Is any one alignment intellectually superior?

[FreeTheSlaves]

I was discussing morality & alignments over at Monte Cook's forums and just got a thought stuck in my head as the heading mentions.

Looking at the alignment descriptions they all give good reasons to choose each one but I am more concerned with which one (if any) has an intellectual rather than moral edge. (Can morallity even be separated from the intellectual?) I seem to recall from my classical studies that being 'good' was promoted as the most correct approach to life but then I also remember some jobbie espousing the virtue of 'greed'.

Hmm, I'll also add a poll for a bit of fun.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

No. I couldn't wait for the poll.

edit: there...I voted

 

[Al]

No. Alignments can rationalise their character, but eventually there will have to be reduced to a key set of core assumptions. Since these assertions cannot be proven, nor moral values balanced against each other in any meaningful way, no alignment can claim intellectual superiority. Of course, the current arguments advanced in favour of an alignment can take the ascendant temporarily, but this does not conclusively prove that the other alignments are flawed since it is likely that more sophisticated arguments exist that have not been articulated yet.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Yeah, what he said. You might think you are right...but you are in fact wrong.

 

[sword-dancer]

LN and CN I think could be the most advantagous and disadavantagous be.
The first could be the most methodical, the second the most inspiritual be and vice versa the last.
But in the end it comes down to Mindset, INT and WIS IMPOV.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

I have to disagree with the assumption that morality and intellect are intimately tied together. Rather, we only have to look at people today who are bright and intelligent, who can think through problems and come up with well reasoned answers; oh, and are greedy, self-centred individuals who would squash anyone like a bug for the right amount of dollars. Intellect is the capacity to reason and think, morality is the ability to accept the consequences of your actions and to empathise with the situations of others.

I don't think these two are in any way tied together, which is why there are as many dumbass good people helping all around the world as there are really smart evil people screwing over as many as they can get.

I appreciate the argument that rationally, the most sensible and effective idea is that if everyone helps each other then everyone will have everything they want. (A Good idea if ever I heard one.) I agree with this idea, but I also see the draw of "I don't care what you get, it's about what I've got, and I want more than you." People of all levels of intelligence think this way.

And thus I voted "None". I don't think that your morality and your intellect are so intimately tied together as to make people with a certain outlook on life more intelligent.

 

[Starglim]

Of course alignments can be balanced against each other. In the long run, do their adherents prosper, or fail?

Evil is a zero-sum game, if not less. Good provides benefits to each beyond what it started with. Therefore, if Good can only survive, it will triumph.

Neutrality is the least intellectually worthwhile of all, since it represents nothing more than refusal to decide.

Given that Good is superior, the debate between Law and Chaos (and of Neutral Good against both of them) becomes much more interesting.

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

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.

 

[Yair]

I suggest that most moral philosophies espouse "Good" as defined by D&D as inherently superior to "Evil" or "Neutrality". None define Good like D&D does and their reasoning will invariably lead to different conclusions at times, but overall I think thousands of years of philosophical debate have pretty much settled this issue.

That said, some philosophical "Good"s, especially in modern philosophies, may be construed as other alignments. Nietzeism can, I believe, be protrayed as largely Chaotic Neutral without it being too much of a stretch.

 

[Gez]

The best alignment is of course Neutral Good. Lawfulness leads to oppression after a while, and Chaos likewise leads to anarchy. By keeping a harmonious balance between law (and the welfare of the community as a whole) and chaos (and the welfare of each individual separately), you obtain the most idyllic society possible.