Quick fix for alignment trouble

[User3]

was reading another alignment debate today and it occured to me that alot of the anomalies aren't nearly so troubleing if we simply say that in D&D-land Good and Evil aren't synonomus with right and wrong.

It fits the description of Good and Evil (possibly neutrality) being objectivly existing forces, it answers the "real evil people don't think that they're evil" conundrum, it sortof explains the inconsistant application of "animal intelligence= neutral" rediculessness.

it even ties in well with the failled first edition concept of "alignment tongues"

so what do you think? am I missing something obvious?

[Cielingcat]

That's already how it works, actually. "Good" in D&D is basically fundamentalism, Evil is capitalism and selfishness, Law and Chaos are meaningless, and neutral is everything else. This fits perfectly in the D&D paradigm where no one is actually a good person in the modern sense; both Good and Evil are synonymous with "bad", and there isn't actually an alignment that is "good."

[Brobdingnagian]

Unfortunately, most people misunderstand "selfishness" as "stupidly selfish". I had a game once where I was playing a NE Rogue. I went around helping people and asking nothing in return for a large part of the beginning of the game. My DM eventually brought up, "You're not being evil."

My immediate reply, "Of course I am."

"You're selflessly helping people."

"No, I'm selfishly helping people. They just don't know it."

"What?"

"Well, I've made myself out to be a trustworthy and respectable person in every place my character has ever been to in his known life. When I go back after becoming really powerful, and if you're doing your job right as an impartial DM, the people will already like me, and so taking over slowly will be easy."

"... You're too damn smart."

"Says you."

So, the problem is not in understanding the concept as it was written, the problem is in understanding the concept as it should be understood.

That's not to say you won't have people of either alignment going around murdering randomly. The point is, smart people don't need to act evil to be evil.

In the same sense, though, Law and Chaos are not abstract philosophies in the D&D universe. They are set boundries and opposing forces, just like Good and Evil. The only problem is defining them without making one out to be weaker than the other.

But that's something I honestly am incapable of fixing myself. Maybe someone else can pick up from here.

[Judging__Eagle]

Aka:

"Sometimes the most foul blackgaurds are the most shining paladins and the most honourable paladins are truly the most foul blackaurds."

Smart people do good b/c it benefits them with long term investments that they can cash in later; stupid people do evil things b/c they want to cash in now.

[Endovior]

Evil is Capitalism? No, you misunderstand.

As written, Good is using one's self to benefit others, and Evil is using others to benefit one's self. Moral neutrality, then, is interacting with others on a voluntary basis, neither giving generously or taking dishonestly... which is, incidentally, the basis of Capitalism.

[Cielingcat]

1172957129[/unixtime]]Evil is using others to benefit one's self.

That's what I said.

[Endovior]

Not quite. There's a difference between selfish in the 'I don't particularly care about you, I'm busy with my own affairs' sense, and the 'Hey, you have loot I can steal, and your death will give me XP' sense. The first is Neutral, the second is Evil. A Neutral character may be selfish, and not willing to help strangers or protect the innocent or yadda yadda things Paladins do... but that doesn't make him Evil. To be Evil, he needs to cross the line between disinterest and malevolence... actively harming others to achieve his own ends (whether it be deceiving, robbing, or murdering them). A Neutral character doesn't have to look after the best interests of others... he can sell food at a high price during a famine, for example, despite the fact that many cannot afford it... but as he's not actually depriving anyone of anything that's rightfully theirs, he's still not Evil. One might argue one way or another about the ethics of his behavior, but so long as nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, no Evil act has occurred. Hence, Capitalism. Businessmen don't care about you, they just care about your money. They won't steal it from you (unlike the IRS, who are Evil by this standard), they'll offer you goods and services that they hope you'll want to exchange your money for, and you can choose to do so or not. They certainly aren't Good... that would make them lose money after all... but they aren't Evil either. Like Capitalism, they are fundamentally Neutral.

[Crissa]

I would say, as Capitalism puts some material thing (assets) ahead of self (Neutral) or others (Good), it is Evil.

Neutral only cares about survival (self, social unit). Capitalism cares about amassing... Capital. At the expense of social unit. So it is Evil.

Now, many people who practice it may not be Evil, but few are certainly Good.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

Well no, capitalism isn't evil by the D&D definition. Why?

Because adventurers are capitalists. You really do get to keep all the money you make and it's not evil to just use it for your own gain.

Adventurers just perform a service business, where the service happens to be killing monsters.

If capitalism is evil, then paladins lose their good alignment the moment they ever go adventuring or accept a reward.

[User3]

1172959771[/unixtime]]I would say, as Capitalism puts some material thing (assets) ahead of self (Neutral) or others (Good), it is Evil.

Neutral only cares about survival (self, social unit). Capitalism cares about amassing... Capital. At the expense of social unit. So it is Evil.

Now, many people who practice it may not be Evil, but few are certainly Good.

-Crissa

Huh?

Capitalism is two people entering into a mutually agreeable trade. Its not at the expense of anyone. No one is compelled to do anything they didn't want to do. Just because some people are better at playing the "trading game" than others doesn't make them evil...

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]

This is not a capitalism debate.

[/TGFBS]

[Crissa]

Capitalism is most definitely not two people ccoming to an agreement of a mutually agreeable trade. Whereever you got that rubbish it's best to put it back, becasuse it stinks.

And Adventurers are also not Capitalists - because they could care less how many gold coins went through their hands as long as they get the associated power. They don't round up investments to take the castle and budget their losses to be lesser - they steal or buy what they need and just do it.

Some adventurers might be capitalists. But that's probably not the majority.

Sheesh. Capitalism is putting Capital, and the dealing that everything has monetary value, either positive or negative, and working so that you have positive gain - either in buying, selling, or leveraging. It works without regard toward power, goals, or alignment. It is similar to Neutral in that it has a simple goal: Monetary Value instead of Survival - but if personal Survival is Neutral, and Good is helping 'Team Good' - Capitalism works at odds to both goals.

Yai. People in an agreeable trade is Barter or Contract - which in D&D is considered either a necessary Evil or Evil and Law itself.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1173047720[/unixtime]]
Sheesh. Capitalism is putting Capital, and the dealing that everything has monetary value, either positive or negative, and working so that you have positive gain - either in buying, selling, or leveraging. It works without regard toward power, goals, or alignment. It is similar to Neutral in that it has a simple goal: Monetary Value instead of Survival - but if personal Survival is Neutral, and Good is helping 'Team Good' - Capitalism works at odds to both goals.

Kinda how every magical item has a gold piece value associated with it.

In D&D wealth = power. And yeah, adventurers try to accumulate wealth as a primary goal.

[Leress]

How about getting rid of alignment all together.

[User3]

1173053454[/unixtime]]How about getting rid of alignment all together.

Yup, basically did that 10 years ago, when I decided alignment was stupid. Haven't checked what alignments my players have written on their sheets since.

[Username17]

D&D adventurers are not capitalists. Capitalism recognizes two roads to wealth: Production and Arbitrage.

D&D heroes gain wealth by neither path. They always receive half value for sold goods, and pay full value for purchased goods - which means that they are defined as being at the ass end of the Arbitrage. They don't produce anything for the market, any items produced are for personal use.

D&D heroes engage in looting, which is a facet of Feudalism, which is so assumed in D&D that it doesn't even have an alignment.

Producing things for the Market in D&D land is neutral, and extorting wealth out of systems by witholding and subsequently selling resources is evil. D&D heroes aren't intended to do either of those things though and can be of any alignment.

-Username17

[Endovior]

Comparing everything by utilitarian ethics is one way of looking at it, but do note that 'not Good' is different then 'Evil'. Only Good people care about 'social unit'. Neutrals can do whatever the hell they want. There is no action whatsoever that violates Neutral alignment (some will shift your alignment gradually over a time, but there's no violation there). But if someone performs no Evil acts, they are not Evil, no matter where their priorities lie. They may seek to acquire monetary wealth, or political power, or arcane secrets, or eternal life, or divine ascension... and they may pursue those goals to the exception of all else, without any hint of generosity or compassion. But so long as they perform no Evil acts, they aren't Evil. Think Boccob. He doesn't care. He doesn't care about the world, the people, society, existence... he finds it all meaningless. He doesn't care to the extent that he is actually called the Uncaring. The only thing he focuses on is his own magical power; the only thing he does is study and increase his power. That's it. Despite the fact that he would (and does) sit and watch all the atrocities of the world parade by without twitching his little finger to stop it, he's not Evil. He is, quite profoundly, Neutral.

Therefore, it should be obvious that focusing on an unaligned goal (anything that is not, in and of itself, a Good or Evil action) is Neutral. As such, the list of Neutral things goes on and on, including literally everything that is not specifically Good or Evil. Capitalism, if it can be considered to have any alignment at all, could only be considered Lawful (as it favors and benefits the established order). The fact that it is possible for two people to engage in mutually beneficial trade, whether by barter or trade or contract, is totally unaligned, and Capitalism itself works as a means to the ends of any philosophy.

[technomancer]

I've pretty much ditched the alignment system because it's a wierd mix of objective and subjective guidelines.

On one hand, Being Good is a quantifiable quality. You can pop off a Detect Good and tell if you're just a little good, or alot good. On the other hand, being good is about respecting and protecting innocent life. Yet, somehow, it's perfectly okay with Good to kill orcs who havn't actually engaged in Evil behavior. Because most orcs have, it's cool, the race is tainted and MUST DIE.

Pretty much any act in almost any circumstance can be described as good or evil based on the reason why the character did it.

Burn down an orphanage, killing all the helpless orphans.

Insane Good: I'm sending them to a better place, thus protecting their innocent souls from this evil world.

Mundane Good: I coulda sworn one of them little buggers was actually a doppleganger who was going to use it's manipulation powers to slaughter the whole town. The only way to be sure I got it was by killing all of them. What are the lifes of a dozen children against the lives of a town of 10,000?

Evil: What? Me? I never burned down anything!

Insane Evil: BWUAHAHAHA! Those pathetic orphans looked at me funny and had to DIE!

[Fwib]

1172966393[/unixtime]][TGFBS]

This is not a capitalism debate.

[/TGFBS]

Can the capitalism/economics/alignment part be forked off into its own thread? There is clearly a strong appetite for discussion of such.

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]
As long as we're talking about D&D world and not "the real world", you can talk about capitalism all you want.

Take real world economic/government debates to MPSIMS.
[/TGFBS]

[Draco_Argentum]

1173089447[/unixtime]]Yet, somehow, it's perfectly okay with Good to kill orcs who havn't actually engaged in Evil behavior. Because most orcs have, it's cool, the race is tainted and MUST DIE.

Does anyone actually treat the alignment system like this.
Its shit, but not quite that shit.