Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jbg97]

Don't put Liram on the alignment thing, unless you want cheese and explosions spammed on it.

Chaotic Chaotic.
Neryavadalailama is Lawful Gets-shat-upon-by-the-universe

[HissinhWalnuts]

Such delicious shat.

[gman8181]

Standard alignment categorizations are overrated in my humble opinion. As much as people like sticking certain traits like altruistic as good or selfish as evil, it doesn't always fit in so neatly and before long there's a good chance cracks will begin to appear.

I do what I do and the attempts of others to classify it as good or evil are meaningless to me. All hail the color grey and its many shades!

[HissinhWalnuts]

When is next update?

[Dorsidwarf]

I really dislike it when people say that 'selfishness' is evil. It isn't. It's Neutral.

[Jbg97]

I really dislike it when people say that 'selfishness' is evil. It isn't. It's Neutral.

Selfishness to the detriment of others is evil. Selfishness to the detriment of no one is neutral.

[Xantalos]

I really dislike it when people say that 'selfishness' is evil. It isn't. It's Neutral.

Selfishness to the detriment of others is evil. Selfishness to the detriment of no one is neutral.

By certain standards of evil.

[gman8181]

You could argue either way which is sort of my point. I mean it's basically in natural biology to try and survive and reproduce at all costs. Is there anything wrong with that? Are you evil if you put your need to survive and reproduce over that of others? Isn't that sort of the point? But then we have morality tell us that helping others is right. That it nets us a place in the equivalent heaven of our religious choosing. Why is it right though besides that someone or some god or some book told us it is? What else inherently makes it "good". Because the life of many is greater than the life of an individual and altruistic behavior helps everyone to a degree. Maybe that's it, in which case morality may well have been developed by a genius statistician. Because if humans were a resource and altruistic behavior increased the overall abundance of that resource then altruism is thus good.

But most people do inherently "know" what's "right". So maybe morality is a direct product of "evolution". Groups engaging in altruistic behavior are more likely to get by than groups that back stab each other. It makes sense then that it would become inherent to the majority human personality to view it as good because it's hardwired to look good. Just like people are hardwired to eat, sleep and make babies.

Not necessarily my view point, I just enjoy throwing these things around. Philosophy is a weird tangled mess that could keep any person busy for quite a long time if they focused too hard on solving it. Hopefully you just don't go bonkers in the process.

Edit: Spelling

[GreatWyrmGold]

Neryavadalailama is Lawful Gets-shat-upon-by-the-universe

Neyravah, it's not that hard. And yes.

Standard alignment categorizations are overrated in my humble opinion. As much as people like sticking certain traits like altruistic as good or selfish as evil, it doesn't always fit in so neatly and before long there's a good chance cracks will begin to appear.
I do what I do and the attempts of others to classify it as good or evil are meaningless to me. All hail the color grey and its many shades!

Well, yes, but it's still a nice shorthand. Even if you've never played D&D, you can understand what "Good," "Evil," "Lawful," "Chaotic," and "Neutral" mean. You more or less intuitively get that a Lawful Good warrior is going to fight to uphold law and order, while a Chaotic Good guy is more of a rebel who does what's right regardless of legality, a Lawful Evil person has some kind of code he follows even though he's a bastard, and that Chaotic Evil is something you want to avoid. Moreover, it's easy to modify if needed. If a man is more lawful on average but has no problem breaking laws when it helps and he can get away with it, you can call him Pragmatic Whatever. If someone's too insane to fit, you can call him Chaotic Crazy (or maybe Lawful Crazy, if he's codified the crazy).
It's not a full description, and it can be thrown out the window for the grayer works, but it works for shorthand, and really what kind of "alignment" description works on the gray?

I really dislike it when people say that 'selfishness' is evil. It isn't. It's Neutral.

It's on the evil side of neutral, though. Just like politeness is on the lawful/good side of neutral, and spitting is on the chaotic side of neutral.

See how flexible it can be when we need to deal with the gray?

You could argue either way which is sort of my point. I mean it's basically in natural biology to try and survive and reproduce at all costs. Is there anything wrong with that? Are you evil if you put your need to survive and reproduce over that of others? Isn't that sort of the point?

...
Social Darwinism, much?

There IS no point to evolution, nature, or any of that. It just is.

Not necessarily my view point, I just enjoy throwing these things around. Philosophy is a weird tangled mess that could keep any person busy for quite a long time if they focused too hard on solving it. Hopefully you just don't go bonkers in the process.

Philosophy is fun. Everyone's wrong except me.

[gman8181]

Social Darwinism, much?

There IS no point to evolution, nature, or any of that. It just is.

Organisms are "designed" to survive and reproduce. It's a self supporting point even though as you said, it doesn't have a point. The point of nature became to survive as soon as organisms that weren't good at surviving or didn't care about surviving started dying off and leaving the others behind to reproduce. But yeah, technically there is no point. Technically you could say there's no point to anything if you really argued it down to fundamentals. I'm pretty sure that's delving into Nihilism though.

Philosophy is fun. Everyone's wrong except me.

Well said. Unless you change your view on something in which case you were wrong even though you aren't any longer.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Social Darwinism, much?

There IS no point to evolution, nature, or any of that. It just is.

Organisms are "designed" to survive and reproduce. It's a self supporting point even though as you said, it doesn't have a point. The point of nature became to survive as soon as organisms that weren't good at surviving or didn't care about surviving started dying off and leaving the others behind to reproduce. But yeah, technically there is no point. Technically you could say there's no point to anything if you really argued it down to fundamentals. I'm pretty sure that's delving into Nihilism though.

Objectively, anything but nihilism is a delusion. Getting anywhere meaningful requires getting subjective.

Philosophy is fun. Everyone's wrong except me.

Well said. Unless you change your view on something in which case you were wrong even though you aren't any longer.

Past-me can be different than present-me.

[HissinhWalnuts]

Hope you can get a update out soon.

[Cheesecake]

Yay! Update! Also, is Sol aware of any other god other than Feros?

[micelus]

Small correction to number of Chaplains that defected.

Yay! Update! Also, is Sol aware of any other god other than Feros?

In the general sense. He'd know about Psaras/Namq'ua/Teskort/ and such since he's aware of their followers.

[Ardas]

Past-me can be different than present-me.

Evidence does not support this hypothesis.