Another alignment thread


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

TOZ wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
And even if that were true, the "taint" of a single child murder is completely outweighed by the "good goop" or whatever you want to call reverse-taint of the millions of men, women, and children who didn't die there.
If I tell you that taking a glass of antifreeze today will allow the city to feed all their homeless, would you think drinking the glass wasn't a bad thing for you?

I'd ask how?

Shadow Lodge

Would you also ask how killing baby Hitler would prevent the Holocaust?


Something being BAD for your health does not necessarily mean it is BAD morally. The argument can be made by Mills/Betham or others that to kill a child in itself is bad, but to kill a child to save 5,000 children isn't necessarily.

It's not to say I agree with this, but they make strong arguments for their point.


TOZ wrote:
Would you also ask how killing baby Hitler would prevent the Holocaust?

That one makes more sense than the antifreeze I would think... How offtopic are we now?

Apples and oranges.

Sovereign Court

I don't care. I shall not murder an innocent child whose only fault is that it was born. People who should be punished are those who decided to have it in the first place.

Shadow Lodge

MrSin wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Would you also ask how killing baby Hitler would prevent the Holocaust?
That one makes more sense than the antifreeze I would think... How offtopic are we now?

The point of the antifreeze comment was that in the metaphysical system we are discussing, killing a baby is bad for your soul in the same way antifreeze is bad for your body. Poisoning your soul for an uncertain future good, while understandable, is still a risk. And according to Law, still wrong.


How causative do you want to get on this Hama? Do you think Hitler's parents KNEW they were going to make one of the biggest monsters in history??

Maybe their parents should be punished? Or theirs? Or maybe one of their ancestors was actually Jesus and he should be punished...oh wait...


Except not everyone is a Christian that believes in the soul the way Kant did...and it has to follow a universal

"Baby killing is always bad"

which can easily be contested with conditions such as

"But what if the baby carries some mutated virus that will kill all of mankind?"


Hama wrote:
I don't care.

Not caring? That sounds pretty evil.

Anyways, there is a pretty big bias I think. That's the sort of thing that bothers me about trying to define morality with absolutes. People don't always agree. I can't say that enough...

Shadow Lodge

kmal2t wrote:
Except not everyone is a Christian that believes in the soul the way Kant did...

Myself included.


So then which is better "good"

a bunch of not caring people who donate their tax dollars which help save thousands of lives around the world.

Or the few who actually do care that donate directly and save a few hundred?

I'm sure the thousands saved really give a crap about the apathy of their donors, so which really is the greater good.


TOZ wrote:


If I tell you that taking a glass of antifreeze today will allow the city to feed all their homeless, would you think drinking the glass wasn't a bad thing for you?

This is a pretty terrible analogy, but I'll roll with it.

If you just told me this out of the blue, I wouldn't believe you. Therefore I wouldn't do it.

If this event was something that already happened (the aforementioned Baby Hitler) I would believe you. Still wouldn't do it, but that's because I'm a selfish bastard who thinks his life is more important than thousands of people he's never met.

But you get your self-proclaimed "Good" person up there, and he knows that drinking that antifreeze will save many from a slow death from starvation, he'd do it.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, killing baby Hitler wouldn't necessarily stop the Holocaust. It would just stop him from causing it.


The potential benefits outweigh the loss of a single child.

Though, to play Devil's advocate, it could be just as bad in the long run even if it is stopped, as WWII is what pulled Germany out of poverty, so perhaps the number of people who died from starvation and societal collapse could eventually have outweighed the deaths of millions of Holocaust victims and soldiers, though personally I think that's doubtful.

To head off where I foresee this eventually going, no, I would not like it if it were my child. I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent the murder of my baby.

That doesn't make it any less true that the benefits would far outweigh the loss, it just means I'm waaaaaay more emotionally involved and incapable of thinking logically about the scenario.


Things like WWII is what lead to a strong EU and UN. It also curbed our out of control population growth slightly. It has also led to out of control paranoia about who the next Hitler is going to be.

Shadow Lodge

I think SMBC does it best.


The holocaust rests pretty damn heavily on Hitler and his personality. WWII and the Holocaust was not an inevitability.

Sovereign Court

kmal2t wrote:

So then which is better "good"

a bunch of not caring people who donate their tax dollars which help save thousands of lives around the world.

Or the few who actually do care that donate directly and save a few hundred?

I'm sure the thousands saved really give a crap about the apathy of their donors, so which really is the greater good.

Neither. Both are good. If i donate money to a charity, i don't give a damn if someone will thank me or give a crap who did that blanket they draped his/her shoulders with came from. The point is, someone else will not be cold that night, because i refrained from ordering takeout twice and ate cornflakes with milk. For me, that is enough.


you're missing the point.

Do the people who received the aid care? That's what matters. They don't care about the intent of the good..only that the good happened and their not cold or hungry.


kmal2t wrote:
Things like WWII is what lead to a strong EU and UN. It also curbed our out of control population growth slightly. It has also led to out of control paranoia about who the next Hitler is going to be.

Strong EU and strong UN? What kind of fantasy world are we discussing?

I argue that alignment works best in a dungeon crawl or Tolkienesque world where intent and effect always match up, and match up neatly. In a more complicated scenario than those two provide, you must make a judgement call as to what matters most, intent or effect, and judge intent and effect along the lawful/chaotic axis and the good/evil axis. The judgement calls of intent vs. effect and how that weighs on the two axes will vary, so we get lots of arguing. If all the posters were in a 10' x 10' room with a goblin guarding a chest full of treasure, I think we could agree on the morality of killing the goblin and taking the treasure.

Shadow Lodge

Yes, it would be evil to kill the goblin and take the treasure. :)


Yes we all have opinions, but some opinions on ethnics are wrong. Like The Priest Said to the Minister
"We all worship God. You in your way, and I in His."

Dark Archive

TOZ wrote:
It does for the Noble Demon. He pursues evil ends, but there are methods he will not use.

There should be a law against linking to that site! Another two hours of my life, gone!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Baby Hitler is easy. Say we actually got time travel. You were sent back in time to do the deed. First question becomes: You are now back in time with an innocent baby. The very fact of your own presence has already changed things. Who knows if the baby will grow up to become Hitler? The only fact is: The baby hasn't done anything yet. And given the time machine, you could now change any of a thousand parts of his life in better ways, testing what he turns out like. Sounds like you don't really need to kill him. Maybe you could "kill Hitler" by actually buying his sodding paintings that he wanted to live off painting? Maybe preventing the WWI peace terms from including an unlimited payment from Germany would have killed the political soil that made WWII possible? Perhaps the judicious smearing of some eugenics researchers would have prevented the holocaust, even if you judged WWII to be better than the alternatives? With a time machine, you have other options. Without a time machine, you can't KNOW. There. Enough baby Hitlers. They are nothing but stupid examples that entirely lack basis in reality, designed to justify a utilitarian outlook.

Objective morality to me means you consider the intentions of the action, the consequences you could reasonably predict from those actions, and take heed of the risks involved and how certain you are of the results. What actually happens after your action is, sad to say it, not relevant. Unless you have a time machine, that is. And no, I don't agree with Kant that lying is always evil. The man was right about some things and wrong about others, funny how that works...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There. Enough baby Hitlers.
Try to explain that with no context.


You don't need to. Baby Hitlers have "silly morality discussions" as their only natural habitat.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
The potential benefits outweigh the loss of a single child.

This is exactly the reasoning that ends up in the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

BTW, It is not a "loss". It is a "murder" ;-)

Quote:
Though, to play Devil's advocate, it could be just as bad in the long run even if it is stopped, as WWII is what pulled Germany out of poverty, so perhaps the number of people who died from starvation and societal collapse could eventually have outweighed the deaths of millions of Holocaust victims and soldiers, though personally I think that's doubtful.

IMO, someone else would have filled H's shoes. Granted, he might not have targeted the jews specifically, but the situation was so dire and explosive that something would have happened and there was no way it would have been all rainbows and ponies.

Quote:

To head off where I foresee this eventually going, no, I would not like it if it were my child. I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent the murder of my baby.

That doesn't make it any less true that the benefits would far outweigh the loss, it just means I'm waaaaaay more emotionally involved and incapable of thinking logically about the scenario.

Or it means that you are listening to your conscience about what is good or evil, rather than to your head telling you what the greater benefit is.


Something would have happened, certainly. Germany's state was so bad it could really only have ended a few ways.

But something like the Holocaust was not a given. That was really one man's drive pushing all that, though he brought a solid number of other sickos out of the woodwork along with him.

However, without Hitler to make it socially acceptable, they likely would have ended up as your garden variety "Basement torture chamber guys" and serial killers rather than being at the head of an army and powerful political forces.

The way I see it the likely outcome would have been that Germany ended up without a strong leader, little organization, and massive poverty, and would have eventually been conquered by another nation (Russia, perhaps?) and we wouldn't have Volkswagen today.

And yeah, that would have been my conscience telling me what was good and evil. For me.

Not for everyone else.


Let's return to a real-world example of applying alignment to a complicated situation- the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. I framed marriage and DOMA in the context of tax benefits and legal rights. The Supreme Court ruling restores those rights to same-sex couples, but increase each state government's power to take away those rights in the future. How do you judge the alignment of that? At first glance it looks like a good things, but it effectively increases each state's power to take away tax breaks and legal rights.


Constitituional Law isn't alignment.


HarbinNick wrote:
Constitituional Law isn't alignment.

I've always thought rule was a blue/orange morality gig at moments. Law does not equate order, so I suppose the idea that order being the opposite of chaos might be a better definition to some people(though I still think personal bais's enter to often to define any of the alignments.)

Sovereign Court

Dunno, Paragon/Renegade thing that Mass Effect has is worth a look, and maybe a bit of an expansion, like four paths, not only one...


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
Let's return to a real-world example of applying alignment to a complicated situation- the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. I framed marriage and DOMA in the context of tax benefits and legal rights. The Supreme Court ruling restores those rights to same-sex couples, but increase each state government's power to take away those rights in the future. How do you judge the alignment of that? At first glance it looks like a good things, but it effectively increases each state's power to take away tax breaks and legal rights.

It's a good decision that could have been a lot better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring.
What would you suggest distinguishes evil from neutral?
Evil is callous in not caring. It will walk by scenes of carnage and torture and pain whistling and not giving a hand. Neutral will lend a hand as long as they are not in personal danger. Evil will not, unless it can accomplish some sort of personal goal.

What Hama said. Someone who is neutral often has good intentions, but is unwilling to go out of their way to act on those intentions.

In other words, most of us are neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kmal2t wrote:
Things like WWII is what lead to a strong EU and UN. It also curbed our out of control population growth slightly. It has also led to out of control paranoia about who the next Hitler is going to be.

Tangentially, I think this is the true underlying cause of humanity's ever-present impulse to begin wars.

A population gets too dense, its people start getting cranky because food is scarce and there's no elbow room. Pretty soon someone finds a reason to pick a fight with some weak-looking foreigners, war breaks out, and one of two things happens: The weak-looking foreigners are conquered, which gives the conquering population food and a bit of elbow room. Or the weak-looking foreigners aren't so weak, and the would-be conquerors get more food and elbow room by losing a portion of their male population. (The ones who survive do, at least.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is fine, I just don't think some players or GMs know how to use it.

It's just a shorthand for the general attitude of the PC/NPC, like a Myer's Briggs Test or some other personality test. But obviously this "test" is geared for the game.

It's not meant to define a PC or NPCs every action, so that every member of an alignment are clones of one another.


Hama wrote:
Dunno, Paragon/Renegade thing that Mass Effect has is worth a look, and maybe a bit of an expansion, like four paths, not only one...

I actually didn't like the Renegade/Paragon choices when I played ME1, I felt like my choices were between being a pushover and being a total jerk, and I didn't like what happened if I decided not to be either one full time.

ME1 Spoiler:

I also really didn't like the plotline with Rex at that moment. Cure for the Genophage! And I can't do a thing with it but shoot the guy doing it, possibly shoot rex, and not even a dialogue for the doctor! If I remember right anyway.

I guess if its meanings were expanded upon I could see it being something, but it doesn't really have a medieval feel to it, and I'm not sure if I'd be happy with any restrictions it would create. Though opinions vary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ME1 Spoiler:
I spent the rest of the game and as much of the next two that I could putting Ashley in harms way and then cackling with glee when the unholy b%%$$ got set on fire, shot, tossed across the room, showered in acid, get her face beaten into a pulp by a robot and hospitalized for a significant amount of time, etc. because she shot Wrex.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh, i managed to keep the entirety of my crew alive and well as well as having to choose between Liara and Miranda. That said, i went full Paragon. I just couldn't make myself be mean for some reason.


I only played it once and had no idea the game was going to be like "You have to do every sidequest and get ALL the Paragon to keep crew members alive".

Though,

Spoiler:
Either Kaidan or Ashley dies no matter what, don't they?

Sovereign Court

Yep to your spoiler. You have to choose.


Rynjin wrote:

I only played it once and had no idea the game was going to be like "You have to do every sidequest and get ALL the Paragon to keep crew members alive".

Though,

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

To my knowledge and all the guides I read, there is absolutely no way to save both of your human friends. You have to choose.

Yes, having to go full either direction was an ingame issue I'd never want to see in a table top. Could you imagine neutrals not being able to do something or convince anyone anything? Or worse getting an NPC killed because you were neutral aligned!? That'd be crazy.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring.
What would you suggest distinguishes evil from neutral?
Someone who is neutral often has good intentions, but is unwilling to go out of their way to act on those intentions.

So would you think a morally lazy good person is neutral? (I'm referring to someone who wants to look after others' interests but can't be bothered actually putting that desire into action).

Quote:
In other words, most of us are neutral.

In case it isnt clear, I dont think alignment exists in reality, so I'm not asking for real-world examples. I mean in your game.

I think evil entails a desire for harming others and good entails a desire for helping others. The way I play it, indifference to others is a mark of neutrality on the moral axis (not evil as Sissyl suggested).


Your game, your choice. However, be aware that doing bad things to others just to hurt them is something that does not exist. Bad things are done for a reason that seems good to the doer, and if someone is hurt, that is not really relevant and certainly not the point. This applies even if hurting someone is en route to the goal, such as hitting someone to teach them to respect or fear you.

That you don't think alignment, generally good and evil if my suspicion is correct, exists at all in the real world, well, that doesn't surprise me. Your reasoning kind of gives it away.


Yeah, I think it's a lousy model of real world morality. Nonetheless it's kind of integral to the game, so it has to mean something. Cartoon "team evil" works well for us, but I'm curious how others do it (in game, that is. Attempts to represent actual morality with alignment are necessarily doomed, IMO).

What do you think is the distinguishing feature of a chaotic evil character and a chaotic neutral character? From what you said above, the chaotic evil character "doesn't care" (about others, presumably) - the chaotic neutral character...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Neutrality in my game means, you do the right thing IF
1)It has a reward. For example, I save the princess for money. No money, no rescue
2)It is simple. I don't get a reward for paying the toll, but I don't run the risk of getting hurt by fighting the guards
3)People expect you to. You give money to the begger, only because the paladin and cleric already did
4)Your survival depends on it. I don't really want to kill the vampire lord because he is evil. I want to kill him because he will destory me!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring.
What would you suggest distinguishes evil from neutral?
Someone who is neutral often has good intentions, but is unwilling to go out of their way to act on those intentions.
So would you think a morally lazy good person is neutral? (I'm referring to someone who wants to look after others' interests but can't be bothered actually putting that desire into action.

This is how I see it too, based on the CRB stating "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."


MrSin wrote:
Hama wrote:
Dunno, Paragon/Renegade thing that Mass Effect has is worth a look, and maybe a bit of an expansion, like four paths, not only one...

I actually didn't like the Renegade/Paragon choices when I played ME1, I felt like my choices were between being a pushover and being a total jerk, and I didn't like what happened if I decided not to be either one full time.

** spoiler omitted **

I guess if its meanings were expanded upon I could see it being something, but it doesn't really have a medieval feel to it, and I'm not sure if I'd be happy with any restrictions it would create. Though opinions vary.

Yeah, a friend of mine put down Rex, explained why, and I thought he was a total monster. Way to go with the genocide bud, yeah, sure they were total dicks. You awful man, lol.

Sovereign Court

It's Wrex.

I don't get people who go full renegade. It's just a game is not an excuse. You have to consciously pick a bad, jerk, evil choice. I couldn't.


Some games are good like that, you want to be a hero, or you want to be truly evil.

Walking dead pushed me to try and be a hero, that hasn't happened in a while.

Second playthrough as an emotional mute with no decisive elan was quite interesting. This char came across as a lot less aggressive, which meant in some places, he was more moral.

201 to 250 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Another alignment thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.