Your RL alignment?

[hamishspence]

Not the same princicple. A more apt comparison would be you are both going to be hired, but the other guy has a system whereby he can do both his job and yours whilst only working 20% more hours, so the company hires him for 150% of his original salary. He gets more money for proportionally less work, the company saves money, and you lose out on a job. Winners and losers.

If he's ingenious enough to do that - a case can be made that he deserves that money - and one can always look for a job elsewhere.

And I doubt very much that the world will end up full of both exceptionally productive people, and "out-of-work people" - that kind of intelligence can make other people more productive in the same fashion - and it's in the person's own best interest to use it in that way.

Going back to the thread title - I come out as LN in most of the alignment tests I take.

[Boci]

If he's ingenious enough to do that - a case can be made that he deserves that money

Sure, but that does mean he is "life living at the expense of life". To say nothing of the fact that he probably got the idea in part because of his education, an education that was denied to others. I never said this was a bad thing, I certainly cannot think of a better system. But the idea that someone didn't exploit others, intentionally or not, on their rise to the top is questionable at best.

Also:

and one can always look for a job elsewhere.

No, one cannot. There have been several points in history when this was not true.

[hamishspence]

Periods of massive unemployment, like the Great Depression?

[Boci]

Or the industrial revolution.

[JBPuffin]

So I just came here to answer the question .

Anyway, I've been proven to be Neutral Good with a Chaotic Bent (N[C]G). Seeing as how I'm a Red-White(Blue) on the mythical MtG axis, it lines up just about right. Go me!

[SiuiS]

What? No it isn't straightforwards. The concept of unlimited power is many things, straight forwards is not one of them.

Unlimited power is not in question. The actions of an individual when they are limited only by their own mores is. Your obfuscation is terrible.

{Scrubbed} Like I said, you can argue that morality is subjective all you like, it doesn't matter. In the end people will act in accordance with their principles – and their principles will show through their actions.

[Jeff the Green]

Or the industrial revolution.

Or now. While the unemployment rate for people with a college education is manageable if not encouraging, it's absurdly high for unskilled workers.

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Please don't discuss real-world religion and politics.

[Taet]

Tne evil who speak up and are happy about it seem to be lawful or neutral evil. People who argue in the thread that their evil result is not evil earn a point towards Evil, yes. But should arguing also count as a point towards Chaotic?

I just found a new test if anybody's interested: http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/javalign.html

I got Chaotic Neutral again.

Is New the best word for that site and test? Yes. Another chaotic neutral. Or just chaotic.

[Tragak]

Is New the best word for that site and test?

Maybe not "recent," it just didn't seem like people were talking about it as much as the other two

[Velaryon]

According to this test, I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

This test indicates that I'm Neutral Good. I think that's a pretty good fit for me.

[hamishspence]

Sure, but that does mean he is "life living at the expense of life".

If one argues that it is "evil" (in the D&D sense of the word) to be "life living at the expense of life" and at the same time, one argues that it is impossible to not be "life living at the expense of life"

- then - isn't that basically an argument that "life is evil"?

Yet, to be Good, one must have "respect for life".

In a D&D context, being "self-sacrificing" is a Good trait - but it is not the absence of self-sacrificing behaviour that is an Evil trait - it is actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends that is.

Ordinary life - the life of the average person - is Neutral, not Good or Evil.

[Gamgee]

I used to be neutral good and was for a long time. However I seem to have slipped to pure neutral. At least on this test. A minor bent towards chaos and evil.

[Sartharina]

If one argues that it is "evil" (in the D&D sense of the word) to be "life living at the expense of life" and at the same time, one argues that it is impossible to not be "life living at the expense of life"

- then - isn't that basically an argument that "life is evil"?

Yet, to be Good, one must have "respect for life".

In a D&D context, being "self-sacrificing" is a Good trait - but it is not the absence of self-sacrificing behaviour that is an Evil trait - it is actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends that is.

Except merely living requires actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends. And there are very few people who can live an absolutely 'good' lifestyle without being miserable. And, a lot of what we consider "Good" cannot hold up if we try to extend it beyond our own species. We have to make up arbitrary and largely baseless distinctions between living beings to decide whether their lives are 'worth respecting' or 'free to destroy/use as we please'.

Also - Alignments are fundamentally inconsistent. This is just as true for Good+Evil as it is for Law+Chaos.

[hamishspence]

Except merely living requires actively sacrificing others towards one's own ends.

Writers like Rand and Heinlein would argue that it really doesn't.

[Sartharina]

Writers like Rand and Heinlein would argue that it really doesn't.

Ignoring the harm you cause others on a regular basis is not the same as not doing it.

[hamishspence]

They have a different definition of what constitutes "harm you cause others."

Alignments are fundamentally inconsistent. This is just as true for Good+Evil as it is for Law+Chaos.

What we're discussing, by virtue of using the term "alignment" is the D&D definition - no matter how inconsistent. And it's our job to wring some level on consistency out of it.

"Life" in this case, may be "Conscious Intelligence". Killing a tree is not murder (a tree is an object in D&D). Killing an independent, intelligent construct, would be - even if that construct has no living cells in its body.

[Sartharina]

"Life" in this case, may be "Conscious Intelligence". Killing a tree is not murder (a tree is an object in D&D). Killing an independent, intelligent construct, would be - even if that construct has no living cells in its body.

But what measure is a non-conscious intelligence?

[hamishspence]

But what measure is a non-conscious intelligence?

that, while it's (probably) not an evil act for a peasant farmer to kill crows preying on his crops, or the pig he's been raising for bacon come winter, it is evil for the farmer to brutalize and mistreat his animals.

I'm going with the assumption that a paladin, or character with one Exalted feat, can take up farming and not instantaneously Fall, or Fall the moment they kill an animal.

[SiuiS]

I dunno. I think it can fairly be said that if it's an object – which includes "ignores fort save effects which do not also affect objects" – then it cannot be 'murdered'.

Of course, for this to be productive at all we need definitions of words which make sense both to emotional reasoning and to D&D's setting assumptions, at least nominally counting that this thread covers all versions of D&D.

• harm
• murder
• life

For example, murder gets thrown around a lot but it's used to mean 'killing something in a way I don't approve of'. That's not really murder though, unless by 'you' I'm referring to a society or society-level construct. Harm can also be viewed as entropy, whereby any action which diminishes any other thing by three degrees or less even at a technically accurate but no actionable level is still harm. Which is ridiculous and as said, nonaction able.

Alignment will not be decided in any meaningful way by pedantry and technicalities. It will be decided by whatever a stems have been internalized enough to make any actions taken 'right' or 'wrong'.

[Boci]

Unlimited power is not in question. The actions of an individual when they are limited only by their own mores is.

I can see the potential merit in this approach, hence my counter example, which achieves roughly the same thing without a dozen unanswerable question about the very nature of the scenario.

Your obfuscation is terrible.

Fair enough, you are allowed to believe that. Can you explain why my argument is terrible, or bring some new points of your own to the table? Because until you do, there's not much I can do with "You are wrong, trust me", except point out that I was not the only one to find your insistence on the validity of an example involving omnipotence bizarre/result skewering.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm going with the assumption that a paladin, or character with one Exalted feat, can take up farming and not instantaneously Fall, or Fall the moment they kill an animal.

Excepting Vow of Peace, of course.

D&D morality is pretty clear that the death of animals and vermin through the normal traditional farming practice isn't Evil. This is the case regardless of whether this aligns with anyone's real-life ethics (and it does not, for a large number of people). It might be evil to torture a cow, but I'm not certain there's anything in the rules to suggest that. It's because of mismatches like this and the other way around that I say I'm likely not Good.

[Haluesen]

Well I took a test a couple months back that said I'm True Neutral, and that feels close enough. Some of my friends consider me the token Good Teammate. But I honestly have some fairly cold-hearted ideas for making the world "better" in my eyes, though only for myself, my friends and family, and potentially for random people. I won't go into it for fear of breaching rules. But I feel like I am True Neutral, leaning more to Good while in a happy or benevolent mood, and more to Evil when depressed.

[hamishspence]

It might be evil to torture a cow, but I'm not certain there's anything in the rules to suggest that.

You've got the line in BOED that says "Torture is always evil" and the table in Fiendish Codex 2 that lists all "levels" of torture as Corrupt Acts.

Way I see it - any interpretation that claims that "

the act of living is an evil act because it cannot be anything other than "at the expense of others"

is incompatible with the D&D definitions of Good and Evil, loose as they are.

[Jeff the Green]

Way I see it - any interpretation that claims that "

the act of living is an evil act because it cannot be anything other than "at the expense of others"

is incompatible with the D&D definitions of Good and Evil, loose as they are.

Considering that there exist explicitly Good living beings, I think it's fairly safe to say that opportunity cost isn't a factor until you get to the point of gluttony and Willing Deformity (obese)

[hamishspence]

Considering that there exist explicitly Good living beings, I think it's fairly safe to say that opportunity cost isn't a factor until you get to the point of gluttony and Willing Deformity (obese)

Given that there's a "Willing Deformity - Emaciated" feat (named something along those lines, anyway) it may be less a case of "gluttony" and more a case of "disrespect for one's own life and body" that makes such a feat Vile.

Suppose a character used spells in order to overeat until they qualified for the feat - and then took the feat. There would be no case of "opportunity cost".

[Inevitability]

Could we PLEASE try to stay on topic? If you want to discuss alignment, make a thread yourself for that.

[hamishspence]

Problem is - this is an alignment thread.

Though I suppose the statements could be that "In my opinion, based on my own reading of D&D alignment texts, if I was translated into the D&D-verse I would be X alignment" - and leave it at that, with no discussion of whether that reading is correct or not.

[Frozen_Feet]

But what measure is a non-conscious intelligence?

In terms of D&D 3.x. : anything with a Wisdom and Charisma score of 3 or more and Int score of 2 or less.

The difference between Int 2 and Int 3 is the ability to speak, read and write. Int is also primarily associated with analytical thinking and memory. In real world terms, it best corresponds to general intellect, measured by IQ. From this, we can gather any person or creature ranking below 0.46 percentile in terms of IQ is not considered a conscious, moral operator, and as per the rules for animals in D&D 3.x., defaults to being True Neutral in alignment.

As most animals lack linguistic ability and compare poorly to humans in terms of analytical thinking, the Animal type in D&D 3.x. is by default considered to have 2 or less Int and be True Neutral. Plants, if I recall correctly, are by default considered to be Mindless, meaning Int is a non-ability for them. Hence they too are non-conscious and True Neutral.

Killing these creatures for sustenance or self-defense does not count as Evil under any reasonable reading of the alignment rules. Hence, a strict vegetarian would almost certainly count as Good, and a carnivore limiting its killing to Animals would count at worst Neutral.

[hamishspence]

Plants, if I recall correctly, are by default considered to be Mindless, meaning Int is a non-ability for them. Hence they too are non-conscious and True Neutral.

Killing these creatures for sustenance or self-defense does not count as Evil under any reasonable reading of the alignment rules. Hence, a strict vegetarian would almost certainly count as Good, and a carnivore limiting its killing to Animals would count at worst Neutral.

Plant Creatures are sometimes intelligent, but not often.

However "ordinary" trees tend to be portrayed as Objects.

BoED had a Vow that required the character to "not touch dead flesh" of any kind - assuming that the flesh has to be that of a creature, and "fruit flesh" doesn't count - that would be a Vow that basically requires strict vegetarianism. Even if you swallowed something alive, its dead flesh would be touching the inside of your stomach shortly afterward.