Diotima's Ladder and Alignment

[Moody the Wise]

Here's a scenario that you're probably not unfamiliar with - character is faced with the choice between saving his/her One True Love or a large number of people he/she doesn't know and has no relation to. We see it in comic books all the time, and I'm sure good DMs like to throw it at their characters too. And for all you tvtropes people out there, I'm supremely confident there's an entry about it there.

But what does your reaction to this choice say about your alignment? In the traditional lawful-neutral-chaotic/good-neutral-evil D&D interpretation, I'd say very little. A case could be made for any of those alignments making either choice, although some cases might be stronger than others.

I would suggest that there is only one measure of alignment that counts: selfishness and selflessness. If you rescue the One True Love, you're selfish. If you rescue the strangers, you're selfless. If you try, and ultimately fail, to rescue both, you've got superhero-syndrome, and are in denial about the choices you're making. If you deliberately leave both to die, you're a poor excuse for a character.

In terms of our understandings of Good and Evil, the selfless is Good and the selfish is Evil. An interesting consequence of this is that love, as most people use, experience, and understand it, is a feeling most often associated with Evil, not Good. Love clouds your perceptions and puts the interests of self above the interests of others.

This is seen played out very well in the Star Wars universe. Anakin Skywalker fell to the dark side at precisely the moment he put his own self before others, driven by his love for Padme.

Now to tie the philosophy in. In Plato's Symposium, he includes a metaphor of a ladder related to him by a woman named Diotima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_epistemology) (scroll down to the bottom). At the lowest end of the ladder, one loves a single person, carnally. As one progresses up the ladder, one comes to love everyone, then to love everyone's souls, then to love laws and institutions, then to love knowledge, and finally to love beauty. We can stick selfishness at the bottom of this ladder and selflessness at the top - the selfish love that makes you choose the One True Love at the bottom, and the universal Love that makes you choose the strangers at the top.

Incidentally, this Platonic model has interesting parallels to Gandhi's formulations of Satya and Ahimsa, but that's for another time - maybe if I feel inspired by raging debate in this thread.

... Discuss.

[ZeroNumerous]

If you deliberately leave both to die, you're a poor excuse for a character.

Or you're a misanthrope who believes One True Love is a heat haze for the idealists to chase after. Characterization =/= deliberate dramatic choices.

[Moody the Wise]

Characterization =/= deliberate dramatic choices.

Ah, but the choice to do neither is a dramatic choice indeed. Inaction is an action in itself. (Do you think that sentence has enough "in"-sounds?)

[Kaiyanwang]

Love clouds your perceptions and puts the interests of self above the interests of others.


Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that simply evil (or at least selfish) people simply live love in that way. Is not love that necessarily lead to evil: are evil people that are able to react only in a selfish way.

[taltamir]

so... how many of you are rushing to save the starving children in africa at the expense of everything you own, your life, etc?

Not helping is not evil... You can even be good and still not help EVERYONE...

Also, how exactly do you construct such a choice that isn't totally and utterly contrived? and why is it your ONE loved one or a horde of people instead of your one loved one and a horde - 1 of people?

The only time I saw this was in fable 2, and it was constructed in a retarded manner. I wanted to say "return my family and countless - family size people to life"... and the 1 milllion gold option was just pathetic... I had 2.6 million by that point, in cash, plus tons in assets, and rapidly growing. and no use for it btw...

[PhoenixRivers]

If you deliberately leave both to die, you're a poor excuse for a character.

...I can see scenarios where an evil character could do this, and I rather like playing such conflicted evil characters. One who must accept only success, so much so that he'd rather let everything die than acknowledge that he couldn't save everyone. One whose pride is inflated far beyond his perceived morality. Everything is second to his self-image.

In other words, I disagree that this is necessarily a poor excuse for a character.

[ZeroNumerous]

...I can see scenarios where an evil character could do this, and I rather like playing such conflicted evil characters.

Or just a Good character spends the time killing the bad guy, instead of wasting time saving everyone. Better to end the villain's threat than letting the villain escape to do his villainous villainy elsewhere, isn't it?

[Zen Master]

Not helping is not evil... You can even be good and still not help EVERYONE...

Well - either that, or we are all evil. It really depends on how high or low you want to aim in your ideals.

Personally, I've always considered the very vast majority of everyone alive anywhere on the planet to be neutral .... at best.

On a less negative note, I do believe we're moving, slowly, towards more people who are actually good.

Btw, Anakin flirted rather heavily with evil even before losing Padme. I'd say his fall became irredeemable when he lost Padme.

[PinkysBrain]

I break the universe until I can save both or die trying, because the future is not fixed no matter how bad the odds look. Super hero syndrome my ass ... in D&D I am a super hero.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I break the universe until I can save both or die trying, because the future is not fixed no matter how bad the odds look. Super hero syndrome my ass ... in D&D I am a super hero.

Yeah. Save the many, True Resurrection on your true love, Scry-and-Die on the fellow who put you in this situation.

[PhoenixRivers]

True Love is in a Trap the Soul gem, and thus not dead, and not eligible for True Resurrection.

BBEG has Mind Blank active.

Or somesuch. There are fates worse than death.

[Moody the Wise]

so... how many of you are rushing to save the starving children in africa at the expense of everything you own, your life, etc?

Not helping is not evil... You can even be good and still not help EVERYONE...


Well - either that, or we are all evil. It really depends on how high or low you want to aim in your ideals.

Personally, I've always considered the very vast majority of everyone alive anywhere on the planet to be neutral .... at best.

My thoughts exactly, Acromos.


Also, how exactly do you construct such a choice that isn't totally and utterly contrived? and why is it your ONE loved one or a horde of people instead of your one loved one and a horde - 1 of people?

Well, it is fairly easy to construct such a choice, although by nature it would be, as you say, contrived. On the one hand, your reactions to contrived choices are just as important as your reaction to "naturally occurring" choices, and on the other hand, you can find the latter sort in less exaggerated terms if you learn to look at choices this way.


...I can see scenarios where an evil character could do this, and I rather like playing such conflicted evil characters. One who must accept only success, so much so that he'd rather let everything die than acknowledge that he couldn't save everyone. One whose pride is inflated far beyond his perceived morality. Everything is second to his self-image.

In other words, I disagree that this is necessarily a poor excuse for a character.

Fair enough.


Or just a Good character spends the time killing the bad guy, instead of wasting time saving everyone. Better to end the villain's threat than letting the villain escape to do his villainous villainy elsewhere, isn't it?

Sure, you could spend your time killing the villain (if one exists), and end up saving nobody. In most villainous cases, the villain has set it up so that the destruction happens with or without him - think the Joker in The Dark Knight (which, thankfully, does actually kill someone off). Keep in mind too, though, that in the less dramatic everyday choices like this, there is often no villain other than cruel fate.


Btw, Anakin flirted rather heavily with evil even before losing Padme. I'd say his fall became irredeemable when he lost Padme.

I'm not quite prepared to fully debate on Star Wars here, but I'll concede your point, since you acknowledged mine.

[Navigator]

Plato would surely say that choosing to save the lives of many people would be the "good" thing.

The is a lot like the choice of being on a mining cart that can't be stopped, and you have to head it towards a group of people, or a single person that you have a relationship with, or love, or whatever. It doesn't take much thinking to decide that killing your loved one would be the "good" decision.

So does a character that chooses to save his lover lose his status as a "good" person? Suppose you're a cleric of a good-aligned deity of love. It's reasonable to say that the character was preserving "love" in the best way he knew. Though, you could say it was an evil act regardless of doctrine, because the people he chose to kill could have all been lovers.

The question we should be asking is: Is there any situation where choosing to kill the group could be considered a "good" act? And by good, I mean the PHB's definition of "good".


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Personal sacrifices. Unless the character has a complex moral doctrine, I think the clause above rules out killing many over others as a "good" act.

[Boci]

Sure, you could spend your time killing the villain (if one exists), and end up saving nobody. In most villainous cases, the villain has set it up so that the destruction happens with or without him - think the Joker in The Dark Knight (which, thankfully, does actually kill someone off).

But had the joker not been stopped then, he would have gone on to do the same again.

[chiasaur11]

True Love is in a Trap the Soul gem, and thus not dead, and not eligible for True Resurrection.

BBEG has Mind Blank active.

Or somesuch. There are fates worse than death.

Well, then. It looks like ignore both and waste BBEG is the way to go in that case.

I mean, you finish him, you can save everyone. You die, you die standing.

[PinkysBrain]

I mean, you finish him, you can save everyone. You die, you die standing.
A person after my own heart.

Emo/DEEP is just not what I look for in D&D ... I want to be heroic, times of doubt and despair (even failure) are fine but in the end I stare moral dilemmas in the eye shout "Who do you think I am" and blow stuff up.

[Rhiannon87]

I don't think that choosing your one love over many is an evil act. Perhaps it isn't good in the D&D definition of things, but I don't think that being selfish is inherently evil. It's neutral. For it to be evil... well, in this case, I think the only evil action is to take no action, to let everyone die and let the BBEG get away with it, when you were capable of saving at least someone (or perhaps of stopping said BBEG). Going after the BBEG and ignoring both groups to be saved could be a good act, depending on the circumstances.

It's an interesting question, to be sure.

[Boci]

I don't think that choosing your one love over many is an evil act. Perhaps it isn't good in the D&D definition of things, but I don't think that being selfish is inherently evil. It's neutral. For it to be evil... well, in this case, I think the only evil action is to take no action.

"Thanks. I've been meaning to break up his him/her for ages, but they always get so tearful when I bring up the subject,"

[Moody the Wise]

But had the joker not been stopped then, he would have gone on to do the same again.

In this particular case, killing the Joker is irrelevant; the Joker posed no immediate threat (although he did happen to escape as a result of people going off to save others), and at any rate that's not what Batman chose to do. The example is also not quite applicable - yes, I know I brought it up - because there's only one person to save in each explosively-rigged warehouse. I brought it up, though, to point out that killing the villain often does not save anyone, because the villain has already set the events of the destruction into motion.

It is, however, one of the great mind-fracks of all time, since the Joker actually lies about who is at each location, and Batman ends up deciding to go save the girl, but it turns out when he gets there that he's actually gone to save the other guy. Right up there with the rats in 1984.

@Navigator: Yes, I think you have grasped what I'm saying very well. To expand upon the concept of personal sacrifice, let's say that the person who chooses to save the one claims to be selfless because he is doing it for the other person. Maybe saving that person even involves the death of the savior, who knows. This proclaimed selflessness, though, reveals itself as selfishness upon examination: the savior saved the one because he loved her, because she had a personal meaning to him that the others did not have. He put his own interests above the interests of others, by which we here mean really the non-ego-attached objective calculation.

[Boci]

In this particular case, killing the Joker is irrelevant; the Joker posed no immediate threat (although he did happen to escape as a result of people going off to save others), and at any rate that's not what Batman chose to do. The example is also not quite applicable - yes, I know I brought it up - because there's only one person to save in each explosively-rigged warehouse. I brought it up, though, to point out that killing the villain often does not save anyone, because the villain has already set the events of the destruction into motion.

It is, however, one of the great mind-fracks of all time, since the Joker actually lies about who is at each location, and Batman ends up deciding to go save the girl, but it turns out when he gets there that he's actually gone to save the other guy. Right up there with the rats in 1984.

BBEG: "You can save him, or her?"
PCs: "Or I can accept that you are insane and thus may be lying about there being a chance of me saving either. And even if I did try and suceed in saving one, how long would it be before you kidnapped two more of my loved ones and offered me the same choice? Therefor I am going to dedicate all me resources to killing you and once that is done I will mourn those you killed in a most cowardly fashion,"

[HamHam]

Choosing to save the person you care about is a Neutral act.

Choosing to save the many people is a Lawful act if anything.

Trying to save both is the Good act, because Good doesn't believe in playing utilitarian games. Good thinks everyone is equally important, and letting one person die is just as bad as letting many die.

[MCerberus]

While you can make a wide variety of arguments, I believe the thought process of the individual making the choice is the final factor. Did the person in question sacrifice the crowd without a second thought, showing neglect or even contempt for the lives of people he/she knows? Did the person sacrifice their loved one because it's the right thing by their morals or did they just think N > 1, so save N.

[Godskook]

So many points of disagreement, so little time, argh!

1.Loving someone is not selfish, nor is it selfish to love one person more than you love strangers.

2.You've only mentioned half the coin in the classic dilemma. In the classic dilemma, the conflict is essentially between love and duty, although duty is sometimes exchanged for something more readily comparable to the 'obvious' love choice.

3.Too much absolutism for my tastes. There's no middle ground to it at all. Watch the movie Master and Commander. About half way in, the Captain makes a decision to pursue an enemy vessel contrary to a promise he made his friend the doctor. He does this unhesitantly. However, later, he abandons pursuit solely to improve their chances at saving the doctor's life. The movie is great for showing a relativistic personal doctrine.

4.Going back to #2, the dilemma has become more confused in recent era as the concepts of duty and love have become more and more muddled.

5.Anakin's dilemma is really bad example to be extrapolating much from because of how many unique setting details are required to understand his behavior. It's also weirder still because when it comes to the 'drama' of those movies, the Jedi Council is the Antagonist, oddly enough, once you discover that the relevant restrictions are unnecessary in the books.

6.To discuss the alignment implications of this dilemma, far more detail needs to be made as to how the dilemma is constructed.

7.You make no allowances for capability or probability.

[Telonius]

I'd save the many, but only because I think love doesn't really work the way most people think it works. With me and my wife it's more like: love all, choose one. Choosing her as my wife - along with choosing all of the consequences that come from that choice, like being faithful to her - ideally shouldn't diminish my love for everybody else. Really ideally, it ought to increase my love for everybody else. I'd save her over any one person (possible exception of our daughter; that would be a coin flip), since they're otherwise equal but one means more to me. But I'd save any two people over her.

[Silentlee]

if i had a choice between the two....i wouldn't even blink....save the many.

if i was saved instead of the many....i'd hate that person who saved me.

[Yukitsu]

I'd usually pick based off of whichever group had a sum total greater number of years left to live (assuming national averages). If one side had my 3 year old nephew, and the other had a few dozen 99 year old nuns, I'd save the 3 year old. If one side had my parents, and the other had an orphanage, I'd save the orphanage.

Edit: No, those nuns don't count as negative years left.

[Silentlee]

side 1....the person you love above even yourself

side 2...1000 random aged male/females of all races


side 2 all day long without remorse.


--edit--

don't come at me with some crap about side 2 having pedophiles and murderers.....cause then it wouldn't be a real choice would it?

[MickJay]

Choosing to save the person you care about is a Neutral act.

Choosing to save the many people is a Lawful act if anything.

Trying to save both is the Good act, because Good doesn't believe in playing utilitarian games. Good thinks everyone is equally important, and letting one person die is just as bad as letting many die.

I have to agree, the whole dilemma reminds me a bit of arguments like "X was much worse than Y, because X caused deaths of 34 million people, while Y only killed 22 million. Z was practically a good guy, he killed less than 15 million".

Ultimately, all of the responsibility falls on the one who set up the whole ridiculous thing, and the hero can only "fail" by total inaction. The best thing to do is to try and save everyone, regardless of the result. From the utilitarian perspective, I can argue that going to save the large group of people is more selfish than saving the loved one, because afterwards the hero gets a ****load of sympathy, gratitude, opinion of the most selfless person alive and they can pick from a whole bunch of girls/guys willing to comfort the hero after their loss. Saving your loved one, on the other hand, nets you hatred, or at least dislike, of the relatives of the people who died, and opinion of a selfish bastard, making it a tough choice to make. :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

Choosing to save the person you care about is a Neutral act.

Choosing to save the many people is a Lawful act if anything.

Trying to save both is the Good act, because Good doesn't believe in playing utilitarian games. Good thinks everyone is equally important, and letting one person die is just as bad as letting many die.

+1

Just the sort of point I would have made if I was the sort to not read the whole thread before commenting.


1.Loving someone is not selfish, nor is it selfish to love one person more than you love strangers.

I don't see how it isn't selfish to love someone. It might not be only selfish, and selfishness in this case might not be a bad thing, but it is definitely something one does to improve oneself.

[Silentlee]

would you save Harvey Dent or whatever maggie gillenhalls(sp?) character's name is in the dark knight

[Boci]

if i had a choice between the two....i wouldn't even blink....save the many.

Easy to say, especially on the internet.


if i was saved instead of the many....i'd hate that person who saved me.

I wouldn't. They saved my life, whilst acting under immense pressure. They deserve my gratitude for managing to make a choice at least. I'd probably return the favour by watching over them and having the samaritans on speed dial.

[Yukitsu]

Neither, I can't drive fast enough.

I can't tell if I gained or lost points in my philosophy of ethics class for the originality of my papers.

[Telonius]

I don't see how it isn't selfish to love someone. It might not be only selfish, and selfishness in this case might not be a bad thing, but it is definitely something one does to improve oneself.

I've often found that it's the characters that, deep down, don't love themselves that are the most evil of them all.

[Moody the Wise]

So many points of disagreement, so little time, argh!

1.Loving someone is not selfish, nor is it selfish to love one person more than you love strangers.

Perhaps not in the ways we usually understand these terms. But when you make your choices subjectively based on your personal feelings towards someone, you are acting selfishly. I think Telonius's description of "love all, choose one" illustrates this idea well. It might be beneficial to replace selfish with "ego-attached" and selfless with "non-ego-attached." Or, if you will, subjective and objective.


2.You've only mentioned half the coin in the classic dilemma. In the classic dilemma, the conflict is essentially between love and duty, although duty is sometimes exchanged for something more readily comparable to the 'obvious' love choice.

I think I have not overlooked half the coin here. To bring it back to Diotima's ladder, if you have reached the ethical level where you love all and you love laws and institutions, you recognize that it is your ethical duty to save the many. You don't have to be a fireman for your duty to be to save the many; it's an ethical imperative.


3.Too much absolutism for my tastes. There's no middle ground to it at all. Watch the movie Master and Commander. About half way in, the Captain makes a decision to pursue an enemy vessel contrary to a promise he made his friend the doctor. He does this unhesitantly. However, later, he abandons pursuit solely to improve their chances at saving the doctor's life. The movie is great for showing a relativistic personal doctrine.

The middle ground is struggling with the ideals on either end, being torn between the two. This is, I believe what you describe here, although I haven't actually seen the movie (though I do appreciate Crowe's acting).


4.Going back to #2, the dilemma has become more confused in recent era as the concepts of duty and love have become more and more muddled.

I won't argue that a lot of people find themselves confused as to the nature of the choices they are making.


5.Anakin's dilemma is really bad example to be extrapolating much from because of how many unique setting details are required to understand his behavior. It's also weirder still because when it comes to the 'drama' of those movies, the Jedi Council is the Antagonist, oddly enough, once you discover that the relevant restrictions are unnecessary in the books.

The Jedi Council could be fairly described as the antagonist of the prequel movies, yes, but then again, the protagonist can be fairly described as succumbing to the dark side. Which unnecessary restrictions are you referring to, exactly, and which books? I've seen the six movies and played KOTOR I and II (and, admittedly, spend a few late hours geeking over wiki entries), but I haven't read any of the books.


6.To discuss the alignment implications of this dilemma, far more detail needs to be made as to how the dilemma is constructed.

Yukitsu brings up some interesting factors in this regard. No matter how many details you add in, though, in the final analysis, it matters only whether you made the objectively Good choice, or the one influenced by your ego attachments.


7.You make no allowances for capability or probability.

You are correct. If you are capable of saving everyone, then the situation becomes irrelevant. The situation is only interesting when you cannot, and no matter how great you think you are, everyone eventually faces a situation where capability ceases to be a factor. As for probability, if you'd like to analyze the implications of choices involving situations with different probabilities of various outcomes, be my guest. What I have presented is a situation where all relevant probabilities are binary, which is not a situation to be dismissed as impossible and contrived.[/QUOTE]

[Agrippa]

A person after my own heart.

Emo/DEEP is just not what I look for in D&D ... I want to be heroic, times of doubt and despair (even failure) are fine but in the end I stare moral dilemmas in the eye shout "Who do you think I am" and blow stuff up.

I'd do the exact same thing, followed up with, "You're honestly asking how I'm going to save both my loved ones and the rest of the city? You want to know how I'd do it? I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting the outcome? I did it thirty five minutes ago."

[Xefas]

If I had to make a gut-ruling on the matter mid-game, I'd probably make Saving the Many a Lawful act, as it is taking the purely literal and unclouded approach of More People Saved > Less People Saved. Saving the One would be Chaotic, as it is driven by emotion for the person, and one's own values, rather than what is strictly Better or Worse.

Attempting to save both would be Good, as you can't actually make the choice to allow anyone to come to harm. You risk everything to save everyone, and put the weight of their lives on your shoulders, for good or ill. If they die, it was your responsibility, and you knew that when you chose to fight the odds.

Choosing to save neither would be Evil, whether you're being lazy, or in denial, or prideful or whatever, if you could, in fact, save someone at no great risk to yourself, and choose not to, then the Upper Planes don't want you. Even if it would cause you great personal misery to choose one or the other, you're a bastard because someone's life matters less to you than a little of your own personal sadness.

Personally? I like to think I'm a mostly neutral person, with lawful leanings, but if it came down to My Loved One versus A Billion People I Don't Know, I would choose My Loved One and tell everyone else to go **** themselves. Maybe that means I'm really Chaotic? Or maybe that means that real people are layered and overlapping Heroic Fantasy with Reality doesn't really do either justice.

[Godskook]

Since there were so many parts here, I've written inside the one quote block. I'm writing this so the message is long enough to post.

Interesting response, but posting within someone's quote prevents easy replies by others to your comments, since pressing 'quote' no longer works. I'll get to replying later, but I'd appreciate it if you could segment the quote so that your replies aren't in it during the meantime.

[averagejoe]

I've often found that it's the characters that, deep down, don't love themselves that are the most evil of them all.

In one of Pratchett's books he (well, one of the characters) said something like, "All sin begins with treating people as objects, even if that person is yourself. It can lead to other places, but that's where it starts." This is something I've always taken to heart.

[Moody the Wise]

would you save Harvey Dent or whatever maggie gillenhalls(sp?) character's name is in the dark knight

I'd probably save Maggie, 'cause she's easier on the eyes. Of course, the cruel outcome is that I'd be given the location of Dent, resulting in Maggie's death, and all I'd have to show for it is a disfigured Dent.


Choosing to save the person you care about is a Neutral selfish act.

Choosing to save the many people is a Lawful selfless act if anything.

Trying to save both is the Good delusional act, because Good doesn't believe in playing utilitarian games being accountable for tough choices. :smalltongue: Good thinks everyone is equally important, and letting one person die is just as bad as letting many die.


I have to agree, the whole dilemma reminds me a bit of arguments like "X was much worse than Y, because X caused deaths of 34 million people, while Y only killed 22 million. Z was practically a good guy, he killed less than 15 million".

The difference here is that I think you're presenting something like, if I may substitute names here, "Stalin was much worse than Pol Pot, because he killed more people." I don't want to get into a big argument about this, I'll just say that this takes things out of the context of individual choices, and becomes more of a discussion about who was more willing and able to kill people. I wouldn't draw a distinction here in terms of degrees of evilness, only in terms of degree of impact of said evilness on the world. If we could reduce the lives of these two people to all the constituent choices they made, we'd see each choice as a choice between selfishness and selflessness, and how they each responded to that would be our judge of their character, not whether one had more chances to make the wrong choice than the other.


Ultimately, all of the responsibility falls on the one who set up the whole ridiculous thing, and the hero can only "fail" by total inaction. The best thing to do is to try and save everyone, regardless of the result. From the utilitarian perspective, I can argue that going to save the large group of people is more selfish than saving the loved one, because afterwards the hero gets a ****load of sympathy, gratitude, opinion of the most selfless person alive and they can pick from a whole bunch of girls/guys willing to comfort the hero after their loss. Saving your loved one, on the other hand, nets you hatred, or at least dislike, of the relatives of the people who died, and opinion of a selfish bastard [exactly, and deservedly so], making it a tough choice to make.:smalltongue:

Again, we're not always talking about contrived setups here, and there isn't always a villain to blame. Maybe it's just a burning building set aflame by an electrical fire, and on one end of it is your lover and on the other end is an office full of people, and the building will collapse before the fastest sprinter could even possibly make it to both groups of people.


Attempting to save both would be Good, as you can't actually make the choice to allow anyone to come to harm. You risk everything to save everyone, and put the weight of their lives on your shoulders, for good or ill. If they die, it was your responsibility, and you knew that when you chose to fight the odds.

So, as I think someone else suggested earlier, you put your own pride, your own inability to deal with the consequences of your actions, over the ability to make an effective choice? Sounds selfish to me, and, I would argue, by extension evil.


Interesting response, but posting within someone's quote prevents easy replies by others to your comments, since pressing 'quote' no longer works. I'll get to replying later, but I'd appreciate it if you could segment the quote so that your replies aren't in it during the meantime.

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that. I can do that.

[hamishspence]

Which unnecessary restrictions are you referring to, exactly, and which books? I've seen the six movies and played KOTOR I and II (and, admittedly, spend a few late hours geeking over wiki entries), but I haven't read any of the books.

"A Jedi shall not know love"

Several of the New Jedi Order era are married with families, and most haven't show signs of going over to the dark side.

Maybe because Luke figures that expecting the Jedi to be monks was a dubious move anyway, and maybe because both of the people he recruited already had some family ties and expecting them to sever ties would be asking far too much.

[Moody the Wise]

"A Jedi shall not know love"

Several of the New Jedi Order era are married with families, and most haven't show signs of going over to the dark side.

Maybe because Luke figures that expecting the Jedi to be monks was a dubious move anyway, and maybe because both of the people he recruited already had some family ties and expecting them to sever ties would be asking far too much.

Again, I haven't read the books, but I have sort of generally heard of this business that happens after the original movies. My impression of it (without having read it) is that it's a simplistic, "happily-ever-after," almost fan-fiction-esque setting.

I would suggest that if the members of this New Jedi Order have not run into trouble on account of love, then either they haven't yet run into morally challenging situations, or they have a sophisticated outlook on love (higher on Diotima's ladder) and bear a philosophy like Telonius's (love all, pick one to settle down with, if I may change your words slightly).

[hamishspence]

happy ever after- not really. 15 more years of on-off war with the Empire, a very short period of peace, another really severe war with extragalactic invaders, another period of peace, and then another big war.

Nobody really lives "happily ever after" so to speak, but some people do have periods of happiness.

There have been numerous morally tricky situations, and the general rule seems to be, half the time, that love redeems (Luke with Vader in Return of the Jedi, later Leia and Han with Luke)

and half the time, the desire to protect people (out of love, selfish or otherwise) leads to the Dark Side (Luke, Jacen)

It does seem to be true, that Jedi can be a little prone to reacting badly to harm coming to their loved ones.

[PinkysBrain]

So, as I think someone else suggested earlier, you put your own pride, your own inability to deal with the consequences of your actions, over the ability to make an effective choice? Sounds selfish to me, and, I would argue, by extension evil.
The future isn't certain.

Out of game the DM might tell you, this is deus ex machina ... I looked at your character sheet, I know everything you can do ... these two outcomes are the only possible ones, choose ... and in the end your character still wouldn't know that.

[averagejoe]

So, as I think someone else suggested earlier, you put your own pride, your own inability to deal with the consequences of your actions, over the ability to make an effective choice? Sounds selfish to me, and, I would argue, by extension evil.

That's not what he's saying. He isn't saying do neither, he's saying to not treat it as if one set of lives is more valuable than the other. It isn't choosing to do nothing, it's trying to save everyone instead of resigning yourself to the choice. To use your burning building example, maybe instead of trying to run into the building alone, you try and find someone who is willing to get the other side of the building at the same time as you get one side of it. Maybe you and this other fellow save everyone. Maybe the building collapses first. Either outcome, I don't think that person's actions could be called evil; quite the contrary. It's fine and heroic to rush into a burning building, but admitting you need help when you need help is also a good thing.

Or maybe there is no one else to help. Then you run into the building to try and save somebody. Maybe you choose your loved one, because in the circumstances you think it would be faster to get to everyone if you do so. I still argue that one has made the good choice.

The point is to not resign yourself to choosing to save one group of people. It isn't about pride, and it isn't an inability to make an effective choice, it's the idea that making the choice to leave people to die is unacceptable. Maybe they die anyways, but it's life. Mistakes get made, and we don't have perfect knowledge of situations.

[hamishspence]

Some people argue that lifeboat situations aren't the best place to build your morality around.

Whether selfish = evil or not is a tricky question- and some moral systems give different answers to it- it may depend on how much "helping others" is considered to be a moral imperative.

The claim that you are "morally required to sacrifice your loved ones whenever doing so would save multiple complete strangers" is perhaps a little alarming.

But not as alarming as "you are morally required to commit murder, even of your loved ones, if a situation came up where doing so would definitely save lots of people."

The Train Dilemma, in the "Push the Fat Man Off the Bridge" variant, is the usual example given.

[Jergmo]

One way I've seen it portrayed that I think I agree with is this:

A Lawful Good person would save the many.
A Neutral Good person would try to save everyone.
A Chaotic Good person might go either way or try to save everyone.

[Yukitsu]

As an aside, a traditional knight would save a complete stranger if it was a woman, and leave the other group to die if they followed the rules of chivalry. Even if the other person was a dozen of their comrades, or if it were their own family, so I could see a lawful good knight or paladin saving the individual due to a personal code of honour thing (Or the group if the group happened to be what they swore to protect) depending on the oaths they took.

[Godskook]

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that. I can do that.

Thank you.


I think I have not overlooked half the coin here. To bring it back to Diotima's ladder, if you have reached the ethical level where you love all and you love laws and institutions, you recognize that it is your ethical duty to save the many. You don't have to be a fireman for your duty to be to save the many; it's an ethical imperative.

You said:

"I would suggest that there is only one measure of alignment that counts: selfishness and selflessness."

That's where I'm getting the 'not mentioning duty' aspect from. Duty is, essentially, Law.


The middle ground is struggling with the ideals on either end, being torn between the two. This is, I believe what you describe here, although I haven't actually seen the movie (though I do appreciate Crowe's acting).

Except your conclusions are as absolute as your criteria. A man who chooses his wife over strangers(whom you offer no reason of duty to save in your original post) is selfish by the original post. If the results were phrased less absolutely, it wouldn't be as bad.


I won't argue that a lot of people find themselves confused as to the nature of the choices they are making.

That's entirely not the point I was making. This is nothing to do with an individual's perception and everything to do with society's concept of ideals. Three hundred years ago, Love and Duty were, as Ideals, far more valuable than they are now to society.


The Jedi Council could be fairly described as the antagonist of the prequel movies, yes, but then again, the protagonist can be fairly described as succumbing to the dark side.

I wasn't referencing the whole movies, just Anakin's personal 'drama' contained within. Outside of that, I'd still leave Palpatine in the Antagonist role.


Which unnecessary restrictions are you referring to, exactly, and which books? I've seen the six movies and played KOTOR I and II (and, admittedly, spend a few late hours geeking over wiki entries), but I haven't read any of the books.

As has been mentioned, Luke abolishes all the rules that original forced Anakin's romance into the underground, to no explicit ill effects(certainly, nothing worse than what resulted by having those rules).


Yukitsu brings up some interesting factors in this regard. No matter how many details you add in, though, in the final analysis, it matters only whether you made the objectively Good choice, or the one influenced by your ego attachments.

There's no such thing as the objectively good choice in this situation. The whole point of exercise is putting forth equally good things and forcing a choice that's not really fair to force(hence why villains normally force it). 'Course, using D&D alignment, I'd say the choice is only difficult to LG types, who become more LN for choosing strangers and more NG for choosing their wives, based on the general definitions of Lawful and Good in D&D.


You are correct. If you are capable of saving everyone, then the situation becomes irrelevant. The situation is only interesting when you cannot, and no matter how great you think you are, everyone eventually faces a situation where capability ceases to be a factor.

Well, for instance, take Batman Forever. Riddler puts this choice before Batman, thinking that he's forced Batman into a binary decision. However, for Batman, it isn't. There's a third choice that, while possible, is risky.

Now, put me into the exact same situation. I'd be lucky to save one, and I definitely wouldn't be able to save both.

Accounting for the capability of the abstract person who you're forcing this choice on makes it easier to understand what the choice is.


As for probability, if you'd like to analyze the implications of choices involving situations with different probabilities of various outcomes, be my guest. What I have presented is a situation where all relevant probabilities are binary, which is not a situation to be dismissed as impossible and contrived.

Actually, I'm not dismissing, but rather requiring. Discussions of this type are far more difficult without understanding the probabilities involved, or at least the perceived probabilities. Yours seems to be:

Choice:
Save wife - 100%
Save strangers - 100%
Save both - 0%

[pita]

I always felt that evil is inherently selfish while good is inherently selfless. An evil character would rescue the person he cared about, while a good character would rescue the many.
At least, that's my opinion.
It isn't really a lawful/chaotic debate in my book, unless the hero's love is someone who has and will rescue many others.

[Silentlee]

Easy to say, especially on the internet.



I wouldn't. They saved my life, whilst acting under immense pressure. They deserve my gratitude for managing to make a choice at least. I'd probably return the favour by watching over them and having the samaritans on speed dial.




Very easy to say since..well its what i would do.


You wouldn't hate them...i would.....I am not worth more then 10k people. I am worth more then most will ever be tho.

[Silentlee]

I always felt that evil is inherently selfish while good is inherently selfless. An evil character would rescue the person he cared about, while a good character would rescue the many.
At least, that's my opinion.
It isn't really a lawful/chaotic debate in my book, unless the hero's love is someone who has and will rescue many others.

But on the same thought....the evil could save the many out of trying to show the one he loves he is good at heart....so that when she/he is dying they finally fall in love with the evil person.

[averagejoe]

I always felt that evil is inherently selfish while good is inherently selfless.

So, it's a good action to, for example, not eat? And evil to get a good night's sleep?

[hamishspence]

A neutral person (according to PHB) only risks themselves for people they value more than strangers.

It isn't impossible that such a Neutral person would choose the one- because they are love/kin, rather than the many- because they have no particular attachment to them. One doesn't have to be evil to choose this way under D&D rules.

[Vangor]

If you rescue the One True Love, you're selfish. If you rescue the strangers, you're selfless.

This is a simplistic way of seeing alignment. More correct would be the hero is being guided strongly by an emotion which is ignoring the greater good of saving many. Were we to detach ourselves from the emotion of the situation while realizing emotion does play a strong role in determining our actions, especially motivations for doing good, the hero might be performing inevitably greater good by keeping a supportive, loving person around and not suffering this loss; depressed or vengeful heroes are not generally heroes at all.

While the hero failed to save the others, those should not necessarily weigh more heavily upon the shoulders of the hero, at least as long, and the "One True Love" should be able to assist in comforting.

Of course, I haven't seen established how many people we are speaking of or the immediacy of the situation. Greater numbers mean greater importance. How involved the hero must be in the rescue and how quickly the decision must be made changes the involvement of emotion.

Imagine a gradually building situation. The "One True Love" and two random people, and the hero needs to decide who lives and who dies. Add in a timer of about ten minutes. Halve the timer. Add in two more people. Add in two more people, and add in two more people until we reach twenty. Place both in cages descending towards lava. Require the hero turn off the winch or whatever with but a press of a button on a panel, before the cage connects with lava, obviously. Require the hero to locate a key located within a pit of sand to deactivate either button. Give the hero two separate pits with two separate keys for the two separate panels. Place either panel on the end of different walkways in different directions.

The situation is significantly more complicated. I would say neither choice is evil, because the hero is forced to act in all situations. Let us talk about the "One True Love" being threatened unless the hero brings ten people, and we can speak of selfishness. We work this way with guilt and similar with how directly involved we are.

[Silentlee]

i've always disliked the alignments the way they are stated in DND phb

alignment free since 1983!!



5/2/83 to be precise..

[Foryn Gilnith]

Eh. Whatever floats your boat. As a purely mechanical construct, they work decently enough. But 1e/2e alignment was described in bizarre ways, and 4e alignment, when taken in the context of previous editions, is IMO dangerously misleading.

[PinkysBrain]

Again, we're not always talking about contrived setups here, and there isn't always a villain to blame. Maybe it's just a burning building set aflame by an electrical fire, and on one end of it is your lover and on the other end is an office full of people, and the building will collapse before the fastest sprinter could even possibly make it to both groups of people.
The less contrived the situation gets the less information the character has about the situation. Ye average person will not know when it would collapse, a convenient battle commentator walking by who explains he is a retired fireman saying "that building will collapse within 5 minutes" would provide the information necessary to force decisions (although I bet you didn't consider the option of Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu). I hope you'd agree that is a contrivance though. Even then I doubt ye average person would even know before hand how long it would take to save someone within even an order of magnitude ...

Talk is cheap, prove it ... give me a non contrived situation.

[Tiktakkat]

Now to tie the philosophy in. In Plato's Symposium, he includes a metaphor of a ladder related to him by a woman named Diotima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_epistemology) (scroll down to the bottom). At the lowest end of the ladder, one loves a single person, carnally. As one progresses up the ladder, one comes to love everyone, then to love everyone's souls, then to love laws and institutions, then to love knowledge, and finally to love beauty. We can stick selfishness at the bottom of this ladder and selflessness at the top - the selfish love that makes you choose the One True Love at the bottom, and the universal Love that makes you choose the strangers at the top.

Incidentally, this Platonic model has interesting parallels to Gandhi's formulations of Satya and Ahimsa, but that's for another time - maybe if I feel inspired by raging debate in this thread.

... Discuss.

That is Plato's alignment.
That is not every alignment within the D&D system.

In general, saving anyone at any reasonably risk to yourself is Good.
Choosing the greatest good for the greatest number is generally Lawful.
Choosing on the basis of personal benefit is generally Chaotic.
Choosing on the basis of some other positive impulse is generally Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos.
One can be Good without accepting Plato's hierarchy of behavior.

Further, it should be kept in mind that by the blind test you set up, it could very easily be Chaotic and Evil to save the greater number. You do not know who those people are that you are saving.
They could be 100 or 1,000 ordinary citizens of your nation, and they could just as easily be 100 or 1,000crazed, murderous criminals, savage orcs, or vile fiends. They are people you simply do not know. You can make absolutely no assumptions about them when making your choice.
Willfully ignoring that to assign them a greater moral and social value simply on the premise that by virtue of knowing nothing they are of greater value is far from Lawful, and very much the random generation of new possibility of Chaos. Such can equally be Evil, intentional or not, if the people saved are of Evil nature.

[Moody the Wise]

The less contrived the situation gets the less information the character has about the situation. Ye average person will not know when it would collapse, a convenient battle commentator walking by who explains he is a retired fireman saying "that building will collapse within 5 minutes" would provide the information necessary to force decisions (although I bet you didn't consider the option of Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu). I hope you'd agree that is a contrivance though. Even then I doubt ye average person would even know before hand how long it would take to save someone within even an order of magnitude ...

Talk is cheap, prove it ... give me a non contrived situation.

First let me apologize that, after having gone to dinner and now having things to do, I won't be able to respond to everyone (or even most people).

I understand what you (and a lot of you) are saying about not knowing you can't save everyone. But in that burning building, who do you run to first? Who do you try the hardest to save, and whose salvation is a secondary goal?

And for anyone who has pointed out that my suggestions are not the way D&D's alignment system works, I acknowledge that, it is by design, and it is the very purpose of this discussion. What I present are some alternative ways of considering the ethical alignment of a character (or, clearly, a real-life person).

[averagejoe]

Who do you try the hardest to save, and whose salvation is a secondary goal?

I repeat, no one's; you run to one first if you think it will give you a greater chance of saving all people, but if it's equal in that regard then there are valid arguments both ways. In this case I don't think either choice is either more good, they're just different. I mean, I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that a man who ran into a burning building, saved his girlfriend, then got interrupted saving other people when the building collapsed is a bad person. (Or, at least, that he behaved in a wrong way.) It doesn't make you a bad person to take care of yourself or your own interests, and it doesn't make you a better person to look out for other people's when your own are equally or more pressing or important. What makes you a good person is that you run into the building in the first place. Or, to extend the thought to be more relevant to the conversation as a whole, you're a good person for stepping up and trying to do something where other people don't.

The thing is, you haven't really shown that selfishness is bad. As this seems to be what your case is built on, this seems like a rather important step.

[Yukitsu]

I understand what you (and a lot of you) are saying about not knowing you can't save everyone. But in that burning building, who do you run to first? Who do you try the hardest to save, and whose salvation is a secondary goal?


When asked this before, my answer was, and still is, no one. I would call the proper authorities, and prevent any heroics who think they can make a difference without causing more and more people untrained and unqualified from entering the building. Depending on the number of people around, and likelyhood of fire trucks arriving at all, I may do this even if no help will come.

The only time I would act is if there was no one else around. No one who would risk their lives stupidly to go in, and no one who would go in after me. The order of lives saved is not based on the question of "who", but rather which ones do I find first. All other things being equal, I would save the people I don't know first, because the people I know would try to get me out after I saved them.

[Solaris]

The claim that you are "morally required to sacrifice your loved ones whenever doing so would save multiple complete strangers" is perhaps a little alarming.
I agree. Saving your wife, that's hard to call an evil act by any stretch. Maybe not a Good act, but like as not an Evil act... without knowing the actor's motivations. I would call it a human act. We may be a flawed, innately evil, innately good race, but to just throw away your better half like that strikes me as... wrong.


But not as alarming as "you are morally required to commit murder, even of your loved ones, if a situation came up where doing so would definitely save lots of people."

The Train Dilemma, in the "Push the Fat Man Off the Bridge" variant, is the usual example given.
Eh. That's pretty much my job description. Maybe not pushing fat men off bridges, though. I believe all men are morally required to do whatever it takes to secure for themselves and their loved ones life, liberty, and happiness. I believe all men are morally required to love each other. I believe that is impossible, but it is something that is perhaps worth fighting for, that others might have that chance.


So, it's a good action to, for example, not eat? And evil to get a good night's sleep?
No, I think he meant what we typically think of when we think of the words selfless and selfish. General taking care of yourself is not in and of itself good or evil, but it is good to not over-eat but rather share what you have with others (if willingly at the expense of yourself), while sloth is or is not (depending on who you ask) an evil act. I consider it an evil act (or lack of act), but I recognize few others do. A good night's sleep isn't sloth, but not sleeping in favor of staying up late and partying (as opposed to staying up due to insomnia or work) is perhaps akin to it. Being selfish means you're thinking of yourself at the expense of others, textbook definition of Evil. But saving your True Love instead of a mob? That's human. That may be Evil, that may not be. That may be selfish, but anyone who can sacrifice their True Love for a mob... I wonder if perhaps they are not quite human.


When asked this before, my answer was, and still is, no one. I would call the proper authorities, and prevent any heroics who think they can make a difference without causing more and more people untrained and unqualified from entering the building. Depending on the number of people around, and likelihood of fire trucks arriving at all, I may do this even if no help will come.
See, I'm not seeing that as answering the question. That's trying to weasel out of it. 'Call the proper authorities' is the Lawful act, sure, but it's sure as shooting just not answering the question. Now me, I'm the type who runs into danger. It's my job. I was always that type, it's why I picked the job. You try to stop me from being heroic, I'll knock your block off then go in anyways. It's just how I am. I can respect the (real-world) logic behind not wanting to walk into a burning building where it'd be crazy for anyone to go on (but crazy is as crazy does), but what if it's not a burning building? What if it's someone trapped in an avalanche? Are you just going to sit there and let them all die because you're waiting on the proper authorities because there's a slim chance of a follow-up avalanche? If you can apply logic to say "I'm not going to do either choice" then I think you're using the wrong scenario.


The only time I would act is if there was no one else around. No one who would risk their lives stupidly to go in, and no one who would go in after me. The order of lives saved is not based on the question of "who", but rather which ones do I find first. All other things being equal, I would save the people I don't know first, because the people I know would try to get me out after I saved them.
Kinda contradicting yourself here, but I can dig that - I've mistyped once or twice myself. If I track rightly, you mean to say that if there's no other chance of someone trained showing up, then you would act. I think your logic's kinda funky, though, about saving the people you don't know because the people you know would try and get you - oh, you meant they'd come in after you? So you'd let 'em die because you're afraid they'd make the devil's choice to come in and save you? I couldn't do that, even if there was a good chance of a zero-sum survival.

[Yukitsu]

See, I'm not seeing that as answering the question. That's trying to weasel out of it. 'Call the proper authorities' is the Lawful act, sure, but it's sure as shooting just not answering the question. Now me, I'm the type who runs into danger. It's my job. I was always that type, it's why I picked the job. You try to stop me from being heroic, I'll knock your block off then go in anyways. It's just how I am. I can respect the (real-world) logic behind not wanting to walk into a burning building where it'd be crazy for anyone to go on (but crazy is as crazy does), but what if it's not a burning building? What if it's someone trapped in an avalanche? Are you just going to sit there and let them all die because you're waiting on the proper authorities because there's a slim chance of a follow-up avalanche? If you can apply logic to say "I'm not going to do either choice" then I think you're using the wrong scenario.

Kinda contradicting yourself here, but I can dig that - I've mistyped once or twice myself. If I track rightly, you mean to say that if there's no other chance of someone trained showing up, then you would act. I think your logic's kinda funky, though, about saving the people you don't know because the people you know would try and get you - oh, you meant they'd come in after you? So you'd let 'em die because you're afraid they'd make the devil's choice to come in and save you? I couldn't do that, even if there was a good chance of a zero-sum survival.

It's an exception to the rule, not a hard contradiction. I will only ever risk my life when no one will try to risk theirs to save mine. That's why I would not save my freinds, because they would rationally try to prevent me from continuing, which at that point, I would. People slowing me down with rational thinking would only get us both killed, as I'm rather stubborn. As well, if it's your job, I'd let you go. The difference between someone trained for that an not trained is the difference between lives saved and an extra casualty. And by trained, I do mean if you're a fire fighter. If you're a life guard or something I'd not let you do it.

A real life example was a group of students who got sucked into an undertow in British Columbia. 3 other students and a teacher went in to save the first few, and were also sucked under. They all died, because none of them knew what to do. As much as I would have been detested for it, I would have tried to stop the other 4 from dying with the first few.

[Moody the Wise]

But saving your True Love instead of a mob? That's human. That may be Evil, that may not be. That may be selfish, but anyone who can sacrifice their True Love for a mob... I wonder if perhaps they are not quite human.

Never did I say that human nature tended towards goodness, or that it was an easy standard to live up to.

[KellKheraptis]

"Poor Edward. I am not Bruce Wayne and the Batman because I have to be...I am Bruce Wayne and the Batman because I choose to be."

[MickJay]

Discussion's come down to what would I do, rather than what should your character do. By character, I assume a hero type, competent and able person (which makes him, in a way, obliged to step up and try to help, because he is the best qualified person to try to save others). If we're going with contrived game scenarios, the GM might well decide in advance that among the 100 people to be saved there is someone who will cause much suffering and many deaths in the future, just to make the whole thing more absurd :smalltongue:

In any case, has anyone ever heard of a real person ever being in a similar situation?

For trying heroic things IRL, one has to be qualified for that - if you're a weak, sickly guy running into a burning building in an attempt to save anyone, there's a good chance there's going to be an extra casualty and more grief. People without any training and preparation have saved others, they're shown as examples, got awards for courage, but at least as many perished without accomplishing anything (these stories rarely make it to the front pages). There's a very fine line between "heroism" and "recklessness", and often the difference becomes apparent only after the result is known.

[PhoenixRivers]

The number one rule of thumb you learn in any field that encounters these situations is this:

"Don't unduly risk yourself."

Why? Because if you go to help a guy without checking the scene, and step in the electrically charged water that knocked him out? You've doubled the work that someone else has to do to save everyone.

This has nothing to do with selfishness, or good and evil. It's practicality. You can do much more good saving those who are easily saveable than you can by becoming a victim yourself trying to save the difficult.

Thus, in a lifesaving situation (and I have been in them), I always default to the Triage method. Save those that can be saved quickly and easily, and then go until you can't go anymore. Protect your own life (because you're no good to anyone dead) but do what you can.

[Belobog]

The number one rule of thumb you learn in any field that encounters these situations is this:

"Don't unduly risk yourself."


The claim that you are "morally required to sacrifice your loved ones whenever doing so would save multiple complete strangers" is perhaps a little alarming. But not as alarming as "you are morally required to commit murder, even of your loved ones, if a situation came up where doing so would definitely save lots of people."

The Train Dilemma, in the "Push the Fat Man Off the Bridge" variant, is the usual example given.

These two points are the ones I'm going to rely on for my argument, but I digress. First, the OP.

As a device to show alignment in a game, yeah, it works alright. D&D alignment works off objective moral choices, and if you assign certain values to the answers here and give a few more, you can get a pretty rough sketch of how that character acts and their beliefs. Like anything dealing with alignment, when you bring intention into it, it falls to pieces (I.E. is it evil to negotiate with devils in a hostage situation if doing so would save lives?), but this is a larger problem of the system itself. Likewise, account for capacity, and you get things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yavK0mnE3wI&feature=fvsr. Anyway, it works, moving on.

Now, if you ask this on me as a person, then I go back to the two inputs above: risk and implication. Take the burning building example. If I was present with this, the fact that I, too, could become another victim would most likely keep me out of the whole thing entirely. Being told I would be fine if I picked only one choice would only throw suspicion on the situation, and on its goals, as well; if I would be fine, what about the others? What is trapping them in such a way that only I can help them? I am hardly a strong person, I'm easily frightened, and I have no equipment to help me. Most likely, I would stand outside, call 911 if someone hadn't already, then join the crowd of onlookers outside and hope for the best. Since there are only two objective choices, though, this means I am unable of making an effective choice.

Likewise, take the train example, in which you make a similar choice. Here, though, you are not choosing who to save, but who will die. Whichever choice you make, you have directly impacted (/bad pun) the lives of those you choose, and have in effect committed murder. Now death is not an uncommon thing. Your body body kills countless organisms in your life time as a defense mechanism, we all eat living things, and everyone dies from something sooner or later. Yet, I still feel bad when I do so much as cripple a fly. Thus, as a person, the choice to actively kill someone to save another is far out of what I consider my privilege to choose. No matter what choice I make here, I would most likely be crippled by guilt and may be unable to come to terms with the decision I made. Thus, I would also be unable to make an effective decision here, and simply let the train run its predestined course, whatever that is. It is far easier to rationalize a choice you feel you did not make, that you feel removed from, than it is to confront a choice you have.

[Kaiyanwang]

Choosing on the basis of personal benefit is generally Chaotic.


Disagree. Choosing on the basis of personal benefit is EVIL, generally.

Choosing on the basis of personal belief even if law and/or other people think differently, is chaotic. You can do a chaotic act that maybe damage you.

You can do an evil act that do it, too - but it's likely to be a CE act, I guess.

(not every CE act follows this rule, of course.. quite the opposite, I think).

[PinkysBrain]

Ahhh selfish is evil vs. plain evil is evil (evil kills puppies) the age old debate. Personally I don't see where people get the selfish is evil idea from, I don't see it in the PHB ... but I don't think we are ever going to convince each other :)

[hamishspence]

If "goodness" is a standard that roughly 1/3 of the human population of the setting live up to (PHB: Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral):

:Then (assuming humans of the D&D worlds are fairly similar in general character to those of the real world) it can't be that hard to live up to.

The claim that "less than 5% of the population should be deemed Good" or some similar claim, isn't actually supported by the rules.


The closest to "selfish is evil" is Book of Exalted Deeds, with its suggestions that "Selfish is Neutral at best- you have to be at least somewhat self-sacrificing to be Good" and:

"Normally Good acts committed to benefit the self, are actually Neutral"

Or similar wording.

It still doesn't say selfishness is Evil- causing harm is generally evil, just being focussed on own interest without causing real harm, is neutral rather than evil.

As somebody else phrased:

Good is looking out for others
Neutral is looking out for number one.
Evil is looking out for number one while crushing number two.

(for a given level of crushing- it doesn't actually have to be all that severe)

[Kaiyanwang]

Ahhh selfish is evil vs. plain evil is evil (evil kills puppies) the age old debate. Personally I don't see where people get the selfish is evil idea from, I don't see it in the PHB ... but I don't think we are ever going to convince each other :)

I can see your point. nevertheless, I cannot see Chaotic = Selfish. You can have yoour own opinion, disregarding rules and so on, an be not selfish, IMO.

[hamishspence]

PHB 2nd edition described CG as "Selfish but good hearted" and characterized selfish behaviour as being focussed on own interests- a CG character is far less likely to divert from some quest or goal to help those in trouble.

PHB 3rd ed tended to steer away from that though.

[Kaiyanwang]

PHB 2nd edition described CG as "Selfish but good hearted" and characterized selfish behaviour as being focussed on own interests- a CG character is far less likely to divert from some quest or goal to help those in trouble.

PHB 3rd ed tended to steer away from that though.

Well, see.. IMHO someone that ignores requests of help for a quest is more L/N or L/E. But maybe I'm wrong.

[hamishspence]

like I said, a lot's changed.

In fact, there was a suggestion that, even if you were on a "Save the world on a tight time limit" quest, paladins still can't turn down requests for help, not even if by doing so they are gambling the safety of the world.

There were a great deal of complaints some time back about one of the sample paladins in the 3.5 Sandstorm environment sourcebook, because they tended to divert from helping others, to their own goals (finding other paladins)- the paladin Scion of Tem-Et-Nu, called Karlott.

The closest thing to a "letting bad things happen to others when you have the power to prevent it is evil" statement, is in BoVD,

concerning a deluded person about to commit mass poisoning by poisoning a water supply, where killing might be the only way to stop them:

"Standing by while mass-murder happens is far more evil than preventing the poisoning"

[Glyde]

Depends on the character.

One character, for example, would save the many because she needs to take over the world.

Another character would sacrifice themselves to save both if the option presented itself.

And another would look up and say "**** this. I'm going to make you wish you didn't develop enough coherent thought to put me into a situation like this." then proceed to warblade all over the villain's face.