Give me a clear definition for good and evil as you would use it when encountered with an alignment system

I agree with you.

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

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

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

Wait... people actually believe this?

WTH

>This is what the tea party actually belive

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

this

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

>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.

american education encourages people to consume in unhealthy ways

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

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.

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

>Not getting the joker this much

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.

>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.

Good: spooked
Evil: unspooked

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

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

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

One can be right wing and still support these.

Apples and oranges. Also no.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

This is actually pretty solid m8

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

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.

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

But that breaks the NAP

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.

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.

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.

>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

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.

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

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

History tells us this is the ultimate truth.

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

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.

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

objection

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

Not in america.

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

>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.

There is nothing inherently evil about right wing ideology.

>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?

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.

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

>all political references specifically mean America

>Evil
DnD

Hah.
Wait, this is a joke right?

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"

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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

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.

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

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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

>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

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

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

The libertarian retards always like to forget this part

I like this.

>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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

>alignment system
no pls

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

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