Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 3290922" data-attributes="member: 23094">Ahah.I forgot my biggest pet peeve alignment myth, which is strange, because it's always at the forefront of my mind whenever an alignment debate crops up.&nbsp; It can be summed up as:&nbsp; &quot;Hello to everyone in this alignment thread.&nbsp; Here's a hypothetical and very complicated ethical situation, and darn it all if I can't get it to fit nicely into an alignment, because I disagree that [Outcome Y] is Good.&nbsp; Therefore, the entire alignment system is borked and should be thrown away.&quot;First off, the hypothetical situation and its solution.&nbsp; In case anyone has missed it, there's this branch of thinking called &quot;philosophy&quot; that's been wrestling with exactly these questions for a couple years.&nbsp; Last I checked, they hadn't solved this one yet.&nbsp; I think it's a little ... presumptive ... to hold a game mechanic to higher standards than those yet achieved by the entire human race.Secondly, there's the difference between &quot;right&quot; and &quot;Good&quot; - or, as I like to sometimes put it, &quot;little 'g' good&quot; and &quot;Big 'G' Good.&quot;&nbsp; The first really just means &quot;preferable.&quot;&nbsp; It'd be good if I won the lottery; it's good that I have clothes on my back; it's good to not cause car accidents.&nbsp; None of these, however, are necessarily Good.In this, we're all a little guilty of being self-centered.&nbsp; We all, somewhere, believe that our own beliefs about what's Right align (at least a little bit) with what's Good.&nbsp; Otherwise, we're either psychotic or ... So, when attempting to &quot;debunk&quot; alignment, we propose a hypothetical situation in which our own beliefs about what the right thing to do conflicts with what the Good alignment description says is the right thing to do.&nbsp; Such a case, we say, proves that Good isn't.&nbsp; Instead, what we should realize that, even in D&amp;D with absolute alignments, Good isn't always the right answer.There is a solid philosophical underpinning for each alignment to use, which demonstrates, to them, why the Chaotic Evil answer is the right one.It is, in reality, not very much different to posing a hypothetical situation to a devout Sade-ist, a devout Kantian, a follow of St. Augustine, etc., and ask them what the &quot;right&quot; answer is.&nbsp; You might get wildly different answers, all consistent with the underpinning philosophy - and they'll all be &quot;good&quot; according to the person you asked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 3290922, member: 23094"] Ahah. I forgot my biggest pet peeve alignment myth, which is strange, because it's always at the forefront of my mind whenever an alignment debate crops up. It can be summed up as: "Hello to everyone in this alignment thread. Here's a hypothetical and very complicated ethical situation, and darn it all if I can't get it to fit nicely into an alignment, because I disagree that [Outcome Y] is Good. Therefore, the entire alignment system is borked and should be thrown away." First off, the hypothetical situation and its solution. In case anyone has missed it, there's this branch of thinking called "philosophy" that's been wrestling with exactly these questions for a couple years. Last I checked, [i]they[/i] hadn't solved this one yet. I think it's a little ... presumptive ... to hold a game mechanic to higher standards than those yet achieved by the entire human race. Secondly, there's the difference between "right" and "Good" - or, as I like to sometimes put it, "little 'g' good" and "Big 'G' Good." The first really just means "preferable." It'd be good if I won the lottery; it's good that I have clothes on my back; it's good to not cause car accidents. None of these, however, are necessarily Good. In this, we're all a little guilty of being self-centered. We all, somewhere, believe that our own beliefs about what's Right align (at least a little bit) with what's Good. Otherwise, we're either psychotic or ... So, when attempting to "debunk" alignment, we propose a hypothetical situation in which our own beliefs about what the right thing to do conflicts with what the Good alignment description says is the right thing to do. Such a case, we say, proves that Good isn't. Instead, what we should realize that, even in D&D with absolute alignments, Good isn't always the right answer. There is a solid philosophical underpinning for each alignment to use, which demonstrates, to them, why the Chaotic Evil answer is the right one. It is, in reality, not very much different to posing a hypothetical situation to a devout Sade-ist, a devout Kantian, a follow of St. Augustine, etc., and ask them what the "right" answer is. You might get wildly different answers, all consistent with the underpinning philosophy - and they'll all be "good" according to the person you asked. [/QUOTE]

Verification