Is any one alignment intellectually superior?

[Alunsun]

Definitely any lawful.

Heres why:

 

[Alunsun]

How about this...
Any Lawful alignment (regardless of good, evil, or indifference) understands that, whether fighting for one's own malicious gain or attempting to thwart those that do, there are certain rules and boundaries that are not to be crossed. By following such guidelines, no matter what they are or what they are for, in a lawful and strict adhering manner, such goals can be acheived. This is not to say that there are not other means by which to reach an end, but the lawful approach seems to be not only more efficient, but more attractive in the end results.


An example:

What kind of General is one more persuaded to take orders from?

A) A Lawful General with strict plans and plans to back those plans up (Plan A, Plan B, etc.).

B) A Chaotic General who Yells "Charge!" with no regards to any type of circumstances or plans or rules, or even the safety of his men, or even his own safety.

C) A Neutral General that does not care who wins the fight and has some doubt in his mind who he is actually fighting for.

I hope you pick A if you value your life.
Just my two cents

 

[John Morrow]

You would not ask a sports fan who is the correct Football or Baseball team. Just because you can use 'best' or 'correct' interchangably when talking about ethics, doesn't mean the words are always synonyms.

You could ask a sports fan which team makes the most intellectually sense to follow. In many contexts, the "best" team to follow is the one that does the most winning. Yet sports fans frequently follow and cheer for teams that do not win the most games. In fact, I know of plenty of sports fans that will bet on teams that the odds are against simply because they are fans of that team. Why? Because the heart is not always where the mind is. That's my point. And I think morality is an issue of the heart, not the mind.

The reason that the analogy is false is that in general people do not base thier ideas of who they believe themselves to be on which football or baseball team is best. A person's belief in which sports team is best usually is not a particularly important guiding principal in thier lives. Most people simply do not give this a particularly high priority when determining how to live thier lives. Very few people believe that the fact that one sport's team is better than another has any impact on how they 'ought' to live thier lives. The same is not true of people's beliefs about morals and ethics.

Do you do much sports betting? Do you know any lifestyle sports fans? Go to a Philadelphia Eagles game in Philadelphia and cheer for the other team, then tell me again that people don't make this a huge priority in their life.

And if you ask a die-hard Eagle's fan, "Which is the best team in the NFL?", plenty will answer, "The Eagles", despite the fact that they didn't win the Superbowl, which is analogous to what you are expecting -- that people will vote for the home team. But it doesn't follow that all fans will vote for the home team and one can't assume that anyone who says "The Eagles" rather than "The Patiorts" is a die-hard Eagles fan nor can anyone assume that anyone who says "The Patriots" is a Patriots fan.

To the extent that your analogy actually would have any merit, it would only be found in cases where a person's belief about the superiority of a sports team was in fact part of what they saw themselves to be. The more profound a person's belief in the superiority of a sports team impacted thier daily life, the better we would expect allegiance to sport's teams to resemble allegiance to a moral code (or lack thereof). And in fact, when this is the case, you'll find that the analogy supports my position. For sports fans for which allegiance to particular team defines to themselves who they are, you'll find that thier answer about what team is best is not objective but obviously betrays thier adherence to the ideas that they believe that team stands for.

In plenty of cases, this is true. But in other cases, it's not. There are die-hard fans who will admit that their own team stinks with a sense of resignation and others who will never admit that their favorite team stinks. But what you seem to be doing is akin to assuming that everyone who says that The Patriots is the best team in the NFL must be a Patriots fan and so on. It doesn't follow. And part of the reason why it doesn't follow is that you are assuming that everyone has strong beliefs about their own morality. That's no more true than assuming that everyone (or nobody) has strong beliefs about professional football. And there are plenty of people who admire that which they aren't, which is akin to a person who lives in Philadelphia being an Eagle's fan by default but admiring the Patriots because of their prowess on the field.

(And for an analogy that you complained about, you are sure getting a lot of ground out of it, no?)

The more this is the case, the more the answer to which sports team is best says more about the person than it does about sports teams. For example, you would NOT expect to a true Boston Red Sox fan to ever admit to himself (or anyone else) that the New York Yankees were a better team, and when it appeared to you objectively that this was the case, then you had grounds for classifying that person as a 'Boston Red Sox'.

The parameter that you are assuming is that everyone is, in effect, a die-hard fan of their own moral position and will respond the way you expect die-hard sports fans to react to questions about the best sports team. I don't think you can assume that. In fact, I know plenty of people who admire the morality of others more than their own. That's often why people admire heroes and religions, even when they don't live up to their standards.

Similarly for Arsenal vs. Manchester United, or England vs. Ireland, or Auburn vs. Alabama, or the Yankees vs. the Brooklyn dodgers or any other rivalry where the allegiance to a team helps define a person's character.

Ever talk to a fan that cheers for a team that never wins and (unlike Boston) never gets close to winning?

 

[John Morrow]

What kind of General is one more persuaded to take orders from?

The one with the most Charisma. In fact, getting people to follow you into battle often involves getting them to not think about what they are doing too much.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Chaotic Neutral: Absolute Personal Freedom

Obviously Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment. It represents absolute personal freedom.

A Chaotic Neutral person is not contrained in his/her actions by any particular moral code. A Chaotic Neutral person is free to adopt any moral code as his/her own and follow it as s/he likes. If that person chooses to value the lives of other intelligent beings (typically a trait of "good" alignments) then s/he is welcome to do so. If, however, the elimination of a particular individual or even entire race of other intelligent beings is necessary or desirable, then the Chaotic Neutral person can pursue such means/ends. The "choice" the chaotic neutral person makes indicates a strong "intellectual" decision that is not guided by a choice between good and evil, but by what is convenient, necessary or desireable at the time.

Lawful individuals are, by definition, constrained in their actions based on some code of behavior that is generally handed down by other "superiors" whether deific, societal or via association. A thinking being's choice of behavior should not be driven by the "beliefs" of others. If a chaotic neutral being wants to be chivalric and/or law-abiding, s/he is welcome to do so, but is not "required" to do so by some false sense of belief in the teachings/requirements of others. If, on the other hand, a chaotic neutral being wishes to totally disrgard the social mores of his/her society then s/he can do so without fear of any moral difficulties.

When a chaotic neutral being chooses to follow a specific code or form of behavior that is typically ascribed to law or good/evil s/he has made a conscious decision to act in a way that suits his/her personal desires/interests and has NOT been "forced" to so based on some outside influence (societal, deific, associative, etc.). Thus the chaotic neutral being is the most intellectual of all beings as his "choices" of lawful, chaotic, good or evil acts are conscious decisions, not dictates handed down by some higher power.

A very interesting code of action for a chaotic neutral is the Non-Aggression Principle: no being has the right to use force or the threat of force with respect to any other being except in the case of defending one's self from another being using force. This belief, while seemingly very "good," actually leads to an anarchist society. If no being (including "the king") has the right to use force then there can be no laws as laws REQUIRE the threat of force to bring people into compliance with the law. Most people would argue that an anarchist is not "good," but it is clear that an anarchist that follows this line of reasoning would not be "evil" as s/he could be counted on not to initiate the use of force against others. In a society fully populated by beings that follow the Non-Agression Principle there would be no violence, but there may be great suffering in the form of poverty and starvation as no part of the Non-Agression Principle requires any adherent to help others, merely not to harm others.

 

[palleomortis]

Obviously Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment. It represents absolute personal freedom.

That's true, but I stand with true neutral. Being this, you can talk with others that are against chaotic, or the law, or are good, or are evil. not to mention other nuetruals. If you were to ask wich one was the strongest, it would be CE, or LG. True neutral is still the most flexible, and can access more information.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

I'm gonna go with Chaotic Evil... because genius is always one bad day away from insanity.

 

[EricNoah]

^^^^
See? Chaotic doesn't mean "spouts incomprehensible gibberish"! Chaotic can be reasoned!

(I'm not sure who I'm addressing "see?" to, btw... )

Interesting first post, Brent.

 

[LostSoul]

I think 'Any Good' would be. 'Good' itself is a superior choice over the long run and, in general, allows for more stable 'increase' (of whatever) over time.

Good is a good choice, because usually you can get more by co-operating with each other than by sticking it out for yourself. However, if most people are Good, one Evil man can reap amazing benefits. (For example: most people are Good, and nobody worries about theft. So one Evil guy finds it very easy to break into their homes and take their stuff.)

I think it would depend on the circumstances of your environment.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I still fail to see how ethics can curb intellect. Isn't intelligence boundless? Can't an intellect rationalize anything? Or even dismiss anything? I can see how ethics control actions...but isn't intellect a realm beyond tangibility? Are you people suggesting that an ethical position allows a greater application of intellect or that it allows a more powerfull intellect. I guess I made an assumtion at the beginning. I assumed the question was about whether an alignment leads to a more intellectual mindset or greater intellect.

I believe some alignments can criple the practical application of intellect--but not for a second do I believe that alignment constrains intellect.