AIEEE!!! CN is not insanity!!!!

[Hardhead]

And if you were talking about that everything would be fine.

But you were not.

Yes. I was, becuase people in general support these programs and elect people that implement (or don't dismantle) them.

Instead of talking about "willing", you were talking about government mandated involuntary programs, and as such were completeing off topic of the thread and completely in the realm of politics. As such, I'll join the chorus requested self editing.

Let's get this a bit back on topic, alignment-wise. I'm going to painstakingly not use real-world examples.

From the SRD: Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Well, you can't get any clearer than that. So, if I'm willing to have my money taxed, and that money go to help old people, or poor people, or disabled people, that's a Good act.

Now, is someone that opposes social programs non-Good? Not necessarily. There's a school of thought out there that says that by not implementing any social programs, that leaves more money to be spent, and over-all more people benefit, even if some people slip through the cracks. If they oppose said programs for these reasons alone, that's still probably Good. Probably CG, because it places strong emphasis on individual achievement.

If someone opposes helping people because, screw them, I don't care if they're sick and dying, they didn't earn the money. Well, that person is probably neutral.

Most people fall into the first two groups, and so I'd say taht most people are Good.


EDIT:

Hardhead, the things you mentioned aren't opposed by many people because the people are ungood or selfish. Most often it's a matter of thinking that there is a better way of doing things.

This is the last thing I'll say on the subject.

I never said they were. As I said in my clarification at the top of the page, I wasn't trying to be politically-divisive. I don't care which side politically people fall. As long as the thought is there (such as in the schools example I gave), it's still Good.

 

[Mercule]

There's a school of thought out there that says that by not implementing any social programs, that leaves more money to be spent, and over-all more people benefit, even if some people slip through the cracks. If they oppose said programs for these reasons alone, that's still probably Good. Probably CG, because it places strong emphasis on individual achievement.

Probably not exactly how I would have put it but pretty close.

And exactly why I consider myself CG.

 

[BryonD]

Yes. I was.

No. You were not.

Edited out the rest

If you can't conceive that you are talking about government policy and therefore politics, then I'll quit wasting time.

 

[Hardhead]

No. You were not.

Bryon, please reread my first post. I said, "I think *most* people are good. As a society, we certainly are," and went on to give my reaons.

You may argue that people aren't "willing" to do it becuase it's govenment-enforced (and I have given my reasons why I don't think that's the case), but I think it's clear that's what I was talking about. My previous posts speak for themselves.

Please show me where in the SRD it says that Good people mandate that third parties sacrifice of themselves to help others.

The SRD does not dictate how good acts are to be accomplished. Is there a difference between supporting laws that tax and give to the poor, and just going and giving your money directly to beggars on the street? I submit that there is not; either shows a willingness to sacrifice your personal wealth to others.

You want to talk about charity and freelky provided aid. Great.

If you talk about taxes and and government programs your are talking about politics and mandates, not personal sacrifices.

What if I give to the Poor Beggars Fund of Waterdeep, and the Poor Beggars Fund then distributes to beggars? Is that non-good as well? If not, how is that different from wanting the government to be the intermediary instead of the Poor Beggars Fund of Waterdeep?

You logic is flawed because you fail to differentiate between being willing to help others and using the police force of government to force others to do so in the manner that you would choose for yourself.

Your logic is flawed because you deferintiate in giving money to the government, which gives to the infirm/disables/poor/whatever, and just going up on the street and doing it.

A CG character might want to do the latter, since he distrusts the governemnt, and wants to make sure his gold pieces go to the beggars. A LG character might want the government to do it, becuase he can't find all the beggars himself, and the government will do a better job of evenly distributing his contribution.

 

[Dark Jezter]

What if I give to the Poor Beggars Fund of Waterdeep, and the Poor Beggars Fund then distributes to beggars? Is that non-good as well? If not, how is that different from wanting the government to be the intermediary instead of the Poor Beggars Fund of Waterdeep?

Because charity isn't charity if it's government-mandated.

It's one thing to give gold to the poor out of the goodness of your character's heart, it's another thing to give gold to the poor because you'll be sent to jail if you don't.

 

[Nifft]

Because charity isn't charity if it's government-mandated.

It's one thing to give gold to the poor out of the goodness of your character's heart, it's another thing to give gold to the poor because you'll be sent to jail if you don't.

It is if I pick the government, and choose to abide by it. Then, you go to jail because of the government enforcing my will, and my money goes to charity under the same rationale.

Not all sex is rape, and not all taxes are theft.

-- N

 

[BryonD]

Not all sex is rape, and not all taxes are theft.

-- N

Are we starting over the political debate already?

 

[maddman75]

I'll only say that the D&D good/evil law/chaos system is NOT a full moralistic or philisophical model. It is meant to describe the morality of characters in a game, emulating various characters from fiction. It is therefore not useful and irrelevant to make comparisons to real world modern situations such as social programs, taxation, etc. And it makes the mods angry.

My conception of alignment is this. Good and evil reflect selflessness and selfishness. A Good character thinks of others before himself. A nuetral character thinks of himself first, but doesn't look to hurt anyone else in the process. An Evil character thinks of himself first, and others not at all. Some even gain pleasure from causing suffering. Law and Chaos can be reflected in Order versus Freedom. Thus a CN character is mostly interested in his own independence. He looks out for himself, but isn't opposed to helping others if there's little risk or he gets some additional benefit.

 

[Nifft]

Arguing over what taxes are theft is a form of political debate.

"Not all sex is rape" is menaingless in a rape trial and "not all taxes are theft" is meaningless in this discussion.

I think you're exactly wrong. Stating categorically that government involvement negates charity is the position of someone who doesn't know he's Chaotic, and doesn't know that there could be another way of looking at the situation. It's what I'd expect an NPC to say, not a real human being. It's also far more political than "some do, some don't".

What I said is quite clear, and you've missed the point -- or decided it's easier to argue with that straw man.

Lawful people IMC consider government to be an efficent mechanism for re-distribution of wealth (if Good) or for consolidation of power in the hands of the worthy few (if Evil).

Chaotic people IMC consider only personal interaction with individuals to be efficient, since it's not as important to give money to an abstract -- like "the poor" -- as it is to elevate (educate, put back on their feet, etc.) individuals. They'd say that a government is fit to churn out Formian clones, but only individual interactions can create true citizens (if Good) or can be depended upon to break others to my will (if Evil).

-- N

 

[Mercule]

It is if I pick the government, and choose to abide by it. Then, you go to jail because of the government enforcing my will, and my money goes to charity under the same rationale.

Eh, I suppose it depends an how "cut off your nose to spite your face" rebellious you are.

A CN character might be fine with a true anarchy. Whatever happens, happens. Just so long as he gets to do his thing for as long as possible.

A CG character, on the other hand, might wish that he could see a day with no government, but understands that a true anarchy leaves Evil types -- those who murder, rape, etc. -- do what they will. And that a true anarchy can't last because someone will come along and take over. A LE is likely to set up a system that lets them do what they want while restricting others. A LG is likely to decide that most people are incompetent and need supervision. Either result would suck, just to different degrees.

So, an intelligent CG type is likely to view government as a necessary evil. Sacrifice the lesser to gain the greater and all that stuff. If such a group of individuals were to ever get together, they might try to form a minimalist government, trying to find the right balance of organized chaos. It's quite probable that they'd first try a conferation of some sort, then maybe a federation, but abhor a unitary system. If they were to great any sort of foundational document, it might even carry a passage stating that any powers not explicitly granted to the central authority were denied to it -- but they'd probably only do so as an afterthought because it would be a self-evident statement to them.