PDA

View Full Version : If Ayn Rand created an Objectivist D&D society, what would it's alignment be?



Mr. Friendly
2007-11-27, 02:37 PM
I think it would start off Neutral (Evil), steadily grinding it's way to Chaotic Evil within a year.

In case you need it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-27, 02:54 PM
Neutral Boring.

Joran
2007-11-27, 02:56 PM
You would get... Rapture...

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'
'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well."

Shishnarfne
2007-11-27, 03:02 PM
Look, Ayn Rand's society works best only if Objectivists live there.

If it were to be a "Galt's Gulch" society, populated only by those sorts of people willing to play by her philosophy, it'd probably be True Neutral.

You get an occaisional "less-principled" individual, it turns evil in a hurry. Once the society goes evil, there is nothing that will stop it from deteriorating into chaos.

I guess I could just have quoted the OP and said "I agree."

Craig1f
2007-11-27, 03:11 PM
The Society Alignment would be Chaotic Neutral, with no laws prohibiting Evil or Good. The laws that exist would be there primarily to prevent the "Chaos" from overwhelming the rules of society, but society would be structured towards encouraging innovation, growth, and strength, and the expense or structure and control.

Capitalism is pretty Chaotic, since people can change their level in society pretty easily. You're not born a serf, or a noble. You're born rich, middle-class, or poor, but can elevate yourself as long as you can provide a service people are willing to pay for, or can drop if you make bad decisions and squander your money. That's Chaotic.

The ambitious people in the society, whether they're evil, neutral, or good, will recognize that the quickest way to power is to serve a product that people are willing to pay for. Good people will provide services people want, as will neutral people. Evil people will do whatever is the easiest for them. If selling drugs or contraband is the easiest, they'll do that. If they're good at sports, they'll play a sport. If they're good at medicine, they'll probably become a cosmetic surgeon since that makes more money than other kinds of doctors, and they don't care about helping people as much as they care about making money. But hey, society can use cosmetic surgeons, regardless of the motivations of those surgeons.

The non-objectivists will become artists, psychologists, and fast-food employees, and find their place in society, and are free to leave if they can't. Government is not responsible for providing for them, only for assuring that opportunities exist. If they squander opportunities, government does nothing to bail them out.

That's my rational for Chaotic Neutral.

Yogi
2007-11-27, 03:19 PM
Well, looking at the real world, we can see what happens when the Government does not intervene. Essecially, the power vaccum will be replaced with private orignizations such as corporations, religions, militias etc. Hence, the alignment will be determined by the policies of these orginizations and not by he government, so we can't really say.

Iku Rex
2007-11-27, 03:28 PM
I'll give it a go.

In DnD "Good", "Evil", "Law" and "Chaos" are (loosely) defined game terms. You have to go by the PHB text.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment .

So:

Probably not Good, as "altruism" and "personal sacrifices to help others" would be seen as downright immoral.

Definitely not Evil, as society would come down hard on "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (except in self-defense).

Leaning towards Law in the sense that there would be belief in absolute Truth, not to mention Right and Wrong.

Leaning towards Chaos in the sense that people will be expected to "follow their conscience" and "favor new ideas over tradition" (if the new ideas are better).

I'd go with Neutral.

Indon
2007-11-27, 03:32 PM
You would get... Rapture...

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'
'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well."

If I'm not mistaken, this is a city that has bullets and napalm in vending machines?

Not inaccurate...

Dervag
2007-11-27, 03:36 PM
You would get... Rapture...

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'
'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'
'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well."Randism appeals most not to those who work the hardest, but to those who believe that they work the hardest and that they'd be wonderfully successful if not for all those pesky other human beings in their way.

Building an entire culture out of people like that does not strike me as a recipe for success.

I'd say that the society would start out at True Neutral- Randism is largely indifferent to the distinctions between the forces called good and evil and law and chaos in D&D terms. However, it would be far more likely to evolve towards chaos than law, and substantially more likely to evolve towards evil than good, because Randism is not many steps away from the Hobbesean war of all against all.

bosssmiley
2007-11-27, 03:38 PM
A Rand style Objectivist society would be Lawful Soapbox.

(kidding) :smallwink:

Chaotic Neutral (after Craig1f). People would have the option of either buying into the society, or 'dropping out' of their own free will. As I understand Rand (mainly from "The Fountainhead"), no one has the moral/ethical right to constrain or misdirect another's creative ability.

Sounds like an almost ideal junction of Anarchist/Libertarian ideals; but Rand somehow manages to make the potentially wonderful society sound unappealing. Now that takes (negative) talent in a writer. :smallannoyed:

Telonius
2007-11-27, 03:55 PM
It would probably say that it has no alignment, as it would find such restrictions constraining to the creative instincts of its people. Who am I to call his creativity evil, or chaotic, or good, or lawful?

Assuming you could get such a society to function for more than a year or two and not have devolved into riots or dictatorship, it would probably be true neutral. The individual actors would (presumably) lash out at any attempt to either constrain the society by good or evil, law or chaos.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 03:57 PM
Didn't Terry Goodkind already make one?

And no, the society thrives. You see, in Objectivistland, the Objectivists are allowed to do whatever the Hell they want and claim the moral high ground. You know, killing pacifists and conquering neighboring realms for spoils.

TheElfLord
2007-11-27, 04:18 PM
Chaotic good or chaotic neutral

Rand isn't indifferent to the difference between good and evil, she doesn't think that society should force somoene to act a certain way. If people choose to help one another, thats fine with her, but she would object if the government forced people to give to charities.

Joran
2007-11-27, 05:12 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this is a city that has bullets and napalm in vending machines?

Not inaccurate...

I can buy a gun and bullets at a Walmart, close enough ;)

How would you define lawful/chaotic? Personally in people, I define it as "if your character is presented with a difficulty, is your first response to follow the rules or to break the rules?" What would a society be? "Let the people do what they want vs. make a rule?"

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-27, 05:20 PM
Capitalism is pretty Chaotic, since people can change their level in society pretty easily.

Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage. Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded. Grinding others under your heel, all technically within the rules (or else secretly outside of the rules, but don't get caught! ... because there still are rules) is the best way to get ahead. "It's a dog eat dog world," goes the saying.

It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).

Yes, I think lawful evil.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 05:22 PM
Randian Society would consider itself extremely Lawful. It's fundamentally built around the idea that they are attempting to treat things as they are rather than idealized.

So, I'd probably say Lawful Neutral.

Objectivism's ideals are *meant* to be extremely practical. However, they're tainted by Rand's rather "go the opposite direction" political views based on her justified horror at communism in her homeland.

Disturbingly, D&D is actually pretty close to how Ann Rand saw the world.

The Objectivist D&D

A group of courageous beings are entitled to keep the treasure they've won from morally inferior beings through the virtue of their hard work, sweat, and intelligence. These beings are superior to the rest of mankind not because of being born this way but being willing to face the morally inferior horde of disgusting slavering creatures that seek to destroy civilization while the rest of mankind cowers.

A fundamental conflict is the fact that such beings, especially High Level PCs, are expected to obey Lower Level Monarchs despite the fact that they are innately superior in Ability while the other has gained their position solely through society. Further, it is likely these monarchs will attempt to seize the PCs wealth or keep them from a position of power despite the fact that they deserve it.

The ideal objectivist arc results in the PCs at first defending a Kingdom then seizing control to guide it through Utopia through the institution of a pragmatic meritocracy with themselves as head.

Iku Rex
2007-11-27, 05:58 PM
Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage. Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded. Grinding others under your heel, all technically within the rules (or else secretly outside of the rules, but don't get caught! ... because there still are rules) is the best way to get ahead. "It's a dog eat dog world," goes the saying.

It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).

Yes, I think lawful evil.Boy, that is one badly beaten straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Prometheus
2007-11-27, 06:18 PM
Chaotic good or chaotic neutral

Rand isn't indifferent to the difference between good and evil, she doesn't think that society should force somoene to act a certain way. If people choose to help one another, thats fine with her, but she would object if the government forced people to give to charities.
Seconded. Ayn Rand's whole point of view is that the value is in individualism, ie. you are doing right if you are doing what you want.

This leaves somethings usually considered objective to instead be evaluated arbitrarily. Ayn Rand would random "promote" or "demote" her closest group of followers based on whether or not they loved or hated art that she loved or hated. Although that kind of rigidity is ordinarily considered lawful, I think objective values have to be determined no matter the society, and this is certainly the most chaotic way of doing it.

While believing such may have negative results, I don't think it could be said to be intrinsically Evil.


As for Capitalism, that seems to me more like True Neutral. Evil capitalism would actively encourage people to advance at the exploitation of others, which would mean monopolies, child labor, slave labor. Good capitalism would have to have high social mobility and strong middle class without taxing the prosperity of the system. Economic systems could be argued as inherently lawful, but as far as economic systems go a more regulated one would be Lawful and a less regulated one would be Chaotic. Capitalism maximizes wealth for the whole (good) but does so by distributing this good unevenly to those with power (evil).

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-27, 06:46 PM
Boy, that is one badly beaten straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Please don't take offense, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry you linked in order to learn what that term actually means. As it is, you're not using it correctly.

I'm not, in fact, propping up a fabricated argument for someone else's position in order to then knock it down. Instead, I'm giving my honest opinion of what pure, unrestrained capitalism is and what alignment properly represents it.

I suppose you're implying that I'm misrepresenting the concept of capitalism in general (and thereby propping up a straw man at the expense of all of its supporters), but I'm not sure how you could think that. What about my description of it was incorrect? And why?

TimeWizard
2007-11-27, 06:53 PM
I'm disappointed that no one has mentioned Rush yet.

@Rand's Economy:


Well, you can stake that claim --
Good work is the key to good fortune
Winners take that praise
Losers seldom take that blame

Toliudar
2007-11-27, 07:04 PM
Based on its focus on individual expression and its abhorrence with collectively-imposed authority, I'd suggest that an objectivist society would be extremely chaotic. Probably tending towards CN or CE, but that might be showing my fondness for the rule of law.

Dervag
2007-11-27, 07:39 PM
Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage.Of what type of society is this not true? Societies always have rules; otherwise there are no boundaries defining what the society is, and it becomes impossible to tell where it ends and the neighboring societies leave off. And the most powerful people in any society are generally the ones who are most effective at using the rules to their advantage; if the rules worked against them they wouldn't be powerful.


Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded.Actually, being greedy or selfish doesn't really help you in capitalism unless you have a talent for succeeding or (more likely) organizing success. Nobody gives you a sack of money for being found to be the most greedy person in your hometown. There's a good reason for this: vices such as greed and selfishness exist more or less independent of class. Being poor doesn't make you virtuous; some poor people are indeed very greedy and selfish, just like some rich people. They'd make very nasty billionaires, but they're never going to be billionaires because desire doesn't produce talent.

Now, the ability to organize success doesn't normally march hand in hand with altruism or honesty. Unfortunately, many of the tricks by which people lead and organize others are tricks, and it isn't reliably nice to those others to use those tricks. But that problem is universal- priests, bureaucrats, aristocratic warlords, and tribal chieftains have all proven consistently unable to be altruistic and honest while leading people.


It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).And yet, most of the genuinely rich people in a capitalist society got rich by doing things that other people consented to, not by outright thievery. Trade is a more efficient way to get rich than theft. And while trade isn't good-aligned, it isn't evil-aligned either.


Randian Society would consider itself extremely Lawful. It's fundamentally built around the idea that they are attempting to treat things as they are rather than idealized.Yes, but:
a)The fact that you think you're being rational doesn't mean you are lawful, any more than the fact you think you're doing the right thing makes you good.
b)Randian societies would encourage people to do just about whatever they damn well please, without trying to force them into organizations. A society so individualistic would have a hard time calling itself D&D-Lawful with a straight face.


The Objectivist D&D

A group of courageous beings are entitled to keep the treasure they've won from morally inferior beings through the virtue of their hard work, sweat, and intelligence. These beings are superior to the rest of mankind not because of being born this way but being willing to face the morally inferior horde of disgusting slavering creatures that seek to destroy civilization while the rest of mankind cowers.So any heroic fantasy is inherently Randist?


A fundamental conflict is the fact that such beings, especially High Level PCs, are expected to obey Lower Level Monarchs despite the fact that they are innately superior in Ability while the other has gained their position solely through society. Further, it is likely these monarchs will attempt to seize the PCs wealth or keep them from a position of power despite the fact that they deserve it.Do they? A high-level adventurer may be a destructive fool; indeed this appears to be quite a common phenomenon. Adventurers gain power through fighting, not through being morally superior.


Please don't take offense, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry you linked in order to learn what that term actually means. As it is, you're not using it correctly.

I'm not, in fact, propping up a fabricated argument for someone else's position in order to then knock it down. Instead, I'm giving my honest opinion of what pure, unrestrained capitalism is and what alignment properly represents it.Well, someone who believes that your picture of capitalism to be greatly oversimplified (i.e. "CEOs are all thieves!") might reasonably call it constructed, rather than being the product of an intellectually honest assessment.

By analogy, if I were to condemn socialism on the grounds that it involves the government doing whatever it can to force every individual into slavery by planned famines and a system of prison/labor camps, I would be engaged in a strawman argument. While this does indeed accurately describe the Stalinist Soviet Union, it does not accurately describe all socialism, nor does it accurately describe the views of most currently living socialists.

Iku Rex
2007-11-27, 07:53 PM
(Dervag has already explained some of this. I'll try to be brief.)


Please don't take offense, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry you linked in order to learn what that term actually means. As it is, you're not using it correctly. You're arguing that capitalism is Evil because of a long list of traits that are not, as a matter of fact, inherent to capitalism. For example, nothing about capitalism says that "grinding others under your heel" is the best way to get ahead. It's a parodic falsehood.

I'm not, in fact, propping up a fabricated argument for someone else's position in order to then knock it down. Instead, I'm giving my honest opinion of what pure, unrestrained capitalism is and what alignment properly represents it.Anyone using straw man arguments can claim that it's their "honest opinion".

II suppose you're implying that I'm misrepresenting the concept of capitalism in general (and thereby propping up a straw man at the expense of all of its supporters), but I'm not sure how you could think that. What about my description of it was incorrect? And why?You're claiming, for example, that "twisting the rules" and "grinding others under your heel" are inherent results of capitalism. And you can't possibly imagine how anyone could see that as a misrepresentation. In a thread about Randian objectivism.

Right.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-11-27, 08:07 PM
The Native Am-- er, Orcs deserved to die, they didn't care enough about their own happiness!
So says Ayn Rand.

Really, though, the question is immaterial. No one would ever play the adventure; it'd be very poorly written.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 08:11 PM
The Native Am-- er, Orcs deserved to die, they didn't care enough about their own happiness!
So says Ayn Rand.

Really, though, the question is immaterial. No one would ever play the adventure; it'd be very poorly written.

Well I'll avoid getting sucked into the Orcs argument. :-)

But yes, Randian viewpoints coat Fantasy and adventuring. They also made a successful book series according to Terry Goodkind.

Corlis
2007-11-27, 08:21 PM
I would object to classifying a society as being any particular alignment; I think the closest you can get is to take the average of the majority of the citizens :smallannoyed:

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 08:33 PM
I would object to classifying a society as being any particular alignment; I think the closest you can get is to take the average of the majority of the citizens :smallannoyed:

I dunno, I think that a nation can become a living thing in D&D. The policy of a country may be dictated well beyond the wishes of an individual President or Leader because that's how it works.

Kompera
2007-11-27, 08:40 PM
I'll give it a go.

In DnD "Good", "Evil", "Law" and "Chaos" are (loosely) defined game terms. You have to go by the PHB text.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment .

So:

Probably not Good, as "altruism" and "personal sacrifices to help others" would be seen as downright immoral.As I recall my reading of Atlas Shrugged, altruism and helping others was not seen as being immoral, so much as it was posited that greater good came of allowing each individual to perform whatever good works they might choose to perform. The industrialist felt that he was helping his workers by his own hard work to build up the success of his enterprise. He wasn't doing this specifically (or even obliquely) for them out of any sense of charity, but it was said that he had a loyal and hard working crew because they recognized that his company offered them better wages and opportunities than competing companies operated by those of non-Randian philosophy.


Definitely not Evil, as society would come down hard on "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (except in self-defense).

Leaning towards Law in the sense that there would be belief in absolute Truth, not to mention Right and Wrong.

Leaning towards Chaos in the sense that people will be expected to "follow their conscience" and "favor new ideas over tradition" (if the new ideas are better).

I'd go with Neutral.My vote is for Lawful Impossible. But if forced to make a choice, LN.

The book was rather a lame read, btw. The "main characters" (those following the Objectivist philosophy) were trite, contrived characters, with shallow or two-dimensional motivations. Those of non-Objectivist leanings were by and large incompetents who were completely unable to understand the most basic of economic principals, and who relied almost exclusively on a sort of herd mentality to guide their personal and business lives.

graymachine
2007-11-27, 08:47 PM
Well, assuming that the society kept to the heart of the philosophy, it would be Neutral Awesome, or possibly Chaotic Awesome, although I lean toward Neutral. In some level of seriousness, though, the society would be developed to give the maximum freedom to an educated individual while maintaining absolute assurance of the social structure. At least you wouldn't have to spend so much time listening to people attribute almost everything to magical sky fairies (unless, of course, magical sky fairies could be proven to exist with evidence.)

Riffington
2007-11-27, 10:09 PM
Rand's system is so deeply incompatible with D&D alignments, that you can't fit the one on the other. You can't even fit both into your head at the same time. It's like asking whether theodicy has the Buddha-nature.

CherryC
2007-11-27, 10:26 PM
I think Objectivism is a pretty awesome philosophy, but I'd say an Objectivist society would quickly devolve into Chaotic Douchebag as most Objectivists are the sorts of people who think they hit a triple when they were really only born on 3rd base.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 10:53 PM
I think Objectivism is a pretty awesome philosophy, but I'd say an Objectivist society would quickly devolve into Chaotic Douchebag as most Objectivists are the sorts of people who think they hit a triple when they were really only born on 3rd base.

Every system has a Fatal Flaw. Objectivism's Fatal Flaw is that it requires objectivity.

TimeWizard
2007-11-27, 11:11 PM
Every system has a Fatal Flaw. Objectivism's Fatal Flaw is that it requires objectivity.

The inherent weakness in Objectivism is the same inherent weakness in Anarchy- you have to get a huge majority of people to agree to do whatever they want and try to keep them from destroying all sembelance of civilization without a large governing body. Sure it sounds nice but it's impossible to do. If you're up for a read try out Utopia.

And again at Economy: Pure laissez faire works about as well as pure communism. Economic strength is signifcantly higher with government influence like a national treasury in a capitalistic society. If you really beleive in pure laissez faire then I suggest you take a class in economics or write to the financial section of your local metropolitan newspaper.

Zincorium
2007-11-27, 11:24 PM
From the viewpoint of an objectivist (such as ayn rand) creating a society based on certain ideals, then it would most definitely chaotic neutral. Because you're essentially telling everyone 'behave according to your own moral and ethical basis (alignment)' and even the lawfuls are going to disagree as to what should be done, and they go ahead with their individual beliefs in contrast or even opposition to the others.


However, a society of Objectivists would indeed be a different kettle of fish, and one that is simply not covered by the alignment system at all. Because an actual objectivist not only is certain in their beliefs but does not interfere with the others.

SurlySeraph
2007-11-27, 11:44 PM
Probably Chaotic Neutral, possibly Chaotic Evil. The ideas that self-interest is the highest good, that societies without rules will always work out for the best, and that self-sacrifice is misguided if not evil are completely antithetical to virtually all traditional moral codes.

Compare the Seven Deadly Sins to principles of Objectivism

Lust - Sex with whoever shares your values is good.
Gluttony - The more get for your yourself, the happier and better you will be.
Greed - Same as for Gluttony.
Sloth - Supports working hard for yourself.
Wrath - No real endorsement or rejection of wrath.
Envy - If you envy someone, you aren't good enough.
Pride - Successful people are so special that they shouldn't give anything to anyone else.

That's four out of seven. Rejecting more than half of the fundamental moral values of the Western tradition isn't easy.

Zincorium
2007-11-28, 12:08 AM
Compare the Seven Deadly Sins to principles of Objectivism

That's four out of seven. Rejecting more than half of the fundamental moral values of the Western tradition isn't easy.

The seven deadly sins are, if anything, a completely misinterpreted vision of current western traditions. They might be the goals, but the traditions are more along the lines of self-dependance and self governance.

Comparing the seven deadly sins to objectivism is pretty much pointless, the two are completely different. Judging one from the perspective of the other is of course going to result in an 'evil' characterisation, extreme deviation from the accepted norms are always going to be interpreted in the worst possible light.

While I'm not trying to be insulting, I honestly think that by analyzing it in familiar terms you're mischaracterizing the entire idea without seriously considering the ramifications. If you take anything from this, please realize that a selection of important qualifications from a pre-iron age tribe may or may very well not be the basis for consistent morality. And some of us are on the other side of that decision than you are.

Dausuul
2007-11-28, 01:59 AM
Okay, first emphasizing that I am not in any way attacking or defending Ayn Rand's political philosophy IRL, and merely trying to categorize a Randian society according to the D&D alignment system as defined in the Player's Handbook...

I'm going to say Chaotic Neutral, at least philosophically.

For the good/evil axis (again, going purely on the basis of the PHB definitions of those terms), Objectivism disapproves of self-sacrifice, so it's not Good. It also disapproves of hurting others to get what you want, so it's not Evil.

For law/chaos, Objectivism regards tradition as having no value in itself, and advocates tossing it out the window whenever it stands in the way of progress; it holds the rights and desires of the individual as supreme, and rejects the idea of people having obligations to the broader society; it urges strictly limited government; it promotes social mobility and rapid, dynamic change; all these put it firmly in the Chaotic camp.

Dervag
2007-11-28, 02:25 AM
Well I'll avoid getting sucked into the Orcs argument. :-)

But yes, Randian viewpoints coat Fantasy and adventuring. They also made a successful book series according to Terry Goodkind.I'd argue that all Rand is doing is coating older heroic fantasies in a new set of language. I mean, the Vikings had sagas about warriors who kicked butt and took names and eventually became king. That doesn't mean they were Randists.


but it was said that he had a loyal and hard working crew because they recognized that his company offered them better wages and opportunities than competing companies operated by those of non-Randian philosophy.Which is basically an authorial fiat. After all, the industrialist in question is fairly obviously modeled on Henry Ford. Ford may have paid his people higher wages and offered them more opportunities, but not because he was a Randist and his fellow auto manufacturers were not.


The book was rather a lame read, btw. The "main characters" (those following the Objectivist philosophy) were trite, contrived characters, with shallow or two-dimensional motivations. Those of non-Objectivist leanings were by and large incompetents who were completely unable to understand the most basic of economic principals, and who relied almost exclusively on a sort of herd mentality to guide their personal and business lives.I have long viewed this as being a self-important person's view of how other people think.


Well, assuming that the society kept to the heart of the philosophy, it would be Neutral Awesome, or possibly Chaotic Awesome, although I lean toward Neutral. In some level of seriousness, though, the society would be developed to give the maximum freedom to an educated individual while maintaining absolute assurance of the social structure. The catch is that the core tenets of this society would encourage people to spread away from each other, rather than towards. And they would reinforce any given person's tendency to enlarge themselves at other people's expense, even if that is nominally discouraged. Therefore, it would tend to lose cohesion and to fall prey to the designs of wicked (as opposed to merely non-Randist) people. Thus my argument that it would start out Neutral and degenerate into Chaotic Evil over time- not because the Randists themselves are evil, but because the society falls apart until it is dominated by whoever comes out on top of the Hobbesean war of all against all.

It is not Randist to be wicked, but it is by no means impossible to exploit a Randist system while being wicked.


At least you wouldn't have to spend so much time listening to people attribute almost everything to magical sky fairies (unless, of course, magical sky fairies could be proven to exist with evidence.)Which, in a D&D world, they can be.

Fhaolan
2007-11-28, 03:24 AM
The perfect societies of Rand and Nietzsche are sufficiently similar to be functionally identical in my opinion. Both posit that individual achievement is more important than the needs of the entities that compose society as a whole. Both seem to believe that a sufficiently talented individual will cause the society as a whole to elevate in response. Nietzsche goes into more detail than Rand does, about how 'lesser' individuals have conspired to eliminate their dependance on those talented individuals through organized governments and religions. This is a fundamentally Chaotic viewpoint.

The main difference between Nietzsche and Rand is that Nietzsche is 'Rationalism'. Things are so because it works. While Rand is 'Objectivism'. Things work because they are so.

All radical philosophy like these are close to being nonsensical, because it assumes casualty in human societies. It would be closer to truth to say that things work, and they are so. The connection between the two states is rarely more than coincedental at best due to complex factors far beyond what radical philosophies have tools to deal with.

Aquillion
2007-11-28, 04:33 AM
Let's see.

We can rule out Good instantly. D&D's definition of a good alignment is almost diametrically opposed to Objectivism ("Good" implies altruism... Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.)

Evil is more debatable, because there are different sorts of 'hurt' and 'oppression', and different people can disagree on them (just like people can disagree on what makes someone 'good'). In particular, under objectivism, nearly anything that isn't backed directly by physical force is not considered compulsion -- in other words, under Objectivism, it is perfectly fine for a landowner to buy up all the land in town, then order everyone to serve him as sex-slaves or he will evict them. They have the option to leave, and he didn't seize the land by force, so objectivism says that that's still good. Some objectivists go so far as to endorse slavery under the same terms, as long as people are not compelled into it initially by physical force. The D&D alignment system would probably consider that 'oppression' nonetheless, and therefore evil. Most would probably be neutral, but it would at least be possibile to be evil; I don't think, under the D&D system, that it is possible to be both objectivist and good, since 'good' requires that you feel an obligation to help others that is strictly rejected by objectivism.

Law and chaos are much more complicated:


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.At first glance, some of these apply to objectivism... but some clearly don't, and the more you look at it, the less they apply. "Honoring tradition" for its own sake has no place in Objectivism. "Judge those who fall short of their duties" seems innocent enough at first... until you think about the last word. Objectivism rejects the concept of duties entirely. Your only binding responsibility in Objectivism is to yourself; this goes pretty clearly against the D&D concept of law.

Not generally lawful, even though some Objectivists can show what outsiders might see as a (paradoxially) authoritarian streak insofar as they support the use of power by those who have gained it, as long as it fits within their (somewhat unusually loose) definition of coercion. There is a clear concept of "authority" in Objectivism as well, and a sort of hierarchy of man; even though the mechanism of authority is ascribed to innate abilities rather than wealth, it is still authoritarian under most definitions of 'coercion' other than their own. Those Objectivists which are Lawful would probably have to be lawful evil (which tends toward supporting power and the use of power for its own sake, and is less inclined towards random killing than other evil alignments--probably most evil objectivists would also have to be lawful.)

Chaos is generally a better fit, though:

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.Most of these fit Objectivism pretty closely, although the bit about 'consciences' is slightly off (In Objectivism, there is always a clear moral right and moral wrong that can be derived through raw reasoning -- there is not supposed to be any need for a conscience.)

The last bit on Chaotic characters pretty much describes a central part of Objectivism, though:
Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

I would say that most Objectivists are Chaotic Neutral, placing the emphisis on new ideas, eliminating tradition, unfettered personal freedom, etc... but some are Lawful Evil, with the emphisis on power as its own justification and on the 'right' of those who have worked to gain power to use that power in any way they choose, no matter how it affects others. A villian who wants to blot out the sun could be supported by Objectivist henchmen who argue that he has the right to do so on account of having studied magic long and hard enough to gain the power to absord all the sunlight, for instance (and that nobody else has any inherent right to the sun, having never worked for it at all); this is a type of lawful evil outlook.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-28, 05:00 AM
Actually, Ayn Rand already has a place in D&D.

She has an entire Faction in the Fated.

It's stated Objectivists/Fated can be Neutral and Chaotic Good but not Lawful Good.

Kinda ironic.

Dervag
2007-11-28, 05:38 AM
Where are the Fated described, and what is the reasoning of assigning them that alignment?

Dausuul
2007-11-28, 08:39 AM
Where are the Fated described, and what is the reasoning of assigning them that alignment?

They're a Planescape faction. Google "planescape fated" and you'll find them. Apparently their philosophy is that you have to work for what you get; if you get it, it was meant to be yours; if you don't, you're weak and didn't deserve it.

Yeah, it does sound an awful lot like Objectivism, come to think of it.

AdversusVeritas
2007-11-28, 09:12 AM
Look, Ayn Rand's society works best only if Objectivists live there.I disagree. It doesn't work then either. Rand's view of the perfect government was a minarchist system where government existed almost solely to protect its citizens. In other words, it is only there to provide police and military. However, Rand believed that one's own life is objectively the thing of highest value, and to risk it for anyone or anything else or to ask anyone else to risk theirs for any other person of ideal is objectively immoral. How could you have an Objectivist military or police force?

That is one thing people don't seem to get about Rand: she wasn't just saying that you have no moral imperative to risk your life for another, she was saying that it is EVIL to risk your life for anyone or anything else.

Leliel
2007-11-28, 09:46 AM
Look at Bioshock.

Thats a pretty good depiction of a realistic objectivist society would become if they had the power inherent in D&D.

In other words: DO NOT GO THERE!

Iku Rex
2007-11-28, 12:29 PM
As I recall my reading of Atlas Shrugged, altruism and helping others was not seen as being immoral, so much as it was posited that greater good came of allowing each individual to perform whatever good works they might choose to perform. The industrialist felt that he was helping his workers by his own hard work to build up the success of his enterprise. He wasn't doing this specifically (or even obliquely) for them out of any sense of charity, but it was said that he had a loyal and hard working crew because they recognized that his company offered them better wages and opportunities than competing companies operated by those of non-Randian philosophy.Altruism != helping others. Altruism is "unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness". This, to Rand, is an abomination. Read The Fountainhead for some ranting on this subject - Catherine Halsey is the poster girl for self-destructive altruism.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_ethics#Rejection_of_altruism):

Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some ultimate purpose external to oneself. In particular, it rejects as immoral any variant of "altruism." By altruism Rand means any doctrine according to which one must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, to be ethical or moral, an action or choice can only have the acting or choosing agent as its primary intended beneficiary. Like you say, Rand believes that objectivism is the best path to the greater good, but that's a nifty side-effect and not to be confused with DnD "Good".

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-28, 04:38 PM
Of what type of society is this not true? Societies always have rules; otherwise there are no boundaries defining what the society is, and it becomes impossible to tell where it ends and the neighboring societies leave off.

What's your point? A capitalistic society has a lot of rules. I mean a lot. Rules for where that money goes, rules for who has what claim to it when, rules for trade, rules for rules. You have whole branches of law.

Compare that to, say, a tribal culture. Do they have or need lawyers? Does Running Wolf have a corporate mission statement?

Yes, society by its very nature usually tends toward some structure, and hence "lawfulness," but that doesn't mean every culture that ever existed tried to become a Western model of society.


Actually, being greedy or selfish doesn't really help you in capitalism unless you have a talent for succeeding or (more likely) organizing success.

Um, duh.

Obviously you have to be capable in some manner, or else riding on the coattails of capable people whose wealth you inherit. However, capitalism by its very nature rewards (competent, obviously) greed (because money is the point, period), rewards a "winner take all" and "me me me" approach, and does not really reward commitment to the community or to any kind of long-term commitment to doing the right thing. There are no (or few) incentives to share your wealth or try to use it to make the world a genuinely better place. The only incentives in place in pure capitalism are incentives to make a buck.

That's why multinationals with zero local community commitment are the biggest winners of all and also why the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and the environment nobody cares about keeps getting worse.


Now, the ability to organize success doesn't normally march hand in hand with altruism or honesty.

... etc.

Okay, true. Fairly valid point, although there are exceptions to that. But put that aside for a moment. Put aside knee-jerk politically fired responses to anyone saying anything apparently negative about capitalism. Just think. Ask yourself one question:

What incentive does capitalism offer to do anything beyond the bare minimum for other individuals, for your local community, and for the future of the society as a whole?

Conversely, what incentives does it offer to do everything legally possible to snatch away what others have for yourself (or keep it away from them if you already have it), thereby increasing your total net worth at the expense of others?

Then look at the D&D entry that describes what "good," "neutral" and "evil" are, and then, hey -- you do the math. It's not particularly complicated.

And don't get confused about people "consenting" to it. You're born into a complex society wherein you really, to a large extent, don't have a choice. Nobody asked you whether you wanted to have to go work for this or that corporation or starve (your choice!); it was just like that when you got here. If I "consent" to something because you hold a gun to my head and tell me I can either do it or die (my choice!), that's not really valid consent, is it?

This has nothing to do with whether you agree that pure capitalism is evil. It's not as if you're required to base your ideas of morality on the D&D alignment system, after all. :smalltongue:

Oh, and on lawfulness ... that's a tricky one. I suppose I'll concede that point, as looking back on the D&D entry, lawful characters do such things as "tell the truth" and "keep their word." In pure capitalism, neither is encouraged unless you happen to be legally bound to it somehow.

Okay, so perhaps neutral or chaotic evil.

Craig1f
2007-11-28, 04:49 PM
Actually, I'd definite pure capitalism as lawful evil. There are tons of rules (contracts, the corporate ladder, corporate policies, etc.), all of which are generally used and twisted (technically within the "rules") by the people at the top to their advantage. Greed and selfishness, especially at the expense of the less fortunate, are lavishly rewarded. Grinding others under your heel, all technically within the rules (or else secretly outside of the rules, but don't get caught! ... because there still are rules) is the best way to get ahead. "It's a dog eat dog world," goes the saying.

It's all about taking everything you can get for yourself, including everything anyone else has, if you can get it legally (or appear to).

Yes, I think lawful evil.

You've just described every society that exists. The difference is that Capitalist societies don't pretend that people aren't ultra-ambitious, and attempt to reroute people's ambitions so that they serve society. Capitalistic societies basically say "People are flawed, and everyone wants to be better than everyone else. Let's use human nature to our advantage, rather than pretend that everyone is a robot and wants to be the same."

Other cultures pretend to care for the less fortunate, but what you end up with is a society where all the ambitious people make friends with people in power, to get power themselves. The "less fortunate" aren't given opportunities to elevate themselves, so they have to rely on government to do it.

Capitalism rewards ambitious people by allowing them to start businesses that provide people with what they want and need. Non-capitalistic societies reward people who kiss up to government, and punish anyone who tries to elevate their place in society, labeling them "selfish and greedy".

So I open a Smoothie King because people like smoothies. The government decides I'm charging people too much and they take my business, regardless of whether people are willing to pay or not. In a capitalistic society, I charge what I want. If people don't like it, I don't get business.

That's chaos, but neither good nor evil. Chaotic Neutral.

I'll restate that even in a Chaotic society, you need controls in place to prevent monopolies, crime, and persecution. There is nothing contrary about it requiring a minimum set of laws for these sorts of things.

Craig1f
2007-11-28, 05:03 PM
Okay, true. Fairly valid point, although there are exceptions to that. But put that aside for a moment. Put aside knee-jerk politically fired responses to anyone saying anything apparently negative about capitalism. Just think. Ask yourself one question:

What incentive does capitalism offer to do anything beyond the bare minimum for other individuals, for your local community, and for the future of the society as a whole?


Because societies that hold people back result in a society full of people who desperately want to stand out, get noticed, and accomplish something. Such is ambition.

A society of people who have already fulfilled their natural instinct for greed, and has everything they want and need, already has a basic level of fulfillment. They start looking towards the next tier of fulfillment, which is charity. They start thinking "well, I'm providing for my children, but what kind of a world do I want them to live in?"

Plus, you've already raised people to be competitive in society. These are not the type of people who settle for the bare minimum. However, in a society where government provides for its people, the ambitious person makes as much as the bare minimum person, anyone who goes above the bare minimum is seen as foolish.

When have you ever seen a capitalist settle for the bare minimum? We shoot for the friggin' stars in everything we do. Well, those of us who have been raised to believe we aren't entitled to anything sure as hell do.


What's your point? A capitalistic society has a lot of rules. I mean a lot. Rules for where that money goes, rules for who has what claim to it when, rules for trade, rules for rules. You have whole branches of law.

As for your earlier argument that capitalism is full of rules, I'd say that has less to do with capitalism, and more to do with Lawyer/Socialist creep. Lawyers like to make laws, and they give themselves the ability to make laws. People who make laws feel good about themselves when they make laws that they think "help people." This results in a lot of laws. This really has less to do with capitalism, and more to do with the fact that lawmakers like to make laws constantly, but don't like to remove laws.

It's more of a sign of our age than of our form of government and our economic system.



Oh, and on lawfulness ... that's a tricky one. I suppose I'll concede that point, as looking back on the D&D entry, lawful characters do such things as "tell the truth" and "keep their word." In pure capitalism, neither is encouraged unless you happen to be legally bound to it somehow.

Again, what does this have to do with capitalism? In capitalism, if you lie in a way that hurts anyone, you get sued to hell. What society are you envisioning that is honest all the time?

In a capitalistic society, if you say your product does X, and you're lying, then Consumer Reports comes out with an article that says that your product doesn't do X. They get paid a bunch of money to say it, because people buy their magazine. If they're lying, you sue them. If they're telling the truth, you just got exposed as a fraud. This happened with that Ionic Breeze thing. It turns out that the Ionic Breeze doesn't do a damn thing.

What system are you envisioning that deals with lying so effectively? I can't think of one. Again, lying is just human nature. You need a system of dealing with it. The Ministry of Truth is not the answer.

Craig1f
2007-11-28, 05:09 PM
Oh, and on lawfulness ... that's a tricky one. I suppose I'll concede that point, as looking back on the D&D entry, lawful characters do such things as "tell the truth" and "keep their word." In pure capitalism, neither is encouraged unless you happen to be legally bound to it somehow.

Okay, so perhaps neutral or chaotic evil.

It just sounds to me like you have a grudge because society isn't perfect, and you believe it should be. Society will never be perfect, and you should be wary of anyone who tries to convince you they've come up with the perfect society. That person hasn't a clue about human nature.

Capitalism and Democracy are designed to take the best and worst of human nature, and use those forces for advancement, and let the people work out their problems as much as possible. It's because you allow these opposing forces to work together, despite their differences, that I go for Chaotic. Capitalism brings people together who don't share any other interests. People who don't even need to speak the same language, and would probably hate each other if they met, can still meet on common ground if one has something the other one needs.

Dervag
2007-11-28, 05:29 PM
What's your point? A capitalistic society has a lot of rules. I mean a lot. Rules for where that money goes, rules for who has what claim to it when, rules for trade, rules for rules. You have whole branches of law.Yes. All organized societies have such branches for the areas of chief importance. In a theocracy, you get whole branches of law dedicated to making sure all the citizens behave in a way that pleases the god(s) and ensures a 'moral' lifestyle. In a totalitarian state, you have whole branches of law dedicated to making sure that the power of the ruler is uncontested. And so on.

No society larger than a tribal band can survive without a complex law code to govern interactions between strangers by some means other than war.


Compare that to, say, a tribal culture. Do they have or need lawyers? Does Running Wolf have a corporate mission statement?No, but that's because everyone he interacts with on a regular basis is at least a distant cousin. Tribal bands can function without written law precisely because they are small enough that every person is known to every other person in the group. As such, every person can be treated as an individual and there is little or no need for laws to secure the well-being and prosperity of any person against the possible malevolence of strangers.

Moreover, because there is very little in the way of valuable durable goods in a tribal band economy, there is no need for laws governing the ways in which these goods can be used and transferred, any more than a nation of fish would need regulations for bicycle safety.

Neither of these facts makes tribal bands superior to other societies with more laws (and therefore with lawyers and contracts). Both of them have serious drawbacks. Because tribal bands have little in the way of valuable durables, they are vulnerable both to natural disasters such as famines, and to the hostility of other groups with more resources. Because tribal bands have no strong law code prohibiting them from being cruel or piratical towards strangers, they frequently are. Tribal societies often engage in constant low-level sniping warfare with each other, or in occasional bouts of highly destructive warfare that can exterminate large percentages of their population. The only way to end the violence is to develop systems for resolving conflicts between strangers without violence- but such systems are the first step on a long and slippery slope towards complex legal codes and the elaborate governments devised by various city-building cultures.

This is why various imperialist cultures (not just Europeans) often refer to tribal cultures as "savages." People who come from a city-building culture do not normally instinctively attack strangers. If they did, the cities of that culture would rapidly be destroyed, and replaced either by tribes or by some other city-building culture that had a more reliable system for defusing conflict between strangers.

When those city-builders come into contact with tribesmen, they often discover to their dismay that quite a few tribal cultures do instinctively attack strangers, which is a very normal thing to do in their cultures. Even among the many tribes that do not do so, it is common for tribesmen to apply the model of clan interactions, clan debts of honor, and clan feuds to their dealings with the city-builders. Which leads to actions the city-builders find abhorrent (such as killing a randomly chosen city-builder woman in her home as retaliation for the murder of one of their clan members by a drunken city-builder). Which in turn leads to conflict, and which leads the city-builders to believe that the tribesmen are in fact "savages," i.e. people who behave savagely. In fact this is a gross oversimplification, but it would be far less likely to occur were it not for the fact that many tribal cultures do in fact turn a rather savage face to outsiders.


Yes, society by its very nature usually tends toward some structure, and hence "lawfulness," but that doesn't mean every culture that ever existed tried to become a Western model of society.Absolutely true. However, no other model has persistently produced happier people or more prosperous people. Other models supply people with different worries and troubles, but not with no worries and troubles. Tribesmen have worries and troubles, too (like starving or dying because of an impacted tooth).


Obviously you have to be capable in some manner, or else riding on the coattails of capable people whose wealth you inherit. However, capitalism by its very nature rewards (competent, obviously) greed (because money is the point, period), rewards a "winner take all" and "me me me" approach, and does not really reward commitment to the community or to any kind of long-term commitment to doing the right thing.Has anyone ever been remotely successful in designing a society where the average person routinely behaves consistently in such a way as to preserve the society in the long run?

I know that such societies can evolve by trial and error: a society tries various things and finds that they all lead to disaster, and thus becomes very conservative about sticking to things they know will work. An example of this would be Iceland farmers. When the Norse came to Iceland it was largely uninhabited save by a few hermits (no stable indigenous population). So they tried to farm on Iceland using their traditional farming methods from Norway.

Within a few generations, their farming techniques had greatly reduced the ecological resources of the island, and they were in danger of being forced off the island altogether by famine. Even though their farming methods were perfectly sustainable in Norway, they were not sustainable in Iceland.

Fortunately for the Icelanders and for Norse culture in general, the Icelanders found ways to live in balance with their environment. But once they adopted those methods, by trial and error and not by design, they stuck to them for centuries because they had no safe alternative.

That sort of society can have lots of people acting in ways consistent with the long-term well being of the society (such as not overgrazing land, not clearing hillsides that act as windblocks, and so on). But without that gradual evolution through narrowly escaped disasters, I know of no way to stop people from focusing on their own immediate needs at the expense of the nebulous and often ill-defined needs of future generations.


There are no (or few) incentives to share your wealth or try to use it to make the world a genuinely better place. The only incentives in place in pure capitalism are incentives to make a buck.Yes, but that's a problem in every other large-scale culture I know of as well; it is by no means unique to modern Western capitalism.


That's why multinationals with zero local community commitment are the biggest winners of all and also why the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and the environment nobody cares about keeps getting worse.Likewise, all these things happened in non-Western and non-capitalist societies. Entities like the Mongol empires of Ghengis Khan had little community commitment and became big winners.

The rich have kept getting richer in numerous societies throughout history; that's why there are rich people.

Likewise the poor have kept getting poorer in many societies- although the poor must have gotten a lot richer at some point in the near past of Western capitalist societies, because they now face a very different set of problems from the ones they faced before the evolution of capitalism. Indeed, by the standards of many non-Western societies they are problems of affluence (having such easy access to high-calorie food that one becomes fat, running up large debts to purchase things like cars and computers that didn't even exist in the relatively recent past, etc.).

The environment kept getting worse and worse on Easter Island too, and Easter Island was a tribal society. And yet the Easter Islanders kept chopping down trees; as far as we can tell they did so without even considering the environmental impact of their actions, even on the limited level that, say, the United States does today.


What incentive does capitalism offer to do anything beyond the bare minimum for other individuals, for your local community, and for the future of the society as a whole?Frequently, the answer is "profit."

For example, Henry Ford paid the workers in his car factories much more than his competitors. His competitors thought he was a fool; that the correct way to manage factory workers was to force them into company housing and indebt them heavily with 'company store' tactics. But Ford realized that it would be good for his business if his cars were affordable by normal people- such as his own workers. And he proved to be right, which is why we still drive Fords today and not DeSotos or Packards.

It is entirely possible to profit from doing things that benefit the general public in the medium and long term because, and this is important, economics is not a zero-sum game. It is not true that the wealth in the world is a fixed finite quantity (such as a certain mass of gold or a certain number of diamonds), and that the only way the economy can change is by moving some of this fixed amount from one person to another. Many activities create net wealth, allowing both parties in the transaction to be genuinely better off than they were before.

Even pure capitalism occasionally produces situations like that, as with Henry Ford and the high wages he paid his factory workers. With a good government regulating it, capitalism can be much more effective at producing situations like that, because government regulation can punish cheaters and reward people and companies that practice behaviors good for both themselves and their customers.


Conversely, what incentives does it offer to do everything legally possible to snatch away what others have for yourself (or keep it away from them if you already have it), thereby increasing your total net worth at the expense of others?If you succeed, wealth. But there's a very good chance you will fail- people who strive to make vast sums of money in this kind of predatory 'get rich quick' scheme often end up worse off than when they started. Rich people who sit on their money find that it does them no good. Rich people who invest their money end up richer but also often end up inadvertently using their money in ways that can benefit the economy and the society as a whole by creating opportunities that would not exist if that money were not available. They don't have to know or care that they are doing something helpful- it happens in spite of any bad intentions they might have and they end up richer for it happening.


Nobody asked you whether you wanted to have to go work for this or that corporation or starve (your choice!); it was just like that when you got here.No, no one asked me that question, but the question is itself a false duality. I could become a writer (for me, this is at least a plausible way to live, though I suspect I would be unable to hack it). I could become a research scientist at a university. I could become a government employee. I could theoretically drop out of the corporate/government complex altogether and go live on a commune; in a capitalist society no one will stop me as long as I follow all the relevant laws. I have all sorts of options other than "work for corporations X, Y, or Z."

Of course, I'm a fairly flexible guy in that respect, and I do not have high expectations for my standard of living. But no society offers many choices to the inflexible. And certainly there are few non-Western non-capitalist societies that offer a broader range of options to someone in my shoes than I have here.


Oh, and on lawfulness ... that's a tricky one. I suppose I'll concede that point, as looking back on the D&D entry, lawful characters do such things as "tell the truth" and "keep their word." In pure capitalism, neither is encouraged unless you happen to be legally bound to it somehow.

Okay, so perhaps neutral or chaotic evil.However, persistently lying and breaking one's word is rarely a good or encouraged strategy even in pure capitalism. Think about it. Are used car dealers the richest people in America? They are not, and part of the reason is that lying isn't always the best way to profit. If people know to expect you to lie and to deal falsely with them, they will generally avoid you in favor of people known to be honest and reliable. This happens even in the absence of law, as demonstrated by societies where no such law exists.

Indon
2007-11-28, 05:52 PM
It is entirely possible to profit from doing things that benefit the general public in the medium and long term because, and this is important, economics is not a zero-sum game.

Well, considering that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, that would have to be the very principle behind profit.

But giving some of your profit to other people nonetheless means you get less profit, because you gave some of it away.

The most you can hope for doing so is better PR, which, if you can do the same thing cheaper (say, through advertising) gives you no external reason to want to do so.

Here we go a bit into game theory. If all consumers are poor, you say, then nobody can buy things, and this encourages producers to help their communities so that individuals can have the money to consume. That's true.

But if consumers can consume, then it's advantageous to any given producer to reduce his share of community involvement in order to gain more profit from everyone else's share. So when consumers have money, producers have incentive to not bother to ensure consumers have money.

This leads to a cycle of expansion (where consumers have money and producers are encouraged to exploit them for greater profit), and recession (where consumers have low money and producers are encouraged to reinvest in consumers).

Dervag
2007-11-28, 09:48 PM
Well, considering that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, that would have to be the very principle behind profit.

But giving some of your profit to other people nonetheless means you get less profit, because you gave some of it away.

The most you can hope for doing so is better PR, which, if you can do the same thing cheaper (say, through advertising) gives you no external reason to want to do so.Yes, but not all ways in which a company can perform beneficial acts take the form of "give away some percentage of our profits for purpose X." For instance, Ford wasn't enrolling his workers in a profit-sharing scheme; he was just paying them an attractive wage that would let them live comfortably. And it turned out to work in his favor where using traditional 19th-century industrial practices that screw the customer over would not.

SurlySeraph
2007-11-28, 09:49 PM
The seven deadly sins are, if anything, a completely misinterpreted vision of current western traditions. They might be the goals, but the traditions are more along the lines of self-dependance and self governance.

Comparing the seven deadly sins to objectivism is pretty much pointless, the two are completely different. Judging one from the perspective of the other is of course going to result in an 'evil' characterisation, extreme deviation from the accepted norms are always going to be interpreted in the worst possible light.

While I'm not trying to be insulting, I honestly think that by analyzing it in familiar terms you're mischaracterizing the entire idea without seriously considering the ramifications. If you take anything from this, please realize that a selection of important qualifications from a pre-iron age tribe may or may very well not be the basis for consistent morality. And some of us are on the other side of that decision than you are.

Oh, I'm absolutely mischaracterizing Objectivism and vastly oversimplifying. I had to cut this down from a massive rant about the decline of morality in which I made more thorough and precise arguments. A short list comparing Objectivist ideas to familiar and (relatively) commonly accepted ideals was the best way I could find do to it.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-29, 03:35 AM
Absolutely true. However, no other model has persistently produced happier people or more prosperous people.

I strongly disagree with this conclusion for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that it ignores the people who have to be exploited in order to produce that prosperity, continuing with the fact that it assumes wealth is the same thing as happiness, and then moving into the fact that it completely ignores that the real source of our prosperity is unrestrained exploitation of resources that, in the long run, will prove to be the single most devastating thing we ever did to ourselves as human beings. And in fact, those consequences are already just getting started.

I believe there's a price to be paid for a "greed is good" mentality. I believe we've built our entire culture on it. And yes, I do believe it is a fundamentally evil behavior for a sentient, rational being.

None of that has anything to do with the point here. I'm not here to discuss the merits of capitalism with any of you, even though I'll admit I do dislike it.

The point is that if I turn to page 104 of the PHB, I can find that "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."

By implication, since they were both listed along with killing, that means evil characters also hurt or oppress others if doing so is convenient. Capitalism encourages this behavior, as anything that is both profitable and legal is definitely convenient, and often profitable and legal actions hurt and oppress others, sometimes incredibly severely. Where it is profitable to hurt and oppress others, capitalism says, "Go right ahead." That's because the goal is the bottom line, and people are only a means to that end.

By definition, rules as written, being willing to hurt or oppress others when it's convenient is, in D&D, evil. In a capitalistic society, you are strongly encouraged to hurt and oppress others when it's convenient (profitable) to do so, as long as you aren't actually breaking the law. Note that this is different from someone taking these actions regardless of their society -- capitalism itself actively encourages hurtful and oppressive (but technically legal) behavior in the name of the bottom line.

Hence, capitalism is, by the definition of the D&D alignment system ... basically, evil.

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-29, 03:40 AM
The problem here is the term "evil". It would be better phrased as "selfless" and "selfish". And if you followed that with some sort of rationale for law/chaos that made sense, we could actually come to a decision here.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-29, 03:43 AM
The problem here is the term "evil". It would be better phrased as "selfless" and "selfish". And if you followed that with some sort of rationale for law/chaos that made sense, we could actually come to a decision here.

Perhaps. But then we have to ask ourselves ... are we doing that because "selfish" and "selfless" are better terms? Or is this just a politically correct change of terms in order to make evil people feel better about being evil?

Instead, why don't we just throw the alignment system out altogether and let people decide the moral particulars for themselves? What good is the alignment system, really?

kpenguin
2007-11-29, 03:47 AM
I'd join the capitalism argument, but I'm unsure if debating economic structures counts as bringing up politics or not. I'd suggest getting some clarification on this issue before continuing and possibly opening a new thread.

Anyway, if Ayn Rand created an Objectivist DnD society, I think she'd align it as Chaotic Neutral.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 05:39 AM
I really like Nowhere Girl's arguements that capitalism is, in and of itself, evil. I tend to agree with this sentiment as well. I would take it a step further and say that, without a strong moral code coming from another source (tradition, religion, perhaps severe laws) evil would be the default alignment of a capitalism based society. Conversely, I think a pure communism society would, as a basis, be fundamentally good, though as is the RL case, would inevitably be taken over by some evil jerk who twists the system.

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 09:55 AM
I strongly disagree with this conclusion for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that it ignores the people who have to be exploited in order to produce that prosperity, continuing with the fact that it assumes wealth is the same thing as happiness, and then moving into the fact that it completely ignores that the real source of our prosperity is unrestrained exploitation of resources that, in the long run, will prove to be the single most devastating thing we ever did to ourselves as human beings. And in fact, those consequences are already just getting started.

I believe there's a price to be paid for a "greed is good" mentality. I believe we've built our entire culture on it. And yes, I do believe it is a fundamentally evil behavior for a sentient, rational being.

None of that has anything to do with the point here. I'm not here to discuss the merits of capitalism with any of you, even though I'll admit I do dislike it.

The point is that if I turn to page 104 of the PHB, I can find that "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."

By implication, since they were both listed along with killing, that means evil characters also hurt or oppress others if doing so is convenient. Capitalism encourages this behavior, as anything that is both profitable and legal is definitely convenient, and often profitable and legal actions hurt and oppress others, sometimes incredibly severely. Where it is profitable to hurt and oppress others, capitalism says, "Go right ahead." That's because the goal is the bottom line, and people are only a means to that end.

By definition, rules as written, being willing to hurt or oppress others when it's convenient is, in D&D, evil. In a capitalistic society, you are strongly encouraged to hurt and oppress others when it's convenient (profitable) to do so, as long as you aren't actually breaking the law. Note that this is different from someone taking these actions regardless of their society -- capitalism itself actively encourages hurtful and oppressive (but technically legal) behavior in the name of the bottom line.

Hence, capitalism is, by the definition of the D&D alignment system ... basically, evil.

You keep saying that capitalism is about hurting and oppressing others, and I fundamentally disagree with that argument. You're describing every culture that exists. You're describing human nature. I don't see anything in a capitalistic society that says you're supposed to be willing to hurt or oppress others when it's convenient. I see it occurring when people think they can get away with it, but it has nothing to do with the system.

The idea behind capitalism is that no one should be forced to enter in to a contract or an agreement against their will. No one should be forced to work for anyone else, and no one should force anyone else to work for himself. Every contract that two parties enter into should be made as a free choice by both parties, because both parties believe they will benefit. No one should enter into a contract where they feel they are not benefiting. So if every agreement between two parties results in BOTH parties profiting and benefiting, you have prosperity.

I don't know what you're talking about where it says capitalism teaches people to hurt or oppress others for profit. You can't hurt or oppress someone else without breaking the law. If they don't enter into an agreement with you, you have no control over them. If you say "I'll pay you $5 an hour to do this crappy job" I say "no". Other options exist if I'm willing to look for them. It sounds like you hang out with too many people who read Karl Marx who like to imagine a different world than the one that exists to support their arguments.

I think you're trying to describe fascism, which is totally different. Pretty much everyone agrees that fascism is a bad system. Fascism can be described as the system that would occur if Organized Crime took over the government. That would be a system of monopolies that exists to keep the current leader in power. This would also have sort of a caste system, where if you aren't in the ruling families or companies, you are a second class citizen, and would probably be exploited and oppressed for the people in control. This system has nothing in common with capitalism and democracy.

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 10:04 AM
I really like Nowhere Girl's arguements that capitalism is, in and of itself, evil. I tend to agree with this sentiment as well. I would take it a step further and say that, without a strong moral code coming from another source (tradition, religion, perhaps severe laws) evil would be the default alignment of a capitalism based society. Conversely, I think a pure communism society would, as a basis, be fundamentally good, though as is the RL case, would inevitably be taken over by some evil jerk who twists the system.

As someone who is passionately anti-communist, I'd actually sort of agree with you. Communism is like that token village of defenseless farmers that the hero always is called in to save from some aggressive neighboring tribe or monsters or something. It means well, but it just has no capacity to survive, because it ignores the realities of the world.

Communism is inherently Good, because it attempts to provide for everyone. The problem is, people don't want to be provided for. They want to accomplish things on their own. They want to make lives for themselves, and elevate their place in society. So Communism causes a stagnation. Progress doesn't occur, no one is happy, but they can't figure out why. "I have everything I have without having to work with it. Why don't I feel fulfilled? Why? What, you say because my government acts like a parent, and treats me like a child that can't tie his own shoelaces? That's nonsense! People shouldn't have to work to get what they need! Government should provide it, like I do for my kids! Oh wait ..."

I'd say Communism is Lawful Good. Lawful because, you've been told your place in society comrade, follow it and don't question the supreme leader. Good because you look out for your fellow man. Perhaps successful if the population is low enough to provide honor-based accountability of people's actions. But god, I would kill myself if I had to live there.

And since everyone lets their guard down, and believes that a country can survive indefinitely without progress and new ideas, the first ambitious guy who wants his own country will just come along, manipulate the system, make friends with the right people in government, and seize control. Everyone will be afraid to question this change because they've been taught not to question authority, lest the Security Police pay you a visit during the night.

I'd say most Elf societies are communist. You know your place because you were born into it. Violate your roll, they exile you.

Iku Rex
2007-11-29, 10:56 AM
I see several claims that capitalism somehow "oppresses" people. This is clearly some previously unknown usage of the word "oppression", since capitalism is what happens when people are free to make their own choices. Capitalism is absence of oppression. And while other political philosophies are willing to enslave, hurt or kill "for the common good", only capitalism protects the individual's right to own and control his own body.

I would place communism as Lawful Evil. Society methodically takes what it wants within the limits of it's claimed goal of maximizing the common good. The individual is forced to work against his will and others take the fruit of his labor. The word for this is slavery. Even if it worked, and the workers were well-fed and provided for, a healthy slave is still a slave. Communist society will and do hurt or kill if it advances it's own agenda. If oppression was not a vital part of communism you could be a practicing communist in even the most hardcore Randian nation. Nobody would stop you.

RAW DnD would tend to disagree with me here, as there already is an ideal communist society in the MM - the Lawful Neutral formians (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm). They all work and sacrifice themselves for the common good. Other beings found to be useful are forced to assist the collective regardless of their own desires.

Alex Kidd
2007-11-29, 11:27 AM
As someone who is passionately anti-communist, I'd actually sort of agree with you. Communism is like that token village of defenseless farmers that the hero always is called in to save from some aggressive neighboring tribe or monsters or something. It means well, but it just has no capacity to survive, because it ignores the realities of the world.

Communism is inherently Good, because it attempts to provide for everyone. The problem is, people don't want to be provided for. They want to accomplish things on their own. They want to make lives for themselves, and elevate their place in society.

Well really the problem is more people don't mind being provided for, they just don't like providing for others which is what Communism is based on. A communist society composed entirely of altruists would be heaven on earth(assuming enough of them are competent enough to support it). But only a small fraction of people are like that, the bulk of us are born to be in a capitalist based society driven by the good old Darwinian imperative, take and keep all you can for you and your offspring. Luckily most of us also realise laissez faire doesn't work either we need laws and a hierarchy or else we'll be enslaved by criminals and corporations.

Objectivism falls into the same problem, the unscrupulous will dominate and control, the weak are trodden on and their is no protection for them and no chains on the monsters. That is totally evil. Also the whole rape is a fine way to express love thing she had leans it even further towards evil.

So Randian society, rapidly very strongly chaotic evil unless it was completely composed of Lawful Neutral outsiders. Even then the lack of altruism would make it lawful evil.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 11:39 AM
I see several claims that capitalism somehow "oppresses" people. This is clearly some previously unknown usage of the word "oppression", since capitalism is what happens when people are free to make their own choices. Capitalism is absence of oppression. And while other political philosophies are willing to enslave, hurt or kill "for the common good", only capitalism protects the individual's right to own and control his own body.

The point that was being made was that on it's own, with nothing to constrain it, capitalism is evil.


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
: an unjust or excessive exercise of power: as a : unlawful, wrongful, or corrupt exercise of authority by a public official acting under color of authority that causes a person harm b : dishonest, unfair, wrongful, or burdensome conduct by corporate directors or majority shareholders that entitles minority shareholders to compel involuntary dissolution of the corporation c : inequality of bargaining power resulting in one party's lack of ability to negotiate or exercise meaningful choice —see also UNCONSCIONABILITY —

Here is where we can discuss the evils of capitalism:

If Ned the Necromancer lives in Randia, a purely capitalism driven society, there is nothing to stop him from casting Animate Dead on everyone in the town graveyard. Since everyone owns themselves, after they are dead and buried, there is nothing to stop him. Since this society is based on capitalism and does not oppress it's people and stifle their creativity, Ned raises a massive force of Zombies and Skeletons. He then starts a contruction company. Since he has 0 overhead for the undead, he charges coppers on the gold for bids. Soon he has all the business in town for construction. Unfortunately several thousand people in Randia are now out of work. Construction was the only trade they had and most are too old to learn a new trade. They all have large families to support and now nothing to support them. In the pure capitalist society, these people starve and die. Or sell their daughters into prostitution or various other methods of revenue generation that are unappealing.

Capitalism is rampant greed. Capitalism also leads to wonderful cost saving measures and ideas like slavery.


I would place communism as Lawful Evil. Society methodically takes what it wants within the limits of it's claimed goal of maximizing the common good. The individual is forced to work against his will and others take the fruit of his labor. The word for this is slavery. Even if it worked, and the workers were well-fed and provided for, a healthy slave is still a slave. Communist society will and do hurt or kill if it advances it's own agenda. If oppression was not a vital part of communism you could be a practicing communist in even the most hardcore Randian nation. Nobody would stop you.

I think you have a very skewed idea of what communism is supposed to be. Communism, in the real world is usually evil, yes, that is because of corrupt officals at the top though. We are discussing the basic model though, with no extra influences, which all alone it's goal is altruism, which D&D defines as good. Communism by itself has nothing to do with oppression or slavery. Communism, all by itself says that no-one owns everything, or rather that everyone owns everything together. It also says that everyone will work together for the advancement of everyone. That sounds pretty much like "good" to me.


RAW DnD would tend to disagree with me here, as there already is an ideal communist society in the MM - the Lawful Neutral formians (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm). They all work and sacrifice themselves for the common good. Other beings found to be useful are forced to assist the collective regardless of their own desires.

I don't think that Formians are really representative of Communism any more than Drow are representative of Capitalism.

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-29, 11:52 AM
If Ned the Necromancer lives in Randia, a purely capitalism driven society, there is nothing to stop him from casting Animate Dead on everyone in the town graveyard. Since everyone owns themselves, after they are dead and buried, there is nothing to stop him. Since this society is based on capitalism and does not oppress it's people and stifle their creativity, Ned raises a massive force of Zombies and Skeletons. He then starts a contruction company. Since he has 0 overhead for the undead, he charges coppers on the gold for bids. Soon he has all the business in town for construction. Unfortunately several thousand people in Randia are now out of work. Construction was the only trade they had and most are too old to learn a new trade. They all have large families to support and now nothing to support them. In the pure capitalist society, these people starve and die. Or sell their daughters into prostitution or various other methods of revenue generation that are unappealing.

Capitalism is rampant greed. Capitalism also leads to wonderful cost saving measures and ideas like slavery.Except that by raising a huge number of undead and replacing the entire construction industry, houses are now larger and cheaper and a much greater portion of the population can be devoted to farming, helping with hunger. Yes, in the short term, laborers will suffer, but in the long term, the entire society, including the guys he put out of work, is better off.

And again, in capitalism, if you don't want to be enslaved, you simply don't let anyone sell you into slavery. Keep in mind, the initial slaves were mostly captured by raiding parties, which is theft and definitely against the capitalist ideal.

Aquillion
2007-11-29, 11:55 AM
I see several claims that capitalism somehow "oppresses" people. This is clearly some previously unknown usage of the word "oppression", since capitalism is what happens when people are free to make their own choices. Capitalism is absence of oppression. And while other political philosophies are willing to enslave, hurt or kill "for the common good", only capitalism protects the individual's right to own and control his own body.Strictly speaking, this is untrue. There is nothing inherent to capitalism that would reject slavery, for instance, or the concept of inhereted debts (which can essentially become slavery); those are regulations we place on capitalism, and while I wouldn't say that it changes the basic nature of the system, it is absolutely wrong to say that "capitalism is the absence of oppression". Capitalism is oppression-neutral; it is at heart a method of distributing power and wealth in society, and like all power it can be used to oppress if not properly-managed. I don't think, ultimately, that capitalism is really the source of most of the evils people ascribe to it (we had slavery, wars of oppression, brutal sectarian conflicts, tinpot dictators and so on long before we had capitalism, after all); it just isn't a cure-all for those, at least on its own.

What you are thinking of is probably Democracy, not Capitalism; they are not the same. Of course, democracies can also accept slavery, support tinpot dictators, and be brutally oppressive to outsiders and noncitizens, but generally everyone who enjoys full voting rights within a democracy is decently protected.


I would place communism as Lawful Evil. Society methodically takes what it wants within the limits of it's claimed goal of maximizing the common good. The individual is forced to work against his will and others take the fruit of his labor. The word for this is slavery. Even if it worked, and the workers were well-fed and provided for, a healthy slave is still a slave. Communist society will and do hurt or kill if it advances it's own agenda. If oppression was not a vital part of communism you could be a practicing communist in even the most hardcore Randian nation. Nobody would stop you.This is mixing up philosophy with implementation. Under Marx's description of Communism, no, nobody is forced to work against their will, and nothing is forcibly taken from them. They choose to work and choose to support others; according to Marx, this perfect society was going to simply... happen, with everyone just throwing their arms up and embracing it automagically. It makes about as much sense as Objectivism when you put it like that, but there you have it. And certainly, there is nothing inherent in the philosophy of Communism that argues in favor of doing anything to "hurt or kill if it advances its own agenda."

EDIT: Ninja-ed on slavery. First, while capitalism doesn't specifically encourage theft and random pillaging, there is nothing inherent in its theory that would prohibit enslaving someone as payment for debt, if you can place a going dollar value on them; there is likewise nothing inherent in it that would prohibit people from inhereting the debts of their parents, or from inhereting their status as slaves. Your view of this might vary, but I think that under the D&D system it would be evil. This does not mean that Capitalism is evil (since it doesn't require such slavery; it merely fails to forbid evil, leaving that work to larger systems of law. The good-evil nature of a capitalist society would depend on what other laws it had, outside of its economic sphere; if it failed to forbid or prevent inhereted-debt-slavery, say, it would probably be evil. But that has nothing to do with capitalism, and comes from other things either way.)

Capitalism doesn't forbid murder, either. All that that means is that those things are outside its scope; it is a theory of economics, not a theory of politics, law, or ethics. It is, overall, probably true neutral. It isn't chaotic; Adam Smith, say, accepts the idea of restrictions on capitalism and on funding for 'public goods' through government institutions. It just doesn't touch on most of the things alignment does; it's intended to be the economic lynchpin of a society, not its moral one.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 11:59 AM
Except that by raising a huge number of undead and replacing the entire construction industry, houses are now larger and cheaper and a much greater portion of the population can be devoted to farming, helping with hunger. Yes, in the short term, laborers will suffer, but in the long term, the entire society, including the guys he put out of work, is better off.

And again, in capitalism, if you don't want to be enslaved, you simply don't let anyone sell you into slavery. Keep in mind, the initial slaves were mostly captured by raiding parties, which is theft and definitely against the capitalist ideal.

Ok, so Ned, after cornering the market on construction, hires a few (or builds a few) assistant Necromancers, who raise a whole new army to farm the fields.

As for larger cheaper houses, much like Wal-Mart tactics; after he has driven everyone else out of business he raises his contruction prices. He's still cheaper than anyone else can possibly be, but not enough to reduce home prices significantly.

So now the contruction industry is out of business as is the farming industry.

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 12:11 PM
I see several claims that capitalism somehow "oppresses" people. This is clearly some previously unknown usage of the word "oppression", since capitalism is what happens when people are free to make their own choices. Capitalism is absence of oppression. And while other political philosophies are willing to enslave, hurt or kill "for the common good", only capitalism protects the individual's right to own and control his own body.

I would place communism as Lawful Evil. Society methodically takes what it wants within the limits of it's claimed goal of maximizing the common good. The individual is forced to work against his will and others take the fruit of his labor. The word for this is slavery. Even if it worked, and the workers were well-fed and provided for, a healthy slave is still a slave. Communist society will and do hurt or kill if it advances it's own agenda. If oppression was not a vital part of communism you could be a practicing communist in even the most hardcore Randian nation. Nobody would stop you.

RAW DnD would tend to disagree with me here, as there already is an ideal communist society in the MM - the Lawful Neutral formians (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm). They all work and sacrifice themselves for the common good. Other beings found to be useful are forced to assist the collective regardless of their own desires.

I think the distinction between Neutral, Good, and Evil for communism would depend on whether you have the option to leave. If you can't leave, then it's the equivalent of slavery. If you can leave, but it is difficult, than maybe Neutral. If it is easy to leave if you want to seek out an ambitious life, then it's maybe Good. A healthy slave is still a slave, but some people are willing to give up their freedom in order to be fed and cared for. That's called having a job.

This is the same way with Capitalism. If you can't choose to leave for a system that you'd rather be a part of, then Capitalism would be evil. Some people can't or don't want to compete. Some people have grievances with the system. Those people should not be forced to stay under a system they disagree with.

Fortunately, under capitalism, it's usually the lazy people and the unskilled people who hate it and want to leave. Under communism, it's the ambitious, smart people who want out.

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-29, 12:13 PM
Ok, so Ned, after cornering the market on construction, hires a few (or builds a few) assistant Necromancers, who raise a whole new army to farm the fields.

As for larger cheaper houses, much like Wal-Mart tactics; after he has driven everyone else out of business he raises his contruction prices. He's still cheaper than anyone else can possibly be, but not enough to reduce home prices significantly.

So now the contruction industry is out of business as is the farming industry.If he is priced too high for people to buy without jobs, then he gets no other profit, and it is better for people to grow their own food. If he goes incredibly high on prices, he will be undercut, or people will find another source. And by this point, everyone not in the construction or farming industries is celebrating. The economy is booming, and most of the skilled fields are probably looking for more workers at this point because people are spending more money on the non-essentials. Ned has basically made it so noone is ever going to do unskilled labor again. Future generations will have much higher quality of life because the entire population is making luxury goods while zombies make it so noone is without shelter or food. Yes, Ned is making obscene profits, but he has benefited everyone, and done so while looking out for his own best interest.

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 12:18 PM
Ok, so Ned, after cornering the market on construction, hires a few (or builds a few) assistant Necromancers, who raise a whole new army to farm the fields.

As for larger cheaper houses, much like Wal-Mart tactics; after he has driven everyone else out of business he raises his contruction prices. He's still cheaper than anyone else can possibly be, but not enough to reduce home prices significantly.

So now the contruction industry is out of business as is the farming industry.

Let's put aside the Necromancer argument, since they're considered to be evil, and would probably be outlawed. I mean, can you imagine if someone suggested genetically engineering and cloning workers in today's society? I don't think the people would allow it.

So let's say that instead of raising undead, we create constructs. How is that different than assembly-line machines we use to make things today? It's called progress. Yes, you'd put other people out of business, but if the other businesses aren't keeping up with the times and progressing and finding new and better ways of doing business, maybe they SHOULD be put out of business. In their void, new businesses will spring up who learn to create constructs to get the job done.

Your argument seems to be that companies should never go out of business, even if they continue to use a business practice that has become obsolete. Necromancers creating zombies to work in factories would probably be illegal, but if the people decide that raising undead is a good idea, because it doesn't effect the creature's soul, and creates a viable workforce, then what's wrong with that? That's a moral discussion.

The same culture would probably use necromancers to create zombies under a different system as well, because that's a moral discussion, not an economic one. If the culture is communist, the people are probably starving, and having a zombie army working the fields would probably be an improvement.

Update: I feel like you're worrying too much about businesses staying in business once they've become obsolete, and losing site of what the point is of businesses in the first place.

If you go out of business, you've failed to adapt to a changing marketplace. It's time to start a new business, or work for someone else for a while. If you were smart, you've saved money, and will be able to handle a few months of unemployment.

You can't thwart progress because it will temporarily make a few hundred people unemployed. The world is a changing place. If zombie farmers are the wave of the future, so be it. I'll start making constructs and do it even cheaper, because constructs don't need brains to survive, and are not spreading disease all over the crops. Eventually, everything will become efficient, and the people will eat.

In 10 years, an "organic foods" revolution will occur, and a demand for small-farm, construct/zombie-free farming will occur. People will be willing to pay more for organic foods, farmed by people. The market will be shared. A few years later, someone will think of something else, maybe superfoods with more vitamins. Certain people will eat these, others will decide they're unnatural and stick with the organic foods, and yet other people will be content with cheap construct-food. Everyone gets what they want.

Isn't this much better than a government that declares "Zombie farmers and Constructs are illegal. We will only make food one way". Then that's your only choice. The government dictates exactly how much food the people need, and that's what they get. One year, a farm gets hit by a tornado, and there's a shortage, and people starve because lack of competition removes options.

Aquillion
2007-11-29, 12:29 PM
Ok, so Ned, after cornering the market on construction, hires a few (or builds a few) assistant Necromancers, who raise a whole new army to farm the fields.

As for larger cheaper houses, much like Wal-Mart tactics; after he has driven everyone else out of business he raises his contruction prices. He's still cheaper than anyone else can possibly be, but not enough to reduce home prices significantly.

So now the contruction industry is out of business as is the farming industry.Why can't anyone else use the same tactics as Ned?

You seem to be giving him a natural monopoly. If he was the only person in the entire world who could raise zombies or create constructs, I would support placing laws limiting him or ensuring that competitors survive (even at the risk of forcing him out of business), since despite the gains it would be too dangerous to have one person dominate the entire farming industry (he could suddenly threaten to cut off food supplies unless people did what he said, and because of the nature of agriculture as an industry nobody could step into the gap in time to prevent him from forcing people to do what he wants).

But this isn't the case; anyone can raise zombies or make constructs. Why would Ned be able to take over the entire industry just on that? He might get a big profit from having a head start if he has the idea first, but then everyone will start doing it, and he'll be no better off than he was before, with everyone profiting.

(There are other factors, and a society that doesn't want to collapse from the millions of suddenly unemployed farm laborers would probably have systems to help support the temporary disruption caused by the change. But this is getting too complicated to work into D&D alignment terms in any case.)

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 01:07 PM
I think I'm going to quit my job and go into the zombie farming business. Apparently, it's guaranteed to make my filthy rich. I'm so glad no one else has thought of it.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 01:13 PM
I think I'm going to quit my job and go into the zombie farming business. Apparently, it's guaranteed to make my filthy rich. I'm so glad no one else has thought of it.

Well conveniently enough, anyone can be a Necromancer, you only need to go to Wizard School for a few years... I'm sure your starving family will fend for themselves while you are off learning to farm zombies....

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-29, 01:18 PM
Well conveniently enough, anyone can be a Necromancer, you only need to go to Wizard School for a few years... I'm sure your starving family will fend for themselves while you are off learning to farm zombies....And if they don't, you have some killer materials to start with.:smallwink:

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 01:19 PM
Well conveniently enough, anyone can be a Necromancer, you only need to go to Wizard School for a few years... I'm sure your starving family will fend for themselves while you are off learning to farm zombies....

That's good, because as this thread has taught me, being a capitalist necessitates that I completely neglect my family, which we can also assume is incapable of taking care of itself for some reason.

Capitalism also means that I have to eat babies, put puppies in blenders, and spend my zombie farm income on electronics.

Oh wait, capitalism does none of these things. It just lets me do whatever the hell I want, and since my helpless family has probably taught me a set of values, I can choose to adopt those set of values, whether or not the government agrees with them.

Craig1f
2007-11-29, 01:20 PM
And if they don't, you have some killer materials to start with.:smallwink:

Is anyone else picturing Start of Darkness where Xykon raised his mom as a zombie?

Sergeantbrother
2007-11-29, 01:24 PM
I would agree that capitalism is true neutral if anything. It allows people to essencially do their own thing, but does require certain laws and cooperation to work properly, thus putting it on the neutral scale between law and chaos. As for the good vs evil spectrum, capitalism is even more obviously neutral. Capitalism makes no judgement on good or evil, it doesn't inherently oppose all forms of evil nor does it prevent good from being done. Likewise, it neither encourages nor discourages good or evil behavior. In a capitalist system, you can use the fruits of your labors to give to charity or make the world a better place, you can also evict widows and orfans from your land. You cannot initiate vioelnce against another however - which is the major difference between capitalism and other systems.

The alternative to capitalism is slavery. Capitalism is about choosing whether or not to work and what job you do and owning the fruits of your labors. The alternative to this is to not own the fruits of your labors, and since you then have no motivation to work you must therefore be forced to - thus slavery. I would then say that despite what ever good intentions its creators or proponents might have, that communism is by its very nature evil - in that it uses violence to force others into labor against their will. If communism didn't force others into labor and take the people's property (slavery, violence, theft) then it would simply be capitalism with a majority of the citizens choosing (since they can choose what to do with their property) to share their property with others.

The necromancer example is flawed - as others have pointed out, the creation of industry and machinery hasn't caused massive poverty and oppression - it has done the opposite. People in indutrialized countries have far better livings than people elsewhere - despite the fact that some people lose their jobs because of innovation.

Regarding people becoming slaves due to dept - it is neither here nor there. Failing to pay a debt is theft, and for a society to function there has to be a deterant against crimes such as theft. The severity of punishments can vary from society to society and isn't inherent to the economic system. Slavery of sorts can co-exist with capitalism, but capitalism is the only system that can function without slavery of any form.

Capitalism rarely, if ever, exists in a pure form. In the capitalist west, capitalism is moderated by socialistic laws that provide safety nets for the poor and anti-monopoly laws that keep capitalism from collapsing. Capitalism can also coexist with fascism, in that the government aids the corporations in making profits through its own laws; this also exists (to varying degrees) in many modern capitalist countries.

Aquillion
2007-11-29, 02:03 PM
You cannot initiate vioelnce against another however - which is the major difference between capitalism and other systems.Restrictions on violence have nothing at all to do with Capitalism. You are thinking of Objectivism, which tries to be a universal theory of everything, loosely based on a sort of popular, economics-lite interpretation of Capitalism; Capitalism itself is just an economic system, not a body of law or ethics. You are no more forbidden or encouraged to use violence under capitalism than you are under communism, under a monarchy, in an oligarchy, within a generic democracy, and so on. Positions on violence and the use of force relate to ethics, philosophy, and criminal law, not to your economic system.

Adam Smith still envisioned governments, and he still assumed that they would use police, armies, and military force to maintain order when necessary. None of those things directly touch on capitalism; capitalism is about value and how it is produced. Everything else is tangential to it. Even calling it 'true neutral' is misleading, because capitalism doesn't really imply or endorse any moral or philosophical positions that would skew the alignment system. You could have a capitalist society anywhere on the nine alignments.

(Some people like, do advocate what they call a 'pure' capitalism, which is essentially capitalism under anarchy. That would almost certainly fall somewhere chaotic. But this is not what most people mean by the term; few would argue that the US is not a capitalist society just because it has laws in addition to money, and arguing that only anarchist capitalism is 'true' capitalism is like arguing that neutral good is 'more' good than lawful good. It doesn't make any sense.)

You could have a capitalist society where initiating any violence or force is forbidden at all times, even for the police; and you could have one where you're allowed to beat anyone up any time you want for any reasons, with no restriction. That has nothing to do with your economic system.

Sergeantbrother
2007-11-29, 02:53 PM
I stand corrected. I would agree that in and of itself capitalism has no stance on the issue of violence, though certain philosophies or systems heavily linked to capitalism such as Objectivism do object to the initiation of violence. I would also be inclined to say that capitalism doesn't necessitate the use of violence while alternatives to capitalism do.

VanBuren
2007-11-29, 04:07 PM
I honestly think that ascribing Good and Evil alignments to economic systems is silly. I mean really. The Law/Chaos Axis is much better here.

I'd put Communism at Lawful Neutral, as it seems to focus on order and equal distribution, though I doubt equal wages for all citizens. What country in their right mind would pay a doctor the same amount of money as a grocery store clerk? Rather I'd imagine that there would be a standard wage for all doctors and a separate one for each profession, or something to that extent. But here we see, regulation. Order and patterns. Consistency.

Capitalism is a little trickier. I'd either put it at True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. The reason I say this, is that wages and terms would not be regulated and decided as a pattern but on a case-by-case basis agreed upon by both parties. But still there are legally binding documents involved which is a little Lawful.

Doomsy
2007-11-29, 07:04 PM
I think most people here forget that all political and economic theories are essentially started in the abstract. As abstract ideas, they are have no alignment because they have no real impact.
It is implementation in the real world that makes them good or evil, not the ideas themselves. Which means that it basically comes down to the people following the ideals, not the ideals themselves. It's basically the people who follow the idea who end up having it go down as 'evil' or 'good' in the way they live it.

I've always considered the good/evil thing in D&D to be how the people are, and the lawful/chaotic part to be how the government works. Lawful is tightly organized, neutral balances order and individuality, chaos leans towards the individual.

quick_comment
2007-11-29, 07:10 PM
I stand corrected. I would agree that in and of itself capitalism has no stance on the issue of violence, though certain philosophies or systems heavily linked to capitalism such as Objectivism do object to the initiation of violence. I would also be inclined to say that capitalism doesn't necessitate the use of violence while alternatives to capitalism do.
In fact, the restriction on usage of violence to the state, and the legitimisation of acts of violence by the state, is a common definition of a state. In both capitalism and socialism, and in both democracy and dictatorship, the state uses violence(such as forced imprisonment) to punish violation of laws, and using violence without the permission of the state generally violates a law.

If no one at all is allowed to use violence, then society will be able to punish by force someone who e.g. violates property rights granted by the society. If property rights are not respected, capitalism cannot function.

Without this monopoly of violence, you have either an utopian society in which people simply behave as you wish them to they should, or an anarchic society, which, as many people have pointed out, is very likely to devolve into something else the minute someone who is in some way powerful gets the idea of forcing their will on others.

Aquillion
2007-11-29, 07:11 PM
I think most people here forget that all political and economic theories are essentially started in the abstract. As abstract ideas, they are have no alignment because they have no real impact.
It is implementation in the real world that makes them good or evil, not the ideas themselves. Which means that it basically comes down to the people following the ideals, not the ideals themselves. It's basically the people who follow the idea who end up having it go down as 'evil' or 'good' in the way they live it.This is true for most 'real' political and economic theories. Objectivism is an exception, though, since it is primarily defined by a set of novels and not by any genuinely implementable ideas or a body of serious philosophical work. We can talk about the way D&D alignment applies to it just like we can talk about the way D&D alignment would apply to the society in any other set of bad sci-fi novels.

Lokey
2007-11-29, 10:11 PM
I wonder how this one got around the general no politics or religion in GitP? Anyway, I couldn't help but laugh:

As for your earlier argument that capitalism is full of rules, I'd say that has less to do with capitalism, and more to do with Lawyer/Socialist creep. Lawyers like to make laws...

In capitalism, if you lie in a way that hurts anyone, you get sued to hell.

kpenguin
2007-11-30, 03:40 AM
I wonder how this one got around the general no politics or religion in GitP?

Communism and Capitalism are economic structures, not political systems. So, no lock.

#Raptor
2007-11-30, 12:10 PM
Capitalism is pretty Chaotic, since people can change their level in society pretty easily. You're not born a serf, or a noble. You're born rich, middle-class, or poor, but can elevate yourself as long as you can provide a service people are willing to pay for, or can drop if you make bad decisions and squander your money. That's Chaotic.

In theory, yes. In practice, as you call it - someone changing his level in society - is something thats happens very rarely.

People changing from the level of wealth at wich they are born are the exception to the rule. There are some very famous exceptions to the rule, but not many.

In conclusion, most capitalistic societys are not that chaotic, at least not in that regard.

Craig1f
2007-11-30, 01:25 PM
In theory, yes. In practice, as you call it - someone changing his level in society - is something thats happens very rarely.

People changing from the level of wealth at which they are born are the exception to the rule. There are some very famous exceptions to the rule, but not many.

In conclusion, most capitalistic societys are not that chaotic, at least not in that regard.

Are you kidding? Some of the most successful people I know come from broken homes and had student loans. Some of the greatest losers I know have failed despite being repeatedly bailed out by their successful parents.

I think it's extremely common. I am constantly surprised when I find someone I knew from college or high school on facebook. I see rich kids who landed themselves in jail, and I see once-poor kids doing research at NIH and working on campaigns for politicians. Hell, I got in touch with a friend the other day. Her father was an engineer, so she became an engineer. She hated it, so she decided to go to law school and become a patent lawyer. Society has done nothing to stop her.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-11-30, 02:15 PM
Well conveniently enough, anyone can be a Necromancer, you only need to go to Wizard School for a few years... I'm sure your starving family will fend for themselves while you are off learning to farm zombies....

Umm... Isn't that precisely what Ned has done? He seems to have managed it succesfully somehow, what's stopping others? Maybe someone who isn't Ned, his mother is a druid, and his father is a cleric who knows "Create food and water"? Maybe he's an orphan? Maybe his family runs a farm that's already succesful enough as it is, or are cobblers able to afford food from a succesful farmer? In a capitalist society, chances are the rest of the family can provide for themselves in a pinch if needed, even if Not-Ned is suddenly assasinated. All Capitalism is is "Pull your own weight".

Anyway, I'd put Capitalism on True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, at least as far as Economic Models go. It's very cut-throat, yes, but there's nothing in it that is inherently good or evil. I'd actually liken it to life in the Wild- Eat or be eaten. Grow or be grown upon. It's very Darwinistic. And this is exactly the sort of things Druids love- it's basically the "Natural order". Yes, some guy at the top of the food chain will always eat the people below them, but there's always more of them, and eventually the little guys will get better and better at avoiding being eaten, and some other, bigger guy might very well eat the previous big guy... Or two of them will get in a slug match that will leave one seriously crippled, leaving it open for the smaller scavengers to rip off a chunk ofr themselves. Basically, Capitalism just keeps people on their toes. Communism makes people lazy- why strive to study for years to be a doctor if you get payed the same as a janitor wh o doesn't study and has half the work load?

It's a jungle out there! Wear a pith helmet!

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-30, 02:43 PM
Umm... Isn't that precisely what Ned has done? He seems to have managed it succesfully somehow, what's stopping others? Maybe someone who isn't Ned, his mother is a druid, and his father is a cleric who knows "Create food and water"? Maybe he's an orphan? Maybe his family runs a farm that's already succesful enough as it is, or are cobblers able to afford food from a succesful farmer? In a capitalist society, chances are the rest of the family can provide for themselves in a pinch if needed, even if Not-Ned is suddenly assasinated. All Capitalism is is "Pull your own weight".

Anyway, I'd put Capitalism on True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, at least as far as Economic Models go. It's very cut-throat, yes, but there's nothing in it that is inherently good or evil. I'd actually liken it to life in the Wild- Eat or be eaten. Grow or be grown upon. It's very Darwinistic. And this is exactly the sort of things Druids love- it's basically the "Natural order". Yes, some guy at the top of the food chain will always eat the people below them, but there's always more of them, and eventually the little guys will get better and better at avoiding being eaten, and some other, bigger guy might very well eat the previous big guy... Or two of them will get in a slug match that will leave one seriously crippled, leaving it open for the smaller scavengers to rip off a chunk ofr themselves. Basically, Capitalism just keeps people on their toes. Communism makes people lazy- why strive to study for years to be a doctor if you get payed the same as a janitor wh o doesn't study and has half the work load?

It's a jungle out there! Wear a pith helmet!

What is hilarious is that you say it's neutral, but advocate that Ned be assassinated if it's convenient. Kill or be killed.. natural order....

There is no alignment involved in these things if the creatures in question have only a 2 INT.... with an intellegence and an alignment though....

Craig1f
2007-11-30, 02:59 PM
Umm... Isn't that precisely what Ned has done? He seems to have managed it succesfully somehow, what's stopping others? Maybe someone who isn't Ned, his mother is a druid, and his father is a cleric who knows "Create food and water"? Maybe he's an orphan? Maybe his family runs a farm that's already succesful enough as it is, or are cobblers able to afford food from a succesful farmer? In a capitalist society, chances are the rest of the family can provide for themselves in a pinch if needed, even if Not-Ned is suddenly assasinated. All Capitalism is is "Pull your own weight".

Anyway, I'd put Capitalism on True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, at least as far as Economic Models go. It's very cut-throat, yes, but there's nothing in it that is inherently good or evil. I'd actually liken it to life in the Wild- Eat or be eaten. Grow or be grown upon. It's very Darwinistic. And this is exactly the sort of things Druids love- it's basically the "Natural order". Yes, some guy at the top of the food chain will always eat the people below them, but there's always more of them, and eventually the little guys will get better and better at avoiding being eaten, and some other, bigger guy might very well eat the previous big guy... Or two of them will get in a slug match that will leave one seriously crippled, leaving it open for the smaller scavengers to rip off a chunk ofr themselves. Basically, Capitalism just keeps people on their toes. Communism makes people lazy- why strive to study for years to be a doctor if you get payed the same as a janitor wh o doesn't study and has half the work load?

It's a jungle out there! Wear a pith helmet!

I feel like your example, on the one hand gives a very good picture of capitalism, while at the same time takes it to an extreme that clouds an understanding of capitalism.

Darwinism is a good example of the "eat or be eaten" mentality. However, Capitalism tries to take that concept up a level, so you're not "eaten" so much as you're "momentarily displaced." Think of it as Darwinism with "extra lives."

In darwinism (and nature, and the druids with your example) if you screw up, someone kills you, life goes on. I'd say under capitalism, you screw up, your business goes downhill or fails completely, you liquidate some of your assets, pick yourself up, and try again. Sure, you've lost a lot of wealth, but you're not dead. Hopefully you're not completely broke, but even if you are, you just start over and do it right this time.

When factories close and people lose their job, they are not thrown into a ditch and forgotten about; they find new jobs, maybe after a period of unemployment. Life goes on.

So yes, it keeps you on your toes. Yes, consequences exist for failure (which also make success more meaningful). But the consequence is quite a bit less dire than in nature.

Indon
2007-11-30, 04:06 PM
Yes, but not all ways in which a company can perform beneficial acts take the form of "give away some percentage of our profits for purpose X." For instance, Ford wasn't enrolling his workers in a profit-sharing scheme; he was just paying them an attractive wage that would let them live comfortably. And it turned out to work in his favor where using traditional 19th-century industrial practices that screw the customer over would not.

As I'd noted, in an environment where few are giving to the community (which offering higher wages and other employment incentives certainly does), it's advantageous to do so.

Similarly, in an environment where most are giving to the community, it's advantageous to do the opposite.