give me a clear definition for good and evil as you would use

>>54744303
Good: aiding good and neutral creatures, harming evil creatures. Following lifestyle endorsed by good gods and celestials.
Evil: harming creatures. Following lifestyle endorsed by evil gods and fiends. Not using coasters.

Good: selfless
Evil: selfish

>>54744407
pretty much this is the easiest way to explain it

>>54744407
Neutral: a bit selfless to people they care about, a bit selfish to people they don't

File: Bane.png (395KB, 690x595px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 690x595px

>>54744407
This. You can pretty much use political compass for alignment chart.
Left is good, right is evil.
Authoritarian is lawful. Libertarian is chaotic.

>>54744761
this is bait

>>54744407
why dont we just replace good and evil with this definition?

>>54744772
>wah wah wah why don't people love objectivism?

>>54744801
I agree with you.

It's still bait, and you should take it back to /pol/.

>>54744303
It doesn't depend on the alignment system, it depends on the setting. This is a shitty request.

>>54744803
Historical purposes. Good/Evil (or more importantly, Law/Chaos) are/were universal forces in D&D.

>>54744837
Wait... people actually believe this?


WTH

>>54744837
>This is what the tea party actually belive

>>54744801
What do fair taxes have to do with the left, or selfishness, greed and prejudice have to do with the right?

>>54744407
this

by extension, this would make most societies a black-gray mass with a few sprinkles of white

>>54744837
>Free healthcare is effectively slavery, stealing the labour of doctors.
'Free' healthcare just means the recipient of said care isn't paying for it directly. The doctors are still getting paid.

>It encourages people to get ill and be unhealthy.
What? Being ill and unhealthy is still unpleasant as fuck, even if the treatment is subsidized.

>>54744837
american education encourages people to consume in unhealthy ways

File: [maximum discardment].gif (712KB, 600x525px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 600x525px

>>54744837
>Free healthcare is effectively slavery, stealing the labour of doctors.
>It encourages people to get ill and be unhealthy.

>>54744303
Good is good.

Evil is evil.

Just wing it dude, judge it case by case. For most purposes you already know what it should be, and for the edge cases there probably was never a true answer anyway.

>>54744837
I live in Canada and here, the way it works is that doctors get paid and have the same amount of freedom as any other profession, it's just that the government pays them. Far from slavery, unless you believe the wage system is slavery

>>54744891
>>54744868
>Not getting the joker this much

>>54744891
Heck, with all the systems and securities around it, we unlike America do not have the (one of) most expensive healthcare in the world.

I vaguely recall some ailments where it is literally cheaper to fly first class to europe, learn a new language, get a visum etc. and then go to the hospital there before flying back first class. than attempting to get treated in the US.

>>54744891
>unless you believe the wage system is slavery
Well, not chattel slavery, obviously. But if you rely on your wages to survive, it does give your employer a certain measure of power over you.

File: Cliff-Harpers-Max-Stirner.gif (7KB, 170x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 170x200px

>>54744407
Good: spooked
Evil: unspooked

>>54744407
This, larger moral quandry aside this is everyday alignment done right

>>54744919
My Significant other has a certain measure of power over me, is all sex we have rape?

>>54744801
>universal healthcare, fair taxes and inclusivity aren't good

One can be right wing and still support these.

>>54744931
Apples and oranges. Also no.

>>54744961
Not really. The right is vehemently opposed to all of those things. If you're for them, what issues are so much more important to you that you'd still align yourself with the right?

>>54744961
How?
Free-market capitalism is against universal healthcare and fair taxes
Run-of-the-mill conservatism is against all three
Monarchism is against inclusivity due to its aristocratic and elitist character
Any form of nationalism is against inclusivity
Facsism is against it for the same reasons as monarchism and nationalism combined

I don't think a right-wing ideology exists that isn't against at least one of those things

>>54744981
If you're going trying to catch all political viewpoints under the umbrella of either 'Left' or 'Right', both categories are going to be very broad indeed. So broad, that it's not impossible to someone you'd classify as right-wing to consider universal healthcare a good idea.

>>54745008
I mean, we are relating this to character alignment
Which does have a neutral position

>>54744963
it is a similar line of stupidly putting concepts where they aren't meant to go.

>>54745031
Center, I guess. So three categories. Still not quite granular enough to make sure 'universal healthcare' never, ever ends up under 'Right'.

Good and evil are very easy to define, what varies is the moral system used.

Most common moral systems will define it like >>54744407 or selfish - evil, selfless - good.

We are social animals, what benefits all = good, what benefits the individual at detriment of others = evil.

If you use a different moral system, say hedonistic utilitarianism, then its also very simple:
Maximize the groups wellbeing and minimize suffering - good. The opposite is thus evil. Again it does touch in the selfish-selfless.

There are nuances, you can be selfish and do things for selfish reasons that happen to have beneficial effects to the group. As long as you do not harm the collective, you can be selfish, it transitions into evil when you are selfish knowing that your actions will cause suffering of others.

Everything in life is a choice, the moment you choose to harm others for your own benefit, you are evil, its as simple as that.

Neutral would be what most people are imo, they will not self-sacrifice, but they will ensure as minimal negative effects as possible, and attempt in their selfishness, to benefit others.

>>54745008
Ok, but I'm trying to get a specific example. Because your description isn't quite as bad as someone claiming they're left-wing while opposing social welfare programs, abortion rights, and business regulation, but it's close. At a certain point, you're just calling yourself by the name of a political ideology because that's the one you were born belonging to, and you're unwilling to accept that your values align with those of your traditional opponents.

>>54745031

Indeed, I used to be far left, nowadays more closer to center-left as I recognize right wing does have good reasons and ideas in several aspects, especially since its important to not be mindlessly tolerant, some things cannot and should never be tolerated. As someone once told me, its important to be open minded, but not so much as for your brain to fall off your skull.

Balance is key.

>>54745050
But we're not talking about the one thing, we're talking about all three.
There are indeed right-wing ideologies that promote free health care-- for members of a select group. Which axes the "inclusivity."

>>54745081
Have you spoken to the far left?
Tolerance isn't really that big of a deal to them.

>>54744303
Good: Maximizing the positive externalities of your actions.

Neutral: Acting without regard for the positive externalities of your actions, but minimizing the negative externalities.

Evil: Acting without regard for the negative externalities of your actions.

Or to put it another way, good tries to help other people, neutral tries not to harm other people, and evil doesn't care.

Right/Left distinction in regards to universal healthcare and a lot of other issues is entirely attached to the current predicament.

A lot of the right-wing views inherently come from pragmatism and understanding that resources are limited and systems to distribute them are flawed.

You can find soulless ghouls on any political spectrum but a lot of conservative-leaning people are quite capable and willing of selfless actions like fundraising for medical costs in their community.

>>54745126
This is actually pretty solid m8

>>54745099
>how can you say we live in a free society if I'm not allowed to urinate on unsuspecting passersby?

>>54745081
People appear to have some trouble realizing that inclusiveness shouldn't be all-encompassing.

It's genuinely impossible to be inclusive with regards to all ideologies and behaviours. We don't think (and shouldn't think) that all behaviours are equivalent. Otherwise, we wouldn't have laws governing how we interact with each other. After all, they exclude people that display certain behaviours.

>>54745156
That's less of a left position than a libertarian position desu

>>54745156
But that breaks the NAP

>>54744303
Evil is enjoying the suffering of others. Good is disliking the suffering of others. An evil act is one which furthers the suffering of others. A good act is one that lessens the suffering of others. Morally grey actions are actions which further the suffering of some while lessening the suffering of others.

>>54745257
I'd say that being selfish is morally grey, it is neither good nor evil. If you are alone in the universe you cannot be either good or bad, you just are. Your actions should be judged on the intended and actual effects they have on other people.

>>54745165
I'm analogizing. Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating attempts to harm or intimidate others any more than having a free society means permitting people to urinate on others without their consent.

>>54745257
>Morally grey actions are actions which further the suffering of some while lessening the suffering of others.
>murdering someone because they have something you want is morally grey
>raping someone because you're horny is morally grey
>torturing someone because they belong to a religion whose presence you find distasteful is morally grey

>>54745288
Of others, not yourself. So stealing from a wealthy merchant and giving it to starving children would be morally grey. Stealing from a wealthy merchan so you can buy a whore is not.

>>54745312
What if the whore is starving and bammin'-slammin' bootylicious?

>>54744303
Good - The winning side
Evil - Being the ones the good ones fought

History tells us this is the ultimate truth.

>>54745388
There are plenty of times when the historical good guys lost, but we still remember them as the good ones.

>>54744801
Positive rights mean it's somebody's duty to provide that right.

And many people on the right think those things would be great--if it didn't seem likely that the expense and bureaucracy they require would cause immense damage to society and create bad incentives that could kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

>>54745432
Once enough time has past that we don't understand the context any longer. Or if it was not a fight in our culture, and we have no stake either way.

OTOH it's still "common knowledge" that Carthaginians threw their babies into a sacrificial fire. Which is probably a lie or exaggeration made up by people who exposed infants as a method of birth control/eugenics.

In the context of RPGs, you can use several models of good/evil axis.
>Go full LOTR and have the bad guys be a bunch of nasty destructive fatalistic cannibals.
>cultural relativity--if your gods and your culture say it's Good to kidnap people and sacrifice them on an altar, it's good
>a little of both--Good is pro civilization/pro human utility and evil is anti-human, with room for interpretation

>>54744407
objection

good: selfless (strife for other's benefit)
neutral: selfish (strife for one's own benefit)
evil: sadistic (strife for other's damage)

>>54744961
Not in america.

>>54744303
Alignment systems are not [Good] and only [Evil] people insist on using them.

>>54744801
>universal healthcare, fair taxes and inclusivity aren't good
In capitalist utopia most of people will be able to afford all of their needs by getting fair pay regulated by market.
Sick, weak and unfortunate will be cared for by the private help funds that as private should be more efficient than corrupted state controlled social programs.

Socialist and capitalist utopia are quite similar in effect that everyone is happy and wealthy.

Capitalists starts with assumption that humans are inherently good and given enough resources and freedom they will help their brothers.

Socialism starts with assumption that humans are inherently evil and state must redistribute wealth by using violence.

>>54744761
There is nothing inherently evil about right wing ideology.

>>54744407
>It is bad to be selfish
if you pull the lever giant block falls on you, if you don't it falls on seven people, we all know the good choice now right?

>>54745934
This is a good point.

Fantasy evil especially is supposed to be BAD, we've just watered it down over the years because sympathetic villains I guess.

>>54745228
>tfw guy pisses on your private property and you are free to run him over in retaliation

>>54746003
>all political references specifically mean America

>Evil
DnD

>>54744761
Hah.
Wait, this is a joke right?

>>54744303
Sustainability (in general, not environmentalism) is good.
Things that aren't good are evil.

That's about the simplest you can take go.


But letting people align with good and evil is missing the forest for the trees.
In no particular order, read "3 Hearts and 3 Lions" and "Stormbringer"

>>54746125
Redistributing wealth isn't any more violent than evicting someone for refusing to pay the rent is. You live in a society, living in that society means you pay what you owe. If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave.

>>54744981
Good and evil is subjective. People on the right wing aren't rubbing their hands and saying "ooh, I just can't wait to be a GIANT DOUCHEBAG FOR NO REASON." It's more like "I believe that supporting business and classical family values will help the middle class." Like seriously, I'd say the majority of the right is more around lawful good to lawful neutral, while the majority of the left is neutral good to chaotic good. Far left lawful evil, (creepy gender and race obbsessed sjw's) Far right (Alt-right muh kekistan) chaotic neutral to chaotic evil.

>>54747036
I think you misquoted me. I'm not saying the right is evil, I'm saying they're opposed to universal health care, fair taxes (in the sense that the wealthy need to shoulder a far larger percentage of the burden, not in the "everyone should pay a set percentage" sense), and inclusivity.

File: dbz_vegeta_laughs_sitting_on_grass.gif (352KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 500x300px

>>54746125
>Capitalists starts with assumption that humans are inherently good and given enough resources and freedom they will help their brothers.

>>54747073
Depends on where you are. Over here in the West-European countries, I think almost all rightwingers agree that a bottom-heavy tax system is fucking retarded because why would you tax the poorest the most? That just throws a wrench in the economy. The poor are the primary economy driver, so you don't fucking let the government guzzle up that money.

>>54744761
Left is selfish in that it believes you have a right to take from others. Right is selfless in that it gives everyone natutal inherent rights, such as self defense and ownership of property.

>>54746252
I'm not sure what you wanted to prove with this.

>>54745934
Depends on how serious you want to go. It's hard to take "I must hurt others to feel good" sort of villains seriously as characters imo (which is okay, not all villains have to be serious).

I guess "selfish" is probably too vague, and can be applied to neutral actions as well, probably should be "selfish to the point of not having second thoughts about hurting others to benefit himself".

>>54747073
No, but the implication is that the right is evil or at least morally inferior because they don't align with all of your political views.They aren't against inclusivity, in fact they want the exact same thing you do. They just go about it in a different way. They place the responsibilty of being included on the individual's willingness to work to be included in the wealthy and prosperous rather than expecting their health and success to be a given. You want good healthcare? You have to work for it. The main thing with them is that they hate leeches. Surprising, considering the Alt-rights thing with being a NEET. They hate hand outs and participation awards. People on the right don't want to pay higher taxes for the healthcare of people who sit on their collective asses and whine about how much their lives suck on the internet that's payed for by their parents.

>>54744303
Good: What benefits my tribe
Bad: What harms my tribe.

>>54747234
It's kind of funny, but you've pretty much summarized why I consider the right morally repugnant in a single word: Leeches. Need help? Down on your luck? Got sick and aren't capable of supporting yourself? You're not even an animal, you're vermin. You don't deserve to live. And that's what you're saying, ultimately - if you get sick and you can't afford medicine, then I'm not willing to pay to keep you alive. Die, and clear up some space for the rest of us.

Not to mention that the idea of people just living on welfare is, for the most part, a meme. I'm not going to deny that there are some people who will gladly not work, but most people who get support either are down on their luck and need to get back on their feet, or are working and simply have been priced out of being able to survive. You can't pay for a place to live and food and medical care on minimum wage, and you certainly can't raise yourself out of that position when you're already devoting all your time and money to basic survival. I'd happily pay my taxes to give people in that situation the opportunity to escape from it and become productive members of society.

>>54747027
But you don't owe it to anyone. Tax is theft, not pay for goods or services bought willingly.

>>54748650
Like I said, it's the equivalent of rent. You owe it by living in whatever country you live in. If you don't want to pay it, then just like a landlord can evict you and garnish your wages and bank accounts, the government can remove you from society (by imprisoning you) and seize your assets. If you don't like it, then you're welcome to leave the nation and find another one that fits you better.

>>54744801
>No one in the right mind can argue that universal healthcare, fair taxes and inclusivity aren't good, while selfishness, greed and prejudice aren't evil. It's not bait, it's simply stating the facts.

Get fucked, thief. The only fair tax % is 0.

>>54744761

Listen here, Stalin

If a peasant says he doesn't have enough food to give away

And you think he's lying and takes his food

And 7 million die of starvation during the holodomor because you've removed their "excess" food out of the country.

You are a murderer and a thief, not a paladin.

>>54748843
>Like I said, it's the equivalent of rent. You owe it by living in whatever country you live in.

You owe rent because you agreed with a guy who owns a house that, in return for borrowing his house, you'll spot him some money for the trouble.

You owe taxes because men with guns have invented the lie of the "social" "contract" that you have "agreed" by being born in a place where they can reach you with their guns if you don't comply.

One's business, one's theft.

>>54749360
Aren't you free to just fucking leave once you grow up?

>>54749360
>You owe taxes because you agreed with a nation who owns a landmass that, in return for being allowed to live in its landmass, you'll spot it some money for the trouble
FTFY

>>54744303
Evil: using napalm. Or white phosphorus on people. Full stop. No middle line. The shit is fucking evil.

>>54748650
>Tax is theft
>m-muh burger money, dang government are eating my burgers

>>54749386
The libertarian retards always like to forget this part

>>54745126
I like this.

>>54749386
>Aren't you free to just fucking leave once you grow up?

So I only pay sales tax after I turn 18?

So it's not my land I live on?

So the Mafia is also OK because I can just leave?

So you're actually an even bigger faggot than me? That's fucking impressive, I blow up to three guys a week.

>>54749400
>nation who owns a landmass

Who? Even the US government doesn't think it owns the land of the US. If you buy property, they agree it's yours and not theirs. They're still gonna tax you.

File: 0068123700000258-0-image-m-18_1444939541636.jpg (127KB, 634x724px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 634x724px

>>54744801

No one the right mind can argue that subsidizing laziness, picking the working man's pocket, and enforcing blatant double standards isn't good, while retaining ownership of one's own property, attempting to further oneself and one's peers, and preferring to accomadate those similar to oneself isn't evil. It's not bait, it's simply stating the facts.

>>54749480
Completely wrong. All land in a given state is owned by that state, which agreed to be subordinate to the United States government. You purchase property subject to the state's claim, which means you agree to be bound by that state's laws, including - by subordination - the United States.

Read a deed sometime. They all say that the property is being sold fee simple absolute, not that it's being sold in allodium.

>>54746125
Capitalists have the idea that doing something good requires choice in the matter: that giving when you've got a gun at your back demonstrates no virtue. By permitting freedom, they permit also the freedom to withold so that giving is meaningful.

Socialists have the idea that so long as a society gives, even if it's by force, then it is good. They always strike me as trying to be utilitarian in some ways.

Both systems are corruptible such that they stop giving in any way: the first is ruined when the moral fabric of the people is ruined, as then they stop using their freedom to give, and the second when what is given is poorly or wickedly (usually it's both) managed by central authorities, such that food is withheld from them who are starving.

As far as I'm concerned, a hand stuck open and a hand stuck clamped in a fist are both deformed. Both give too much power to individuals who I'd say are often jaded materialists, content to simply reap and ignore the call to give, only one of them receives from everyone while the other must contend with others who receive and try to be efficient in providing a reason for them to exchange or he'll loose it all.

To me good is people working, making wealth through labor, and giving by choice to help others mindfully. Good isn't caught up in who owns means of production: a good system is any which preserves the freedom of people to make that choice and encourages them to do so without threats. Capitalism alone as an ideology lacks that encouragement while socialism lacks the freedom and lack of threats.

>>54749462
>So I only pay sales tax after I turn 18?
Well, if it's not your income, you aren't the one paying the sales tax, it's actually the one who gives you the money to buy shit with.

I guess if you had been working officially since... what's the age limit in the US? 16? 14? Then you have 2-4 years when you play sales tax, which is kinda bad.

>So it's not my land I live on?

Are you literally using only your land? Do you not have piping and electricity coming through neighbors? Do you not use communal roads? Are you not protected by the police? Firefighters?

Don't be fucking daft.

>So the Mafia is also OK because I can just leave?

The maffia has no legal claim for the extortion they are doing, nor are they providing any services (unless you count "we won't break your knees" a service) in exchange for your money.

>So you're actually an even bigger faggot than me? That's fucking impressive, I blow up to three guys a week.

Wanna meet up? I always wondered how getting head from a cock loving faggot would feel.

Good and evil are too nebulous. I prefer the x y axis graph. X being individual - group, y being benefit - detriment. A true good paladin's motivations would largely be in the upper ranges of group benefit, true evil group detriment, weighted ratings for everything in between. A correlary entry forms in when extremes are reached, as the individual loses benefit, resulting in a corresponding level of detriment past, say, 75 group.

>>54744303
>alignment system
no pls

File: clipping.jpg (143KB, 552x449px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 552x449px

>people forget that alignments are simplistic labels made for fantasyland adventures and try to apply it to the real world

>>54744303
Good: did something I liked.
Evil: did something I didn't like.
Neutral: didn't do shit.

>>54744801
I'm definitely pro-universal healthcare. I just don't believe it's the government's job to provide it.

>>54745934
I'd go with this. Truly evil people are pretty rare.

>>54746125
>Capitalists starts with assumption that humans are inherently good an
>Socialism starts with assumption that humans are inherently evil
It's the opposite actually, which is why one works and the other doesn't.

Although "evil" is really replaced with "greedy"

>>54749386
Aren't you free to leave the ghetto when you grow up?

>>54749809
>a profit seeking entity ever doing something that benefits 100% of the population

That's not how price points work, there's always going to be some amount of people left out if you're seeking to make money. And if you're not then you may as well just be a govt. org.

>>54749592
>Completely wrong. All land in a given state is owned by that state

Come to a free state like down here in Texas, sparky.

>>54749982
Charitable organizations don't seek to make money.

>>54744801
I forgot that parents that don't let their kids eat all the candy they want are evil people. Sorry your dad beat you.

>>54750102
>having the basics to live is the same as undisciplined kids
>ya got TB? you just need "more discipline"

t. basement dwelling shithead. Good thing Obamacare extended how long you can be on mummy and daddy's insurance right?

>>54749956
You should be.

The reason you aren't is because ghettos are basically small, anarchistic states unto themselves, where you don't even have your basic rights of freedom, and trying to leave brands you a traitor and can actually get you killed.

>>54750102
Isn't a "mommy and daddy state" a socialist/leftist thing (or rather something libertarians hate)? Are you arguing for or against it?

>>54749662
>Are you literally using only your land?

Let's go over your examples one by one, shall we?

>Do you not have piping and electricity coming through neighbors?

You mean from the non-state coop electrical company? And the water from my own well? (I could get the electric from a private generator if I wanted, but I am legally required to be hooked to the grid. Things I do at gun-point, I will not be held responsible for by some 2-bit statist apologist for the hand that holds the gun)

>Do you not use communal roads?

You mean the roads that somebody the government created on land they expropriated (read: stole) from the people around here? Yes, I drive on the stolen roads.

>Are you not protected by the police?

No. I am not.

For further reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ojhjhR8U8

>Firefighters?

You mean the people I'm paying separately from taxes, who I can decide to not pay if I don't want fire services? Yeah, I use those guys. Swell people. Proper capitalists.

>>54749662
>The maffia has no legal claim for the extortion they are doing, nor are they providing any services (unless you count "we won't break your knees" a service) in exchange for your money.

They have as much legal claim as the governemnt (Viz: Violence if you don't pay up)

>nor are they providing any services

Sure they are. The mafia provides protection, various goods, transportation service for goods suppressed by the opposing "Boys in Blue" gang, pension services, dispute arbitration etc. etc.

File: Lewis.png (77KB, 411x767px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 411x767px

>>54744407
This is an absolutely pants on head retarded definition, that would put at least half of Lawful Evil characters, tyrants, and misguided loons as Good.

An also incorrect answer [in the sense of being incomplete], but much closer to the truth would be

Good: Reciprocal to the in-group
Evil: Predatory to the in-group

I don't understand how people make this mistake of thinking selflessness is inherently good, and selfishness is inherently bad. The two concepts have little to nothing to do with each other.

The Golden Rule isn't "Sell all you have and give it to the poor, then you will have treasure in heaven" its "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Here the principle expressed is one of Reciprocity, not one of Altruism. Altruism as a concept only emerges as a kind of second-order Reciprocity.

If Reciprocity is "I shall do good by others so that they will do good by me." then Altruism is just that concept extended into the theoretical future.

"I shall do good by the unfortunate, so that if I am ever unfortunate others shall do good by me."

>>54750205
>You mean from the non-state coop electrical company?

Is it using its own powerline? Were those powerlines not built with government help on public property?

>And the water from my own well?

Okay, sure, I'll give you that. If you have been raised only from water from your well, I guess you don't owe anything to the state for water. What about 99% of people though?

Should they just die of thirst if they can't afford to buy water or bore a well?

Should everyone have private piping?

> (I could get the electric from a private generator if I wanted, but I am legally required to be hooked to the grid. Things I do at gun-point, I will not be held responsible for by some 2-bit statist apologist for the hand that holds the gun)

I'm pretty sure you can be exempt for that if you live in a cabin in the woods.

If not, that kinda sucks.

>You mean the roads that somebody the government created on land they expropriated (read: stole) from the people around here? Yes, I drive on the stolen roads.

What the fuck is the alternative? Edge on the borders on a roller? Getting billed by the meter? Everybody building a small patch on their porch?

>No. I am not.

Maybe if you made your politicians to allocate money there, instead of pumping it into producing more HFCS...

>You mean the people I'm paying separately from taxes

Sorry, didn't know that's how it works in 'murrica.

>They have as much legal claim as the governemnt (Viz: Violence if you don't pay up)

They have been given this power by your ancestors, and reinforced with every vote. The mafia just came here.

>The mafia provides protection, various goods, transportation service for goods suppressed by the opposing "Boys in Blue" gang, pension services, dispute arbitration etc. etc.

For it's members. Not the guys they are extorting.

>>54750280
I think Lewis is wrong. Putting others ahead of yourself is an expression of Love.

>>54750075
Texas doesn't have real alloidal title either. It has what it calls alloidal title, but it's still subject to United States law, and probably most Texas law as well. Although I can't find the statute, so I can't even confirm it exists or if it's just an urban legend.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ALIGNMENTS OF GOOD AND EVIL, NOT THE ACTUAL GOOD AND EVIL

DND DEFINITIONS FOR FUCKS SAKE

>>54750569
Except its not. The point isn't putting others ahead of yourself, the point is doing good things to others.

The idea of selflessness makes it seem like you going without good things is the point, which isn't Compassion its just Sadism. You're morally getting off on self-hurt, which isn't benevolent its sick.

>>54750744
You mean masochism.

You can not give (i.e. be selfless) without love. If you do not have love for the hobo, why would you give him bread, instead of eating it yourself?

You put your (less urgent) need for bread behind his (more urgent) need.

>>54750643
Of course it's subject to law. It's just not subject under the theory that the government owns the land, it's subject to law under the legal theory of "We have all the guns so do as we say."

>>54750569
>For it's members. Not the guys they are extorting.

You should look up the Mafia sometimes. They do a lot of good shit. Of course, much of that, they do as PR exercises viz.: You're more likely to tell them you heard the cops are coming if they're the ones helping out your sweet old Italian mama with the heating bill in the winter.

Much like you're apparently more willing to shill for the Government because you can't see that their benevolence is all PR.


>>54750569
>Is it using its own powerline? Were those powerlines not built with government help on public property?

Listen I'm gonna stop you right here and clarify something:

The government has taken control over so many things that it is impossible to live your life without the government.

That's not what we'd consider a pro-government talking point.

That goes in the "cons" column.

This is also my reply to the rest of your post.

File: 04b.jpg (61KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x600px

The whole point is that extreme ends of all alignments are very nasty for mortals.
End point of lawful is becoming a drone, living math that has no will other than to do the one single thing it has been assigned to function.
End point of chaos is dispersed nothingness, endless options spreading you out to having equally nothing. You are free to choose from everything, but unable to commit to anything.
End point of good is endless flagellation, powerless mote that cannot have anything without giving it away.
End point of evil is implosion. Eventually you have consumed everything that there is in existence, so eventually only option is to eat yourself. Like a black hole, you shrink deeper into yourself until nothing remains.

>>54750569
>Should they just die of thirst if they can't afford to buy water or bore a well?
Yes. If you can't support yourself without any assistance whatsoever from the moment of your birth, you deserve to die. Humanity should go extinct, so we can give the world back to the reptiles and fish that actually deserve life.

>>54750801
But the point isn't that you go without bread.

Selflessness as an end in itself would mean that you giving away bread is good just because you gave away bread, instead of the fact that someone else got to eat.

The ideal for reciprocity [altruism as occasional means] is "Everyone has bread".

The ideal for altruism as an end in itself, as the DEFINITION of morality is "Everyone has bread but you."

It leads to pathological altruism where you try and act selfless just because it looks good to you instead of it actually helping anyone.

>>54750843
>Of course it's subject to law. It's just not subject under the theory that the government owns the land, it's subject to law under the legal theory of "We have all the guns so do as we say."
Still wrong. Texas agreed that its law would be subordinate to the law of the United States government when it joined the United States. Therefore, Texas cannot provide land which isn't encumbered by United States law or ownership, any more than I can sell you property fee simple absolute when I only own a fee simple determinable interest. You can't sell or give away property you don't have a right to.

>>54746884
>this is a joke right
>for you

>>54750843
>The government has taken control over so many things that it is impossible to live your life without the government.

That's the base state of things. A human can not survive alone. A human shouldn't HAVE to survive alone. We are a social species. We got where we are because we can stand on the shoulders of the work of others.

I know you really like the idea of every man (maybe family or whatever unit you want) being its own island, but the natural state of the human is the tribe, and a tribe is basically a proto-government that will impose rules, and will expect you to contribute part of your stuff for the good of the tribe.

You can not escape this unless you go live in the mountains as a lonely hermit to die alone.

>>54750881
That's a very extreme form of altruism that is self defeating. Being absolutely 100% selfless is both impossible and stupid, since you can do more if you don't starve to death.

>>54750957
>I know you really like the idea of every man (maybe family or whatever unit you want) being its own island, but the natural state of the human is the tribe, and a tribe is basically a proto-government that will impose rules, and will expect you to contribute part of your stuff for the good of the tribe.

>its own island

You've got me entirely wrong my man. I am well aware that I am in a vast mesh of necessary entanglements with many people.

But some of those entanglements are because I want them (Family, friends)

Some are because I need them (Job, grocery store)

And some are because people with guns will shoot me unless I pay them so they can fund other people to shoot people if they grow plants.

Two out of these three categories are voluntary. I was not forced by somebody to take my job, I had a pick of several and picked the one that I wanted the most. Because of this, I could pick the employer who had the best offer. I meet many people and have my pick of friends. Because of this, I don't spend my social time with assholes, I spend it with the people I want to spend it with.

And then, when it comes to drug inspection, I *want* to pick the Underwriters Lab, but unfortunately, men with guns will shoot me if I resist using the DEA and FDA. And so therefore I get terrible service from the DEA and FDA, because they're not afraid of losing a customer.

That's why I don't like the state. It is designed, from the bottom up, to be a beastly egregore that swallows value and regurgiates violence for the only purpose of maintaining itself.

I don't want to be free of society.

I want to be free of the violent psychopaths who actively work to make my life worse because it makes their own lives better.

And you're not going to convince me to like the psychopaths just because they pay for [s]my sweet Italian mama's heating bill in the winter[/s] the roads.

>>54747213
So all the CEOs who steal from their workers are socialists?

>>54751117
>And some are because people with guns will shoot me unless I pay them so they can fund other people to shoot people if they grow plants.

You fund them so other other people don't come with their family and friends to shoot you and take your stuff.

A government is the alternative to warring tribes.

Yes, basically every place with a too strong government is a shithole. But so are places where the government is too weak. Corruption is allowed to spread in both.

Is your government shit? Sure. Is not having a government at all a viable alternative? Fuck no.

>>54751279
>You fund them so other other people don't come with their family and friends to shoot you and take your stuff.

No.

No, absolutely not.

I pay them because they'll hurt me if I don't.

If they didn't have a legal monopoly on violence, I would pay one of seven competing security companies, all of which would have better service because if they didn't, I'd pick another provider. This is how it is done with chairs, with cars, with everything important in life except for those goods and services where the government interferes.

Where does the government interfere the most?

Security services
Healthcare
Schools

What are the four things people complain the most about, experience the greatest mismatch between what-they-pay and what-they-get?

Security services
Healthcare
Schools

These are not coincidences. Monopolies are always shit.

>>54751117
>Because of this, I don't spend my social time with assholes

And yet you're here on 4chan.

>>54751265
>So all the CEOs who steal from their workers are socialists?

No, they're thieves. To be socialists, they'd have to do the stealing while part of a government.

(Also, while wage theft is a real thing, I have never known anybody it happened to. Meanwhile, good luck trying to get out of paying taxes.)

>>54751461
>And yet you're here on 4chan.

Yeah but all y'all are classified as "lovable rascals." By assholes, I mean more the kind of guests who get drunk and break your shit, or get into shouting matches, or.../

>>54751440
>If they didn't have a legal monopoly on violence, I would pay one of seven competing security companies, all of which would have better service because if they didn't, I'd pick another provider

Ahahahaha

No you wouldn't. You would be a peasant under a gun-toting warlord, and if you complained or tried to "pick another provider", you and your entire family would be murdered, and your skulls mounted on your liege's Royal Pickup Truck as an object lesson to others.

>>54751440
>If they didn't have a legal monopoly on violence, I would pay one of seven competing security companies, all of which would have better service because if they didn't, I'd pick another provider.

What if one of them beats down all the others and imposes its own violence on you?

Oh shit, if only there was some sort of authority above them...

>>54747790
>It's kind of funny, but you've pretty much summarized why I consider the right morally repugnant in a single word: Leeches. Need help? Down on your luck? Got sick and aren't capable of supporting yourself? You're not even an animal, you're vermin. You don't deserve to live. And that's what you're saying, ultimately - if you get sick and you can't afford medicine, then I'm not willing to pay to keep you alive. Die, and clear up some space for the rest of us.

Strawman detected. A leech isn't just somebody who's down on their luck or is incapable of helping society, part of the purpose of having a society and a government is to help people like that. A leech is somebody who fucks up their own life and expects other people to fix it. When you get hit by a car and are crippled for life and need support from the state to get by, you're a normal person who got shat on by luck and now needs help, preferably at the expense of the asshole who goes around hitting people in a car. If you live entirely off of big macs and smoke 40 a day, then want me to pay for your cancer treatment, you're a leech.

>>54751528
>No you wouldn't. You would be a peasant under a gun-toting warlord, and if you complained or tried to "pick another provider", you and your entire family would be murdered, and your skulls mounted on your liege's Royal Pickup Truck as an object lesson to others.

You should read up on saga-era Iceland, my man. It'll give you some ideas for your games and, more relevant to this conversation, show that it is absolutely possible to have a society where you pick which violent shithead is responsible for protecting you, ensuring better service.

Or, in the Republic of Somaliland before the formation of the government, which Diapaying Group you'd be a member of.

>>54751440
>If they didn't have a legal monopoly on violence, I would pay one of seven competing security companies, all of which would have better service because if they didn't, I'd pick another provider.
No, you'd pay the giant security company that formed when the seven competing security companies realized they could make more money with a corporate merger, and now offers you a boilerplate contract at a price you'd never pay if you had any other options, with customer satisfaction somewhere between laughable and outright hostile.

>>54751581
Read the second half of my post. Those people exist, but they're a tiny fraction of the beneficiaries of welfare systems.

>>54751627
>It'll give you some ideas for your games and, more relevant to this conversation, show that it is absolutely possible to have a society where you pick which violent shithead is responsible for protecting you, ensuring better service.

...is it by moving away to a different lord?

Basically >>54749386?

>>54751799
I didn't take issue with that. I took issue with the statement that everyone on the right views anyone on welfare as a leech. That small minority are the leeches, in my opinion. The rest are fine.

Personally, my ideal system of payment for healthcare would be based on responsibility. If you had a complete accident, were wounded in the service of your country, or came down with an illness it would've been difficult or impossible to avoid, the state would cover the costs of your treatment and any additional support you need. However, if somebody was responsible for your medical problems, they pay. Criminals would be sent the medical bills of anyone injured by their actions, and if you can't pay, then the government covers the costs but some kind of labour is added to your sentence to make up for the resources you wasted. If you injured yourself in an avoidable way - you attempted suicide, got yourself hurt while doing something fantastically stupid like that Youtuber who tried to dive into the Thames off of London Bridge, or developed health issues through living on Big Macs and cigarettes for 20 years - then the same rules apply. That way, the health service does what it's actually meant for - helping those who can't help themselves - while wasting minimal resources due to the actions of criminals and people who could help themselves, but choose not to.

>>54751572
>What if one of them beats down all the others and imposes its own violence on you?
Then we've got a government again.

>>54751921
Awesome.

It almost seems like having a government is basically unavoidable, and trying to get rid of it only leads to a brief, but bloody era of strife before things stabilize again.

>>54751627
>You should read up on saga-era Iceland, my man.
The fact that this is a historic example ought to tell you something. Maybe you should look up the term "barrier to entry," or possibly "machine gun."

>Or, in the Republic of Somaliland before the formation of the government
The fact that this ended with "and then they were crushed by a stronger military group" ought to tell you something else.

>>54751954
Very true. But you can make arguements about how much power a government should have to be optimal.

Everything from "The government that is best governs least" to Hobbes' Leviathan.

>>54744303
Good: Acting in the interest of others, even at the cost of your own.

Neutral: Acting in the interest of yourself and others, never letting one cause detriment to the other.

Evil: Acting in your own interest, even at the cost of others.

>>54752106
I'm >>54744407

You put what I meant much more eloquently.

Kudos.

>>54751440
My security company, Valhalla Holdings, does not consider robbing clients of other security companies to be a crime. Your security company, Fuckwit Solutions, cannot arrest me once I've robbed you blind and gotten back home, because my house is under the protection of Valhalla. Any attempt to enter my property would be trespass, any attempt to arrest me, kidnapping.

What now? You going to take me to court? Which court? I'm not going to agree to be tried in a FuckSol court, and you're not going to agree to have me tried in a Valhalla court. Neither of us are going to agree on a neutral third party court, unless we felt it would rule in our favour. So what now?

Well, I guess it's time for war, as Valhalla and FuckSol throw down for the right to enforce their law. And when the dust settles and the blood runs dry... oh look! One of the companies has a monopoly on violence, is a de facto state, and can force everyone else to pay up for "protection".

But hey, they don't call their demands "taxes", so this is clearly superior to the system we have now!

Developing alignment beyond Law, Neutral, and Chaos was a mistake.

>>54751848
>...is it by moving away to a different lord?

No, it's by staying exactly in place and telling your current chieftain "Yo I'm with this other guy instead, now," after agreeing to it with the new guy.

>>54751959
>The fact that this ended with "and then they were crushed by a stronger military group" ought to tell you something else.

It didn't though. The Republic of Somaliland was formed without violence, and does not hold a monopoly on violence. There are multiple competing security organizations ("Dia-paying Groups") that you can select between. It is unarguably the most well-functioning part of the territories that made up Somalia before the civil war and arguably one of the most well-functioning parts of Africa in general.

>>54752233
>Fuckwit Solutions
No one's going to buy that.
They've got major branding issues.

>>54752247
>arguably one of the most well-functioning parts of Africa in general.
High praise indeed.

>>54752247
>No, it's by staying exactly in place and telling your current chieftain "Yo I'm with this other guy instead, now," after agreeing to it with the new guy.

And then your old chieftain kills you and takes all your stuff, because the new guy and all his men are waaay over there, and your old chieftain and all of his men are right here, and they don't want a potential traitor in their midst.

>>54751915
>I didn't take issue with that. I took issue with the statement that everyone on the right views anyone on welfare as a leech. That small minority are the leeches, in my opinion. The rest are fine.
What I take issue with is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We need better systems in place to remove people who can provide for themselves, but in general, the right wants to eliminate the entire system just to make sure it can't be misused.

Your personal ideal has severe problems of its own, of course. First, you've managed to incorporate the judicial system into our medical system, which avoids being a match made in hell only because Satan thinks that's a bad idea. You're also offering exemption from responsibility based on illness it'd be hard to avoid, which begs the question of what is and isn't an avoidable illness. For example, is a pregnancy-related complication avoidable because you could have decided not to get pregnant? Is injury from attempted suicide covered if you tried to commit suicide due to severe and unavoidable clinical depression? What if you've been eating burgers for a couple decades but are now on a health plan trying to get in shape, but get sick first? These issues will be litigated incessantly.

But you're also completely missing the point of health insurance and government health care, which is that people need it because they can't afford medical treatment. If the court rules you're at fault, then what happens now? Do we just decide that stupid mistakes now deserve death? Do you get a massive government-backed loan that you need to pay, and how do you enforce that if they're too injured to pay it? Do you go back to the old system of "get treatment, file Chapter 7"? Do we have a tiered system based on degree of fault, with slow death for the burger-muncher and a loan for the person who failed to yield?

Seems like an awful lot of mess over what we both agree is a small minority. I don't think it'd be efficient.

>>54752233

1) I call Fuckwit Solutions
2) Fuckwit Solutions calls you
3) You tell them to fuck off or call Valhalla
4) Fuckwit calls Valhalla
5) Fuckwit says "Reign in your fucking client, and pay us $X to compensate our client
6) Valhalla pays the fuck up, and raises your rates to compensate.

Why would Valhalla pay up? Because it's cheaper than going to war.

This is what happened in Iceland, this is what happens between insurance companies (in America) or Dia Paying Groups (In Somaliland) today.

Because this is your fucked up scenario, sure, you can suggest that Valhalla doesn't participate in any trusted 3rd party arbitration services. Then Fuckwit fucking ROLLS them. Because Fuckwit is strong - they rarely lose men to wars because they have arbitration agreements with all the other providers, and Valhalla is weak as fuck because they keep losing men to the skirmishes they insist on fighting with everybody instead of coming to peaceful agreements.

>>54752373
>What I take issue with is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We need better systems in place to remove people who can provide for themselves, but in general, the right wants to eliminate the entire system just to make sure it can't be misused.

This. Drug screenings take more resources than they save by not letting druggies take part of aiding programs. Using foodstamps just so you don't spend the aid money on other stuff has so much overhead that just handing out the money is 100% more effective (especially because most poor people actually do spend on things they need and won't starve themselves for a gucci bag).

Sure, there need to be checks and balances, but they should be where the big money is changing hands, not the pennies given to people who need it.

>>54752347
More likely, he'll try and meet with you can find out if there's a way to bring you back into the fold without violence first. Basically medieval customer service.

That is if he doesn't decide he can/has to make an example of you.

>>54752347
>And then your old chieftain kills you and takes all your stuff, because the new guy and all his men are waaay over there

That's not how things happened nigger. Iceland was a real place, where real things really happened. You can't just invent imaginary bullshit events that didn't happen because they suit your argument.

Like, I know you need to be right about this for your government-fellating world view to make sense, but Iceland managed to truck along under this system for literally centuries. It worked fine.

>>54744303
Good: dick goes in pussy
Evil: dick goes in butt.

>>54752343

I can't tell if this is satire or not.

Obviously Africa is a shit show.

But the niggers in mid-Africa all live in approximately identical hell holes, and their legal systems all have to work while being basically 100% made of niggers.

If the Republic of Somaliland can manage to make a stable society work under those conditions, it's worth paying attention to.

>>54744761
To be honest, I like to think it's the other way round. Left is chaotic, right is lawful. Authoritarian is evil, libertarian is good.

>>54752455
>That is if he doesn't decide he can/has to make an example of you.
Tfw this is how all companies decide whether they're going to litigate.
Tfw you realize that there isn't any real difference between modern corporations and medieval warlords.

>>54752455

Not so. Viking-age Iceland was not a feudal society. You didn't owe fuck-all to that guy, and he's not coming after you for switching security provider because then your new security provider is going to take him to court and force him to pay weregild which is expensive as fuck, or have him declared outlaw if he doesn't pay up.

>>54752573

Ikea doesn't come after you if you decide to buy your sink at Bed Bath and Beyond though.

>>54752432
You just made the other guy's point. Why is Valhalla paying Fuckwit? The tacit threat of violence. "Pay me or I shoot you." Just like how the government collects taxes. It doesn't matter whether the violence is actually happening or not, the transaction is happening at gunpoint. So why not dispense with the pleasantries altogether and just call Fuckwit and Valhalla micronations?

>>54752621
No, but if they think that another company is encroaching on their market share, like a lord taking anther's vassals, they'll do something about it.

>>54752432
>trusted 3rd party arbitration services
Hahahahaha

Valhalla could just bribe all the arbitration services, and pay people to bad-mouth the ones with any integrity. Soon no-one will know which services to trust, and the whole mess falls the fuck apart.

>>54752683
>You just made the other guy's point. Why is Valhalla paying Fuckwit? The tacit threat of violence. "Pay me or I shoot you." Just like how the government collects taxes. It doesn't matter whether the violence is actually happening or not, the transaction is happening at gunpoint. So why not dispense with the pleasantries altogether and just call Fuckwit and Valhalla micronations?

Because the name doesn't matter.

Yes, there's violence. Of course there's violence. To paraphrase Calvin: If all y'all would just swear vows of pacifism, I could conquer this earth with a butter knife.

The important difference is that if there are seven different competing companies all offering to do my violence for me on a nice installation plan, then I'd pick the one with the best service for me. Maybe I'm with Fuckwit because they give me a discount for being a gun owner so they don't have to come out so often (My door has a "Fuckwit Guaranteed Gun Owner" sign and criminals stay the fuck away)

And you're with the First Reformed Yakuza because they're slightly cheaper for people who *don't* own guns, and you don't own a gun because your five year old might get at it.

And most importantly: neither Fuckwit, nor First Reformed Yakuza have drug laws (or ANY "victimless crimes" laws) because enforcement is expensive and their customers don't want a rate hike just because some puritan had a stick up their ass.

Now, Deus Vult Security, they have some laws about victimless crimes. They're not a for-profit, they're a coop and much cheaper, but they have rules against fornication, against blasphemy etc. etc./ but they're only enforcing those against their own subscribers (waaay cheaper than enforcing against strangers who have large security companies on retainer who can tell DV Securities to fuck off.)

>>54752808
>Valhalla could just bribe all the arbitration services, and pay people to bad-mouth the ones with any integrity. Soon no-one will know which services to trust, and the whole mess falls the fuck apart.

Yeah, sure. That could happen. Because, again, you're inventing an arbitrary bullshit company with whatever arbitrary bullshit powers you want to give it.

>>54752732

Yeah. They'll have a sale and run an advertising campaign. The wonder of capitalism is that when companies joust, consumers *benefit.*

>>54752505
Iceland also has almost no people living in it. My home city alone has 2/3rds as many people as live in the entirety of Iceland. It is a frigid shithole with one of the world's lowest population densities, and I highly doubt it was any denser prior to the industrial revolution.

You try Iceland's bullshit in a real country, and shit will fall apart very quickly.

>>54752981
Basically. I guess the symptoms of an impressed system is the tools two competitors use. Swords vs sales, hirdmen vs lawyers.

>>54752950
Oh please, tell me how the man on the street is supposed to get 100%-accurate information about the trustworthiness of his arbitration service. Through fucking Yelp? What's stopping the security companies from shutting down any media company that doesn't sing their praises, and demonise their enemies? How would you ever know that the other companies could offer you a better deal, if your own company didn't allow outsiders to advertise in their territory?

>>54745066
>at detriment of others = evil.
This is the important distinction. Pure selfishness isn't evil, it's just neutral.

>>54752898
And what's to prevent them from all agreeing that Deus Vult Security is cramping their style and that they're going to all gang up, kill their guys, and offer their former customers a "sweetheart deal"? Or, for that matter, what's to stop First Reformed Yakuza and Valhalla from agreeing that they won't arbitrate with Valhalla and will gang up on them if they try to enforce? War is costly, after all, and when two security companies agree that they're not paying your claimants, you're up shit creek.

And, of course, what prevents all seven of them from agreeing to merge into Government Inc., jack up everyone's rates, and terminate any new competitors with extreme prejudice?

In a small local society, people might have the ability to say "no, I don't like this warlord so I'm going with the other warlord" and have it resolve semi-peacefully. If it doesn't and half the work force ups and leaves or ends up dead somewhere, everyone dies from hunger come winter.

In a global society where manpower is cheap, food is plenty and life is literally worthless, that kind of simplistic bullshit doesn't work at all.

If anything you want as much bureaucracy as possible because it drowns hotheads and stops people from doing really stupid and shitty shit on a short timescale.

>>54753122
But then you get into all kinds of arguments about where one's responsibility to their fellow man begins and ends. At what point does your selfishness become a detriment to others?

>>54744303
Alignment is awful, it's easily the worst single part of D&D. There's a reason that essentially no other games ever use alignment.

>>54744303
Good: Being a dude
Evil: Being a dick
Be a dude not a dick, the one true rule to live by
LOL alignments ROFL

>>54753735
Alignments as far as I know were designed to reflect Gary's specific theological views, the problem is that modern DnD keeps alignments but doesn't write fluff with the implications of objective morality in mind

Anarchy is shit, even the capitalist kind, fight me feggets

Any political system is just a tool for a job. Some tools are more appropriate for a given situation, but you wouldn't call a hammer shit because you can't cut a tree down with it.

>>54754229
That's a funny way to say except the socialist kind

>>54744303
Good: cares for the well-being of others.
Neutral: apathetic about the well-being of others.
Evil: works against the well-being of others.

Lawful: cares for rules and structure.
Neutral: apathetic about rules and structure.
Chaotic. works against rules and structure.

>>54744303
Good: Allied with one or more powerful extraplanar beings from Arcadia, The Seven Heavens, The Twin Paradises, Elysium, The Happy Hunting Grounds, Olympus, and/or Gladsheim.

Evil: Allied with one or more powerful extraplanar beings from Acheron, the Nine Hells, Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus, The Abyss, and/or Pandemonium.

The papers want to know whose shirt you wear. That's it; that's all of it.

File: 1501658539026.jpg (354KB, 2625x2619px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 2625x2619px

>>54744303

>>54744407
Let's imagine a hypothetical situation.

A man sees a person drowning in a river and tries to save that person.
This is supposedly a selfless action and a man is to be considered good.
The man swims to the drowning person, but the drowning person is in a state of panic, and an untrained attempt to stop said person from drowning results in both of them drowning together (such cases surface quite regularly in the news).

So the good selfless man drowns leaving behind entities he's responsible for (spouse, children, pets, co-workers, whatever) because he overestimated his competence, underestimated the risks and overlooked the possible consequences of his actions.

So, was his action really good and selfless?

Or, for example, Idunno how it happens in US, but In many jurisdictions attempts at untrained medical help are discouraged (sometimes by law I believe), because quite often they do more harm than good. Like an attempt to drag a person with a broken spine out of a car crash. Or, for example, car medkits are mandatory here. The contents are standardized. They used to contain anesthetics and disinfectants, but those were phased out because people can't use them properly, and misuse can be lethal.

So, as we can see, the outcome of an action taken with a supposedly selfless intent is not necessarily good.

Good: Working towards the good fortune of others.
Neutral: Working towards the good fortune of yourself.
Evil: working towards the misfortune of others.

Good: Being cute
Neutral: Not being cute
Evil: Being ugly

>>54761129
Only by convoluted reasoning that is not covered by either the print or spirit of the rules, and hedging entirely on a single outcome, does anything you said bear notice.
That you need to reach so hard to find a way to HOPEFULLY have a chance to disprove it means that it is solid enough to withstand cursory judgment and performs it's duty as an ad-hoc indication of a pc's personal leanings and their status in the cosmic order.

>>54762035
>That you need to reach so hard to find a way to HOPEFULLY have a chance to disprove it

Those are just typical anecdotical counter-examples that are easy to understand

If you want universal maxims, here you go - road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And we didn't even start exploring corner cases.
What about mutually benefical or, more importantly, mutually destructive actions? Is a suicide bomber always a good guy since he's clearly selfless?

What about, say, a lover of The Dork Lord who willingly takes the shot?
What about well intentioned extremists? Hey, what about Ravel who tries to set Lady Of Pain free from The Cage?
What about an evil organization that works to eliminate evil from human civilization so it would collapse when faced with a crisis that requires it to make hard decisions (like overpopulation), because all people are too morally upstanding to make such decisions?
What about those cases when a character makes a lie for a selfish reason, but then it snowballs, and he has to run with it because consequences, and he has to perform "heroics" because the alternative is a bit decapitating?

Where is even the line between selflessness and selfishness? If you are doing horrible shit that will damn your soul to hell to keep a person you love safe/alive, is it selfishness? Is it selflessness?

>>54744303
Good = Great Leader
Evil = Everyone else