Are All LG Characters Really LE? A Discussion of Ethics in the Context of D&D

[Shiokara]

I just thought I'd start this for a bit of fun discussion. The subject line provides a fair enough summary of the argument, but I'll lay it out clearer here.

Have you ever met one of those people that insists their selfless actions or the selfless actions of others are actually selfish? They usually say that the only reason some people do good things for others is because afterward they can receive praise for those actions, or feel good about themselves knowing that they did a good thing. Thus, all altruistic actions become a means of self-gratification.

In the context of D&D the concept of altruism vs. selfishness is reflected by good vs. evil. In NWN a default good character has an 85 on the good meter. This has already been discussed extensively in another thread, but not in the terms of altruism vs. selfishness. Technically these characters would perform selfless acts 85% of the time and an occasional selfish act (maybe they smoke!) 15% of the time. But is this accurate? This discussion calls the existence, or legitimacy, of the 85% into question.

So what do you think? Does altruism exist? How does it play out in your own RP? Has your chaotic good mercenary slipped into an, "I'm going to get these items because I need them" or a, "What's in it for me" mindset? Do you ever find yourself thinking in the mind of your LG character how this may benefit you? Do you, yourself, feel good when your character does good things for other people? Why is this?

So I may as well get the ball rolling. I believe altruism exists. I think it is a logical fallacy, a kind of faulty cause and effect, to assume that just because I feel good after doing a selfless act that that means I did the selfless act because I knew it would make me feel good. This is not necessarily the case. The outcome of my feeling after the selfless act (or any act), in reality, is uncertain, and so to consider all actions selfish based upon the feeling one gets from performing them seems faulty to me.

So, what do you all think?

[lonnarin]

When they stand up after a quest and speak for the entire party, saying that nobody will recieve gold because it was a good deed done, it borders on theft.  You meet an NPC, he offers a reward to the group, the group does the deed with the reward in mind, then 2 out of 8 people vocally pronounce that the whole reward is null because it was a good deed is shennanigans.  I tell them the same thing every time... feel free to donate YOUR share of the gold if you wish, but don't steal MY share of the gold for your own charity cases.  That's like a lone dockworker stealing the entire payroll and giving it to an orphanage in his own name.

Altruism and charity are fine.  Just don't go trying to donate MY gold!

[Ravemore]

LOL... Lon read my mind.

[Shiokara]

When they stand up after a quest and speak for the entire party, saying that nobody will recieve gold because it was a good deed done, it borders on theft.  You meet an NPC, he offers a reward to the group, the group does the deed with the reward in mind, then 2 out of 8 people vocally pronounce that the whole reward is null because it was a good deed is shennanigans.  I tell them the same thing every time... feel free to donate YOUR share of the gold if you wish, but don't steal MY share of the gold for your own charity cases.  That's like a lone dockworker stealing the entire payroll and giving it to an orphanage in his own name.

Altruism and charity are fine.  Just don't go trying to donate MY gold!

Haha. Your responses always make my sense of humor smile. In this case I might argue that the character who believes he is being selfless is failing because he cannot even recognize the needs of those he is working with. He can't see past his own drive to charity and so he is not acting with the mindset of helping others so much as he is blindly acting in the way he thinks is right.

[lonnarin]

Altruism also many faceted.  One could be malevolent or benevolent, cruel or kind, greedy or sharing, vengeful or forgiving, cruel or kind.  And they can be any combination of these things.  Bjorn shares his wealth a lot, donates to causes, hands out free pie and ale daily.  But just ask the Grannoch spawn giants how nice he is and you'll see the cold-hearted side of him.  He'll go out of his way to help people learn to craft, but ask him for gold and he'll laugh in that beggars face.  Hence why he's neutral.

[lonnarin]

Haha. Your responses always make my sense of humor smile. In this case I might argue that the character who believes he is being selfless is failing because he cannot even recognize the needs of those he is working with. He can't see past his own drive to charity and so he is not acting with the mindset of helping others so much as he is blindly acting in the way he thinks is right.

Well, even moreso because he's seeking praise with YOUR gold.  And he chastises you for being greedy, when it's not like he's going to the bank and refunding you your portion out of his own coffers.  Everybody's more comfortable donating other people's money to "good" causes.  Just look at government.  Tax the people several billion dollars for a million dollar cause.

[Lance Stargazer]

As a player that has weigth in both plates of the balance, I think I have something to say, Of course for that we should define what would be acceptable to be called Altruism, Every character has goals on his own, Teh alignment show how they aproach those goals, and of course everyone aims for certain level of happiness, If anyone lack those goals and stop figthing for them, then they would stop figthing and even trying.

On that regard I thinkIt would depend on the mindset of the character, the very same action could be real multifaeted, just on what the character final goal for the said action would be.

The continual search for feeling good with the actions of the very character , should not be consider , because its a natural state, no matter what alignment we are refering, ITs a natural way of action in everyone, But what makes the diference is what part of that action is that fullfills the self joyment. There is where the diference resides, Obviously the characters are more than an alignment and each has difernet midsets, but in general way of speaking A good character would feel acomplished by the fact that the little girl was saved, for the girl itself. The Evil character would feel the very same for the fact that he will be recognized, and by that he could get something on his own, It opens the posibility to a reward or a future ally.

The same point of view could be applied to Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good, but in this cases are the methods that differ, not the aproach to the self fullfilment.

Just my two cents.

[cbnicholson]

Altruism by itself is simply a delayed gratification.  In terms of lawful good, the character isn't seeking a reward in the world the act is performed but good karma from his diety and subsequent rewards after all his/her deeds are done.  I tend to look at good actions this way - I do what I do because of who I am and who I want to be..not who the person benefiting from the action is. To me that's the definition of character.  I'm paraphrasing, but true good character is what you do when nobody is watching- in rl or otherwise.

[Zoogmunch]

I think altruism for the RP character has be doing good deeds because of the characters inherentgoodness and not because of any premeditation. The example here i give is ( oddly enough) one of how we judge murder in western society. If its thought about, or premeditated, then the murderer is punished strongly. If if not premediated then hes punished less. I think the other end of the spectrum ( he good end) works the same way. Premedidated good is acting good because you've evaluated the reward (I think there might possibly be a dark elf acting good at present but i'll find out later perhaps) and it serves your purpose. I would say the lawful good characters should be good instinctively whatever the result.
the Rofie cleric i play has had this. Going back to protect some plonker who didnt jnow when to stop and leave the giant caves. Ish went back to aid the guy and got smooshed. Good role play i thought but as the player I was mad as hell. I just knew Ish would do that. Its role play! dont think about it too much, just go with yer guts in play and analyse later. If you feel you cheated then maybe your alignment is wrong.  I may feel different when the last soul strand is up for grabs but then you make sure your careful where you go and who you go with.    just my ten penneth.

[Gulnyr]

A very rough and general breakdown of where a character fits on the moral axis can be expressed by who enters their mind and in what order:  

A Good character will consider others first - by reflex, without hesitation - and consider himself after everyone else is taken care of.  A Good character gives because others need, regardless of and often without any consideration for any potential personal hardship it may bring to give away whatever is donated.  

A Neutral character will look to himself and those close to his heart first, and will then consider others with whatever consideration he has left.  A Neutral character makes sure he's got what he and those close to him need, and then gives from whatever remains if it seems reasonable to do so or might bring a greater gain.

An Evil character will consider himself first, and then consider anyone close to his heart, and then consider himself again just to make sure he's covered.  An Evil character determines what would be best for him - keeping what he has now or donating for a potential payoff elsewhere, for example - and then acts on it.

There you go, rough and simplified, with a little flavor of altruism or egotism thrown in.  

Jennara fits into the Good section, and I try to make sure I'm in the right state of mind to act in a properly Good way when I RP her.  In a choice between getting something for herself or donating, Jennara has often gone with the donation.  That's part of why she doesn't have top-of-the-line gear; she wore the boots Ronus gave her well into the epic levels.  She doesn't like getting attention for doing things to help people because she doesn't feel like she's done anything special.  It's reasonable to reward and recognize people for doing special things, but doing what is right should be common, not special.  She's still embarrassed about the statue, and still thinks they could have made better use of the stone and the time, or at least made something to memorialize their own hard work (though it is well-made and she appreciates the craftsmanship and work that went into it).  She's not 100% selfless, of course; no one is, and the alignment numbers mean nothing.  She bought a house, for example, and that price as a donation instead would have gone a long way.  She certainly didn't have to buy a house, she just wanted one.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Hang on, so this more about the character's motives as the character interprets them, not how others view their actions, or vice versa?

[davidhoff]

I think it's kinda about both.  You can only control what your character does and why she does it.  Others will find good or evil in what you do no matter your intentions or the outcome of your actions.

[Gulnyr]

Hang on, so this more about the character's motives as the character interprets them, not how others view their actions, or vice versa?

Depends what you mean.  If you mean in regard to how characters view alignment, then "neither."  Alignment has nothing to do with what characters think.  It's a game mechanic that describes how characters generally behave as measured against a (kinda fuzzy) set of standards set down in the rules.  The Good and Evil of the alignment system don't exist in-character, at least not in as concrete a sense as we discuss them.

Within the framework of the alignment system, a character's motivations are as important as her actions in determining where she belongs on the Good-Evil axis.  As long as the motivations are reported accurately by the player, it doesn't matter what the character thinks about her own goodness or evilness.  What other characters or their players think is irrelevant to the subject character's alignment.  So I guess the answer is still "neither" in that case, too.  Huh.

Did you mean something else?

[Link092]

another thing to consider is the law and chaos factor...  Yes, while all the good vs. evil might be true, I am positive that a while a paladin of Toran might say that s/he doesn't want her(his) share and have it donated, I am also sure that your free-spirited minstrel might want that reward.

Also, as lonn was saying about donating everyone's gold, that may also be a conflict of interests. If some one who is rewarding you is barely scraping by, and they are giving you the last of what they have, it is reasonable for that LG character to say that they need it more than the adventurer's do, because they can't run off into teh Red Light Cavern's and loot the goblins of their coin... (harsh wording there, but that is what it basically is...)

So while your other participant's might argue, that is the beauty of it... because while there might be some "irratation" OOC, it is also a conflict between those characters and their interests....

[Shiokara]

I think altruism for the RP character has be doing good deeds because of the characters inherent goodness and not because of any premeditation. The example here i give is ( oddly enough) one of how we judge murder in western society. If its thought about, or premeditated, then the murderer is punished strongly. If if not premediated then hes punished less. I think the other end of the spectrum ( he good end) works the same way. Premedidated good is acting good because you've evaluated the reward (I think there might possibly be a dark elf acting good at present but i'll find out later perhaps) and it serves your purpose. I would say the lawful good characters should be good instinctively whatever the result.

I'd love to bring in another branch of ethics at this point as Zoogmunch touched on it here. Is the more ethically sound man the one who is tempted to act for himself, but overcomes this thought, or the man who instinctively does good acts?
One might say the instinctive one is better, but if there is no chance of him falling is that right?
The common example is this: Two men are in a grocery store and may either steal or pay for an item. One man thinks about stealing the item, but after some thought decides to pay for it. The other doesn't even think about it and pays for the item.
Does the second man even experience a moral challenge? He doesn't think about stealing. He to the situation at an unconscious level, so is it even a question of ethics?
The first man does experience a moral challenge. He has to think about whether or not to steal and weighs his options. Should we fault him more for merely having thought of the possibility to steal?

It's tempting to want to insert other facts here like, "Why did the first man decide not to steal? Was it because he was afraid of getting caught?" Let us say that he was not to eliminate this variable.

"Is the man rich or poor?" It's true, a rich man that steals seems like a much worse person than a poor man who may need the money more, but let's try to keep the economic statuses of the men out of this.

Is it better to experience a moral challenge and overcome it or not experience a challenge at all?

[Nehetsrev]

I would say that in your example the one who doesn't even think about stealing is one who has already faced that moral challenge and come to the point where it is no longer challenging for him. He knows what is right, and does it because he's made it part of his nature through consistantly practicing those values.
 
 Is the man who thinks about stealing and then chooses not to a worse man? No. But neither is he better. He just isn't as morally or ethically developed as his counterpart yet, but by making the conscious choice he's taking steps down that road, one day he'll get to the point where he doesn't think about it either if he continues on that road consistantly.
 
 Just my opinion on that particular argument.
 
 ----
 Edit - Another thought to add to this is that just because one man has no temptation to steal, it doesn't mean he doesn't have other areas of his life that he might be sorely tempted in daily.  He could be susceptible to lust, for instance, or envy.  Or he may even be judgemental of other's failings and self-righteous, thinking himself better than others because temptation to steal isn't an issue for him. He may be so corrupted by pride that he condemn's others without even thinking about it, even when it's not his place to judge them.

[Gulnyr]

Is the more ethically sound man...

...

Is it better to...

Is this an open philosophical question, or is it constrained by the concept of alignment?  If it's the latter, what do "ethically sound" and "better" mean?

[lonnarin]

Also, as lonn was saying about donating everyone's gold, that may also be a conflict of interests. If some one who is rewarding you is barely scraping by, and they are giving you the last of what they have, it is reasonable for that LG character to say that they need it more than the adventurer's do, because they can't run off into teh Red Light Cavern's and loot the goblins of their coin... (harsh wording there, but that is what it basically is...)

If the adventurers were really that better off, then the charitable donating Paladin can afford to take the money out of his own bank account and pay the heroes, so that the poor farmer doesn't need to pay out of his own pocket.  But they usually don't go that far, do they?  Just donate OTHER people's gold with no out-of-pocket expenses of their own.

[Shiokara]

Is this an open philosophical question, or is it constrained by the concept of alignment?  If it's the latter, what do "ethically sound" and "better" mean?

I was submitting it as the former--a tangent of the concept of alignment. Feel free to tackle it in whatever way you like. My usage is to suggest that one may be more 'good' than the other.

____

You make a valid point Nehetsrev, but you introduce other factors beyond what the original problem states. Let us say (for the sake of argument) that the man who doesn't think to steal has not made the choice before--he simply doesn't think to do it.

Similarly, what if this man does not exist outside of the context of the problem proposed? As such he could have no other temptations.

This may seem silly (a man who doesn't exist outside of a given problem? That's unrealistic and therefore worthless), but I am trying to direct focus to the base problem without considering outside circumstances. I was attempting to eliminate confounding variables by mentioning not to think about the man's economic status or motive for not stealing.

[Gulnyr]

If it is ethically wrong to steal, then considering stealing, even without actually stealing, would be more unethical than not considering stealing, so a "perfectly ethical" person who never considered stealing would be the "better" person according to the ethical system that declares stealing to be wrong.

By alignment mechanics, not considering stealing (and not stealing) is closer to Lawful than considering stealing (and also not stealing).

In either case, the perfect guy is more boring.  Interesting people have flaws.