From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Alignments
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:49:07 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <BuBKA3.4Dy@newcastle.ac.uk>, Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.114137.785@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>A teacher I had in Intro to Folklore gave a very good definition of 'good':
>>	Any activity which contributes to the survival of a culture is good.
>>
> 
> This is the definition of 'Altruism', no? I don't agree that to be 'good'
> one must neccessarily *always* be altruistic...
> 

	The dictionary here at the lab defines altruism as 'unselfish intrest
in the welfare of others'. Regardless of the individual motives, it is only
important that society benefit from the actions. 

> 
>>This would then mean than an 'evil' act would either be:
>>	Any activity which does not contribute to the survival of a culture is
>>evil.
>>		or
>>	Any activity which jeopardizes the survival of a culture is evil.
>>
> 
> I can only agree with the second option here for evil: the first would make 
> innocuous people like hermits and woodsmen into Evil beings!!
> 

	Unfortunately, the first definition was the one usually taken by
religions until recently (and in some circles, still is).

>>Throughout history, there has been a dispute between which of this last two
>>actually defines 'evil', mostly in religious circles. I personally go with the
>>last definition, which allows for 'neutral' actions. However, the true
>>pessimist (such as I) would point out that just about any 'neutral' action will
>>have good or evil repurcussions somewhere down the road.
>>
> 
> ... if a neutral act cannot exist, why have 'neutrals'?
> Maybe 'neutrality' should be re-defined as acting in such a way that the 
> actions will have neither a good nor evil effect *within the ability of the 
> enactor to predict*...

	This is a lot better than what I have seen some 'neutral' characters do
-- 'Hey, I've been doing a lot of good stuff lately, like slaying demons and
vanquishing dragons. I better balance it by going down to the orphanage and
killing some babies'.

> 
> 
>>I also agree than people who are 'evil' do not consider themselves as such. I
>>really doubt if Adolf Hitler woke up one morning and said "I'm going to be
>>Lawful Evil from now on".
>>
> 
> Rubbish!!! 8)
> The best thing for me about RP is allowing me to go out and say "Right, today
> I'm gonna do something *really EVIL*!"
> But more seriously:
> Anyone (RL or RP) who tends to say things like "the ends justify the means" 
> seems to me like they are (conciously or unconciously) aware of commiting an 
> evil act....

	Hmmm, I must be kinda evil then :-)

	
> 
>>This also makes 'good' and 'evil' culturally relative.
>>
> 
> I wonder what constitutes an evil act in a Drow society?? I think this last 
> point is important... If the head of state and society are evil (ie the setting 
> for the campaign) then does the DM REVERSE the meanings of 'evil' and 'good'
> ie would it be evil to NOT go out killing innocent peasants every tuesday??
> 

	Well, basically an 'evil' Drow (from her culture's view) would be one
who did not try to exterminate or enslave every race she ran into. A 'good'
Drow would be intolerant of other races, and try to bully them around. If the
race refused to bow, then she would kill them to serve as an object lesson to
other races that resistance is futile (sorry, saw a Borg episode of ST:TNG last
night...). An 'evil' Drow does not believe in such a degree of racial
superiority (though she could still see other races inferior to her, she would
feel that they do not deserve to be treated as animals).

Brandon Cope
a generous and sadistic DM

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc