To entertain myself
Mar. 31st, 2005 02:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
garranI am trying to determine which AD&D alignment best corresponds to the theories we've discussed in Moral Philosophy. (I will stop short of actually designing a specialty priest for each.)
Cultural Relativism espouses True Neutrality, in its most guarded and nonjudgemental form.
Subjectivism and Emotivism are nearby, but I think they embrace meaninglessness enough to have slipped into Chaotic Neutral.
Divine Command is amoral; most of it depends on the alignment of the God in question. I suppose that it requires its adherents to behave in a Lawful Neutral manner, though, as does Natural Law.
Ethical Egoism is Neutral Evil, with almost textbook fidelity. (This is the only theory here considered which falls unquestionably under TSR's descriptions of evil.)
Utilitarianism, conversely, asks behaviour that is unquestionably Neutral Good - the consequences of each action weighed, and that choice with the best outcome taken. (Since this is often the alignment I assign myself, it's interesting that Utilitarianism makes me as uncomfortable as it does.)
Kantianism (what an awkward word) is Lawful Good. You could totally have a Paladin of Kant.
Social Contract Theory is hard; it might be Lawful Neutral, although it suggests that you ought to obey cultural standards from very egoistic motives. Still, that's probably closest.
Virtue Theory (that's Aristotle, originally) is also difficult. I suspect that if you had someone who excelled in every virtue, they would probably come out Neutral Good, but it's by no means a clear thing.
It's amusing that this exercise is so helpful and clarifying to my understanding.
Edit: Oops! I forgot the Ethics of Care! With its emphasis on individual relationships and disdain for larger principle, it can probably best be described as Chaotic Good.
Cultural Relativism espouses True Neutrality, in its most guarded and nonjudgemental form.
Subjectivism and Emotivism are nearby, but I think they embrace meaninglessness enough to have slipped into Chaotic Neutral.
Divine Command is amoral; most of it depends on the alignment of the God in question. I suppose that it requires its adherents to behave in a Lawful Neutral manner, though, as does Natural Law.
Ethical Egoism is Neutral Evil, with almost textbook fidelity. (This is the only theory here considered which falls unquestionably under TSR's descriptions of evil.)
Utilitarianism, conversely, asks behaviour that is unquestionably Neutral Good - the consequences of each action weighed, and that choice with the best outcome taken. (Since this is often the alignment I assign myself, it's interesting that Utilitarianism makes me as uncomfortable as it does.)
Kantianism (what an awkward word) is Lawful Good. You could totally have a Paladin of Kant.
Social Contract Theory is hard; it might be Lawful Neutral, although it suggests that you ought to obey cultural standards from very egoistic motives. Still, that's probably closest.
Virtue Theory (that's Aristotle, originally) is also difficult. I suspect that if you had someone who excelled in every virtue, they would probably come out Neutral Good, but it's by no means a clear thing.
It's amusing that this exercise is so helpful and clarifying to my understanding.
Edit: Oops! I forgot the Ethics of Care! With its emphasis on individual relationships and disdain for larger principle, it can probably best be described as Chaotic Good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: [cola]
Date: 2005-04-02 01:41 pm (UTC)I posted this here because I was more ranting to my friend than at him. His entry sparked a response from me, so I put it here because it was related. I think the "to" rather than "at" was lost, here. Every bit of my reaction was generalized. I didn't mean any of it towards Garran specifically.
[cola]
Date: 2005-04-04 06:26 pm (UTC)