Features

Perndog · #51

He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

Where did that come from; since when does being lawful evil make one prejudiced?

According to that description of the system, I'm True Neutral, but I think I'm Neutral Evil in the 1st edition AD&D DM guide I've got (I can't check because it's at my parents' house).

I like the turn this thread is taking.

AChimp · #52

That's from the 3.5 rules. LE is kind of a boring alignment; NE makes for a much more interesting campaign because there's just as much scheming without all the predictability.

Brandon · #53

I'm going to agree with OAO on this one, actually. It's hard for an atheist to claim that he or she is "moral," since the objective standard of right and wrong does go out the window along with belief in a higher power. The question then becomes.. moral according to whom? Society? Tradition? One's personal standards?

I also wonder how many nonbelievers would really have the balls to follow through and stand by a rejection of good and evil absolutes when questions like "do you think the Holocaust was evil?" are asked.

The_Rorschach · #54

I like the old Lawful Evil. It gave birth to the sort of Paladins one might associate with the Spanish Enquisition.

Brandon · #55

Some problems with making moral absolutes contingent on the existence of God:

If the difference between right and wrong is based on God's order, then for God Himself there is no right and wrong, and it is meaningless to claim that God is "good."

If, on the other hand, God is good, then good and evil have meanings independent of Him.

The One and Only... · #56

Nevermind.

Sethomas · #57

This thread has taken a turn for the suck.

CLAspinster · #58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

I'm going to agree with OAO on this one, actually. It's hard for an atheist to claim that he or she is "moral," since the objective standard of right and wrong does go out the window along with belief in a higher power. The question then becomes.. moral according to whom? Society? Tradition? One's personal standards?

Disagree. The Greek philosphers believed in objective virtues without necessarily making recourse to divinity. At the very least, the gods didn't go about saying 'you must do this, you must do that' in the Judeo-Xian way.

CLAspinster · #59

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Some problems with making moral absolutes contingent on the existence of God:

If the difference between right and wrong is based on God's order, then for God Himself there is no right and wrong, and it is meaningless to claim that God is "good."

If, on the other hand, God is good, then good and evil have meanings independent of Him.

What about Augustine's solution, that evil is the absence of good, or distance from God?

Brandon · #60

Quote:

The Greek philosphers believed in objective virtues without necessarily making recourse to divinity. At the very least, the gods didn't go about saying 'you must do this, you must do that' in the Judeo-Xian way.

Those virtues, however, were dependent upon the existence of a "higher" realm of ideas. There was still an element of mysticism in that line of thought.

Quote:

What about Augustine's solution, that evil is the absence of good, or distance from God?

Doesn't good need the alternative of evil in order to be defined as good? Good can't exist without evil.

EDIT: It's similar to how "truth" is a meaningless term if there isn't a possibility of falsehood. In Augustine's definition, it ceases being a choice between "good and evil" and becomes a choice between mere "obedience and disobedience."

CLAspinster · #61

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Those virtues, however, were dependent upon the existence of a "higher" realm of ideas. There was still an element of mysticism in that line of thought.

I wouldn't call it mysticism. Knowledge of say, the Platonic forms, was akin to knowledge of mathematics. They are not hazy and vague but made clear by the light of reason.

Quote:

Doesn't good need the alternative of evil in order to be defined as good? Good can't exist without evil.

EDIT: It's similar to how "truth" is a meaningless term if there isn't a possibility of falsehood. In Augustine's definition, it ceases being a choice between "good and evil" and becomes a choice between mere "obedience and disobedience."

It depends on whether you take the statement "God is good" as an identity statement or a subject-predicate one in the sense of "apples are red". Granted, there is probably an equivocation here and both interpretations probably have some truth in Xian doctrine (Seth?), but I have always thought of God as not just "something that is good" but the source of all good. And so, evil being the absence of good (God) makes both the terms good an evil dependent on Him.

Brandon · #62

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLAspinster

I wouldn't call it mysticism. Knowledge of say, the Platonic forms, was akin to knowledge of mathematics. They are not hazy and vague but made clear by the light of reason.

Despite the fact that they're both abstract concepts, I don't see many similarities between math and morality.

Quote:

It depends on whether you take the statement "God is good" as an identity statement or a subject-predicate one in the sense of "apples are red". Granted, there is probably an equivocation here and both interpretations probably have some truth in Xian doctrine (Seth?), but I have always thought of God as not just "something that is good" but the source of all good. And so, evil being the absence of good (God) makes both the terms good an evil dependent on Him.

If this is true, God isn't anything morally. He's neither good nor evil, since those terms are only applied to human actions after the fact. "God is good because He says He's good."

Big McLargehuge · #63

Also if God is the only benchmark by which you measure good the concept of "God is good" becomes "good is good" and is there fore meaningless.

ProfessorCool · #64

God is good only in movies and television.

kahljorn · #65

I've said this like a million times before but everyone discounts my thoughts like day old bread at the bakery, assholes.

Omniscients is KNOWING EVERYTHING. Let's think about the word everything. Everything means everything. Not just where every speck of dust is at the same time, but knowing where all the blank spaces in between are at. A truely Omniscient person would kn ow: THE TRUTH, THE FALSE, AND UGLY. It wo uld also have to know the unconceived thin gs, so they can be conceived.
Someday you will have an epiphany and realize there is no real "Truth" anyway, so acting on the false is just as valid.
So in response to your question of freewill, imagine it like this: GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING, this means God also knows ALL POSSIBLE RESULTS OF EVERY OCCASION, when you decide if you're going to take a piss or not he knows that one way You will take a Piss and another he won't. That is true omniscient nature, and that is what most wise people attempt to capulate. Knowing not that what you do and say will have a specific effect, but evolving beyond that into picking the effects and trying to set it into motion.
All that is deep rooted is psychology and sociology, in order to set a little thought from up, a little living domino effect... you just have to consider that everything you do and say, effects everything. Yet what you did was just a result of someone else's shit.

I hope that's not too incoherent.