What is your alignment?

[hunter1828]

Most soldiers would register as lawful-evil, they do what they are told when they are told to do it and do not question the moral ramifications, they can't (else they die).

I disagree. That's Lawful Neutral in my book. Since they are concerned not with morality of action (meaning not caring if it is an evil or a good act) but only with following their orders, that moves them very solidly into the Lawful Neutral territory.

Which is why the vast majority of city guards and common soldiers in my campaigns have that alignment.

Hunter

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I disagree. That's Lawful Neutral in my book. Since they are concerned not with morality of action (meaning not caring if it is an evil or a good act) but only with following their orders, that moves them very solidly into the Lawful Neutral territory.

Which is why the vast majority of city guards and common soldiers in my campaigns have that alignment.

Hunter

Just had this debate today on the floor. I agree that a lot of soldiers would be lawful neutral, but I still hold that many if not most are lawful evil. Lawful-neutral means true law, you follow the law explicitly, that menas you do not sneak a smoke on duty, you don't pay someone else to shine your shoes one time, you don't have someone cover for you, you do not let that one guy off the hook for being out after curfiew cause he was nice to you. You follow the law, period, no exceptions. Lawful evil means you do not ask the moral questions (which during war will get you killed) but you don't nec follow every single minor law on the book either. Look at nam, my uncle, who is a very good man, even had a smoke of pot now and then (which was officially against the military law) so he can't be considered lawful-neutral but he also didn't ask twice when told to kill. I am not saying solders in peacetime are lawful evil (my uncle isn't), only talking bout wartime and most of the military accounts I have read support this idea to me personally if you are going by strict dnd standards (which is what was required at the start). Look at the way boot camp trains you to be even, they teach you to be ruthless, which dnd would suggest is an evil act.

Now, as for the other question, I also stated that I would kill to protect my family or loved ones, so I see the two comments as seperate. Would I have *moral* qualms about capping the jerk next door if he annoyed me? No I can honestly say I would not have any *moral* qualms with that. What I do believe in, however, is that we need to have rules to live by and that if I do something that warrants punishment I believe that I should take that punishment. I do not cap that jerk because I know that if I do I will go to jail and he isn't worth going to jail over. If I thought he was, however, I would have no problem capping him and doing my time. I am sorry if you feel that that is f*ed up but it is reality and I think more people feel that way than you may be willing to admit. I have stated numerous times on many posts, I do not believe in good and evil, period (as you can guess I am not christian or a member of any other standard western religion). I do believe there are things that are better or worse for me, society, my friends, the world, but that doesn't make one thing is good and another evil. I think there is a balance to strive for in the world, and so I do believe if I do something to upset that balance I need to pay somehow. Much like the nordic peoples of a long time ago as a western example. You could kill anyone you wanted to, but you understood that that person's family had the right to come kill you as well so you did not go around killing people for minor arguments. This was not a moral matter but a legal one.

 

[Festy_Dog]

I have to disagree with Kaleon's opinion of soldiers. Merely the presence of perceived authority is often enough for a person to do something they'd find morally or ethically disagreeable. My reasoning for that comes from Milgram's Experiment from the post WW2 period.

Even then, a soldier (assuming they're not lawful evil) would likely rationalise their actions in some way, eg. 'I'm doing this to protect my country and loved ones, etc. etc.' Many come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, because during times of conflict they are not as apathetic as they would want to be and are left with mental scars from some of the things they have seen. What that means is that for the most part soldiers are not as apathetic as Kaleon would think, and they do care about what happens to those close to them during war. With this in mind I'd doubt lawful evil would be the dominate alignment in any armed forces.

 

[Kalendraf]

I see a lot of people answering Neutral Good. Though it's an admirable answer, I actually doubt that all them are truly that alignment. I used to see myself as neutral good as well, but after taking some of those alignment tests and thinking about it much more, I realized I wasn't really good by the measurements provided. Good requires constant bending over backwards to help others. That's something I'm not willing to do, and I just don't see it very often from other people either. Wanting to do good is something that almost everyone identifies with, and likely leads to the hasty NG answer. But it is quite a bit different from what it takes to actually qualify for that alignment.

I suspect far more of us are in fact Neutral or even Lawful Neutral. In fact, I'd guess that 60% to 70% of the population fits into those 2 alignments.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I have to disagree with Kaleon's opinion of soldiers. Merely the presence of perceived authority is often enough for a person to do something they'd find morally or ethically disagreeable. My reasoning for that comes from Milgram's Experiment from the post WW2 period.

Even then, a soldier (assuming they're not lawful evil) would likely rationalise their actions in some way, eg. 'I'm doing this to protect my country and loved ones, etc. etc.' Many come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, because during times of conflict they are not as apathetic as they would want to be and are left with mental scars from some of the things they have seen. What that means is that for the most part soldiers are not as apathetic as Kaleon would think, and they do care about what happens to those close to them during war. With this in mind I'd doubt lawful evil would be the dominate alignment in any armed forces.

How's that disagreeing? I actually agree with what you just said and never thought soldiers were apathetic, maybe ambivalent at times, but not apathetic. That is why I don't see them as lawful-neutral, which to me is the definition of apathy "I do this because the law tells me to, and i don't care what the ramifications are, the law is the law."

Lawful evil is anything *but* apathetic. I just said that whent he firing starts a soldier will do what he has been trained to do, which is usually *not ask questions* and follow orders. Now, the question si why is he following these orders? He is following them for one reasona nd one reaosn only, to stay alive, at least at that moment. He is acting in a completely selfish way, which is what evil boils down to by dnd, putting yourself above all else. Now, I am not saying there are not heros or that every soldier is like this, but look at statistics and personal accounts and you will find it is true a lot of the time. It isn't till after all is said and done that a soldier stops to think about what he has just done and cry or grieve because fo conscience. Now, many people will say that is what makes him not lawful-evil, but I see alignment as a very shifting thing because, as stated by a lot of people, it relies on intent and ones' intent changes frequently.

My main point on soldiers was that when they are in the heat of a war (especially historically when you look at the crusaders, the huns, the mongols, the celts, etc.) they are anything but good. Their selfish desires get the best of them and they use their military code for two things 1) stay alive and 2) come out ahead. Read some of cromwell's Richard Sharpe books for examples of this. Now, with saying that, I think that *modern* *american* soldiers probably lean more toward neutral good, since you are allowed to question a lot of the law today (in the last 5 years).

 

[Grodd JoJoJo]

"I have an eastern view of morality as discussed on another thread. I have no desire to be called "good" and it doesn't bother me if I am called "evil" because I do not believe either of those things exist.

Chaotic: I have my own code of conduct but it isn't set in stone, I will deviate if I need to. I do not like draconic laws myself and break more than a few.

Neutral: I judge my actions on personal relationships and the balance of keeping things natural. I don't really see evil or good as the right way to go all the time and I believe much more in composure, humilty and tao.

Evil: I'll b ehonest [sic] here, I have no compunction with killing, we are all animals and we have no more inbred rights than they do. If I need to protect myself or others, or if I just think me or mine would be enough better off without someone, I can see killing that person, but I do believe in have ramifications to such actions and am willing to do the time if I do the crime.

so it's a hard choice for me, but I do not believe in altruism, and personally do not believe it exists as anything but the biologically defined dna process that I learned about in college concerning bees. We do good acts because we expect something in return, even if it is just a good feeling."

Kaleon, these statements, as least as I read them, actually show a very narrow view of good and evil.

You suggest that any killing, even justified, is automatically evil - sort of a biblical view, isn't it? The fact that you are willing to admit the fairness of ramifications shows that you believe in law, though you aren't so narrow-minded to believe that all judicial laws are justified. Is it only victimless crimes that you "commit"?

I believe in these attitudes, too, but I would consider myself neutral, not chaotic or evil. You reveal a concern with "balance" in life and nature, and the conviction that people are no better, nor worse, than animals. This is a "druidic" philosophy, at least in game terms.

 

[Aaron L]

I don't think Facetious is the right other option (though I guess some could be). I ran into a fair number of psuedo-intellectual gits in college who had somehow decided that acting like they are "beyond" empathy, ethics or morals makes them terribly edgy in that highly intellectual 'post geneva convention' sort of way. Most of them get over it, but until then I just roll my eyes at them and keep an eye in case they really are emotionally defective...

Kahuna Burger

Hey, I was struggling for a word that fit, but you apparently know exactly what I mean


"Goth poseur" seemed to harsh to me.

 

[hunter1828]

Would I have *moral* qualms about capping the jerk next door if he annoyed me? No I can honestly say I would not have any *moral* qualms with that.

I don't believe that. I believe you think you would have no moral qualms about shooting the jerk next door for merely annoying you, but if put in the situation I sincerly doubt you would go through with it. Or if you did go through with it, I believe you would instantly regret your actions, not because you might go to jail, but because the taking of an innocent life (annoying jerk does not equate to worthy to die) would be too much for you to handle.

Hunter

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Kaleon, these statements, as least as I read them, actually show a very narrow view of good and evil. You suggest that any killing, even justified, is automatically evil - sort of a biblical view, isn't it? The fact that you are willing to admit the fairness of ramifications shows that you believe in law, though you aren't so narrow-minded to believe that all judicial laws are justified. Is it only victimless crimes that you "commit"?

Well, we are using the 3.5 dnd version of good and evil, which is very narrow. Also, I would argue that in western civilization, good is very narrow and evil is very broad. And most of those comments were geared towards defining myself in dnd terms, which I stated was hard to me but I tried to do it as best I could as I read them in the book.

And to me, when talking about a word, you use the common definiton, hince, yes, my understanding of good and evil are very narrow, because in essence they are very narrow concepts. I suggest that the way most definitions of evil go that killing is, in itself, an evil act, one's jusitifcation of it, however, can mediate it. The commandment reads thou shall not kill (yes, this is bibilical, because lets' face it, western culture is based on christianity), not 'thou shall only kill if...' So I would say the book definitions of good and evil are pretty narrow. Now, if you wish to go and begin a conversation on non jci beliefs that is a whole different matter. Most other cultures, even in the west, did not see things in the *good/evil* dichotomy that jci does.

I believe in these attitudes, too, but I would consider myself neutral, not chaotic or evil. You reveal a concern with "balance" in life and nature, and the conviction that people are no better, nor worse, than animals. This is a "druidic" philosophy, at least in game terms.

Hence why I said I was chaotic netural. I may believe in balance, but I am a creature ruled by my passions, always have been. I am an aries and pisces cusp, so I have over emotionalism on both sides. I believe that balance is what we should *strive* for instead of good or evil, but I do not consider myself there yet.

Now, as to the victimless crime question. I believe in social order if we are going to have civilization and I obey social order to a great extent. Personally I think the *true* path would be one of natural selection and balance, however, that does not work with civilization. Since civilization gives me things that I enjoy I will support it. I have no moral problem with committing any crime, although there are many crimes I refuse to commit because they would be unfair and *worse* than my natural tendency to be is. No crime is victimless, but some are only superficially harmful. I break those laws that I do not agree with and which I feel do not do any overt damage to anyone or anything. I open doors for people, I say thank you, and everything you would expect from anyone, I just do not do any of those things out of a *moral* decision. Politeness, however, is a big thing to me. Being nice is as well. I am not a mean, nor hateful person, I just do not believe in the standard definition of morality, and since I believe words mean something, I choose not to try and change the definition to fit me into it.

I know that's very rambling, but maybe it helps explain some stuff, i just got off work so am a little distracted.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I don't believe that. I believe you think you would have no moral qualms about shooting the jerk next door for merely annoying you, but if put in the situation I sincerly doubt you would go through with it. Or if you did go through with it, I believe you would instantly regret your actions, not because you might go to jail, but because the taking of an innocent life (annoying jerk does not equate to worthy to die) would be too much for you to handle.

Hunter

If you want to think that way, ok. Although I will say I do not believe in innocence, the only reason any of us are still here and not somewhere else is that we have messed up previously some how. Also, why would I feel guilt for ushering someone onto a different place? I know that for most of us it is easier to believe people with vastly different mindsets are somehow "only thinking they are that way" and if that helps, then more power to you. The only way to prove one way or the other would be to do it, and I do not find that 'proving a point' is justification for killing. I will say this, there are people who have no compunction with killing, not sure why you assume I am not one of those. In college I was actually approached for CIA work because of my phsychological profile. The military looks for the same profile when training snipers (although the police look for the exact opposite I am told). There were plenty of taoists during the early years after Lao Tzu that had no qualms with killing, mainly because death is just another way that Tao explains itself.