Board 8 > Has there ever been a good definition for alignments in d&d

(+) Yeah! (+)

HanOfTheNekos posted...

The distinguishing of good neutral to me is how much you care for others. Good people want the world to be a better place - tip more, vote in ways they think help society, assist others in community groups, etc... even if you dont have a lot of impact, wanting better for other people (and not doing things to make things worse for others) makes you good, to me.

Neutral I see as apathy. A lawful neutral person fits into their spot in society, but cares considerably more about themselves than others (good people prioritize themselves too, but put more effort into others). While a neutral person may tip, vote, etc do things to make society a better place, if it's from the realm of wanting life to be better for themselves and not really caring about others so much, then that trends neutral.

While I still believe you are diluting good a bit, a lot more people fit in the later group so at this point my argument would be that you don't have a proper view of the world.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

But similarly, I'd say you're actually neutral and not chaotic, given how you still subscribe to society and operate within it, despite your objections to how things are.

1. I don't think you know me well enough to make that judgement call

2. you literally just said that a person can be chaotic good just by being a hippie... but you don't think me, who literally hates lawful society that I was born into (against my choice) and forced to live within (under threat of JAIL) doesn't qualify as chaotic

okay then
---

also your alignment is as much about your potential as what you've actually done. I'd actually say I'm somewhere between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. I've actually done plenty of evil things before, and there's many others I'd do if the conditions were appropriate.
---

Gatarix posted...

If we define evil as "primarily looking out for one's own interests"

We dont do this. That means everyone is evil. Self-interest is a shared trait among most people.

charmander6000 posted...

While I still believe you are diluting good a bit, a lot more people fit in the later group so at this point my argument would be that you don't have a proper view of the world.

If that's your argument, then feel free not to respond anymore. Nothing you have said has been worthwhile anyway.

MariaTaylor posted...

also your alignment is as much about your potential as what you've actually done. I'd actually say I'm somewhere between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. I've actually done plenty of evil things before, and there's many others I'd do if the conditions were appropriate.

I can accept that you lean towards chaotic. And if you're right about considering yourself more evil, that explains your perspective on Thanos.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Gatarix posted...

If we define evil as "primarily looking out for one's own interests"

We dont do this. That means everyone is evil. Self-interest is a shared trait among most people.

imo the defining trait of being "good" is that you consider self-interest less important than [pick all that apply: ideals of justice, a personal moral code, helping others, making the world a better place]. That's why I don't think most people are good.

But yeah upon consideration I guess I was too harsh. Self-interest only becomes evil if you actively hurt others in order to achieve it.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

If that's your argument, then feel free not to respond anymore. Nothing you have said has been worthwhile anyway.

I mean you think the majority (or at least plurality) of people are actively doing enough (non-selfish) good to warrant being classified as good, I just don't see that...
---

charmander6000 posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

If that's your argument, then feel free not to respond anymore. Nothing you have said has been worthwhile anyway.

I mean you think the majority (or at least plurality) of people are actively doing enough (non-selfish) good to warrant being classified as good, I just don't see that...

Where do you draw the line? How many days do you have to volunteer at the soup kitchen per year? How many kittens must I rescue from trees before I get my Good card?

How much do acts matter more than intention and beliefs? I agree that acts are important, but how must MORE important are they?
---

doing a few good things doesn't automatically make you a good person. a neutral person can do good things. an evil person can do good things.

to qualify for good alignment you have to have the opposition to evil as one of your defining traits. something most people don't recognize or have the conviction for.
---

It's a difficult question to answer, is going once to a soup kitchen good enough? How about 10 times? You also have to take into account that those same people also do bad stuff. Regardless, it is a minority of people that volunteer regularly, most people are too busy with their lives.

Wanting to do good without actually doing it is relatively meaningless, at best it's a slight positive. You don't need to do big things, even small things are important, but you need to do it. Same thing with people with evil thoughts that don't act upon them.

If I had to chose whether the average person is good or evil I would say we're good, but on a +1 to -1 good/evil scale I'd argue we're a +0.2-0.3 which to me is neutral.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

doing a few good things doesn't automatically make you a good person. a neutral person can do good things. an evil person can do good things.

to qualify for good alignment you have to have the opposition to evil as one of your defining traits. something most people don't recognize or have the conviction for.

I don't like the opposition talking point, but sure.

Are you opposed to racial injustice? Do you think the Holocaust was bad? Do you think people in poverty deserve to be able to eat?

These are all bad things. I'd take it most of the people who recognize them as bad are against them as well.

charmander6000 posted...

Wanting to do good without actually doing it is relatively meaningless, at best it's a slight positive. You don't need to do big things, even small things are important, but you need to do it. Same thing with people with evil thoughts that don't act upon them.

Then you are a sad person because that sounds way less limiting and sounds like how I would classify most people.
---

Sorry Han, it's been a long day, can you please rephrase that post... why am I sad person? Do you think most people actively do good deeds to be classified as good?
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

These are all bad things. I'd take it most of the people who recognize them as bad are against them as well.

and yet look at my previous post where I explain that most people are lawful neutral. they seem perfectly fine benefiting from an evil system as long as it makes them feel safe. if you think those people are good you are nuts.
---

if you're against some really bad things that are universally recognized as bad that's not exactly a good measurement for who is good and who isn't. now if we're talking about allowing evil practices to take place as long as you benefit from them? that's something MOST people are guilty of. because, deep down, they aren't really opposed to evil all that much. they aren't all that good. most people are just not that good.

that's reality. and yeah, it's sad.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Sorry Han, it's been a long day, can you please rephrase that post... why am I sad person? Do you think most people actively do good deeds to be classified as good?

Based on what you said, I would estimate at least +0.5. I am saying you are sad because you are pessimistic about people.

MariaTaylor posted...

they seem perfectly fine benefiting from an evil system as long as it makes them feel safe. if you think those people are good you are nuts.

Survival is the no. 1 priority for almost every human. If operating within an 'evil' system is necessary for survival, then that does not necessarily have a big effect on alignment. Capability to make a difference TO the system as well has to be kept in mind.

MariaTaylor posted...

most people are just not that good.

This is a disagreement we have that will lead to not a lot more coming out of this conversation, I feel.
---

Has there been an agreed upon prerequisites for what would qualify a person as good/evil?
---

good: altruistic, self-sacrificing with regards to individual people

evil: selfish, puts own desires far above others' needs

lawful: values society and works to keep it and trust in it running

chaotic: doesn't value society, and actively works to prevent it from restricting individuals

neutrality has been described as a few things, but in general it's the following: when you're somewhere in the middle. you're not self-sacrificing enough to give away your paycheck to the sick, but you're not selfish enough to steal from them when you need the money. you're not lawful enough to report a theft committed by your best friend, but you're not chaotic enough to submit false reports to mess with the law enforcement system

there are other definitions of neutrality, but when you get clever about it it takes the whole system down.

and in general, it's an ad-hoc system. acts can be good/evil, but it's up to the individual DM as far as what percentage or severity of acts change a character's alignment
---

i should add that it's up to the individual DM as far as where the line between neutrality and the other alignments really lies.

how saintly does one have to be to be considered good? good people don't all throw away everything they have to the first person in need they see. evil people don't all follow their id every time they think they won't be caught.

It's a sliding scale, mostly designed to say on average how someone will behave, or rules about actions to make deities pissed at their clerics/paladins
---

tag, i enjoy this topic
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I also agree that most people are LN or N

yup!

heroes are often G for a reason - they're rare and thus remarkable
---

If I were to honestly rate myself in this I think I could safely land in chaotic neutral.
---

No idea how you guys don't understand lawful/chaotic in terms of good/evil.
---

laws arent inherently moral
---

NFUN posted...

laws arent inherently moral

They don't have to be. It is how you carry yourself while your accordance or not of the law.
---

Lawful also is not limited to laws
---

Corrik posted...

No idea how you guys don't understand lawful/chaotic in terms of good/evil.

Robin hood is the classic example of chaotic good

He's good, but constantly defies laws to right perceived wrongs
---

Meanwhile, Emperor Palpatine makes for a great example of Lawful Evil.
---