Alignment Traits

[Felix]

[IMHO]

You might want to rethink Nihilism.

previously posted by LoneWolf23

Nihilistic - All things are worthless. The principles and institutions of society are pointless. Life is meaningless, and existance has no purpose. Therefore, you're free to do whatever you want to whomever you want, since there's no reason not to.

This can swing both ways:

If nothing has value, why not give that beggar over there your jewel-studded, bright, shining sword? Any reason as to why not would be assigning value to the sword, something "nihilists" wouldn't do.

Actually, why not kill that beggar instead? His life is valueless so it's ok. BUT, his death is also valueless so there should be no pleasure gained, ie, no reason to do it.

Nihilism can lead to both Good and Evil results. I'd put it in Neutral. This definition sounds like the 2e version of CN.


Also
If your definition of Abusive were applied, all fathers everywhere who spanked their children as punishment would be Evil. It is excessive and unwarranted punishment that would make that father Evil. Those adjectives are missing from your explanation.

Shoot, I'd be Evil because I use to slap my dog on the butt when she pooed on the carpet.

Originally posted by Canis

Eating that sandwich while walking by a starving child (or other innocent) is evil.

Does this mean that Sally Struthers, by showing them pictures of starving children, made all Americans who did not send money to her or someone else Evil? Darn, looks like I'm Evil again.


Sure, you might want fantastic heros, but look at the heros of antiquity:
Achillies: his heel was symbolic for character flaws, I think.
Odyssius: his pride off the island of the cyclops killed half of his crew.
Jacob: decieved his older brother, Esau, to recieve the covenant passed down from Isaac; God gave it to him!
Lu Bu: (Chinese) A warrior of great renoun, but oft faithless.
Alexander the Great: meglomaniac, anyone?
Oedipus: this guy is riddled with faults.

An Example from Tolkein: Turin Turambar, accounted by Tolkein to be one of the great heroes of the first age, even though the man was morally weak.

They are great because they are also human.
You want flawless? Then I guess Heracles is more for you. I think he isn't nearly as interesting. "Oooh, he picked up an even heavier load of bricks this time!"


[/IMHO]

 

[LoneWolf23]

[IMHO]

You might want to rethink Nihilism. (snip)

If nothing has value, why not give that beggar over there your jewel-studded, bright, shining sword? Any reason as to why not would be assigning value to the sword, something "nihilists" wouldn't do.

Actually, why not kill that beggar instead? His life is valueless so it's ok. BUT, his death is also valueless so there should be no pleasure gained, ie, no reason to do it.

Nihilism can lead to both Good and Evil results. I'd put it in Neutral. This definition sounds like the 2e version of CN.

I got my concept of Nihilism from the old 2e Complete Book of Villains, which treats Nihilism as an Evil Trait: Evil in the form of Emptiness, with the Lotus Eaters of The Odyssey being given as an exemple.

But if the name bothers you, I guess I can change it to something more Evil...

Also
If your definition of Abusive were applied, all fathers everywhere who spanked their children as punishment would be Evil. It is excessive and unwarranted punishment that would make that father Evil. Those adjectives are missing from your explanation.

Shoot, I'd be Evil because I use to slap my dog on the butt when she pooed on the carpet.

All right, I'll edit it appropriatly.

Sure, you might want fantastic heros, but look at the heros of antiquity:
Achillies: his heel was symbolic for character flaws, I think.
Odyssius: his pride off the island of the cyclops killed half of his crew.
Jacob: decieved his older brother, Esau, to recieve the covenant passed down from Isaac; God gave it to him!
Lu Bu: (Chinese) A warrior of great renoun, but oft faithless.
Alexander the Great: meglomaniac, anyone?
Oedipus: this guy is riddled with faults.

Hmm... Well, Achilles and Odyssius are more Neutral then Good, Idunno about Jacob or Lu Bu, Alexander the Great's behavior paints him as Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Evil, and Oedipus is Neutral, I believe.

An Example from Tolkein: Turin Turambar, accounted by Tolkein to be one of the great heroes of the first age, even though the man was morally weak.

Dunno about Turin, but I know that Tolkein's most famous heroes, the Fellowship of the Ring, have members that are almost all morally strong, or grow strength as their adventure goes on.

They are great because they are also human.

Yes, but heroes come into two categories: Flawed heroes who fail and thus serve more as object lessons in Hubris, or noble heroes who transcend their flaws (or are innocents) who succed and serve as positive examples. Compare Lancelot to Galahad, for exemple. Or Cinderella to her Wicked Step-Sisters.

You want flawless? Then I guess Heracles is more for you. I think he isn't nearly as interesting. "Oooh, he picked up an even heavier load of bricks this time!"

Well... if you want the traditional Herakles, that guy had issues of his own. Namely, he was was a serious hedonist ready to do almost anything for fun, and prone to serious temper tantrums, with even the slightest affront was enough to get him mad. He was always deeply remorseful afterwards, and most of his quests were really attempts at making amends to the people he hurt.

But there are modern-day heroes who can combine almost flawless qualities with interesting personalities. Just take Marvel's Captain America for exemple. He's essentially the Perfect Boyscout, but he's not uninteresting. He's a strong man who has strong, uncompromising ideals, and tries to do the good thing no matter what.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Does this mean that Sally Struthers, by showing them pictures of starving children, made all Americans who did not send money to her or someone else Evil? Darn, looks like I'm Evil again.

No, but she's evil for parading herself around in front of them while weighing in on the heavy side of 300 pounds. (Jokes aside, that has always struck me as grotesquely hypocritical). People who have it within their means to give something to others, or to charity, and don't do so are on the track towards evil (perhaps not the fast track, but even the freight cars get there eventually). But that's not what I was getting at. What I was getting at is that when one is confronted with suffering, and they have the means at hand to help alleviate that suffering, it is encumbent upon them to use those means.

Having knowledge of those starving children doesn't make you evil. Having knowledge of it and being completely unmoved by it might. If you're struggling just to keep our head above water and feed your family, you can't be expected to send your next paycheck to Sally Struthers. If you're sitting on a pile of $100 bills and laughing at the skinny little children, you should be removed from society before you breed. Of course, those are extreme cases. In reality, people seeing that commercial had to look at where their money was going and make a decision. The outcome of their decision determines whether they are leaning toward good or evil.

They are great because they are also human.

So human beings can't have a good alignment? And people call ME a cynic...

There are PLENTY of good aligned heroes in literature and mythology who are interesting. If there are people who can't identify with the hardships of maintaining moral integrity, then that's not a problem with the hero, it's a problem with the reader.

And, for the record: 1) Heracles was INCREDIBLY full of faults. LoneWolf barely scratched the surface. In fact, I always found the mythological Heracles uninteresting as a character because his motivations were so self-centered. 2) Belief in the value of life is a good trait. Nihilism espouses that nothing has value, including life. Whether or not that occasionally leads to good deeds is immaterial. The philosophy is inherently evil. Saying nihilism isn't evil is like saying demons are good because they occasionally give wealth and/or power to the poor and/or powerless. I guess the fact that they are doing that in order to get the guy's soul doesn't matter.

 

[mmadsen]

Probably because I am very, very much against moral relativity, and in the real world, people like to tell me I'm full of it, and that "morality is inherently relative."

Morality doesn't have to be relative for various groups to see themselves as good and others as evil (or not as good). Further, a game with true Good and Evil can benefit from some ambiguity. Evil should have some ability to trick Good, to corrupt Good, etc. Even a black-and-white epic has that much gray.

 

[Felix]

Originally posted by Canis

So human beings can't have a good alignment? And people call ME a cynic...

IRL, I think humans are just as animal as the apes we used to be. This creates a Good-Evil axis that is closer to Survival-Failure. Success and survival are the two greatest human virtues. This does not mean that failing is Evil; G and E don't even come into the equation. Morality is a construction forced onto humanity.

But hey, this is DnD. Alignment exists.

It's not the Good alignment that bothers me, it's the drive for perfection in DnD heros. My list of antiquated heros was posted to show that many of our heros were not perfect, and in many cases not Good.

All of the stuff on Heracles posted by Canis and LoneWolf23

I spoke out of ignorance. My apologies. Heracles popped into my mind as the strong man hero who is unassociated with moral judgements.

Originally posted by Canis

If there are people who can't identify with the hardships of maintaining moral integrity, then that's not a problem with the hero, it's a problem with the reader.

A thrust, perhaps? Granted: a book is a mirror; if a monkey looks in, no apostle can look out.

However, the Bard who forces the reader to sludge through a mire of literary devices and hides his real meaning is doing a disservice. It can also be a problem with the Bard.

Also, someone sitting on a bed with $100 bills laughing at dying children is not the kind of person I was referring to. You know that. Is this structure not reasonable when looking at Sally Struthers commercials:
Good - Neutral - Evil
Moved to Pity and Action - Unmoved - Moved to Mirth and/or Derrision

Alas, I gotta get out of Dodge.
Later.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Nothing personal intended with the "..it's a problem with the reader" bit. I was having a bad day, and that tends to make my tongue a bit acidic.

That aside, whether or not morality is an artificial construct, the statement that "Success and survival are the two greatest human virtues" will be the doom of humanity as a species. Or have you failed to notice that all the most effective methods of reproductive success and survival we've developed rely upon harm to others of our kind? Yeah, let's continue to encourage that behavior. That'll help group survivability.

That aside, the most animals follow a rather strict moral code. It varies from species to species, but the effect is the same: they do what's right for themselves or what's right for the group (pack, herd, whatever) depending on the species. Interestingly, from what I've seen in many years in the field is that the most successful species follow the group-first philosophy. You could argue that ultimately, they're just doing what's most effective for propagating their genes rather than following some form of altruism, and you may be right. Either way, the morality is imposed for a reason.

For the record, I believe there's a higher arbiter of morality. But it really doesn't matter much since about 95% of the morality "construct" given us by the world's religions agrees with the optimal survival strategy for the species. Of course, we could probably have an interesting discussion about THAT, too.

 

[mmadsen]

Or have you failed to notice that all the most effective methods of reproductive success and survival we've developed rely upon harm to others of our kind?

That's not true at all. Life is not a zero-sum game. My gain can be your gain as well.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." -- Adam Smith

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That's not true at all. Life is not a zero-sum game. My gain can be your gain as well.

Agreed. But we're decreasingly likely as a species to choose the gain that also benefits others. I even know people who will choose a lesser gain situation as long as it ONLY benefits themself.