What's Your Alignment?

I would say lean more towards Lawful Good in my everyday life. I think that is the soldier in my talking.

I know that I said I would be chaotic good, but my wife assures me that I am wrong. I am in fact lawful good, a fact she says is proven every time I wait for the correct crosswalk signal before crossing an empty street. :laugh:

my apologies for the delay in response; ive been busy and this discussion takes a little more time than most do

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: ...I can see the point from a certain point of view if one uses a position of denying the concept of evil to justify deviant or violent or otherwise criminal behavior.

personally i believe it is socially irresponsible to refuse to acknowledge the reality and destructiveness of evil a.k.a, "profound malevolence" because 1) people do not guard against what they dont believe in

malevolence is something we are all capable of, and history has shown that societies are able and willing to turn pathological (evil) very quickly

and one thing i think they all said before hand was "it could never happen here"
well i think it could happen here, or anywhere, if people let it, and thats why i dont think its responsible to dismiss it as if its just some smug way of looking down at people or as if it is "all relative anyway"

and there is also the fact that 2) its real, lol
which is always a good reason to recognize the existence of something

i would say "malevolent" (profoundly malevolent, or profoundly immoral and malevolent, aka "evil") is a lot better qualifier than "deviant" or "criminal" or even "violent"

while the word deviant does have negative connotations, at heart it really just means uncommon

to be deviant is to deviate from the typical, and thats not analogous to malevolence and not a fair qualifier
especially in a "melting pot" society that explicitly endorses personal freedom as a standard and shared cultural value

"criminal" just means that its against the law, but law itself is only as fair as the people who make and enforce them, and there is enough which is arbitrary, unfair, and just simply outdated in most any legal system in the world that it should be understood that legality is not the determiner of morality

what about when the established authority becomes immoral?
do we say that "justice" and "fairness" or "right and wrong" can be arbitrarily defined by whoever is in charge of the government?
i say NO
hitler and his nazis is the go-to example of authority becoming malevolent and thats because its a pretty damn good example, severe and recent enough that people with any sense in their heads know better than to simply dismiss it, as if its out of the realm of possibility that something similar could happen again

dismissing it as if we are above it suggests that we didnt learn from it, and that would suggest to me that it probably will happen again

as for "violent" - well, someone who uses violence to dominate those who are weaker will dominate everyone in their sphere until they are met with effective resistance. at some point that means superior violence or at least violence beyond their willingness to chance
so, even "violence" doesnt give us a better understanding of who we are dealing with than "malevolent"

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: However that’s not what I’m saying here. What I am saying is that the concept of Evil in the context of an absolute position in reality does not exist.

ok so this is one of the major points where our communication has had too much noise-to-signal and hopefully we can clear that up now

when i was making my earlier points about human beings having to deal with reality as human beings, thats how i qualify my use of the words "absolute" or "universal"

we arent using them in the same way and the way you are using them is more accurate to the terms themselves

when i talk about an absolute standard for evil and that it has to do with personal malevolence, i am not meaning to describe a standard we would apply to a meteor or a window pane - those items dont even have consciousness and so "malevolence" just cannot apply

also i dont mean a standard by which we can judge caterpillars or spiders, because they dont have the brain development and the conceptual capabilities necessary for a malevolent intent

there might be some other primates or some dolphins or elephants or something, somewhere, which do have the capacity for evil, but thats a topic for later imo - when i say "universal standard" i mean "wherever in the universe that human beings are to be found"

we take the standard with us because its only relevant to us

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: ...What is actually being manifested is the deviant behavior which is facilitated by an abnormal or deviant brain function. This is a choice by the individual to perform an action contrary to an otherwise normal capacity for empathy. The deviants thought process is one that justifies his behavior because he is lacking the facilities to tell him otherwise. It is the combination of the mental state in conjunction with the physical act that you refer to colloquially as a “manifestation of evil”.

the evil (or profoundly malevolent) person has come to consciously and deliberately identify with the experience of causing suffering and making others miserable and of inflicting pain on the helpless

when i encounter a situation that intimidates me, i can either run from it or i can face it
if i face it, i have manifested courage from within my own being

if i manifest courage from within my being on a regular basis for a prolonged period of time, my BEING ITSELF will be generally courageous

in this same way, people can choose to manifest malevolence
some people might have distinct brain abnormalities, sure, and many malevolent people were victims of malevolence themselves, yes, but the choice to pursue activities where one imposes helplessness and violence upon others reflects a generally malevolent internal state of being, regardless of how a person reached that state

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Here is another example where you seem to say that evil is some non-physical substance that can be transferred from individual to individual.

there are different ways to conceptualize what i am talking about

one of the more empathetic is to say that after experiencing severe trauma, some people seem to get stuck in kind of a loop where they sort of replay the trauma in their own lives in different ways

another way to think of it is that people who feel themselves to be victims for a "long enough" period of time (which is different for each individual) tend to become pretty damn resentful

they feel theyre being treated really unfairly and as time goes by they become more and more contemptuous of the rest of the world
eventually they start attacking the world in whatever ways they can

someone raised in a violent household is more likely to jump to violence to resolve conflict in their personal lives - much f it is simply not having a better model to learn from

so when i talk about evil as if it "infects" people, what i am talking about is not supernatural, but psychological

its actually pretty complicated and its not appropriate to make an evaluation about an individual based on generalizations - each individual case needs to be thoroughly examined as an individual case

some people do seem to just be born malevolent, and thats important to understand
but, the majority of the most serious perpetrators were also victims

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: If this can be transferred then what vehicle is used to transfer it? How does the “Manifest evil” move from one person to another? Wouldn’t a better explanation be that the physical experience alone of the victim at a critical time in development would be a valid mechanism to stunt their mental growth so to speak? It’s not the transference of the malady of Evil. It’s just the fact that in the context of a physical reality some process of their brain was damaged in some way not unlike a physical disease would cause some defect in the body.

well we're not all that far apart in our view after all, lol

except i wouldnt use the words "their brain was damaged" but rather "their psyche was damaged" or "their internal, psychological structure was damaged"

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: This is actually an interesting concept surrounding the nature of consciousness. I’m currently reading a book by Suzanne Cunningham entitles “What is a Mind”. It goes into concepts of consciousness and explores the idea that our conscious selves are actually the product of evolution just as we as a species are. It talks about the idea the consciousness is not one thing but an entire collection of different processes and systems all intertwined that work together to form our mental selves.

sounds pretty awesome, i would like to recommend The Developing Mind by Dr Daniel Siegel
I think youll find it complements well, at least what youve described to me

siegel picks up at the level of the development of each of our minds individually and his basic thesis is that our minds are the result of 1) our baseline physiology and 2) our relationships

that second has got a lot to it, but basically it means that the way we see the world is a consequence of how we were born and how we were treated since then, which is kind of obvious lol but he goes so far as to actually define "mind", (which is pretty difficult actually) as an embodied and relational emergent process, that regulates the flow of energy and information (yes he does use the word "energy" but dont be alarmed, he isnt talking about magic

if youre interested, you can learn more here

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Under this paradigm it’s easy to see that other animals may have developed some similar ones to us as well as different ones and that they may experience consciousness in a different way than we do. Anyway I found that interesting because it really drives home the concept for me that maybe some of those mental process can be affected by a specific trauma in a similar way that a certain system in the body might be by a specific disease.

This concept really blends into the whole animal discussion as well. Their Consciousness process differ from ours enough that we can’t hold them to the same standards as we would others in our species. I won’t go into that to much more as I agree with a lot of your assessment there

a lot of it is just reading the literature and having an open mind - the nervous system evolved in many different ways and we are but one version

since we are a distinct version of the same basic model, so to speak, its perfectly reasonable that we have cognitive similarities to other species as well as cognitive differences

its also pretty reasonable that an organism can only be held to the standards which apply to its own species based on that species cognitive capabilities

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: This is the thing that I think you will never find because I do not believe that it exists. It seems you are trying to pull that component of absolute evil out of reality in a similar manner to what Dr Jekyll attempted to do with Mr Hyde. However it is the stuff of fantasy and wishful thinking. It would be nice if the universe were so neatly assembled that we could do this but unfortunately it’s just not. We can’t have ecstasy without suffering as they are two intricately manifested components of the same thing and neither one knows an absolute bound. Instead we are relegated to watching the shadows on the wall and making our best subjective guess as to its nature.

if we can identify something that is an absolutely true potentiality for all squid, everywhere, but only emerges for some squid and not others

have we found something that is objectively real, or only subjectively real?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So i had another thought while reviewing some our comments. I may have mis-charaterized your concept of evil. I defined it as something you consider the combination of mental state and action. However i feel i may have overstepped my bounds in this. So i have to ask, how would you define evil? As the combination of the mental state and an associated action of malevelence against another life form? Or would you define evil as just the brain state alone irrelevant of the fact that an act of malevelence was committed or not?

If its the second and not the first then that really mirrors a concept found in christianity that says "if you lust after someone in your heart you have already committed the sin of adultry no matter whether you carry out the action or not".

If your definotion is that closer to the bible that radically alters my response - lol. So i am curious as to how you defined it so i would not misunderstand.

ok so honestly my answer is prefaced with "it depends on what you want to do with my answer" lol

the existential realm and the legal realm are not exactly the same realm

a person who has developed a plan to kidnap and murder someone is not technically guilty of kidnap and murder, but if they are seriously intent on doing it then they certainly are malevolent

we cant make it a crime to have "mean" thoughts, but there is a big difference between having some crazy thought pop into ones head (or even deliberately having a subversive or violent fantasy) and identifying with these thoughts to the extent that one decides to act them out

the law does recognize "conspiracy to_" as a crime if someone can be shown to have taken active measures to carry it out

so i will say that the person who is actively intent on causing misery to others is a generally malevolent person at the existential level, even if they have not yet had the opportunity to fully vent their malevolence

and i would even say that it would be great if we had an accurate, reliable way of identifying such people, which also respected citizens basic liberties

Leah Starspectre wrote: Being a fairly new D&D/RPG player, I'm fascinated by alignment. It's not only a good way to create motivations for your RPG character, but I'm finding its also a fun things to things about for a person's overall character, both real and fictional. If you're not familiar, they are as follows (taken from Wikipedia):

Lawful good
A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty. Such characters include righteous knights, and paladins.

Neutral good
A neutral good character typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. A neutral good character has no problems with cooperating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a lawful good character would.

Chaotic good
A chaotic good character does what is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society.

Lawful neutral
A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, and often follows a personal code. Examples of lawful neutral characters include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk.

Neutral
A neutral character (a.k.a. true neutral) is neutral on both axes and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment, or actively seeks their balance.

Chaotic neutral
A chaotic neutral character is an individualist who follows their own heart and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although chaotic neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free.

Lawful evil
A lawful evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, and undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct.

Neutral evil
A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on its allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. Another valid interpretation of neutral evil holds up evil as an ideal, doing evil for evil's sake and trying to spread its influence. Examples of the first type are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind their superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer. An example of the second type would be a masked killer who strikes only for the sake of causing fear and distrust in the community.

Chaotic evil
A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative.

If you look at my natural reactions to life situations, I would call myself toward chaotic good (with neutral good tendencies as well). I feel this also applies to the way I'm walking my Jedi Path - i strive to do good, but I want to do it my way.

And it made me wonder if people of a particular alignment(s) are drawn towards Jediism. Or if Jediism, by nature, is of a particular alignment. So I ask you, what's YOUR alignment? Do you see Jediism as embodying a particular alignment? Does your natural alignment affect your Path? Or are you hoping that studying Jediism will shift your alignment to a more desirable one?

Inquiring minds (aka. me) want to know!

I see this concept popping up more and more frequently now, in everything from TV shows to video games. Characters are no longer strictly a linear good or bad, and are being given greater depth with more extensive background stories. The walking dead, even with it's flaws, is an excellent example of these personality profiles.

Because of my many psychiatric illnesses, I would classify myself under three entirely different profiles based on whether I was 1. Properly medicated and in sound mental state - 2. Medicated improperly and in fluctuating mental state and 3. Unmedicated and in a state of psychosis and extreme mental dysfunction.

In condition 1, I would classify myself within the Neutral good profile as part of my treatment plan to reach this state requires utilizing treatment that is currently widely illegal (See profile picture for a clue). I have full control of my mental facilities, and am sociable and overall in an optimistic state of being. I respect most laws and understand the social necessity for their existence, but take issue with and disobey others that I see as clearly interfering with the betterment of the greater portion of social order.

When I am in condition 2, I would classify myself within the Chaotic Neutral profile, as in this state I am generally riding the border right in between stability and full blown psychosis. Regardless of the reasoning behind them, laws and societal standards mean very little to me, and my greater concern is on having what I want, when I want to have it, with very little concern given to how I have to go about getting it. Others needs mean very little to me, and I am easily angered if someone suggests I am at fault for something or have not fulfilled some obligation I feel I never owed. In this state, it's all about me and the needs of anyone else or their desires are at best an annoyance.

When I am in condition 3, I would classify myself as Chaotic Evil. Any opposition by others in the form of confrontation or discipline is almost always met with an immediate and completely over the top explosion of rage and vitriol. My needs are the only ones that matter in the entire span of existence, and the whole remaining sum of human existence is a blight on my life that I usually wish I could personally eliminate. If I want something in this state, I take it, the morality of theft and the loom of legal repercussions have absolutely no impact on me when I am completely unmedicated and left to the psychosis my illnesses subject me to.

So, having three different personality types which depend on the quality of medical treatment I am receiving, leave me to often ask myself this question. Which me is the real me?

Neutral good. Though my favorite characters to play are either chaotic good or lawful neutral.

The alignment system isn't so much a set of laws, but guidelines mostly for determining faction-based action while interacting with NPCs in-game. At least, that's how I use it. Used to be that there were even alignment languages for the purpose of creating alignment-based factions, allowing players to interact in a semi-realistic way with various groups and have more or less likely outcomes from their interactions. When I run AD&D, for example, I use alignment in terms of slang, mannerisms, etc. which are shared by people of similar alignment. In real life, the "Meh" response might be considered similar to this -- a stereotypically lawful good person probably wouldn't react to an important issue that way, but a stereotypically true neutral person might.

But I think it's also important to point out that alignment is mostly determined by culture. D&D has always been pretty humanocentric (early versions of the game really penalize you for picking a nonhuman race), and so the alignments of monsters were chosen based on a supposed human-based morality. That resulted in a lot of chaotic evil monsters in the monster manual. But if alignment is assessed by the individual, it can vary by a lot. Adolf Hitler would probably have considered himself lawful good, but I doubt anyone here would share that assessment.

If I make my own rules and live by them, am I lawful or chaotic? Does that change if I'm a politician and actually write my personal code of ethics into law? If someone kills millions of people for the sake of saving billions of people, are they good or evil? The system isn't absolute and it's hard to actually simplify a person to one alignment.

I chose neutral good based on the description that you gave, but I've asked others about this before and I've gotten a few different answers as to what people think my alignment is, ranging from true neutral to neutral evil to, in one case, chaotic lawful neutral.

OB1Shinobi wrote:
a person who has developed a plan to kidnap and murder someone is not technically guilty of kidnap and murder, but if they are seriously intent on doing it then they certainly are malevolent

But are they Evil? That is the question. We have malevolent thoughts all day long and maybe one entertains fantasies in which they believe someday they may carry them out. We never know what we are capable of as individuals until we are put in a situation where we feel choice has been taken from us. But until they carry those things out does just having the thoughts of them, no matter how much they harbor intent or not, make them Evil?

If it does then I would say that leaves us no choice but to conclude that ALL humans are inherently Evil because we all have those thoughts. And if absolute Evil exists as you say (i.e. absolutely evil acts) we all manifest that as well because we all possess the capability to imagine our carrying out an act of this sort of evil. This would make all humans ABSOLUTELY EVIL.

But that makes no sense now does it? So we have to conclude that it takes both the thought and the action combined and anything less can not be characterized as Evil. That is how humans define the term Evil, the premeditation and the action combined. Therefore the thought alone is not enough to make us evil, no matter how "malevolent" it is. It takes physical action in a subjective world and thus negates any claims that absolute evil exists.

1) i disagree that either of us have had "the same" thoughts as the people in the videos; the fact that they acted so much different from how you or i act is perfectly convincing evidence that their thoughts and especially their thought patterns were quite different from yours or mine

i may still have to dispose of a body some day but as of yet i have never been intent on mass murdering as many random strangers as humanly possible nor have i ever sexually exploited a child and im reasonably confident that i never will

its one thing to see someone and be turned on, even if they are under age of consent
this is normal enough and more common than ever given the secular trend

but to actually go out and target multiple children and engage them in exploitative/abusive relationships is something way, way different

i would encourage anyone who has had THOSE kinds of thoughts to look for help, otherwise you could ruin a lot of lives, including your own

2) are you saying elliot rodger was not malevolent until he fired the first shot at his first victim?
or was he already malevolent the moment he took aim? or when he stepped out of his car? when he acquired his weapons? when he made his videos?

if he had fired and missed but was really trying to hit the person would he have not yet been malevolent because he didnt actually cause any harm?

if he shot at someone and the round just barely grazed them would he only have been a little bit malevolent?

what if he was hiding in the bushes and had taken aim at someone and was right about to shoot them when remembered that he hadnt posted his facebook video yet and it was important to him that he put his gloating online before the actual shooting so he so he jumped back in his car and posted his video - was he almost malevolent and then not malevolent?

i say he shot people because he was already malevolent - the act happened as a consequence of the internal state of being, not the other way around
i say he nursed his resentment and bitterness for probably years until he finally exploded into murder and that by the time of the shooting he had fully developed himself into a malevolent and destructive being

maybe it does take an act, but maybe the act that tips the scale is something small that happened way back in the past and which we never see
i think really it is the ACTive participation, the conscious and deliberate cultivation of meanness within the self

cultivate evil internally for a long enough amount of time and an evil act will happen eventually of its own accord - just like cultivating any internal state will result in actions which express that state: cultivate compassion you will express compassion, cultivate logic and youll express logic, cultivate courage, or resentment or jealousy or discipline, whatever

3) all human beings are perfectly capable of manifesting or expressing evil, just as we are capable of manifesting courage or love
this is why i think it is socially irresponsible to just dismiss the idea of evil without honestly acknowledging the people who embody the idea in their behavior and their views

we can all choose to participate with the nastier parts if ourselves and we can all lash out in some way to cause suffering to others

some take to it naturally and for some it takes a lot more pressure and a lot more practice, but we're all capable of some kind of evil, given the right, or i should say wrong conditions

honestly i think thats why so many people want to dismiss the idea today, because at some level they understand it could apply to them too

I always enjoyed playing Lawful Good, which is totally out of character for me and the DM had a blast keeping me in character. things like
DM: "You encounter and elf"
Me : "Is it a girl elf?"
DM: "Yes"
Me: "Is she cute?"
DM: "Her physical beauty is 18"
Me: "Does she put out?"
DM: "If you marry her"
Me: "OK, is there another female elf we can talk to?"
hehe you get the idea