Is any one alignment intellectually superior?

[ARandomGod]

True neutral is clearly the most intellectually superior alignment
Laws are merely a subset of chaos. A little of both law and chaos is needed for proper life. Good is important, but there are so many definitions of good, and a little evil is also important. True neutral is above both law and chaos, good and evil, and recognizes the importance of each. Note, of course, that I said TRUE neutral.

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

What Starglim there is talking about is instead Lazy Neutral, which is a different alignment altogether. And I'll agree that alignment is the least intellectually superior, and probably the most common.

Which is an interesting point. Neutrality is at both the top and the bottom end of that spectrum.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Chaotic Neutral. It means that the spirit is free, doesn't constrain itself through prejudice or social norms, and is free from the illusions of compassion or egoism, or other artificial concepts advocated by those of a good or evil versuasion.

But of course, that's just a fake explanation. CN is superior because I'm CN


Actually, I don't think that any alignment is intellectually superior to the others. Just because you think you should help others, or because you're a selfish bastard, you're not smarter or dumber then the others.

 

[darkelfo]

Lawful neutral characters have a propensity to be studious and are unbiased enough to see all sides of an issue.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

What you call "Lazy Neutral" IMO should more correctly be termed "Apathetic Neutral"... seems to me that someone can be quite industrious and still not give a damn.

 

[Onyx]

True Neutral

Quite simply put, True Neutral would be the intellectually superior choice for an alignment.

The reason is that very few (if any at all) spell effects, class abilities, etc that have alignment based effects result in major discomfort for the neutral character. He cannot be smited, he cannot be barred by magic circles, and more over he is never subject to special damage. The only thing I can think of off hand where it wouldn't have been the best alignment for the situation is against spells such as Holy Word.

It should also be noted that from a roleplaying standpoint, playing a character with a Neutral alignment of some kind offers the greatest level of flexability in a give situation.

A more 'rollplaying' then 'roleplaying' answer, I know... but still a valid point, I think.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

He cannot be smited, he cannot be barred by magic circles, and more over he is never subject to special damage.

Smite Foe will smite anyone I believe, and is not sneak attack, mage bane, bane/favored enemy against his/her/its race considered special damage?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

All alignments can be equally intellectual but that does not mean all alignments are equally correct.

 

[Celebrim]

All alignments can be equally intellectual but that does not mean all alignments are equally correct.

If an alignment isn't correct, then it implies that the arguments in favor of a particular alignment aren't as intellectually rigorous as arguments in favor of another alignment. Again, that's precisely why this is such a good question. If you believe an alignment has superior intellectual rigor, then that implies that that alignments declarations about the universe are correct, which implies that one 'ought' to follow that alignment. And there is I think a strong corellation between what one believes one 'ought' to do and which 'alignment' a person may be categorized within.

Note, that this is true even if the alignment claims that the proof of the alignments claims are non-rational or faith based. If an alignment can present an argument which shows that true correctness can only be reached by make a super-rational 'leap of faith', if the alignment is correct then this argument is also more intellectually rigorous. Afterall, what could be more intellectually rigorous than pointing out that intellect is not limitlessly powerful when intellectual evidence can be presented that this is indeed not the case. So, if Socratic/Platonic line of reasoning which suggests that Truth lies in an unknowable perfection outside the observable universe and its characteristics can only be infered indirectly is correct, then it follows that Socrates/Plato made a more intellectually rigorous argument, and if Camus or Derada is correct that there is in fact no absolute truth and that all is basically relative then that is the more intellectually rigorous object and ones intellect is proved by the recognition of that correctness. Likewise, if the truth is that all these arguments are in some way equally right and correct and edifying or in some way equally meaningless and false, then that is the more intellectually rigorous belief.

Whatever the truth may be - even if the truth is that there is no truth - whatever argument agrees with the truth is the more intellectually rigorous one because it is the one which truly wise and rational people ought to be most often attracted to. If in fact intellect cannot be measured by its ability to be correct, then its the concept of intellectual which has no meaning and not the concept of truth.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think that necessarily follows. If you ask a sports fan who the best Football or Baseball team is, their answer does not necessarily tell you that they are a fan of that team.

I think you are making an argument by false analogy. Systems of ethical belief are not analogous to sports teams. Also 'best' in the sense you use in the above sentence is not the same as 'correct', as can be simply seen by replacing the words. 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.

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.

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. 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'. 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.

 

[John Morrow]

So, "freedom" is not an end?

Actually, no it isn't for most people. For most people, freedom is a means to an end. In fact, people happily surrender their freedom for a whole host of ends (much to the annoyance of people who do consider freedom an end) and would you really advocate freedom as an end if it produced nothing but misery and ruin?

To be fair, though, the Lawful or Chaotic character likely does consider either order or freedom to be an end, and is likely baffled by those who simply treat them as means toward an end. This goes back to an earlier exchange about treating Law and Chaos differently than Good and Evil. I'm more concerned with the latter than the former. But you have a point with respect to the former.

So, "hurting, oppressing and killing" are ends and not means?

In the case of Evil, those means are also an end. Evil doesn't hurt, kill, or oppress for some utilitarian purpose or ulterior motive. It hurts, kills, and oppresses because it enjoys causing pain. The enjoyment of the torture is the reason the torture is happening. I would argue (and have argued) that if a character is torturing an NPC toward a utilitarian end (or helping them toward a utilitiaran end), those acts are not necessarily Good nor Evil. What makes a character Good or Evil is that their behavior has no other motivation.

I suppose you can make the same argument about Law and Chaos. The extreme points at LN and CN are where the character is treating either order or freedom as an end, regardless of any other impact those ideals have. Fair enough.

Doing something efficiently does depend on intellect. Not saving Coventry is something Churchill had to have the intellect to know was necessary.

And how does this relate back to the question of which alignment has an intellectual edge?

Yes but many of us think that the D&D alignment system does not effectively represent "all" or perhaps even the majority of the "moral spectrum in the real world.

With respect to the things that the D&D alignment concerns itself, I think it does OK. Just don't expect it to model distinctions in the moral spectrum of the real world that it doesn't address and don't be suprised if it creates some strange bedfellows. But regardless, I think you'll also find geniuses and morons across the D&D alignment spectrum, if you want to think of that as a distinct spectrum.

"Again, you're proceeding from the assumption that morality is being represented by alignment but the mechanic/concept may be too incoherent to do so.

I'm working with the assumption of the original question.