Because I believe the D&D alignment system is both intellectually incoherent and immoral, I chose "true neutral." The reason I did so is that usually whenever people try to explain to me that despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that alignment makes sense and can represent real-world people and situations, I give them an example of something the system doesn't coherently model. And usually because there is a bunch of information that becomes contradictory once plotted into the matrix of D&D alignment, they declare that the world destroying, demon-summoning arch-duke or whoever I'm describing is, in aggregate, neutral. So, it seems that, for instance, in order for one's goals and strategies to exist in a rational and efficient relationship to one another, one must be neutral so I'm picking that as intellectually superior.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Is any one alignment intellectually superior?
- Thread starter FreeTheSlaves
- Start date
Committed Hero
Hero
I'd say the best alignment for the long-term survival of a community is Lawful Good: law allows the citizens a degree of predictiblity in the responses to their actions, be they good or ill; while good provides security to the community as a whole.
Several of the alignments wouldn't care about their intellectual superiority, they shouldn't count....
Several of the alignments wouldn't care about their intellectual superiority, they shouldn't count....
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
No alignment can claim intellectual superiority.
I have seen inspiring and thought-provoking philosophical arguments in favor of philosophies that could correspond to roughly every D&D alignment. I have also seen people dogmatically and incoherently assert the value of ideologies that would correspond roughly to the D&D alignments, who have damaged the esteem of their worldview in my eyes.
Most people will argue that Good is morally superior to Neutral and Evil-- this is almost seen as a truism. I tend to disagree with this, especially with the version of Good I so often see portrayed in alignment threads around here. That kind of willful naivete and rejection of pragmatic means, while providing a feel-good glow of moral satisfaction, also fails to adequately protect against either self-serving evil or mindless destructive evil.
If a philosophy requires every last person on Earth to adopt it in order to succeed, it is flawed-- and most peoples' definition of Good seems to fall under that unfortunate condition.
Lawful Neutral is the alignment most conducive to maintaining the stability of society and providing the greatest good for all. It rejects the selfishness of Chaos and Evil, and is willing to be appropriately ruthless and practical in protecting society from either influence; it also shows the judgement and restraint necessary to avoid the cruelty and destructive tendencies of Evil-- including the more subtle and insidious Lawful Evil.
Neutrality is not necessarily the refusal to decide or the inability to adhere to either Good or Evil; it can also be the conscious and willful decision to maintain a middle path, avoiding the follies of either. Neutrality can also represent a worldview that regards neither Good nor Evil as valid concerns-- such as placing another value, perhaps either stability or freedom, ahead of either compassion or cruelty.
I have seen inspiring and thought-provoking philosophical arguments in favor of philosophies that could correspond to roughly every D&D alignment. I have also seen people dogmatically and incoherently assert the value of ideologies that would correspond roughly to the D&D alignments, who have damaged the esteem of their worldview in my eyes.
Most people will argue that Good is morally superior to Neutral and Evil-- this is almost seen as a truism. I tend to disagree with this, especially with the version of Good I so often see portrayed in alignment threads around here. That kind of willful naivete and rejection of pragmatic means, while providing a feel-good glow of moral satisfaction, also fails to adequately protect against either self-serving evil or mindless destructive evil.
If a philosophy requires every last person on Earth to adopt it in order to succeed, it is flawed-- and most peoples' definition of Good seems to fall under that unfortunate condition.
Lawful Neutral is the alignment most conducive to maintaining the stability of society and providing the greatest good for all. It rejects the selfishness of Chaos and Evil, and is willing to be appropriately ruthless and practical in protecting society from either influence; it also shows the judgement and restraint necessary to avoid the cruelty and destructive tendencies of Evil-- including the more subtle and insidious Lawful Evil.
Starglim said:
Neutrality is not necessarily the refusal to decide or the inability to adhere to either Good or Evil; it can also be the conscious and willful decision to maintain a middle path, avoiding the follies of either. Neutrality can also represent a worldview that regards neither Good nor Evil as valid concerns-- such as placing another value, perhaps either stability or freedom, ahead of either compassion or cruelty.
Zappo
Explorer
Not true. Evil is not free from constraints. Lots of players pick an Evil alignment because they think it means that they can do whatever they want, but that's just bad roleplaying. Evil has at least one critical constraint: an Evil character will not do anything that puts himself at a disadvantage, even if it is advantageous for others. He won't do so even when his disadvantage is minor when compared to the benefits for all. Even worse, he will put everyone at a big disadvantage in return for a small advantage for himself, provided that he can get away with it.Tarril Wolfeye said:If morality is not your concern, the best alignment is of course Neutral Evil.
Reasons: To put your superior intellect to best use you should not be constrained by arbitrary rules, but you should be able to work with others. And you should be prepared to do everything that must be done, regardless how immoral it may seem.
As you can see cold logic without morality leads automatically to evil.
Cold logic only leads to Evil if you start with the axiom that "best" is "best for yourself" - but that line of reasoning is slanted towards Evil from the start. I think that "best" as in "best for every entity involved" is a more logical point of view, and one which leads to Good.
Turanil
First Post
I think there is only one NG society on RL Earth*. It's a small dwindling tribe of peaceful and happy people living deep in some Indonesia jungle (don't remember their name). Otherwise, the most idyllic society possible doesn't exist in our world.Gez said:
(* Sorry for infringing on the no politics rule.
)
Ahnehnois
First Post
The best is TN.
It is not even necessarily an alignment but can be a lack of one. A true neutral can do literally anything without being out of character, if the situation calls for it. He adapts according to what needs to be done, in his mind. Any other alignment will effectively restrict you at times from doing what you believe to be the right thing.
The idea that evil is the lack of alignment is absurd. Evil people do care. They may care about perverse things butthey care. They will go out of their way to inflict suffering or avoid helping people. Someone who just does whatever he feels like doing is generally not evil.
Good keeps one from making the compromises that are often necessary in life, and bogs down the person with unneeded and overly sentimental connections to others.
Order cracks down on intellectual creativity and flexibility.
Chaos can prevent that creativity and flexibility from ever being used because chaotic characters are averse to committment. They also generally don't make to many close friends.
To be fair, TN can cover just about anything, and many such characters are morons, but ultimately, it is the best way to go.
It is not even necessarily an alignment but can be a lack of one. A true neutral can do literally anything without being out of character, if the situation calls for it. He adapts according to what needs to be done, in his mind. Any other alignment will effectively restrict you at times from doing what you believe to be the right thing.
The idea that evil is the lack of alignment is absurd. Evil people do care. They may care about perverse things butthey care. They will go out of their way to inflict suffering or avoid helping people. Someone who just does whatever he feels like doing is generally not evil.
Good keeps one from making the compromises that are often necessary in life, and bogs down the person with unneeded and overly sentimental connections to others.
Order cracks down on intellectual creativity and flexibility.
Chaos can prevent that creativity and flexibility from ever being used because chaotic characters are averse to committment. They also generally don't make to many close friends.
To be fair, TN can cover just about anything, and many such characters are morons, but ultimately, it is the best way to go.
No I do not think so BUT Lawful Evil is the most cunning, being evil within the rules, mmmmm. 
Insight
Adventurer
True Neutrality represents the highest degree of 'intellectualism'. In other words, beyond war, beyond peace, beyond the constraints of a societal morality, and beyond both selflessness and selfishness. To me, True Neutrals are beyond such things, and could possibly claim intellectual superiority. But the question then becomes, who cares? Does the LG character care that the TN character is above squabbling over petty morals? Does the CE character care that the TN character isn't interested in self-aggrandizement? I'm not sure what the point would be to claim intellectual superiority when it really doesn't matter.
Then again, I think the Alignment system is crap and needs to begone. So take that for what it's worth.
Then again, I think the Alignment system is crap and needs to begone. So take that for what it's worth.
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
I went with neutral, since all the other alignments are blinded by their extremism. True neutrals are more likely to examine all sides of an argument than the other alignments which may have an innate tendancy to disregard a view that contradicts their alignment.
Celebrim
Legend
I'm less fascinated by the intellectual questions raised by this poll, than I am by the capacity to use a poll like this to get a rough idea of the distribution of alignments in actual society.
Granted of course that alignments are a vast oversimplification of people's actual moral and ethical positions, but I think that phrasing the question in this way potentially gets a very good picture of what people actually believe. A question that allows people to self-identify thier alignment will be skewed because many people's alignment probably is not what they believe it to be (an oppressive religious zealot for example). On the other hand, if a person believes that a particular ethical and moral system is intellectually superior to every other ethical and moral system, it is probably because he finds the particular arguments made by a particular ethical and moral system more attractive and persuasive than any other. This is true even of neutrality, since one of the intellectual arguments of neutrality - indeed perhaps the core argument - is that no particular moral system is intellectually superior to any other.
I'd actually be fascinated to see a test that cross referenced the above question with age, gender, place of birth, income, religion, the person's heroes and so forth to see whether there was any trend in the above. Are capitalists more likely to be chaotic or lawful? Are older people more lawful than younger people? Are men more ruthless than women, or perhaps it is the other way around? Are Protestants really (as the name might imply) more chaotic than Catholics, and so forth.
The only unfortunate thing is that now that I've said that this question is equivalent to self-identifying your alignment, the results will be skewed slightly by people who believe that and answer accord to what they believe that they should believe. On the other hand, since most people won't buy that what I've said is true, it's all good.
Granted of course that alignments are a vast oversimplification of people's actual moral and ethical positions, but I think that phrasing the question in this way potentially gets a very good picture of what people actually believe. A question that allows people to self-identify thier alignment will be skewed because many people's alignment probably is not what they believe it to be (an oppressive religious zealot for example). On the other hand, if a person believes that a particular ethical and moral system is intellectually superior to every other ethical and moral system, it is probably because he finds the particular arguments made by a particular ethical and moral system more attractive and persuasive than any other. This is true even of neutrality, since one of the intellectual arguments of neutrality - indeed perhaps the core argument - is that no particular moral system is intellectually superior to any other.
I'd actually be fascinated to see a test that cross referenced the above question with age, gender, place of birth, income, religion, the person's heroes and so forth to see whether there was any trend in the above. Are capitalists more likely to be chaotic or lawful? Are older people more lawful than younger people? Are men more ruthless than women, or perhaps it is the other way around? Are Protestants really (as the name might imply) more chaotic than Catholics, and so forth.
The only unfortunate thing is that now that I've said that this question is equivalent to self-identifying your alignment, the results will be skewed slightly by people who believe that and answer accord to what they believe that they should believe. On the other hand, since most people won't buy that what I've said is true, it's all good.
Similar Threads
