this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
477 points (97.6% liked)

RPGMemes

10341 readers
378 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (4 children)

If while acting in your own self-interest you knowingly, through action or inaction, allow others to come to harm, even indirectly, that is evil. In the same way that a character knowingly doing something that benefits others would arguably make them good. A chaotic neutral person may act on a whim or in self-interest the majority of the time, but I doubt they'd let their actions cause actual harm to others.

But trying to pigeonhole human behavior into a rigid matrix of alignments is inherently flawed, people are much more complex than that. Fortunately, DND allows the DM free reign to define that or allow it to be a grey area - in reality, "alignment" will always be fluid.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think this is a little over-broad. As written, the only way to be good is to stop all evil everywhere. Or am I missing something?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

No, it still requires something the person does or doesn't do (within reason) to influence or allow the evil act. If you see someone being mugged and you ignore it and keep walking when you have the power to help, even if just calling the police and walking away, then yes, that inaction makes you a bad person, IMO. But if a bad guy starts a war on the other side of the planet, you're not evil if you don't enlist and go fight the evil regime.

But like I said, it's all a grey area, there is no black and white good and evil in reality. It's rarely as simple as just "this is good, and this is evil" in real life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If while acting in your own self-interest you knowingly, through action or inaction, allow others to come to harm, even indirectly, that is evil.

I think most Americans buy products made via unethical labor practices, and which damage the environment, harming everyone.

Are you really making the argument that the vast majority of Americans are evil?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As an American, I'm not not making that argument.

[–] coffee_poops 1 points 9 months ago

Why not? It's not a moral argument.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

There‘s also the distinction between allowing evil practices for your personal gain and allowing them to avoid harming yourself. The latter would be a neutral alignment.

[–] coffee_poops -1 points 9 months ago

Are you really making the argument that the vast majority of Americans are evil?

With regards to the D&D alignment chart? Sure. I don't know what kind of weird moral gotcha you're attempting here but there's not one to be found.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

By that description, the vast majority of people are evil. Well, both evil and good, since most people at least occasionally do things that aren’t in their self-interest to help others. But primarily evil, thanks to the inaction clause on the evil side and nothing comparable on the good side.

They’re also more evil the more educated they are, since they’re more aware of ways that people are suffering harm that they could potentially abate.

For example, if you are not homeless and you are aware that some people are homeless and a storm is coming, if you don’t help them all find shelter - to the extent of bringing them into your own home even if it means you end up not having a place to sleep - by your definition, you’re evil.

I’m not a fan of that definition, either for D&D or anything else, but if it works for your table, great!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

An "evil" act does not make a person evil necessarily. We all do bad shit sometimes. My point was it's a grey area that can't be defined with 9 alignments outside of the structure of a game, but knowingly allowing your actions to cause harm to others is an evil act.

That being said, the idea of good and evil is entirely the result of fiction. I don't believe there's a black and white "good and evil" in reality. Human actions and motivations can't be defined so broadly IMO.

[–] coffee_poops -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No. Neutral only cares about the cosmic or universal good. The welfare of others or ones self doesn't factor into it. Many druids are Neutral because the balance of nature (the natural order) is the motivation behind their actions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Neutral druids don't care about the welfare of others? Not even the other druids in their circle?

[–] coffee_poops 0 points 9 months ago

If given a choice between upsetting the balance and saving a druid they'll maintain the balance. Healing a wound or something isn't moral decision.