What's Your Alignment?

honestly the real issue is "what should be done about it?"

and lol its not like this conversation is going to decide that anyway

i cannot say that evil is a force of nature in the same way that gravity or electricity are forces of nature
but!
on the other hand i also cannot say that it isnt, because, once we allow for the idea that human beings are nature too, then we open the question "are the things that are relevant only to humans still classifiable as "natural" even though they arent applicable to the all other natural phenomena which exist in the universe"

or to say it another way, since our psychological structures are the natural developments of the natural world, who can say that those structures are anything but natural?

and once we accept that we are natural, doesnt that mean that things like love and evil are also natural- even if they only pertain to us?

i personally would say "yes", but i can see why others would say "no" or at least "well, not in the same way as gravity"

i guess its a matter of interpretation

i dont see it as a concept that was invented by either superstitious primitives or pretentious philosophers, but rather as a description of one of the many patterns which have been seen to regularly manifest in society over long stretches of time

and also i am not sure that only human beings are capable of deliberate malevolence, i suspect its a potentiality that comes with certain type of cognitive development, which means that "evil" could be as "natural" as "intelligence" is natural

afaik thats still unconfirmed

If I were to compare Evil to other concepts I would not equate the concept of Evil to something akin to gravity or any other force of nature. I would put it in a category similar to morality or laws of logic or numbers. Laws of logic or numbers are something we use everyday as one of the most important parts of our lives, however they don't really exist as a substance naturally. They are a concept we made up to describe a pattern we see in nature, Just like evil (as you say). They cant be described as natural or not natural because they don't really exist, only the patterns we use numbers or the laws of logic to describe exist. They are nothing more than symbols that exist in our minds and if those minds go away those symbols go away. Only the pattern remains.

Now this is akin to saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound. Does the symbol of evil exist because the pattern in nature exists even if no one is there to describe it. Well if you can answer that one I think you would be rich and famous!! lol :laugh:

As for what we do about it. I don't know if there is anything we can do about it. Its an inherent part of our reality and we cant change that so we are left with having to deal with each occurrence on a case by case basis. I have seen sci fi movies where they try to eliminate crime and malevolence though drugging the population and those movies always end in massive rebellion and burning down of the society and general chaos lol. So that is probably not an answer to the question. We just take each day one step at a time I think and do the best we can and be the best we can because malevolence is infused into every aspect of nature.

And if you have ever come home and found your dog has eaten your couch because he was mad you left him alone in the house and he immediately runs under the table because he knows he did a bad thing I think you can agree that more than just humans can recognize the pattern for "evil".

I've been playing D&D for about 6 years now, and this is a question that has plagued me... for about 6 years. :huh:

I think alignment is much more fluid than it is rigid; in terms of the game it's from, it's important to remember that actions dictate alignment, and not the other way round. I tend to re-examine it when I'm running a game from time to time, to keep my players 'updated,' and sometimes I have them leave that spot blank until the end of the first session, so we have time to see ( here's my favorite D&D guru's thoughts on the subject ).

I think most D&D enthusiasts toy with the ideas of "which race am I?", "which class am I?", etc. Alignment can simultaneously be the easiest (because it's 'real' in a sense, as opposed to elves or wizards) and hardest (because it fluctuates so often based on one's actions, which truly speak louder than words in this regard) of these sorts of qualities to slap onto oneself.

TL;DR: Personally, I'd like to believe that at my best, I'm Lawful Good (hopefully not Lawful Stupid), and on my worst days I'm True Neutral; most days, I'm probably Neutral Good. Thankfully, I don't think I've ever dipped down into the Evil spectrum. :side:

I'm not sure what I'd be categorized as. If I had to pick I'd probably be chaotic good.

Honestly when I play we don't really specify alignment except for characters who have to adhere to a deity (clerics and Paladins mostly). Alignments always felt to limiting for me, real people are so much more complex so I let my characters and players (when DMing) just do what they feel the characters would do. I have played games where a character acts and the DM says "Well that's kind of against your alignment" but it was totally within what I felt that character would do.

Although the main reason for my posting is to tell you my favorite explanation of what being chaotic neutral means. My father always used to describe it as "If a chaotic neutral character runs into a burning building you don't know if they're doing it to save people in there or fan the flames. Even they might not know until they're in there." :laugh:

I always looked at alignment as your default go to position. We do not live in absolutes. Situations change. We act/react/respond in accordance with the situation. Generalities are where our alignment lies. If our general actions shift us, than our alignment will shift. Just as it does in a game, so it is in real life.

I found a quote by Alfred to Bruce Wayne to describe the Joker as a great explanation of Chaotic Neutral.

“...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

This is a very accurate description of Chaotic Neutral to me.

As for people that are "psychopaths" or "sociopaths" or "anti social personality" or any of the others, I do not think they can fit into an alignment. They are not of a healthy mind to "fit" in any one category.

Should a Jedi strive to be Lawful Neutral? It is described as "A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, and often follows a personal code." Is our Doctrine not a personal code?

Can our alignment be against our nature? For example. I am very chaotic by nature, however I used martial arts training and later on the military to place order and structure into my life. I follow a very structured and lawful path because if I didn't my nature would walk the chaotic path.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: If I were to compare Evil to other concepts I would not equate the concept of Evil to something akin to gravity or any other force of nature. I would put it in a category similar to morality or laws of logic or numbers. Laws of logic or numbers are something we use everyday as one of the most important parts of our lives, however they don't really exist as a substance naturally. They are a concept we made up to describe a pattern we see in nature, Just like evil (as you say). They cant be described as natural or not natural because they don't really exist, only the patterns we use numbers or the laws of logic to describe exist. They are nothing more than symbols that exist in our minds and if those minds go away those symbols go away. Only the pattern remains.

Now this is akin to saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound. Does the symbol of evil exist because the pattern in nature exists even if no one is there to describe it. Well if you can answer that one I think you would be rich and famous!! lol :laugh:

As for what we do about it. I don't know if there is anything we can do about it. Its an inherent part of our reality and we cant change that so we are left with having to deal with each occurrence on a case by case basis. I have seen sci fi movies where they try to eliminate crime and malevolence though drugging the population and those movies always end in massive rebellion and burning down of the society and general chaos lol. So that is probably not an answer to the question. We just take each day one step at a time I think and do the best we can and be the best we can because malevolence is infused into every aspect of nature.

And if you have ever come home and found your dog has eaten your couch because he was mad you left him alone in the house and he immediately runs under the table because he knows he did a bad thing I think you can agree that more than just humans can recognize the pattern for "evil".

1) internal, subjective states of being such as love or courage or evil are distinct from mathmatics because equations and tallies do not motivate one to act in and upon the world

people who are very loving act in a loving way

love and courage sping up from within a person

algebra is an intellectual tool, not an internal state of being

2) im talking more about auschwitz and rwanda, darfur, isis, communist purges and gulags

dogs chewing on furniture is not really relevant

hey look, if you want to say "there is no such thing as evil" then fine

but you cant say it until youve honestly looked at the horrors of genocide and mass murder and violent sexual predators

and i mean youve really got to look at them
read the accounts, read the testimonies from survivors and witnesses
look at the footage and the images

seriously make it a priority to understand the greatest evils of the human experience

dont just intellectualize about a cooped up pup and think you got the problem if evil done away with

youve got to squarely account for these in your position or else your A: your conclusions will be inaccurate whatever they turn out to be and B: we just wont talking about the same thing at all

3) flesh and blood and bones are nothing without the patters: just dead matter
its the patterns which animate it

the patterns themselves are not material and dont "exist" in the material world and they arent "real" in the material sense
but we exist because of the patterns

we are the result of a billion patterns and we live only so long as certain patterns continue

and how long and how well we live are the results of which patterns we follow or are drawn into

so, are the pattern really less real?

I'm just going to make this topic even more complicated in stating that strictly speaking you aren't limited to the 9 stereotypical alignments. As an eccentric person myself, I have tended towards quirky characters that aren't bound by the dualist mentalities of good/evil and law/chaos.
Thus I introduce you to the blue and orange moralities:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality
This system resolves the issues behind sociopathy brought up by Karn.

Yin Yang baby! It's all about the Yin and the Yang.

OB1Shinobi wrote:
1) internal, subjective states of being such as love or courage or evil are distinct from mathmatics because equations and tallies do not motivate one to act in and upon the world
people who are very loving act in a loving way
love and courage sping up from within a person
algebra is an intellectual tool, not an internal state of being

2) im talking more about auschwitz and rwanda, darfur, isis, communist purges and gulags
dogs chewing on furniture is not really relevant
hey look, if you want to say "there is no such thing as evil" then fine
but you cant say it until youve honestly looked at the horrors of genocide and mass murder and violent sexual predators
and i mean youve really got to look at them
read the accounts, read the testimonies from survivors and witnesses
look at the footage and the images
seriously make it a priority to understand the greatest evils of the human experience
dont just intellectualize about a cooped up pup and think you got the problem if evil done away with
youve got to squarely account for these in your position or else your A: your conclusions will be inaccurate whatever they turn out to be and B: we just wont talking about the same thing at all

3) flesh and blood and bones are nothing without the patters: just dead matter
its the patterns which animate it
the patterns themselves are not material and dont "exist" in the material world and they arent "real" in the material sense
but we exist because of the patterns
we are the result of a billion patterns and we live only so long as certain patterns continue
and how long and how well we live are the results of which patterns we follow or are drawn into
so, are the pattern really less real?

Evil is not an emotion or an "internal state of being" either, It is an action. Hate is an emotion or an internal state of being as you say. It is what we do with hate or other such emotions that we define as "evil" or not. This is simply an action or a preference. 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. But we also have the choice to override that preference. The human species is the culmination of 14 billion years of universal evolution. We are the pinnacle of creation but only in the fact that we are capable of not only the height of compassion but also the deepest of cruelty. We are nothing more than a product of nature and in that we directly reflect nature’s worldview.

I was not using the example of "dogs chewing on furniture" to depict an act of evil. I was using it as an example that species other than humans are capable of defining right and wrong. Just because the dog has no sense of "evil" does not mean he does not know the difference between preferred acts and not-preferred acts. He understands the potential consequences of his actions and yet still has a free choice to make. Your examples are as equally irrelevant when considering a level of malevolence. From the context of the perpetrators those actions were necessary and justified. The dog chose to risk the consequences of his actions to illicit some result even if that result was just to let his master know he was pissed off. Its the same for anyone that undertakes an action such as this. The perpetrator decides that some potential gain is greater than the harm. This could be a personal gain or one perceived as outside ones self. In any case its a failure to adequately evaluate a situation due to character flaw, mental instability or preconceived prejudice. However the one thing that it is not is the manipulation of the individual by a force outside his control - i.e. "Evil".

There is no universal absolute standard of "Good" or "Evil". These are just artificial constructs based on our own subjective views of reality. It is only our subjective judgements and perceptions of opposing participants that defines them one way or another based on our own personal preference for avoiding suffering of ourselves or others. Sorry but what we label as good or evil is just biology and it takes the greater consensus of the human race to say "No these things will not be tolerated within our species" on a case by case basis. That's what it takes every time we make a definition of evil, the greater consensus to override the subjective view.

thank you for continuing the discussion

i take a while to respond sometimes and it looks like we might just not see it the same way, but i do have some ideas for you to consider if youre interested

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Evil is not an emotion or an "internal state of being" either,

i have to ask, did you watch the video i posted earlier?

heres a shorter clip from the same interview

its easy to pick up on the fact that the dude in the video has got an internal state of being which is malevolent and predatory and thats what i am talking about

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: It [evil] is an action.

there is no such thing as an act without a motive, or a decision without an evaluative process
it isnt even possible

"evil" is how we categorize an act when the act was motivated by evil intent - it is the intent and the motive which determines if an act is loving or fearful or courageous or evil, not simply the act itself

thats why we handle premeditated murder one way and accidental death another, and state execution yet another

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I was not using the example of "dogs chewing on furniture" to depict an act of evil. I was using it as an example that species other than humans are capable of defining right and wrong.

you didnt demonstrate that the dog has defined right or wrong, only that he understands the relationship between his actions and your punishment

surely you arent suggesting that "evil" is only to do something for which we will be punished?
if i kick some random old lady down a flight of stairs because i think its funny, is that only wrong if im caught and punished?

is it wrong to kick an old lady down a flight of stairs? if it is done simply for the joy of watching her experience pain and terror?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Just because the dog has no sense of "evil" does not mean he does not know the difference between preferred acts and not-preferred acts. He understands the potential consequences of his actions and yet still has a free choice to make.

there is no desire to harm another - likely the dog does not even understand why you dont want him to chew the furniture, he only knows that you are going to punish him for it

yes he understands that you will be mad at him, but when he chewed the furniture he wasnt enjoying the idea of causing suffering - he wasnt consciously degrading the sofa by making it aware of its own helplessness and brutalizing it for being helpless
a dog as far as we know, doesnt have a developed enough faculty for abstraction to plan out an experience of misery for a victim, he just knows that the sofa is chewy

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Your examples are as equally irrelevant when considering a level of malevolence.

watch the video lol that was my primary example and that guy is clearly very malevolent, but i understand you were referencing the janjaweed ect

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: From the context of the perpetrators those actions were necessary and justified.

to try and declare that every concentration camp officer or every janjaweed soldier honestly believed it was necessary and justified to commit their atrocities is way out of order lol its not something you can even hope to stand on

but lets talk about "justified" and "necessary"

"i wanted my colonel to be in a good mood towards me so that he would let me come to the officers club and drink schnapps for a few hours. i knew he would think it was funny if i shot one of the jews in the face and so thats what i did. I was willing to do whatever was necessary in order to make my col smile, and he justified my decision later when he invited me into the officers club"

people justify necessity like that all the time - in fact we actually call it "making justifications" lol

and again, my example was the guy in the first video, who justified his behavior with simply "i enjoyed doing it" and thats what i am talking about

elliot rodger is another example of "justification"

this kid justified shooting a bunch of people because girls wouldnt have sex with him

he was resentful at all the rejection that he experienced and he used that resentment to justify murder

the question is not "did he create a justification" but "did his justification have merit?"
do we accept his justification?
id like for you to watch the video and see if you accept his justification

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: In any case its a failure to adequately evaluate a situation due to character flaw, mental instability or preconceived prejudice.

what criteria are appropriate for determining if a person has "adequately evaluated" a situation?

the people in the videos ive posed seem to have evaluated things adequately enough to pass a competency test - doesnt that count?

if someones "character flaw" is that they have like to rape and murder little children, i would say that it is the result of an internal state of being which can be categorized as "profoundly immoral and malevolent" a.k.a. evil

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: However the one thing that it is not is the manipulation of the individual by a force outside his control - i.e. "Evil".

ok so i threw us off by talking about evil as a force of nature

imo
an internal motivation which exists within a natural organism can be conceptualized as being a force of nature because we are forces of nature ourselves, products of nature, but its splitting hairs to focus on that and its not necessary for this discussion

i agree that internal states of being (such as love and evil) are not forces of nature in the same way that gravity or hurricanes are forces of nature

the important part of what i am saying is that evil is a result of a malevolent internal psychological orientation - it is an internal subjective state of being and set of motives, characterized by a desire to inflict suffering on others and taking pleasure in so doing

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: There is no universal absolute standard of "Good" or "Evil".

i think i just explained a universal standard of evil and i have provided examples which you can review for yourself in the two videos

i could possibly do the same with "good" but it will take a while

the personalities in those videos cultivated malevolence at an internal level, and to the degree that they would be characterized as malevolent regardless of their cultural placement

you might hypothesize that they would have matured differently (better) under different circumstances such as being from some other culture, but that doesnt make a case against the charge that they developed into evil personalities, it just meas they wouldnt be evil elsewhere (which cant be proven anyway)

you can also make suggest that they would be much better regarded within an evil organization, (such as ISIS) but that also doesnt counter the reality of the evil, it simply means that evil people will make heroes of other evil people

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: These are just artificial constructs...

well then you have to say "love" is an artificial construct and i dont think youd be correct in either case

these arent artificial constructs - they are internal motives and states of being lol

we didnt invent them we invented words to describe them

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: ... based on our own subjective views of reality.

what "views of reality" are more appropriate for us than our own subjective views?

an algae has a very different view of the world than we do
and so does a caterpillar and a warthog
im sure there are any number of elements, components or features of reality which are perfectly relevant to a black hole

but we are human beings, so what business is it of ours if there are other views of reality than the human view?

what do we have to do with features of reality which are only relevant to other, nonhuman entities?

if we dont have a direct relationship with reality itself then at least we have a relationship with our subjective conceptualizations of reality

we are stuck in the human experience, and so we have to interact with reality as humans

the subjective human view of reality is our natural and appropriate domain, by definition