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

[Tsyr]

Or for that matter, what about selfish self sacrifice? IE, "I love my wife so much I would rather die than exist in a world without her, so I'm going to die". That's not noble.

 

[Gothmog]

Not even.

Even the best person can have their faults, and even the worst can have their perks. If an evil racist kills every orc in the western highlands on a campaign of genacide, then throws himself in front of an arrow to save his wife from an orcish assassin, is he any less evil?

No.

Hmm, interesting. You've just described how most high elves behave in many campaigns and sourcebooks I've read. Undoubtedly, from info in previous books, the high elves "hate" drow and orcs, and are arguably racist and genocidal against these races, but are seen as CG. Apparently racism isn't a qualifier for evil in and of itself in D&D. And even an evil person who sacrifices to help someone he cares about is less evil than someone who is callous and will help no one because he doesn't want to suffer any detrimental effects himself.

 

[Tsyr]

Actually, I've rarely read of elves that went on genocidal rampages against another species. Even drow.

 

[Norfleet]

I'd have to say that the elves hate the orcs and drow mostly because the latter parties attempt to kill them on sight. That's a fairly reasonable and well-founded basis for a sort of hatred. I know that if I had a group of beings that attempted to kill me on sight on a regular basis, I'd consider them rather distasteful and attempt to do the same. Do unto others before they do unto you and all, you see.

 

[Nifft]

Or for that matter, what about selfish self sacrifice? IE, "I love my wife so much I would rather die than exist in a world without her, so I'm going to die". That's not noble.

That's a very noble outlook. The guy's entire outlook on life is selfless... just because his final act is consistant with that outlook doesn't negate the fact that it's selfless.

Otherwise, you could come up with truely retarded things like:
- "Being nice makes me feel happy, thus by being nice I'm really being selfish!"
or:
- "It's only self-sacrifice if you suffer, so if you die in a Rapture Locust swarm, it's not really a Good act."


Suffering is not [Good]. Pleasure is not [Evil].

-- N

 

[Elf Witch]

Here:
http://townhall.webrpg.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=47
"Gamers; Ethics, and Religion"
I started that forum in 97 or so, but I'm not an active participant...

Though personally I've never understood why politics is not allowed in places like this when it is so relevant - as it is in this case.

Thanks I will check it out. I think it is because it is likely to start a flame war. I have seen it on other boards. The main problem is that some people seem not to be able to understand the concept of differing opinions and that sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. That coupled with beating a dead horse and arguing over every little thing trying to make someone change their mind can become very unpleasant quickly.

 

[Kichwas]

Thanks I will check it out. I think it is because it is likely to start a flame war. I have seen it on other boards. The main problem is that some people seem not to be able to understand the concept of differing opinions and that sometimes there is no right or wrong answer.

Stymieing discussion merely creates additional anger.

Better to simply creates some rules of ordered, reasonable discussion.

If you go to the forum I've mentioned you'll find that it is remarkedly absent of flame wars despite having very hot topics all the time.

The community there simply agreed some time ago to keep it cool, and keep a certain method to how things could be discussed, rather than what could be discussed.

If you shut down discussion, hot heads boil over - and anger or misunderstanding becomes personal as it leeks into other non-relevant discussions.


But anyway...

I've posted a link for somewhere else to take the discussion, until this place comes to it's senses.

 

[Hecateus]

I entirely disagree with that. 'Good' in the D&D sense is not a matter of expediency or utility, it is a moral force. Hence, "Fran sacrifces his youth toiling away for the Crafts Guild to afford better future for himself." == Neutral (he is workign for himself, but he hurts nobody else) and "Fran Sacrifices his youth watching HoloVids of his favorite Idol whome he worships." == Neutral (he is hurting himself, but he hurts nobody else).

I was using the www.dictionary.com sense of the word 'good', in it's simplist and most direct form. though yes you are right. D&D goes a bit further. As I see it, Fran here would be CN: [C]too busy to be socialable, [N] while he is creating wealth [G], he is to focused on that task to percieve other immaterial forms of wealth.

On the other hand, "Fran sacrifices his youth working for a charitable organisation to help those less fortunate than himself." ==good. "Fran sacrifices his youth hiding down alleyways and mugging passers-by for all the gold in their pockets in order to feed his developing taste for alcohol and prostitutes." ==bad.

so long as Fran is not screwed by those so-called charities, and Fran Values those charities (as opposed to only acting out of a grim-duty-no-of-his-choosing) I have no problem with this.

Good and Bad are defined, IMHO, not by what is useful or not useful, or by what fails or succeeds, but by the INTENTION behind it. If someone sits in the corner of a room staring at the wall because he believes (for whatever reason) it will help somebody else, that is a good act. If someone sits in the corner of a room staring at the wall because he believes (for whatever reason) that it will help himself, at no cost or benefit to anybody else, or because he has nothing better to do, that is a nuetral act. And if somebody sits in that same corner, staring at that same wall, believeing (for any reason whatsoever) that it will help himslef at a cost to others, or simply because it will harm others and he derives enjoyment form that, that is an evil act.

While I still disagree, somewhat, I applaud you for having internalised a concept of good and evil; most people don't bother.

[edit] I guess I should elaborate as to why I don't think that Intention is proper the basis of Good or Evil, example: Hitler had what he though was the best of Intentions when he ordered the destruction of millions of Jews. They were as Orcs to him. He though he was, altruistically, doing Germany and the World the best of favors. He had 'good' intents for his people, and a willinginess to use destruction on those who were not his people.; I should add that he was willing to 'sacrifice' as much of his people as it took to ends he thought beneficial to his people too. Altruism can be used for evil, just look at the destination signs along the Road of Good Intentions. Guess I should go read that link b4 argueing further here. cheers.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm deleting a lot of the political stuff. Thanks to everyone who self-edited; and for folks who didn't, please stay far away from politics in the future.

 

[Elf Witch]

Stymieing discussion merely creates additional anger.

Better to simply creates some rules of ordered, reasonable discussion.

If you go to the forum I've mentioned you'll find that it is remarkedly absent of flame wars despite having very hot topics all the time.

The community there simply agreed some time ago to keep it cool, and keep a certain method to how things could be discussed, rather than what could be discussed.

If you shut down discussion, hot heads boil over - and anger or misunderstanding becomes personal as it leeks into other non-relevant discussions.


But anyway...

I've posted a link for somewhere else to take the discussion, until this place comes to it's senses.

I have been on boards where this has worked and some where it hasn't. I guess they are afraid here that it will distract form the topic of role playing games. BUt some of this ddoes come into it espically when you are setting up a game world.