, then he would probably slip in to evil, and either stay that way or de-evil after some good roleplaying.

[Maj]

Well, this fellow isn't realy all that evil.

This fellow, from this description, doesn't have an alignment (unless you start at true neutral and move from there).

Having money and passing it out isn't really a reflection of anything unless he's doing so for some malevolent or benevolent end. And wanting to slaughter a village isn't really demonstrative of anything, yet, either.

So nothing in the example really demonstrates this guy's alignment. Now, if he's giving his money to a secret organization with the goal of paying for things to get done on his project to destroy the town of his scourge (like having them send druids to destroy the crop or clerics to spread illness), that's totally different.

[Nidhogg]

Everyone has an alignment, and judging from the description given, I would say chaotic neutral is a fairly accurate assumption having never seen him in play.

[Digestor]

1154292485[/unixtime]]

Well, this fellow isn't realy all that evil. He's chaotic, because he was so removed from society that he was thrown out, and because he seems big on self sufficiency. He's not good aligned, because he wishes other people ill, but he's not evil aligned either, because he's not killing babies for fun or engaging in nefarious moustache twisting. Since he's too selfish to be good aligned, and not spiteful enough to be evil, you have actually come up with a perfect example of a chaotic neutral character. Once he actually goes all killy and nuts back in his home town, then he would probably slip in to evil, and either stay that way or de-evil after some good roleplaying.

Alignment change, I suppose that's correct. Though I should say that he doesn't mind butchering anyone in his way. See, it's not that he's selfish or selfless, he just wants to kill those people and anyone who tries to stop him, while he's got no problem helping those who help him. I mean, even Hitler had allies... he loved children, he had friends... doesn't change the fact that he was still evil (assuming everyone agress that Hitler was, indeed, evil).

[Digestor]

1154293294[/unixtime]]

Well, this fellow isn't realy all that evil.

This fellow, from this description, doesn't have an alignment (unless you start at true neutral and move from there).

Having money and passing it out isn't really a reflection of anything unless he's doing so for some malevolent or benevolent end. And wanting to slaughter a village isn't really demonstrative of anything, yet, either.

So nothing in the example really demonstrates this guy's alignment. Now, if he's giving his money to a secret organization with the goal of paying for things to get done on his project to destroy the town of his scourge (like having them send druids to destroy the crop or clerics to spread illness), that's totally different.

Isn't the idea of wanting to slay an entire village evil enough? Okay, let's say that he also kills anyone who's from that village. He runs across a family who moved out, they don't know him - he goes into a bar for a drink, learns the bartender is from that village, and skewers him with a bastard sword. If left alone, the man won't attack anyone else, but then guards are summoned and civilians respond and he's forced to defend himself.

[Maj]

Isn't the idea of wanting to slay an entire village evil enough?

No.

I can totally understand wanting to get all Columbine on a group of people, but why are you evil if you don't actually follow through? The description given didn't include a single thing that this guy did towards accomplishing his goal. So he's wandering the world getting horribly rich... And not attacking the people he hates. Until he makes a move, I'm not dumping him into the evil category.

Okay, let's say that he also kills anyone who's from that village.

Provided he killed said person because he hates the village(ers) and wants to get revenge, then, yes, I'm dumping him into the evil category. Especially if said villager didn't actually participate in the guy's tormenting.

[Digestor]

1154314518[/unixtime]]

No.

I can totally understand wanting to get all Columbine on a group of people, but why are you evil if you don't actually follow through? The description given didn't include a single thing that this guy did towards accomplishing his goal. So he's wandering the world getting horribly rich... And not attacking the people he hates. Until he makes a move, I'm not dumping him into the evil category.

Oh no, that wandering and getting rich part was just an explanation as to why he has money to spend - in the end he very much so ends up torching the place to the ground.

Provided he killed said person because he hates the village(ers) and wants to get revenge, then, yes, I'm dumping him into the evil category. Especially if said villager didn't actually participate in the guy's tormenting.

The dude in the bar, he didn't even know him in the village but skewers him just the same. Why? He's developed such a nurtured hatred of all things related to the village of X that upon remembering it he's more or less entranced in a blood-lusting frenzy of destruction. He no longer sees in color, smells, or feels, he simply kills that which reminded him of the village.

Now, his actions are evil - but I don't think simply calling him evil is enough, it's too much of a blanket statement.

The above example aside (mostly 'cuz it sucks), what about a greedy person? Someone who's willing to trample over others if the reward is great enough (so murder is usually not on his list, but... sayyyy calling the cops on his neighbors isn't too bad, nor is turning in a "friend" for a cash reward, or possibly stealing from someone) - neutral evil... right? What a bout a person who kills people, but is generally a good neighbor and friend... he just happens to love flaying children and eating their innards... not that he does it often... neutral evil... right? The two aren't even comparable...

[Nidhogg]

That's exactly why I implemented the 'devotion' mechanic. It seperates the jerks who get by at other people's expense from the people from people who thrive on it. Turning in your nieghbor, or calling the cops on him is a lawful, and not an evil act by the way. Even stealing is usualy a law/chaos thing, unless your stealing has direct, forseeable, and adverse effects on less fortunate people.

[Digestor]

1154334985[/unixtime]]That's exactly why I implemented the 'devotion' mechanic. It seperates the jerks who get by at other people's expense from the people from people who thrive on it. Turning in your nieghbor, or calling the cops on him is a lawful, and not an evil act by the way. Even stealing is usualy a law/chaos thing, unless your stealing has direct, forseeable, and adverse effects on less fortunate people.

Well, I tossed in stealing and turning in your neighbor to cancel one another out on the law/chaos, and they were all selfish acts hence the evil.

But yeah, the lack of magnitude really makes for a lacking flavor. A selfish jerk and a serial killer aren't really comparable...

Thread change, ftw!

[Nidhogg]

But neither stealing, nor narcing on your nieghbor are evil acts. They are purely a law/chaos thing. The acts may also be good/evil depending on motive, but are probably neutral in those regards. Law/chaos determines your view of society, while good/evil is your motive behind said views. Halflings are chaotic because they steal from people, but are good because it benifits their tribes on the whole, and never steal enough to hurt the people they took thier shit from. Orcs are chaotic because even on the odd occasion when they have 'laws' everyone does thier own thing anyways, and are evil because they take more than they need by force, and eat puppies. Slaad are chaotic neutral because giant frog, and are giant frog because giant frog is giant frog. Get it?

[RandomCasualty]

1154342338[/unixtime]]But neither stealing, nor narcing on your nieghbor are evil acts. They are purely a law/chaos thing.

Actually, stealing is an evil act, assuming you're stealing from an innocent person. It is okay to steal from an evil person presumably though.

[Username17]

1154365497[/unixtime]]

1154342338[/unixtime]]But neither stealing, nor narcing on your nieghbor are evil acts. They are purely a law/chaos thing.

Actually, stealing is an evil act, assuming you're stealing from an innocent person. It is okay to steal from an evil person presumably though.

Not if you use Kantian morality.

While you can make a moral system where stealing from or stabbing a Good person is Evil, a Chaotic Person is Lawful, and so on and so forth; you can make an equally plausible moral system in which stealing or stabbing is just plain Evil (or haotic, or whatever) like all the damn time.

Or you can make a moral system in which no matter how you go about mmoving goods around, if they do more good in the hands of their new owners it's a good act (and thus stealing from lazy people is Good).

Or whatever. D&D attempts to make all of these be the Truth, and that doesn't make a lick of sense.

-Username17

[Digestor]

1154342338[/unixtime]]But neither stealing, nor narcing on your nieghbor are evil acts. They are purely a law/chaos thing. The acts may also be good/evil depending on motive, but are probably neutral in those regards. Law/chaos determines your view of society, while good/evil is your motive behind said views. Halflings are chaotic because they steal from people, but are good because it benifits their tribes on the whole, and never steal enough to hurt the people they took thier shit from. Orcs are chaotic because even on the odd occasion when they have 'laws' everyone does thier own thing anyways, and are evil because they take more than they need by force, and eat puppies. Slaad are chaotic neutral because giant frog, and are giant frog because giant frog is giant frog. Get it?

Yes, but the person in question has no regard for law at all, nor does he care about obeying them so long as in the end everything benefits him. The motive behind them is "eff everyone else" - basically a retrace to that whole social darwinism thing. He has no problem watching orphans die on the TV while eating filet minon (which he bought from money he stole from his company) and the only way he'll adopt an orphan is for mad tax breaks and a free servant. At which point he'll work the kid unfairly, but not to the point of injury. I suppose I should imply that I was expecting a little imaginitive liberty on your behalf in that I assumed you would assume that the guy does other evil stuff in the mean time, the ones I listed being nothing but minor examples. My apologies for being confusing.

All that aside, an arse-hole and a child-flaying-cannibal aren't really comparable, despite the fact that they'd both be considered "neutral evil". The devotion paramater sort of solves that, though I guess you can't really fix a machine that was never intended to work properly...