Making Social Darwinists Sympathetic

[Leliel]

Well, seeing as how one of the goals for 3E Exalted is to make Infernals their own splat instead of "Green-Colored Solars", I was thinking how interesting it would be to play a demonic loyalist with a very sympathetic personality and motives. One of which was the belief that humans are simply an unfinished project of the Primordials, and that a perfected version won't need the Exalted any more, and accepting that will be a cost of making the world fair.

Of course, if one says to himself "Yozis are the best thing since sliced bread, three cheers for the Primordials, rah rah rah", one has to believe that the social system of Malfeas is better than Creation in general. Which means Law of Cecelyne, which means Social Darwinism. A more refined version, perhaps, but still (don't think "charitable organization", think "high-risk investment firm").

Branching from this, how would you make a Darwinist a sympathetic, even likable character without being a hypocrite?

[hamishspence]

They believe that that some people are superior and some inferior- and that it is superiority that leads to success.

But- they see it as a duty to help others- because "they can't help being the way they are".

[Ravens_cry]

They believe that that some people are superior and some inferior- and that it is superiority that leads to success.

But- they see it as a duty to help others- because "they can't help being the way they are".

Reminds me of Plato's 'Noble Lie'.

[nedz]

Branching from this, how would you make a Darwinist a sympathetic, even likeable character without being a hypocrite?

1. Take 10 social Darwinists
2. Keep the ones you like the most
3. Breed them
4. Rinse and repeat

[Frozen_Feet]

They believe that that some people are superior and some inferior- and that it is superiority that leads to success.

On another note - just because you believe yourself to be superior, doesn't mean you have to be a **** about it.

In fact, because you are superior, you don't have to stoop to the level of your inferiors. You can afford to be polite, non-violent, etc. etc.

Take a look at real knights. There's a lot to be said about chivalry, but one thing is sure: those who bought into the idea were also those trained to kill people better from adolescence, and tended to be much better armed than you.

[omegalith]

Exalts are very long lived, so have him use fairly objective measures of superiority for his social breeding schemes, (that is to say, avarage strength and intelligence in his society does noticably improve over time) largely peaceful methods and a preference for sterilization over murder. Dude is in it for the long haul rather than quick and dirty solutions.

Saying "You can never have children because my ideals" is a long way from nice, but hey, at least it's not death camps. Practically makes him a saint by the standards of most civilizations in Creation.

Exalted is not a very nice place for normal humans to live.

Bonus points for him taking immense care to prevent bigotry against those labeled unfit to contribute to the gene pool. That is to say, they still have job opportunities, plenty of food and a right to not be abused walking down the street.

[Swami Monsoon]

Set him on fire?

[Frozen_Feet]

One possible idea, courtesy of Pendell from the "Singularity" thread: have him play a match-maker, setting up fit people into nice couples who can then go on to birth fitter kids.

Also, rather than take much action against the unfit, just ignore them. Don't forcibly sterilize them etc. - rather than culling the weak, focus on improving the already strong, creating well-off sub-populations of people.

After all, if the fit are truly the fittest, the unfit should hardly be able to compete - they will die off on their own, just like (supposedly) neanderthals as climate changed and Cro-magnons suplanted them.

[hamishspence]

An alternative approach- the belief that everyone has the right to reproduce- even the "less fit" but the fit should reproduce more.

Result- an overall trend in the population of "increasing fitness" with nobody's rights being denied.

[Ravens_cry]

An alternative approach- the belief that everyone has the right to reproduce- even the "less fit" but the fit should reproduce more.

Result- an overall trend in the population of "increasing fitness" with nobody's rights being denied.

Except the women and men who don't desire to breed, or at least as much.

[hamishspence]

The right to reproduce- if they choose not to exercise that right- that's up to them.

Similar principles would apply to encouraging the fit to reproduce more- sometimes people just don't respond to the encouragement.

[shadow_archmagi]

Fundamentally, the principal of social Darwinism is that success comes from superior ability. As such, they'll come across as justified as long as the highest ranking of the order actually are the biggest and the best (Which is actually pretty common in fantasy. Plenty of kings who can benchpress castles.)

Furthermore, if they actually work to eliminate weakness via strengthening the weak (IE: Give the homeless jobs) then it's not difficult to see how they could actually produce a society where everyone was fitter.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Thinking about it, Social Darwinism is sort of a more extreme version of the idea of a merit-based society. If you focused a bit more that, possibly combining it with the idea of not exactly HATING the "inferior" people, then you get a much more sympathetic motivation; all they want is what's best for society as a whole. It just so happens that some people are better for society than others.

[ArcturusV]

This was, in part, the basis for a Lawful Evil character I played in a campaign. Who ended up very likeable. The only guys in the world who didn't seem to get along with him were dead villains, evil demon gods, and one Party Member who was convinced I "Pulled a Watchmen" on him because I called him on his evil behavior and united most of the campaign world into putting their collective boot up his ass.

But he removed the undesirables from society by the end (removing all psychics), crushed those who were leeches upon society, removed the aristocracy and established a meritocracy, and started his own version of "Vagrancy" laws where people who were of no use to society in any way or refused to be a part of it were sentenced to hard labor, unto death.

And people were building statues to him and elevating him to the position of sainthood.

[Deophaun]

Furthermore, if they actually work to eliminate weakness via strengthening the weak (IE: Give the homeless jobs) then it's not difficult to see how they could actually produce a society where everyone was fitter.

Actually, if you're working to do anything as a Social Darwinist, you're no longer a Social Darwinist. It's all about Natural Selection. Interfering and trying to manage outcomes is, well, not.

So, to make Social Darwinists sympathetic, just put them up against those trying to engineer the Ubermensch.

[Chilingsworth]

1. Take 10 social Darwinists
2. Keep the ones you like the most
3. Breed them
4. Rinse and repeat

lol!

[Anecronwashere]

Right, except that due to civilization it's NOT the fittest, it's the ones who want to have lots of kids that propagate.

Social Darwinism is about isolating the best for society and allowing those a greater amount of say in the next generation.

I say the character should fall between sterilizing the 'failures' and simply discouraging them from breeding/having large families while doing the opposite to the most successful
Be polite, if slightly condescending to the inferior, and look to the bigger picture. Play matchmaker to make strong bloodlines and promote abilities

[NichG]

Go around giving people the opportunity to be heroes. Outwardly say 'just because I'm an exalt doesn't mean all the glory has to be mine - I will show the world what mortals organized and inspired in large numbers can do'. Of course this is going to be devastating to the mortal populations you send into battle, but it may be less devastating to some populations than others.

Basically instead of 'Hey look there's a godling thats causing havoc, so the PCs should go destroy it' it becomes 'hey look there's a godling thats causing havoc. This is everyone's problem, but don't worry, I'll lead the mortal armies into battle!'. Take on things that are more than what the party can handle themselves (but that still need to be taken on), but use it as justification to pull mortals into the conflict.

If you do it subtly it looks like you're just fighting a very hard war that needs to be fought, and you're cleverly using every resource so that the good guys win. When really its a war that would be fought by someone higher up the food chain or just allowed to go un-addressed since its not an immediate threat, and you're awakening the sleeping beast to use it as a sieve for humanity.

[Coidzor]

I don't really see that as possible, even if you made them actually be right, without white-washing them to the extent that you can't tell what they are anymore and they can't either.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I don't really see that as possible, even if you made them actually be right, without white-washing them to the extent that you can't tell what they are anymore and they can't either.

What's your problem with the suggestions so far?

[Coidzor]

What's your problem with the suggestions so far?

They're not really social darwinist or they're not sympathetic of the ones I've read.

The very core of a social darwinist isn't just a misunderstanding of survival of the fittest, after all, it's the supposition that they're on top and everyone else is an inferior to be used and abused and deserving the fate because they weren't good enough to be the ones doing the using and abusing. Equals and superiors are to be viewed either as figures to overcome or as somehow cheating despite the fact that the social darwinist is doing their damndest to make sure that those who are below them have no chance of improving their lot in life.

The only attempts that have gained much attention that I've really come across to make that kind of person sympathetic was from Ayn Rand and she forgot to include the last bit about grinding the faces of those beneath you into the muck forever.

[shadow_archmagi]

The only attempts that have gained much attention that I've really come across to make that kind of person sympathetic was from Ayn Rand and she forgot to include the last bit about grinding the faces of those beneath you into the muck forever.

Plus everyone hates Ayn Rand.

[NichG]

Equals and superiors are to be viewed either as figures to overcome or as somehow cheating despite the fact that the social darwinist is doing their damndest to make sure that those who are below them have no chance of improving their lot in life.

Well, one of the OP's requests was a non-hypocritical version. A non-hypocritical social darwinist would have to accept that if they fail to overturn their superiors then they are themselves inferior and should not breed. It might not even come to that kind of extreme - as long as someone is in the top 20%, or 10%, or 2% or whatever then its okay.

[Blightedmarsh]

In the eyes of the darwinist separate ethics from biology.

A human is a combination of animal and personality. Having a superior body does not necessarily make one a better person and visa versa.

Then you can monkey around with the definitional of what is superior. If what this being is selecting for is not strength or intelligence but health, toughness and the ability to recover then all that needs be done in the long run is to restrict access to medicine and healing magics.

[Anecronwashere]

The best way to select for the superior is to define what is superior, detect it and give them extra rights.
Phrasing it that way means parents want their children to be considered superior, the inferior strain themselves to be better to earn the extra rights etc.

If you want to breed them tough then have a maximum amount of children based on their strength. Stronger = more rights = bigger possible family
Weaker = less rights = smaller maximum family
Thus unless the inferior decide to have the maximum amount of children and the superior decide to have no children, over time you will see more descendants of the stronger, less of the weaker and a skew towards increased muscle mass.

The main problem with social darwinism is technology. Because tech is based on 1-2 people inventing something which improves Everyone's survival chances (a guy with AIDs won't necessarily be the guy who cures AIDs and even if he was all the other AIDs-infected get the increased survival chances of the invention)
Pretech Species: Evolve naturally as individuals
Posttech Species: Evolve as a collective unnaturally (ie they improve their civ not their physical bodies)

A social darwinist is trying to introduce a way to select like a pretech species using the posttech needs and wants as the stressors causing evolution.
This is NOT inherently Evil as Coidzor suggests. That is a misrepresentaton based on the vocal minority.
It is easy to abuse yes, especially given our evolved selfishness and need to be superior which allowed s to progress to the point where to evolve naturally (ie not at total random or based on imprinted desires from a pretech civ affecting our mating choices) requires conscious effort
BUT as a basic principle carried out by unselfish beings it is a beneficial thing.

@OP: You need to pick the criteria for what the character views as superior and worth increasing in the population then make them be politer to them and try to encourage them to have a lot more children that are 'superior' based on his views

[Kitten Champion]

Actually it's quite easy given your in a Swords and Sorcery setting like Exalted. Have you seen the movie 300?

Leonidas,

...and there you have it.

[nweismuller]

I am afraid that 'grinding people beneath your heel' is not, repeat NOT what sympathetic Social Darwinism is about. Reference Herbert Spencer, who originated the idea of 'Social Darwinism', which, in short, held that violent, hierarchical, militaristic, cruel societies were inferior and would be outcompeted by consent-based, commercial, industrial, humane societies, and that the superior sort of person is somebody who rose above crude animal violence to be both caring and refusing to use authority to issue orders to anybody, instead relying on persuasion, sympathy, cooperation, and mutual benefit.

[hamishspence]

Which was pretty close to Rand's portrayal of "Galt's Gulch".

[Jeff the Green]

1. Take 10 social Darwinists
2. Keep the ones you like the most
3. Breed them
4. Rinse and repeat

I... I may need to sig this. Please?

Anyway, here are my suggestions:

Make them right. One of the big problems with social darwinism in real life is that the traits we're most interested in (health, ethics, intelligence, etc.) are not particularly heritable (though health is more so than the other two) and they're much easier to improve through changing environment than selective breeding. If the opposite were true, social darwinism would at least have a chance of working.

Have them use natural rather than artificial selection. In artificial selection you choose which individuals will breed. In natural selection some individuals produce more offspring because their genes make them more able to. So make the healthy, ethical, and intelligent more able to have children. Release a virus making it impossible to get a woman pregnant via rape, and you've reduced the ability of rapists' genes to propagate (and made a lot of women's lives easier). Offer free childcare, subsidized food, healthcare, etc. to parents that work in certain favored industries like scientific research or teaching that require high intelligence to go into. Prioritize research that helps people survive injuries over those that help them survive diseases, since those with a genetic disposition to health are more likely to die young of injury than disease.

Encourage self-elimination from the gene pool. As an example, I have a number of genes (for e.g. depression, ADHD, diabetes) that I would prefer not to inflict on future generations. I have therefore decided never to have biological children. Encouraging others to decide the same can be ethical (but isn't necessarily, depending on the methods) and might work quite well.

[The New Bruceski]

The main problem with social darwinism is technology. Because tech is based on 1-2 people inventing something which improves Everyone's survival chances (a guy with AIDs won't necessarily be the guy who cures AIDs and even if he was all the other AIDs-infected get the increased survival chances of the invention)

AIDS is fully capitalized. The S stands for Syndrome, it doesn't mean you have more than one AID.