| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Leap09-11-03, 11:02 AM | Good and Neutral Looking at the PHB last night [as you do when the kids are in bed, the missus has zonked out on the sofa next to you and the only thing on TV is the pretentious arty bit at the end of Newsnight – sorry, brit joke ;) ] a thought struck me……….. I REALLY don’t like ‘Good’. Good, in DnD, is that horrible, impersonal, interfering, goody-two-shoes stuff that thinks a decent society is built by people saying “have a nice day” to complete strangers. Don’t get me wrong, I am no “give me anything so long as it is DARK!” psycho, it’s just, well, Neutral; THAT’S were it’s at for me! :) None of this rubber-stamped, “New Seekers”, Disneyfied, goodyness. Just a simple matter of looking after yourself and your friends/family. The things we used to do before we had to be moulded into the shiny-world collective(tm). Y’ see, where goodness offers high-minded attempts to universalise, neutrality offers good old friendship as its basis. Good, honest HUMAN friendship; not this idealised tin-foil fluffy bunny de-personalised saccharine de-humanising pap we get foisted on us by passing paladins and UN good-will ambassadors. Just, well, friendship. Of course goodness would not approve of putting your friends first. Nepotism they call it; as if human relationships are somehow less important, less acceptable even, than some kind of system-of-niceness that complete fails to address that bit of us right at our HEART! Goodness is just the flipside of evil, in that they are both meritocratic (do the VERY best you can, and give the jobs to the most effective worker) - as if they are constantly in fear of being found ‘wanting’ (good in not doing enough for the cause of ‘niceness’, evil in being prey rather than predator). Both dehumanise. Both strip away the basic essence of humanity - that basic essence being friendship (PERSONAL trust relationships); good does it in the cause of altruism, evil in the cause of personal aggrandizement. For whatever reasons though, they both do it (which is probably part of why “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”) Neutral meanwhile, says chill the **** out, look after your friends and enjoy life. :) Sorry for the rant, but I REALLY needed to say that. :) Any thoughts? ;) |
| Leap09-11-03, 11:36 AM | In fact, in destroying the importance of the personal relationship, in a “good” society, are you not actually encouraging a lack of genuine concern for others (leading to all those ‘good’ designs being corrupted to evil by the lack of genuine concern)?! |
| aleshandre09-11-03, 11:50 AM | Leap, I think that perhaps, you are confusing good with self-righteousness? While I agree that what is portrayed as good is little more than a veiled attempt to take personal choice away from people (both individually and as a whole), that is not really what goodness is about. What you describe as neutral is what true goodness is about. Give people the choice how to behave, build relationships on mutual trust and love, etc. In reality what we have is a political society that is masquerading as seeking the "common good", but in reality is seeking total oppression without appearing oppressive. What better way to disguise evil that in the robes of goodness?! Lies are best dressed in truth, so it is with evil. |
| Leap09-11-03, 12:04 PM | Hello Aleshandre – “What you describe as neutral is what true goodness is about.” Not in DnD land is isn’t, Aley. :) What you call “true goodness”, DnD, and by association WOTC, calls ‘Neutral’! “In reality what we have is a political society that is masquerading as seeking the "common good", but in reality is seeking total oppression without appearing oppressive.” I agree wholeheartedly, and I am quite concerned with the impact of people swallowing WOTC’s line about what ‘good’ actually ‘IS’! Not that it is their line alone…………… ………… I think that many who are doing ‘good’ (DnD Good that is) are actually doing so because they hold to the “fear of being found ‘wanting’” I mentioned; leading them to pave that ol’ road to hell with their “good intentions” that crush what you call “true goodness”, that is friendship (and all that goes with it) under a system that tries to make everyone friends, by demand, but fails to realise that friendship has to be personal, and thus cannot be universal. Thus the Paladin (for example) in crusading for “goodness” is actually doing more harm than (genuine) good because his motivation (fear of being found wanting) is leading him to crush “true goodness” beneath his desire to make ‘good’ somehow ‘bigger’ than it can be. |
| aleshandre09-11-03, 12:19 PM | The problem with the D&D description of neutral is that it leaves room to do things that are by definition evil, simply because it is not considered "wrong" in the belief system of the neutral character. The definition of good on the other hand is too strict, in that a "good" person can't (by definition) tolerate the existance of evil, even by simply avoidance, but is obligated to destroy it. This is where the definition of good falls short of real good; destruction of evil can be accomplished by teaching and encouragement to turn from it or by killing the evil creature, but in game, the emphasis is on killing the bad guy. In the setting, I find it acceptable to leave the definitions the way they are, because it represents the epic struggle of good versus evil. If a person looks at it as symbolicly destroying evil, rather than "kill the BBEG", it is just fine. If it is treated as a litteral fight against "evil", it amounts purely to self-righteousness, which is as I implied little more than evil in disguise. |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-11-03, 12:58 PM | I think you are mixing up the real life definition and the D&D definition. In real life many people who consider themself good might be motivated by 'the fear of being found wanting'. But the paladins in the game are good because they truly believe in goodness, because they want a better world for everyone (including their friends). A person in D&D that does good things because he is afraid of being found wanting would have neutral as an alignment, and when 'know alignment' is cast on them it would show neutrality. And those that care for their friends, chill out, enjoy life etc. are actually chaotic good or neutral good. The line between good and neutral is very fine so it can lead to confusion. But in D&D if you have good as an alignment, you are good to the core. |
| ehrin09-11-03, 01:34 PM | jmo, but I tend to think of it like this. in the real world, most people are good (in fact, lawful good). We believe in laws, try to follow most of them, and believe that society exists for the benefit of many. Heck, i don't like all the social programs, laws, benefits that people get, but I gotta agree that the alternative (chaotic, ie every man for himself) is not better. that helps me with law versus chaos. Good versus evil. I think i am good, because i feel it is wrong to harm those younger and weaker than myself, even if it were to gain me something. I feel it is wrong to harm the innocent. I think it is wrong to steal from someone, simply because i can or simply because I want something. An evil person will cause harm to others if it gets them gain, cares nothing for innocent lives, etc. |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-11-03, 01:41 PM | in the real world, most people are good (in fact, lawful good). I believe in real life most people are neutral, if you apply D&D alignments. I think i am good, because i feel it is wrong to harm those younger and weaker than myself, even if it were to gain me something. I feel it is wrong to harm the innocent. I think it is wrong to steal from someone, simply because i can or simply because I want something. I think this is a description of neutral. Good is someone who goes out of his way to help others. (At least D&D good is) |
| Leap09-11-03, 01:46 PM | Aleshandre - “The problem with the D&D description of neutral is that it leaves room to do things that are by definition evil, simply because it is not considered "wrong" in the belief system of the neutral character.” I agree. All the bits of “true goodness” that have become subsumed into Lawful need to be returned to being inherent in Neutrality (In order to build friendships you NEED to follow much of what it means to be Lawful in 3rd ed. (trust, truthfulness, honesty, valuing of stability/tradition (needed to allow the long-term relationships that develop trust) and the avoidance of the unreliability of Chaos) and therefore you cannot seriously separate them out into a distinct alignment from Neutral). “The definition of good on the other hand is too strict, in that a "good" person can't (by definition) tolerate the existence of evil, even by simply avoidance, but is obligated to destroy it.” But then it is (DnD) Good’s nature to judge harshly (have a zero tolerance attitude towards ‘evil’) because of Good’s constant fear of being found wanting…….and its resultant desire to always do ‘bigger’ good…… Strictly speaking, Neutral is opposed to both Good AND evil……it is only with neutral as regards law and chaos that ‘balance’ comes into play. Although not ‘obliged’ to fight good/evil, and thus go out crusading against each, Neutral is opposed to both and will fight both where they impinge upon, or threaten to impinge upon, “me and mine”! Beware the crusader, for true good is rarely what they will accomplish. Mr Vandermeer – “In real life many people who consider themselves good might be motivated by 'the fear of being found wanting'. “ In DnD too…… “paladins in the game are good because they truly believe in goodness, because they want a better world for everyone (including their friends).” I disagree. Inherent to DnD Good is Altruism that undoes personal bonds in favour of self-denial. DnD Good is about seeking to cover the world with a depersonalised version of friendship that because of its depersonalisation is not real friendship at all. DnD Neutrality is about genuine friendship (personal bonds, not depersonalised ones). “A person in D&D that does good things because he is afraid of being found wanting would have neutral as an alignment, and when 'know alignment' is cast on them it would show neutrality.” What do you mean by good? By “true good” I mean genuine friendship supported by honor, honesty and trustworthiness (which in DnD is Neutral). DnD Good is about seeking to make EVERYONE into each others friends, but this is lunacy as friendship requires a personal relationship that just is not possible beyond family/tribe/community level. This leads good to try to impose and enforce honest behaviour, which in turn becomes Evil (oppression). That “road to hell” again…… I am not saying that Neutral folks do not have a fear of being “weighed in the balance and found wanting”, just that it is not anywhere near as powerful a drive as is found in DnD Good (or evil for that matter), as Neutrality values friendship and friends (real friends) are more forgiving of minor slights as they wish to keep their friends. “And those that care for their friends, chill out, enjoy life etc. are actually chaotic good or neutral good. The line between good and neutral is very fine so it can lead to confusion. But in D&D if you have good as an alignment, you are good to the core.” Not when DnD Good tries to spread the values of friendship without the underlying personal relationship they are not. They may be “Good” according to DnD but it is a cheap imitation of “true goodness” (the friendship that Good values based on the personal relationships Neutral has but Good does not). I know what you are getting at MR V, but I think that what most of us think of as “True Goodness” (Society built upon friendship (which is a matter of trust/honor/honest/tolerance as part of personal relationships)) is not what DnD Goodness is………….. Such things are the province of Neutrality, with Good (in its drive to make some kind of a universal society where we apply the values of friendship without the personal relationship part) being a poor imitation of such (that eventually, in its desperation (because it can never achieve what it seeks) will become oppressive………and thus Evil). :) |
| PhaedrusXY09-11-03, 01:55 PM | Originally posted by ehrin jmo, but I tend to think of it like this. in the real world, most people are good (in fact, lawful good). I would argue that "most" people are lawful neutral. They do and believe what they are told and don't question authority of the social norm. (Baaaaah!) There was a thread talking about a psychology experiment on here the other day where people were tested on their willingness to do something obviously harmful and/or painful to another person if they were told to do so by an authority figure who was present and were assured they would be free from any responsibility of their actions. It was obvious that they were causing the other person intense pain and harm (not really, the other "volunteer" was an actor), but they went ahead and did it anyway because they were told to, were absolved of any responsibility of their actions, and it was easier. When faced with the choice of either standing up for what they think is right and good, or just going along with the status quo, the vast majority just go along. Especially if they have to confront an authority figure or face some threat to themselves. Hence why there are often so few "witnesses" to violent crimes. It's easier to just look away and keep walking than to get involved. Of course, this is just a generalization. There are people who would fall into all of the D&D alignments in the real world, but I think the majority would definitely be LN at best. |
| Leap09-11-03, 02:11 PM | Phaedrux – That experiment (by Stanley Milgram) was in the 50s in the US, so is hardly a sound picture to apply to everyone! :) I would say most are LG by DnD standards because they generally obey the law to be honest and believe that such values should be applied to all regardless of personal preference (Nepotism is a crime to good, a norm to neutral and an irrelevance to evil (as they do not have real friends anyway)). |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-11-03, 02:31 PM | “A person in D&D that does good things because he is afraid of being found wanting would have neutral as an alignment, and when 'know alignment' is cast on them it would show neutrality.” What do you mean by good? By “true good” I mean genuine friendship supported by honor, honesty and trustworthiness (which in DnD is Neutral). DnD Good is about seeking to make EVERYONE into each others friends, but this is lunacy as friendship requires a personal relationship that just is not possible beyond family/tribe/community level. This leads good to try to impose and enforce honest behaviour, which in turn becomes Evil (oppression). That “road to hell” again…… What I mean by doing good things in this quote are the D&D good things, not RL ones. So I mean opposing evil etc. And I agree that D&D goodness often means those lunatic things you mention. But I think that in-game characters do those ludicrous things because they believe in them, not out of fear of being found wanting. Because then the motivation would be 'neutral' (that is D&D neutral), which also often is ludicrous, due to it's total confinement to personal relations to the (almost) exclusion of care for the rest of the world. Basically this discussion is severely hampered by the invalidity of the D&D alignments when compared to the real life complexity of emotions and motivations. That is why in my game I give players a lot of freedom in playing out their alignments. That way it at least seems a little more real. I allow players with neutral alignments to actively fight for goodness as long as it is motivated by the need to protect the people close to them. Or for the reason that they want the world to be safe for themselves. And I allow good characters to put the interests of their loved ones before the common good (to some extent). Basically I am using the alignment system the wrong way, but luckily everyone has that freedom in their own game. |
| Arilou_skiff09-11-03, 02:43 PM | Ah, nice to see you again Leap, your opinions sure seem to have changed though :O Anyway: A good person is supposed to "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (pretty good guideline IMHO) Nothing says that a "good" person can't look out for his family and loved ones... But when push comes to shove his expected to do what is Right, I'd take FitzChivarly from the Farseer triology as a pretty good example of a good character... He loves and is loved, wants to do nothing more than settle down and have a quiet life, but when the time comes he does what he has to do, no matter the cost to himself. Goodness is just the flipside of evil, in that they are both meritocratic (do the VERY best you can, and give the jobs to the most effective worker) - as if they are constantly in fear of being found ‘wanting’ (good in not doing enough for the cause of ‘niceness’, evil in being prey rather than predator). Both dehumanise. Both strip away the basic essence of humanity - that basic essence being friendship (PERSONAL trust relationships); good does it in the cause of altruism, evil in the cause of personal aggrandizement. For whatever reasons though, they both do it (which is probably part of why “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”) Good is not inherently opposed to friendship (nor is evil btw.) it's just that good tends to look at it a bit more unbiasedly (is that a word?) and yes, meritocratic. Just like a judge is not supposed to pass a lighter sentence on his friends a good person isn't supposed to let his friendships blind him to Evil. |
| Leap09-11-03, 03:16 PM | Mr Vandermeer – “Basically this discussion is severely hampered by the invalidity of the D&D alignments when compared to the real life complexity of emotions and motivations.” I agree; but I find RL to give useful context to alignment, and use what the alignments imply (even if they do so ‘subconsciously’). Arilou – Hey! Long time no see! :) “your opinions sure seem to have changed” A little ;) “A good person is supposed to "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (pretty good guideline IMHO) Nothing says that a "good" person can't look out for his family and loved ones... ” Are we talking DnD or RL here, because if it is DnD, I would disagree :) DnD Goodness is about altruism and the willingness to sacrifice for strangers, seeking to apply the natural values of friendship to those we do not have a personal relationship with. ‘Unfortunately’ for Good, genuine friendship REQUIRES a personal relationship (and does not support altruism), and so Good, in seeking to combine friendship with impersonal relationships, is actually destroying friendship relationships. In destroying the personal basis, Good switches to enforcement to try to create the environment that friendship naturally creates (honesty, honor, trustworthiness etc.) and in doing so becomes oppressive and self-righteous…………which is the way Anakin becomes Darth Vader………….falling to evil………paving that old road to hell. |
| Arilou_skiff09-11-03, 03:25 PM | DnD Goodness is about altruism and the willingness to sacrifice for strangers, seeking to apply the natural values of friendship to those we do not have a personal relationship with. ‘Unfortunately’ for Good, genuine friendship REQUIRES a personal relationship (and does not support altruism), and so Good, in seeking to combine friendship with impersonal relationships, is actually destroying friendship relationships. In destroying the personal basis, Good switches to enforcement to try to create the environment that friendship naturally creates (honesty, honor, trustworthiness etc.) and in doing so becomes oppressive and self-righteous…………which is the way Anakin becomes Darth Vader………….falling to evil………paving that old road to hell Just because *you're* incapable of goodness doesen't mean everyone else is :) The point is that a Good person can look out for his family and loved ones... But not to the detriment of other innocents (within certain limits of course) |
| Leap09-11-03, 04:20 PM | Arilou – As friendship means having your friends as a higher priority than strangers, yet Good says treat strangers like friends and treat friends like strangers (as altruism is about putting your own stuff behind that of others and thus your friendships are of less value than other folks), I respectfully disagree with you. :) The whole basis of DnD Good is a nonsense. It attempts to take friendship as a model, but believes that such friendship can be constructued in a depersonal way (to make it ‘better’ and ‘bigger’ by not making it something purely for personal relationships). It fails to understand that friendship IS a personal relationship and thus if you take away the personal (by trying to apply to to EVERYONE) you actually make a nonsense of the whole exercise. This leads Good to try to enforce the behaviour of friendship…………which makes it all oppressive and thus: EVIL. |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-11-03, 05:55 PM | The point is that a Good person can look out for his family and loved ones... But not to the detriment of other innocents (within certain limits of course) This is very RL, while, yet Good says treat strangers like friends and treat friends like strangers (as altruism is about putting your own stuff behind that of others and thus your friendships are of less value than other folks) This is a representation of D&D alignment. However I think this is a wrong interpretation of what the writers of the game try to convey. I think the writers mean the first example. However it is very hard to put it into words. And that is the problem that leads to this discussion. So it is very important to read between the lines and figure out what those writers mean, even though they can;t put it into words. (They probably would be able to, but then you would need an entire book because it is that complicated) |
| PhaedrusXY09-12-03, 01:23 AM | Originally posted by Leap Arilou – As friendship means having your friends as a higher priority than strangers, yet Good says treat strangers like friends and treat friends like strangers (as altruism is about putting your own stuff behind that of others and thus your friendships are of less value than other folks) I don't even know why you think this is what D&D good is about. By definition your friends are others, unless you don't have any except imaginary ones. :D So looking out for them is looking out for others. And good doesn't say anything about treating friends like strangers... at all. It says you have concern for others, and are willing to put yourself at risk to aid them. The difference between neutral and good in D&D is that the neutral person will show concern and put himself at risk to help his friends only (basically), while the good person will do this for anyone (unless they have demonstrated themselves to be an enemy, which really could be left out if you want to be a purist). "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is just a more touchy-feely rephrasing of Hammurabi's code "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", or treat people in the way you would like to be treated. If you want a good argument for why the selfish, help your friends only and screw everyone else definition of the Good is wrong, read Plato's The Republic, especially the first few chapters that deal with the definition of Justice and The Good and the arguments presented by Thrasymachus and subsequently refuted by Socrates. Here's a >link< (http://plato.evansville.edu/texts/jowett/republic.htm) to a free version of it online. The D&D definition is of course narrow and probably could have been worded better, but it isn't that different than the conclusions reached in The Republic by Socrates, and by Jesus, Hammurabi, and many other respected religious, social and spiritual leaders throughout history. Except that they define only the Good. Neutral or Evil would simply be an absence of the Good and Justice. But in D&D, Evil is defined as a real force and power unto itself, not simply the absence of good and justice. That's where the real confusion comes into all this, and it certainly isn't limited to D&D definitions only. |
| Two Rivers Wolfbrother09-12-03, 03:43 AM | There's a difference between treating people like friends and having that same affection for them. People feel differently for their friends than for strangers, even if they want to help strangers or even defend them. A good person will help everyone and treat them like friends. A neutral person will help everyone who he wants to, and treat them with respect, but only the respect they deserve. That's how it is to me. |
| Leap09-12-03, 07:05 AM | Mr Vandemeer – “This is a representation of D&D alignment. However I think this is a wrong interpretation of what the writers of the game try to convey.” I disagree. I think that the use of Altruism in the description of Good in both the PHB and the Tome of Evil, as well as the implications of ‘A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him ‘ from the PHB description of Neutral (suggesting that Good people treat strangers the same as ‘friends’…..with no distinction made to personal relationships…..and thus no actual friendships (friends being people we are biased towards)), is that where Neutral puts personal relationships first, Good actually discounts personal biases in favour treating EVERYONE as if they are your personal friend, despite the fact that you cannot have a personal relationship with that many people! “I think the writers mean the first example. However it is very hard to put it into words. And that is the problem that leads to this discussion. So it is very important to read between the lines and figure out what those writers mean, even though they can’t put it into words. (They probably would be able to, but then you would need an entire book because it is that complicated)” I understand the difficulty of communicating in words, but they (WOTC) explicitly make Good a matter of Altruism (in several locations), which means an ‘equality’ of value without personal feelings (friendship) getting in the way – how do you treat people like friends without ACTUALLY being friends with them and in fact DENYING the value of the central part of friendship…that being, BIAS? The whole notion is potty. A big part of all this is down to the moral ambiguity in everyday life (Friendship is deemed a good thing, yet nepotism (a central part of the expression of friendship being putting your friends before others!) is deemed wrong. Which means we should be friends in name only…………..potty, like I said. Phaedrux – “I don't even know why you think this is what D&D good is about. By definition your friends are others, unless you don't have any except imaginary ones. So looking out for them is looking out for others. And good doesn't say anything about treating friends like strangers... at all. It says you have concern for others, and are willing to put yourself at risk to aid them.” Actually, what it says is put strangers before friends (Altruism is about putting others before yourself, including before you own biases, and thus before your friendships – Altruism denies friendship because it denies personal bias). Good says treat everyone the same and do not be swayed by personal bias. Friendship says your friends are a higher priority than strangers. The two are incompatible. “If you want a good argument for why the selfish, help your friends only and screw everyone else definition of the Good is wrong, read Plato's The Republic, especially the first few chapters that deal with the definition of Justice and The Good and the arguments presented by Thrasymachus and subsequently refuted by Socrates. Here's a >link< to a free version of it online. “ Excellent Link! Thankyou! After BRIEFLY reading through “Justice as Helping Friends and Harming Enemies” it appears to me that this whole episode just back up my claim that Good is essentially Meritocratic rather than Nepotistic (it values “getting the job done” over relationships) and is thus essentially anti-friendship (for friendship is about putting relationships before utility – eg: we often forgive a friend a slight rather than seek to recover damages from them, in the interests of preserving said friendship). ”The D&D definition is of course narrow and probably could have been worded better, but it isn't that different than the conclusions reached in The Republic by Socrates, and by Jesus, Hammurabi, and many other respected religious, social and spiritual leaders throughout history. Except that they define only the Good. Neutral or Evil would simply be an absence of the Good and Justice. But in D&D, Evil is defined as a real force and power unto itself, not simply the absence of good and justice. That's where the real confusion comes into all this, and it certainly isn't limited to D&D definitions only” I think that the problem lies with the use of terminology (‘Good’ implies ‘Ideal’, when in truth Neutral is the ideal that good itself seeks to emulate and ‘improve’ upon (by making Friendship ‘bigger’ than it can be – failing to realise that Friendship HAS to be small, because it is a matter of personal relationship and bias)). In doing this, Good tries to force people into some of the behaviours of Friendship (honesty, honor, trust, reliability) without the bonding essence of a personal relationship and bias, and in doing so becomes self-righteous and oppressive…….eventually turning to evil as it rides roughshod over peoples feelings to get the job done. A good example of the difference between Good and Evil is in Anakin and Amidala in Starwars Episdode 2. Amidala clearly supports the attempt to universalise the loyalty of friendship whilst avoiding the personal bias found there (Good), whilst Anakin, despairing at the chaos of Amidala’s way (its half-hearted enforcement of what MUST be enforced in the absence of personal relationships), believes that people should be forced to get along (steamrollering over human feelings in the cause of making society work - Evil). |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-12-03, 07:47 AM | The friendship thing is kind of unclear. I think good people have true friendships and treat those that are not true friends a well as they were true friends, but without having a personal relationship. That must sound like mumbling, so I'll try to break it down into what I mean: Good people have three kind of relationships: 1. True friendship/love for those close to them. 2. Respect and Compassion for those not close to them. In fact treating them as good as they would treat true friends, but without having the need to get to know them. 3. Dislike/hatred towards those that are evil, but compassion if they can be redeemed. Is that about right? |
| inci09-12-03, 08:08 AM | the big problem with all those alignment threads is that you dont have something like GOOD or EVIL in this real world. everything is shady. anyway, nice starter Leap :) Imo the most made mistake is taking the Paladin as the shining example of goodness. He is not, since he is ****ing lawful. Chaos and Law are two main aspects too you should not forget when talking about how friendship is seen by a 'stereotype' guy. I agree to Mr VanderMeer in the main points concerning the definition of GOOD in D&D. But I would count most of that into LG, not into Good in general. The CG ranger will probably not invite every stranger to his campfire/home without proper security or surveilance. The point in being GOOD means for me more the fact that everyone gets a chance to proof himself (and ofc is considered 'not EVIL' at the start of an encounter). Lets take the iconic Dark Elf as an example. Every NEUTRAL person would kick him out of town, if not kill/imprison him, since everyone knows: 'Dark Elves are EVIL'. The GOOD guys (lets assume they don't have 'detect evil') wouldn't. They would observe him, but i doubt that a person labeld GOOD in D&D gets a free ticket to kill anyone that is 'normally' EVIL. But ofc, they would not get him a free bed, food and the hand of their daughter without knowing that guy. Maybe im going away from the 'designers view™', but this is how i handle it. |
| pyk09-12-03, 10:51 AM | The problem with confusing D&D versus real life is that no one in real life acts as any of the D&D alignments. Period. Not even the Pope, not even Hitler could have been shoe-horned into any of these alignments. Take the Mafia - Most would agree they were probably NE, maybe CE. Yet, internally, they were mostly lawful (every one doing what the higherups told them to do). Yet, they were also CG, where they would shell out big money to people in the neighborhoods for weddings, funerals and such. They pretended to be LN, with the store fronts where they did their "legitimate" business. Individually, they were all just as screwy with alignments. As we all are. Getting back to D&D alignments, where does altruism "unselfish devotion to the welfare of others" definition state that "others" does not include friends? How is altruism defined as treating strangers better than friends? An altruistic (if that's a word) can and will have friends - friends who know they will get unbiased and fair treatment from the altruistic person. Reasonably, an altruistic person should and would have altruistic people who are his friends. These would out of necessity be much stronger bonds than neutral friendship - the kind implied that the non-altruistic person could not only put one friend before another friend, but himself above even that friend. Altruism means sacrificing what you have for the benefit of someone other than yourself. It does not mean you can never have anything. It does not mean real friendships can not develop, in fact I believe, again, this means stronger friendships will develop. the central part of friendship…that being, BIAS? The whole notion is potty. This is taken out of context, but it makes my point. The whole notion of having any BIAS towards anyone is to stray away from Good. True, Good people will have around them, and strong ties to, other Good people. Neutral people, on the other hand, will have many fewer people around them, with weaker ties to them. People around a True Neutral person will know that person could turn on them at any time, therefore will attempt to not do anything which will provoke that turning. People around a Good person will know that the only way that person will turn on them is if they themselves do something to cause the disruption (IE an act of evil) which will help them to maintain the "Goodness" of themselves. People will only be around Evil people when they want to get something from them. I believe, and no one is forced to believe this, that the definitions in the PHB imply that Evil folks will have no ties, Neutral will have few ties, and Good folks will have many ties. If you were the ruler of a kingdom, and needed help, who would you call? Most would call for the Good person, as they would know the Good would respond to the call, the Neutral might respond, and the Evil will want to know "what's in it for me?" Conclusion? I forgot it myself. Anyway, puting others before yourself in itself does not imply having no friends. Being able to put yourself before others means the friends will have less trust in you, as they understand they might be screwed at some point. |
| Leap09-12-03, 11:33 AM | Mr Vandermeer – “The friendship thing is kind of unclear. I think good people have true friendships and treat those that are not true friends a well as they were true friends, but without having a personal relationship. That must sound like mumbling, “ Sokay, this whole thread has included a fair amount of groping the dark :) “so I'll try to break it down into what I mean: Good people have three kind of relationships: 1. True friendship/love for those close to them. 2. Respect and Compassion for those not close to them. In fact treating them as good as they would treat true friends, but without having the need to get to know them. 3. Dislike/hatred towards those that are evil, but compassion if they can be redeemed. Is that about right?” Assuming you mean Good as DnD Good rather than RL I disagree with you. Good in DnD is primarily about selflessness (Altruism) which includes putting personal relationships into second place. Friendship however is about placing your friends BEFORE others and thus does not fit with DnD Goodness which is about not letting personal issues get in the way of treating EVERYONE in a ‘nice’ way. Good wants the honor, honesty, trust, reliability etc of friendliness without the personal bias. It tries to make ‘friendship’ bigger than it can be by getting rid of the rooting essence of it all, personal relationships / bias, and expanding it into a ‘universal’. Of course, without the motivation of personal relationships/bias, honor, honesty, trust etc. have to be enforced (contracts and policing). Of course, the level of enforcement needed to achieve this all is the level found in Evil; that is, oppression. Neutral can bee seen as a small plateau, with good being the top of a slippery slope down to evil. Neutral is small and can only take a few people in personal relationships. Good tries to expand Neutral, falls of of the edge, and begins (via the need for enforcement) its way down the slippery slope to Evil. Inci – “anyway, nice starter Leap” Cheers Inci :) “the big problem with all those alignment threads is that you dont have something like GOOD or EVIL in this real world. everything is shady.” Aleshandre and myself were actually heading towards the position where Good (DnD Good that is!) becomes essentially Evil with better PR :) |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-12-03, 12:52 PM | Assuming you mean Good as DnD Good rather than RL I disagree with you. Good in DnD is primarily about selflessness (Altruism) which includes putting personal relationships into second place. Friendship however is about placing your friends BEFORE others and thus does not fit with DnD Goodness which is about not letting personal issues get in the way of treating EVERYONE in a ‘nice’ way. Okay, I get it. I do not use alignments in that way in my campaigns. The altruist factor is not really there. I like people in the game to play 'good' based on the ideas I have of what good is, not what the book says literally. If what you describe is really D&D good, than I agree that neutrality is preferable. |
| PhaedrusXY09-12-03, 05:00 PM | Good in DnD is primarily about selflessness (Altruism) which includes putting personal relationships into second place. I think you are the only one here that believes that Altruism says you must put your friends in second place to strangers. The friends are other people first, personal relationships second. The fact that they are another being is more important than the fact that they are your friend. So a good person treats them with respect and dignity precisely because they are another person, not neccessarily because they are a friend. The good person believes that everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with respect. This in no way means that you have to treat your friends any worse than someone with a different alignment (neutral) would, unless by treating your friends "good" you mean being unfair and unwise in decisions relating to them and others, which would include nepotism. For example: Let's say you give your friend a job he's not really qualified for because he is your friend, when there is another guy who is more qualified to do the job. You are being unfair to yourself, your friend, and the qualified stranger. Your friend will not be able to perform his job well, which will reflect badly on him, on you, and will hurt whatever company you are a part of. If you'd instead been fair and given the job to the qualified stranger, this wouldn't have happened. I know this is a simplistic example, but I'm trying to limit the length of this post. I hate long-winded posts, and hardly ever read them. Also, Altruism is not neccessarily 100% unselfish and self-sacrificing. This may sound ridiculous, and it is probably beyond the scope of a thread in a message board to discuss. Read some of Ayn Rand's works to really see what I mean, particularly Atlas Shrugged (even though she really hated Altruism herself ;) ). Basically, it comes down to this: 1) you believe that treating others fairly and helping them to improve themselves will help to improve the general nature of the world. 2) you live in the world and would like to see it become a better place 3) therefore, helping others improve themselves is helping yourself by making the world a better place to live in. Anyway, I don't believe your disagreement is actually with the D&D definition of good, but with the definition of good in real life as well, or perhaps with Altruism being a desirable thing. I'd agree that in misguided extremes, it is not. But I do not believe that it is necessarily evil or wrong either. |
| Leap09-13-03, 04:25 AM | Phaedrus – “I think you are the only one here that believes that Altruism says you must put your friends in second place to strangers. The friends are other people first, personal relationships second. The fact that they are another being is more important than the fact that they are your friend. So a good person treats them with respect and dignity precisely because they are another person, not neccessarily because they are a friend.” A fair point. What I meant was that ‘friendship’ has no place in goodness because friendship requires bias. “The good person believes that everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with respect. This in no way means that you have to treat your friends any worse than someone with a different alignment (neutral) would, unless by treating your friends "good" you mean being unfair and unwise in decisions relating to them and others, which would include nepotism. “ I think I basically stated it in a less than clear manner. “For example: Let's say you give your friend a job he's not really qualified for because he is your friend, when there is another guy who is more qualified to do the job. You are being unfair to yourself, your friend, and the qualified stranger. Your friend will not be able to perform his job well, which will reflect badly on him, on you, and will hurt whatever company you are a part of. If you'd instead been fair and given the job to the qualified stranger, this wouldn't have happened. I know this is a simplistic example, but I'm trying to limit the length of this post. I hate long-winded posts, and hardly ever read them.” That does not really work. A nepotistic (neutral) society is not a meritocratic one, and thus as long as your friend were not utterly incapable they would not feel bad about not being particularly good at their job. “Also, Altruism is not neccessarily 100% unselfish and self-sacrificing. This may sound ridiculous, and it is probably beyond the scope of a thread in a message board to discuss. Read some of Ayn Rand's works to really see what I mean, particularly Atlas Shrugged (even though she really hated Altruism herself). Basically, it comes down to this: 1) you believe that treating others fairly and helping them to improve themselves will help to improve the general nature of the world. 2) you live in the world and would like to see it become a better place 3) therefore, helping others improve themselves is helping yourself by making the world a better place to live in.” Anyone who has taken the time to look at Altruism realises it is a nonsense concept, but that does not mean some folks don’t try to emulate it (which means not having friends because biased loyalty is anti-altruistic). :) “Anyway, I don't believe your disagreement is actually with the D&D definition of good, but with the definition of good in real life as well, or perhaps with Altruism being a desirable thing. I'd agree that in misguided extremes, it is not. But I do not believe that it is necessarily evil or wrong either.” Actually I am trying to keep specifically TO DnD Good; thinking of the use of Altruism as central in the understanding of good both in the PHB and in the Book of Vile Darkness. Mr Vandermeer – “If what you describe is really D&D good, than I agree that neutrality is preferable.” According to the PHB and the BOVD, Good is about Altruism primarily, and altruism cannot handle friendship (because friendship is biased), so I guess you’ll have to join “we few, we happy few” in the Neutral camp :) |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-13-03, 08:03 PM | so I guess you’ll have to join “we few, we happy few” in the Neutral camp Actually I have always considered myself to be neutral by D&D standards. The description comes closest to my position in life. In real life I consider myself to be a fairly good guy though. But I guess 'fairly good' is neutral according to the D&D descriptions. I know I am not altruistic, although I have to go mainly by your description of the word. It is not a word I am very familiar with. 'Altruistisch' is a word in dutch, but it is not really used outside of philosophy textbooks. I guess it is a very idealist, but kind of unrealistic concept. So yes, I will join you in the neutral camp. |
| billy_hellfire09-14-03, 09:13 PM | I just have to say, I love everyone's ppoints of view on this topic, but... I don't have alignment in my games, and this is a big part of why. :) |
| Leap09-16-03, 10:05 AM | 3 Alignments are all that are needed really: Lawful / Civilised: Sacrifices the centrality of personal relationships (family, friendship) and uses people management systems to try to create and enforce a reliable, non-favouritist, meritocratic society that is beyond the size and power that a personal relationship approach can achieve. They may try to cover their oppressiveness with claims of “do-gooderness”, but essentially this destroys the basic fabric of human social life (personal relationships) in favour of creating a society with greater productive power that retains a similar level of reliability to those societies built upon personal relationships. Neutral / Tribal: Relies on ongoing personal relationships, and the loyalties engendered within such, to maintain an honest nepotistic society; that is inherently limited in size and power. "All for one and one for all" in the spirit of friendship present in Dumas' novels. Chaotic / Antisocial: Is opposed to the existence of such a thing as society (regardless of whether such society is based upon personal loyalties (Neutral) or contractual management (Lawful)). The absence of both personal relationships and strong order results in this. "Every man for himself". |
| Trydan09-16-03, 10:21 AM | 3 Alignments are all that are needed really: "Civilised", "Tribal" and "Antisocial"... nice. However, is there a difference between "Civilised" and "Tribal", or is it just a matter of scale? |
| Leap09-16-03, 10:58 AM | Civilised is anti-personal and directly manages people, destroying personal relationships in a meritocratic society driven to increased productivity. Civilised society is heavily biased in favour of literacy and punctuality and is ruled by explicit contracts and small print. Tribal is based on personal relationships and relies on developed relationships to bring a looser social order, maintaining personal relationships in a nepotistic society that places more value on relationships than productivity. Tribal society is heavily biased in favour of oral culture and a loose relationship with deadlines, and is bound together by personal loyalty to each other. Civilised society criticises tribals as lazy, favouritist, vague, cliquey, illiterate, tardy and having a lack of focus. Tribal societies criticise civilised ones as being clockslaves, unfriendly, patronising, obsessed and robotic. |
| aleshandre09-16-03, 11:28 AM | After reading the d20 Modern aliegence system, I find it much more effective. It gives you several options including priority of aliegence. (for example :good, church, law, community or family, chaos, evil, community or deity, honor, community...) The possible combinations are as endless as the number of people in the world. The basic aliegence categories are: Moral, Ethical, Group/Organization. Moral is the well known good vs evil axis, ethical is the well known law vs chaos axis and group is a multi-purpose catch-all that can include several selections with as broad options as corporation to religious even government. Using that system, you can create a true champion of the people, a dedicated oppressor, or anything in between. (Aliegence: Self, Power, Money = Tyrant, Aliegence: Dignity, Honor, Emperor of Japan = Samurai) In D&D, this would solve many of the "The Paladin should be like this" arguements eg: Aliegence: Good, Law,Tyr (my old paly's god) = Paladin of tyr. A change in the priority of aliegence results in a different attitude, but still fitting into the paladin class. |
| Leap09-16-03, 11:51 AM | Aleshandre – I think I will stick with my new alignment system (it is actually based on a paper I am writing (DnD actually being a secondary consideration! ;) ) for local govt here in the UK) as it shows up prejudices rather well and gives a clear understanding of the basic values of someone. :) |
| Arilou_skiff09-16-03, 12:45 PM | Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Actually I have always considered myself to be neutral by D&D standards. The description comes closest to my position in life. So yes, I will join you in the neutral camp. I'd consider myself neutral too, but not because I believe neutral is *better* but because I'm unwilling to take the risks a Good life would bring. |
| Leap09-17-03, 04:33 AM | Arilou – “I'd consider myself neutral too, but not because I believe neutral is *better* but because I'm unwilling to take the risks a Good life would bring” Which is another way of saying ‘I am not willing to make the sacrifices that “Good” demands’? Incidentally, the fact that you are not willing to take the risks that “a Good life would bring” does NOT mean you are Neutral (it might mean that you are evil)!! ;) |
| Arilou_skiff09-17-03, 03:44 PM | Originally posted by Leap Arilou – “I'd consider myself neutral too, but not because I believe neutral is *better* but because I'm unwilling to take the risks a Good life would bring” Which is another way of saying ‘I am not willing to make the sacrifices that “Good” demands’? Incidentally, the fact that you are not willing to take the risks that “a Good life would bring” does NOT mean you are Neutral (it might mean that you are evil)!! ;) Fallacy of argument :) I said: I am not X because I am not Y and I am Z. You tried to twisted that into : I am X because I am not Y thus I am Z. |
| Leap09-18-03, 04:43 AM | Arilou – In fact, if you are “unwilling to take the risks a Good life would bring” (and thus do not believe in Good) AND “[do] not believe [that] neutral is *better*” (and thus do not believe in Neutral), it follows that you are Evil (or confused and really DO think Neutral is better (as told by your actions rather than your words)). :) |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-18-03, 05:57 AM | I think you are making a very big assumption there, Leap. Just because someone doesn't think neutral is 'better' doesn't automatically mean that they aren't neutral. |
| aleshandre09-18-03, 11:27 AM | That is why I like being Good. There is no debate about whether I am neutral or evil, because I have made a clear statement (by word and deed) that I am Good. Neutral leaves enough grey area to be declared black, because it isn't white or white because it isn't black, but Good and Evil are never confused for neutral. |
| Leap09-18-03, 11:50 AM | Aleshandre – “Neutral leaves enough grey area to be declared black, because it isn't white or white because it isn't black” That is not why I suggested Arilou could be evil though! More that he ‘dissed’ both good AND neutral (effectively). :) This implied he was evil ;) (not that I am genuinely suggesting he is!! Well, maybe ;) ) To be fair, it is not neutral that should be confused, but good and evil which are so similar as to be easily done so! I stick by my Lawful/Civilised, Neutral/Tribal, Chaotic/Antisocial 3 pole alignment system. It makes those who call themselves ‘Good’ really think about what they are doing and how it differs (ie: often not at all!!) from evil. :o) I wonder what alignment people would choose if only Civilised, Tribal and Antisocial were on offer…………….. |
| Arilou_skiff09-18-03, 12:19 PM | Originally posted by Leap Arilou – In fact, if you are “unwilling to take the risks a Good life would bring” (and thus do not believe in Good) AND “[do] not believe [that] neutral is *better*” (and thus do not believe in Neutral), it follows that you are Evil (or confused and really DO think Neutral is better (as told by your actions rather than your words)). :) Not neccessarily. A person can say that Michelangelo is a better sculptor than he is himself, but that doesen't mean he is a bad sculptor, or that he must try to emulate michelangelo. |
| Leap09-18-03, 01:35 PM | Arilou – “A person can say that Michelangelo is a better sculptor than he is himself, but that doesn’t mean he is a bad sculptor, or that he must try to emulate michelangelo.” I think perhaps you are confusing the kinds of concepts involved here….instead it is a fairly clean cut set of basic principles. Either you act good, or you act in another way that you deem ‘better’ – if you genuinely thought good was better then you would act it. You obviously find something about good ‘inferior’ / not the best choice (you would not be the only one!); if you thought it was the best choice you would act according to it :) |
| Arilou_skiff09-18-03, 03:40 PM | In that case "best" might be the wrong word. "Morally superior" might be more approporiate. |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-18-03, 05:38 PM | Neutral leaves enough grey area to be declared black, because it isn't white or white because it isn't black, but Good and Evil are never confused for neutral. That is one very good reason to be neutral. :D |
| aleshandre09-18-03, 06:51 PM | Originally posted by Arilou_skiff In that case "best" might be the wrong word. "Morally superior" might be more approporiate. The problem with choosing "morally superior" is that that is the stand the true good already occupies. A truely good person does not care if doing something is harder, less satisfying, painful, pleasurable or can be described with any other positive or negative descriptor. The only concern is whether it is in the greater interest of the majority or the greater number of affected individuals, regardless of the affected person or group's relationship to the person performing the act. That is what it means to be morally superior. By greater interest, I mean that it will truely benefit them, not necessarily that it will be what they want (for example: if a group desires to commit mass murder of innocents, a truely good person will try to prevent that for the greater good of both groups, contrary to the desire of the group wishing to act against their own welfare). A neutral viewpoint is one of relativism; i.e. Any belief is okay as long as it benefits the person who holds it. An evil viewpoint is one of self service above all else; i.e. If it benefits me, I don't care how it affects anyone else. This does not prevent those of such moral alignments from doing things that benefit others, only reduces the frequency of it. PS: I would be Tribally aligned, because it is closest to producing true good. |
| Trydan09-19-03, 02:58 AM | :mymy: I do hope someone puts up a coherent summary of all of this at some stage. My head is getting close to exploding. I guess I'd be somewhere between "tribal" and "civilised". I place great value on family and close-knit community, but I also rally to the idea of the nation-state (well, at least some of them ;) ). If I had to choose between the too, it would be "civilised", but that ideal is a very cold one, almost devoid of emotion. Hmm... I wonder how patriotism fits into all of this? And on to the topic of good vs evil. I know that they have been mentioned, but I like the idea of considering "selfless" versus "selfish" (and probably something like "balanced" for the inbetween state) |
| Leap09-19-03, 05:54 AM | Arilou – “In that case "best" might be the wrong word. "Morally superior" might be more appropriate” I prefer to leave morals out of alignment as much as possible; the distinction between moral and practical can get misleading. Instead I measure simply on the basis of what you value. :) Aleshandre – “PS: I would be Tribally aligned, because it is closest to producing true good” Aleshandre; how do you feel about putting your relationships with friends and family first? Do you think altruism is a good thing (and thus would not put personal relationships first)? Trydan – “I do hope someone puts up a coherent summary of all of this at some stage. My head is getting close to exploding. I guess I'd be somewhere between "tribal" and "civilised". I place great value on family and close-knit community, but I also rally to the idea of the nation-state (well, at least some of them ;) ). If I had to choose between the too, it would be "civilised", but that ideal is a very cold one, almost devoid of emotion. Hmm... I wonder how patriotism fits into all of this?” It’s a matter of bias. A civilised person wants a reliable society with more productive power and a wider reach than a society based upon personal loyalties / personal relationships can achieve. To do so, the civilised person willingly sacrifices the CENTRALITY of personal relationships in their life (turning against Nepotism), in favour of creating a Meritocratic society that, in place of (the far less ‘task efficient’) personal loyalty between friends, imposes a (far more ‘task efficient’) management structure to actively direct behaviour. Civilised people value punctuality, literacy, compartmentalisation and explicit/direct/detailed communication (leading to ‘the rule of detailed explicit contracts’) very highly. Of course this is a very oppressive system which destroys the basic fabric of the very essence of human social life (personal relationships) in favour of creating a society with greater productive power that retains a similar level of reliability to those societies built upon personal relationships. Essentially they ‘sell their soul for power’ (whether they believe they do so in a ‘good cause’ or not) because the only true good cause is the one that keeps personal relationships at the heart of human society . When you want to tempt a character with “corruption”, with power, it is this alignment you tempt them to; teaching them to use the “its for your own good” excuse……. A tribal person wants a reliable society where personal relationships are the central ‘point’ and personal bonds of loyalty (friendship) bind society together. Tribal people value a relaxed attitude to ‘deadlines’, as well as valuing oral culture, integration and implicit/indirect/allusory communication, all very highly. An antisocial person is fundamentally opposed to the existence of society (whether it be a Lawful society bound by small-print riddled contracts or a Neutral one bound by personal loyalties), preferring instead a ‘bound-less’ situation of “every man for himself”. Patriotism can be found in both Civilised AND Tribal society. |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-19-03, 06:34 AM | Well by those definitions I would definitely be 'tribal' although I often feel forced to act as if I were 'civilised'. Of course there are some points in the description of civilised that I do agree with. In my job I also value punctuality, literacy, compartmentalisation and explicit/direct/detailed communication (leading to ‘the rule of detailed explicit contracts’). And I also feel there is something to be said for the anti social 'every man for himself' concept in certain situations. So although I think I am a little bit of all three, tribal would fit best. I see that is also the one that you link closest to D&D neutrality. |
| Leap09-19-03, 07:50 AM | If society switched direction, from civilised to tribal, would you be happy to loose that nature of your job? |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-19-03, 08:38 AM | I am not 100% sure of this, but I think yes. |
| aleshandre09-19-03, 09:01 AM | Leap, I favor Altruism, but not to the exclusion of family relationships. If I had to choose between the greatest good for all people and the loss of my family, I would regret greatly the loss of my family. In most cases, however, freinds and family don't get in the way of my altruistic nature, so I haven't had to make that choice (I tend to choose freinds that share my views, which I got from my familial upbringing). I have noticed that in an altruistic society, tribal ties develop stronger than others. For example; I have very strong patriotic ties to my country, but if the country as a whole goes against my view of right and wrong to such a degree that I am no longer free to practice my views safely, I would sever that tie, but my tribal ties to freinds and family who share my views would remain. I don't anticipate my tribe taking that turn. |
| Leap09-19-03, 10:19 AM | Aleshandre – Altruism demands that you set aside your personal biases, and thus you cannot really have friends in an altruistic society because a friend is someone you have a personal bias in favour of. Mr V – I would hazard a guess that most people would love to live a ‘tribal’ life but have either been seduced by the power civilisation offers (“what is friendship when compared to the medical technology I offer” whispered the silver tongued devil, “a mere pittance of a price”) or feel trapped by it (“if you fight the system, you will lose your job and your children will be homeless…..and then we will take them off you”). The sheer amount of drug abuse and depression in our society speaks volumes on the dissatisfaction here………… |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-19-03, 10:50 AM | The sheer amount of drug abuse and depression in our society speaks volumes on the dissatisfaction here………… Aahh, luckily I adapt quite well and am reasonably stress resistent. I have not yet had to resort to anti-depressives! :D Plus, you can have friendships etc. in a civilised society. You just have to be able to separate work from personal life. I am very good at that. So I guess I am : part-time 'civilised' part time 'tribal', with a little antisocial mixed in in the way I function and full time 'tribal' at heart. |
| aleshandre09-19-03, 11:01 AM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – Altruism demands that you set aside your personal biases, and thus you cannot really have friends in an altruistic society because a friend is someone you have a personal bias in favour of. As I said, I favor altruism. That being said, a truely atruistic person recognizes that all creatures (human and otherwise) are one's family in a very real and intimate sense. That is the reason that favoring one over another is set aside. In a truely altruistic society, freinds and family are the ones that you spend the most personal time with. These ties are not ties of favor, rather ties of identification. A person will naturally identify (even if altruistic) with another person that shares more likes and dislikes or oppinions, etc. It is allowing this natural identification with these people to affect one's judgement of right vs wrong That cannot be tolerated in an altruistic society. |
| Leap09-19-03, 03:19 PM | Aleshandre – “a truly altruistic person recognises that all creatures (human and otherwise) are one's family in a very real and intimate sense” A truly altruistic person BELIEVES this. RECOGNISES implies it is true (when, to be honest, it is not – we are not all part of a family; family requires personal relationships when we are not capable of such with everyone (or, to be fair, with more than about 300 people or so)). “That is the reason that favoring one over another is set aside” I know; and it makes a nonsense of friendship (genuinely personal and intimate relationships being the essence of real human society). “These ties are not ties of favor, rather ties of identification.” That makes it very superficial! “It is allowing this natural identification with these people to affect one's judgement of right vs wrong That cannot be tolerated in an altruistic society” Yup; and these personal biases are what make up friendship…………… |
| aleshandre09-19-03, 03:57 PM | Now you're just redefining the words used. Next time I'll define the terms before I start. ;) You have me on technicalities that I can't redefine away. I still believe that personal relationships can exist in an altruistic society. |
| Mr. VanderMeer09-19-03, 07:34 PM | I would have to say I agree more with Aleshandre. Leap, you try to define everything to such detail that the question at hand is completely reduced to black and white. I do not believe in that. Although it may seem to you that everybody can be clearly defined, I believe people are too complex for that. People can be paradoxical (is that a word?). (Although I have a feeling you are mainly trying to get people to question their views. Showing them there is more to it than they had thought of. Getting people to think. Am I right?) |
| Ikoma Otekai09-20-03, 01:19 PM | Leap, I must admit that I fail to agree with you at all. In my opinion, the suggestion that an altruistic desire to help another with whom you have no personal ties makes a mockery of friendship is simply wrong. Your friends are not the people who you help to the exclusion of all others - they are the people with whom you have developed a deep bond due to similar interests and compatable personalities. And surely, saying that Neutral is better than Good is something of a contradiction in terms. I'm not trying to be flippant - If a moral code undermines human friendship, then it is clearly not good. The way you have defined "good" is in fact not good. It seems to have more in common with Law. |
| Leap09-21-03, 01:34 PM | Mr V – “I would have to say I agree more with Aleshandre. Leap, you try to define everything to such detail that the question at hand is completely reduced to black and white. I do not believe in that. Although it may seem to you that everybody can be clearly defined, I believe people are too complex for that. People can be paradoxical (is that a word?). (Although I have a feeling you are mainly trying to get people to question their views. Showing them there is more to it than they had thought of. Getting people to think. Am I right?)” See, THIS is the danger of discussing it around in circles, it all descends into Flag-planted claims about beliefs, when what I am simply pointing out are two basic stances (well, three if you include ‘chaos’) - infact the more detail you go into the less clear the picture is (hmmmm part of that ol’ civilising problem). Sure you can believe that friendship exists in civilised societies (as indeed it does!) but civilisation itself is fundamentally opposed to friendship (because friendship requires personal favouritism / bias, whilst civilisation is fundamentally opposed to such). I do not for a second think people only believe in black or white, but that many of the things we claim to stand for are fundamentally opposed to other things we claim to stand for, in a way that many of us would retch at if we actually realised…………….so yes Mr V I am “mainly trying to get people to question their views. Showing them there is more to it than they had thought of. Getting people to think.” :) The question of alignment is not a matter of some kind of a black/white following all parts of an alignment knowingly, but of what your general attitude and actions serve…………………and of course, finding out what some of those attitudes and actions actually mean! :) Most people, when asked, tend to plum for the “Tribal” alignment option (I would be deeply concerned it it were otherwise!!!), but will also support many aspects of civilisation because they fail to realise the impact on things they hold dear (as part of their “at heart” Tribal nature). And lets face it, most ;) of this discussion is aimed at a Fantasy RPG where angel’s rush into melee at the drop of a gate spell……….so simplistic alignment is not particularly barred, is it :) Aleshandre – “Now you're just redefining the words used. Next time I'll define the terms before I start. ” I am redefining “friendship” as being rooted in personal bias and “altruism” as denying the primacy of such personal biases (and thus making the concept a nonsense)? And here was me thinking that I was hardly adding new qualities to each!! ;) Ikoma – “In my opinion, the suggestion that an altruistic desire to help another with whom you have no personal ties makes a mockery of friendship is simply wrong. Your friends are not the people who you help to the exclusion of all others - they are the people with whom you have developed a deep bond due to similar interests and compatible personalities” Friends are people we ‘put first’, that is why they we can call them friends….it is a fundamental part of friendship to be so biased…. “And surely, saying that Neutral is better than Good is something of a contradiction in terms. I'm not trying to be flippant - If a moral code undermines human friendship, then it is clearly not good. The way you have defined "good" is in fact not good. It seems to have more in common with Law” ‘Good’ alignment does not have its co-definition of ‘better’ or ‘best’ that it generally holds, but simply refers to a set of behaviours/beliefs. It would be better if it were not so labelled, to avoid this confusion, but we are stuck with WOTC supplies us with :) ………….and DnD Good is defined as (he reaches for the Players Handbook only to find it is his step-son’s; who he has corrupted into the game ;) ) “Good implies altruism…..and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings”; universalist values…..that is, values intended to be applied in a non-personal way. Neutral then goes on to say “a neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family……but would not do so for strangers who are not related to him” (implying that Good would do so!). Good is a path where EVERYONE is to be treated as if they are your friend, but this is nonsense, as part of being a friend is putting those you are friends with before strangers. When you treat everyone the same, both stranger and ‘friend’ alike, you can have no friends because you have no preference! |
| Leap09-21-03, 01:50 PM | Of course, many would probably say that what I am calling Tribal, they would call “what Lawful Good is supposed to be about” (pro a definite and reliable society that is bound together by personal loyalty to friends and family and implicit understandings, where forgiveness for minor slights and severe punishment for major ones is the norm), leaving the heavily managed Civilised society for the province of Lawful Evil ( pro a definite and reliable society that is bound together by impersonal management structures that are unforgiving in their ‘justice’ and crush the natural desire for friendship and family beneath a hubristic desire for power). But that’s not what WOTC are saying………….. |
| aleshandre09-21-03, 03:03 PM | Originally posted by Leap I am redefining “friendship” as being rooted in personal bias and “altruism” as denying the primacy of such personal biases (and thus making the concept a nonsense)? And here was me thinking that I was hardly adding new qualities to each!! ;) ‘Good’ alignment does not have its co-definition of ‘better’ or ‘best’ that it generally holds, but simply refers to a set of behaviours/beliefs. It would be better if it were not so labelled, to avoid this confusion, but we are stuck with WOTC supplies us with :) ………….and DnD Good is defined as (he reaches for the Players Handbook only to find it is his step-son’s; who he has corrupted into the game ;) ) “Good implies altruism…..and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings”; universalist values…..that is, values intended to be applied in a non-personal way. Neutral then goes on to say “a neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family……but would not do so for strangers who are not related to him” (implying that Good would do so!). Good is a path where EVERYONE is to be treated as if they are your friend, but this is nonsense, as part of being a friend is putting those you are friends with before strangers. When you treat everyone the same, both stranger and ‘friend’ alike, you can have no friends because you have no preference! While friendship tends to lead to personal bias, it is founded in mutual respect, understanding and even love. Altruism is founded in unconditional love first, then leads to respect and understanding, thus niether can be exclusive of the other, unless freindship leads into bias, which overshadows the love that altruism is founded on. Reading into the statements the implications that are there is falacy. A good person would equally sacrifice life liberty and even happiness equally for anyone, while neutral would only do so for friends or family. This does not mean that a good person would not sacrifice for friends or family, rather that the friendship and family relationships are not the controlling factor, as it is in a neutral person. As I have mentioned in previous debates here, a good person is not prohibited from seeking self welfare or the welfare of friends and family. It is seeking that welfare to the cost of others. If for example a paladin had to choose between a close freind or family member being wounded, even severely or a stranger that he believed to be innocent being killed, he would be duty bound to save the life. On the other hand, if the choice were between equally severe injury for the same two, the choice becomes one where personal affections are a justifiable consideration. Similarly, if a choice does not knowingly place another in hazard, favoring one's friends and family is expected of a truely good person. Friends and family are looked upon as a responsibility (a welcomed one, but still a responsibility) and must be cared for as such. Failure to care for loved ones is as much a wrong doing as harming them directly. Like I and others have mentioned before, a neutral person does not have the conviction necessary to make that sacrifice for others on a daily basis, which is required of a good person, nor do they have the conviction to sacrifice the welfare of others for their own gain, thus they are niether good nor evil, but comfortably in the middle. They make sacrifice when necessary, but do not look for opportunity to do so, feeling that the need will arise without effort. |
| Leap09-22-03, 04:41 AM | Aleshandre – “While friendship tends to lead to personal bias, it is founded in mutual respect, understanding and even love.” Mutual respect and Understanding is NOT the same as Friendship! Although those things are PART OF friendship, a friend is a PERSONAL CONNECTION that cannot be applied to everyone. A true friend is part of your ‘extended family’ in the truest sense, whilst other folks, no matter how much you respect them, are not. It requires that PERSONAL connection for friendship. “Altruism is founded in unconditional love first, then leads to respect and understanding, thus neither can be exclusive of the other, unless friendship leads into bias, which overshadows the love that altruism is founded on.” Friendship is not altruistic, as it puts PERSONAL bias first (if you have to choose between saving the life of a friend and saving the life of a stranger, you will choose a friend (if you truly ARE their friend!)). Don’t confuse the sacrifices made in friendship with those made in altruism Aleshandre, they aren’t the same! ”Reading into the statements the implications that are there is fallacy. A good person would equally sacrifice life liberty and even happiness equally for anyone, while neutral would only do so for friends or family. This does not mean that a good person would not sacrifice for friends or family, rather that the friendship and family relationships are not the controlling factor, as it is in a neutral person.” My point being that if you do not put ‘friends’ first then they are not really friends! A good person will sacrifice for anyone, treating everyone as if they are a ‘friend’ (but without the bias in value that makes true friendship – altruism is pale and fluffy (an inaccurate!) copy of friendship) a neutral person says only friends are worth treating like friends! A good person looks superficially to treat everyone as a friend until they are tested, at which point the fact that they are not friends with anyone comes to the fore (as they have no bias in favour of anyone – and friendship requires bias). ”As I have mentioned in previous debates here, a good person is not prohibited from seeking self welfare or the welfare of friends and family. It is seeking that welfare to the cost of others. If for example a paladin had to choose between a close friend or family member being wounded, even severely or a stranger that he believed to be innocent being killed, he would be duty bound to save the life.” You are forgetting that the essence of alignment difference is SACRIFICE, not ASSISTANCE. A GOOD person sacrifices the personal (“make personal sacrifices”) for strangers. A NEUTRAL person will NOT sacrifice the personal (“A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him”), but in fact makes the personal the heart of life (“Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships”). An EVIL person will sacrifice anyone and anything for what they deem necessary (“debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit….and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient”). |
| aleshandre09-22-03, 09:00 AM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – Friendship is not altruistic, as it puts PERSONAL bias first (if you have to choose between saving the life of a friend and saving the life of a stranger, you will choose a friend (if you truly ARE their friend!)). Don’t confuse the sacrifices made in friendship with those made in altruism Aleshandre, they aren’t the same! My point being that if you do not put ‘friends’ first then they are not really friends! A good person will sacrifice for anyone, treating everyone as if they are a ‘friend’ (but without the bias in value that makes true friendship – altruism is pale and fluffy (an inaccurate!) copy of friendship) a neutral person says only friends are worth treating like friends! A good person looks superficially to treat everyone as a friend until they are tested, at which point the fact that they are not friends with anyone comes to the fore (as they have no bias in favour of anyone – and friendship requires bias). Quite the opposite, true friendship is altruistic. What you are calling friendship is a pale immitation of freindship. There is no true sacrifice that is not made from love. You are forgetting that the essence of alignment difference is SACRIFICE, not ASSISTANCE. A GOOD person sacrifices the personal (“make personal sacrifices”) for strangers. A NEUTRAL person will NOT sacrifice the personal (“A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him”), but in fact makes the personal the heart of life (“Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships”). An EVIL person will sacrifice anyone and anything for what they deem necessary (“debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit….and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient”). A good person sacrifices personal welfare or desires not necessarily personal relationships. A neutral person makes no great sacrifices of self, but will not necessarily take the welfare of others as fodder for personal gain. That person treats the welfare of friends and family as his/her own, but does not consider the welfare of strangers. An evil person makes no sacrifice. The very nature of evil is contrary to sacrifice. Lets be clear: the root of sacrifice is sacred. There is nothing sacred to an evil person. Only family and friends are sacred to a neutral person. EVERYTHING is sacred to a good person. |
| Leap09-22-03, 09:28 AM | Aleshandre – “A good person sacrifices personal welfare or desires not necessarily personal relationships” With attempts to weasel-out out like that you should be a lawyer ;) Think perhaps of the Paladin Character in Baldur’s Gate II (if you have played such) who nearly loses his family because good requires that he has no such personal biases……….. “Lets be clear: the root of sacrifice is sacred. There is nothing sacred to an evil person. Only family and friends are sacred to a neutral person. EVERYTHING is sacred to a good person” Exactly! And the root of ‘sacred’ is ‘set aside’; the neutral sets aside his friends and family as sacred, the good tries to set everyone aside (meaning no special treatment for friends and family – which makes a nonsense of the idea of friendship!). The good person claims to treat everyone the same way that neutral treats their friends and family, but in actuality cannot do this. Try being a parent and not holding your children as more important than other children, or a friend and not putting your friends before strangers, or a husband and not putting the needs of your wife before those of a stranger. |
| Bobidus09-22-03, 09:32 AM | Leap, I'd like to make a few comments about your assertion that DnD's Neutral is, in fact, more "good" than their Good alignment. Please take them for what they are: off the cuff observations with no great though behind them and, as such, likely flawed. If I've misinterpreted something or just overlooked a posting, I apologize in advance. In reading through this thread, you seem sometimes to be implying that, forced into a choice between saving a friend or a random stranger, a DnD-good (I'll call your interpretation of this "McGood") character would chose the stranger, at least half the time. I assume that you do not believe this to be the case, but I did want to point out that impression. More importantly, you seem to be reading a lot into the PHB's use of the word "altruism". Altruism demands that you set aside your personal biases, and thus you cannot really have friends in an altruistic society because a friend is someone you have a personal bias in favour of. This loads a lot of baggage onto altruism that I doubt the authors had in mind when they wrote in the PHB, "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." In the real world, a person who is altruistic (shows "unselfish concern for others (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/altruism)"---gives to the poor, works in a soup kitchen, mentors a troubled kid, and/or gives of himself in other ways) is not necessarily a person without friends. I remember seeing an interview on TV of a cop in Hawaii who risked his life holding onto a stranger who had fallen over a cliff. He was in danger of being pulled over himself and could, of course, have let go at any time, but he didn't. Is this man therefore doomed to friendlessness? Perhaps rather than having a less intense rapport with acquaintances than the norm, some altruistic people have a more intense rapport with strangers. Also, you've used the word "nepostism" a lot, often in counterpoint to "meritocracy", as being associated with the Neutral alignment and your proposed Tribal society. Are you acknowledging it to be a vice that can come from extreme implementations of that society, or a virtue inherent in it, as opposed to the vice of meritocracy? Finally, I'd propose that a person's power has bearing on their alignment. Applying the concept of good and evil to the weak might be less relevant that applying it to the strong, because the peasant has less opportunity to act on his alignment than the king, and his actions have lesser consequences. A man is aggravated by his neightbor, but he doesn't kill him: Is this because he is a good (or at least neutral) man, or because he's afraid of the consequences? So let's imagine three kingdoms, ruled over by three kings: one good, one neutral, and one evil. The evil king, well... we'd expect most of his subjects to be pretty miserable much of the time, particularly whenever he is taking an active role in their lives. The good king would be expected to look out for all his subjects. If he were less wise, perhaps he'd like them all to be happy. Perhaps he'd issue edicts requiring that everyone smile all the time, say "Have a blessed day!" to anyone they pass, and just be dog-gone nice to everyone. Nice can be confused with good and with happy. But we'd expect a wiser king to know this. Maybe this wiser king would give just give his subjects a broad range of freedoms while doing what he can to spare them the worst of life's misery. Maybe he'd be wiser than me and do things I cannot predict. Now the neutral king... This has always been a problem for me, but your posting has given me some ideas. The king treats his family and friends well, because they're important, but does this necessarily trickle down to the man in the street? You might argue that there's a network of personal relationships that eventually includes everyone in the kingdom and links the king to the lowest stableboy. But what happens if not everyone is neutral? It is the nature of this sort of heroic fantasy (and maybe even human nature) that there be evil scattered about. What if one of the king's sons was south of neutral? If the king was good---McGood---this would of course not be a problem because personal relationships mean nothing to the McGood character. The son would be hauled off to the dungeons---or perhaps executed---immediately upon the discovery of his perfidity. A more stereotypically good king would still haul him off, but he'd be conflicted about it :) But as for our neutral king, well... certainly his son is more important than any of his lesser subjects. pyk earlier brought up the Mafia. It would certainly fit in with your definition of a "Tribal" society. I would like to point out that the Tribal definition could also be applied to the political machines so prevalent in America in the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems to me that, rather than being the libertarian paradise that you seem to be implying, the Tribal society is one that has been tried and rejected in the real world. To some extent, I do see your point and I can imagine a society---a dystopian society---built around the sort of McGood that you see as DnD's definition. But your interpretation is based around a twisted definition of a single word: altruism. IMO, this interpretation needs some fleshing out if it is to be convincing to a wide audience. |
| Leap09-22-03, 10:59 AM | Bobidus – First, let me thank you for distracting me from a particularly dull piece of paper-work that has landed on my desk :) “Please take them for what they are: off the cuff observations with no great though behind them and, as such, likely flawed. If I've misinterpreted something or just overlooked a posting, I apologize in advance.” No need; I make it a rule only to get mean & petty with people who are trolling :) “In reading through this thread, you seem sometimes to be implying that, forced into a choice between saving a friend or a random stranger, a DnD-good (I'll call your interpretation of this "McGood")” Excellent ;) Oh god! Now I sound like Bill-n-Ted!!! “character would chose the stranger, at least half the time. I assume that you do not believe this to be the case, but I did want to point out that impression” The essence of Goodness is that there is no distinction of value between “friends” and “strangers”, where-as neutral sees friends as someone you owe a personal duty to and place as a higher priority than others……………..if you look in the recent Book of Dodgy Darkness (or whatever it is called :) ) and the PHB alike, you will find that the sacrifice of the personal is at the very heart of WOTC’s idea of goodness! “you seem to be reading a lot into the PHB's use of the word "altruism"” Looking at the Neutral part in the PHB also reveals the importance of altruism to goodness…… “Also, you've used the word "nepotism" a lot, often in counterpoint to "meritocracy", as being associated with the Neutral alignment and your proposed Tribal society. Are you acknowledging it to be a vice that can come from extreme implementations of that society, or a virtue inherent in it, as opposed to the vice of meritocracy?” I take Nepotism to be wrongly accused of being a vice (as it is said to be in Civilised society – note: this topic gets a bit confused because I am trying to discuss two separate alignment approaches (one being WOTC’s Good/Neutral/Evil, the other being my own Civilised/Tribal/Chaos) that are not really inter-discussable :) )), and in fact hold it to be a virtue (as it is in both Neutral and Tribal society, just to confuse matters ;) ); specifically the virtue of treating friends and family like they ARE actually friends and family and putting your relationships with them above others. “Finally, I'd propose that a person's power has bearing on their alignment. Applying the concept of good and evil to the weak might be less relevant that applying it to the strong, because the peasant has less opportunity to act on his alignment than the king, and his actions have lesser consequences.” An interesting idea, but I do not think it would work; You only have to agree with an alignment and take no action counter to it to actually qualify for it. A peasant who believes his king is right in crushing dissent with an iron fist is probably LE. “If the king was good---McGood---this would of course not be a problem because personal relationships mean nothing to the McGood character. The son would be hauled off to the dungeons---or perhaps executed---immediately upon the discovery of his perfidity” I seem to remember Camelot collapsing for a similar action NOT being followed through (Guinevere and Lancelot’s treason against the king, where the King refused to act because of personal loyalties)………….Good falling through a Neutral act. “But as for our neutral king, well... certainly his son is more important than any of his lesser subjects” Exactly, and (what ‘we’) call ‘corruption’ is actually a normal part of Neutrality (but only for minor crimes – Neutral’s tend to be more forgiving of minor crimes only; you can betray the bonds of family and friendship…………..and then you get the proverbial tonne of bricks). “What if one of the king's sons was south of neutral?” If the son was Evil, and not simply doing something minor, the king would be just as likely to punish him as the McGood or Good kings were…… “pyk earlier brought up the Mafia. It would certainly fit in with your definition of a "Tribal" society. I would like to point out that the Tribal definition could also be applied to the political machines so prevalent in America in the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems to me that, rather than being the libertarian paradise that you seem to be implying, the Tribal society is one that has been tried and rejected in the real world.” The older style mafia (favours, embarrassment tactics and influence peddling) is certainly very tribal; although the modern ‘organised crime syndicates’ are more civilised (using much harder edged tactics – intimidation and explicit violence). And ……. It is not that Tribal society is strictly Libertarian as such, but that where Civilisation goes for explicit and direct management of society (in order to bind it together) Tribalism goes for unspoken and implicitly communicated inter-personal loyalties to bind society together; far less patronising and intrusive than Civilisations management approach. “To some extent, I do see your point and I can imagine a society---a dystopian society---built around the sort of McGood that you see as DnD's definition. But your interpretation is based around a twisted definition of a single word: altruism. IMO, this interpretation needs some fleshing out if it is to be convincing to a wide audience.” I do not rely on the use of ‘altruism’ alone! The whole definition of WOTC’s concept of Good rests upon: “ 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of [ALL] sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices [ that is, they sacrifice personal things] to help others. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him [as a good person would]. ” The whole notion of good is getting rid of the personal and replacing it with impersonal, universalised, values referring to “sentient beings” as opposed to neutrals referring to “personal relationships”. McGood, in other words. Which, in crushing out the personal relationships from the heart of life is simply Lawful Evil (Oppression, Domination) with good PR (“Its for your own good”). This is why I prefer to work from the Civilised/Tribal/Chaos alignment, as such an approach undoes the confusions in WOTC’s text (I think) and shows up Civilised society for what it really is; political and depersonalised society – with what is called “Lawful Good” being just covering tyranny up beneath “its for your own good”. |
| aleshandre09-22-03, 03:30 PM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – “A good person sacrifices personal welfare or desires not necessarily personal relationships” With attempts to weasel-out out like that you should be a lawyer ;) Think perhaps of the Paladin Character in Baldur’s Gate II (if you have played such) who nearly loses his family because good requires that he has no such personal biases……….. It is the plain truth, not an attempt to weasel out. ;) Though my ability with logic is decent, I would be unable to decently funtion as a lawyer. My personal feelings toward individual freedom and justice would get in the way. “Lets be clear: the root of sacrifice is sacred. There is nothing sacred to an evil person. Only family and friends are sacred to a neutral person. EVERYTHING is sacred to a good person” Exactly! And the root of ‘sacred’ is ‘set aside’; the neutral sets aside his friends and family as sacred, the good tries to set everyone aside (meaning no special treatment for friends and family – which makes a nonsense of the idea of friendship!). The good person claims to treat everyone the same way that neutral treats their friends and family, but in actuality cannot do this. Try being a parent and not holding your children as more important than other children, or a friend and not putting your friends before strangers, or a husband and not putting the needs of your wife before those of a stranger. Perhaps you mean that the latin root "sacre" means "to set aside". Specifically to set aside as holy. Thus sacrifice means to set all things aside as being holy and thus only to be used within the dictates of a higher power (usually a deity). This means that everyone is set aside as being greater than self and that self is set aside as being greater than desires. In this state of mind, a person looks on all people with equal love and respect, but does not preclude caring for one's responsibilities first, then taking all others as an extended responsiblity. I am a parent and I hold no person as more important than another. I do; however, see my wife and children as being my first responsibility and all others as being my extended responsibility. This allows me to hold family ties and friendship as being important, but not all consuming as if I was neutrally aligned. |
| Leap09-23-03, 05:28 AM | Aleshandre – “My personal feelings toward individual freedom and justice would get in the way.” I think you will find just having personal feelings will invalidate you from being a lawyer, sense of freedom and justice means they simply would not even send you and application form ;) “Perhaps you mean that the latin root "sacre" means "to set aside". Specifically to set aside as holy.” Yup, that is exactly what I mean (I knew this degree in RS would have some use eventually ;) ). When you set everything aside as ‘special’ you have nothing to compare it with that it IS ‘special’ in comparison to. “Thus sacrifice means to set all things aside as being holy and thus only to be used within the dictates of a higher power (usually a deity). This means that everyone is set aside as being greater than self and that self is set aside as being greater than desires. In this state of mind, a person looks on all people with equal love and respect, but does not preclude caring for one's responsibilities first, then taking all others as an extended responsibility.” Strictly speaking the idea of sacred was to mark out something as ‘special’ compared to ‘mundane’; making a value judgement. When you treat everyone the same, friends cease to be ‘special’ and thus cease to be friends. ”I am a parent” So I see :) Twins? (and what is this “Old Tongue” stuff?) “and I hold no person as more important than another.” With the best will in the world………….I don’t believe you :) “I do; however, see my wife and children as being my first responsibility and all others as being my extended responsibility. This allows me to hold family ties and friendship as being important, but not all consuming as if I was neutrally aligned.” A neutral person can be charitable, it is just that they will do nothing that threatens the centrality of PERSONAL relationships and are unwilling to sacrifice anything PERSONAL to achieve something IMPERSONAL. You sound perhaps like you are more Neutral with Good tendencies than Good in the sense of Good being “personal sacrifices … for strangers who are not related to [you]”. Oh well, there goes the Paladinhood ;) |
| aleshandre09-23-03, 09:50 AM | Pick up Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series (start with The Eye of the World) and you will see what the Old Tongue is. Not twins 18 months apart. The first recorded instance of setting asside a thing as being holy is written in Genesis, the act of setting aside the first and best portion of one's increase for burnt offering to Deity. There were strict instructions as to what should be offered. They were physical quality requirements, not value requirements. Nowhere in the law of sacrifice is there a requirement to make value judgements. You don't have to believe the truth to make it true. It only needs to exist. A neutral person can be charitable, it is just that they will do nothing that threatens the centrality of PERSONAL relationships and are unwilling to sacrifice anything PERSONAL to achieve something IMPERSONAL. You sound perhaps like you are more Neutral with Good tendencies than Good in the sense of Good being “personal sacrifices … for strangers who are not related to [you]”. Oh well, there goes the Paladinhood As you said, you need only believe the principles and try to act accordingly to qualify for an alignment. I do just that in regard to good; therefore, I am good. |
| Leap09-23-03, 10:16 AM | Aleshandre – “Pick up Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series (start with The Eye of the World) and you will see what the Old Tongue is” Aha, will take a look. “Not twins 18 months apart” The advantage is you can hand clothes down, the disadvantage is they both hit puberty far too close (put the younger in deep freeze for 6 months) :) :ours are 2 years apart ;) “The first recorded instance of setting asside a thing as being holy is written in Genesis, the act of setting aside the first and best portion of one's increase for burnt offering to Deity.” Point of order: read Enuma Elish (Sumerian religious texts that the Hebrew Bible was ‘borrowed from’ ;) ): considering Abraham was from Ur, that he worshipped the god of his fathers (which in that city were Ea and Ninhursag), that Moses was only shown one side of god, that he said to moses “Eyah asher Eyah” – usually translated to mean “I am that I am”, that a male and female when married become one flesh (remember that bit for later), that Eve comes from Hvh meaning “lady of life” in Hebrew, that Ninhursag mean “lady of life” in Sumerian, that she and Ea were married, and that when their names are combined (in a Hebrew/Sumerian linguistic cross based upon how they sound rather than how they are written) they become Eahvh, YhvH, a being who is “both male and female” in one being, who was the god/goddess if Abrahams father in Ur………………. :) Sorry :) “They were physical quality requirements, not value requirements. Nowhere in the law of sacrifice is there a requirement to make value judgements” Try sacrificing a goats butt-cheeks and see what response you get :) I beg to differ………….the select went to the deity. “As you said, you need only believe the principles and try to act accordingly to qualify for an alignment. I do just that in regard to good; therefore, I am good” Not so long as there are personal things you will not sacrifice to the greater good; such as your family………..like I said, good stinks (at least by WOTC’s standards). |
| aleshandre09-23-03, 11:30 AM | I could get deep doctrine on you on those points that you make, but that would get the thread locked (as it requires me to quote scripture and explain in detail). If you want to go that way, email me and I'll be happy to change this to a straight religious/philosophical discussion. Other than that all I have to say, is that if it came down to losing my family and doing the right thing, I would miss my family. |
| Leap09-23-03, 11:48 AM | Aleshandre – “I could get deep doctrine on you on those points that you make, but that would get the thread locked (as it requires me to quote scripture and explain in detail).” Pity :( :) “If you want to go that way, email me and I'll be happy to change this to a straight religious/philosophical discussion.” That would probably be a mistake…………..although I do stand by the points I raised (I raised them originally to a professor of mine back in ’99 (when I was doing my degree) and she was a little shocked by what it meant (she being a catholic theologian :) )). We could argue it out with scriptural references but I doubt that would satisfy the point well enough (not being either a Christy/Muslim/Jew I tend to not hold a lot of water with scriptural reference). :) “Other than that all I have to say, is that if it came down to losing my family and doing the right thing, I would miss my family.” Whilst to a True Neutral, losing your family would BE the wrong thing itself……..the two concerns would be, by and large, indivisible. Answer me this (on the civilised/tribal rather than the good/neutral issue): Would you rather society was directed mostly by explicit and direct managed processes or would you rather that society was governed by embedded knowledge (a broad supply of knowledge inside each of us that directs us rather than relying that our actions are directly controlled by an invasive management process)? |
| aleshandre09-23-03, 12:41 PM | I had answered that one earlier; I would be tribal. I have had discussions of that kind with all kind of people, many of whom weren't of my religion. I always found common ground with them and I know where the scriptural referenced are and are not pertinant. If you look at my links page, you will see my arguments from my Philosophy class and 1 that I wrote before taking the class. I'm currently working on another (mostly in my head) that should shake up the scientific world. |
| Leap09-23-03, 01:47 PM | Aleshandre - Philosophy was my minor on my honors degree, so I try to make a habit of avoiding philosophy essays ;) Well, beyond alignment discussin anyway :D Instead I now focus on social aspects........specifically the role of managed society in the loss of community (as you can tell :) )......which I am looking at for local govt here in the UK. |
| Sir Neil09-24-03, 08:56 PM | When you say "tribal", it brings to mind all sorts of negative images of fur-wearing primitives living in caves. Could you find another term for the society? For the past week I've been on the What's a DM to Do board involved in paladin arguments. As always, I quoted you extensively, Leap, and thought you might like this response one of your quotes got: Originally posted by Hazzurath Just reading this has me wanting to create a Paladin and go forth to smite as much Evil as I can find. |
| Leap09-25-03, 05:00 AM | Sir Neil – “I quoted you extensively, Leap” I will email you with address for the royalties cheque ;) “When you say "tribal", it brings to mind all sorts of negative images of fur-wearing primitives living in caves. Could you find another term for the society?” I know what you mean, but I find the civilised / tribal terms to currently work very well together…………..am looking for a better set of terms though :) “thought you might like this response” Also glad to help :) The very fact that you are quoting me must REALLY got on Arilou’s wick as well ;) |
| Sir Neil09-26-03, 07:58 PM | Originally posted by Leap I will email you with address for the royalties cheque Groovy! Eh, but now I have to figure out the exchange rate. Lets see, 2 cents American is ... you aren't using the Euro yet, right? 1.2 pence. When I wrote to PM Blair last year, a stamp cost 80 cents. Can you wait till we meet at GenCon one year? ;) |
| EvilDuck09-26-03, 09:19 PM | Here's my take on this. Let's say that two people had guns to their head. One was a close friend of Bob, a close friend that had just robbed Fort Knox. The other was an innocent that Bob didn't know. The guy holding the guns says that Bob has to pick one person. That person will live, but the other dies. Any way this goes, nobody will be charged with anything, not even your criminal friend. Now say Bob picks the stranger. In that case he's good. Say he picks his friend. Bob is good then too. It's just that it's two different kinds of good. There's no single way of being good in D&D or in life. |
| Leap09-28-03, 02:19 PM | Shadowy Aquatic Avian Creature – That is not exactly a good example of day-to-day alignment though, is it? A ‘Good’ person’s day-to-day principles will not be tainted by Nepotism (as they do not put personal relationships at the centre of their life (such is the way of ‘Neutral’ characters)) but will instead be based upon NOT letting personal bias get in the way of things. To a Neutral this is a nonsense way of living; a friend you do not put before strangers is not a real friend! :) |
| Bobidus09-28-03, 03:36 PM | Leap, I wrote a long reply to your message last week, but after reading through the thread, I decided not to post it because it was mostly bringing up points that had been brought up earlier. :( Nevertheless, I have been thinking about your proposal off and on since I first read this thread and I have a couple of questions for you. Originally posted by Leap: I take Nepotism to be wrongly accused of being a vice (as it is said to be in Civilised society – note: this topic gets a bit confused because I am trying to discuss two separate alignment approaches (one being WOTC’s Good/Neutral/Evil, the other being my own Civilised/Tribal/Chaos) that are not really inter-discussable :) ), and in fact hold it to be a virtue (as it is in both Neutral and Tribal society, just to confuse matters ;) ); specifically the virtue of treating friends and family like they ARE actually friends and family and putting your relationships with them above others. This one will need a bit of explaining to be convincing :) . Sure, nepotism is good for you and your friends (assuming you have the power to implement it), but how is it good for anyone else? Also, are you assuming that the good in Good (or the civilized in Civilized) is imposed on individuals from the society, or arises from internal impulses? |
| Leap09-29-03, 04:08 AM | Bobidus – “Sure, nepotism is good for you and your friends (assuming you have the power to implement it), but how is it good for anyone else?” It is good for everyone because it fosters friendships, real friendships which allow you to put your relationships with family (I make no distinction between family and close friends) first. Civilised society destroys personal relationships (take a look at the amount of crime, family breakdown, etc in our own society – meritocratic societies pit each against all in a race to become ‘the best’ and in doing so breakdown personal relationships as well as generating an underclass of ‘losers’ (who frequently turn out to be those who were previously winners but found the lifestyle so empty they turned to narcotic abuse to escape the soul-numbing coldness of meritocratic society). “are you assuming that the good in Good (or the civilized in Civilized) is imposed on individuals from the society, or arises from internal impulses” The degree of compartmentalisation and specialisation found in Civilisation means that such a society requires active management to maintain an orderly reliable relations (enforcement, regulation, directing, command). It is essentially a circular network with a watching b, b watching c and c watching a – perpetual mistrust and paranoia. Such management is required because in Civilisation, personal bonds (of friendship and gradually developed trust) are largely missing – tribalism takes a more personal and a more ‘ongoing’ view of life, in civilisation however these have been replaced by contractual / enforcement bonds in order to create a reliable society far larger and more productive than one based on personal relationships can be (which is also why they are meritocratic). Of course both societies contain a little of the other (tribals have a small degree of enforcement but rely primarily on personal duty honor and trust, civilisation has a small degree of personal relationship but relies primarily on detailed specific and explicit contracts and the enforcement of such). Tribalism works on the principle of order coming from embedded knowledge and a sense of personal duty / friendships, rather than on enforcement. Where civilisation seeks to explicitly manage society (because people in civilisation are generally devoid of contextualising knowledge (they are, as a rule, more specialised and more blinkered, being kept in such a state in a meritocratic society which requires the level of power/skill brought about by specialisation which in turn is set against a more generalist and contextualising experience)), tribalism teaches people about the world and how they fit into such, allowing them then to direct their own lives, and be responsible for such, and generate personal relationships that then together bind society together in a generally harmonious manner (and without the heavy-handed methods of civilisation). Does that answer your questions? ;) |
| Arilou_skiff09-30-03, 09:45 AM | I'd actually agree that nepotism isn't *neccessarily* a vice, but that depends on the structure within which you are existing, eg. if your task is to ensure that whatever you are doing is working the best way possible and you choose someone you trust (a family member perhaps) to work with you because you need someone you trust to work with it... On the other hand I find leaps assumptions to be hogwash, because I've noticed he tends to (admit it, you do Leap) tend to to extrapolate things into the absurd: Leap (in his argumentative technique) tends to come forwards as the worst kind of black-and-white looking guy (He might not at all be like that IRL but that what he looks like from where I'm standing) Yes, a good person will not try to advance his friend if someone else is obviously superior for the job, (although this might just as well be a Law vs Chaos debate as a Good vs Evil One) but there's nothing that prevents him from picking a friend from a group of equals, also, sometimes the friend might show needed qualities BECAUSE he is a friend, a Good Person tries to treat everyone as fundamentally equal, or at least as fundamentally able to become good, but there's nothing that says he has to trust a stranger as much as he trusts a friend (that is not a case of Good Vs Evil but simply a matter of him having more experience and greater knowledge of his friend). |
| Leap09-30-03, 11:00 AM | Arilou – “Leap (in his argumentative technique) tends to come forwards as the worst kind of black-and-white looking guy” You only think that because I am ALWAYS right and you are ALWAYS wrong and your assumption has no basis in reality ;) ”On the other hand I find leaps assumptions to be hogwash, because I've noticed he tends to (admit it, you do Leap) tend to to extrapolate things into the absurd” :o In what way?! Could you offer a few examples? “a good person will not try to advance his friend if someone else is obviously superior for the job, (although this might just as well be a Law vs Chaos debate as a Good vs Evil One)” I was talking specifically about civilised vrs tribal there Arilou. A civilised society is pro meritocracy, whilst a tribal one generally puts personal relationships before “getting the job done”. You can see the difference between the culture of Spain, North Africa, Southern Italy and the Arabian countries on one side (generally more tribal/nepotistic; although extreme Islamic countries like Saudi are more ‘civilised’) and the cultures of Germany, Norway, UK and US on the other (generally more civilised/meritocratic). However……….back to WOTC In dnd-land, a good person is honor bound to “make personal sacrifices to help ….. strangers who are not related to him” and thus will sacrifice friendship for a more impersonal principle of impersonal charity. That is the essence of goodness; personal sacrifice. Compare this to a neutral person who “committed to others by personal relationships [and would only] sacrifice himself to protect his family or … his homeland”. The essence of neutrality is dedication to personal relationships. Just because I disagree with you on alignment Arilou, does not mean I am “extrapolat[ing] things into the absurd”. Sure WOTC may not have MEANT to put alignment this way…..but it remains that this is NOT what they are repeatedly printing. |
| aleshandre09-30-03, 12:24 PM | When you say "charity" are you reffering to "compassionate acts for the general well being of others" or are you refferring to "pure love without hypocracy or guile". Either way, you are assuming that love based gestures (compassion is love based) are without personal feeling. Thus a good person who is performing charitable acts is acting out of love, which is clearly not an impersonal way, thus your arguement that good is impersonal breaks down. |
| Arilou_skiff09-30-03, 02:49 PM | Originally posted by Leap Arilou – “Leap (in his argumentative technique) tends to come forwards as the worst kind of black-and-white looking guy” You only think that because I am ALWAYS right and you are ALWAYS wrong and your assumption has no basis in reality ;) ”On the other hand I find leaps assumptions to be hogwash, because I've noticed he tends to (admit it, you do Leap) tend to to extrapolate things into the absurd” :o In what way?! Could you offer a few examples? “a good person will not try to advance his friend if someone else is obviously superior for the job, (although this might just as well be a Law vs Chaos debate as a Good vs Evil One)” I was talking specifically about civilised vrs tribal there Arilou. A civilised society is pro meritocracy, whilst a tribal one generally puts personal relationships before “getting the job done”. You can see the difference between the culture of Spain, North Africa, Southern Italy and the Arabian countries on one side (generally more tribal/nepotistic; although extreme Islamic countries like Saudi are more ‘civilised’) and the cultures of Germany, Norway, UK and US on the other (generally more civilised/meritocratic). However……….back to WOTC In dnd-land, a good person is honor bound to “make personal sacrifices to help ….. strangers who are not related to him” and thus will sacrifice friendship for a more impersonal principle of impersonal charity. That is the essence of goodness; personal sacrifice. Compare this to a neutral person who “committed to others by personal relationships [and would only] sacrifice himself to protect his family or … his homeland”. The essence of neutrality is dedication to personal relationships. Just because I disagree with you on alignment Arilou, does not mean I am “extrapolat[ing] things into the absurd”. Sure WOTC may not have MEANT to put alignment this way…..but it remains that this is NOT what they are repeatedly printing. Remember the Old Good Versus Evil Debate we had a long time Ago? You extrapolated something fiercely there :) b] personal [/b] sacrifices Exactly, HE sacrifices, he does not sacrifice his friends, or his friendships, he sacrifices himself. The essence of neutrality is *not* dedication to personal relationships, it is simply the boundary where he starts to sacrifice things, the Essence of Neutrality is lack of committment. I'd really ought to have some way to draw a diagram to let you understand what I mean :) but I can't so I'll try to explain. A Neutral character is *less willing* to sacrifice, a Good person will sacrifice for anyone (even his enemy in the right circumstances, the movie-hero stretching out his hand to help his opponent that has fallen of a cliff is an example) while a Neutral person will sacrifice only for those things he considers as the core of his beliefs (depends on the neutral really, balance for a Druid, his nation for an LN Soldier, his friends for a CN person... Whatever his personal committment leans towards he will sacrifice to) an evil person on the other hand won't sacrifice of himself unless threatened or coerced (or realizing that the sacrifice might bring something in return) the exception is the LE character who might very well sacrifice everything to whomever holds his twisted loyalty. |
| Leap10-01-03, 05:22 AM | Aleshandre – “When you say "charity" are you referring to "compassionate acts for the general well being of others" or are you referring to "pure love without hypocrisy or guile". Either way, you are assuming that love based gestures (compassion is love based) are without personal feeling. Thus a good person who is performing charitable acts is acting out of love, which is clearly not an impersonal way, thus your argument that good is impersonal breaks down.” By charity I mean “acts for the general well being of others” Good does not work on personal feelings, as these bring inherent biases, but instead it works on universalised principles: “All sentients are worthy of equal respect and we should be willing to make personal sacrifices for them”. Good places this principle above personal loyalty. Good denies part of being human, it seeks to make people ‘super’-human often by devotion to a supernatural power (a deity) which fails to reflect actuality for humans. :) Good is kind, but fundamentally cold and empty because it lacks the genuine human quality found in neutrality. A Neutral person works on personal feelings, and the inherent biases that these bring; friendship, loyalty to family etc. Neutral is not interested in being super-human, it is happy to be human (accepting the biases which come along with that). When you say that “love … is clearly not an impersonal way” I would simply ask what you mean by love? ;) Arilou – “Remember the Old Good Versus Evil Debate we had a long time Ago? You extrapolated something fiercely there” Who sir me sir? “Exactly, HE sacrifices, he does not sacrifice his friends, or his friendships, he sacrifices himself” Nooooo, he sacrifices personal things when he “makes personal sacrifices”; he puts things he has a personal involvement in as a secondary consideration to meeting the needs of others in a general way. He sacrifices things that are ‘of himself’. “the Essence of Neutrality is lack of commitment” Yet more nonsense from the PHB’s editors unfortunately. It is EVIL that lacks commitment to anyone; Neutral is committed by personal relationships (yes I realise it says both under neutral in the PHB but that makes a nonsense of the issue. The sensible option is to relegate a lack of commitment to Evil). “a Good person will sacrifice for anyone (even his enemy in the right circumstances, the movie-hero stretching out his hand to help his opponent that has fallen of a cliff is an example)” That is not a sacrifice. |
| Arilou_skiff10-01-03, 08:06 AM | Ok, it's not a sacrifice, it's risking your own life, same sh!t different name. Nooooo, he sacrifices personal things when he “makes personal sacrifices”; he puts things he has a personal involvement in as a secondary consideration to meeting the needs of others in a general way. He sacrifices things that are ‘of himself’. I'd also argue that a friend that demands of a friend that he should abondon doing what is Right to lavish attention upon him is not a true friend at all, but merely a leech trying to feed off you :) And let me tell you why nepotism is generally considered to be a Bad Thing (TM) Take a man, or a woman, let's call him/her Robb. Robb is working on a place that (in whatever way you can imagine) is responsible for delivering food to thousands of people (it might be a modern soup kitchen or an egyptian grain-storage a few thousands of years ago, you get the picture) He now has a choice between which two people to hire: John, a guy who has been working in food-distribution for years and is well educated and, everyone assures him, extremely competent. And then there's his old pal Claus, who has never done anything like this before, however, Claus is out of a job and out of money. Robb picks his old friend Claus, however, Claus screws up/is not competent enough for the job, and a few people die because of that (rats get into the silo or whatever) See the point? |
| Leap10-01-03, 10:25 AM | Arilou – “Ok, it's not a sacrifice, it's risking your own life, same sh!t different name” It is not even remotely comparable. A good example of a Good person is someone who puts charitable duty before family (maybe they man a soup kitchen at Christmas instead of spending time with their kids because “the homeless are more needy”, whilst a neutral person would say “nope, Christmas is about family and gamily comes first”). “I'd also argue that a friend that demands of a friend that he should abandon doing what is Right to lavish attention upon him is not a true friend at all, but merely a leech trying to feed off you” That is 1) Prejudging the condition of what is “Right” 2) Who said anything about “lavish”; friendship is about putting your friends first. A friend you do not give priority to is not a friend. “Robb picks his old friend Claus, however, Claus screws up/is not competent enough for the job, and a few people die because of that (rats get into the silo or whatever) See the point?” Yes of course I see the point; but I think perhaps you are simply assuming the worst and being unrealistic (something you appear to have been accusing me of not so long ago :) ). Go speak to any Spanish friends you have, assuming you have any (SPANISH friends that is, not FRIENDS in general!!!!!!), and see what they say about putting friendship and family first. You are responding with the standard response of someone brought up in western meritocratic society (assuming a nepotistic society does not function, when much of the world works on this standard and does perfectly ok). Nepotism relies on mutual friendship, which means your friend not doing anything that will reflect badly upon you (which allows for more minor faults (friends tend to forgive each other these as they tend to value the friendship and realise that no-body is perfect) to pass without comment but which still requires nothing seriously bad (like Claus’ rats pi$$ing on the grain) happens!). |
| Bobidus10-01-03, 03:38 PM | Leap, Before this goes too much further, could you clarify your position in this thread? 1. You're concerned that WoC is in some instances misinterpreting the definition of Good that they gave us in the PHB---that they are creating characters and extending the definition in other ways which pervert Good into this plastic, sweetness-and-light crap that you've been decrying. or 2. The definition of Good given in the PHB necessarily leads to this plastic, sweetness-and-light crap that you've been decrying. or 3. Not only is 2. true, but the idea of good that Western civilization has built up and is striving towards in Real Life is actually a perverted notion of what good truly means. This false ideal is actually leading us towards the PS&L crap that you've been decrying. or 4. Western civilization has already arrived at this point. I ask this because I agree that you've made a strong case for 1., but I fear that your actual position may be 3. or 4. |
| Arilou_skiff10-01-03, 04:09 PM | Originally posted by Leap Arilou – “Ok, it's not a sacrifice, it's risking your own life, same sh!t different name” It is not even remotely comparable. A good example of a Good person is someone who puts charitable duty before family (maybe they man a soup kitchen at Christmas instead of spending time with their kids because “the homeless are more needy”, whilst a neutral person would say “nope, Christmas is about family and gamily comes first”). “I'd also argue that a friend that demands of a friend that he should abandon doing what is Right to lavish attention upon him is not a true friend at all, but merely a leech trying to feed off you” That is 1) Prejudging the condition of what is “Right” 2) Who said anything about “lavish”; friendship is about putting your friends first. A friend you do not give priority to is not a friend. “Robb picks his old friend Claus, however, Claus screws up/is not competent enough for the job, and a few people die because of that (rats get into the silo or whatever) See the point?” Yes of course I see the point; but I think perhaps you are simply assuming the worst and being unrealistic (something you appear to have been accusing me of not so long ago :) ). Go speak to any Spanish friends you have, assuming you have any (SPANISH friends that is, not FRIENDS in general!!!!!!), and see what they say about putting friendship and family first. You are responding with the standard response of someone brought up in western meritocratic society (assuming a nepotistic society does not function, when much of the world works on this standard and does perfectly ok). Nepotism relies on mutual friendship, which means your friend not doing anything that will reflect badly upon you (which allows for more minor faults (friends tend to forgive each other these as they tend to value the friendship and realise that no-body is perfect) to pass without comment but which still requires nothing seriously bad (like Claus’ rats pi$$ing on the grain) happens!). Of course that's the worst case scenario :) But that is, fundamentally, why nepotism is decried: Even if in 90% of the cases it doesen't lead to this kind of stuff in 10% of the cases it does: And that's a bad thing. A "Nepotistic" society does not and has never truly existed, any more than a "meritocratic" society has ever existed: There has been various stages and forms of these kinds of socities though, eg. Pretty Nepotistic, Somewhat Nepotistic, a Bit meritocratic etc. etc. And about the unrealistic part of it: I more or less got that from some of the complaints levered against the french nobility prior to the Revolution: That they used their influence to appoint their (often incompetent) sons and nephews to positions where they caused great damage. This isn't unrealism, it is simply the reason why western society today is less nepotistic than eg. West African society. 1) Prejudging the condition of what is “Right” 2) Who said anything about “lavish”; friendship is about putting your friends first. A friend you do not give priority to is not a friend. 1. Yes, because we're still talking D&D here, right? 2. Depends, really. What level of priority would you put a friend? Your family? The lives of all the children of the world? |
| Leap10-01-03, 04:32 PM | Arilou – “from some of the complaints levered against the french nobility prior to the Revolution: That they used their influence to appoint their (often incompetent) sons and nephews to positions where they caused great damage” The problem there was a mixture of stupidity (Nepotism requires a mutual sense of loyalty; you give the job to your friend and you friend agrees, as he is your friend, not to make such a mess of it that he proves embarrassing) and a failure to follow through with Nepotism across the whole society. The peasants were expected to put their king before their own family and the trades / soldiers were expected to be meritocratic………..which is why it all went pear shaped. “What level of priority would you put a friend? Your family? The lives of all the children of the world” In Nepotism or Familialism as it is also known, close friends ARE family and everyone realises that you do nothing to violate the bonds of friendship (which means putting your friends before other job applicants (for example) in return for them not being embarrassingly bad at the job). When the situation requires you choose between friends they will usually realise this and some arrangement will be come to that will avoid any embarrassments (one might pull out because of “family commitments”. To answer your question on what level of priority I would put ON my friends / family, or at least what a Tribal / Neutral person would :) , I would say that you are asking nonsense questions that involve levels of power beyond those I would ever expect to have without first turning to evil. If I have to choose between saving a bus with 100 children on and saving one of my own friends, I would choose saving my friend. Does that answer your question? |
| Arilou_skiff10-02-03, 05:16 AM | Nepotism \Nep"o*tism\ (?; 277), n. [L. nepus, nepotus, nephew: cf. F. n['e]potisme. See Nephew.] Undue attachment to relations; favoritism shown to members of one's family; bestowal of patronage in consideration of relationship, rather than of merit or of legal claim. Says nothing about friendship (which means putting your friends before other job applicants (for example) in return for them not being embarrassingly bad at the job). Also, your friend might very well AGREE that he shouldn't mess things up: And do so anyway. He cannot really "agree" not to be embarassingly bad at something without having tested it, and in the case he *is* embarassingly bad and you thus fire him you aren't being nepotistic at all, but more like Meritocratic :) And no, ancien Regime wasn't fully nepotistic: But then no society is, because, such a society does not function, some level of meritocracy is neccessary if you want a society to function (although that might very well be a meritocracy within a nepotistic structure, like picking the best of your relatives for the job) but alas, I digress. |
| Leap10-02-03, 05:28 AM | Arilou – “Says nothing about” In a single dictionary quote, of course it does not. You need to read a slightly more ‘in depth’ unpacking to get a better picture. :) Try anything by Edward T Hall. “Also, your friend might very well AGREE that he shouldn't mess things up: And do so anyway. He cannot really "agree" not to be embarrassingly bad at something without having tested it, and in the case he *is* embarrassingly bad and you thus fire him you aren't being nepotistic at all, but more like Meritocratic And no, ancien Regime wasn't fully nepotistic: But then no society is, because, such a society does not function, some level of meritocracy is necessary if you want a society to function (although that might very well be a meritocracy within a nepotistic structure, like picking the best of your relatives for the job) but alas, I digress.” There is a world of difference between having a basic degree of competence and being Meritocratic! |
| Arilou_skiff10-02-03, 07:48 AM | Not really, as long as you demand that someone is supposed to be able to execute his duties competently you're being meritocratic. Nepotism is exactly when competence suffers because of relations. |
| Leap10-02-03, 08:02 AM | Meritocratic chases "the best" Nepotistic settles for "well, they are generally ok and they are a friend" |
| aleshandre10-02-03, 11:11 AM | : from Webster's Dictionary online Main Entry: char·i·ty Pronunciation: 'char-&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English charite, from Old French charité, from Late Latin caritat-, caritas Christian love, from Latin, dearness, from carus dear; akin to Old Irish carae friend, Sanskrit kAma love Date: 13th century 1 : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor c : public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a : a gift for public benevolent purposes b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4 : lenient judgment of others Since you were talking about actions, we can eliminate all refferences to organizations or institutions. also, since you were not talking about how one judges others, we can eliminate the last entry. Of note is the etymology Etymology: Middle English charite, from Old French charité, from Late Latin caritat-, caritas Christian love, from Latin, dearness, from carus dear; akin to Old Irish carae friend, Sanskrit kAma love Date: 13th century(emphasis added) So we can see that charity is very personal. Again, I say your arguement that good is impersonal breaks down, especially with the use of the word charity to describe it. Next there is an historical figure who (regardless of following the religion or believing that he was what he claimed to be, even discounting the miraculous events that his followers reported) fits the perfect ideal for the good template. The man known as Jesus (called the Christ by his followers). This man always did things for friends and family as well as helping those less fortunate than himself. He also was reported to have great love for all people, yet he wept more for a freind who had died, than for strangers that died. There are many refferences in the only record of his actual life (rather than his mere existance) that show that he felt more personal attachment to his freinds than strangers, yet he treated all people equally and was willing to heal even his enemies (note that the willingness is in this context the most important factor, not whether the act was completed; thus not believing the miracles that were reported surrounding him is not a valid opposing arguement). Most people, whether they believe his message or not agree that he was a good man, who taught good principles. This shows that a person can fit the "perfect ideal" of goodness and still maintain personal feelings. True goodness is not "meritocratic", rather it emphasises personal accountability to a higher standard, not to others who profess a higher standard. No good person is responsible to make himself or herself better so that others can judge them, rather to improve so that he or she is better within himself or herself. The "meritocratic" good that you reffer to is based not on good, but on self-righteousness, which is not good. |
| Leap10-02-03, 01:14 PM | Hello Aleshandre – Altruism is not a personal act though; it is an act that denies to value of the personal in the face of the impersonal. Currently ‘good’, as it values altruism, encourages, indeed demands, that others be looked after in preference to your personal loyalties. THAT is NOT GOOD; not REAL GOOD that is! Bobidus – Firstly let me apologise as I completely missed this post of yours!!!! :( “Before this goes too much further, could you clarify your position in this thread?” Sure. I am of the opinion that: 1) WOTC’s alignment system is, for whatever reason, promoting ‘Good’ as PS&L, which makes a nonsense of Goodness and probably adds to all the “what does alignment mean” and “can my Paladin toast baby kobolds” topics we see. 2) Western Civilisation is indeed run on a perverted idea of what it means to be good that is in actuality a cover (whether intentional or not – I am not about to delve into the realm of the tin-foil-hat here ;) ) for a Lawful Evil society. For reference, for both yourself and Aleshandre, I would be happy for alignment to be redefined based upon the following which I have posted elsewhere [it is amended here to expand it beyond its original purpose discussing the nature of Evil] and which I think carries the spirit of good and evil far better than WOTC’s nonsense (even if I do say so myself!):- Ok, lets forget the PHB nonsense for a moment (I am convinced it was edited by inebriated slaad!)…………………. Evil is demeaning and debasing a sentient creature by not allowing them to live as a sentient creature should (as an informed, autonomous, personal, moral agent). Evil essentially treats sentients like cattle; either to be herded (LE – lawful values a reliable orderly society bound by an authority (which in evil’s case is an imposed, invasive and thus oppressively binding authority)) or preyed upon spontaneously as whim decrees (CE – chaos disdains reliability and orderly society, and despises being bound by an authority beyond their own whims and desires). Lawful Evil is exemplified by The Borg or Modern Western Society (ooops, a bit of politics slipped in there!), and Chaotic Evil is exemplified by the slavering werewolf or the sexually predatory succubus. Lawful evil domesticate the cattle, whilst chaotic evil are happy that they are ‘free range’ :devil: It is opposed by Good; which respects sentient creatures by allowing them to live as sentient creatures, rather than treat them as cattle as evil does. Lawful good, like lawful evil, values a reliable orderly society bound by an authority. However, in the case of LG, this is not the ‘imposed, invasive and thus oppressively binding authority’ found in LE society, but is instead an authority which respects the sentients by allowing them to live as sentients. Where LE uses imposition, LG’s orderly and reliable society springs from a common set of rules and knowledge that are embedded in the participants in a LG society and teach them how to live whilst maintaining their position as informed, autonomous, personal, moral agents (as the nature of sentients is) within such a society. Chaotic Good, like chaotic evil, disdains reliability and orderly society, and despises being bound by an authority beyond their own whims and desires. CG however, unlike CE, still respects the dignity of sentients and thus allows them to be informed, autonomous, personal, moral agents. |
| Arilou_skiff10-02-03, 01:36 PM | Originally posted by Leap Meritocratic chases "the best" Nepotistic settles for "well, they are generally ok and they are a friend" No. If there's anything I hate it's when people start redefining the meaning of words, it really, really, really annoys me, it makes it damn hard to learn your language for one. Meritocratic means "Rule by merit" or "by the merited" and means that in general if one has proven his competence in a field then one should be promoted. Nepotistic means that familial ties takes precedence over merits, legal claims or anything else. Nepotism has not prerequisite of competence built-into it at all, although a nepotist certainly can have those personally. As said I'd rather you stick to the dictionary definitions rather than using some homebrew ones, for us non-englanders who might not be completely well-versed in the latest fashion theory it makes it easier to follow your argument. Nepotism \Nep"o*tism\ (?; 277), n. [L. nepus, nepotus, nephew: cf. F. n['e]potisme. See Nephew.] Undue attachment to relations; favoritism shown to members of one's family; bestowal of patronage in consideration of relationship, rather than of merit or of legal claim. mer·i·toc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mr-tkr-s) n. pl. mer·i·toc·ra·cies A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement. A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement. Leadership by such a group. Meritocracy n 1: a form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects 2: the belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth |
| Leap10-02-03, 02:47 PM | Arilou – Meritocracy is about putting the VERY best at the top – in other words, chases the best. Nepotism is about putting your friends first so long as they are not so incompetent that they will embarrass you. |
| Arilou_skiff10-02-03, 03:10 PM | Originally posted by Leap Arilou – Meritocracy is about putting the VERY best at the top – in other words, chases the best. Nepotism is about putting your friends first so long as they are not so incompetent that they will embarrass you. No, nepotism is specifically *undue* attachment to relations; favoritism shown to members of one's family; bestowal of patronage in consideration of relationship, rather than of merit or of legal claim. While a Meritocracy is a system selected on basis of achievement. |
| Arilou_skiff10-02-03, 03:25 PM | So, being in favour of nepotism is like being in favour of stupidity or jingoism: It's not really possibly because by it's very meaning it is negative. |
| aleshandre10-02-03, 03:34 PM | I have to agree with Arilou here, we should stick to the accepted definitions, not use personal interpretations of those definitions. ;) I totally agree with your idea that we should scrap the vastly misinterpretable WotC definitions, and use some that truely define the basic common beliefs that hold Good and Evil as separate entities. Government of large nations must be at least somewhat meritocratic, or they will end up being ruled by innept, blundering, or just plain stupid people, who have no knowledge and/or concern for the general population. Like any system; however, it must be in moderation, or the opposite will occur, with a ruling party that is so "obviously superior" that they see the common people as cattle and not worth their attention. Families, and smaller cities, towns and villages can get away with being primarily nepotistic, because there are small enough populations that it is an easy thing to get the support needed to straighten out the current community leader. |
| Leap10-02-03, 05:18 PM | Aleshandre – I was not redefining Nepotism but simply explaining how it, and meritocracy, are actually applied in RL (rather than simply going for the dictionary quote). Arilou – “So, being in favour of nepotism is like being in favour of stupidity or jingoism” Erm, nope. It is being in favour of RELATIONSHIPS before GETTING THE JOB DONE. Meritocracy is more concerned with getting the job done, nepotism with preserving relationships (the latter actually needs a degree of competence (so that you do not end up embarrassing the friend who got you the position) but it is of nothing like as great an import as in a Meritocracy (where ability is everything). |
| Arilou_skiff10-03-03, 03:56 AM | Check the definition. "Undue" attachment to relations; favoritism shown to members of one's family; bestowal of patronage in consideration of relationship, rather than of merit or of legal claim. The keyword is Undue |
| Leap10-03-03, 06:56 AM | I though the "undue" was an inherent moral judgement slipped into the definition (not by you, but by the the writers)............. |
| Arilou_skiff10-03-03, 10:28 AM | *shrugs* At least to me (and to everyone I've ever spoken or read of) Nepotism has negative cannotations, as in, by it's very nature it is something that has been taken too far. |
| Strife10-03-03, 01:57 PM | Dare I suggest that the cannotations of Nepotism might differ depending on culture? But if we have to resort to voting... it's BAD. |
| aleshandre10-03-03, 03:10 PM | LOL! Don't bring connotation into it. It's hard enough comming to any kind of conclusion just using denotation of words. :rofl: Seriously, thanks to the intricacies of the English language (and all of it's thousands of dialects), any given word can mean several things not even remotely related to the definition of the word, all based on the context in which it is used...and that's not including irony or sarcasm. |
| Leap10-04-03, 04:17 AM | Whether it is deemed 'Bad' or not differs from culture to culture; mediterranean/arabian/north-african/latin-american cultures tend to see nepotism as the proper choice (as family and friendship come before "excelence at getting the job done"). Northern european, US and UK tend to see it as a bad thing, as there, that ol' protestant work ethic etc prevails and excellence at getting the job done rates higher than famility and frienship commitments; which is probably why our culture is increasingly family-unfriendly! |
| Strife10-04-03, 06:55 PM | Sorry for busting in so late at this discussion.. Ahem.. First of: Altruism, Leap Of course our society is becoming more family un-friendly, work them until they are to exhausted (or stressed out which ever you prefer) to think and by isolating the induvidual controlling the masses gets easier. Leap (sorry if I mix up, my head is still spinng after reading all this text) it seams like you would like to define altruism something like "(personal)sacrifce with no gain". Now I would like to point out that those (biologists) who reseach into animals with an altrustic behavior, has come (well, I have to admitt they could ahve changed thier minds since I checked...) that altrustic behavior is not about sacrifice without gain, they all had something to gain (at least in biologial terms, DNA patterns and such) if you want an example: Wolfs stays and take care of thier siblings and thus they ensure that induviduals sharing their gene's will live on. So it's not far fetched to belive that there are no such as a true altrustic behavior among humans, we might not always know why we do as we do, but I'm quite sure that we atleast sub-consious figure out some gain before we act. And thus altrustic behavior is not the sole domian of good, depending on person it might even be evil (ok, that was far fetched...) point is anyone might take actions that an outsider would percive as altrustic, although it (the action) isn't. Now this might not, and wasn't really intended to, change anything, I was merely curious how altruism was defined in this discussion. Secondly Nepothism can never be good, as eventually, no-one will admitt to wrongdoing (because they are all in the sameboat) and results of bad decisions will be ignored, and at best the "offender" will simply get another jobb (as an ambasador in pandemonium...) wiedly used in the Soviet Union. Thirdly I must say I'm confused about your position on Neutral since you (I won't quote it... its to darn long:D) described Evil in the usual manner and the you proceeded with describing Good as a (even the?)force opposing Evil. Shouldn't it oppose Neutral as well? (Neutral being TrueGood and all) Being the iron hand in the velvet glove... Because if Neutral(TG) stands for friendship, and to some extent, harmful bias, "good" would surely oppose it, and that would be... evil. So, were you talkning about your good or WOTC good? Wohaa... now I really messed it up because now it seems to me like the would be three aligents: Evil (Classic Evil) Lesser Evil but-none-the-less-evil (formerly known as "Good") and Good , who would be good because of an I-don't-mind-what-others-do-unless-they-hurt-me-or-my-friends and-none-should-mind-my-actions-unless-they-are-apperntly-hurt-by-them attitude (formerly known as Neurtal) Could someone tell me what I missunderstood:confused: To me it seems like my "conclusion" is not in the spirit of what Leap wants to say, but it's what I get from reading the posts... Sorry for being so longwiended. :twitch: |
| Arilou_skiff10-04-03, 07:57 PM | Originally posted by Leap Whether it is deemed 'Bad' or not differs from culture to culture; mediterranean/arabian/north-african/latin-american cultures tend to see nepotism as the proper choice (as family and friendship come before "excelence at getting the job done"). Northern european, US and UK tend to see it as a bad thing, as there, that ol' protestant work ethic etc prevails and excellence at getting the job done rates higher than famility and frienship commitments; which is probably why our culture is increasingly family-unfriendly! My point is that there is a difference between nepotism and letting your friends (if equally skilled) go before people you don't know, Nepotism by the very meaning of the word is something that has been taken too far. |
| Leap10-06-03, 05:04 AM | Strife – Of course our society is becoming more family un-friendly, work them until they are to exhausted (or stressed out which ever you prefer) to think and by isolating the individual controlling the masses gets easier. Yup (part of why I ‘accuse’ modern society of being LE). it seams like you would like to define altruism something like "(personal) sacrifice with no gain"….. Yes I am aware of what Evolutionary Psychologists call “reciprocal altruism” but that is not what I am trying to ‘attack’. Good is being presented (by WOTC) as analogous to “placing the personal below the impersonal”, which they appear to be calling altruism (which is fair enough as a definition), whilst Neutral puts personal relationships at the centre of life. Good expects us to treat other people as friends (that is, as if we had a personal relationship of mutual loyalty and support towards them) by demanding we are honest, charitable and willing to make sacrifices for them, but the thing it actually demands we sacrifice is the very thing which BUILDS these relationships; that thing being the PERSONAL part. Good of course recognises that we cannot build a “treat everyone as if they were your friend” society if you need to build such behaviour on personal bias, in fact such personal bias puts a natural limit on the amount of people you CAN treat as friends (to those with whom you have a personal relationship with). Instead Good puts forward a denial of the personal, sacrificing it, under the orders of an abstract principle (altruism) in a drive for a bizarre kind of impersonal friendship which denies our very heart (where friendship comes from) and the biases of that. Secondly Nepotism can never be good, as eventually, no-one will admit to wrongdoing (because they are all in the same boat) and results of bad decisions will be ignored, and at best the "offender" will simply get another job (as an ambassador in pandemonium...) wildly used in the Soviet Union Not so, Strife. Nepotism rests on putting personal relationship before “getting the job done” (which is why it is opposed to meritocracy; which itself puts getting the job done before the personal relationships involved). This of course requires that the appointee avoids a level of incompetence which would bring shame on someone in even such a ‘relaxed’ society. Because friendship is central, society tends to be more forgiving of minor slights (letting them go in the interest of not letting them harm the friendships) but still have standards. Thirdly I must say I'm confused about your position on Neutral since you (I won't quote it... its to darn long :D ) described Evil in the usual manner and the you proceeded with describing Good as a (even the?)force opposing Evil. Shouldn't it oppose Neutral as well? I think you must be referring to my proposed 4-pole alternative alignment system (with good being genuine good in a LG,LE,CG & CE approach), which at this point has no use for ‘neutral’, as opposed to my 3-pole (where WOTC good is subsumed into civilised as essentially LE with better PR; Civilised/Tribal/Chaos) one :D There are two on offer :) Sorry for being so longwinded That is more a standard than a sin around here ;) Although I could suggest typing your replies in Word or some such and the use of a spell checker (it is what I typically do). :) Arilou – My point is that there is a difference between nepotism and letting your friends (if equally skilled) go before people you don't know, Nepotism by the very meaning of the word is something that has been taken too far I disagree; see above for details :) |
| Strife10-06-03, 08:42 AM | Leap - Thank you for a clarefieing answer. It seems like I confused what you call alruism with what WOTC calls altruism, sorry for that (never a good thing to pin the wrong statement to the wrong man...) But still... how did you reach the conclusion that 'good' people aren't allowed to be commited to others because of thier relationship/friendship? And now for some paladin abuse.... now this almost assumes that you have played Baldurs Gate 2 (I don't need to praise it, everyone knows it's good...) There's the Paladin Keldorn, who is almost never home, always serving his chapter. This leads to his wife commiting adultery (I think thats the term), now according to law the consequense would be her imprisonment and the death of her lover. Now the dutie for a lawful chacter would be to bring it before a magistrate. But a good person probably wouldn't do that as he would recongnize that he participated in creating the situation (and isn't it evil to kill good people if if you have a reason? hmm... is it evil in DnD to having affairs?). Now would a 'should' a good person do? Your 'Truegood' wouldn't have any problem, he would let it slip, but a WOTC good? Is this paladin doomed to fall? Well, not really because... There is the possiblity of atonement! ....and the fact that it's primarly for clerics and paladins gives us a hint that 'good' people aren't always as 'good' as they are supposed to, but they make it up in some other way. Sure the good king might avoid favouring his son serving in the guard, but he might have been the most protective/loving father you could could imagine up the point when his son became someone on his payroll. IMHO this isn't question about an aligment change, just an attitude change (And NO attitude and aligement is NOT the same). And in the PHB you are encouraged to choose some personality traits that are not good (perhaps not evil, but in any case not goodTM). If caring for friends is neutral, why not describe your character as "A typical paladin, once the son of a poor farmer family who stuck out on his own in order to escape his dull life. After joining the Beregost milita he felt a calling from Torm. After preforming many good deeds in Torms name he aquired the status of paladin and is now a steadfasy warrior serving as Torms right hand. Enjoys slaying (red)dragons and rescuing maidens at weekends, detests daemons. One of the main charity contributors in Beregost. The only thing "un-paladinsh" for him is that he has many friends and cheerish friendship, very friendly with clerics of Sune." To me he still seems like a good guy. :) And on Nepotism I disagree because of: Who setts the standards? Those who were appointed because they knew the guy before them? As generations pass, standards can degrade... much. And how do you avoid beeing incompetent? (something *I* never have succeded in) :embarrass Is my spelling really that bad? :embarrass There are two reasons for me to avoid spellcheckers 1) I would resort to... ssh piracy! 2) People might take me for a native.... was this even longer? :OMG! |
| Leap10-06-03, 09:04 AM | Strife – But still... how did you reach the conclusion that 'good' people aren't allowed to be committed to others because of their relationship/friendship? PHB, pages 88 and 89 I think: “Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him [which is something a Good person apparently would].” There's the Paladin Keldorn, who is almost never home, always serving his chapter. This leads to his wife committing adultery Which exemplifies the “Good puts the personal lower than the non-personal”! This was an example I have used before myself :) And on Nepotism I disagree because of: Who sets the standards? Those who were appointed because they knew the guy before them? The standards are a matter of informal setting by common understanding in the community as a general whole. s my spelling really that bad? Erm…..yes, sorry. :) It is not unintelligible but it could do with a little practice ;) |
| Arilou_skiff10-06-03, 01:25 PM | Leap: PHB, pages 88 and 89 I think: “Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him [which is something a Good person apparently would].” Actually it doesen't say that, it says that Neutral People won't sacrifice (unless for personal relations) while Good Will. It's the *neutrals* who are restricted, not the good ones. The standards are a matter of informal setting by common understanding in the community as a general whole. Puh-leeze, allow me a big, cynical :eek: If there's anything humanity should have learned by now it's that "common understanding" doesen't exist. People will always disagree. Strife: Jobba lite på stavningen bara så går det nog fint :) |
| Leap10-06-03, 01:42 PM | Arilou – Actually it doesn’t say that, it says that Neutral People won't sacrifice (unless for personal relations) while Good Will. It's the *neutrals* who are restricted, not the good ones. Actually it DOES say that as those are direct quotes from the PHB. :P ;) Puh-leeze, allow me a big, cynical If there's anything humanity should have learned by now it's that "common understanding" doesn’t exist. People will always disagree No they wont! ;) Actually, consensus is often fairly easy to reach in a society that changes at a less rapid pace than ours, where people have to depend on each other over an ongoing period of time and where general principles are being discussed. Here’s a brief example (which I am sure SOMEONE will pick an argument over :D ): We people are social critters. Community, Family, Friendship: These things are integral to who we are. But life is also competitive, so how do we reconcile our competitive nature with our social one? We do so by The Code. The Code is what the good and the wise live by, because it brings together our social nature and our competitive one in harmony. It is the basis of good society. So what is The Code made up of? It is made up of three main parts: The first part is Honor. Honour is a matter of good-sportsmanship, honesty and trustworthiness – do not cheat, betray or backstab. It is better to win with honor than to lose, but it is better to lose with honor than to win by cheating. The second part is Mercy and Forgiveness. We are all trying to get along, and friendships once broken are hard to repair, so forgive the slight things and save your rancour for genuine dishonour or maliciousness. For all but the worst of crimes, punishment must also be tempered by the understanding that we are not ‘perfect’ and that it is only normal to trip and fall occasionally and so failings and weakness are no reason for contempt and cruelty. The third part is Work. Work to live, don’t live to work. Work in order to support yourself and your family, do good deeds in the community and socialise with family, friends and associates. These things hold society together. By Dishonour (bad-sportsmanship, cheating, weaseliness, betrayal, treachery, dishonesty), by refusing categorically to understand and to forgive weakness (instead holding contempt for failings and weakness, or forgetting the ongoing (friendship) in the heat of the petty moment) and by Workaholicism or Parasitic idleness alike, we destroy trust and intimacy and instead embrace chaos and evil, threatening the very root of good society. This is why we should endeavour to ‘play fair’, to tell the truth, to keep our word, to not be so harsh with others when they may occasionally make mistakes or do wrong and to work to live not live to work. It is this code which forms the foundation of good society and allows us to compete without destroying community. Without this code, friendship falters and community crumbles. |
| aleshandre10-06-03, 03:31 PM | Leap, You exhibit a distinct anarchist philosophy (true anarchy, relying on the "natural" tendancy of people to do what is best for everyone). This philosophy relies on the assumption that every person, if void of restriction by law and imposed rules of society will tend to do what is best for everyone. That is what people that I interact with call "divine nature". While it is my hope that people can reach that state, I recognize that "human nature" is to "persue rational self interest". This means that law and society must impose artificial bounds that keep people from excessive persuit of those interests at the expense of others. This belief is the core value of "capitalism" and "democracy". It powers society and empowers individuals with the most freedom in a balance between "the freedom to..." and "the freedom from...". Indeed it recognizes that in truth, some people will when freed from the confines of "civilized" society, will seek self interest at the expense of any and all who get in the way. The Tribal society that you reffer to can only funcion as a long lasting society if the members of that society have that "divine nature" within them. In fact, the strictures of paladins, clerics and (to a lesser extent) all other followers of a given "good" faith seek to instill in the followers exactly that "nature" by training them to do what a person with "divine nature" would do in any given situation. On the other hand, the "civilized" society that you define is infact an overly structured society that is based in the philosophy that only those fit to rule have sufficient understanding to make rational desicions for the benefit of society. This is a forced imposession of the will of the ruler/ruling class, and is the root of nepotism as you defined it, which is quite the contrary of the tribal society that you describe. In this model, only those born to rule have the capacity to understand law and the rules of society. The Chaotic model that you present is based on the idea that is presented by proponents of a bastardized version of anarchy, wherin, true freedom encompasses only those who are strong enough to exist independantly. This is effectively the antithesis of true anarchy. Only the strong can survive, because the weak are prey to them. This also results in the same kind of society as your "civilized" alignment. |
| Leap10-07-03, 09:01 AM | Aleshandre – You exhibit a distinct anarchist philosophy I know what you mean, but I have sever problems with the word anarchist and what it has come to mean; its use tends to be counter productive in promoting the above values. This is the difference I see between a healthy idea of LG and a genuine idea of LE: - LG being about a reliable and orderly community, marked by the pre-eminence of personal relationships as well as a willingness to share, and maintained by acceptance of a common authority; that authority being an embedded knowledge regarding how to maintain said society that is taught to everyone in that society and allows them to become autonomous and thinking agents within that society. - LE being about a reliable and orderly community, marked by the pre-eminence of impersonal relationships, and maintained by acceptance of a common authority; that authority being a control structure that explicitly and directly controls the members of that society in order to keep it orderly and reliable in the absence of personal bonds of loyalty and the power to act on such. The Tribal society that you reffer to can only funcion as a long lasting society if the members of that society have that "divine nature" within them. In fact, the strictures of paladins, clerics and (to a lesser extent) all other followers of a given "good" faith seek to instill in the followers exactly that "nature" by training them to do what a person with "divine nature" would do in any given situation. I absolutely agree (well, apart from the concept of it being a “divine” nature, but I guess that the exact words are un-necessary to the nature of agreement on this issue. The difference is LG promotes people being taught how to be good so that they can then go off and do good as autonomous agents within a good society, whilst LE promotes an imposed control structure that remains in directive control of people rather than treating them with the dignity of being autonomous moral agents. On the other hand, the "civilized" society that you define is in fact an overly structured society that is based in the philosophy that only those fit to rule have sufficient understanding to make rational decisions for the benefit of society. This is a forced imposession of the will of the ruler/ruling class, and is the root of nepotism as you defined it, which is quite the contrary of the tribal society that you describe. In this model, only those born to rule have the capacity to understand law and the rules of society Sort of. It is essentially a meritocracy of control, so I would not call it Nepotism. The difference between LG and LE is that LG understands that people should be taught local knowledge so navigate, whilst LE believes that people need to be kept strictly on rails and the navigation be done by a controlling authority. LG trusts people, and in doing so respects their dignity by allowing them to be autonomous agents within a society (as is the nature of a sentient being), but LE mistrusts people, and in doing so demeans their dignity by not allowing them to by sentient (but instead treating them as cattle). The Chaotic model that you present is based on the idea that is presented by proponents of a bastardized version of anarchy, wherein, true freedom encompasses only those who are strong enough to exist independently. This is effectively the antithesis of true anarchy. Only the strong can survive, because the weak are prey to them. This also results in the same kind of society as your "civilized" alignment Yup. :) |
| aleshandre10-07-03, 11:00 AM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – I know what you mean, but I have sever problems with the word anarchist and what it has come to mean; its use tends to be counter productive in promoting the above values. Which is why I included the definition of true anarchy. This is the difference I see between a healthy idea of LG and a genuine idea of LE: - LG being about a reliable and orderly community, marked by the pre-eminence of personal relationships as well as a willingness to share, and maintained by acceptance of a common authority; that authority being an embedded knowledge regarding how to maintain said society that is taught to everyone in that society and allows them to become autonomous and thinking agents within that society. Right, we agree there. - LE being about a reliable and orderly community, marked by the pre-eminence of impersonal relationships, and maintained by acceptance of a common authority; that authority being a control structure that explicitly and directly controls the members of that society in order to keep it orderly and reliable in the absence of personal bonds of loyalty and the power to act on such. Again, i can see that we agree. I absolutely agree (well, apart from the concept of it being a “divine” nature, but I guess that the exact words are un-necessary to the nature of agreement on this issue. The difference is LG promotes people being taught how to be good so that they can then go off and do good as autonomous agents within a good society, whilst LE promotes an imposed control structure that remains in directive control of people rather than treating them with the dignity of being autonomous moral agents. I figured that you would, which is the primary reason that I put divine in quotes...although, as I said, I hope that humans can achieve that kind of attitude naturally. I just don't believe that we (as a race) ever will. Sort of. It is essentially a meritocracy of control, so I would not call it Nepotism. The difference between LG and LE is that LG understands that people should be taught local knowledge so navigate, whilst LE believes that people need to be kept strictly on rails and the navigation be done by a controlling authority. LG trusts people, and in doing so respects their dignity by allowing them to be autonomous agents within a society (as is the nature of a sentient being), but LE mistrusts people, and in doing so demeans their dignity by not allowing them to by sentient (but instead treating them as cattle). Yup. :) Now we can actually see where the disagreements are. In your interpretation of the WotC definition of a good alignment, you are seeing the LE of what you call civilized in which the very value of altruism is rigidly enforced by a deity, church or other "good" social organization. In their definition of neutral, you see the LG of what you call tribal, in having a common understanding of right and wrong, but based solely on personal relationships with others. Finally, in evil, you see both LE and CE society, but you associate that more with the chaotic giving a less polarized good/evil specrtum and leaving it in a vicious circle, where neutral is farther away from evil than good is. This begs the question; How do you define a person who imposes good or altruistic behavior on himself/herself, in a society that has no rigid strictures of behavior? |
| Leap10-07-03, 01:03 PM | Aleshandre – How do you define a person who imposes good or altruistic behavior on himself/herself, in a society that has no rigid strictures of behavior? In 4-pole alignment system, that would be CG. In my Civilised/Tribal/Chaotic it would be Tribal on the grounds that if you are good as a matter of personal knowledge and understanding of what is right, that is the appropriate alignment. Strictly speaking though, a society that has no strong structures of behaviour is not a society :D In your interpretation of the WotC definition of a good alignment, you are seeing the LE of what you call civilized in which the very value of altruism is rigidly enforced by a deity, church or other "good" social organization. Partially yes. LE is about herding people in order to make a reliable and orderly society (that must of course ride roughshod over their human dignity because it denies the nature of sentients to be informed moral agents – it treats them instead like cattle); which is what Civilised is about. In their definition of neutral, you see the LG of what you call tribal, in having a common understanding of right and wrong, but based solely on personal relationships with others. Again, partially yes. Personal loyalty, kept healthy and in balance by adherence to a common set of rules that maintain your power as a moral agent. I hope that humans can achieve that kind of attitude naturally. I just don't believe that we (as a race) ever will It is not so difficult a thing to recognise, for example, and follow the code I posted earlier... |
| Arilou_skiff10-08-03, 05:28 AM | Forgive me if I'm wrong but when you say" Neutral" you seem to imply LAWFUL neutral (having a common set of rules and standards) is that true? |
| Leap10-08-03, 10:50 AM | Yes. Neutral (as regards good and evil) contains within it a very lawful element. |
| aleshandre10-08-03, 03:30 PM | So then, we are examining the lawful neutral alignment, not true neutral or chaotic neutral. This presents an interesting perspective. This implies that law if independantly examined, would be evil regardless of its actual good or evil polarity, if it is not neutral in the good-evil axis. That eliminates the possibility of a real lawful-good alignment. By eliminating that possibility, it makes a larger mess of the entire debate. When discussing the good-evil axis, the law-chaos axis must be completely isolated from it. Failure to do so adds complexity to the problem that is not needed to define the arguements. Let's eliminate the entire law-chaos axis from the discussion and examine the good-evil axis alone with no law based regulation (or lack thereof) in the consideration. Now by your former arguements, we can see that you have included a legalistic perspective to the neutral alignment. When we examine them without the aspects of law in them, we have a clearer picture of what it means. “Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him" By keeping the lawful-chaotic aspects out of this arguement, we can see that a "good" person imposes upon himself/herself a requirement to make personal sacrifices. Personal sacrifices are sacrifices of things that have value to self, but not necessarily of personal relationships (since personal relationships are of value to others as well as self). A neutral person would make personal sacrifices for a person who shares a personal relationships with him/her, but not for those that are strangers to him/her. An evil person would make no personal sacrifices, unless that sacrifice can be clearly seen to have an immediate personal benefit. On a slightly different perspective: If we define a "good" person as one who is motivated by altruism, we must have a clear understanding of what altruism realy is. The definitions of altruism that are accepted are based on the idea that a creature can act in a manner that is not in its own best interest. This is not truely possible, since every creature will act in a manner that will benefit that creature. Even people act in a manner that benefit them (a person does something nice for someone else because it makes her feel good about herself - good feeling is the motivation (though that may be unconsious)). If we redefine altruism so that it is possible for a creature to be altruistic (instead of redefining good to eliminate altruism as a core value) we can come to a real understanding of what it means to be altruistic. I propose that we (for purposes of this discussion) define altruism as follows: altruism - an action or principle that produces a net benefit for all creatures that are involved in a mutual interaction, but which provides a greater benefit to the creature that is the focus of any actions involved. Now it is possible for a creature to be altruistic. This definition also eliminates selfrighteousness from the definition of good, and eliminates meritocracy from a good society. |
| Leap10-09-03, 05:18 AM | Aleshandre – Do you EVER sleep?!! ;) So then, we are examining the lawful neutral alignment, not true neutral or chaotic neutral. Strictly speaking we are examining three approaches to society: One where an orderly and reliable society is maintained by imposition and invasive management that denies the dignity of those living in the society to be informed, personal, autonomous-within-the-framework-of-a-society, moral agents (It creates an orderly and reliable society by herding people like cattle and resorting to the ‘prod’ with alarming regularity - at its freest it has A managing B, B managing C and C managing A; which is still based on imposition, mutual distrust and paranoia!). Essentially, trying to make people honest by constant supervision based on the basic principle that honesty has to be imposed as ‘people are fundamentally dishonest and unreliable’. One where an orderly and reliable society is maintained by embedded knowledge possessed by each participant that allows them to understand the wider context into which they fit, and respond appropriately, to maintain an orderly and reliable society that protects the dignity of those living in the society by allowing them to be informed, personal, autonomous-within-the-framework-of-a-society, moral agents. Essentially believing that people can be responsible and honest when they understand the context in which they live in and are well enough informed to make decisions within such a context, based on the principle that people are fundamentally personally-interrelating social beings who actually want to get along with their friends and neighbours!! One where orderly and reliable society is disdained and thus where also the dignity of sentients to be informed, personal, autonomous-within-the-framework-of-a-society, moral agents is also disdained. This is based on a denial of our sociability. By WOTC standards, the first is a blend of LE and LN, with a bit of LG. The second is a blend of LG, LN and CG. The last is a blend of CN and CE. This implies that law if independently examined, would be evil regardless of its actual good or evil polarity, if it is not neutral in the good-evil axis. Law is simply a matter of advocating an orderly and reliable society which answer to an authority. That eliminates the possibility of a real lawful-good alignment. Not at all. When discussing the good-evil axis, the law-chaos axis must be completely isolated from it. Failure to do so adds complexity to the problem that is not needed to define the arguments I disagree. Alignment is fundamentally about how we socialise, and living in a society is indivisible from social morals. Either you believe in orderly and reliable society through imposition, or one by informed responsibility, or you do not believe in it at all. {quote] Personal sacrifices are sacrifices of things that have value to self, but not necessarily of personal relationships (since personal relationships are of value to others as well as self). A neutral person would make personal sacrifices for a person who shares a personal relationships with him/her, but not for those that are strangers to him/her. An evil person would make no personal sacrifices, unless that sacrifice can be clearly seen to have an immediate personal benefit. [/quote] Making personal sacrifices is ABOUT sacrificing the personal to the impersonal. Personally ;) I would rather drop the whole current alignment system and switch to a 3 pole one along the lines of the civilised/tribal/chaotic one I suggest, for the very reason that the current system is a confusing mishmash with concepts intermingled when they should not be, and indeed separated when they should not be! The definitions of altruism that are accepted are based on the idea that a creature can act in a manner that is not in its own best interest. This is not truly possible, since every creature will act in a manner that will benefit that creature. I agree; this is another reason why I do not like ‘altruism’ as a term. I propose that we (for purposes of this discussion) define altruism as follows: altruism - an action or principle that produces a net benefit for all creatures that are involved in a mutual interaction, but which provides a greater benefit to the creature that is the focus of any actions involved. You mean for altruism to be a matter of mutual / shared benefit a la “one for all and all for one”? This would require a group of people who can actually share in the results, brining it all back to a personal relationship matter again :D Now it is possible for a creature to be altruistic. This definition also eliminates selfrighteousness from the definition of good, and eliminates meritocracy from a good society. Isn’t that what I did to begin with? ;) What you are trying to do is reclaim “Good” for genuine Good, as opposed to McGood, whereas I accepted WOTCs actual terminology and pointed out what a horrible thing I think that promotes under the name of “Good”. Essentially I think we both agree; you just took it one stage further to try to reclaim goodness from the banner of meritocratic self-righteousness it current stands beneath :) |
| aleshandre10-09-03, 11:19 AM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – Do you EVER sleep?!! ;) Yes, but I live in the central (US) timezone, which is about 6 hours behind you. ;) Strictly speaking we are examining three approaches to society: One where an orderly and reliable society is maintained by imposition and invasive management that denies the dignity of those living in the society to be informed, personal, autonomous-within-the-framework-of-a-society, moral agents (It creates an orderly and reliable society by herding people like cattle and resorting to the ‘prod’ with alarming regularity - at its freest it has A managing B, B managing C and C managing A; which is still based on imposition, mutual distrust and paranoia!). Essentially, trying to make people honest by constant supervision based on the basic principle that honesty has to be imposed as ‘people are fundamentally dishonest and unreliable’. Which is the definition of Facism ;) One where an orderly and reliable society is maintained by embedded knowledge possessed by each participant that allows them to understand the wider context into which they fit, and respond appropriately, to maintain an orderly and reliable society that protects the dignity of those living in the society by allowing them to be informed, personal, autonomous-within-the-framework-of-a-society, moral agents. Essentially believing that people can be responsible and honest when they understand the context in which they live in and are well enough informed to make decisions within such a context, based on the principle that people are fundamentally personally-interrelating social beings who actually want to get along with their friends and neighbours!! Which is the true anarchist philosophy, upon which communism was based (then got perverted into a nearly facist regime). One where orderly and reliable society is disdained and thus where also the dignity of sentients to be informed, personal, autonomous-within-the-framework-of-a-society, moral agents is also disdained. This is based on a denial of our sociability. Which is the modern idea of what anarchy is. By WOTC standards, the first is a blend of LE and LN, with a bit of LG. The second is a blend of LG, LN and CG. The last is a blend of CN and CE. Law is simply a matter of advocating an orderly and reliable society which answer to an authority. Which is why I say that true LG can not be found. When true lawful-good is only found blended into a LE/LN/lg or LG/LN/CG mix, there is no true LG, since it has been diluted by neutral, chaotic and/or evil thereby leaving a slightly positive residue that may or may not filter down to have an effect on society. Not at all. Please show me an example how. I disagree. Alignment is fundamentally about how we socialise, and living in a society is indivisible from social morals. Either you believe in orderly and reliable society through imposition, or one by informed responsibility, or you do not believe in it at all. While you are right that alignment is fundamentally about how a person socializes, since we were discussing how good relates to civilized, tribal and chaotic alignments, we need to examine it in the context of how the good-evil alignment axis interacts separate from the law-chaos axis. After we have an understanding or better a consensus regarding good as isolated from other philosophies, we can examine it in light of how it interacts with the law-chaos axis, then gain a better understanding of what it means to be LG, NG or CG. "Personal sacrifices are sacrifices of things that have value to self, but not necessarily of personal relationships (since personal relationships are of value to others as well as self). A neutral person would make personal sacrifices for a person who shares a personal relationships with him/her, but not for those that are strangers to him/her. An evil person would make no personal sacrifices, unless that sacrifice can be clearly seen to have an immediate personal benefit." Making personal sacrifices is ABOUT sacrificing the personal to the impersonal. To be truely concise, we need to really examine what it means to sacrifice and what it means to be personal. Main Entry: 1per·son·al Pronunciation: 'p&rs-n&l, 'p&r-s&n-&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin personalis, from Latin persona Date: 14th century 1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL <personal ambition> <personal financial gain> 2 a : done in person without the intervention of another; also : proceeding from a single person b : carried on between individuals directly <a personal interview> 3 : relating to the person or body 4 : relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner <a personal insult> 5 a : being rational and self-conscious <personal, responsive government is still possible -- John Fischer> b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction <a personal devil> 6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property <a personal estate> 7 : denoting grammatical person Main Entry: 1sac·ri·fice Pronunciation: 'sa-kr&-"fIs, also -f&s or -"fIz Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacr-, sacer + facere to make -- more at DO Date: 13th century 1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar 2 : something offered in sacrifice 3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents> emphasis added These definitions show that personal sacrifice is most accurately defined as: (A) destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something or someone else proceeding from a single person; (B) something given up or lost which is done in person without the intervention of another; (C)something given up or lost which is carried on between individuals directly So, personal sacrifice is not necessarily the sacrifice of personal relationships nor is it necessarily the sacrifice of personal feeling. It also shows that sacrifice is a personal process to begin with (except in the strictest interpretation of the first entry), which makes "personal sacrifice" somewhat redundant. Personally ;) I would rather drop the whole current alignment system and switch to a 3 pole one along the lines of the civilised/tribal/chaotic one I suggest, for the very reason that the current system is a confusing mishmash with concepts intermingled when they should not be, and indeed separated when they should not be! I agree the alignment system as it is explained is very open to personal interpretation and at best needs revising to prevent the interpretation of any alignment to be something that is opposed to the reality of that alignment. I agree; this is another reason why I do not like ‘altruism’ as a term. You mean for altruism to be a matter of mutual / shared benefit a la “one for all and all for one”? This would require a group of people who can actually share in the results, brining it all back to a personal relationship matter again :D Exactly! Isn’t that what I did to begin with? ;) I, truthfully didn't see it that way, but if you did, I didn't notice. :blush: What you are trying to do is reclaim “Good” for genuine Good, as opposed to McGood, whereas I accepted WOTCs actual terminology and pointed out what a horrible thing I think that promotes under the name of “Good”. Essentially I think we both agree; you just took it one stage further to try to reclaim goodness from the banner of meritocratic self-righteousness it current stands beneath :) Yep, I did. That is where good really belongs anyway. ;) |
| Leap10-09-03, 11:55 AM | Aleshandre – I live in the central (US) timezone, which is about 6 hours behind you In many ways ;) Which is the definition of Facism Exactly……………gives you that warm feeling about the society we have built, doesn’t it :( Which is the true anarchist philosophy, upon which communism was based (then got perverted into a nearly facist regime). Communism is inherently flawed because it fails to allow for even personal property, never mind getting even to personal agency! Which is the modern idea of what anarchy is Yup. Please show me an example how A real Lawful good alignment can exist as LG being about a reliable and orderly community, marked by the pre-eminence of personal relationships as well as a willingness to share, and maintained by acceptance of a common authority; that authority being an embedded knowledge regarding how to maintain said society that is taught to everyone in that society and allows them to become autonomous and thinking agents within that society . It may not agree with WOTC, but their definition is up the spout anyway……….. :) While you are right that alignment is fundamentally about how a person socializes, since we were discussing how good relates to civilized, tribal and chaotic alignments, we need to examine it in the context of how the good-evil alignment axis interacts separate from the law-chaos axis. After we have an understanding or better a consensus regarding good as isolated from other philosophies, we can examine it in light of how it interacts with the law-chaos axis, then gain a better understanding of what it means to be LG, NG or CG. If lawful is about valuing a reliable and orderly society bound by an authority , chaotic is about disdaining a reliable and orderly society bound by an authority , good is about respecting sentients by allowing them to be sentient (by allowing them to be informed, personal, autonomous agents) and evil is about demeaning and debasing sentients by treating them like cattle (to be herded (LE) or simply fallen upon as the whim takes you (CE) then we already have a basis….. :) This means Good allows for charity / concern for the dignity of strangers, SO LONG as it does not come before personal loyalties. :) To be truly concise, we need to really examine what it means to sacrifice and what it means to be personal I take Personal Sacrifice to be a matter of relating to … an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs …. [destroyed or surrendered] … for the sake of something else … [that is not part of] … an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs That is where good really belongs anyway I agree :D |
| aleshandre10-09-03, 12:10 PM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – I take Personal Sacrifice to be a matter of relating to … an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs …. [destroyed or surrendered] … for the sake of something else … [that is not part of] … an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs Except that character, conduct and motives are an essential element of sacrifice, in that there must be: character that provides motivation to conduct one's self in a manner such that a sacrifice can be made. In short, sacrifice must be personal, or it is not sacrifice....but now we're going more into semantics than definitions. Also, note that with the definition of altruism that we are currently using, the personal sacrifice need not be one that obliterates the welfare of self or personal relationships, it need only be a sacrifice. |
| Leap10-09-03, 12:38 PM | Aleshandre – in short, sacrifice must be personal, or it is not sacrifice.... Hmmmm, you raise a valid point. So when it comes down to it, by WOTC standards, only Good actually sacrifices because only they are willing to give up the personal for the impersonal (which is what sacrifice IS). Neutral does not sacrifice but simply re-jiggs priorities within a closed circle of loyalties (personal relationships). If WOTC-Good so disdains personal things in this way it leads us back to WOTC-Good being McGood because when you take the personal out of relationships but try to keep the surface behaviour, you end up with “have a nice day” ‘culture’. So the essence of WOTC-Good is Sacrifice (giving up the personal) and the essence of Neutral is Personal Loyalty (sharing the personal)? Good sacrifices, Neutral shares, Evil takes. That still makes me Neutral :) |
| aleshandre10-09-03, 12:54 PM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – Hmmmm, you raise a valid point. So when it comes down to it, by WOTC standards, only Good actually sacrifices because only they are willing to give up the personal for the impersonal (which is what sacrifice IS). Neutral does not sacrifice but simply re-jiggs priorities within a closed circle of loyalties (personal relationships). If WOTC-Good so disdains personal things in this way it leads us back to WOTC-Good being McGood because when you take the personal out of relationships but try to keep the surface behaviour, you end up with “have a nice day” ‘culture’. So the essence of WOTC-Good is Sacrifice (giving up the personal) and the essence of Neutral is Personal Loyalty (sharing the personal)? Good sacrifices, Neutral shares, Evil takes. That still makes me Neutral :) Well, that isn't exactly what I meant. I mean that Good will make sacrifices where called for including for those that they have personal relationships with (what good is being good if you loose everything that is good?). Good does not disdain personal relationships, or anything else that brings benefit to self and others, rather is willing to give up these things if necessary for a greater benefit to others or a greater future benefit to self. Other than that I agree. |
| Strife10-10-03, 03:48 PM | Originally posted by aleshandre Well, that isn't exactly what I meant. I mean that Good will make sacrifices where called for including for those that they have personal relationships with (what good is being good if you loose everything that is good?). Good does not disdain personal relationships, or anything else that brings benefit to self and others, rather is willing to give up these things if necessary for a greater benefit to others or a greater future benefit to self. Well said! (I was thinking along the same lines although I didn't express it quite as clearly...) |
| Leap10-13-03, 01:03 PM | Sacrifice is about giving up personal things to a "higher" value; my point is though that something which claims to be "higher" yet advocates sacrificing personal things, is not actually "higher" but is in fact debased and is seeking to delude you with its silvery tongue. Sharing, the true "higher value" is not about giving up the personal , but about giving up the private . You are not giving up ownership of something but are actually expanding ownership of something. If I give up a piece of bread to you, I have sacrificed it. If I break the bread and give you part without making a martyr of myself, I have shared it. True 'sacrifice', real 'sacrifice', is giving up things that are of no importance [privacy centredness] to attain things that are [willingness to share]. Giving up things that are of value for those things that are not is what sacrifice has come to mean, but this is simply a con trick :) |
| NeutralNeutral10-14-03, 09:23 AM | True friends dont expect nepotistic favours. |
| Leap10-14-03, 09:54 AM | I beg to differ..............friendship is very much about nepotism, in fact, without nepotism friendship is an empty thing! A fair-weather friendship. A real friend is someone you put before non-friends and who puts you before non-friends. The opposite of nepotism is meritocracy; where productivity is more important than relationships and where you thus make choices based upon what is best for productivity rather than what is best for a relationship. In the west it is very difficult for us to accept this as we have been brought up with the friendship/community/family denying nonsense of the protestant work ethic that holds impersonal work is of higher value than personal relationships (as if it is work that forms the heart of our identity not relationships! Pah!). Ooops, politics! ;) |
| NeutralNeutral10-14-03, 11:14 AM | Dear Leap, You know that..unfortunate incident..on the news last night? It was me - please tell the cops I was with you all night. Your bestest friend. Bob PS. - can I borrow your shovel? |
| Leap10-14-03, 11:30 AM | NN – Lol! Now go back and read the part I posted waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back that says “essential to loyalty to friends is each friend not going beyond the pale” or words to that effect. :D |
| aleshandre10-14-03, 11:54 AM | Originally posted by Leap True 'sacrifice', real 'sacrifice', is giving up things that are of no importance [privacy centredness] to attain things that are [willingness to share]. Giving up things that are of value for those things that are not is what sacrifice has come to mean, but this is simply a con trick :) Quite the contrary, true sacrifice is giving up that which is of personal value for that which is of higher value (eg: My son is hungry, and there is only one piece of bread left in the house. I give the bread to my son, and allow myself to go hungry=sacrifice). Giving up things that are of value for that which is not of value is stupidity (eg: I am hungry and have only one piece of bread. Someone offers to give me a rock that is sitting on the ground at my feet (that has been there for a while) for my piece of bread and I accept=stupidity). Giving up something that is of no (or lesser) value for something that is of higher value is called a trade (eg: I have some coins that are only important to me in that they represent the amount of some other more usefull things that they can buy (like bread). I give them to a grocer in exchange for a loaf of bread that has been valued as equal in value to the loaf of bread. I can now use the loaf of bread to feed my son and myself, which I could not have done with the coins=trade). |
| Leap10-14-03, 12:01 PM | Aleshandre – Quite the contrary, true sacrifice is giving up that which is of personal value for that which is of higher value (eg: My son is hungry, and there is only one piece of bread left in the house. I give the bread to my son, and allow myself to go hungry=sacrifice). No. Giving up your child’s bread to give to another hungry child….THAT is sacrifice. What you did was simply put one personal thing before another :) |
| Strife10-14-03, 04:14 PM | Leap - Not so, because then we have to discuss why you would give the bread to a child you don't know. Doing good because of goods own sake is not good (well, I'm not good at explaing this but it rather basic philoshy). Once upon a time, long a go in a classroom far far away we discussed this, and came to the conlusion that a true good action was an action that, the one who's taking action, isn't 100% sure will be appreciated. And if you give bread to a starving I'm pretty sure you think he will appreciate it. His appreciation will be you gratification (and thus not good) It's only a good deed as long as you don't exptect any gratitude. |
| Bobidus10-14-03, 06:29 PM | Originally posted by Leap: True 'sacrifice', real 'sacrifice', is giving up things that are of no importance [privacy centredness] to attain things that are [willingness to share]. So if a man were to give up his life, widowing his wife and leaving behind his children, to save the population of Belgium from horrible annihilation, even though he knows no Belgian nor anyone then in Belgium, he would not only not be performing a Good act, he would not even be making a sacrifice? Originally posted by Strife: It's only a good deed as long as you don't exptect any gratitude. And Strife would call this a good deed only if our hero did it anonymously? |
| Leap10-15-03, 04:51 AM | Strife – Once upon a time, long a go in a classroom far far away we discussed this, and came to the conclusion that a true good action was an action that, the one who's taking action, isn't 100% sure will be appreciated. And if you give bread to a starving I'm pretty sure you think he will appreciate it. His appreciation will be you gratification (and thus not good) It's only a good deed as long as you don't expect any gratitude Cwaaaaazy man! This is exactly what I mean by silvery tongued con tricks; it denies the fundamental human binding quality of mutual gratitude. Bobidus – So if a man were to give up his life, widowing his wife and leaving behind his children, to save the population of Belgium from horrible annihilation, even though he knows no Belgian nor anyone then in Belgium, he would not only not be performing a Good act, he would not even be making a sacrifice? Correct. He would in all probability simply be being shafted. I take it you are referring to the ‘14-‘18 war here? I suppose we need to clarify two different kinds of sacrifice. One is giving up personal things for impersonal things (martyrdom, classical altruism – essentially a con; giving up a thing of value in return for a thing that denies fundamental human value and is of little or no value, usually be means of an “emperors new clothes” deal). The other is giving up private-centeredness and taking up a willingness to share (giving up ‘self-ishness’ without giving up self-interest). The first kind (Martyrdom) fragments and destroys by denying the heart of being human (personal involvement) and by encouraging selfishness in the receiver by not being reciprocal and by showing that others will fall on their swords for you. The second kind (pro-sharing) builds and unites by expanding ownership and inclusion. |
| Strife10-15-03, 10:39 AM | Bobidus - I never said that he would have to be anonymous, just that IF it's going to be a good deed, his motiv must not be "If I do this I will be remeberd as a great hero and my family might get rich by selling my story to the magazines". But it is indeed okay (and fitting) to show gratitude towards you savior., but that is up to your aligment. Leap - You said it you self "mutual gratitude"; in my example there is noting mutual. If you someone gives you a hitch, then why should they feel gratitude? Sure, it's fun do deabate :D but often that is not the main reason for pepole to pick up hitchhikers. And your right about that one man saving Belguim, he's getting shafted, because no good man/woman would expect another to sacrifice them selfs in thier place. |
| Leap10-15-03, 11:07 AM | Strife – “that is not the main reason for people to pick up hitchhikers” Of course is isn’t, usually it is the hope of sleazy sex - or at least flirting. Oh what, you disagree?! ;) “If you someone gives you a hitch, then why should they feel gratitude?” A relationship of mutual gratitude is measured in an ongoing sense of mutual reliability, where each person is there for the other and is grateful for the help given. Martyrdom does not work on ongoing situations or reciprocal acts of gratitude, but is an act that requires nothing of the other person and so does not teach them to be sociable (but instead teaches them that parasitic behaviour pays because nothing is required in return for the ‘sacrifice’ of a martyr!). Making a martyr of yourself is a bad move because it denies social values in favour of values that support fragmentation and parasitism. You see it in bad parents who give all they can to a child, often to the doom of relationships and health and expect nothing back; leading typically to the creation of a spoiled brat. |
| aleshandre10-15-03, 02:06 PM | Originally posted by Leap A relationship of mutual gratitude is measured in an ongoing sense of mutual reliability, where each person is there for the other and is grateful for the help given. Martyrdom does not work on ongoing situations or reciprocal acts of gratitude, but is an act that requires nothing of the other person and so does not teach them to be sociable (but instead teaches them that parasitic behaviour pays because nothing is required in return for the ‘sacrifice’ of a martyr!). Making a martyr of yourself is a bad move because it denies social values in favour of values that support fragmentation and parasitism. You see it in bad parents who give all they can to a child, often to the doom of relationships and health and expect nothing back; leading typically to the creation of a spoiled brat. How about: Merriam-webster online Main Entry: 1mar·tyr Pronunciation: 'mär-t&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek martyr-, martys, literally, witness Date: before 12th century 1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle 3 : VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life -- A. J. Cronin> The parents that you describe are not making sacrifices as a martyr would, rather are simply spoiling their child in the erroneous though that love can be bought. Based on the first 2 definitions, a martyr does not do anything to teach parasitism, rather emphasizes the validity of a claim of being correct about a principle or religion. A person who becomes a martyr is by definition willing to sacrifice all, not for self or for other people or even for gratitude, rather because the pronciple that the person holds is of greater significance than life freedom or personal welfare. The third definition of martyr is clearly what you are reffering to, wherein the person makes themself a perpetual victim to others. This is not a sacrificial martyr, rather one who seeks to look better for enduring through hardship after hardship so that (s)he can be seen to be a martyr. This is best reffered to as hypocracy. In following that definition, you are correct, that perpetuates a parasitic community, but as I said, it is not sacrifice, and can not be compared to true martyrdom. Now that we have examined the semantics of what consists of sacrifice, altruism and martyrdom, we can see that the correct definitions must be applied to fit properly in the way that they were intended (not in a twisted context). A true martyr is a person who sacrifices that which is most important to self for the sake of a principle that is held higher than self. This person is willing to offer even their own life for the sake of this principle so that there will be an historical witness to the importance of that principle. This sacrifice requires commitment to that principle such that even threat of death or long torture will not sway the willingness to adhere to that principle. Now lets not keep using words out of proper context to make a point. ;) |
| Arilou_skiff10-15-03, 03:42 PM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – No. Giving up your child’s bread to give to another hungry child….THAT is sacrifice. What you did was simply put one personal thing before another :) No, for if it is my child's bread I have no right to take it from him. |
| Leap10-16-03, 04:30 AM | Aleshandre – The parents that you describe are not making sacrifices as a martyr would, rather are simply spoiling their child in the erroneous though that love can be bought This is not a sacrificial martyr, rather one who seeks to look better for enduring through hardship after hardship so that (s)he can be seen to be a martyr. Actually, part of it is simple low self-esteem (people brought up to believe their position is to serve the desires of others and give no concern for their own that may differ from this view). A true martyr is a person who sacrifices that which is most important to self for the sake of a principle that is held higher than self. I disagree. What you are describing is simply the result of a con job; ‘true’ sacrifice is giving up the unimportant and taking up the important. When a human being ‘sacrifices’ human interest they are actually giving something up that is of fundamental importance. Giving up something entirely is abandonment, giving up on private-centredness in order to take up a greater willingness to share is giving up the unimportant for the more important; putting away childish things; ‘true’ sacrifice. This is part of why I have problems with the term ‘sacrifice’ as it carries with it the notion of abandoning something of value when it should be made clear that true sacrifice is really about expanding value (going from private to sharing). Sacrifice as a form of ‘personal denial’ [note: denial of the personal is NOT the same as denial of the private – discussion available on request ;) ] actually creates an environment where sharing has no place (as sharing REQUIRES personal involvement and such is seriously hampered in an environment where the personal is regularly demeaned). Arilou – No, for if it is my child's bread I have no right to take it from him Pedant. I meant the bit you were going to give to your child. :) |
| NeutralNeutral10-16-03, 09:39 AM | I think the moral of this thread is: Dont read Ayn Rand and eat cheese sandwiches before going to bed. |
| Leap10-16-03, 09:41 AM | Whereas the moral of many threads is "don't question anything that could get past the "fantasy" and actually make you think about something in real life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" |
| aleshandre10-16-03, 10:25 AM | Originally posted by Leap Aleshandre – Actually, part of it is simple low self-esteem (people brought up to believe their position is to serve the desires of others and give no concern for their own that may differ from this view). I disagree. What you are describing is simply the result of a con job; ‘true’ sacrifice is giving up the unimportant and taking up the important. When a human being ‘sacrifices’ human interest they are actually giving something up that is of fundamental importance. The definition of sacrifice (which I quoted above) disagrees with you (as do I). Giving up something entirely is abandonment, giving up on private-centredness in order to take up a greater willingness to share is giving up the unimportant for the more important; putting away childish things; ‘true’ sacrifice. This is part of why I have problems with the term ‘sacrifice’ as it carries with it the notion of abandoning something of value when it should be made clear that true sacrifice is really about expanding value (going from private to sharing). Sacrifice as a form of ‘personal denial’ [note: denial of the personal is NOT the same as denial of the private – discussion available on request ;) ] actually creates an environment where sharing has no place (as sharing REQUIRES personal involvement and such is seriously hampered in an environment where the personal is regularly demeaned). I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree here. ;) |
| Leap10-16-03, 11:06 AM | Fair enough :) |