What's Your Alignment?

JamesSand wrote:

As one who is not aligned that way, No I don't think that is something a Jedi should strive for. Instead each one of us need to decide for ourselves what our path is and how to best walk that path. Jedi are no more cookie cutters than any other member of our race and so I see no need to strive for a specific alignment among our ilk.

If Good is "For Others"
and Evil is "For Self"

I would argue that Jedi should strive for the former.

On the Law/Chaos scale - I suppose a tendency towards neutrality (as defined in the OP) is probably the Current preference, given that current, enforced Laws are all over the shop, really - but in the idealised world of the TotJO Doctrine-

In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.

I suppose Jedi would aim for Lawful as well.


Historically (anecdotally) "Chaotic Neutral" is the choice for players who want to do what they want, but don't want to be affected by spells and effects that get a bonus vs Evil. :whistle:

I would disagree. I think if you were to apply these "rules" to real life you would find that we each walk the gambit of these alignments as Edan says. That is because in the end there is really no such things as "Good" or "Evil". Those are just concepts we have created in our mind to quantify something that is otherwise undefinable within the context of our reality. There is no good or evil, only preference. Nature/the universe has no alignment, not even a neutral one. Instead Nature takes a stance of indifference and if you try to apply concepts like good and evil or fair and unfair to that stance you will gain no advantage. Nature does not recognize those concepts. Instead you must be willing to do what ever it takes to ensure you and/or other beings/creatures you care about thrive in each situation you encounter and that takes the ability to become any alignment necessary to best suit the circumstance.

At the best of times I probably fall under chaotic good. In general however I probably tend more toward chaotic neutral. Rules don't mean a lot to me and my individualism and freedom are of utmost importance.

I would have to saw lawful good. I tend to be very black and white in my moral code and actions. To quote Yoda Do or Do Not, There is no try.

Neutral Good.

chaotic good, but i do my best to be neutral good at least some of the time lol

i dont want to derail but i would like to say something about "nature" and whether or not it "recognizes" "good" and "evil"

we ARE nature, just as much as any other thing (living or not) that nature has produced (...for you are a child of the universe, no less than the trees or the stars...)

you might say that a quasar doesnt recognize good or evil, but we cant even speak for other mammals like orcas or gorrillas so we surely cannnot speak for a quasar

and anyway, we are not quasars
their experience is not our experience, so the standards cant be the same

we are human beings, and the aspects or elements of "nature" which apply to us are those which benefit or compromise human health

if we conceptualize "good" as being sort of an effective balancing between self interests and those of the collective, then there certainly has been an evolutionary benefit to humans for selecting good over evil, generally

and i dont know how one could make a case of anything being more "natural" than evolutionary benefits

I agree completely that we are not only a part of nature but nature itself. And we also have a built in evolutionary inclination to prefer not suffering over suffering. And because we have evolved emotions like empathy and compassion we have the ability to project that same sort of preference onto others and see things from their point of view. This in fact makes us a social and cooperative species. It is for the good of the whole that the one prefer to not inflict suffering. But this still has nothing to do with Good or Evil. Those are just labels we have placed on preference. In fact we live in a universe that has harm and suffering.

Harm and suffering cannot be avoided and you cannot avoid the fact that every single one of us produces harm and suffering even if we do not intend it. To reject a potential lover produces suffering in that suitor. Did you intend to hurt them or were you just looking out for your preference. If you gave into that person and accepted them as a lover then you would be the one suffering. That's not what you want.

Lets take something more malicious. Say you murdered someone. In doing that act you have created harm in that person and suffering to him and to those that care about him - say his parents or siblings or friends. The fact that you have murdered someone could be considered an act of "Evil". However if we change the context just slightly and say that the person you murdered attacked you first and you murdered him in self defense does that still make the act an evil act? You have created just as much harm and suffering but now the act is justified and not Evil. Why is that? Because good and evil are subjective concepts that we have created in our minds alone. They do not really exist in reality.

evil is a motive
its not so much the consequence of an act as it is an internal desire to act upon the world or to affect others in a particular kind of way

evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent

profoundly malevolent people exist in reality

therefore, i personally would say that evil exists in reality every bit as much as love or courage can be said to exist in reality, which also provide/are internal motivations/desires to act or affect others in particular kinds of ways

Psychopaths are not evil, they are broken. Somewhere in their development they deviated from the normal evolutionary construct that most of us share.

Psychopathy or sociopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, dis-inhibited, egotistical traits.

Causes of Psychopathy include Genetic anomaly, environment and traumatic brain injury or an amalgamation of other divergent factors. Primary psychopathy arises from mostly genetically driven factors, whereas environmental factors may play a stronger role in secondary psychopathy.

Scientifically speaking we can identify the factors that cause divergent human behavior in disorders like Psychopathy. Does being broken make one Evil? Where is the connection between "evil" and a malfunctioning brain? Does a malfunctioning brain somehow manifest evil? Can we open up the brain of these individuals and scoop the evil out?

If a person has schizophrenia we consider them mentally unhealthy and we provide medical treatment and counseling and medication to help them get better. We don't call them evil though, not even the violent ones. What is the difference? A psychopath is just as mentally unhealthy but because they are violently unsocial we call them evil.

In fact they are not "evil" they are just broken, no different from any other human that suffers from a mental illness. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should let these people roam the streets with pockets full of medicine that is supposed to help them. They need to be dealt with and in this case they are an example of part of the homo-sapien herd that needs to be cut from pack and exiled or exterminated. Sometimes nature can be seen as cruel but it does not contain evil. That is a human construct.

i understand that people like to shirk the word "evil" for any number of reasons, mostly i think people dont like it because they see a danger in pointing fingers and saying "you are evil" or "these people are evil"

modern society has terms like "psychopath" or "sociopath" or "anti social personality" or any of a bajillion others, the particular word used may not be that important as long as the reality of it is recognized

and the reality of it is likely just the same now as it likely was thousands of years ago: that there are people in the world who enjoy the experience of making someone else helpless, and then harming that person, often gravely, while they are helpless

one word that has been used historically as a label or title for that category of behavior is "evil"

someone's personal disdain for the word doesnt at all mitigate the reality of the category, or the people whose behavior the word accurately describes

so i would say go ahead and conceptualize it however seems right to you
the word "evil" has an established definition, "profoundly immoral and/or malevolent", and there are all kinds of people who fully live up to that definition

use "broken" if you really think that is better
i dont think it is and i think that people who have had to deal with the kind of evil that i am speaking of directly and personally inderstand that "evil" is perrctly accurate and fair
but in todays world, intellectuals disdain using terms they feel are prejorative, even for serial rapist-murderers lol, so maybe its time for a new word
my primary interest here is in showing that the category exists in reality, which it does and always has, and that because it does exist, we need to acknowledge it

I understand where your coming from and I think we might be looking at two sides of the same coin and going "Well this side is different" even though they are the same coin. :laugh:

Its not that I was trying to shirk the word in favor or another. I was just trying to clearly define exactly what Evil, as it exists for us as humans, actually is.

I do agree that "evil" as a category does exist in reality. However "evil" as a "force" does not, no matter how much anyone asserts it does. I think that is where we are having a difference of distinction. So to my point, Evil does not exist in and of itself in nature as a force or a will or what have you. It does exist in our minds as a concept and a term that we apply to a classification of action we define as malevolent.

Would you agree?