Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Anslol on 20 Jun 2013, 11:26
-
This is a thing I just came up with because WHY NOT?!
Go here: http://easydamus.com/alignment.html (http://easydamus.com/alignment.html)
Read through the alignments and see which applies to your main RP character, then share it here and why you think the character is thus aligned/what makes them aligned in such a way. No major explanation needed, just a quick one!
Once you do that, pick an alignment for the person above you and explain why you think they are what they are.
NOTE: This is for fun, not to snipe at people. Please don't use this thread as a means of passive aggressive whatever. Let's just keep it fun and enjoy!
I feel Anslo is True Neutral due to his lack of interest save for himself and those close to him. He's sort of given up the 'grr defend fredumbs' thing for the Federation and really doesn't care what other's do until it messes with him or his own people (being friends and family, capsuleer and baseliner). He'll also take pot shots and call out shit from anyone regardless of race. Though more often than not, he finds himself doing this to other Gallenteans cause...welp...:gallente:
-
400 - Bad Request
Link would appear to be broken.
-
When I click it, it works fine O_o...just Google alignment system.
-
Link worked for me.
Putting aside the limitation of the D&D alignment system. I'd say Karm has shifted over the years from Lawful neutral (PIE and early KotMC years), to true neutral(late KotMC through Douma), finally to neutral evil (2nd time in PIE until present).
Edit: didn't read the rules. Anslo seems to me to be neutral good due to his general inclination to help people and get upset when other characters do bad things.
-
Question: Should I say how I view the character or how Makkal views the character?
After all, Makkal hasn't heard you talk about Anslol torturing people or being psychotic while I have.
-----------------
Anslol - Makkal considers Anslol chaotic good. Like most Gallente, he seems to have little regard for tradition or customs, and he doesn't seem to be part of any larger group. However, he's shown himself to be caring when he's not being bitchy.
Karm - Makkal sees Karmilla as being neutral. Your character drifts from place to place and does not appear to have any firm ideological mooring.
-
Pieter is lawful neutral, with a shard of lawful good. He genuinely thinks an orderly and well regulated life is the best thing for everyone concerned - starting well before conception with extensive genetic engineering. The concept of leaving things to chance reduces him to horrified wibbling.
The only thing that makes him lawful neutral instead of lawful good are the things he's willing to do - if ordered by a lawful authority.
Makkal - Is basically lawful in her outlooks, I think, but has a history of 'opting' out when it suits her - such as her marriage and her decision to go to I-Red instead of staying within the Empire. I really haven't RP'd opposite her enough to know any of her REALLY hidden secrets, so I'd assume she's basically Good - since she seems to have the best interests of people at heart, but I'm aware that she's pretty much a stranger to me.
-
The alignment of both if they differ! For instance, both player and character Anslo see Makkal as Lawful Neutral from every time he's watched her do...well anything. She's simply a good soldier.
Pieter: Anslo (c) and (p) thinks Pieter is a Lawful Good more so than Lawful Neutral, since he follows orders, but finds ways around them without breaking rules if he finds those orders morally reprehensible. He has a good conscious.
Karm: Agree with the True Neutral label (p) wise, but (c) leans more to Neutral Evil, most because Anslo (c) see's Silas as rather manipulative and able to use others as a tool without them even knowing it. So, he's wary of her.
-
Pieter - LN. Pieter fits well into the Caldari mold of a dutiful soldier. She assumes he's good natured but will get his hands dirty of that's part of the job. Rumors about Pyre and his odd behavior of late means she's keeping an eye on him though, and so her opinion is fluid at the moment.
...staying within the Empire...
Ahh.
-
Kala is a Lawful Good character, but only in relation to her family/tribe and very close friends. As far as she's concerned everyone else can go fuck themselves :P As a Minmatar, tradition and ritual are quite important to her, as are following the laws or her family and tribe. She is far less interested in the laws enforced by the Republic as she sees it as corrupt and crippled by infighting and indecision between the tribes.
Makkal and Pieter I'm afraid I have never interacted with, so I cannot give any real assessment. What they've written seems to fit with my knowledge of them from chat logs however :)
Edit: I got the link working >_> No idea what broke it, but it was temporary.
-
I see Steffanie as being lawful good: adherence to the law while espousing altruism and protecting the innocent from tyranny.
Pieter...from the little I have seen of him in EVE, his comments on the forums, and other people's comments, I would say lawful neutral. Adherence to the law in all things and the willingness to enforce said law regardless of the action necessary.
Anslo, I would say is chaotic good...despite the 'giving no fucks' attitude, I think that's just a facade and behind it is a good guy.
Makkal...I'm not really sure where I would put her. I could see her being lawful neutral or neutral good.
Karmilla...don't know well enough, but lawful neutral might be appropriate from what I have seen.
-
The old D&D alignment systems don't tend to work too well in shades-of-gray (or rather realistic) worlds. In fact, I've banned alignment from all my campaigns, since once you put an alignment system on most characters, people start behaving like they're chained by it.
Merdaneth is obviously Lawful Good for example:
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
That is 100% applicable to him.
He tries to follow what the Amarr traditions and society says a moral person is excepted or required to do. He opposes evil and fights relentlessly. He never lies, is friendly to those in need, and speaks out against injustices. And he certainly wants to see all guilty people punished. Just what is just and unjust, and good and evil to him is different from many others.
From his viewpoint most of the Matari terrorists he fights are Chaotic Evil:
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
In his opinion they attack the Amarr out of lust for destruction. They are quick to anger, ready to kill innocents for their cause, lie if it suits their 'greater purpose' and trying to destabilize Amarr society is the very epitome of trying to spread evil and chaos. Fortunately, the Tribals are haphazard, poorly (non-centrally) organized and their hatred easily turns inward when not opposed by a strong target. Portioning out parts of Providence to belligerent allies with the purpose of turning it into some kind of a 'Fight Club', centered on murder, brutality and destruction is *the* proof that Ushra'Khan are a Chaotic Evil organization for example.
Star Fraction as an organization tended to be neutral evil although Jade. Use rules and principles only if it works to your advantage:
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience
That was the typical Freecaptain for you from Merdaneth's point of view.
Gallente society: Chaotic Neutral.
And so on and on.
-
Kala - Who is Kala?
Steffanie - Unknown. More evidence needed. Suspected chaotic neutral.
Merdaneth - Another 'unknown.' Lawful as he's one of the Imperial crusaders.
-
Kala = Kalalalalalalalalalalala
-
While applying this to a new character may be a hindrance, I started this thread just to see what others consider other people to be. We all have preconceived behaviors for our characters, even if we didn't have the Alignment System in mind. That's not to say people don't change but, still. It's interesting to see what people think of other characters given their actions. I'm kinda surprised to see lawful good popping up for Anslo tbh, I expected lawful evil or neutral. Makes me feel all warm inside. :D
-
Kala - Who is Kala?
This is going in my bio when I resubscribe >_>
-
Silas: Lawful Evil.
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what She wants within the limits of her code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. She cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life"
Character's views of the following:
Anslo - Chaotic Good
Kalaratiri - Not enough interaction to give proper answer!
Makkal - Neutral. Too early to tell which way the wind will push her, and who is doing the pushing.
Pieter - Lawful Neutral. The proper soldier.
Karmilla - Chaotic Neutral turning to Neutral Evil
Also:
(http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/alignment_chart_by_4thehorde-d37w8l2.jpg)
-
Silas: Lawful Evil.
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what She wants within the limits of her code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. She cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life"
Incidentally, Lawful Evil villians are much easier to thwart than Lawful Good ones. Since evil is about self-interest, you can make a Lawful Evil person change their course by making it unprofitable for them to continue. For Lawful Good ones on the other hand... They keep persisting even if it is not in their best interest to do so anymore.
Lawful Good people will escalate towards a nuclear holocaust if the cause is just. Lawful Evil people simply aren't that stubborn and too self-interest to run that kind of risk.
-
Silas - Lawful Evil. Makkal was raised in the estate of a Kingdom Holder. As naive as she might be, she knows enough to know she doesn't want to know more, and Silas seems to be cut from the same despotic cloth.
Additional comment: That alignment system is all male.
-
Lawful Good people will escalate towards a nuclear holocaust if the cause is just. L
I can't find it right now, but there's that awesome quote I saw on an Amarr's bio somewhere, something like.
"I will suffer no sin, even if it would mean the whole world to burn."
But said more eloquently. Bad-assness Amarr personified.
-
I think I'd say Katrina is Lawful Neutral. She really isn't interested in morality, merely following the path of Ishukone. She's done some nasty things right alongside her humanitarian things.
-
Katrina - Lawful good. The Chūjō is wise, brave, honorable, and merited. Makkal hopes to live up to her example.
-
I generally characterize Saede as being rather chaotic good. I'm sure not everyone sees her that way, but that's cool. She's a character whose trying very hard to be 'good' in a very dark universe, where it isn't even immediately apparent what it means to be good. But she has a lot of power and she's more then willing to throw it around in an attempt to do what she can. Sometimes this works, sometimes it backfires. I think that's neat and adds a good deal of dynamism to the character. She's always working towards something.
-
Also, my claim is that if you fly around in low-sec with your safeties not on green, you're not Lawful Good. :D
-
Synthia - Lawful Good.
It is Written. It is Righteous.
Merdaneth - Also, Lawful Good - although, clearly, misguided.
-
Don't forget to give you alignment opinion to people above you!
Saede: Chaotic Good fits her right. If there was an in between for Chaotic Good and a spin on Lawful Evil where the person helps others even if it means harming them initially, I'd go with that but vOv. HONEY SAEDE DON'T GIVE A SHIT
Synthia: Haven't interacted enough. But on the Beach, she seemed nice, kind, and empathetic despite being a Blooder. Need moar interaction~desu.
-
I guess Lyn started as Lawful Neutral, until the end of KotMC. Now she is more of a True Neutral.
________________
Anslo : Lyn sees him as Chaotic Good, "Rebel". Anslo is too much chaotic to be anything else to her. He will turn against any form of authority that he does not seem to appreciate a lot when it goes against what he considers to be right. Usually when you read him, it comes from his heart.
Karmilla : Neutral Evil. She was more neutral good or true neutral back in the days, but the last times on the IGS or considering her affiliations, mostly Neutral Evil.
Pieter : Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good, hard to tell. He is too much Caldari to really be a Lawful Good but at the same time seems to care a lot about how others live for a Caldari.
Kala : Lyn does not know her especially.
Steffanie : Lyn never met her.
Silas : Lawful Evil. Self explanatory.
Kat : Lyn sees her as Lawful Neutral since she seems to obey to her duty for Ishukone. As long as she remains in the law, she does not seem especially benevolent nor maligned.
Saede : Lyn wouldn't be able to decide between Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. At times it seems the former, and sometimes the latter.
Merdaneth : Lawful Good.
Synthia : Lawful Neutral or True Neutral.
-
As though to demonstrate Lithium's point, the Alignment Test coughed up this result for Aria:
You Are:
Neutral Good
Neutral Good- A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Detailed Results:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaos --- XXXXX (5)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral - XXXXXX (6)
Evil ---- XXXXXXXXX (9)
That said, the system is better taken to reflect the holistic aggregate of a person than the details-- although a "NG" result for Aria is still nonsense.
Aria would categorize Diana Kim as Lawful Evil (with a partial pass on account of crazy) and Lyn Farel as Chaotic Good-- apparently well-intentioned but too iconoclastic for her own good.
-
Samira is Lawful Neutral, with a strong potential for going Lawful Evil as she lacks real empathy for other people and needs only be ordered to commit Evil acts to commit them. Either way, strongly Lawful of course, due to being raised to be completely loyal, obedient, and restrained. Everything about her life is strongly structured, allowing her to only let go when in private.
Aria I don't know anything about so can't rate.
Diana Kim is someone I'd consider to be Lawful Evil. She's absolutely dedicated to her cause and willing to give her life to defend it, but she's prone to committing whatever is necessary in the pursuit of that goal.
According to this specification, how you will call a character, who on one hand is ready for great personal sacrifices, including sacrifice with own life, but on other hand readily kills innocents? It can't be good, can't be evil and completely inverse form of 'neutral'.
They'd be Evil. Alignment refers primarily to deeds (intent plays a factor, but you have to act good to be Good, and acting evil makes you Evil), and if your deeds are Evil then you're Evil, no matter how just your cause. You might have started out Good, but the moment you commit evil actions in the pursuit of that good you'll start dropping down the scale.
Being Evil is NOT about simple self-interest. It might play a factor but you can be Evil without being selfish, and you can be selfish without being Evil as many Neutral characters can be selfish. Even Good characters sometimes can be selfish, too (though it's a path to dropping). Being Evil is about committing evil deeds, which both selfish and selfless characters can do.
The one thing the alignment system doesn't take into consideration is different cultural conceptions of morality. It's designed to be a "classic" western morality system. So, many Amarr would be Evil on the DnD scale, even if good by Amarrian morality. There's nothing wrong with this.
-
Aldy started off firmly in Chaotic Good territory, but has been shoved towards the middle by many embittering experiences. I would say he is currently Neutral Good, dancing towards True Neutral if a few more crappy things happen to him.
Good/Evil Scale:
He means well and wants the best for everyone, but some people simply need to die horribly as an example to all those who would try to repeat their crimes. He does certainly have a ruthless streak now, taking no prisoners when it comes to those he considers irrevocably evil like Sani Sabik, Sansha, pirates and the sort. Killing for duty is able to be respected, but killing for personal gain, fun or the fulfillment of an illegitimate philosophy is nigh unforgivable. Better to just put the dogs down loudly and violently so the rest of the pack gets the message.
This ruthless bent would probably become a central part of him if he ever becomes evil. He is also paranoid about betrayal and might now sometimes push away some perfectly decent people if they have mixed loyalties, hang around scum, have a spotty past, or are otherwise questionable. Still, there is plenty of good left in him, you just have to clear off the layer of crusty bitterness that has formed over it in the last five years.
Lawful/Chaotic Scale:
Aldy started life as a capsuleer not really caring much about tradition, social status and the like. He came from a background that is about as free as you can get in the Empire (privately employed entertainer/artist/intellectual) and never really had to bow down much so long as he stayed likable to the right people. He could speak as a virtual equal to most Holders and could also easily move through the commoner and even slave castes without causing much of a fuss. Life was his oyster and rules were just there to make sure idiots didn't mess up.
Then he was an idiot and messed up. After the whole Izanami ordeal he realized that he needed to be humbled and to get some discipline in himself so that he would never fail his morals so thoroughly again. Thus Bitter Aldy was slowly developed through two years of self-inflicted pain through his training with Otheiran, trying to keep the Knighthood together, and fighting that unwinnable FW.
Now he has come to the conclusion that people are crap and rules exist to keep them from degenerating into disgusting, depraved animals. Nevertheless, not all rules are needed. He hovers near the lawful scale, but still breaks rules when it suits him.
Now! For all you lot:
Anslo: I'd actually say Chaotic Neutral. He certainly goes in the face of authority, but he is more shaky on the moral front. He seems to mean well, but he does have a spotty past and seems a little selfish at times.
Karmilla: Not sure what she has done most recently, but True Neutral with strong Chaotic leanings does seem to fit what I've seen of her. Is mean, but not completely crazy, respects Amarrian tradition somewhat but mostly does what suits her.
Steffanie: Certainly Lawful Good. Thing is she is trying to consciously follow that path, which may or may not work out.
Pieter: Lawful Neutral with Good leanings. Haven't seen him take much of a moral stand yet, but seems pretty decent and well-intentioned.
Makkal: True Neutral with Chaotic leanings. Hasn't taken any moral stances as far as I can tell, and clearly does not care much about the standard rules of conduct insofar as social interaction goes. She might respect her local laws, but she doesn't at all seem like the type to go out of her way to bend over backwards for them.
Merdy: Paladin all the way!
Silas: Evil Overlord all the way!
Saede: Chaotic Evil. Ho blew up my Coercer unprovoked! 3 to 1! When I was defending my homeland! Honorless scuuuuum!
Synthia: Lawful Neutral. Means well, but is Sabik. Can't be a good if you believe there are savants destined to rule over the rest of the wiggly worms of humanity.
Aria: Agreed.
Samira: Also agreed, and she'd better not go evil on my watch!
-
Saede - Chaotic neutral. Transhumanism is a break from what is and so inherently chaotic, and the woman herself seems amoral.
Synthia - Neutral. Robots aren't people.
Lyn - Unknown. Apparently chaotic enough to be kicked from a PIE ball.
Diana Kim - Lawful Evil. Should have been born in the Kingdom, would be appreciated by those who understand zeal in destroying one's enemies is a good thing. '
Samira - Neutral. Like animals, most slaves can't really be described as having an alignment. She seems to obediently parrot whatever others tell her, so there's no sign she's different from the norm.
Aldrith - Chaotic evil. Scares her more than any other character she's interacted with.
-
Just a quick 'don't take this alignment stuff too seriously' people. This is level 1 painting with broad brushes, we know people are more nuanced and complicated.
Its for fun :P
-
That's amusing, it's true that Lyn could be considered Chaotic Neutral in the way she seems to create chaos where she evolves, which probably compensates for her Lawful political side.
Lyn always considered Aria Chaotic Neutral herself. Very well thought and detached in her neutrality and insight, something Lyn obviously likes, but extremely destructive and corrosive first to herself, then in her grim view of the universe.
-
Just a quick 'don't take this alignment stuff too seriously' people. This is level 1 painting with broad brushes, we know people are more nuanced and complicated.
Its for fun :P
All of my this. Please don't think so hard about it guys. This isn't permanently defining who is what alignment or anything. It's just for fun. Like I said, I like seeing opinions about Anslo. I crave feedback and I thought others might like to see feedback as well. So just treat it like that, not a debate into the systems accuracy. ><
-
[mod]Please keep it on topic. Discussion of how bad/how relatively applicable the D&D alignment system is are off topic and will be modded. [/mod]
-
Just trying to think of how Steff views some of the other characters that are being mentioned...with the exception of Silas and Diana Kim...she see's most of the others as being neutral with hopefully good tendencies.
Silas falls into Lawful Evil...and just scary...stay away from her
Kim...Lawful to Neutral Evil...adherence to the law, yet that became more an adherence to a philosophy/ideology that seemed more self-motivated.
-
Aldrith - Chaotic evil. Scares her more than any other character she's interacted with.
LOL do elaborate!
-
So, funny story.
This isn't the first time this kind of thread has gone around. Last time I did the test, Reppy came out as Neutral Good (which I didn't much agree with). This time, she came out as Neutral Evil. Ahh, how they grow up.
Realistically speaking, Reppy's difficult, as she has a lot of contradictory elements. Fundamentally, though, she's Chaotic Neutral with a slice of Chaotic Evil when she's feeling vicious. She's selfish, aggressive and doesn't really give a damn about anyone else's rules - but she does have Standards, and reserves her most spiteful moments for those she thinks deserve it. She's also utterly loyal to those she has attached to - although it's worth noting that said attachments are by no means permanent.
Skipping the ones I'm not so familiar with (all from Reppy's perspective)...
Anslo: Chaotic Good. She only only knows him through IGS as what she rather dismissively refers to as a 'bleeding heart liberal', but he stands up for what's right (or at least, thinks he does) and she does agree with him sometimes.
Karm: Neutral Evil sounds about right. Again, limited to IGS viewing of late, but she's seemed to lack either the ambition or manic tendencies of the other Evil alignments.
Kala: Chaotic Good. She means well, but I would by no means consider her to be 'stable'.
Steffie: Still trying to work you out. The Squeaker is curious.
Makkal: Lawful Neutral. They've already butted heads over this basic opposition of world views.
Silas: Lawful Evil. Ambitious, malevolent and moustache twirling to the core.
Kat: Lawful derpy - I MEAN NEUTRAL.
DK: Time for an outlier vote: Lawful Neutral. Evil would imply that she's doing it for personal gain or personal enjoyment, when that's very clearly not the case. Kim's vendetta is about unbending loyalty to her faction for good or ill.
Aldy: In flux. She'd need to interact with him more, and she's not sure she wants to.
Interesting point about Lawful Good being a damn scary villain. The quote I always remember from a PnP group on the subject was 'Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice'.
-
Makkal Hanaya - Lawful Good; The girl has got her head in the clouds, and seems completely oblivious to the realities of New Eden. Katrina hopes she can be let down gently, but fully expects Makkal to think the worst when Kat's backroom dealings eventually come to light (when Makkal raises in rank).
Synthetic "Synthia" Cultist - Chaotic Neutral; She's a blooder, but she's a nice blooder. She's also not human and totally unpredictable. She's cute, but be careful.
Saede Riordan - Chaotic Evil; Clearly subscribing to Nation philosophy with anarchist tendencies, she's demonstrated a complete disregard for basic human rights. Drank too deeply of her own kool-aid, doesn't realize how bad she's gotten... and worse yet, she seems to make sweeping policy changes at random. Dangerously unpredictable.
Lyn Farel - Lawful Good; Seems to be one of the few genuine CONCORD supporters out there and unapologetic about it. Would be a great ally to have.
Diana Kim - Lawful Neutral; Standard Loyalist. Very Similar to Katrina... except Provist. Has no issue killing those who get in the way of those she's loyal to, but otherwise is more than willing to cry foul of crime and treason if her enemies attack the State.
Samira Kernher - Lawful Unknown; Assumed Standard Loyalist. Clearly subscribes to PIE doctrine without visible hesitation. Unknown sense of morality.
Aldrith Shutaq - Lawful Neutral; Standard Loyalist. Subscribes to a set of rules laid down by PIE and the Empire, is willing to get the job done no matter the human cost 'For God and Empire', but is not intentionally malicious.
Silas Vitalia - Lawful Evil; Dangerous, cunning, manipulative. Quite possibly one of the worst people to have paying attention to you. Even worse when Silas likes you. Seems to like Katrina, seems to want Katrina's loyalty. Must tread carefully, as Cold Wind hath no fury like a woman scorned!
Steffanie Saissore- Unknown Good; Total sweetheart, but seems oddly quiet on what side of the law she's going to be on. Must keep a close eye on this one.
Anslo - Chaotic Good; Bright and hopeful boy, but seems hyperactive and prone to fits of emotion when the realities of New Eden (meaning bad things done by bad people) confront him. Generally unpredictable, but in a good way.
Veikitamo Gesakaarin - Neutral Evil; Clearly has no sense of morality, but is extremely loyal to her shareholder's bottom line. Will follow the letter of the law only so far as it allows her to get the job done, but otherwise ignores the rest of it. Dangerous.
-
(http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Paladins-600x480.jpg)
I have this in my bio.
-
Aldrith: "Agreed?" As in, you agree that Aria's Neutral Good?
... Hm.
Aria would probably categorize Aldrith as still LG-- he's too dedicated to a highly orderly cause for her to move him out of the Lawful column.
Steffanie: if she's serious about establishing a knighthood, a very eccentric Lawful Good. Otherwise, Chaotic Neutral.
Silver Night: a tragic Neutral Good.
Anslo: probably Chaotic Good. Good intentions crossed with a strong iconoclastic streak and a firm insistence on seeing things his own way.
Silas Vitalia: obvious Lawful Evil-- though the "Lawful" bit may be something of a front. Aria regards Sani practice in general as having no respect for anything but power, so "order" is probably just another tool to be used and abused.
Makkal: apparent Lawful Neutral, though her expressed sympathy for certain Sani kind of has Aria raising an eyebrow.
Samira: what little Aria's seen comes across as heavily-indoctrinated Amarrian Lawful Good.
-
Lyn Farel - Lawful Good; Seems to be one of the few genuine CONCORD supporters out there and unapologetic about it. Would be a great ally to have.
Well enjoy it while it still last because her beliefs in CONCORD have been so shaken recently that she might... change her mind. Especially since she is not emotional on that kind of things.
Damn CONCORD incompetents.
-
Using Good and Evil as synonymous to Selfless and Selfish respectively...(also, isn't True Neutral the same as Lawful Neutral?)
Synthia - Lawful Neutral. Motivated by logic rather than any system of morality.
Anslo - Going with the pack with Chaotic Good here.
Silas Vitalia - Yeah, Lawful Evil as well.
Kat - Lawful Neutral
Diana Kim - EVIL CHAOTIC GOOD LAWFUL
Lyn - Neutral Neutral
Saede - Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good
Don't know the other characters well enough to comment on them :E
-
Repentance - Chaotic Good. Fights Nation and managed to gain Morwen's love, so she's likely good. Apparently rebelled against her family while young, was a criminal at some point, and continues to be unmarried so highly unlawful.
Aldrith - Chaotic evil. Scares her more than any other character she's interacted with.
LOL do elaborate!
I'd rather not do so here, but I'll reiterate that Makkal's views on a character aren't mine. They are a product of her viewpoint, experiences, and what others have discussed with her.
-
Nicoletta Mithra - Lawful good, with tendencies to neutral on the law-order axis.
Aldrith Shutaq - LG, with tendencies to neutral on the good-evil axis[
Makkal Hanaya - LN
Synthetic "Synthia" Cultist - Not applicable. Follows a NE codex, though.
Saede Riordan - Typical example of LN being dangerous.
Lyn Farel - CG
Repentence - N or CN?
Diana Kim - LE
Samira Kernher - NE when kept in check in a lawful organization.
Silas Vitalia - NE
Steffanie Saissore- CN?
Anslo - CN?
Veikitamo Gesakaarin - LE
Aria Jenneth - N
Silver Night - N
Seriphyn Inhonores - CG
-
Time to catch up with the thread. I left out people that I've had zero interaction with or no IC opinion.
Pieter: Lawful neutral. Seems to be an archetypical duty-bound Caldari. Put's on a good Jello wrestling show.
Makkal: True Neutral, maybe leaning towards Lawful but she's far too friendly to pirates and heretics to fully live within her expected social rules (Either Khanid law or I-red's).
Merdaneth: Lawful Good, a Paladin's Paladin. Karm used to be a Merdaneth fangirl in her early career. His going away post years ago on the PIE forums broke her heart.
Silas: Lawful Evil and I think I like it. It's odd to think that the two people most closely looking out for Karm's well being are generally Evil. She's not being manipulated, nope!
Saede: Chaotic Neutral. I haven't interacted closely enough to see particular good or evil traits. Saede seems to pursue/do whatever she wants, when she wants.
Synthia: Lawful Neutral. Seems very preoccupied with rules, scripture, etc.
Samira: Lawful Neutral. Samira seems thoroughly indoctrinated by Amarr society and the PIE hierarchy. Karm wants to see what happens when she slips the leash.
Aldrith: Neutral Evil. I can tell Aldrith really wants to be a good guy, but he's violent, angry, and at times manipulative. He wants to uphold the laws of the Empire, but also feels like he can go vigilante and do horrible things to people that he has decided "deserve it." Karm may have gone Sabik, but Aldrith had a torture dungeon first.
Lyn: True Neutral. Lyn's always seemed like an outside observer. Someone more concerned with understanding something than doing anything about it. Her pro-concord stance might make her lean to Lawful Neutral though...
Katrina: Lawful Good. Consistently seems to stick to her corporation like a good Caldari should. Can't tell if she's really that good or if Ishukone just has good PR. :D
-
Samira Kernher - NE when kept in check in a lawful organization.
NE? O.O
I'm interested as to the rationale behind this belief.
-
I'm amused to see the number of Chaotic Neutral mentions Steff is getting. I think it's pretty cool actually
-
Kala: Chaotic Good. She means well, but I would by no means consider her to be 'stable'.
The lack of stability is something I truly want to expand on when I get back. Kala is a nice girl who's had some turbulence in her life, and more than a bit of it is likely to catch up with her sooner or later :D
-
Huh, well I did not expect this result... I expected more true Neutral for Vince or Neutral Evil... Instead. For a younger Vince it'd be spot on. I guess he has not changedthat much;
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil- A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called demonic because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the best alignment you can be because combines self-interest and pure freedom. However, chaotic evil can be a dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
Few people who posted before me;
Seriphyn - True Neutral 'He is not inherently evil and more leaning on the side of good, but Seriphyn will always do what's best for Seriphyn - if he can get away with it.
Silas - Lawful Evil Silas maybe a vicious blooder but she has her code of conduct in every instance she engages, and those rues seem to follow from situation to situation.
Lyn - True Neutral She's always struck me this way, if she can logically reason something to make sense she act on it in good conscience, wether it's morally objectionable or not, but she is by no means malevolent or cruel.
Karmilla - A steady descent from Neutral Good to Neutral Evil It's been a course of events shaping her. When Vince met her I'd say she was Neutral Good, and sometime after that it's been a slow decent with her friends turning their backs on her she grown more uncaring about other people.
Aldrith - Neutral Good Aldrith is at heart a good man, but life's taught him a few bitter lessons so he seems willing to bend, and if need break, a few rules and laws for the greater good. He doesn't do it often, but he does. There was a brief moment he was Chaotic Good. Willing to burn every evil motherfucker alive to make the world a better place.
-
Seems I forgot a few people, if I didn't get you, poke me. E.g. by putting a L-C/G-E label on Nico.
Pieter - LN, leaning towards G on the G-E axis.
Karmilla - CN
Kat - LN
Vincent Pryce - CN with tendencies towards E
NE? O.O
I'm interested as to the rationale behind this belief.
Samira seems to be primarily driven by self-interest and is apparently following laws and regulations more out of fear of punishment and because she has the desire to 'fit in' rather than because she believes in law and order themselves.
-
Oh yeah, doing the test...am not surprised by it...(Lawful Good). I generally find it enjoyable playing a LG-type character in a deliberately grimdark universe.
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (32)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (30)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXX (3)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaos --- XXX (3)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Evil ---- (0)
Very interesting some of the replies! I think they are fundamentally based on perspective from what we can see of the characters, and that's completely fine. CG and TN for Seri are certainly a couple I wasn't expecting! Few more folk...
Vincent Pryce - Neutral Evil
Nicoletta Mithra - Lawful Neutral
Pieter Tuulinen - Lawful Neutral
Samira Kernher - Moral independence not found! (Undecided Neutral or I-don't-know-anything Neutral). Perhaps just Lawful and only Lawful.
-
I guess Luna is Lawful Good within the confines of the Amarr mindset (the Alignment test seems to agree for what it's worth) although sometimes she trends Neutral Good but those impulses have been reigned in lately after her personal moral crisis and 60 day retreat.
Not much to add to the very interesting discussion above, but I agree Silas is a lawful evil (versus chaotic, etc.) Samira and Aldrith both scare me as characters who could wildly off the rails if the right circumstances were present!
-
Although it's been a while since I've played with you, Vince, you'll always be CE poster boy for me in my head. :P
-
Let’s see here… I’m working with info that’s about a year old and will sadly exclude newer players. Impressions are strictly IC.
Anslo: Chaotic Good/Neutral/Stupid. Determined, willing to sacrifice, sometimes too willing to sacrifice.
Kalaratiri: Chaotic Good. Unpredictable, but generally good to friends and loved ones and who else matters?
Karmilla: Chaotic Neutral. Been with all manner of different corps and factions, no clear signs whether she’s good or bad. This is based on distant observation, never known much of her.
Merdaneth: Lawful Lawful Lawful maaaaaybe Good. Probably good in his own eyes. Entertaining from a distance.
Silas: Neutral Evil. Organized, driven, strong, but probably enough impulsiveness hidden in there to avoid being considered Lawful.
Katrina: Lawful Neutral. Loyal soldier.
Saede: Chaotic Neural. I’m trying to remember if Saede was even around before I quit or if I’m confusing her with another character.
Synthia: Chaotic Neutral. Unpredictable. OOC, I’d call her Lawful because she does work off of certain rules, but because Stecker doesn’t know them, she’s unpredictable.
Lyn Farel: Lawful Neutral. Concord supporter.
Aria Jenneth: Neutral. Thoughtful and methodical but not driven to support law and order.
Aldrith Shutaq: Chaotic Neutral leaning toward Evil. Convinced that he’s good. Rocking some serious self-righteousness. See Karm’s summary above, Stecker doesn’t have quite as extensive knowledge but saw bits and pieces.
Seriphyn: Neutral Good.
Nicoletta: Neutral Good. Flammable. Huggy.
Vincent Pryce: Chaotic Neutral. Unconcerned with rules, somewhat selfish, seems to take care of those around him.
Stecker probably sees herself as Chaotic Neutral, but only because she thinks her loyalty to her friends balances out her less commendable behavior. More objectively, chaotic evil.
-
I think they are fundamentally based on perspective from what we can see of the characters, and that's completely fine. CG and TN for Seri are certainly a couple I wasn't expecting! Few more folk...
True that. I think it's no contradiction to describe Seriphyn as CG and LG, as the Federation if big on the freedom stuff and their laws to a good degree about protecting freedoms. Maybe Seri is lawful towards a system of laws that promotes 'chaos'? ;)
Samira Kernher - Moral independence not found! (Undecided Neutral or I-don't-know-anything Neutral). Perhaps just Lawful and only Lawful.
Good point. Someone running around freely without moral independence is as 'good' as someone who's evil. At least to Nico's eyes. Maybe I as a player would assign a 'neutral' there, but to be sure I'd have to think about that sometime.
Victora Stecker - Chaotically oscillating between CN and CE, CG isn't entirely out of question.
-
Nicoletta Mithra - Lawful Good. Obviously respectful of the law and tradition but one of the few Imperials visibly engaged with spiritual enlightenment.
Vincent Pryce - Karmilla's husband. Probably chaotic but otherwise unknown.
-
Nicoletta Mithra - Lawful Good. Obviously respectful of the law and tradition but one of the few Imperials visibly engaged with spiritual enlightenment.
Vincent Pryce - Karmilla's husband. Probably chaotic but otherwise unknown.
WHY DID I NOT KNOW THIS OH GOD
-
Relax Anslo, it'll be ok. :twisted:
-
NE? O.O
I'm interested as to the rationale behind this belief.
Samira seems to be primarily driven by self-interest and is apparently following laws and regulations more out of fear of punishment and because she has the desire to 'fit in' rather than because she believes in law and order themselves.
She's definitely driven by self-interest and obeys primarily out of fear (though much of it has become indoctrinated and doesn't need external pressure by this point), so this is certainly a valid way of viewing it.
-
Merdaneth - LG
Kalalala - CG
Lunarisse Aspenstar - LG
She's definitely driven by self-interest and obeys primarily out of fear (though much of it has become indoctrinated and doesn't need external pressure by this point), so this is certainly a valid way of viewing it.
Yah, that's why Nico wouldn't really blame her. It's not Samira's fault she ended up like that, but some Holders.
-
I'm not supposed to be here, but couldn't resist this -
Mitty - LG (How *I* see Mit = LN with G or E tendencies depending on who/what the subjects are)
Aldy - LG(chaotic leanings)
Merd - LG
Samira - LN(G)
Silas - LE
Karm - NE
Nicoletta - LG
Vince - CE with more EEEEEE :)
Victoria - TN
Seriphyn - LG
Lyn - CN
Katrina - LN
-
This thread is encouraging me to interact with characters more, if I knew the appropriate venues/channels to do so!
-
Man, this is not one of those threads you wanna come in on late.
You might be surprised by how judgemental Gwen is when you get down to brass tacks. From the top... (characters who I've/Gwen has interacted with a decent bit only)
Anslo: Chaotic neutral. Seems to like beating people up and confrontation way too much for Gwens taste. Often shows himself to be fairly irresponsible and uncaring of the problems of others, even when they directly concern him. Has crazy wild mood swings.
Makkal: Probably true neutral? Gwen struggles to make heads or tails of her, since she seems to vary from extremely formal to extremely informal and also from knowledgeable to naive on different matters. She'd be unwilling to call her "good" because she simply dislikes the Kingdom in general and people from it.
Pieter: Lawful good approaching lawful neutral. She thinks of him as a mostly well-intentioned, kind person (If not the sort she generally hangs out with) but one who can occaisonally be surprisingly cold or ruthless in certain circumstances.
Silas: Neutral evil. Too petty and impulsive to be lawful, too into old tradition and core Amarrian ideas to be utterly chaotic. Why she thinks she's evil is probably obvious.
Steffaine: Hard for her to say yet. Probably Chaotic good, since she thinks of the whole knighthood idea as a bit quirky and childish, but ultimately well-intentioned.
Merdaneth: Lawful neutral, based on her couple of experiences with him.
Katrina: Chaotic neutral. Somewhat childish in public places. Often unkind and impolite, which is pretty much all it takes in Gwens mind to not be considered "good", more often then not.
Saede: Chaotic good/sometimes neutral. She generally seems a good sort, even though she has some very strange ideas about how to change the world, but the occasional out of the blue violent or apparantly selfish act she hears about bothers her.
Aria: She thinks of her as lawful good (despite her outward insistance that this is not the case), but is aware of her own bias enough to suspect she might actually be true neutral, considering the sort of unpredictable and somewhat deceitful nature of her.
Aldrith: Lawful good, even though he's a little terrifying.
Silver Night: Neutral good. Not much experience, but seems like a nice sort, and she's heard plenty of good things. And he actually ran a party which wasn't completely horrid!
Seriphyn: Neutral good, also. She thinks of him as a bit of a well-intentioned goof, attributing what other people see has him being petty or controlling more to a lack of self-awareness.
Diana Kim: Lawful evil. Though she makes Gwen more sad then angry, more often then not.
Samira: Lawful neutral. She does what she's told, by all impressions, and does it without arrogance or pride. Probably would have been lawful good until pretty recently.
As for Gwen herself, I'd probably say True Neutral, really. While she's a kind, empatheticand polite person and dislikes the idea of violence and any sort of cruelty, she is, at her core, pretty self-interested (if in a weird sort of way), as she will admit to others willingly. She's not the sort who would sacrifice any of her own well-being for anything short of an extremely close friend, and doesn't feel that making the world a "better place" in any respect, since it's not really her business.
-
Katrina: Chaotic neutral. Somewhat childish in public places. Often unkind and impolite, which is pretty much all it takes in Gwens mind to not be considered "good", more often then not.
Gwen Ikiryo - Neutral Good; Naive, emotional, and healthily judgmental in her views of the world. Seems too public with her emotions, often speaking about how sad she is. Reminds Katrina of herself before becoming embittered. Otherwise her heart is in the right place, but Katrina figures she'll eventually realize how horrible the cluster really is.
-
Actually, thinking over it again, I'd probably change Katrina's entry to True Neutral, since she seems to often go back and fourth from being very formal in some contexts to extremely silly in others. It's obviously a surface-level judgement, in either case.
-
Wait, wait.
Can I-- can I do just the one above me?
S'easy.
Katrina Oniseki me strikes me as either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good, depending on your take on Caldari Liberal philosophy. She's certainly not neutral, given her being compelled to support Heth despite moral reservations -- though I suppose that pushes her more toward Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good.
Aaaaand, er, I think I'll expand to others once I've had a chance to read through the thread. :x
-
As for Makkal herself, I'd say that she's amniotic (true neutral) in her stage of moral development. Previous to becoming a capsuleer, she was almost wholly under the control of her family and her only real decision was to be obedient so as to not be punished. The change in her circumstances - suddenly having huge amounts of power and freedom- has left her drunk and confused.
She's attempting to become lawful good but finds it a struggle and sometimes fails miserably because her feelings override her sense of right and wrong. Thankfully, she's found someone trustworthy to follow.
-
I would say Natalcya is Lawful Evil. Definitely Lawful, to the point of insisting that reality in some respects is defined by human law (she'll argue that she is human because the law says so, for example). Evil because, even though she's not without compassion, she won't think twice about working the law to further her own ends, and because she holds some pretty twisted attitudes and has done more than her share of shitty stuff for utterly petty reasons, over the years.
I see Ruby as Neutral Good. She wants everybody to be happy. Everybody. Forever.
Other characters, filtered partly through Katla's eyes, partly through OOC impressions:
Anslo: Chaotic Neutral. Moody, unpredictable, apparently prone to violence at the drop of a hat, no clear loyalties to anybody except for his personal friends, but doesn't come off as malicious.
Makkal: True Neutral. Comes off as a highly talented social chameleon, seemingly able to find common ground with most people she seems curious about, the number of which seems high. Though she is a Khanid noble, she seems perfectly at ease in a number of very different social situations and company.
Pieter: Lawful Good with tendencies toward Neutral Good. Apparently attacked authority representatives at one point when he was ordered to fire on civilians?
Silas: Lawful Evil. Although she can seem impulsive and capricious at times, it is probably not out of disdain for law as a concept, but rather from a belief that the law begins with her.
Steffaine: Neutral Good. Her altruistic bent seems clear enough. Adhering to a knightly codex would be lawful in itself, but this is counteracted by the seeming fact of her conjuring it out of thin air.
Merdaneth: Lawful Neutral, fairly typical Amarrian loyalist as far as Katla is aware.
Katrina: Lawful Neutral. Seems too petty (and sometimes verbally abusive) to be good. Although her often informal and flippant attitude might suggest a chaotic influence, her loyalty and dedication to her faction, alliance and corp seems thoroughly genuine.
Saede: True Neutral. Comes off as a scientist first and foremost, passionate about her field of study, fond of professional debate, but perhaps a bit socially detached, and not overly concerned with laws or for that matter ethics. Very utilitarian in outlook.
Aria: True Neutral. Another very rational-minded character. Philosopher who cares about societal ethics to the point of obsession, and yet seems highly detached from them in her own personal life. Analytical and insightful, and perhaps so preoccupied with self-analysis that she forgets to simply be herself. Aria is probably the kind of person who'd be liable to connect the vision centers of her brain to a camera drone following her, and live her life in third person.
Aldrith: Lawful Evil, judging only by hearsay and limited personal interaction. Comes across as a fire-and-brimstone avenger kind of person, with a reputation for killing people (and himself) up close in nasty ways, and display their body parts as trophies.
Silver Night: Lawful Good. A true altruist with dreams of a society where everyone can live together in peace. Withdrew from the Nation camp because of regrettable but understandable conscientuous objections.
Seriphyn: Lawful Good. Can come off as vain, but seems to be genuinely interested in making his sandbox nation a peaceful, orderly and prosperous place.
Diana Kim: Lawful Evil. Racist, aggressive and completely loyal to her master.
Samira: Lawful Neutral. Obedient and meek toward her superiors, and judgmental of those she'd naturally perceive as standing outside of the hierarchy she belongs to.
Gwen: Lawful Good. Generally good-natured, and highly self-conscious about her own behavior in regard to the expectations of everybody around her, and those of her native culture.
-
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (31)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (35)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXX (3)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaos --- XXX (3)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Evil ---- (0)
So, supposedly Seph is Lawful Neutral. I'd consider him lawful evil, of course (I mean, favour the Reclaiming and slaving?!) and he'd think of himself as lawful good. As for the rest, commenting only on those I have a personal opinion of:
Anslol: neutral good, he really seems to have good intentions.
Karmella Strife: chaotic evil, I mean, she tried to ruin our parade and speech! Evil for sure!
Makkal: same as Anslol, neutral good.
Pieter: lawful neutral or evil, mostly because caldari ideals are about promotion, economic gain and self-interest in the end.
Merdanth: same as Seph.
Silas: Neutral Evil. She already left the lawful side once, and I believe that, if pressured enough, she would turn on the Sabik ideals for her own benefit and good.
Katrina: lawful neutral?
Synthia: bots can't have ideas and values! xD But would fall on the Lawful evil side, I think.
Samira: NN, she goes with the flow of orders and commands, not on her own will. In fact, she should actually have no alignment.
Diana Kim: lawful evil like Seph.
Aldrith: NE. No one who was in the Ordo can really be lawful, and all amarrians are evil, so...
Seriphyn: CG?
Nicoletta: same as Seph and Merdaneth.
Lunarisse: NG?
Mitara: same as Seph, Merdaneth and Nico.
-
Natalcya Katla: Lawful Neutral. Gwen thinks she's an ultimately well-intentioned person (Man, if there's one thing I've learned today, it's that I really like the phrase "well-intentioned" for some reason) who is capable of a great deal of compassion, but has a somewhat scary - bordering on inhuman - regard for the law and the social contract, even though she's come to understand why that is. Oddly, she feels more pity for the fact that she's aligned with Nation then any sort of contempt for it, despite her obvious deep-seated loyalty.
...You know, comparing my characters reasoning on these to those of others (Yours in paticular, Natalcya) it sort of speaks to the ultimately self-centered streak I was talking about, earlier. While other people make judgements based on more then just how they treat others - Like, someone who has shown paticular conviction to an ideology or an organization might be considered Lawful by that virtue regardless of their general behaviour - Gwen exclusively puts people in boxes based on how they treat her, personally.
-
She thinks people who are nice to her are good and people who are mean or rude are evil or neutral?
-
Well, sort of. Maybe a bit more self-aware then that. She makes her judgements from a very personal pedestal, was what I meant.
-
This thread is making me realize I may be overplaying Katrina's frustrations with the greater community. People are geniunely questioning if she's a good person!
-
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
As for Havo, D&D players will recall that your average beastie is N. Worgs, sharks, etc. The above average ones are typically NE, and that's how I see Havo. Doesn't matter to him if there's order or chaos, he'll use whatever approach achieves what he wants to do at that moment.
And it's always bad.
-
Man, people's judgment's of Aldy's alignments are all over the place! :o
I've come to the conclusion that people view him like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/JusHYRc.gif)
Which is probably pretty accurate.
-
Pieter: lawful neutral or evil, mostly because caldari ideals are about promotion, economic gain and self-interest in the end.
Actually, Caldari believe in the good of the group over the good of the individual fairly heavily. Of course they only work towards the end of an inlier group that they're part of - not the general weal of humanity.
-
Aldy, all that gif needs is some fire and it's 100% true.
-
Detailed Results:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Evil ---- XX (2)
So I am not sure what to make of this but I RP John more along the lines of NG/CG. While in the public he seems pretty lawful, behind closed doors he conducts himself very differently.
-
Looks like you got Neutral Good.
-
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
I think the general consensus is to ignore the objectively dubious aspects of a given culture, and to take people as they stand within that culture (or from the character's perspective). Slavery is acceptable and not a moral black spot from an Amarrian perspective, hence it doesn't shift things. Reppy is a Holder, but I don't consider her being a slave owner to be worth points in any particular direction - maybe even worth a few good points, considering her somewhat liberal attitudes.
-
I'm responding from my character's viewpoint. I assumed everyone else was doing the same.
-
I'm responding from my character's viewpoint. I assumed everyone else was doing the same.
That too.
-
This thread is making me realize I may be overplaying Katrina's frustrations with the greater community. People are geniunely questioning if she's a good person!
Katrina seems Lawful Neutral with evil tendencies to Merdaneth. Lots of hate, very pre-occupied with her own troubles, self-centeredness, but willing to work within the rules and wthin an organization to achieve her (selfish) goals.
Frustrations are easily overplayed, because the times she isn't frustrated is much less visible. This is partly due to the limitations of text chat. Just happily and sedatedly idling in a channel doesn't give the same impression has happily and idly sitting in the same room with someone.
-
Rating some other people now!
Anslo: CN or CG. Does whatever he feels is a good idea. Has few impersonal loyalties, focuses more on those close to him than anything else. Seems to go out of his way to help people, from what I've seen.
Makkal: TN. Breaks quite a few expected social conventions for a member of nobility, and relates with many people of all creeds even if they’re not exactly the kind of people she should be interacting with. Not chaotic, because she does use her status when it suits her.
Pieter: LG. Obeys orders, has a strong moral code. Typically obeys law before good, but not to the degree of being LN. If he was to drift, he’d drift to NG, not LN, because he’s been consistently more willing to break his ethics rather than his morals when he doesn't have a leash holding him back (Pyre, Samira).
Silas: LE. Silas is someone who has very particular goals and very controlled methods of achieving those goals. When she does appear more chaotic, it seems to be more of a very deliberate act rather than something she actually believes in. The person she appears in conversation is inherently deceptive, but people eat it right up because she's pleasant and genteel. Could be NE, but the question would be whether she would break her own laws for benefit. It’s clear she will break “the” law, but she doesn’t respect “the” law, she respects Silas’ law. Would she betray Silas’ law for Silas’ benefit? Hm.
Katrina: LN. Classic bureaucratic Caldari, does not fall under the altruistic Ishukone idea and rather embraces the, “we don't give good deeds for free,” belief. Never trust the liberal bearing gifts and all that.
Saede: TN. Pragmatic. Law and order has its uses, chaos has its uses, good has its uses, evil has its uses. Has “good” goals, but a very cold and logical mindset that embraces inhuman means of achieving those goals, much like Nation. From what I’ve seen of her she strikes me as the kind of person who believes that the ends justify the means should the opportunity present itself, and could easily drop to NE once said opportunity arises.
Aldrith: TN or NE. Ends justify the means is not the mindset of a good person. Aldy will do whatever it takes to save the galaxy from itself. Prefers law, but isn’t beholden to it. Prefers good, but quickly calls upon evil the moment good isn’t a suitable solution. Key question to determine if he is TN or NE is largely a matter of numbers—he has the capacity for evil and has done evil, but does he do it often enough to be evil? Either way, he certainly isn’t good.
Gwen: TN. Gwen is good-hearted, but being good requires action, not just heart. Leans lawful, but doesn’t seem beholden to it. Could easily be NG if she developed an active drive to do good, but so far she seems concerned primarily with observing the universe and contemplating her place in it.
Lunarisse: LG. Strong attention to proper tradition, to the point of sometimes getting a bit self-righteous. Shows a great willingness to help other people, often offering the moment she meets someone new.
Nicoletta Mithra: LN. Strong attention to tradition and her own personal ethical code, which at times splits from “the” law but that she holds to as strongly as any law. Haven’t seen anything yet to make me call her Good, since Good requires action. Recall having to pressure her into giving advice to a new pilot because she was too bitter to bother because the person, “probably wouldn’t listen anyway.”
-
I'd probably classify Andreus as Neutral Good when he's in a good mood and Chaotic Neutral when he isn't. Chaotic Good doesn't suit him - he doesn't think humanity or posthumanity is responsible enough to handle complete freedom, but he's seen bad people hide behind the letter of laws, codes and guidelines while fundamentally abusing their spirit way too many times to have complete trust in them, either.
-
Gwen - CG
Katla - LE
John - LN?
Andreus - CN with tendencies to E
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
I think the general consensus is to ignore the objectively dubious aspects of a given culture, and to take people as they stand within that culture (or from the character's perspective). Slavery is acceptable and not a moral black spot from an Amarrian perspective, hence it doesn't shift things. Reppy is a Holder, but I don't consider her being a slave owner to be worth points in any particular direction - maybe even worth a few good points, considering her somewhat liberal attitudes.
I'd also consider that slavery is a wide field within Amarrian society, e.g. it is to an great extent as much part of the penal system of Amarr as prisons and penal labor is today in many countries (e.g. the US). I don't see why an Amarrian in favor of penal slavery would be any less 'good' than some US-citizen who's in favor of penal labor.
-
Andreus: TN seems rather fitting. Believes in good, but understands that occasionally harsher methods need to be used to safeguard it (thus supported Black Eagles IIRC). Believes in freedom, but understands that too much freedom leads to destruction of society. In both cases, one has to avoid going too far in the other direction, lest they become something like the Empire.
-
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
Slavery = evil is a western concept.
Good vs Evil in the D&D alignement looks more like selfless paragon vs self interest to me.
-
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
Slavery = evil is a western concept.
Good vs Evil in the D&D alignement looks more like selfless paragon vs self interest to me.
DnD scale is an objective western morality scale. It's about actions. Slavery counts as an evil action. Likewise, personal sacrifice is a good action. In both cases, it takes more than one evil or good action to determine someone's alignment.
"Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. That simply means that an exalted character has an even harder road to follow. Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil within her own society." - Book of Exalted Deeds
The DnD scale is not designed to be subjective. It's built to be a classic black and white scale. The Amarr Empire is a Lawful Evil society by the DnD scale. There's nothing wrong with that.
-
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
Slavery = evil is a western concept.
So? I'm a western man. Besides, I reject your premise on two grounds.
First, the western world practiced slavery longer and more efficiently than any other region, in more than one form. Also, I strongly doubt that if you questioned someone in, say, Bangladesh or Yemen about the subject you'd hear many people extolling its virtues. So really, what "slavery = evil" is is a modern concept.
Second, in every version of D&D, as Samira points out, slavery is considered an evil act. Western morality scale or not, it's certainly evil in the context of this discussion (i.e.: D&D alignments applied to internet spaceships).
Finally, Samira, you are awesome for having the Book of Exalted Deeds near at hand. (unless you cheated and googled it, in which case, gg)
-
Finally, Samira, you are awesome for having the Book of Exalted Deeds near at hand. (unless you cheated and googled it, in which case, gg)
Does it count as at hand or as cheating if I have it (and multiple other DnD books) torrented and available on my HD in PDF form?
-
Since it's 2013, that counts as having it near at hand :D
Gods bless modern technology and free shelf space!
-
Andreus: TN seems rather fitting.
I disagree. I realise that people can't always see it because I (by neccessity) know more about Andreus than they do, but at heart he's definitely NG. A lot of people saying he's TN/CN/CE forget that he'll often talk about doing nasty things but generally when the chips are down he doesn't have the stomach to do something reprehensible. According to most people, the most objectionable thing he ever did was slap a woman across the face, and he had to be drunk off his face and suffering from severe depression to get to that level. He can be petty and spiteful, and that can sometimes lead him to say he'll do horrible things to people, but he's pretty much incapable of making good on this threats. In recent times, quite often he's not even really angry at the person he's yelling at - he's just angry that circumstances don't allow a peaceful resolution (or that they do, but he doesn't have the personal power to make it happen), and he's externalising that onto whoever seems relevant.
So in my view, he's NG with some very serious control issues.
Believes in good, but understands that occasionally harsher methods need to be used to safeguard it (thus supported Black Eagles IIRC).
Pretended to support the Black Eagles. He was hoping he'd get close enough to them to dig up some heinous shit but he blew his cover too early by trying to help those hackers.
-
Believes in good, but understands that occasionally harsher methods need to be used to safeguard it (thus supported Black Eagles IIRC).
Pretended to support the Black Eagles. He was hoping he'd get close enough to them to dig up some heinous shit but he blew his cover too early by trying to help those hackers.
Aha. In that case, that definitely alters my views. I considered him TN mainly because I thought he had honestly been supporting the BEs. Didn't know it was an act.
-
Aha. In that case, that definitely alters my views. I considered him TN mainly because I thought he had honestly been supporting the BEs. Didn't know it was an act.
Even if he was entirely pragmatic and amoral, Andreus wouldn't genuinely side with the Black Eagles. He's utterly convinced it'll eventually end in tears, and he wouldn't want to be associated with it when it does.
-
DnD scale is an objective western morality scale. It's about actions. Slavery counts as an evil action. Likewise, personal sacrifice is a good action. In both cases, it takes more than one evil or good action to determine someone's alignment.
"Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. That simply means that an exalted character has an even harder road to follow. Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil within her own society." - Book of Exalted Deeds
The DnD scale is not designed to be subjective. It's built to be a classic black and white scale. The Amarr Empire is a Lawful Evil society by the DnD scale. There's nothing wrong with that.
But then the Amarr Empire and religion promotes charity, self-sacrifice, virtue, righteousness and purity. One could argue that even slavery in the Amarr Empire is an - probably misguided - attempt at redeeming evil. As the Book of exalted deeds says:
In all likelihood, most human (and halfling) societies fall somewhere between the two extremes described above. In game terms, humans tend to be neutral, neither good nor evil. Human societies might tolerate a variety of evil practices, even if some humans find them distasteful.
As such, tolerating or incorporating an evil practice doesn't already make the entire society evil - the Amarr Empire could well be a Lawful Neutral society by DnD standards, just as it takes more than just one evil or good act to determine the alignment of a character. Especially considering that the book iteself referrs first that one might very well have a world setting where slavery, unequal treatment for woman etc. is the norm.
-
Suddenly Serious Business.
-
I'm not entirely sure where to rank Streya in all of this, though I'm leaning towards True Neutral, perhaps Chaotic Neutral.
In terms of law: It depends on which law. She respects her clan's laws, as well as most of her Tribe's laws. Beyond that she obeys only those laws she agrees with.
In terms of morality: Her long-term ideological goals aside, she'll help those in need if they truly need it. On the other hand, she'll exploit others (particularly capsuleers or DUST mercs, who are semi-immortal) for gain and profit quite readily, depending on who they are. There was only one small event with an RSS dev actor that might mark her as "Chaotic Good", but overall I'd say she's morally neutral.
As for other characters (from Streya's viewpoint, assuming "Good" = altruistic motivation and "Evil" = selfish motivation)..
Anslo: Neutral Good/Choatic Good. He does what he thinks is best, regardless of what the rules say about it.
Kala: Streya has never met Kala, but as a player I'd definitely say Lawful Good; she has respect for tradition and what is morally correct.
Karmilla: Neutral Evil. Not sure if anyone can recall, but Streya asked Karmilla if she's Sabik in The Summit a week or two prior to Silas revealing that Karmilla is in fact her new pupil. She seems the type to respect or ignore the law as the situation fits, so long as it benefits her in the end.
Makkal: Makkal strikes Streya as being Lawful Good or at times Neutral Good. She's a social butterfly who sometimes strays away from societal norms and rules in order to interact with others, but she seems to have the best of intentions.
Pieter: Lawful Good. While he's been put on the spot a few times and has to decide whether or not to simply obey orders or refuse them on moral grounds, Streya has seen Pieter simply do the right thing in most situations. If there's something he really disagrees with on moral grounds, he seems the sort to use the law to snake his way out of having to do it.
Steffanie: Unknown. Streya has yet to interact with her :P
Merdaneth: Lawful Neutral. While she understand most traditional Amarrians believe themselves to be acting altruistically, she sees slave-taking as being inherently selfish and evil.
Silas: Lawful Evil.
Katrina: Streya views Kat as Lawful Good. If Kat has done some nasty things, she's done a good job of keeping them out of the public spotlight (and thus out of view of my character)
Saede: Streya views Saede as being Chaotic Good.
Synthia: Neutral Good. Streya is not sure what specific rules and traditions Synthia follows, but she does know Synthia acts altruistically out of conviction from her faith.
Lyn: Overwhelmingly True Neutral. She never seems to take sides, but she does like to pick apart arguments and point out flaws in reasoning.
Aria: Unknown! Streya hasn't interacted with Aria before. As a player I'd almost say True Neutral, but the test result of Neutral Good doesn't surprise me either.
Samira: Lawful Neutral/Evil. Streya sees Sami as following rules and traditions, but primarily for the purposes of personal safety, self-preservation, and well-being.
Aldy: Strikes Streya as Neutral Good. Fights for what he believes in, which at times falls within tradition and law and at other times does not.
Vince: While she hasn't interacted with Vince at all, Streya is from Molden Heath and has rumors of the infamous Vincent Pryce coming in from Curse. She views him as Choatic Neutral with some slight tendencies towards Choatic Good. Fight the power, man!
Seriphyn: Chaotic Neutral. He always seems to be questioning the status quo in the name of GREAT JUSTICE, which is an admirable trait in Streya's eyes.
Gwen: Lawful Good, hands down.
There's probably more I've forgotten, if I have feel free to poke me!
-
Took me a while to come to terms with this, mainly for "RL is not D&D" and "D&D morality does not fit teh grimdark" reasons. I took the alignment test for Shin, for instance, and she came out as some bastardized combination of chaotic good and neutral evil, mainly due to the combination of her realpolitik attitudes and her absolute devotion to her clade. Then I happily read this article talking about the very same thing (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), and decided that slapping the D&D alignments over the circle containing Schwartz's values works well enough for me.
So: Shin is hanging out generally around the CN/CE side of the circle. She's devoted to her clade, and to a lesser extent to her friends. Other than that, she's maintly motivated by her own hedonistic interests. Colelie seems to have changed that a bit, but the reality is that this change is primarily motivated by a close friend of hers, so it still fits in the above.
As for the rest of you (that I can figure out):
- Anslo: Definitely CN. He's got impulses to do good on a wider scale, but these are frequently steamrollered by his passions (which tend toward anger)
- Makkal: LN. She is, after all, a proper Khanid lady. Others have argued that she tends away from this, because of her tendency to associate with diverse people. I'd simply call this an excellent example of Khanid hospitality and ettiquete.
- Pieter: LG, with a drift towards NG, for the same reasons that Sami mentioned. Pyre is definitely not a LG corporation, which provides some tension for his character. At the same time, he really is their moral anchor.
- Silas: NE. Some have argued that she's more LE, due to her desires for a structure for her life. I feel that this is still more on the NE side, simply because she desires to provide that structure for others on account of her own personal power.
- Saede: True neutral, for lack of any other good option. If you plotted her values and actions on this chart, they'd ring the outer edges without getting near the center at all. She's a loose cannon, though, so these tend to be pretty evenly distributed around the circle. The average puts her smack in the middle.
- Aria: CN drifting towards CG a little. She is all about creating her own path and walking it. The CG parts are the result of her desire to let other people know about that path, in the apparent hopes that some others will benefit from this.
- Diana Kim: LE. It sounds a bit harsh, but my views of the character are that something happened in her past to make her value security over all else. Everything else follows naturally from that.
- Steffanie: True neutral. Like Saede, she doesn't seem to do much in the center of the circle, but her views and achievements seems to polarize between the NG and NE sides of things.
- Streya: Probably CN, though it's a little hard to say. Many of the things she's done and said recently have been in the service to others despite her own wishes, which makes it hard to put her all the way towards the CN side of things.
-
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
Slavery = evil is a western concept.
Good vs Evil in the D&D alignement looks more like selfless paragon vs self interest to me.
DnD scale is an objective western morality scale. It's about actions. Slavery counts as an evil action. Likewise, personal sacrifice is a good action. In both cases, it takes more than one evil or good action to determine someone's alignment.
"Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. That simply means that an exalted character has an even harder road to follow. Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil within her own society." - Book of Exalted Deeds
The DnD scale is not designed to be subjective. It's built to be a classic black and white scale. The Amarr Empire is a Lawful Evil society by the DnD scale. There's nothing wrong with that.
Interesting to see LG applied to Amarrians at all, what with the whole slavery as part of religious beliefs thing.
Slavery = evil is a western concept.
So? I'm a western man. Besides, I reject your premise on two grounds.
First, the western world practiced slavery longer and more efficiently than any other region, in more than one form. Also, I strongly doubt that if you questioned someone in, say, Bangladesh or Yemen about the subject you'd hear many people extolling its virtues. So really, what "slavery = evil" is is a modern concept.
Second, in every version of D&D, as Samira points out, slavery is considered an evil act. Western morality scale or not, it's certainly evil in the context of this discussion (i.e.: D&D alignments applied to internet spaceships).
Finally, Samira, you are awesome for having the Book of Exalted Deeds near at hand. (unless you cheated and googled it, in which case, gg)
Yeah, modern, not western, whatever.
Fair enough, I don't play DnD and don't know a lot of things about it.
-
- Silas: NE. Some have argued that she's more LE, due to her desires for a structure for her life. I feel that this is still more on the NE side, simply because she desires to provide that structure for others on account of her own personal power.
Wanting to impose order on others in order to place herself at the top is still Lawful, however. Order is still important. The majority of Lawful Evil characters want to impose order in order to put themselves on the top. As I said in my post, the question is if she would break her own laws for her own benefit. If she would, NE. If not, then LE. Power through order = Lawful Evil. Power through whatever means necessary = Neutral Evil.
DnD scale is an objective western morality scale. It's about actions. Slavery counts as an evil action. Likewise, personal sacrifice is a good action. In both cases, it takes more than one evil or good action to determine someone's alignment.
"Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. That simply means that an exalted character has an even harder road to follow. Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil within her own society." - Book of Exalted Deeds
The DnD scale is not designed to be subjective. It's built to be a classic black and white scale. The Amarr Empire is a Lawful Evil society by the DnD scale. There's nothing wrong with that.
But then the Amarr Empire and religion promotes charity, self-sacrifice, virtue, righteousness and purity. One could argue that even slavery in the Amarr Empire is an - probably misguided - attempt at redeeming evil. As the Book of exalted deeds says:
In all likelihood, most human (and halfling) societies fall somewhere between the two extremes described above. In game terms, humans tend to be neutral, neither good nor evil. Human societies might tolerate a variety of evil practices, even if some humans find them distasteful.
As such, tolerating or incorporating an evil practice doesn't already make the entire society evil - the Amarr Empire could well be a Lawful Neutral society by DnD standards, just as it takes more than just one evil or good act to determine the alignment of a character. Especially considering that the book iteself referrs first that one might very well have a world setting where slavery, unequal treatment for woman etc. is the norm.
If it was just slavery, I'd agree. But the inclusion of torture as a standard punishment, expansion through conquest, and use of genocide all add up to a Lawful Evil culture, IMO.
Amarr Empire are classic Knights Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar).
-
Streya: I remember that incident. I was trying to avoid answering the question because Silas wanted to keep things quiet until the ceremony. Still a good observation. :)
-
Okay, so, here is mine, and I'm going to be doing a bit of a twist and using the modified alignment system described here (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html). I will be indicating a Primary and Secondary attribute for each person. If Saede and my perspectives significantly differ in position on anyone, I'll elaborate on it.
Anslo: Primarily Sybaritic and secondarily Autonomous - Anslo is primarily motivated by a personal desire for comfort, security, and pleasure. He doesn't go out of his way to harm people (usually) but doesn't do anything to help them either, unless it doesn't inconvenience him to do so. He has his, and is concerned with his very small ingroup, and the rest of the universe can fuck off.
Kala: Primarily Righteous and secondarily Humane - Kala seems primarily motivated by her people's customs, and conforms strongly to them. What they say is good is good, and what they say is bad is bad. She upholds her people's traditions with conviction and integrity, without losing grasp of her humanity and becoming xenophobic or racist.
Karmilla: Primarily Ambitious and secondarily Sybaritic - This is just a guess, I don't know that much about Karmilla in-character, but she seems to be primarily motivated by self interest and desire to achieve power, which, you know, Sani Sabik...
Makkal: Primarily Orthodox and secondarily Righteous- Makkal is a good girl. She follows the rules, and has a clear understanding of them. Saede doesn't know Makkal too well, but gets along with her well enough. Makkal in general, seems like a good person, and doesn't seek to harm anyone, however, Saede does feel, if pressed between doing the right thing, and doing the proper thing, if there were ever a time when the two were incompatible, she would do what was expected of her.
Pieter: Righteous / Orthodox - Pieter is something of a special case. On one hand, he seems to very much want to be a good person, to be kind, and to be altruistic. However, this is conflicted by the fact that he is in an organisation that is anything but. He is motivated by a desire to help and do right by his people, and to his people, who often seem engaged in actively immoral and sometimes outright sociopathic acts. Saede hopes that Pieter will eventually fall in line with Stitcher in terms of values, however, its possible that when push comes to shove, his loyalty will win out over his humanity.
Steffanie: Primarily Humane and secondarily Transcendent - Saede has high hopes for this one.
Merdaneth: Primarily Orthodox and Secondarily Righteous - Merdaneth is a loyal Amarrian, devoted to god and empress. Where this compels him to do good, he will, but if it compels him to do ill, he will not hesitate.
Silas: Primarily Ambitious and secondarily Ascendant - She desires power, and security. Like a dragon hoarding gold in a mountain lair.
Katrina: Primarily Ascendant and secondarily Orthodox - Katrina seems rather ambitious to Saede, driven by a desire for wealth, security, and comfort. She is loyal to her superiors and her traditions, but if they threw her out, she would keep going on her own. She is driven by her own desires.
Synthia: Orthodox - Doesn't seem to have any other settings then Do As it is Written. Would be interesting to try flipping some of her switches.
Lyn: Primarily Humane and secondarily Righteous - Generally a good person, doesn't seem too willing to rock the boat. Talks a lot, doesn't seem to visibly active however. Will keep an eye on, she does have potential.
Aria: Primarily Humane and secondarily Pragmatic - Saede hasn't really been around Aria enough to form that much of a position on her, but she seems like a fascinating person.
Samira: Orthodox - Samira is motivated by a desire to conform and submit.
Aldypoo: Primarily Orthodox and Secondarily Righteous - Aldrith is a loyal Amarrian, devoted to god and empress. Where this compels him to do good, he will, but if it compels him to do ill, he will not hesitate.
Vince: Primarily Sybaritic and secondarily Ambitious - Drugs, Sex, Power.
Seriphyn: Primarily Sybaritic and secondarily Autonomous - Likes to talk Transcendent, doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. Hard to place his actual motivations.
Gwen: Primarily Sybaritic and secondarily Pragmatic - Seems primarily motivated by self interest at the end of the day, not actively harmful to anyone, but she's not very motivated to altruism either. Realistic if confined worldview.
And of course, Saede: Primarily Transcendent and secondarily Humane - Saede is motivated by a desire to fix the universe, help everyone, and feels bad that she's not God and can't fix everything. This really may not be readily apparent in the context of the character, but I have always intended her actions, although they may be misguided at times, to be driven by altruism.
-
Thank you, Saede. That's a great break down.
-
Aldypoo got Merdaneth's description!
-
NEed to redo thread with Saede's system tbh, far more fitting for EVE I reckon
-
NEed to redo thread with Saede's system tbh, far more fitting for EVE I reckon
First I'd have to learn the damn thing.
-
What we should do is redo it with the alignment system from Kobolds Ate My Baby.
-
Pieter: lawful neutral or evil, mostly because caldari ideals are about promotion, economic gain and self-interest in the end.
Actually, Caldari believe in the good of the group over the good of the individual fairly heavily. Of course they only work towards the end of an inlier group that they're part of - not the general weal of humanity.
To a degree, I agree with you, and you certainly more much more about the Caldari than I do. Yet, in the core of the Caldari State model is a structure of economic neoliberalism taken to the extreme, much like in the core of the cyberpunk vision which is the base of the State.
And the neoliberal economic approach to a world view starts with "everyone fends for themselves", "the weak fall before the strong", "the economic prowess has to be achieved over any methods", etc. Which are actually 100% individualistic and power based ideologies and perceptions, based on no external influence to meddle or interfere in social relations. In the end, taken to an extreme, neoliberal economic ideology is pretty close to anarchism.
-
Or Libertarianism, which advocates for property rights solely.
-
Pieter: lawful neutral or evil, mostly because caldari ideals are about promotion, economic gain and self-interest in the end.
Actually, Caldari believe in the good of the group over the good of the individual fairly heavily. Of course they only work towards the end of an inlier group that they're part of - not the general weal of humanity.
To a degree, I agree with you, and you certainly more much more about the Caldari than I do. Yet, in the core of the Caldari State model is a structure of economic neoliberalism taken to the extreme, much like in the core of the cyberpunk vision which is the base of the State.
And the neoliberal economic approach to a world view starts with "everyone fends for themselves", "the weak fall before the strong", "the economic prowess has to be achieved over any methods", etc. Which are actually 100% individualistic and power based ideologies and perceptions, based on no external influence to meddle or interfere in social relations. In the end, taken to an extreme, neoliberal economic ideology is pretty close to anarchism.
The consideration of group (for certain definitions of group) good over the individual is the twist that was put on the Caldari that makes it not just a clone of many cyberpunk settings (though it does allow us to lift interesting tropes and things from them).
Also, think we are drifting a bit off-topic. Though it might be worth its own thread.
-
NEed to redo thread with Saede's system tbh, far more fitting for EVE I reckon
Reppy's definitely got a lot of Autonomous going on, but you could make a valid argument for a hefty chunk of Sybaritic and Ambitious being in there as well.
-
The consideration of group (for certain definitions of group) good over the individual is the twist that was put on the Caldari that makes it not just a clone of many cyberpunk settings (though it does allow us to lift interesting tropes and things from them).
My impression, and the thing I liked about the the Caldari State, is that it feels like it habitually saps our weak Earth socioeconomic models in dark alleys, then rifles through their pockets for useful concepts to steal for its own betterment.
-
Are you guys familiar with the Magic: The Gathering colour wheel? It actually acts like a rather interesting morality system.
(http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/images/e/e1/Color_Wheel.jpg)
Generally a colour opposes the two colours opposite it (for example, Green, the primary colour I actually play in my decks, opposes Black and Blue), but there can be combinations of opposing colours in a single individual. A few examples under this system:
Andreus Ixiris: Red/Blue. Andreus is a creature of odd contradictions and extremes, as befits an opposing colour combination. He's often torn between the logical and emotional reactions to a situation.
Anslo: Pure Red. Impulsive, unpredictable and deeply opinionated, Anslo is an excellent example of this monocolour.
Saede Riordan: Pure Blue. I wanted to say Blue/Black, but Saede isn't amoral or self-focused enough to be Black. At least from what she says about herself, she seems to be pretty focused on the application of technology to the advancement of humankind, which is an incredibly Blue outlook.
Silas Vitalia: Pure Black. She wants what's best for her, and no-one else, and she's entirely honest about it. She doesn't lie habitually or compulsively - she only lies when it's useful. She'll be charmingly polite or bitingly malicious depending on what best suits her purposes. I struggle to think of a character who's a better example of this colour.
Rodj Blake: Pure White. Values order, conformity and rule of law over all other concerns.
Stitcher: White/Blue. A sedate but powerful combination that merges White's desire for stability and peace with Blue's penchant for progress and application of intellect. Many Caldari are White/Blue - it's actually a defining feature of their society.
Pieter Tuulinen: White/Blue/Red. Like all colour combinations with more than two components, Pieter is complex. Just like Stitcher he merges the standard White adherence to law and heirarchy with the Blue tendency towards progress and innovation, but from what I've seen of the character it's also tinged with a fair bit of Red's powerful emotion and tendency towards spontaneous action.
Sansha Kuvakei: White/Black. Another opposing colour combination, and another creature of extremes. Sansha Kuvakei is quite evidently deeply self-obsessed, since he's built an almost religious following around his beliefs, a following which really only works to his benefit. At the same time, at least part of him genuinely seems to believe that what he's doing is good for humanity, and that part, in its own twisted way, seems to want to share Sansha's "gifts" with everyone because it genuinely believes they'll help.
Only problem with this is that I'm having a hard time finding any good examples of Green characters.
-
I'd probably call Makkal a White/Green hybrid on that model. Reppy's an easy Red/Black.
Interesting idea, Andy.
-
Blue primary, White secondary, for Lyn.
Edit : why ? Technology through knowledge, better understanding through knowledge, ultimate goal being Absolute Truth, thus knowledge become mandatory and a philosophy of life in itself. See : Serum of Truth. Which leads to reason and rationale over red impulse and irrational thought. Omniscience to Absolute Truth, leading to organic inter connectivity and comprehension, thus peaceful and enlighted resolution, order (white) and symbiosis (green). The result is purely white, but the primary purpose and the goal, are pure blue.
-
Green primary, Red secondary for Kala
-
Green as a colour tends to favour natural, organically developing solutions to problems. In-game, it's very anti-technology/anti-artifice, having a large number of cards that wreck or interfere with artifacts. Its enemies are blue (due to its obsession with artificial solutions and valuing of reason over instinct) and black (on account of its all-for-one mentality, which clashes with green's one-for-all outlook).
I'm interested to hear how that lines up with your characters' philosophies.
-
Green/White for Ava =)
As far as Ava's "Alignment" per the original theme of the thread? Go to page 1, see Kala's post. Ava does her best to follow a just and moral path (as she can) and follows the "laws" of her Tribe and Clan to the utmost.
-
I was not happy with the chaotic definition since especially in the case of Lyn, she considers chaos to be a form of advanced mathematical probability with patterns and rules itself, or either that true chaos does not exist.
Redoing it for everyone thus far with the Schwartz influenced alignement. and IC views of my character according to it. Feel free to ask why my character sees it that way. Don't be afraid to see a lot of Sybarites in there, since prudish Lyn tends to see lustful Sybarites everywhere.
Lyn: Transcendent with Pragmatic leanings in the past, but both on more or less equal value these days. May change to Pragmatic with Transcendent leanings in the future if she continues that way. She may have a very tiny Ascendent hidden side waiting for a good opportunity to awaken.
Anslo: Transcendent with Autonomous and Sybaritic leanings.
Kala: Not enough data and variables to establish a pattern.
Karm: Autonomous with Sybaritic leanings.
Makkal: Autonomous with Humane and Sybaritic leanings.
Pieter: Orthodox with Humane leanings.
Steffanie: Not enough data and variables to establish a pattern.
Merdaneth: Righteous with Orthodox leanings.
Silas: Ambitious with Ascendent leanings.
Kat: Orthodox with Humane, Autonomous, Sybaritic, and Ascendent leanings.
Saede: Transcendent with Humane, Autonomous and Sybaritic leanings. Does not considers her to be pragmatic enough to have that leaning as well, but always considers it.
Synthia: Orthodox with Pragmatic leanings.
Aria: Pragmatic with Transcendent leanings in the past, but Orthodox leanings since she redeemed herself back to Caldari values.
Samira: Orthodox with Righteous leanings.
Aldrith: Righteous with Ascendent and very slight Sybaritic leanings. (this systems explains a lot better the conflicting nature of the character imo)
Silver: Humane with Ascendent leanings.
Reppie: Autonomous with Sybaritic and Humane leanings.
Morlag: Autonomous and Humane.
Seri: Ascendent with Righteous, Transcendent, and Sybaritic leanings.
Nico: Righteous with Humane and Orthodox leanings.
Vince: Sybaritic with Ambitious and Autonomous leanings.
Lunarisse: Not enough data and variables to establish a pattern.
Victoria: Not enough personal data, but heard of : Autonomous with Sybaritic leanings.
Mittara: Orthodox with Ascendent leanings.
Gwen: Transcendent with Orthodox and Humane leanings.
Makoto: Not enough data and variables to establish a pattern.
Natalacya: Transcendent with Ascendent and Humane leanings.
Sepherim: Righteous with Orthodox or Humane leanings.
Havo: Righteous with Autonomous and Ambitious leanings.
JFR: Righteous with Humane leanings.
Andreus: Righteous with Transcendent/Autonomous and Sybaritic leanings.
Streya: Transcendent.
Shin: (it's weird to shorten her name as Shin btw, sounds like Death in japanese...) Humane and Autonomous.
Ava: Humane with Transcendent leanings. Best buddy for crying ever.
-
We started off with DnD alignments and have now moved to color pie.
I feel happy in my nerd bits.
I'd probably call Makkal a White/Green hybrid on that model. Reppy's an easy Red/Black.
Interesting idea, Andy.
Going to agree with both of these statements.
Green as a colour tends to favour natural, organically developing solutions to problems. In-game, it's very anti-technology/anti-artifice, having a large number of cards that wreck or interfere with artifacts. Its enemies are blue (due to its obsession with artificial solutions and valuing of reason over instinct) and black (on account of its all-for-one mentality, which clashes with green's one-for-all outlook).
I'm interested to hear how that lines up with your characters' philosophies.
Green is also the color of spirituality (as opposed to religion,) interdependence, community, and instinct.
I don't think being 'anti-technological' is supported in EVE but having a healthy respect and reverence for nature is.
-
Uhh, really, almost none of our characters are "good", by any stretch of the imagination.
Like, in my mind, if a character has ever spent any time in a pirate or NBSI organization, theyre evil. How could they not be? Mass murder for money, fame, or boredom is pretty much hardcore evil.
-
Uhh, really, almost none of our characters are "good", by any stretch of the imagination.
Like, in my mind, if a character has ever spent any time in a pirate or NBSI organization, theyre evil. How could they not be? Mass murder for money, fame, or boredom is pretty much hardcore evil.
All depends on perspective. IRL most of us don't feel evil for killing thousands of insects, either for money, boredom or convenience.
Also, pirate NPCs are EVE's equivalent of D&D Orcs (and other evil aligned creatures): legitimate targets of unbridled aggression.
-
My assumption for this has been 'If someone explained DnD alignment to Makkal and asked her to label those she knows, what would she pick for each of them?'
Besides, there are a number of characters who haven't been mass murderers for money, fame, or boredom. Even if they have, some have changed over time and now no longer do so.
-
On the color wheel, Samira would probably be Black-White-Blue, I think. She's got traits of all three.
All depends on perspective. IRL most of us don't feel evil for killing thousands of insects, either for money, boredom or convenience.
Human beings aren't insects, and if someone is at the stage where they think they are, then that's sociopathic and evil.
-
Human beings aren't insects, and if someone is at the stage where they think they are, then that's sociopathic and evil.
Yup, agreed. You are gaining points for the dark side Merd! :PPPP
As for the color schematics, Seph would be white and blue.
-
Huh. Maybe the green tendencies are why Makkal struggles to fit into the Amarr 'bloc.' Though the Caldari are just as likely to be white-blue as the Amarr, and she seems to fit well there.
On the color wheel, Samira would probably be Black-White-Blue, I think. She's got traits of all three.
People have suggested that Samira has darker leanings than what I/Makkal have seen. Could you elaborate on how she's black?
-
The colour wheel is funny. I'd honestly say, on that, Saede is probably Blue/Green not just blue. Its just not a side of her that is extremely public, but those who know her well would probably attest to this.
-
On the color wheel, Samira would probably be Black-White-Blue, I think. She's got traits of all three.
People have suggested that Samira has darker leanings than what I/Makkal have seen. Could you elaborate on how she's black?
Parasitic self-interest.
1) She latches onto other people for security and comfort. The conformity and submission are forms of manipulation. Manipulation she's not even really consciously aware of, but manipulation nonetheless. It endears her to people, lowers their hostility towards her by making them view her as non-threatening, and encourages them to take care of her. As she's said before: The slaves who stubbornly rebel and resist are the ones that get treated poorly. The ones who submit and conform get treated well. She'd rather be treated well. She has no personal pride, she's quite happy debasing herself and being someone else's tool if it keeps her safe and cared for.
2) She lacks real compassion for people. Oh sure, she says she does. Argues it rather vehemently, and possibly even consciously believes it herself. But like many things she says, what comes out of her mouth is the result of indoctrination, not honesty. Subconsciously, she's concerned about her own survival, not others. She can watch people be hurt and killed and it doesn't really phase her; she learned to deal with witnessing/experiencing pain during slavery. She's one of those capsuleers that doesn't care about her crew... she even has a full crew in her frigates. Hell, even when Pieter went missing? Her closest friend? She got over it very quickly (of course, she cried when he returned... but the weeks previous? Nope. Out of sight, out of mind.). She's developed very efficient coping mechanisms as a result of her upbringing.
3) Her own survival is what's important. Because of the above two points, it'd be very easy for her to backstab someone she's gotten close to, if it becomes necessary for her survival. Nico is right that Sami could very much be NE instead of LN/LE. Order is important, as it protects her, but the moment that order is no longer protecting her it is no longer valuable. What's important is survival. I only say she's still lawful because I rate according to actions, and she acts according to order as it's typically far safer than disorder. Betrayal is usually a very dangerous prospect, and thus should only be undertaken when the enemy is guaranteed to win. As the Empire is the strongest nation in the galaxy and not at threat of being wiped out, it's much safer for her to be with them than against them. Hence why she betrayed her family and the Republic to return to the Empire once she had the opportunity to do so--she expects the Empire to conquer the Republic in her lifetime, and she doesn't want to be on the losing side.
Really, she's an Ammatar at heart. The proper race traitor kind, not that silly, "oh we were doing it to protect the Starkmanir," shit. <.<
Pieter's summed it all up rather well before:
[spoiler] [ 2013.04.16 08:43:20 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( [Samira is] far more devious than [Pieter] is. She's used to operating from the underdog position. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:44:28 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( If life makes you 2.04 meters and tough, you learn to attack problems headlong. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:44:55 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( If life raises you like it did Sami, you learn other strategies. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:56:06 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( Her submissive personality is basically a false-flag to protect her from a certain kind of person. Her politeness, directed at people she doesn't respect, is a form of manipulation. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:56:45 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( I'm also thinking Aldrith's explanation of her submissiveness to Pieter as being a kind of gift is REALLY offbase. Since she would be submissive right until she stuck the knife in and twisted! ))[/spoiler]
She's very messed up. Though not consciously aware of most of this. Consciously, she thinks she's the mask--a loyal and devout servant of God and Empire. She believes her own lies. So, consciously, she's LN. Subconsciously, she's NE.
-
Fascinating.
-
This all got too complicated. I'm out.
-
Andreus was never close to his family growing up and hated the opulence and corruption of his hometown, so he never had the chance to develop White leanings. He loves being around nature but doesn't consider it an object of reverence, and he isn't big on philosophies of interdependence and interconnection, so he hasn't got strong Green tendencies either.
Black is a slightly trickier one. He certainly had a good deal of self-interest and selfishness, but for all the grudges he holds, he can't really bring himself to advance himself at the cost of other people unless he feels they truly deserve it, which, while not neccessarily a laudable outlook just doesn't fit with Black's credo of "fuck personal qualms, do what brings me advancement."
It's important to understand that no colour is inherently evil or good. Certainly Black's parasitic self-interest leaves a lot of room for evil acts, but it's also the colour of capitalism, self-motivation and improvisation with limited resources. Contrariwise, the Amarr Empire is a perfect example of a pure White society that's anything but inherently good.
Probably Andreus' biggest secret is that he's not inherently loyal to the Federation. He's loyal to the Federation because they best serve the advancement of humanity. The Amarr Empire is too autocratic, dogmatic and unequal to serve any but the chosen few, the Caldari State comes close but obsesses to much over profit and loss and whether advancement of humanity serves one or the other, the Minmatar Republic is too impoverished and fractious and the Nation is just a twisted personality cult. The Federation gives its citizens the most individual freedoms, the highest average quality of life and the mist opportunities for self-advancement. This fits perfectly with his Blue-Red outlook. But the moment the Federation genuinely stops being the best if a bad bunch, or something better and not obviously evil comes along, he may reconsider his loyalty.
-
I get the feeling Andreus would have been interested in the 'original' Nation, back when its popular message lead people to view it as a better "Promised Land" than the Federation (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Modern_Era_of_the_Gallente_Federation#Nation-Empires_War). Of course, once the truth came out, that would have been the end of that.
-
Andreus is not particularly credulous. He knows that there's rot hiding underneath the polished vener of every nation, the Federation most definitely included. To him (and, for reference, myself) anyone promising a utopian alternative to contemporary society is by definition hiding something very, very foul. To him, the most important thing right now is to keep the Federation stable and safe long enough that it can get back on the road to producing positive change in humanity. Infomorph technology certainly presents one possible route, but he'd abandon it if a better option came along.
-
Going with color wheel I'd say Karm is Red-Black.
Coincidentally, I try to avoid that color scheme in character generation whenever possible.
-
Makkal: Autonomous with Humane and Sybaritic leanings.
What does this mean?
-
On the color wheel, Samira would probably be Black-White-Blue, I think. She's got traits of all three.
People have suggested that Samira has darker leanings than what I/Makkal have seen. Could you elaborate on how she's black?
Parasitic self-interest.
1) She latches onto other people for security and comfort. The conformity and submission are forms of manipulation. Manipulation she's not even really consciously aware of, but manipulation nonetheless. It endears her to people, lowers their hostility towards her by making them view her as non-threatening, and encourages them to take care of her. As she's said before: The slaves who stubbornly rebel and resist are the ones that get treated poorly. The ones who submit and conform get treated well. She'd rather be treated well. She has no personal pride, she's quite happy debasing herself and being someone else's tool if it keeps her safe and cared for.
2) She lacks real compassion for people. Oh sure, she says she does. Argues it rather vehemently, and possibly even consciously believes it herself. But like many things she says, what comes out of her mouth is the result of indoctrination, not honesty. Subconsciously, she's concerned about her own survival, not others. She can watch people be hurt and killed and it doesn't really phase her; she learned to deal with witnessing/experiencing pain during slavery. She's one of those capsuleers that doesn't care about her crew... she even has a full crew in her frigates. Hell, even when Pieter went missing? Her closest friend? She got over it very quickly (of course, she cried when he returned... but the weeks previous? Nope. Out of sight, out of mind.). She's developed very efficient coping mechanisms as a result of her upbringing.
3) Her own survival is what's important. Because of the above two points, it'd be very easy for her to backstab someone she's gotten close to, if it becomes necessary for her survival. Nico is right that Sami could very much be NE instead of LN/LE. Order is important, as it protects her, but the moment that order is no longer protecting her it is no longer valuable. What's important is survival. I only say she's still lawful because I rate according to actions, and she acts according to order as it's typically far safer than disorder. Betrayal is usually a very dangerous prospect, and thus should only be undertaken when the enemy is guaranteed to win. As the Empire is the strongest nation in the galaxy and not at threat of being wiped out, it's much safer for her to be with them than against them. Hence why she betrayed her family and the Republic to return to the Empire once she had the opportunity to do so--she expects the Empire to conquer the Republic in her lifetime, and she doesn't want to be on the losing side.
Really, she's an Ammatar at heart. The proper race traitor kind, not that silly, "oh we were doing it to protect the Starkmanir," shit. <.<
Pieter's summed it all up rather well before:
[spoiler] [ 2013.04.16 08:43:20 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( [Samira is] far more devious than [Pieter] is. She's used to operating from the underdog position. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:44:28 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( If life makes you 2.04 meters and tough, you learn to attack problems headlong. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:44:55 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( If life raises you like it did Sami, you learn other strategies. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:56:06 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( Her submissive personality is basically a false-flag to protect her from a certain kind of person. Her politeness, directed at people she doesn't respect, is a form of manipulation. ))
[ 2013.04.16 08:56:45 ] Pieter Tuulinen > (( I'm also thinking Aldrith's explanation of her submissiveness to Pieter as being a kind of gift is REALLY offbase. Since she would be submissive right until she stuck the knife in and twisted! ))[/spoiler]
She's very messed up. Though not consciously aware of most of this. Consciously, she thinks she's the mask--a loyal and devout servant of God and Empire. She believes her own lies. So, consciously, she's LN. Subconsciously, she's NE.
That's rather interesting put that in that light. It ringed a similar bell for my own character, which is completely submissive and can sometimes share the same kind of self conservation hidden behind indoctrination. Food for thought.
-
Makkal: Autonomous with Humane and Sybaritic leanings.
What does this mean?
Autonomous means Self Direction and Stimulation. Self Direction implies that the character proves to be creative and has impulses to be driven by its own will and independence. Coupled with Stimulation, it means that what provides her such opportunities is what stimulates her : her senses, her stimuli, her will to discover and experience new things in life. It seems to Lyn that Makkal fits that rather well considering she went to I-RED or spends her time exploring space to speak with people. Being a social chameleon is a means to that end for her.
Sybaritic, which is based on hedonism, strangely enough in the eyes of Lyn mostly I think due to her behaviour itself, or what it tells to her. She seems to enjoy life immensely and be very open about relationships, flirting, etc. There sure seems to be an Amarr-prudish Makkal mixed together with an hedonist Makkal. But Lyn may be totally wrong on that. As I said, the slightest hint of public romance or else is often seen as Sybaritic by her, and honestly, she is rarely biased on her observations except precisely on this kind of things.
-
I think Sakura's Neutral Evil... she does whatever she wants, trying to advance herself and not really caring about what it does to others. She sees the pod as a chance to "bend the universe to her will", and refuses to be shackled by the laws or customs of the old empires. She'll attack anyone she can, unprovoked, and doesn't really care about any organizations but her own.
If I put her on Andreus' wheel, she'd be a black and red combo.
-
Green as a colour tends to favour natural, organically developing solutions to problems. In-game, it's very anti-technology/anti-artifice, having a large number of cards that wreck or interfere with artifacts. Its enemies are blue (due to its obsession with artificial solutions and valuing of reason over instinct) and black (on account of its all-for-one mentality, which clashes with green's one-for-all outlook).
I'm interested to hear how that lines up with your characters' philosophies.
Apologies that it's taken me so long to reply to this, I've been at a music festival drinking lots and singing loudly.
I chose green for Kala as despite her Sebiestor roots and natural affinity for tinkering, her family work in agriculture. This has left her with a tendency to take the long view and just let things develop (although, capsuleerhood has somewhat ruined this as everything happens so fast in relative terms).
Her own personal goals, not those of her tribe and/or family, are based almost purely around her own independence and freedom. Of the colours I picked, Green and Red, the most applicable sections of these are the first half (going anti-clockwise) of each; Independence and Impulse and their subsets; Nature, Growth, Freedom and Action.
-
If I put her on Andreus' wheel, she'd be a black and red combo.
Again, no colour or colour combination is inherently evil, but Red/Black is pretty much the closest you can get to an "evil" combination.
Magic: The Gathering's current setting is Ravnica, an ecumenopolis controlled by ten guilds, each of which represent a different two-colour combination. Black-Red would place you in alignment with the Cult of Rakdos (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Cult_of_Rakdos), although the Cult of Rakdos itself is closer to Chaotic Evil/Sybaritic than Neutral Evil/Ambitious.
-
Eh, Sak's not really evil... she just does some things that people consider to be evil.
Case in point, she can be enjoying some fine wine with people she's just met, then go connect to her ship and destroy dozens of neutral ships and their crews. It's almost a business-like mentality with her.
-
If I put her on Andreus' wheel, she'd be a black and red combo.
Again, no colour or colour combination is inherently evil, but Red/Black is pretty much the closest you can get to an "evil" combination.
Magic: The Gathering's current setting is Ravnica, an ecumenopolis controlled by ten guilds, each of which represent a different two-colour combination. Black-Red would place you in alignment with the Cult of Rakdos (http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Cult_of_Rakdos), although the Cult of Rakdos itself is closer to Chaotic Evil/Sybaritic than Neutral Evil/Ambitious.
"I am confident that even if anyone actually penetrates our facades, even the most perceptive would be fundamentally unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
I really need a new Blue/Black character now that Mortis is retired...
I just spent five minutes trying to work out what newly-rezzed char Elysa would be, but... not having any luck. I'll try again soon when I've actually played her a bit rather than just sending creepy mails to people.
-
Makkal: Autonomous with Humane and Sybaritic leanings.
What does this mean?
Autonomous means Self Direction and Stimulation. Self Direction implies that the character proves to be creative and has impulses to be driven by its own will and independence. Coupled with Stimulation, it means that what provides her such opportunities is what stimulates her : her senses, her stimuli, her will to discover and experience new things in life. It seems to Lyn that Makkal fits that rather well considering she went to I-RED or spends her time exploring space to speak with people. Being a social chameleon is a means to that end for her.
Sybaritic, which is based on hedonism, strangely enough in the eyes of Lyn mostly I think due to her behaviour itself, or what it tells to her. She seems to enjoy life immensely and be very open about relationships, flirting, etc. There sure seems to be an Amarr-prudish Makkal mixed together with an hedonist Makkal. But Lyn may be totally wrong on that. As I said, the slightest hint of public romance or else is often seen as Sybaritic by her, and honestly, she is rarely biased on her observations except precisely on this kind of things.
Thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense.
-
"I am confident that even if anyone actually penetrates our facades, even the most perceptive would be fundamentally unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
I really need a new Blue/Black character now that Mortis is retired...
Yes, we like House Dimir. They're pretty awesome. Although Blue/Black decks are horrible to play against.
Discard ALL the cards!
-
"I am confident that even if anyone actually penetrates our facades, even the most perceptive would be fundamentally unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
I really need a new Blue/Black character now that Mortis is retired...
Yes, we like House Dimir. They're pretty awesome. Although Blue/Black decks are horrible to play against.
Discard ALL the cards!
I had a really nasty blue/black guiltfeeder deck a while back.
-
I had a really nasty blue/black guiltfeeder deck a while back.
guiltfeeder
You are the sole reason for evil and unhappiness in this world. :evil:
-
I had a really nasty blue/black guiltfeeder deck a while back.
guiltfeeder
You are the sole reason for evil and unhappiness in this world. :evil:
confirmed.
-
One of the most entertaining decks I've built was actually a pure red semi-Eldrazi one. Sneak Attack, Worldgorger Dragon, Emrakul's Hatcher... and if they survive the blizzard of idiocy like that, throw out It That Betrays and use a Threshold Epicenter. Never got that far in the combo.
...and we're going waaaay off topic. :P
-
I think Lyn's pinpointing of Natalcya on that alternative alignment scale is spot on, although which of the tendencies is the dominant one will vary from day to day. Well observed.
On the MTG alignment scale she'd be White/Blue. She likes to make pretenses toward amorality that could place her in the Black spectrum as well if they were strictly true, but she doesn't quite have the stomach to go all the way. (Not anymore, at least, she was pretty extreme back in AST-F.)
-
I like how people are unsure about Synthia.
-
That's really easy, Synthia is totally mono-Black.
-
Veikitamo Gesakaarin - Lawful Evil: As a former Caldari State corporate lawyer she is a philosophical adherent of Legalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28Chinese_philosophy%29), in addition to being staunchly nationalist and militarist. As such she is a strong believer that the law is the only true path to achieve a functional meritocracy in civil society. She is willing to use whatever means necessary to achieve the ends of a strong and stable society, and her acts of evil that she commits are fully justified and rationalized as noble deeds in service to the State and Kaalakiota.
Using Saede's system I would say her core values are: Power, Security, Conformity and Tradition.
-
I have no idea about Haelete;
At her core she strives to be benevolent but has a strong sadistic streak.
She attempts to be a universalist but is a staunch racist and fundamentally this is mutually exclusive to her Amarrian beliefs.
She largely lives by self-direction and independence but desires to be nurtured and guided.
She at times vilifies excess yet has a strong penchant for hedonistic pleasures.
She can show fierce loyalty but also lie ruthlessly to those closest to her.
I'd be loathe to pin her as a True Neutral because very few characters can accurately call themselves True Neutral. Chaotic Neutral may be more apt but she can express Lawful qualities. I'm not so sure due to the extreme amount of dissonance she acts with.
-
Use Schwartz-based system, it's easier for that kind of case, though flawed characters (at the contrary of hypocritical ones) are hard to pin down since they have ideals they eventually always fail to apply to themselves.
I would say especially at her core, Sybaritic, Autonomous, Ascendent, and at her ideals Righteous (recently acquired), Orthodox. The True Neutral transforms into Pragmatic, and she is probably not that.
-
Use Schwartz-based system, it's easier for that kind of case, though flawed characters (at the contrary of hypocritical ones) are hard to pin down since they have ideals they eventually always fail to apply to themselves.
I would say especially at her core, Sybaritic, Autonomous, Ascendent, and at her ideals Righteous (recently acquired), Orthodox. The True Neutral transforms into Pragmatic, and she is probably not that.
Yeah that sums her up decently I think.
Using Saede's system I would say her core values are: Power, Security, Conformity and Tradition.
That would put her in Ascendant and Orthodox.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/bFYBhbY.jpg)
-
Necro skills, Saede, necro skills.
Also, I have no idea what alignment system to use to make a post. So, yeah, I guess I'll do it from a five year old perspective. Jace can be a meanieface. Brock is Mr. Funtime Sad Clown.
Edit: I don't really mind alignment stuff, I just find D&D's very lacking and WoD's does not translate out of gameplay. So, yeah. I'll let others decide my characters' alignments.
-
Necro skills, Saede, necro skills.
Also, I have no idea what alignment system to use to make a post. So, yeah, I guess I'll do it from a five year old perspective. Jace can be a meanieface. Brock is Mr. Funtime Sad Clown.
Edit: I don't really mind alignment stuff, I just find D&D's very lacking and WoD's does not translate out of gameplay. So, yeah. I'll let others decide my characters' alignments.
I always thought alignments, and by extension gameplay morality mechanics, were sort of RP training wheels. Once you can run a character on straight up background and personality, they become pretty severe limitations.
-
Alignments are only limitations when you try to force your character into strictly upholding one. They're fine when treated as a loose definition that can and will change based on a character's actions.
Or in other words: alignments are fine when they are changing to fit the character. They are not fine when the character is changing to fit the alignment.
-
I actually agree with the result of the test that showed up on the other thread.
Gaven is pretty much exactly lawful neutral. In part because Good/neutral/Evil doesn't really work very well in EVE, whereas Chaotic/Neutral/Lawful does.
But Gaven is a proponent of both the "good" parts of Amarr, and the more moderate "Evil" parts. He certainly *Thinks* he is Lawful Good, but as the player I think that's a bit absurd.
-
i was a bit suprised that upon reviewing this thread, i did not add the results of my test...
Got True Neutral......which was kinda surprising, i always thought of Alain Colcer as neutral good, but he is effectively more interested in freedom on many aspects than just the "good moral" ones.
bookmarked the page explaining true neutral philosophy to review later.
-
Shiki got LG, which surprised me since my responses to questions about altruistic acts were generally ambivalent. Was expecting LN.
Guess it goes back to the point made about intent versus action.
-
Fun part is, I ran this for my WoW main because he screws with these tests so bad. He got Neutral-Good, which is a first for him. He generally ends up lawful to some end or another, and it's the good and evil thing he batters back and forth on.
Apparently, this test doesn't care that you give someone a Chelsea's smile, then tighten a gag into the wounds to make them vomit, and extol his father for information. It just cares whether you're willing to say you did it and that it wasn't the "wrong" person.
-
I didn't even realize there was a test pages back until these recent comments. Jace got Lawful Neutral.
-
Was expecting LG, but got Lawful Good... was ok, this was my numbers
[b]Alignment:[/b]
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (39)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (31)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Chaotic Evil ---- XX (2)
[b]Law & Chaos:[/b]
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Neutral - XXXXXXX (7)
Chaos --- X (1)
[b]Good & Evil:[/b]
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Evil ---- X (1)
-
So I also finally took the actual test, and got exactly what I expected for Aldy: Neutral Good. Take that, ya nay-sayers! :D
Detailed Results:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (29)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXX (5)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaos --- XXXX (4)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Evil ---- X (1)
Also, does anyone know any web-fu and can turn this image into an editable thing so we can put markers on it for characters we know? I think that would be really useful for showing where we think others are on the scale.
(http://easydamus.com/Schwartz3.png)
-
Using D&D alignment system, Elmund is apparently Neutral Good.
The Magic one hurts my head.
-
Also decided to actually do the test.
Lawful Neutral
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXX (8 )
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXX (6)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXX (8 )
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XX (2)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Evil ---- XXXXXX (6)
So much not good.
-
I'll use the method Saede linked to describe Kor and others. I'll fill in everyone else when it isn't 2:30 am though. But for my perception of Kor...and note that I will put a spoiler so people putting their opinions on Kor will do so without being biased based on what I feel about my own character...
[spoiler]I would have to say he conducts himself in an overall pragmatic manner. He has traits associated with many of the alignments (i.e. benevolence, conformity, tradition, universalism, etc) to varying extents, and expresses the degree of these traits based on the context of a particular situation and with who he is interacting with.
For instance, he truly does care for his fellow countrymen. And he truly does wish for there to be a peace between the Federation and State. However, one can argue the reasons for his desire of peace between the two is so that the State can instead focus its military effort on eliminating the Guristas from the face of the cluster. As for his personal crusade against Guristas members, he often resorts to twisted, underhanded methods to eliminate them. These methods can be applied to anyone who harms or threatens the people he cares about and the nation he loves. This includes, in some cases, ex-Caldari who chose the wrong path (i.e. Provists). He has no trouble killing former fellow Caldari; after all, it is all in the name of a better State. ;)[/spoiler]
-
Having tried many times to define Aya in the D&D alignment system I am just going to offer 100m ISK to anyone who can convince me she is one alignment over another.
I have also decided that
A: Aya is too well characterized and real to fit into a a metric or,
B: Aya is too poorly characterized/erratically played to fit into a metric
-
Chaotic Evil for Ayallah.
"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable."
"Here are some possible adjectives describing chaotic evil characters: violent, cruel, capricious, malicious, untrustworthy, unreliable, heartless, volatile, inconsistent, uncaring, unfeeling, deceitful, discourteous, selfish."
Her big goal, as I have seen, is perfection of the self--namely, through battle. She cares nothing for killing other people, and only seems to care about allies so far as they are means for her to get more combat, and test herself against more people. Once they are no longer useful for that then she moves on to someone else who can.
Strength is what is important to Ayallah. She respects people who are skilled and capable, and dismisses people who are not.
At best, she might be Neutral Evil. But I haven't really seen anything to make me believe she really cares about authority beyond their ability to fulfill her need for destruction.
-
Veikitamo Gesakaarin:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXX (5)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXX (3)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Evil ---- XX (2)
I have no idea why people think Veik is evil, she's the epitomy of law and goodness. Although most of the questions from a Caldari perspective were interesting -- she wouldn't betray her family, her corporation or her State as she sees it because she's deeply loyal to them all as well as believing in things like social justice and a form of charity in keeping with her concept of there being a greater good to work towards with fellow citizens.
However the questions never did ask how she'd treat those whom she doesn't consider citizens and thus having no obligation towards.
-
Veikitamo Gesakaarin:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXX (5)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXX (3)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Evil ---- XX (2)
I have no idea why people think Veik is evil, she's the epitomy of law and goodness. Although most of the questions from a Caldari perspective were interesting -- she wouldn't betray her family, her corporation or her State as she sees it because she's deeply loyal to them all as well as believing in things like social justice and a form of charity in keeping with her concept of there being a greater good to work towards with fellow citizens.
However the questions never did ask how she'd treat those whom she doesn't consider citizens and thus having no obligation towards.
This would be why the D&D alignment system is terribly flawed. It only functions within the setting of a non-world dungeon crawl. It can't handle any political dimensions.
-
This would be why the D&D alignment system is terribly flawed. It only functions within the setting of a non-world dungeon crawl. It can't handle any political dimensions.
Well yes. I just assumed this was a bit of fun. The great thing about Eve is that there's no objective good or evil -- only rationalizations and justifications.
-
This would be why the D&D alignment system is terribly flawed. It only functions within the setting of a non-world dungeon crawl. It can't handle any political dimensions.
Well yes. I just assumed this was a bit of fun. The great thing about Eve is that there's no objective good or evil -- only rationalizations and justifications.
Well, there's always objective good and evil, you can just rationalize and justify it.
-
This would be why the D&D alignment system is terribly flawed. It only functions within the setting of a non-world dungeon crawl. It can't handle any political dimensions.
Well yes. I just assumed this was a bit of fun. The great thing about Eve is that there's no objective good or evil -- only rationalizations and justifications.
Agreed, both points.
-
Well, there's always objective good and evil, you can just rationalize and justify it.
I might rephrase and say that most people rationalize and justify what they do as being good, even if others might find it abhorrent. That said, I've always left the pursuit of objective morals to those with a desire to believe in them.
-
This is why I like the modified alignment system I used. I would say in that system that Veik is probably very Orthodox.
-
Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.
In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.
It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.
All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.
-
Chaotic Evil for Ayallah.
"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable."
"Here are some possible adjectives describing chaotic evil characters: violent, cruel, capricious, malicious, untrustworthy, unreliable, heartless, volatile, inconsistent, uncaring, unfeeling, deceitful, discourteous, selfish."
Her big goal, as I have seen, is perfection of the self--namely, through battle. She cares nothing for killing other people, and only seems to care about allies so far as they are means for her to get more combat, and test herself against more people. Once they are no longer useful for that then she moves on to someone else who can.
Strength is what is important to Ayallah. She respects people who are skilled and capable, and dismisses people who are not.
At best, she might be Neutral Evil. But I haven't really seen anything to make me believe she really cares about authority beyond their ability to fulfill her need for destruction.
I do agree that this is certainly a large facet of her personality and how she behaves post-capsule. I was always under the impression that Chaotic evil was more rampaging monster but your insight does make a lot of sense.
What I find most interesting and difficult to reconcile is how she handles authority. For instance, when she is talking about the republic she is almost Chaotic neutral in her want to make the Republic better by any means necessary. Very Black Panther before 1968 and the inclusion of all races. She quietly supports groups like the bloody hands but at the same time prays and fights for a more moderate view of Shakor and can be considered almost a moderate or liberal Defiant. Provided of course, that death is ubiquitous.
She will argue how strength of economy, industry, culture, and spirit are important, but always behind the absolute threat of violence and a military that can dominate any competition. She seeks a utopia with it's foot to the throat of everyone else. Good for those who live in it, the best lives imaginable, but at the cost of who knows how many crimes against those outside. Not too dissimilar to the idealistic image of the Empire she was spoon fed. the only problem is, she cannot return. Both as being a capsuleer, her work for the enemy, willing, coerced or forced. As well as her revelations concerning slavery, her people, and how she was treated. This has prompted her, I think to find a new 'cause' to fight for and as the Republic as found to both not want her completely and be worthy completely she has ventured into null for that requirement all, as you say, in the path of perfection of self. Interesting too that she is so self aware but either does not think she can change from how she is or does not want to. In fact she would go insane in the utopia she would commit any sin to maintain. Often times she will spiral out of control simply because she is not under attack. Being nice to her, denying to engage in conflict with her, showing legitimate concern for her other than how she appears or her combat readiness?
Well I am convinced. Thank you for the different perspective and your help ^_^
-
In Nico's interaction with Ayallah, she seemed pretty much respect her authority (whatever authority Nico might have) and was reacting positively to honest concern shown by Nico. vOv
I'd classify Ayallah as Chaotic Neutral.
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."
Chaotic evil is,in a way, rampaging monster, as the drive of a Chaotic evil character is to a degree stemming from "a desire to make those different from himself suffer". I don't see that desire in Ayallah, she merely doesn't seem to care whether others suffer or not.
-
In Nico's interaction with Ayallah, she seemed pretty much respect her authority (whatever authority Nico might have) and was reacting positively to honest concern shown by Nico. vOv
I'd classify Ayallah as Chaotic Neutral.
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."
Chaotic evil is,in a way, rampaging monster, as the drive of a Chaotic evil character is to a degree stemming from "a desire to make those different from himself suffer". I don't see that desire in Ayallah, she merely doesn't seem to care whether others suffer or not.
Another interesting perspective! I like how different, different people's interactions with Aya have been and how unexpected how she will react to random things. I do see a lot of chaotic neutral in her. If self improvement is her only motivation surely it would be clear cut but as her only skill (that she is brave enough to admit she has) is killing and the art of war, her avenue toward her goal can certainly be considered 'evil' as well.
She had tea and sent e-mails to nico. With Samira she pokes for her amusement and threatens her with bloody death when she gets to lippy :cube: More interesting insight into Aya, thank you ^_^
-
Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.
In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.
It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.
All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.
See, that's a lot more intelligent and complex than what I was going for. I was just going to say that there may be a grey area where we can find wiggle room, but there are definitely things, acts, and people out there that are, objectively, evil. They may not think they're evil; I guess few people would, but that doesn't change whether or not they have done wrong to others for an inadequate reason.
Let's take a common example. Let's say that there's a married man with two children and a wife. He's in his 40s or 50s and has sort of hit the ceiling in his life. Suddenly, a 20 year old woman he's been working with on a certain project starts to flirt with him, one thing leads to another, and he starts an affair with this woman. I think all of us can understand that and draw our own conclusions on rationale. He's having a mid-life crisis, he's probably bored of his wife and he'll have to deal with the stress of his children when he gets home. He's probably not a "bad" person, overall. Marriage isn't as ironclad as we like to say it is anyway and people do this all the time. His wife may never find out about it, after all, and he may go through the rest of his life taking that secret to his grave.
But with all the justification, rationalization, and understanding in the world, is this man breaking his promises to his wife and starting a secret affair objectively evil? I think it is. I may have all the understanding in the world for his situation, but if you promise something to someone, it's on you to keep that promise. He may not be evil, but cheating on your wife certainly is, no matter why you did it or how common it is. It's a violation of your family's trust for your own selfish wants and desires.
And that's just the most common, vanilla wrong I can think of. There's a lot worse out there. At the very least, I'm pretty sure we could all agree that there is no viable justification or rationalization for spiking a woman's drink with rohypnol, raping her in your apartment, and dumping her outside across town. That's, simply speaking, pure evil. It does exist out there, I suppose righteousness is all about how universal and inviolate wrong is.
Sort of the problem I have with D&D systems isn't that they're all about objective right and wrong, but subjective right and wrong. For instance, my Zumoktaga character scored an almost perfect Neutral-Good. Zumoktaga is basically the acting principle of destruction. He has ripped people literally in half for saying something vaguely threatening and been everything from a paratrooping combat engineer to a do-anything brick mercenary. If you met him IRL, you'd know immediately that the guy is a pretty cold-blooded murderer.
Yet, according to D&D's system, NG is probably right on the money. He doesn't hurt people for his own good, always for an organization (whether military or criminal). He has a definitive sense of right and wrong, standing up for his buddies in bad situations, even if that sometimes means killing law enforcement personnel or helping drop bodies in sewers to be eaten into nothingness by Stormwind rats. Objectively, anyone and their mother would know he's a walking, hammer-wielding nightmare. But, subjectively, you could say he's a stand-up paladin if you don't take his employment history, methodology, or pure brute anger into account.
-
This is why I like the modified alignment system I used. I would say in that system that Veik is probably very Orthodox.
It's always a matter of perspective and it's more interesting when a character can engender a wide array of opinions. I have to admit, Veik always has me chuckle how she seems to have managed to shroud herself in a cloak of contradiction, rumour, and innuendo - if people even know who they are at all.
-
Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.
In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.
It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.
All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.
See, that's a lot more intelligent and complex than what I was going for. I was just going to say that there may be a grey area where we can find wiggle room, but there are definitely things, acts, and people out there that are, objectively, evil. They may not think they're evil; I guess few people would, but that doesn't change whether or not they have done wrong to others for an inadequate reason.
Let's take a common example. Let's say that there's a married man with two children and a wife. He's in his 40s or 50s and has sort of hit the ceiling in his life. Suddenly, a 20 year old woman he's been working with on a certain project starts to flirt with him, one thing leads to another, and he starts an affair with this woman. I think all of us can understand that and draw our own conclusions on rationale. He's having a mid-life crisis, he's probably bored of his wife and he'll have to deal with the stress of his children when he gets home. He's probably not a "bad" person, overall. Marriage isn't as ironclad as we like to say it is anyway and people do this all the time. His wife may never find out about it, after all, and he may go through the rest of his life taking that secret to his grave.
But with all the justification, rationalization, and understanding in the world, is this man breaking his promises to his wife and starting a secret affair objectively evil? I think it is. I may have all the understanding in the world for his situation, but if you promise something to someone, it's on you to keep that promise. He may not be evil, but cheating on your wife certainly is, no matter why you did it or how common it is. It's a violation of your family's trust for your own selfish wants and desires.
And that's just the most common, vanilla wrong I can think of. There's a lot worse out there. At the very least, I'm pretty sure we could all agree that there is no viable justification or rationalization for spiking a woman's drink with rohypnol, raping her in your apartment, and dumping her outside across town. That's, simply speaking, pure evil. It does exist out there, I suppose righteousness is all about how universal and inviolate wrong is.
Sort of the problem I have with D&D systems isn't that they're all about objective right and wrong, but subjective right and wrong. For instance, my Zumoktaga character scored an almost perfect Neutral-Good. Zumoktaga is basically the acting principle of destruction. He has ripped people literally in half for saying something vaguely threatening and been everything from a paratrooping combat engineer to a do-anything brick mercenary. If you met him IRL, you'd know immediately that the guy is a pretty cold-blooded murderer.
Yet, according to D&D's system, NG is probably right on the money. He doesn't hurt people for his own good, always for an organization (whether military or criminal). He has a definitive sense of right and wrong, standing up for his buddies in bad situations, even if that sometimes means killing law enforcement personnel or helping drop bodies in sewers to be eaten into nothingness by Stormwind rats. Objectively, anyone and their mother would know he's a walking, hammer-wielding nightmare. But, subjectively, you could say he's a stand-up paladin if you don't take his employment history, methodology, or pure brute anger into account.
That's not objective evil, that's completely subjective to the moral norms we were raised in.
I don't believe in objective evil and good. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.
-
Morals in its descriptive sense, refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. But it's necessarily true that what is considered right or wrong is objectively considered right or wrong. One can't really argue that people exist that consider certain things to be right and others to be wrong, if one doesn't want loose touch with reality.
In its normative sense, "morals" refer to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. The idea that there is objective right and wrong is supported by a lot of arguments, to start with the point that there are deep logical problems with relativism/nihilism in general (and those also hold for moral relativism/nihilism. Cf. Boghossian "Fear of Knowledge") and end with the fact that a non-normative view of morals has the problem of not being able to justify why one should adopt it, while a normative foundation of morals can do so very well.
It's a bit like String-Theory(s). While there are theoretical reasons to assume that some form of String theory is true, we can't experimentally discern which one is. Similarly, we have a lot of reasons to assumethat objective morals exist, even though it is hard what exactly is objectively right or wrong on the level of morality. This though is an epistemic problem ofdiscerning the form something takes, not the question whether something does exist or not.
All that said, I'd agree that in EVE, to a certain degree and in a certain sense, we have no normative, objective morals, as it is a sand-box game that could be framed as "what if everyone had to make up his/her own..." with "..." being "morals" in this specific case. In a way, EVE is a game revolving around the descriptive morals that come up, which 'methodically' excludes normative morals.
See, that's a lot more intelligent and complex than what I was going for. I was just going to say that there may be a grey area where we can find wiggle room, but there are definitely things, acts, and people out there that are, objectively, evil. They may not think they're evil; I guess few people would, but that doesn't change whether or not they have done wrong to others for an inadequate reason.
Let's take a common example. Let's say that there's a married man with two children and a wife. He's in his 40s or 50s and has sort of hit the ceiling in his life. Suddenly, a 20 year old woman he's been working with on a certain project starts to flirt with him, one thing leads to another, and he starts an affair with this woman. I think all of us can understand that and draw our own conclusions on rationale. He's having a mid-life crisis, he's probably bored of his wife and he'll have to deal with the stress of his children when he gets home. He's probably not a "bad" person, overall. Marriage isn't as ironclad as we like to say it is anyway and people do this all the time. His wife may never find out about it, after all, and he may go through the rest of his life taking that secret to his grave.
But with all the justification, rationalization, and understanding in the world, is this man breaking his promises to his wife and starting a secret affair objectively evil? I think it is. I may have all the understanding in the world for his situation, but if you promise something to someone, it's on you to keep that promise. He may not be evil, but cheating on your wife certainly is, no matter why you did it or how common it is. It's a violation of your family's trust for your own selfish wants and desires.
And that's just the most common, vanilla wrong I can think of. There's a lot worse out there. At the very least, I'm pretty sure we could all agree that there is no viable justification or rationalization for spiking a woman's drink with rohypnol, raping her in your apartment, and dumping her outside across town. That's, simply speaking, pure evil. It does exist out there, I suppose righteousness is all about how universal and inviolate wrong is.
Sort of the problem I have with D&D systems isn't that they're all about objective right and wrong, but subjective right and wrong. For instance, my Zumoktaga character scored an almost perfect Neutral-Good. Zumoktaga is basically the acting principle of destruction. He has ripped people literally in half for saying something vaguely threatening and been everything from a paratrooping combat engineer to a do-anything brick mercenary. If you met him IRL, you'd know immediately that the guy is a pretty cold-blooded murderer.
Yet, according to D&D's system, NG is probably right on the money. He doesn't hurt people for his own good, always for an organization (whether military or criminal). He has a definitive sense of right and wrong, standing up for his buddies in bad situations, even if that sometimes means killing law enforcement personnel or helping drop bodies in sewers to be eaten into nothingness by Stormwind rats. Objectively, anyone and their mother would know he's a walking, hammer-wielding nightmare. But, subjectively, you could say he's a stand-up paladin if you don't take his employment history, methodology, or pure brute anger into account.
That's not objective evil, that's completely subjective to the moral norms we were raised in.
I don't believe in objective evil and good. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
-
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
I don't really want to get into this topic, but:
It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick morality.
You just summed up the other side's argument.
-
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
I don't really want to get into this topic, but:
It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick morality.
You just summed up the other side's argument.
How so? Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?
-
How so? Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?
Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.
-
How so? Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?
Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
-
How so? Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?
Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
I really don't have any interest in getting into a never-ending philosophical debate. Suffice to say, there is plenty of literature written about this topic which contain many interesting perspectives and arguments - none are as simple as you are describing. A thread on some forums will not progress the field.
-
How so? Does someone's culture saying something is okay make it right for those people to engage in it, whatever it is?
Nobody is arguing for that form of relativism. In fact, nobody ever has. It only exists as a strawman.
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
I really don't have any interest in getting into a never-ending philosophical debate. Suffice to say, there is plenty of literature written about this topic which contain many interesting perspectives and arguments - none are as simple as you are describing. A thread on some forums will not progress the field.
Just saying, on the original point that it isn't that there's no good or evil in EVE, more that they don't necessarily write heroes or villains. Everyone kind of wallows in varying levels and flavors of misery, but I think the Sani Sabik (and possibly the Sansha) are as close as you can get to just nodding and saying, "Yeah, they're pretty much evil no matter who you are." Which is funny, considering how many Sansha and Sabik characters people play are generally pleasant-ish to talk to.
But EVE is full of people your character puts his/her allegiance behind that aren't very palatable. I'm not sure that has much to do with morality, though, as much as CCP just doesn't really write in enough consequences to actions to be able to comparatively judge them, so we have to take CCP's lore crawl as the gospel. Everybody's host government/organization/local McDonalds will eventually screw up and show themselves for the unlikable monsters they are. We're all just waiting for our turn.
-
But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.
The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.
Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?
I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/
-
But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.
The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.
Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?
I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/
No, I think we're crossing a communication line. Cheating is a pretty specific thing. If you have sex with another woman, and your wife either knows and doesn't care or participates, I can't necessarily say that's wrong. That's subjective. I wouldn't do it and I'm against it in practice, but I'm not going to tell two adults how to run their personal relationship.
Cheating is specifically when you're going behind your wife's back and having sex with someone else without her knowing, under the presumption that you aren't. I can't condone that, even if that kind of thing is culturally expected or acceptable, it's disrespectful, dishonest, and wrong. If you have promised someone that you aren't going to be sleeping with anyone but them, and you decide to break that promise without telling her, and keep up the pretense that you are still keeping your word, that's pretty universally unacceptable. It doesn't necessarily make the man in our example a horrible person, but I don't think there's any justification that doesn't make that the wrong thing to do.
More broadly speaking:
Subjective: You have sex with another woman and your wife is okay with it (I may disagree with the practice, but I wouldn't say it's wrong)
Questionable: You have sex with another woman, your wife is NOT okay with it and it kills her inside when you do, but she does know about it
Objective: You have sex with another woman, your wife doesn't know, and you keep up the pretense of the relationship with her for whatever reason you think might justify it.
Horrifying: The straw man situation, where you have sex with another woman, you don't tell your wife, then if your wife cheats on you and you find out about it, you break every bone in her face with a lamp base. I think, no matter who you are and what you believe, that constitutes completely f***ed up, and is objectively wrong even if you learned it from watching your father do it to your mother and everyone on your block has a story about it.
I think there's an argument about where the limit to that objective wrong might lay, but I'm just saying that, say, the idea of the Sani Sabik kidnapping people to consume their blood during scarification rituals might be culturally justified to them, but is objectively wrong. And kids, if you've kidnapped people and consumed their blood during scarification rituals, don't do that. It's bad. I don't care who says it's okay.
-
The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation. That different people hold different things to be morally right or wrong in no way points to categories of morality not existing in an objective sense. Or else the same would be true about e.g. atoms and virtually anything else, because there have always been and are always people who think differently about how things are. That doesn't mean that things aren't objectively one way or the other, but merely that the human capacity to understand how things are is limited.
Or to put it in general terms: Just because there are different beliefs about how things are, doesn't mean that there is no objective truth of how they are: If there is no such truth, then that would imply that things are not the way they are. It is a logical necessity, though, that things are the way they are (that is a trueism). Thus, to infer from a multitude of beliefs about something, that there is no objective truth about this something, is a fallacy.
Normative/objective morality can very well be something that humanity is exploring and discovering, rather than creating it. In fact, as I said above, there are a lot of good reasons to assume the former, rather than the latter - as the latter position has to deal with a lot of logical justification problem the former doesn't have.
-
But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.
The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.
Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?
I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/
No, I think we're crossing a communication line. Cheating is a pretty specific thing. If you have sex with another woman, and your wife either knows and doesn't care or participates, I can't necessarily say that's wrong. That's subjective. I wouldn't do it and I'm against it in practice, but I'm not going to tell two adults how to run their personal relationship.
Cheating is specifically when you're going behind your wife's back and having sex with someone else without her knowing, under the presumption that you aren't. I can't condone that, even if that kind of thing is culturally expected or acceptable, it's disrespectful, dishonest, and wrong. If you have promised someone that you aren't going to be sleeping with anyone but them, and you decide to break that promise without telling her, and keep up the pretense that you are still keeping your word, that's pretty universally unacceptable. It doesn't necessarily make the man in our example a horrible person, but I don't think there's any justification that doesn't make that the wrong thing to do.
More broadly speaking:
Subjective: You have sex with another woman and your wife is okay with it (I may disagree with the practice, but I wouldn't say it's wrong)
Questionable: You have sex with another woman, your wife is NOT okay with it and it kills her inside when you do, but she does know about it
Objective: You have sex with another woman, your wife doesn't know, and you keep up the pretense of the relationship with her for whatever reason you think might justify it.
Horrifying: The straw man situation, where you have sex with another woman, you don't tell your wife, then if your wife cheats on you and you find out about it, you break every bone in her face with a lamp base. I think, no matter who you are and what you believe, that constitutes completely f***ed up, and is objectively wrong even if you learned it from watching your father do it to your mother and everyone on your block has a story about it.
I think there's an argument about where the limit to that objective wrong might lay, but I'm just saying that, say, the idea of the Sani Sabik kidnapping people to consume their blood during scarification rituals might be culturally justified to them, but is objectively wrong. And kids, if you've kidnapped people and consumed their blood during scarification rituals, don't do that. It's bad. I don't care who says it's okay.
Well no, that's what I told above. It's not universally unacceptable as you seem to believe. Your subjective world is not the world of everybody.
I may fully agree with you on that specific case, as probably a majority of people and cultures do, but it certainly doesn't mean it's universal nor objective.
That's probably a problem of definition of objectivity then, so the one I use is everything that defines or relates to an object (as opposed to a subject, thus subjectivity). The very description of your case is objective, but the morality applied to it by that definition is purely subjective.
You also admit in your conclusion that you don't care if some think it is okay. The important matter is that some think it is, or might think it is. Which directly relates to moral relativism.
-
The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation. That different people hold different things to be morally right or wrong in no way points to categories of morality not existing in an objective sense. Or else the same would be true about e.g. atoms and virtually anything else, because there have always been and are always people who think differently about how things are. That doesn't mean that things aren't objectively one way or the other, but merely that the human capacity to understand how things are is limited.
Or to put it in general terms: Just because there are different beliefs about how things are, doesn't mean that there is no objective truth of how they are: If there is no such truth, then that would imply that things are not the way they are. It is a logical necessity, though, that things are the way they are (that is a trueism). Thus, to infer from a multitude of beliefs about something, that there is no objective truth about this something, is a fallacy.
Normative/objective morality can very well be something that humanity is exploring and discovering, rather than creating it. In fact, as I said above, there are a lot of good reasons to assume the former, rather than the latter - as the latter position has to deal with a lot of logical justification problem the former doesn't have.
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
That is NOT a trueism to me, quite the contrary indeed. I think that it is a logical necessity to believe in the exact contrary. Believing that one's own subjective interpretation is always the valid and true and objective one sounds dangerous to me. Thus the fallacy is to believe that.
Granted, the claim that the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim. But accepting that it is not pretty much means to me accepting the existence of a superior morality that has basically no substance besides religious belief, which I can't accept. I will never state that such a thing doesn't exist, thus why it was indeed a steep claim, but it directly conflicts with my own premise that we are subjective beings (as per my definition above), and thus cannot claim to know the objectivity of the universe. And even if we could, I still believe there is no objective morality and that both terms are more or less mutually exclusive.
( Why the hell does my post sounds like some SoCT drivel ? :lol: )
-
But that's the thing isn't it ? Sansha are evil by our standards, and most standards in New Eden as well, but not all of them. And even if it was all of them doesn't necessarily means that it's absolutely evil objectively either. To them, it's perfectly fine, at least.
The same way your wife cheater may be evil for us, and maybe in his own eyes too, but i'm pretty sure that you will find plenty of people that will hold nothing against it or condone it, because their moral system is just different.
Or because they have none whatsoever. The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
Isn't that a little like saying that my concept of a brick is subjective because a brick might mean something else in another culture, though? It might not use the same standard dimensions or the same standard material, but it's still a brick.
I am just saying that you are applying judgement values on a fact (cheating on a wife) as objective, which is totally contradictory to my understanding of both definitions (judgement value, which is subjective, and cheating, which is objective).
Well, no, it's really a question, in my case. If it isn't true, then where is the limit of what is objectively right to subjective? Obviously, some things are evil even if it's allowed, but on the other hand, some things are not allowed that aren't necessarily wrong. Hence there's an objective right and wrong, it's probably not completely based around our system of morality. Sizes may change, but a brick is a brick and there's a fundamental definition of what it is that transcends culture before it becomes a bowl of oatmeal or a steam cleaner.
I don't understand the causality effect here. How does the fact that some allowed things being considered evil by someone (or forbidden things that aren't necessarily wrong for someone) does imply that there is an objective right and wrong ?
I really can't grasp the logic, my apologies if that sounds dumb. :/
No, I think we're crossing a communication line. Cheating is a pretty specific thing. If you have sex with another woman, and your wife either knows and doesn't care or participates, I can't necessarily say that's wrong. That's subjective. I wouldn't do it and I'm against it in practice, but I'm not going to tell two adults how to run their personal relationship.
Cheating is specifically when you're going behind your wife's back and having sex with someone else without her knowing, under the presumption that you aren't. I can't condone that, even if that kind of thing is culturally expected or acceptable, it's disrespectful, dishonest, and wrong. If you have promised someone that you aren't going to be sleeping with anyone but them, and you decide to break that promise without telling her, and keep up the pretense that you are still keeping your word, that's pretty universally unacceptable. It doesn't necessarily make the man in our example a horrible person, but I don't think there's any justification that doesn't make that the wrong thing to do.
More broadly speaking:
Subjective: You have sex with another woman and your wife is okay with it (I may disagree with the practice, but I wouldn't say it's wrong)
Questionable: You have sex with another woman, your wife is NOT okay with it and it kills her inside when you do, but she does know about it
Objective: You have sex with another woman, your wife doesn't know, and you keep up the pretense of the relationship with her for whatever reason you think might justify it.
Horrifying: The straw man situation, where you have sex with another woman, you don't tell your wife, then if your wife cheats on you and you find out about it, you break every bone in her face with a lamp base. I think, no matter who you are and what you believe, that constitutes completely f***ed up, and is objectively wrong even if you learned it from watching your father do it to your mother and everyone on your block has a story about it.
I think there's an argument about where the limit to that objective wrong might lay, but I'm just saying that, say, the idea of the Sani Sabik kidnapping people to consume their blood during scarification rituals might be culturally justified to them, but is objectively wrong. And kids, if you've kidnapped people and consumed their blood during scarification rituals, don't do that. It's bad. I don't care who says it's okay.
Well no, that's what I told above. It's not universally unacceptable as you seem to believe. Your subjective world is not the world of everybody.
I may fully agree with you on that specific case, as probably a majority of people and cultures do, but it certainly doesn't mean it's universal nor objective.
That's probably a problem of definition of objectivity then, so the one I use is everything that defines or relates to an object (as opposed to a subject, thus subjectivity). The very description of your case is objective, but the morality applied to it by that definition is purely subjective.
You also admit in your conclusion that you don't care if some think it is okay. The important matter is that some think it is, or might think it is. Which directly relates to moral relativism.
But that's sort of the point of the example. Is it really "okay" if someone thinks it's okay? In the example, it's based around the idea that no one is okay with it except you. You can justify it, it might not ever hurt anyone because no one might ever find out, but that doesn't mean it was ever the right thing to do. I think there truly is an objective right in that situation, that if you've promised something, went back on it, and lied, that is wrong whether or not you can shrug it off.
Essentially, being okay with something doesn't make it okay in any kind of objective sense. At what point are we going from condemning things that aren't our right or business to condemn to excusing things that we shouldn't ever excuse? As a species, we've done a lot of both, but I think the latter is the one we've done more often. The worst things we've done as a collective group is that we've allowed some terrible things to happen because we didn't think it was our business.
A more serious historical example might be something like slavery. It went on in the U.S. until, nominally, 1863. Plenty of people thought it was okay at the time, in fact some people still practice it in the world and, assumedly, think it's an acceptable thing to do.
That doesn't make it right, nor was it ever the right thing to do. I may defend it on Constantin Baracca, but it's all character. Slavery is abhorrent and it was an ignorant practice. It was common for pretty much every society until relatively recently in human history. People thought it was a perfectly normal and understandable practice that you could invade another nation-state and set its kidnapped people to working your farms.
It's never been right objectively. The idea of forcing someone to work in grueling conditions without any compensation for your benefit is in no way the right thing to do, whether you believe in it or not. We can dress it up and try to make excuses for why it happened and how long it took us to realize it was the wrong thing, it might not have all been horrible people in charge of that system, but it's completely and utterly wrong. It always was. It never would be.
But for a long time, in America, the policy of the non-slaveholding states was just to limit its expansion and to not allow it in their part of the country. It took a long time before a government was elected that would have even limited it to its present boundaries, and it took cessation and a civil war before the government finally released the slaves in America from bondage.
It was never right, it just took us a long time to acknowledge that. Nowadays, very few people in America would like us to return to enslaving people (and you can bet those people can't say so in government, much less be President). That doesn't mean it only recently became wrong, it was always wrong. We just only relatively recently decided to believe so en masse.
-
The universe is purely amoral. Morality is a human creation, and if we start to say that moral objectivism can be defined in the human frame rather than an universal frame, then we still have amoral people that do not share the same value, or immoral people that share different values, which directly hints at no moral objectivism at the human level.
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation. That different people hold different things to be morally right or wrong in no way points to categories of morality not existing in an objective sense. Or else the same would be true about e.g. atoms and virtually anything else, because there have always been and are always people who think differently about how things are. That doesn't mean that things aren't objectively one way or the other, but merely that the human capacity to understand how things are is limited.
Or to put it in general terms: Just because there are different beliefs about how things are, doesn't mean that there is no objective truth of how they are: If there is no such truth, then that would imply that things are not the way they are. It is a logical necessity, though, that things are the way they are (that is a trueism). Thus, to infer from a multitude of beliefs about something, that there is no objective truth about this something, is a fallacy.
Normative/objective morality can very well be something that humanity is exploring and discovering, rather than creating it. In fact, as I said above, there are a lot of good reasons to assume the former, rather than the latter - as the latter position has to deal with a lot of logical justification problem the former doesn't have.
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
That is NOT a trueism to me, quite the contrary indeed. I think that it is a logical necessity to believe in the exact contrary. Believing that one's own subjective interpretation is always the valid and true and objective one sounds dangerous to me. Thus the fallacy is to believe that.
Granted, the claim that the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim. But accepting that it is not pretty much means to me accepting the existence of a superior morality that has basically no substance besides religious belief, which I can't accept. I will never state that such a thing doesn't exist, thus why it was indeed a steep claim, but it directly conflicts with my own premise that we are subjective beings (as per my definition above), and thus cannot claim to know the objectivity of the universe. And even if we could, I still believe there is no objective morality and that both terms are more or less mutually exclusive.
( Why the hell does my post sounds like some SoCT drivel ? :lol: )
Just drive by and left a link, because of "cannot claim to know the objectivity of the universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
Im myself to much a positivist to say such things :lol:, I could never imagne myself standing in front of the natural science (the starting point of modern Aufklärung/Enlightenment movement) department and saying such stuff. :P
Maybe a nice starting point for some.... In my youth I was a little in Nietzsche and even in Rawls**, today Im way to far off.... :P
I would suggest start with the Idea of virtue by Socrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1WsrS4WaMc
and over Kant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Crqbu5md4
And go over Nietzsche:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlojPJr4-Vo
After that maybe Rawls.... and maybe one day you are in my far off corner... :D
___________
As for the Alignment System.... Meh. I already know what I had in mind for my char. So It is a nice thing for some, for me it is way to restrictive. :(
** We all have our young rebel phase :P God I sound old. :lol:
-
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
-
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Well, our greed is probably going to cause a lot more rain and our wrath has made it snow the ashen remains of human skin. I think Nicoletta's point probably isn't about our effect on the physical world, but that there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
-
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.
Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
-
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.
Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.
Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.
-
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.
Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.
Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.
I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic. It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors. If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.
Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism. They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand. So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.
We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen. It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand. Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.
I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught. We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.
-
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.
Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.
Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.
I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic. It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors. If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.
Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism. They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand. So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.
We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen. It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand. Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.
I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught. We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.
Here's the thing, our sense of rightness and wrongness is more of a product of society, education and indoctrination. If you leave a child in the wild that child is going to pick up the values of whatever animal that decided to adopt him or her. We think and believe in what is right and wrong because we are taught, and what we are taught is a product of society, refined throughout the generations. Society creates this because it's what allows societies to work. Without rules and morality, we wouldn't be able to form a cohesive group and, being social animals, dependent on social structures and the strength of our peers, wouldn't have survived to the modern age.
Moreover, what we collectively think is right or wrong evolves over time, as what allows society to work also changes over time. Until we reached the industrial age, we had always been at the mercy of the elements. Without rules and morality, we can't define when taking too many grains is taking too many grains, and as a result, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about morality today.
Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive.
-
Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.
Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.
Dog's don't care how exactly they digest the dog biscuits either. And by the way, tigers normally don't eat humans. We're under normal circumstances nottheir prey, but competition. <,<
So, if you say that because dogs and tigers don't seem to care for morality, morality must be a human construct, you'd have to say that because neither dogs nor tigers care for how they digest and neither rocks nor rain carefor what they are made up, that 'the results of science has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature gives shits on whether things are made up from atoms and atoms from subatomic particles and that digestion is realized by a stunningly complex contraption involving specialized enzymes and whatnot with equal measure.'
Also,the idea that nature should reward right action and punish wrong action to not be 'amoral' is a quite childish idea, that seems to stem from a naive idea of God which one hasn't left behind entirely but is emotionally bound to, thus projecting it on arguments of others. The reward of right action lies in doing the right thing, not in being not eaten by tigers. <.< Nature not rewarding right action with extras like that isn't the same as nature 'being amoral'.
But I should stop debating metaethics on the internets. I'll just go back to enjoying The Alignment System Game!
-
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.
Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.
Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.
I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic. It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors. If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.
Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism. They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand. So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.
We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen. It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand. Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.
I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught. We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.
Here's the thing, our sense of rightness and wrongness is more of a product of society, education and indoctrination. If you leave a child in the wild that child is going to pick up the values of whatever animal that decided to adopt him or her. We think and believe in what is right and wrong because we are taught, and what we are taught is a product of society, refined throughout the generations. Society creates this because it's what allows societies to work. Without rules and morality, we wouldn't be able to form a cohesive group and, being social animals, dependent on social structures and the strength of our peers, wouldn't have survived to the modern age.
Moreover, what we collectively think is right or wrong evolves over time, as what allows society to work also changes over time. Until we reached the industrial age, we had always been at the mercy of the elements. Without rules and morality, we can't define when taking too many grains is taking too many grains, and as a result, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about morality today.
Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive.
I think my point here is that last part. There's been a lot of morality that isn't objective (or constructive, for that matter), but I think if there is an essential definition of "good", it's putting aside selfish, individual, animal ideas for the betterment of the surrounding society. That seems to be pretty objective. In our cheating example, the idea isn't that having sex outside your marriage is necessarily why cheating is wrong, obviously you can conceivably have a functional polyamorous relationship. Lying, taking advantage of your family, breaking your word, that seems to be pretty objectively wrong, especially when you're talking about someone who has essentially invested everything into your partnership on the basis of that promise.
So while we, as humans, have defined it, we didn't create it. Sort of the same way we didn't invent nuclear power; it's been around since the dawn of the universe, at least. We simply know what it is and that it exists.
I think what you said pretty eloquently demonstrates that point, actually. Over time, we've been having to confront long-held wrong beliefs (Aristotle said flies had four legs, and he was so trusted that it was hundreds of years before someone bothered to check and found out he was wrong). A lot of those have been that our understanding of morality wasn't objective enough. Essentially, it's wrong to enslave people, getting to the other example, even if they would have enslaved you. Slavery is simply wrong, it always has been, we've simply not understood it until we looked at it in an objective way and said that it is objectively right that all people have equal rights and opportunities (-ish). It's paid dividends, as many people who might otherwise be laboring manually in a corn field have become inventive contributors to society.
The idea of right and wrong, I don't think, is a new idea, just not one we've always understood well. The idea of the end of war, and war being Hell, is generally now accepted to be true but was written about as early (as far as I know) as Bronze Age Greece and has been present in the thoughts of great thinkers in very distinct and alien cultures all around the world. The idea of killing people en masse, especially a country's bravest and brightest, as a means of conflict resolution doesn't make an awful lot of objective sense in the greater scheme of history and the universe.
I think the most prominent example that comes to mind was Sun Tzu's Art of War, which is constantly hammering into your head that the most important thing you can do as a general is to project a show of such strength that your enemies simply never want to fight you. You would think one of the greatest generals of ancient China would have enjoyed fighting, but he seemed to understand that it was a drain on resources undertaken only when there were no other options (and that attacking an enemy in a position of strength for your usual climactic Peter Jackson battle is almost always a big mistake). Underpinning that is a highly moral position that his own job, as a warrior and a battlefield commander, was a sometimes-necessary evil and that the best wars are the ones you never fight.
I think we're slowly "getting" morality, but I don't think we can claim to have "invented" it. As you said, in the end, it isn't like we're thinking up truly revolutionary ideas to define good and evil, we're just figuring out better ways to live together and make each other happy, even if it means our own momentary inconveniences. It's not something many other animals do, but when you think about it, we're just correcting old mistakes and trying to codify things that generally make sense. There may be arbitrary parts of our cultural morality, but I do think there are some very objective truths about right and wrong that cross all boundaries.
-
I think trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly. The natural world remains independent of subjective perception unless you're solipsist. If morality is part of the natural world then by all means provide the formal axioms to describe it, in which case then humans would always behave according to those formal axioms.
But we don't, and never will, because humans don't obey the principles of formal axioms or hell, even rational decisions most times. That's beside the point that the universe appears to be built upon uncertainty, doubt, and frames of reference which seems at odds with a concept of absolute good or evil.
-
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
That the universe is purely amoral is a steep claim, as well as the one that morality is a human creation.[...]
Show me rocks condemning a sinner, or the rain caring whether it falls on the just or the unjust.
Just because rocks and rain aren't the type of things able to give moral judgemants doesn't mean that the universe is purely amoral. Neither rocks nor rain know whether they consist of atoms,nor do they care: But they still do.
Also, yes: there's a lot more to life than rocks and precipitation.
Well, dogs care not whether you are good or evil, just that you feed him the dog biscuits. And tigers think monks and dictators are equally delicious.
Quite frankly, I am under the belief that morality has always been defined by man, not nature. Nature shits on saints and sinners with equal measure. What is right or wrong is defined by us.
I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic. It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors. If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.
Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism. They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand. So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.
We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen. It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand. Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.
I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught. We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.
Here's the thing, our sense of rightness and wrongness is more of a product of society, education and indoctrination. If you leave a child in the wild that child is going to pick up the values of whatever animal that decided to adopt him or her. We think and believe in what is right and wrong because we are taught, and what we are taught is a product of society, refined throughout the generations. Society creates this because it's what allows societies to work. Without rules and morality, we wouldn't be able to form a cohesive group and, being social animals, dependent on social structures and the strength of our peers, wouldn't have survived to the modern age.
Moreover, what we collectively think is right or wrong evolves over time, as what allows society to work also changes over time. Until we reached the industrial age, we had always been at the mercy of the elements. Without rules and morality, we can't define when taking too many grains is taking too many grains, and as a result, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about morality today.
Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive.
Lets get fast through this: "Morality is a human creation. A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group. Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive."
This is a very utilitarian view or lets say "utilitarian-ish", because I never knew that my collecting of berries is MORAL (my hunter-gatherer thingy).
Now back to the topic. If you dont mind I put numbers on your points: "Morality is a human creation (1). A necessary creation to maintain the cohesion of the group (2). Without group cohesion, there won't be a group, and without a group, we wouldn't survive (3)."
Means you see first morality is done by human.... and if I add ... humans havent done it out of selfishness, but rather to maximizes utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism). In your case survival. Are you okay that I reword your stuff? If yes. Great. If no, I explain why I have done it. I have done it because, you had put survival and moral together... Which means a person could argue that: A surviving group is a moral group. Or lets say: The more/more likely a group survives, the more are they moral and visa versa. Which means a positive correlation between moral and survival. Something I dont want to do. So are you okay if I reword your stuff this way: "Morality is a human creation, which says: "Moral is to maximizes utility for any given individual" (1). The more this creation can maximizes utility (for any given subject), the more or stronger is the group cohesion (2). The higher the accumulated utility of a group, the higher the change to survive (3)." That way you havent moral and survival direct together. Me personally Im way to far away from utilitarianism. :| I dont know if this is bad or good thing. :(
Off topic.... Would you people agree that there are laws out there. Truths if you like. Even if they are tautological like x=x or a square has four sides, even this tautological things give us information... or lets say a true information... because x=x. Those it give us alot of information? No. Nothing behind the tautological statement, but it gives us a true. Of course there can be more. Is there a chance for falsifiable truths, or laws if you like? Yes of course. Most people would argue that is the point of science, to find those laws/truths. From economic laws (gossen's laws, etc..), over the laws in physics, to laws in social science.... There are laws/truths everywhere around us. So yes I believe there is also a moral law. A formula if you like, and yes it will not be something like most people imagine, or learned in school or in the church. BUT THOSE THIS MEAN THERE ISNT THIS TRUE, THIS LAW OUT THERE? The law of moral if you like. Of course not. It will be just not as you and me desire/wish it is. And this law is most likely not as global/macro-macro as we wish (and a more individual and case by case thingy). For examples:
- Is it right for a individual to kill someone, another individual, in self defense? You threaten my life, can I take yours to protect me?
- Those for this special question matter if there is moral, or lets use our words "this human creation call morals"? No. I could answer this question today, as well as 3000 years ago. Or lets say: This scenario could take place in the state of nature (without morals) or in the state of order (with morals). As the answer YES isnt around the question of moral but rather survival. And we dont need even the creation of moral/groups/societies to answer this question. So yes I think, there are laws of morals out there.
- Are humans born with natural rights or divine rights? Or are they given over a social contract (a person in a social contract has right, person outside dont)? If the latter is true it would mean that natural rights are human creation (A human creation as you said morals are).
- This special question on the other hand deals with more then SURVIVAL. Which makes an answer harder. P.S. I could give know a longer answer why I think we are born with natural rights, but I also dont want to show what a amoral person Im :P . Long story short, most likely we will find micro-level/individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_analysis#Micro-level) laws long before we will find a global law of moral... But just my 50 cents....
I think trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly. The natural world remains independent of subjective perception unless you're solipsist. If morality is part of the natural world then by all means provide the formal axioms to describe it, in which case then humans would always behave according to those formal axioms.
But we don't, and never will, because humans don't obey the principles of formal axioms or hell, even rational decisions most times. That's beside the point that the universe appears to be built upon uncertainty, doubt, and frames of reference which seems at odds with a concept of absolute good or evil.
I think you mix up a little..... I would agree on "trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly." But full heartily disagree with your statement that we as humans are not govern/lead or choose by laws. We are subjects to laws, if you like it or not. Even if you think "don't obey the principles of formal axioms" you do it still. Example: You dont beleive in gravity, doesnt change there is gravity. You dont believe in economics and rational behavior, and want do always exceptions. Even for that are theories and models out there (from asian disease, over loss aversion to RREEMM-Models any other stuff in decision theory... It just means I have to be less lazy, and work less with a pure homo oeconomicus :D )
Well, ...
But I should stop debating metaethics on the internets. I'll just go back to enjoying The Alignment System Game!
True. I will better also stop.
-
I think trying to imply right or wrong, good or evil is inherent to the natural world is a bit silly. The natural world remains independent of subjective perception unless you're solipsist. If morality is part of the natural world then by all means provide the formal axioms to describe it, in which case then humans would always behave according to those formal axioms.
But we don't, and never will, because humans don't obey the principles of formal axioms or hell, even rational decisions most times. That's beside the point that the universe appears to be built upon uncertainty, doubt, and frames of reference which seems at odds with a concept of absolute good or evil.
Well, I can bring up a few examples, the first of which being that there are other sociable animals on the planet. They probably don't understand what morality is (in fact, they probably don't understand the concept of evolution, even though it exists). However, there are many insects in the world that live socially with disregard for their individual well-being. If good and evil is defined by our ability to live in social groups for the betterment of others, we may be the only species to conceptualize wrong and right, but we certainly didn't invent that there is a right and wrong way to behave in a society.
I'd almost theorize the other way, that humans didn't invent morality, but that we essentially, if anything, invented immorality. You simply don't see ants going off on their own, eating everything they can stomach, and generally making asses out of themselves. It seems like the further along your brain develops, the more you are capable of doing "wrong" even if you can't conceptualize it.
Humans are a singular breed in that we're aware of wrong and right on a more universal and objective level. A chimpanzee might not know or understand that hording all the figs for himself might mean that a baby in his troop dies, but we are much more aware of our resource management and we understand what it means to someone else if we completely screw them over. I think it'd be a stretch to say we invented the concept of morality, it's probably more likely we invented immorality, but I think in the end, we probably are just the first to understand both as a dichotomy because of our sole ability to understand the needs of social living and yet make rational decisions against it. I don't think that ability alone exists anywhere else in nature (though I suppose you could make the argument that a lot of large mammals have that ability, I'm just not much of a naturalist).
I think it's a bit necessary to impose morality on ourselves to some degree though, and to hold that some things are absolute and inalienable. We simply can't rely on people to have bred instincts to not kill each other for minor inconveniences, but we know it's definitely a bad idea to do it. Hence, murdering the cashier for initially counting your change incorrectly could be objectively considered wrong.
I think it's more of an issue of separating what is good for us and society as opposed to what we think would be good ideas, but don't actually matter in the grand scheme of things. One of those examples would be the current battle over homosexuality. Objectively, unless you're worried exclusively about whether we'll procreate as a species, there is no difference between two men or two women being in a relationship as opposed to one or the other. So whether or not it's a good thing is a purely subjective conjecture, but I can't say it's rationally wrong. Now, on the other hand, I can say it's rationally wrong to use the money you need to buy your baby formula to purchase crystal meth, no matter how hard it is to say no to your addiction or how you feel about your parental responsibilities. That kid is counting on you, at that point, to feed it.
I think that's why D&D's system misses the point of real morality, by design. Obviously, killing some random guard to you can assassinate a king to advance the calling of your dark god would be an abhorrent thing to do IRL, but it is hugely entertaining to do in a game. I'd almost say the original Vampire: the Masquarade enforced a morality code more like the real one, where randomly killing people actually turned you into a monster. That code also made sure damn near everyone I knew played a different morality or abandoned it altogether; you can boil blood in people's veins, what the Hell is the point of not using the power because you'll feel bad?
So whereas IRL we've got plenty of things that are objectively right and wrong, and as a society we're trying to parse out a more universal code of what is right and wrong as opposed to just going by what we thought in the past, in-game that's not really important. I'd almost say an in-game morality system is a sort of RP guideline for beginners until they can write a more independent character. You may not want to actually kill anyone IRL, but it's fun to pile the bodies higher than Austerlitz and Waterloo in a game.
-
Well, I can bring up a few examples, the first of which being that there are other sociable animals on the planet. They probably don't understand what morality is (in fact, they probably don't understand the concept of evolution, even though it exists). However, there are many insects in the world that live socially with disregard for their individual well-being. If good and evil is defined by our ability to live in social groups for the betterment of others, we may be the only species to conceptualize wrong and right, but we certainly didn't invent that there is a right and wrong way to behave in a society.
I'd almost theorize the other way, that humans didn't invent morality, but that we essentially, if anything, invented immorality. You simply don't see ants going off on their own, eating everything they can stomach, and generally making asses out of themselves. It seems like the further along your brain develops, the more you are capable of doing "wrong" even if you can't conceptualize it.
Humans are a singular breed in that we're aware of wrong and right on a more universal and objective level. A chimpanzee might not know or understand that hording all the figs for himself might mean that a baby in his troop dies, but we are much more aware of our resource management and we understand what it means to someone else if we completely screw them over. I think it'd be a stretch to say we invented the concept of morality, it's probably more likely we invented immorality, but I think in the end, we probably are just the first to understand both as a dichotomy because of our sole ability to understand the needs of social living and yet make rational decisions against it. I don't think that ability alone exists anywhere else in nature (though I suppose you could make the argument that a lot of large mammals have that ability, I'm just not much of a naturalist).
I think it's a bit necessary to impose morality on ourselves to some degree though, and to hold that some things are absolute and inalienable. We simply can't rely on people to have bred instincts to not kill each other for minor inconveniences, but we know it's definitely a bad idea to do it. Hence, murdering the cashier for initially counting your change incorrectly could be objectively considered wrong.
I think it's more of an issue of separating what is good for us and society as opposed to what we think would be good ideas, but don't actually matter in the grand scheme of things. One of those examples would be the current battle over homosexuality. Objectively, unless you're worried exclusively about whether we'll procreate as a species, there is no difference between two men or two women being in a relationship as opposed to one or the other. So whether or not it's a good thing is a purely subjective conjecture, but I can't say it's rationally wrong. Now, on the other hand, I can say it's rationally wrong to use the money you need to buy your baby formula to purchase crystal meth, no matter how hard it is to say no to your addiction or how you feel about your parental responsibilities. That kid is counting on you, at that point, to feed it.
I think that's why D&D's system misses the point of real morality, by design. Obviously, killing some random guard to you can assassinate a king to advance the calling of your dark god would be an abhorrent thing to do IRL, but it is hugely entertaining to do in a game. I'd almost say the original Vampire: the Masquarade enforced a morality code more like the real one, where randomly killing people actually turned you into a monster. That code also made sure damn near everyone I knew played a different morality or abandoned it altogether; you can boil blood in people's veins, what the Hell is the point of not using the power because you'll feel bad?
So whereas IRL we've got plenty of things that are objectively right and wrong, and as a society we're trying to parse out a more universal code of what is right and wrong as opposed to just going by what we thought in the past, in-game that's not really important. I'd almost say an in-game morality system is a sort of RP guideline for beginners until they can write a more independent character. You may not want to actually kill anyone IRL, but it's fun to pile the bodies higher than Austerlitz and Waterloo in a game.
That's just arguing that defining right and wrong on is on the basis of the innate biology and psychology of being advanced primates and social mammals. That doesn't change the fact for me that morality is constructed and what is considered right or wrong is the product of societal values created and they're no less inherent or objective than concepts of rights or the creation of laws for me. As such I find that as a species we don't, "discover" morality but we do invent, adapt, or develop them with the objective of creating points of consensus and co-operation as a social species living in complex arrangements with one another.
My own concepts of right or wrong are the product of two or three centuries of western liberal thought and I generally accept those values because I live in a western liberal society and can see the practical benefits of those values. However, those moral values I adhere to as an individual are the product of thought and opinion developed over time particular to the society that I live in, and I accept that other societies will create their own particular moral values peculiar to their own history, culture, and intellectual traditions.
In fact, one of the great evils in humanity for me are those who do adhere to concepts of moral absolutism and make the claim that their concepts of good and evil whether it's supported by ideology, religion or whatever else are the only way for all, as having caused some of the worst atrocities and injustices in the name of imposing those standards upon others.
-
That's just arguing that defining right and wrong on is on the basis of the innate biology and psychology of being advanced primates and social mammals. That doesn't change the fact for me that morality is constructed and what is considered right or wrong is the product of societal values created and they're no less inherent or objective than concepts of rights or the creation of laws for me. As such I find that as a species we don't, "discover" morality but we do invent, adapt, or develop them with the objective of creating points of consensus and co-operation as a social species living in complex arrangements with one another.
My own concepts of right or wrong are the product of two or three centuries of western liberal thought and I generally accept those values because I live in a western liberal society and can see the practical benefits of those values. However, those moral values I adhere to as an individual are the product of thought and opinion developed over time particular to the society that I live in, and I accept that other societies will create their own particular moral values peculiar to their own history, culture, and intellectual traditions.
In fact, one of the great evils in humanity for me are those who do adhere to concepts of moral absolutism and make the claim that their concepts of good and evil whether it's supported by ideology, religion or whatever else are the only way for all, as having caused some of the worst atrocities and injustices in the name of imposing those standards upon others.
While I respect your opinion if you think that's true, I can't say I believe that. I can't imagine it will suddenly become acceptable in the eyes of all for me to skewer my neighbor alive and roast him on a spit as a sacrifice to my hearth goddess. It just doesn't make a lot of logical sense to say that something is objectively acceptable because I get a few people together who believe something else.
There have been a lot of horrible things that were driven largely by the unjust actions of a few people and the willful ignorance and inaction of a lot more people. Certainly a lot of American people were cast out of their jobs, exiled from their communities, and blacklisted from society for being "Communist" during the Cold War. While it was probably wrong of the McCarthyists to say that people should be essentially cast out of society for a peacefully-held political idea, it was a lot worse that the majority of Americans simply accepted it, whether they agreed or not.
In the end, I think you could say, with complete objectivity, that the massacres in Cambodia were bad and unnecessary, no matter if it was acceptable to that country's power structure or not. Not believing in mass killing as a method to garner political support, as an example, isn't really just a western/liberal thing. That homosexuality shouldn't be illegal is a pretty objective point, even though that sort of point is affiliated with our little block of the world. And that's not to say that we've got some kind of monopoly on good ideas. Limiting exorbitant interest on loans seems to be just now becoming a thing in our society, but that's been largely illegal in Islamic banking since the Middle Ages.
There seems to be an objective right and wrong in a lot of situations, it's just a matter of figuring out when that's true and when it's more an issue of personal preference that doesn't affect anyone else.
-
What Veik said about moral absolutism. One of the most despicable western things of our age.
But that's sort of the point of the example. Is it really "okay" if someone thinks it's okay? In the example, it's based around the idea that no one is okay with it except you. You can justify it, it might not ever hurt anyone because no one might ever find out, but that doesn't mean it was ever the right thing to do. I think there truly is an objective right in that situation, that if you've promised something, went back on it, and lied, that is wrong whether or not you can shrug it off.
Essentially, being okay with something doesn't make it okay in any kind of objective sense. At what point are we going from condemning things that aren't our right or business to condemn to excusing things that we shouldn't ever excuse? As a species, we've done a lot of both, but I think the latter is the one we've done more often. The worst things we've done as a collective group is that we've allowed some terrible things to happen because we didn't think it was our business.
A more serious historical example might be something like slavery. It went on in the U.S. until, nominally, 1863. Plenty of people thought it was okay at the time, in fact some people still practice it in the world and, assumedly, think it's an acceptable thing to do.
That doesn't make it right, nor was it ever the right thing to do. I may defend it on Constantin Baracca, but it's all character. Slavery is abhorrent and it was an ignorant practice. It was common for pretty much every society until relatively recently in human history. People thought it was a perfectly normal and understandable practice that you could invade another nation-state and set its kidnapped people to working your farms.
It's never been right objectively. The idea of forcing someone to work in grueling conditions without any compensation for your benefit is in no way the right thing to do, whether you believe in it or not. We can dress it up and try to make excuses for why it happened and how long it took us to realize it was the wrong thing, it might not have all been horrible people in charge of that system, but it's completely and utterly wrong. It always was. It never would be.
But for a long time, in America, the policy of the non-slaveholding states was just to limit its expansion and to not allow it in their part of the country. It took a long time before a government was elected that would have even limited it to its present boundaries, and it took cessation and a civil war before the government finally released the slaves in America from bondage.
It was never right, it just took us a long time to acknowledge that. Nowadays, very few people in America would like us to return to enslaving people (and you can bet those people can't say so in government, much less be President). That doesn't mean it only recently became wrong, it was always wrong. We just only relatively recently decided to believe so en masse.
I guess that depends on whether you believe nature defines humanity, which seems a bit simplistic. It doesn't matter that chimpanzees will often gather a troop together, wander into the next territory over, and attack their neighbors. If I went into the next neighborhood over with all my friends, killed and ate everyone there, and stole their houses, I don't think there would be a philosophical debate on whether I was an evil, murderous bastard just because I didn't know any better.
Then again, chimpanzees don't know about heavy industry, organized agriculture, or the nature of electromagnetism. They're no less natural, they just don't and can't understand. So they'll never understand that it's probably wrong to invade and cannibalize your neighbors because they can't understand what it would be like to be invaded and eaten until it happens.
We, on the other hand, are capable of understanding when we're doing something wrong and, conversely, we can look at other situations and say that they shouldn't happen. It isn't really that humanity defines morality, it's that we're the only ones yet that, as far as we know, can think about the long-reaching consequences of our actions to understand. Rain doesn't care about the precipitation cycle, either, we essentially defined it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't objectively exist.
I just don't think anyone on this board is refraining from murdering the people that annoy them solely because they think they'll get caught. We, as far as we know alone in the universe, know that killing someone sets up a train of consequences that hurts people who have nothing to do with us, and it's unacceptable.
The only thing you are telling me is that it is wrong because you decided it is wrong morally, or because most people decided it is wrong.
The only thing we can safely assume out of that is that it is your subjective judgement of value. Mine too in that case, but not necessarily an objective one.
The same goes with your slavery example, believing it is "okay" doesn't make it right indeed, but also doesn't make it wrong objectively. Especially since right and wrong are not objective values by definition...
As Publius pointed above, I don't believe in objectivism, as it is highly pretentious in its core premises. The simple fact that you take it for granted because "it took America a long time to figure it out" doesn't mean it is right or wrong. It just means that America decided it was wrong morally, which I agree with personally, but that doesn't make it more objective.
I could find countless explanations as to why people might believe differently for everyone of your examples.
I may believe that some things are wrong morally, but I have the honesty to say that it's just my view and political beliefs, not an universal constant.
Out of curiosity, do you believe in God ?
I am pretty sure that there is objective truth, I just don't believe that subjects - us, anyone - can grasp objective truth. I strongly disagree with the fact that things have to be the way they are. They are just the way they are in the eye of the beholder, and vary sometimes greatly depending on the subject, as well as the space and time location (something might appear different in different circumstances).
So, a proposition of the form "If X, then X=X" is not necessarily true? There are lots of objective truths humans can grasp. Alas, most of them are quite uninteresting analytic truths. (Like the truth that all quadrats have four sides. I know this with absolute certainty. There's nothing subjective about it.)
Heh, that's a good point. But weren't we speaking about morality and not norms and factual axioms ?
-
While I respect your opinion if you think that's true, I can't say I believe that. I can't imagine it will suddenly become acceptable in the eyes of all for me to skewer my neighbor alive and roast him on a spit as a sacrifice to my hearth goddess. It just doesn't make a lot of logical sense to say that something is objectively acceptable because I get a few people together who believe something else.
There have been a lot of horrible things that were driven largely by the unjust actions of a few people and the willful ignorance and inaction of a lot more people. Certainly a lot of American people were cast out of their jobs, exiled from their communities, and blacklisted from society for being "Communist" during the Cold War. While it was probably wrong of the McCarthyists to say that people should be essentially cast out of society for a peacefully-held political idea, it was a lot worse that the majority of Americans simply accepted it, whether they agreed or not.
In the end, I think you could say, with complete objectivity, that the massacres in Cambodia were bad and unnecessary, no matter if it was acceptable to that country's power structure or not. Not believing in mass killing as a method to garner political support, as an example, isn't really just a western/liberal thing. That homosexuality shouldn't be illegal is a pretty objective point, even though that sort of point is affiliated with our little block of the world. And that's not to say that we've got some kind of monopoly on good ideas. Limiting exorbitant interest on loans seems to be just now becoming a thing in our society, but that's been largely illegal in Islamic banking since the Middle Ages.
There seems to be an objective right and wrong in a lot of situations, it's just a matter of figuring out when that's true and when it's more an issue of personal preference that doesn't affect anyone else.
If you were to say that's there's a biological or anthropological impetus behind concepts of morality then I'd probably say there's same basis there. Most mammal species appear to have the instinct of not actively seeking to kill their own members and there seems to be evidence of it with humans - it's why a lot of modern militaries have training techniques to condition soldiers to override that instinct. However, while morality might have some biological basis it's still the product of rational thought and discussion that goes beyond innate instinct for me since we do have the process for the creation of ideas and their development.
I don't think chattel slavery was abolished as institution used by European colonial powers and in America due to some sudden moral epiphany of right and wrong that made it unconscionable. It became unconscionable because of the rise of the ideas and concepts such as liberalism, such as individual liberty, such as democracy, or the rights of man and the authors and people that promoted them until they became more widely accepted by society as well as historical events such as the French Revolution that gave fertile ground for those ideas to take root. England only abandoned slavery in places like Jamaica because of radical Whigs in Parliament who, in having accepted the concept of things like individual liberty or universal rights of men, fought to abolish it because it was inimical to their notion of morality and which apparently differed to that of conservatives that opposed it.
That initial impetus of classical liberalism and its philosophical and intellectual development over the centuries has more to do with modern morality in the west and what we consider right or wrong as Western societies. Those ideas are the product of continued development through debate and discussion to define what society comes to consider right or wrong. Racial equality, universal suffrage, gender equality, abolition of slavery, and a lot of things we probably take for granted in a western democratic society these days were the result of efforts to redefine what is, and isn't acceptable as moral standards.
I suppose for me I hold that there's probably certain biological and evolutionary instincts as social primates that humans have such as not killing each other, working together, altruism, empathy, or compassion that is probably as close as it gets to having some form of objective right or wrong. Beyond that, with morality itself, it isn't the product of some primal drive but the fact that we as a species have the capability for complex thought and it's just a set of ideas people and societies create. So no, I don't see morality as being objective but rather a particularly fragile and tenuous framework of memes that are developed and created over time and that need people to accept, maintain, and propagate as a society.
Because to be honest, if hypothetically, there was a collapse of modern society and all the collected works and thoughts that have permeated through and taken for granted today living in a liberal democracy, then I doubt later generations will have similar concepts of what we might think is generally moral or immoral.
-
The only thing you are telling me is that it is wrong because you decided it is wrong morally, or because most people decided it is wrong.
The only thing we can safely assume out of that is that it is your subjective judgement of value. Mine too in that case, but not necessarily an objective one.
The same goes with your slavery example, believing it is "okay" doesn't make it right indeed, but also doesn't make it wrong objectively. Especially since right and wrong are not objective values by definition...
As Publius pointed above, I don't believe in objectivism, as it is highly pretentious in its core premises. The simple fact that you take it for granted because "it took America a long time to figure it out" doesn't mean it is right or wrong. It just means that America decided it was wrong morally, which I agree with personally, but that doesn't make it more objective.
I could find countless explanations as to why people might believe differently for everyone of your examples.
I may believe that some things are wrong morally, but I have the honesty to say that it's just my view and political beliefs, not an universal constant.
Out of curiosity, do you believe in God ?
I'd answer that with another question (which is usually bad form), but just because I can come up with a reason to justify it, does that make it morally ambiguous or subjective? In that example, and sticking to the latter question, you could say that it's totally fine to kill someone who believes in abortion. That could be your belief, and others could find that wrong, but you could say it is definitively what you believe and you have decided that you will drive a pickup truck laden with explosives into an abortion clinic and level the block.
I don't think we'd find that idea shocking because of a sense of moral comparativism. The explanation for why that isn't right doesn't begin, "I know you believe this is right, but you're at this point outnumbered by those of us who believe otherwise. And in this culture, we try not to drive the explosive-filled trucks into establishments full of people we have political disagreements with."
I'm pretty sure the reason, for all of us, is that it's probably objectively, undeniably wrong to drive trucks full of explosives into any kind of civic structure in order to kill everyone. I don't think, in especially this extreme example, that any of us would have any problem saying, "This is definitely wrong, and if you believe this is the right way to handle this situation, there's something wrong with you." There's a point where we go beyond comparative ethics and into the realm of things being unacceptable anywhere for any reason.
Still, there are people out there who believe that's fine. I don't have a problem saying that the reason they're wrong, whatever they believe about abortion, has nothing to do with culture. If it's fine to drive a truck into an abortion clinic, it's fine to drive one into a church during mass for precisely the same reason. And both things are wrong, for precisely the same reason.
On the religious question, yes and no. I do believe in God, but I'm pretty rabidly antiestablishmentarianist as far as religious organizations go. It's complicated and could take up a whole thread on its own, which I'm totally fine with doing. Suffice it to say, I don't think any kind of religious choice I'd make as far as my life goes is an objective one. I have a sort-of, quasi-religious reason to go to the free clinic to donate my time. I wouldn't say you people that don't are evil for not doing it; that's my choice to do so. I don't think the idea that killing people is generally a bad thing is at all limited to religion, despite what a lot of people might say. Religion isn't the best way to judge objective good and evil, common sense and logic goes a longer way.
While I respect your opinion if you think that's true, I can't say I believe that. I can't imagine it will suddenly become acceptable in the eyes of all for me to skewer my neighbor alive and roast him on a spit as a sacrifice to my hearth goddess. It just doesn't make a lot of logical sense to say that something is objectively acceptable because I get a few people together who believe something else.
There have been a lot of horrible things that were driven largely by the unjust actions of a few people and the willful ignorance and inaction of a lot more people. Certainly a lot of American people were cast out of their jobs, exiled from their communities, and blacklisted from society for being "Communist" during the Cold War. While it was probably wrong of the McCarthyists to say that people should be essentially cast out of society for a peacefully-held political idea, it was a lot worse that the majority of Americans simply accepted it, whether they agreed or not.
In the end, I think you could say, with complete objectivity, that the massacres in Cambodia were bad and unnecessary, no matter if it was acceptable to that country's power structure or not. Not believing in mass killing as a method to garner political support, as an example, isn't really just a western/liberal thing. That homosexuality shouldn't be illegal is a pretty objective point, even though that sort of point is affiliated with our little block of the world. And that's not to say that we've got some kind of monopoly on good ideas. Limiting exorbitant interest on loans seems to be just now becoming a thing in our society, but that's been largely illegal in Islamic banking since the Middle Ages.
There seems to be an objective right and wrong in a lot of situations, it's just a matter of figuring out when that's true and when it's more an issue of personal preference that doesn't affect anyone else.
If you were to say that's there's a biological or anthropological impetus behind concepts of morality then I'd probably say there's same basis there. Most mammal species appear to have the instinct of not actively seeking to kill their own members and there seems to be evidence of it with humans - it's why a lot of modern militaries have training techniques to condition soldiers to override that instinct. However, while morality might have some biological basis it's still the product of rational thought and discussion that goes beyond innate instinct for me since we do have the process for the creation of ideas and their development.
I don't think chattel slavery was abolished as institution used by European colonial powers and in America due to some sudden moral epiphany of right and wrong that made it unconscionable. It became unconscionable because of the rise of the ideas and concepts such as liberalism, such as individual liberty, such as democracy, or the rights of man and the authors and people that promoted them until they became more widely accepted by society as well as historical events such as the French Revolution that gave fertile ground for those ideas to take root. England only abandoned slavery in places like Jamaica because of radical Whigs in Parliament who, in having accepted the concept of things like individual liberty or universal rights of men, fought to abolish it because it was inimical to their notion of morality and which apparently differed to that of conservatives that opposed it.
That initial impetus of classical liberalism and its philosophical and intellectual development over the centuries has more to do with modern morality in the west and what we consider right or wrong as Western societies. Those ideas are the product of continued development through debate and discussion to define what society comes to consider right or wrong. Racial equality, universal suffrage, gender equality, abolition of slavery, and a lot of things we probably take for granted in a western democratic society these days were the result of efforts to redefine what is, and isn't acceptable as moral standards.
I suppose for me I hold that there's probably certain biological and evolutionary instincts as social primates that humans have such as not killing each other, working together, altruism, empathy, or compassion that is probably as close as it gets to having some form of objective right or wrong. Beyond that, with morality itself, it isn't the product of some primal drive but the fact that we as a species have the capability for complex thought and it's just a set of ideas people and societies create. So no, I don't see morality as being objective but rather a particularly fragile and tenuous framework of memes that are developed and created over time and that need people to accept, maintain, and propagate as a society.
Because to be honest, if hypothetically, there was a collapse of modern society and all the collected works and thoughts that have permeated through and taken for granted today living in a liberal democracy, then I doubt later generations will have similar concepts of what we might think is generally moral or immoral.
I kind of think I take exception to a few things there, but not all. For one, I don't necessarily believe that just because we've conceived of something and that it's born completely from rationality that it doesn't actually exist, or that we invented it. It's a bit like saying that, because we noted how long it took to complete something, we invented time. Time's always existed and, though it's a bit more complicated than we originally thought, it was here a long time before us. It is, however, something humans conceive.
On the subject of historical movement, I honestly think it's moved in a relatively similar direction, even in very distant cultures. The idea of, over time, people becoming equal in rights and having a few inalienable expectations in life seems to be a pretty common theme that comes with enlightenment. We kind of take snapshots of history, but over time, even often without us having to do anything, as means improve, we tend towards a somewhat similar end. It certainly hasn't been constant or consistent throughout. The Greeks were talking about equality among all people when "people" still meant Athenian, landowning, male citizens. It's sort of a general thrust.
I do agree that there's a lot of baggage we take with us. Democracy is a practical method of governance, but it isn't objectively the right way to do things. If we did have to hit the reset button as a society, that is one of the things I might see changing. However, I think the idea we shouldn't kill other people, for one, would resurface. So would equality as a fundamental human right, eventually. Over time, it might be different, but there would be common themes that we would understand to be universally good ways to evolve a society.
I suppose people have a fairly common idea that invading aliens from another place might have a drastically different way of life, but I imagine a few things will bind anyone that can unite intellectually to leave a planet and explore space. That's not something you can really do when you're trying desperately to kill everything in sight for your own personal gain; it just isn't feasible to get anything done as a society that way.
I think, maybe, morality is a very bloated word we attach some particular baggage to, but I think a central core of universal and obvious right and wrong exists. Outside of the obvious ones, what about lying? Try to imagine a society where it is wholly expected that if someone promises to do something, it is absolutely fine, hypothetically, if they don't do it. Could anything actually get done? You'd have to do everything on your own because you couldn't trust anyone else to do their part of the job, in fact you could expect just as well otherwise. You'd never advance as a society.
In ours, we have the benefit of the expectation of honesty, but can also invest a lot into it. When someone loves you and believes in you, and you intentionally betray them, I'd say that's objectively wrong and I'd be willing to argue that, by the nature of promises and honesty, that's objectively wrong. It'd be different if you promised nothing, but by promising and betraying, you have done objective wrong. I'm not sure there's a single society anywhere that has not had that as a moral element, even ones that didn't meet until relatively recently.
So I think it exists, I think it's bigger than people sometimes think. You just have to be careful about application, because it's, as you and others have intimated, easy to include something subjective in there because you feel strongly about it.
-
http://www.gamefront.com/whats-your-gamer-alignment/
(http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Av0V2.jpg)
In game of thrones style: https://the-road-not-taken.obsidianportal.com/wikis/alignment-tracking
(http://gameofowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/alignment.jpg)
Hodor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LUIRDBM2yA) all the way. :P P.S. New trailers are out: http://www.youtube.com/user/GameofThrones/videos
CANT WAIT.
-
I suppose people have a fairly common idea that invading aliens from another place might have a drastically different way of life, but I imagine a few things will bind anyone that can unite intellectually to leave a planet and explore space. That's not something you can really do when you're trying desperately to kill everything in sight for your own personal gain; it just isn't feasible to get anything done as a society that way.
Well if we're talking hypothetical scenarios about aliens what if they're evolved from collectivist organisms like ants or termites and decide to kill us all because they think other intelligent life is a threat to their survival and don't attach the same morality to death or killing because they're not primates like humans that have things like emotion to get in the way and all that matters is the survival of the hive.
Does that mean they're objectively evil?
-
I suppose people have a fairly common idea that invading aliens from another place might have a drastically different way of life, but I imagine a few things will bind anyone that can unite intellectually to leave a planet and explore space. That's not something you can really do when you're trying desperately to kill everything in sight for your own personal gain; it just isn't feasible to get anything done as a society that way.
Well if we're talking hypothetical scenarios about aliens what if they're evolved from collectivist organisms like ants or termites and decide to kill us all because they think other intelligent life is a threat to their survival and don't attach the same morality to death or killing because they're not primates like humans that have things like emotion to get in the way and all that matters is the survival of the hive.
Does that mean they're objectively evil?
Obligatory related suggestion that anyone who's read any of the Ender's Game series try to find the alignment of the Formics/Buggers. Bonus points for doing the same for the pequininos.
-
I'd answer that with another question (which is usually bad form), but just because I can come up with a reason to justify it, does that make it morally ambiguous or subjective?
Yes.
But it's not just a reason. It's a belief. A mere reason is just an excuse.
A belief in something is one of the basis of any morality value.
In that example, and sticking to the latter question, you could say that it's totally fine to kill someone who believes in abortion. That could be your belief, and others could find that wrong, but you could say it is definitively what you believe and you have decided that you will drive a pickup truck laden with explosives into an abortion clinic and level the block.
I don't think we'd find that idea shocking because of a sense of moral comparativism. The explanation for why that isn't right doesn't begin, "I know you believe this is right, but you're at this point outnumbered by those of us who believe otherwise. And in this culture, we try not to drive the explosive-filled trucks into establishments full of people we have political disagreements with."
I'm pretty sure the reason, for all of us, is that it's probably objectively, undeniably wrong to drive trucks full of explosives into any kind of civic structure in order to kill everyone. I don't think, in especially this extreme example, that any of us would have any problem saying, "This is definitely wrong, and if you believe this is the right way to handle this situation, there's something wrong with you." There's a point where we go beyond comparative ethics and into the realm of things being unacceptable anywhere for any reason.
Still, there are people out there who believe that's fine. I don't have a problem saying that the reason they're wrong, whatever they believe about abortion, has nothing to do with culture. If it's fine to drive a truck into an abortion clinic, it's fine to drive one into a church during mass for precisely the same reason. And both things are wrong, for precisely the same reason.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of radical islamists or your average Taliban believes otherwise concerning explosive trucks and IEDs. And their sense of morality is probably thousand times stronger than ours.
I don't see the point in constantly finding new case by case examples instead of addressing the actual point...
You probably being an objectivist and empiricist, and me the exact contrary (constructivist epistemology and rationalist at heart) might be the source of the problem.
On the religious question, yes and no. I do believe in God, but I'm pretty rabidly antiestablishmentarianist as far as religious organizations go. It's complicated and could take up a whole thread on its own, which I'm totally fine with doing. Suffice it to say, I don't think any kind of religious choice I'd make as far as my life goes is an objective one. I have a sort-of, quasi-religious reason to go to the free clinic to donate my time. I wouldn't say you people that don't are evil for not doing it; that's my choice to do so. I don't think the idea that killing people is generally a bad thing is at all limited to religion, despite what a lot of people might say. Religion isn't the best way to judge objective good and evil, common sense and logic goes a longer way.
Sorry for asking. It just that you sometimes sound to me like a faithful american (whatever that means... >.>). I know my limits and how biased I can be when it comes to that, even if I do my best to remain "objective" (in the sense trying to be, not absolute objectivity). As much as I despise religious/evangelistic atheism, I can definitely hold very negative feelings toward most religions and have difficulties not to get a feeling of pity and waste when seeing believers... believing, and I have no problem at all to believe that the world would be a better place without any religion, since I am a laicist who believes in it just because it's the best way to ensure religion stays the hell out of my way. And even with such laws, it still doesn't.
It's one of my flaws, and I apologize in advance for everyone I could offend someday, or now. :/
-
You probably being an objectivist and empiricist, and me the exact contrary (constructivist epistemology and rationalist at heart) might be the source of the problem.
Ehm.... About "rationalist at heart" thats one of the point about Kuhn and Lakatos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos) is that there isnt any laws or rational for that matter.... Thats is their point (that there are just paradigms and human constructed ideas, but no laws etc***).... Thats is their model and critique on Popper and Milton Friedman... Thats why I had such huge problems with Mithras and Gottis comments on the slavery discussion: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.220;wap2
The Idea that Popper is outdate and falsify by them is just wrong. As both are just a models next to Popper, which just upholds the Ideas and Ideals of the constructivism (that their isnt any laws (just paradigms) or even rationality, or standards of logic) or some would even call it epistemological anarchism. So if you dont mind. I reword your stuff: "Im a constructivist epistemology and I think rationality is constructed"
As Publius pointed above, I don't believe in objectivism, as it is highly pretentious in its core premises.
Actually my experience in my university was the other way around. That constructivist are pretentious.
Example:
Imagine a International relation seminar, with so 30 people. Where everyone has to do a lecture on a topic. You know most likely the drill. :P So in this international relation seminar we were going through all the positivistic theories of the International relations: Realism, Neorealism, Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Institutionalism.... As well as constructivism ones: Alexander Wendt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Wendt). Here I have to say... that where we are, or lets say in germany general, we dont do "Friedensforschung". What many people in angel-saxon universities would call: Idealism. Where you analyze the dreams and hopes of Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peace), W. Wilson, Ronald Reagan, JFK... etc... We dont do this in international relations, where I come from. I just say this, because I had ones a great discussion about this topic ingame; which let this point out.
So back to the topic.... of course this positivistic theories work with laws, mathematical proofs, logic and game theory, and alot of economics stuff. So of course we land on topics like what is a Lagrange-function (use in microeconomics and game theory) or laws in the IR (I remember it was about Kenneth Waltz: Theory of International Politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_International_Politics). The first chapter. I think.).
And I remember like it was yesterday, that a young girl. Every committed and dedicated in her believe (You have always in the first semester some Green/Social Democrats boys and girls, which think political science is politic. But luckily the drop out fast and/or get bored fast.). She had try to critique those models, as they havent fit with her world view. But of course, she could not falsify any of this points and just rambled on. The prof, then had try to explain to her the idea of laws (positivism), falsification (Popper) etc... After that he come to the idea of constructivism and Wendt. Thats his critique was more or less: "Anarchy Is What States Make" or in other words "state construct anarchy, but they could choose/do as well not anarchy (other things)"**... It was Wendts way to get around all the laws and ideas which were done previously, WITHOUT the need to falsify any of the points.
So back to the topic, after she learned that you can critique everything without the need of falsification, she went on full-tard. Everything what she doesnt liked was just "positivistic lies" and "Nazi Popper shit".... that science is just a product of the bourgeoisie etc.... So no... for me are constructivist pretentious. But all old stories. :D I dont want to say, that you or any contructivist is like that. No, I actually think, that you and the others here reasonable persons. But I have to say if I had to do a ordinal pretentious list... James Franco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF245n7tWAw) of course would be on top. :P But right after him would come some constructivist people. Not that I would call it like Friedman pseudo-science. it is just for me useless, as it add nothing of real value. Is like the stoner kid, which always says: "Yeah Bro. But dude is it**** real?"
So now back to the topic. As I dont want to talk about the metascience in the internet (have already talk to much about it.). What typ of player are you?
Me Im a chaotic evil person gamer :D :D :D "Dude, you were not blue" :D
http://www.gamefront.com/whats-your-gamer-alignment/
(http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Av0V2.jpg)
____________________
**** For "it" you can add everything. From science over to shoes. :lol: Or as the girl "is the lagrange-function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_multiplier) real?"
***Thats why I had the skin tickleing on the slavery discussion about some of Mithras comments... Like he doesnt believes in laws, but used them? But all old stories. Which I better dont warm up. :D
**I had ones a nice debate about this topic ingame. My idea is if you translate Wendts constructivistic ideas to a positivistic theory you would end up with a homo sociologicus. Which also would show the problem of his model; and why it is just use in the international relations. How come? The homo sociologicus is a nice model to explain alot of stuff, but it has one problem: In this model actors dont choose (unlike in rational choice models, or psychological models, etc...). Imagine it that way: You your social role is: You love to stroke dogs and you dont want to break laws. So, you always to it, when you see a dog, but now imagine there is a sign which says: "No stroking of dogs allowed" What would the homo socialiologicus do? Nothing. Error. Imagine it like taking a root of a negative number, your calculator would also just show Error. But here is the thing, thanks to anarchy in the IR, we will never see such a sign. So Wendt model does not work because, the state construct anarchy, his model only works because there is anarchy. This is FOR ME also the reason that we dont see constructivistic theories in internal affairs, because their is no anarchy (the model would always break any every decision). But just my 50 cents.
-
-.-
Popper is read in the vein of history of philosophy now, not current arguments that need to be contended with.
Edit: Let me make that less snarky. Rationalism has developed far beyond critical rationalism at this point. Do you need to read Popper? Absolutely. In order to understand where Rationalism has gone, you have to understand where it has been. But individuals have the unfortunate tendency to latch onto the big names and never move beyond even though the field has. It is the same argument I have with my fellows when they can't take what they can from Derrida and move past him.
Edit2 (Because. That's why): I won't argue with the pretentious thing, because as you implied, whether someone is seen as pretentious really doesn't matter beyond a popularity contest. Also, when I like Derrida, Butler, Berlant, etc., you have to get used to the pretentious sling.
-
-.-
Popper is read in the vein of history of philosophy now, not current arguments that need to be contended with.
Edit: Let me make that less snarky. Rationalism has developed far beyond critical rationalism at this point. Do you need to read Popper? Absolutely. In order to understand where Rationalism has gone, you have to understand where it has been. But individuals have the unfortunate tendency to latch onto the big names and never move beyond even though the field has.
I try to cover just the base.... very basic (it is still the internet... about a game which is more or less 4chan with internet spaceships).... You cant believe what discussion I had on this board on the official forum (not just the slavery topic and the Khanid independent topic). If people understand that Kuhn and Lakatos are next to Popper and Popper isnt falsify; I have already explain and done alot. :D
As for the past question: What typ of player are you?***
***As I dont want to talk about metascience in the internet...
-
-.-
Popper is read in the vein of history of philosophy now, not current arguments that need to be contended with.
Edit: Let me make that less snarky. Rationalism has developed far beyond critical rationalism at this point. Do you need to read Popper? Absolutely. In order to understand where Rationalism has gone, you have to understand where it has been. But individuals have the unfortunate tendency to latch onto the big names and never move beyond even though the field has.
I try to cover just the base.... very basic (it is still the internet... about a game which is more or less 4chan with internet spaceships).... You cant believe what discussion I had on this board on the official forum (not just the slavery topic and the Khanid independent topic). If people understand that Kuhn and Lakatos are next to Popper and Popper isnt falsify; I have already explain and done alot. :D
As for the past question: What typ of player are you?***
***As I dont want to talk about metascience in the internet...
I 100% agree with the "not this on the internet" reaction, which is why I bowed out of this discussion pages back.
I don't quite understand "what type of player are you?". You mean, who am I in-game?
Edit: Oh, the alignment thing? I think I put Jace's results back there somewhere, pages ago.
-
-.-
Popper is read in the vein of history of philosophy now, not current arguments that need to be contended with.
Edit: Let me make that less snarky. Rationalism has developed far beyond critical rationalism at this point. Do you need to read Popper? Absolutely. In order to understand where Rationalism has gone, you have to understand where it has been. But individuals have the unfortunate tendency to latch onto the big names and never move beyond even though the field has.
I try to cover just the base.... very basic (it is still the internet... about a game which is more or less 4chan with internet spaceships).... You cant believe what discussion I had on this board on the official forum (not just the slavery topic and the Khanid independent topic). If people understand that Kuhn and Lakatos are next to Popper and Popper isnt falsify; I have already explain and done alot. :D
As for the past question: What typ of player are you?***
***As I dont want to talk about metascience in the internet...
I 100% agree with the "not this on the internet" reaction, which is why I bowed out of this discussion pages back.
I don't quite understand "what type of player are you?". You mean, who am I in-game?
I mean just along the chart..... See it more as a joke question...
(http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Av0V2.jpg)
So now not IC.... You most likely have a char which you dont roleplay? How do you use him? Are you go more the goonswarm direction?....chaotic evil? Or do you use them in other ways?.. like NBSI or NRDS? You can take what you like and thing would fit.... :D
I would say that "Not Red, Don't Shoot." is maybe lawful neutral?
-
Out of those options and their quotes, I am absolutely chaotic neutral. No idea dafuq I am doing, ever.
-
This was a great thread (until the end.)