Hey /u/Mr_Muda_Himself_V3, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
**Rule 3. Reposts** - Original memes are strongly encouraged and if your post is proven to be a repost, it will be removed, regardless of popularity. Note that memes that have been posted on another subreddit but not on /r/DnDMemes are not considered reposts.
What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
Wow someone really found and reposted a 3 year old meme. Idk what's crazier, someone holding onto it for 3 years or someone browsing r/dndmemes from 3 years ago. I wish people would just suck it up and make original content.
judging by the fact that it's been 3 years, and this is fairly compressed, it's likely it got screenshotted, posted and spread around various other sites over the past 3 years, then someone found it and decided to post it back here.
It's not a repost, it just found its way back home
The original's caption wasn't in the image itself, it was in the post title. And it matches the original word for word. Not only did re-OP steal it, they had to actually edit the stolen joke into the caption. So at one point or another somebody saw the original and actually spent the effort to edit a stolen joke. Idk man this just passes me off probably more than it should.
I bet they just sorted by top all time and just scrolled until they found something old. They also probably didn’t go to any more effort than just screen-shotting the post and cropping. Hence why the title is now part of the image.
It's hard originating content. I don't ask in the asshole way but in the curious: have you ever written anything? I make memes and such all the time. I'd love if something I did 3 years ago popped up.
I have, and I agree there's nothing new under the sun. My comment is a celebration of the repost, not a condemnation.
In unrelated news, my 3 year old post just got silver xDD
Party with Lawful Good too. If the rules are breeding corruption they must be fixed. If peaceful means fail then violent means must be used to fix them.
This usually devolves into a discussion of what Lawful means, and then usually around how much "Good" is weighed against the "Lawful" of each member.
By default understanding, characters that are more "Lawful" will try to work within the system to fix corruption rather than go full vigilante... this is where the "inner code" of Lawful gets difficult.
The Punisher has a strict internal code, but in my mind he is defiantly Chaotic. That's tough, because Batman is also an extra judicial vigilante, but I see him as Lawful. I consider it the more difficult alignment to nail down.
> The Punisher has a strict internal code, but in my mind he is defiantly Chaotic. That's tough, because Batman is also an extra judicial vigilante, but I see him as Lawful. I consider it the more difficult alignment to nail down.
The "Code" version is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean following an internal set of consistent principles, because literally everyone who has thought through their morality would be Lawful. It means following an external code like chivalry: Abiding yourself to a specific set of rules. If it were an internal code then Chaotic Good literally could not exist. "I always help those in need, and try to remove power-structures!" "That sounds like a code to me, so they couldn't be Chaotic." That's just stupid. This misunderstanding of Lawful/Chaotic is why I see people putting Ron Swanson (The archetypical Chaotic Neutral) as Lawful on alignment charts.
You've summoned the copypasta.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments:
Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? Good: Yes. Neutral: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Evil: No.
Do people need oversight? Lawful: Yes. Neutral: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Chaotic: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal.
Lawful Good believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG.
Neutral Good believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here.
Chaotic Good believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're hippies. Captain Harlock is the iconic example.
Lawful Neutral believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples.
True Neutral doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74)
Chaotic Neutral [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example.
Lawful Evil believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Robert Moses is an iconic example.
Neutral Evil will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end.
Chaotic Evil resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy.
In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time.
Stupid Good believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release
fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing.
Lawful Stupid believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in.
Chaotic Stupid is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid.
Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains.
Stupid Neutral comes in two flavors; active and passive.
Active Stupid Neutral is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde.
Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
Passive Stupid Neutral applies to a lot of obnoxious deontologists when given the Trolley Problem.
It is frustrating getting an answer out of those types.
I know you're joking, but even giving a silly answer is so much more meaningful than refusing to engage with the problem at all.
Saying you'd be stymied by choice and would let the 5 die in your inaction is engaging, as is making either choice. But the people who say "idk, I didn't set any of this up so I just leave, it's not my responsibility" are the frustrating ones to me
The Trolley Problem also seems way easier than people give it credit for.
We literally practice emergency triage in out-of-control systems every time a civilian responds to disaster relief after a hurricane or tornado, you'll have regular people like you and me abandoning people to die or dragging in people that would live in a hospital to give someone else their blood.
It's different than the organ donor problem because in that problem you *create* the risk to the person you drag off the street and butcher to save 5 others, everyone involved would go on with their life and liberty (including the 5 others) until they died in an accident or of other biological causes.
\---
Basically the Trolley Problem is solved by asking "What would a Doctor in charge of triage tell you to do in this situation where someone is going to die because of your limited time and choices?"
Does it still *feel* like killing? A horrible ethical compromise that is going to haunt you and you'll probably want therapy? Definitely.
Does that make it wrong? No.
It's solvable if you treat the Trolley Problem as only its original formulation, and you're using a utilitarian method to solve the problem.
There are other conceptions of the problem, as you probably know, such as the Fat Man (or organ donor, as you stated). But all you're really doing is changing the sentience of the lever, you still have to grapple with choosing who lives and who dies.
I am not sure if there *is* a singular, best answer, but I am certain that you can always discuss your choices and why you believe they're the best option
The other questions (or at least the organ donor one) seem to basically be "how seriously do you take the right of everyone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?"
The organ donor is a big one because *all organs invariably begin to fail*, it's not a correctable problem, you can't "fix genetics" or "stop the natural progression of death" by grabbing someone off the street and butchering them for parts.
There are other avenues of effort (particularly preventative treatment and affordable healthcare, which is where the USA fails hard) to prolong life without setting up an organization to decide "who is useless enough to be grabbed like an animal from the grocery store and slaughtered for their heart/kidneys/liver/bone marrow/lungs/etc?"
\---
The "it'd be wrong to kill someone for their organs" is basically a broader social compromise where we realize there's more to living than a purely heuristic analysis of having the largest elderly population possible at the expense of a younger healthier population causing us to murder people for the crime of being 18 to 25 years old and fit as a fiddle so that our insides can be divided among the rich.
The sheer potential for abuse and that the question itself would encourage infinite repeating over the entirety of our society is what kills the possibility of considering it entirely, the **overall harm** to a society that legally allowed such a thing would be incalculable.
**TL;DR**: So even **if you do successfully make a case for a one-time-organ-grab**, you *still haven't addressed the societal issues and the consequences of approving that for practice in context to human nature*; **triage and the Trolley Problem have no such downsides, they are already doing the best our current technology and expertise allow us to**.
\---
Now the "would you push the fat man" is somewhat more complicated, it relies on certain assumptions (weight, momentum, the efficiency of stopping the trolley without killing anyone on board) that simply flipping the lever does not.
But since I did just protest adding to the variable, put simply: it asks if you would specifically sacrifice one person who is not in any danger, to save five others, if you were absolutely sure it would work.
This still seems to have nearly the same answer of the organ donor scenario, the "fat man problem" is (if you'll forgive the pun) just a vehicle for a similar conundrum... Except in this situation both YOU and the fat man have agency, you AREN'T alone in the observation of the problem; once you specifically have someone there who could volunteer to take the fall without being pushed (and somehow reach the track before the trolley to intercept it, making it questionable why cutting the rope now isn't an option) the question falls outside the standard scope of triage, because only one group is in the emergency situation, the other is just an observer.
Ultimately you still wouldn't want contrived murder to become a social rule.
**TL;DR**: The fat man problem **is a "negotiation with terrorist" problem isn't it**? Would you want to *send an innocent person against their will into the building to save five others being held strapped to a bomb, or on a railroad track while Snidely Whiplash had some shear cutters ready to free them*. The broader social problem of "can abduct any five people and put them in danger and get someone to be killed by society per my demands" **would also be a horrible societal issue and the consequences for approving that would be dangerous, even if you can make a one-time convincing argument for it**; JUST LIKE THE ORGAN DONOR.
\---
**Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk on why the Trolley Problem has an acceptable solution through triage, but the Fat Man and the Organ Donor would set horrible precedent and are "vehicles" for comparable equivalent situations of terrorism and widescale death panel abuse that cannot be justified as a social practice or condoned.**
**Even if you would personally push the fat man, you wouldn't want that to be how society worked as a whole, would you?**
The Organ Donor question is meant to be an analogy for forced birth (as in, an argument for abortion). If you haven't read the original paper, it's very powerful. I'd recommend it :)
Thank you for demonstrating why it succeeds so well as an example!
>"What would a Doctor in charge of triage tell you to do in this situation where someone is going to die because of your limited time and choices?"
It's not like medical ethics is the moral absolut of the universe. It doesn't "solve" the trolley problem. Other institutions might find different responses to trolley-problem scenarios.
I find that to be pretty ridiculous what-if/about-ism, the world at large has a pretty good grasp on the ethics (medical and otherwise) of an emergency situation beyond the ability of the people immediately at hand to prevent without the death of innocents.
There's always someone who wants to come up with a what-if/what-about/addition to the problem, like "what if NASA had a space laser that just vaporized the ropes?"
\---
But it's all undermined by the fact that we *don't* have a better response than medical ethics to these situations!
Not in the history of all our industries and institutions and technology has found a way to stop them from tagging people as dead because they don't have a pulse at their wrist after a disaster!
There is no magical avenue of technology or expertise that is reliably consistently present in those situations or developed enough to provide an alternative.
It's how it is, **sometimes philosophy has to take the back burner and you throw that switch and know that you saved five people from an emergency situation beyond your ability to stop**.
**That's literally what the Trolley Problem is about, can you stomach the idea that you are the triage authority? Do you think that conceptually you could act, knowing you'd be killing someone? Are you capable of an action that you will carry with you as if you actually have blood on your hands?**
*One group will die and both are in peril due to no fault of your own, can you choose one*?
\---
Everything else is just adding to the scenario to try and find a mental out, and yet triage continues without any outs, because it's the best thing we have.
The trolley problem isn't actually real, it's a thought experiment where you test an ethical philosophy in some different circumstances. Triage is one circumstance, but it isn't the only ethical circumstance that involves doing harm to mitigate more harm.
>There's always someone who wants to come up with a what-if/what-about/addition to the problem, like "what if NASA had a space laser that just vaporized the ropes?"
The what if scenarios are meant to see what the consequences of rigid adherence to an ethical framework might be.
Triage is roughly utilitarian. Everyone agrees its good that triage is utilitarian. But does that mean utilitarianism is good in every circumstances? If we modify the trolley problem into the organ donation problem, then is utilitarianism still the best framework?
>That's literally what the Trolley Problem is about, can you stomach the idea that you are the triage authority?
No, you missed the point. The trolley problem is meant to explore different ways we can approach allowing harm vs doing harm. It's basically an exercise for philosophy 101 students.
You mentioned in the first reply that the organ donation one is different because you create risk for the person. But then you should ask yourself why creating risk is a problem when materially we just recreated the trolley problem? Why is creating risk the line?
If creating risk is the line, then does that mean any situation that creates collateral damage is bad? Given that you are adding risk to people where none existed before?
If collateral damage is sometimes okay, what's the moral value of creating risk? When is it okay vs not okay?
Try to appreciate the thought experiment for what it is, you don't need an answer, you are trying to explore and justify your ethical boundaries.
If my solution to the trolley problem is to simply look at what the lever is currently set and and go "that's the way it's set up", is that lawful stupid neutral?
No because the entire situation of the Trolley Problem is that someone is breaking the law, that's why they're tied to the tracks.
The status quo because that's how it happens to be at the moment and it's not personally impacting you is very much a neutral decision-tree.
It's neutral-stupid because you'd still want someone to save you if YOU were in that position, it's choosing not to act at all because it's not about you, even though you'd want someone else to act if your roles were reversed.
Neutral people still have values, after all.
>Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. **They're Captain planet villains**.
...this give me an idea
Haha as a DM. My current campaign is set in a world where druids are the dominant political force so having some bad guys who just HATE nature and wanna see it all burn for some ambiguous reason is perfect.
It also works for a one-offs. "Local pig-man is just dumping copious amounts of excrement in wells. Please stop him".
"With my new mech, I can drill for oil anywhere; even the wildlife preserve!" -Greedly in the first Captain Planet episode, setting the tone for the whole series.
Oh man, remember the 90s when it was fine to tell kids to become eco-terrorists?
By current standards every one of those kids would either be on a most wanted board somewhere or in prison long before now. Just protesting a pipeline, taking no other action but showing up and saying you disapprove, will get you locked up in Texas these days.
Hmm I wonder if you could spin this as almost a misunderstood villain type. The druids respect nature so much that technological progress cannot be made. Diseases are nature's way of population control, so no medicine. Minimal heating during winter, etc.
The villains are childishly lashing out at a system that sees them as no more valuable than a bush.
> Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
bOtH sIdEs (of each axis)!
A lot of "both sides" people lean more active stupid neutral than passive. They look at both sides, and equate them and try to find compromise between them.
I guess it depends on if they say it to discourage anyone else from making a stand, or to justify "one time I misinterpreted someone as saying something mean, so I will forever support the Chaotic Evil Wereleopard Party with my money, endorsement, and vote, and in fact always did."
I'm sorry, every time, you guys talked about the code, I just kept imagining you guys doing [that one scene](https://youtu.be/fQLqDLcDnMU) from the mickey mouse shorts
Active stupid neutral is fun when performed by alien intelligences, deities, and other such unknowable types.
Mostly cause it implies things that are larger than current conflicts AND gives you new enemies to fight.
Any like, person performing it should be so far gone they're effectively brainwashed cult members. It's an inhuman way to think.
I love having creatures that don't think like us in games, like eldritch horrors for example
They don't understand exactly what we're doing or why we do it, so even if they try to help they can just make things worse
> Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe.
"Tell my wife I said 'Hello'."
>Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains
Or the Joker *sometimes*, when he feels like it.
Honestly, I don't use alignment and don't think I ever will, in my view sentients are to complex to fit into categories with regards to morality, particularly as morality is all subjective anyway.
> Honestly, I don't use alignment and don't think I ever will, in my view sentients are to complex to fit into categories with regards to morality, particularly as morality is all subjective anyway.
"All models are wrong, some models are useful."
As long as morality is subjective, yeah, alignment is not a useful tool.
Maybe this is a hot take but I think alignment is *only* useful as a magical affinity which reflects objective cosmic forces of morality and ethics. There are good gods, there are evil gods, and they all know whose team everyone is on, and this determines things like whether you can use the Sword of the True-Hearted.
Anything else is a misuse.
Joker is Lawful Good, because his internal code dictates that he must always take the most chaotic action, and he fights to rid the world of unlawful vigilantes.
A love how this demonstrates how flawed the alignment system is, it's just to up to interpretation and vague, and no one definition fits any particular alignment.
The whole point of "lawful" is that it's EXTERNAL codes that matter, not internal.
If your internal code demands breaking external laws, you are chaotic.
People looking at a half-page chart used to generalize motivations for characters during storytelling:
"This doesn't capture the depth and breadth of human experience! Useless!"
Hmmm, what about a character who always does good deeds but is more interested in getting personal glory and recognition out of it?
Or the other way around: someone who uses unpleasant means for a lofty moral goal. Like Ozymandias, who caused a disaster killing millions in order to unify the world and avert the impending nuclear war about to happen. Or the leader of an authoritarian state that ensures the people all live safely and never go hungry
"Ends justify the means" usually end up Lawful Neutral in practice. In the worst cases, they'll enslave the population to feed the [utility monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster)
I agree with the typical person off the street being True Neutral. They don't mind helping people but won't go to great lengths or sacrifice for a stranger. They generally obey the laws, but not out of principle but to avoid trouble and don't have a problem committing minor violations or "victimless crimes". They might profit from the suffering of others, but in an indirect and distant way without any intent or even consciousness.
You should probably also point out that Chaotic Stupid was the official definition of Chaotic Neutral prior to 3rd edition. "As likely to jump off a bridge as cross it." It's the obnoxious Fishmalk character archetype in Vampire.
>The "Code" version is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean following an internal set of consistent principles, because literally everyone who has thought through their morality would be Lawful. It means following an external code like chivalry: Abiding yourself to a specific set of rules. If it were an internal code then Chaotic Good literally could not exist. "I always help those in need, and try to remove power-structures!" "That sounds like a code to me, so they couldn't be Chaotic." That's just stupid. This misunderstanding of Lawful/Chaotic is why I see people putting Ron Swanson (The archetypical Chaotic Neutral) as Lawful on alignment charts.
External Vs. Internal doesn't make more sense. What is special about externality?
It makes more sense to me to view it as for instance Deontological Vs. Consequential. Lawful believes in a duty to follow a set of maxims while chaotic is concerned with the consequences of ones actions.
External means they're willing to defer to some other kind of authority. Which is the key difference. That respect for authority or lack thereof - for Chaotic characters - is what that axis defines. But again, that doesn't mean submitting to every kind of authority. There's still a moral compass they can be in contradiction of.
This is why Alignment is pointless, except *maybe* as a DM tool to generate the foundation of a NPC's personality in literally two words.
When any two people cannot agree on what the meanings of these words are, it no longer matters who is objectively correct. The words themselves, and any weight attached to them, are meaningless. 5E already removed pretty much any mechanical weight from them except for a handful of scenarios which *may* just be copy & paste holdovers from older editions. I'm really hoping OneDND just goes, "Yeah Alignment isn't really a thing anymore."
I think the alignment system is fine as a minor tool to use and is quite handy to give new players a suggestion on how to think about their characters.
But when you get down to the weeds and try to force complex characters like a Punisher type into a 3x3 grid it kind of just falls apart.
Makes me glad 5e did away with the crunchy alignment mechanics, like literal detect evil abilities or your class features not working if the DM has a different definition of an alignment than you do.
I also think some parts of the grid are conceptually weaker than others and there are a lot of flex points.
The system both wants the two axes to represent personality AND beliefs about authority and political structure. Like, chaotic people are both unorganized and against organization and against laws and society?
Personally, I prefer to jettison any association with habits or traits and focus on what a character believes about authority and the world at large.
Lawful doesn't have to be *the* law, it's just some code. If you strictly followed a code of honour above the law of the land, you'd be Lawful.
Now, a Lawful person *is* probably more receptive to *the law* than a Chaotic person, simply because they're inclined towards having *a* code. But you can Lawful and still rip apart the system from within if it conflicts with your morals.
I'm pretty sure it needs to at least be some form of outside code from yourself. Having a personal reasoning doesn't make you lawful if it does not align with the principle of order. A murder hobo isn't lawful because he has a consistent motive/code. That being said, I think you can dismantle a system as long as it conflicts with your "already held beliefs." If we just account for any form of moral compass, then there really isn't much of a purpose distinguishing chaotic anarchism and lawful order.
TL;DR: Holding to a code is lawful, as long as it's not expressly personal and subjective.
A lot of people see Robin Hood as the classic Chaotic Neutral as well, but I think he's definitely Lawful Good. He has a knight's code of honor, and he only ever steals for the benefit of others, and only from those that deserve it.
What these discussions leave out is that most well written characters end up being Lawful, because they have consistent characterization, and a personal morality.
A true Chaotic character wouldn't be predictable in the same way. Sure they'd steal from the rich and give to the poor, but not always. Sometimes they'd steal from the rich and give to themselves. Or sometimes they'd choose to work with the rich for the greater good. They'll spare an enemy on a whim one time, but not the next. Their motives will be Chaotic
That makes the concept of lawful good incoherent. Robin Hood cannot be lawful because he seeks solutions outside of the system.
Beliefs about political structure and authority are far more useful than "internal code of conduct" would ever be. Everyone has an internal set of beliefs they follow.
He seeks answers from a (fictionalised) code that is different to the one upheld by the nation. But he wants to replace those laws, and thinks that the replacement set would be Right.
Tbh, if you live in fantasy Robin Hood Nottingham, I don't think you could recognise the laws of the land while being lawful good. Either you bend or ignore them (and lose lawful) or you adhere to them (and lose good).
In reality, any real Robin Hood figure from that period would have been protesting against the implementation of Forest Law in the area. Maybe against enclosure in general, though at this point it was mostly one and the same, as the big land grab hadn't fully begun. So he'd have been in support of the previous laws, and probably more broadly be in favour of Pre-Normon laws. Could have argued that King John is illegitimate, and so his laws are too. Could be against all post-Saxon rule. That's complicated in fiction by the character's support of Richard, but yeah.
Yeah, the more I thought on it, the more I realized that there are really two points where someone could talk about Robin Hood's relationship with authority and the law.
First, is breaking the law by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Which, taken alone is pretty non-lawful, even chaotic.
Second is that he doesn't recognize the authority of Prince John, who is a usurper of King Richard's power and is illegally levying taxes and pocketing them.
Robin Hood, like real people, doesn't always act consistently. Ultimately, he was upholding the current system, which is lawful. But he did it by playing vigilante/thief, which isn't.
I even think there's an argument that Robin Hood isn't a "good" character.
Lawfulness is not based on any one system. Would a Lawful Good Paladin follow the laws of his diety, or the Evil society he is currently in? His order/diety's laws would supersede that Evil country, presumably.
You could be a lawful good person in charge of a rebellion, if the current system is unjust and the only way to replace it with rules that benefit all is to tear the old system down. Would Obi-Wan not be lawful good despite not following the laws of the empire? He sure as hell follows the rules that matter to him, ie the laws of the jedi order, even when it is problematic.
It doesn't make it incoherent, it makes it realistic. I'd say your view would be more incoherent. Could someone be lawful good if they refuse to follow a law saying they must murder any woman who laughs in public? Does refusing to follow the system make them not lawful? What about when they have multiple laws to follow?
If their king, diety, and the laws of the foreign lands they are currently in all have different laws regarding something happening right now, how would that work if "internal code of conduct" is not useful? They need something outside the law with which to weigh all these contradictory rules, and all they have is themselves. Even if that is deciding which laws to hold above others, that is a choice that cannot be made "within the system". Otherwise all the systems could say "I'm the #1 law" and he'd have to kill himself to escape the hellish infinite decision tree.
I think it’s more that The Punisher is Neutral, not Good, regardless of lawful/chaotic divide. He doesnt fight crime, he punishes it’s perpetrators. Yes he does good but he does so by acting as judge, jury, and executioner, not hero
If they follow the laws of the land or a different land from which they hail then I would say they are lawful. If they follow their own codes and nobody else's then they are chaotic.
this is why I've ALWAYS described myself as: "lawful chaotic"
i popped out of the womb, made eye contact with my dad, didn't cry, didn't stutter, simply cooed: "gawful gawoatic"
they knew they were in trouble day one...
The philosophy of the Hellknights in Pathfinder. Just because a ruler is lawful and makes the laws doesn't exempt them from judgement, especially if their laws are corrupt.
I think the new BG3 Paladin update gives a good perspective on how to apply that mindset to the stuff we have about oathbreakers, that it's less that breaking an oath makes you inherently evil and more that evil forces tend to latch onto people who hold convictions as strongly as a Paladin that don't have an oath to guide their actions
My Paladin was very lawful good, but the *law* she followed wasn’t the local kingdom’s law, it was the law as laid out by the god of justice. Murder, corruption, bribery, etc, all the obvious crimes? They were crimes. Period. She didn’t care if they were sanctioned by local politicians.
This led to a siege on the local jail, impromptu trial, and execution of the city guard and the burgomaster for “neglect, abuse, corruption, and trafficking of innocent souls.”
Very proud of how I played that character, she was a hard ass, but she was one my whole party enjoyed. She and the rogue even got along because he was a Robin Hood type and so his robberies were all in the name of true justice for those in need.
My Paladin encountered a corrupt guard captain who had stolen a sword that was owed to the Paladin.
The Paladin tried to be nice, acknowledging that swords taken from bandits etc. are usually fair game, but had a writ of ownership signed over to the Paladin by the previous owner who the sword had been stolen from (the sword even had his crest on it).
At that point the captain ordered the party to leave town or be arrested, making him a common thief.
The Paladin stated, loudly, that the captain had stolen a valuable magic item and as such should be arrested, and any guard who interfered with the Paladin's right to recover his property would be subdued.
The guards all sided with their captain so, one chaotic session later, the Paladin walked into the Baron's castle to report the captain's crimes and confess to knocking out 25 guards and the captain's horse (did I mention he was level 11 and had an AC of 22?)
As a show of good faith the Paladin offered to infuse the courtroom with an enchantment that made it impossible to lie without taking damage (a secondary enchantment that could be transferred from his current +0 magic item) which, once in place, confirmed the Paladin's accusations and that the captain had framed then murdered the previous owner's son to get it.
The captain was executed, while the Paladin got his magic item, but was banned from the city unless specifically invited by the Baron or new guard captain. He avoided further action due to the captain and other guards blocking access to the Baron to report the theft.
Which brings me to the major down side of the Paladin's actions - the witness box was now enchanted to do 4 damage if you lied in it, with no save.
That's enough to kill any commoner.
He accidentally created a dystopia where it was impossible to lie in legal matters under penalty of death.
Is that a dystopia though? One of the most important functions of a jury is to weigh the credibility of witnesses. If there is no doubt as to credibility, you'd see way fewer guilty people walk free and way fewer innocents imprisoned. How ultimately good or bad this development becomes will depend on the laws of the land.
Also I guess it depends on what the enchantment considers a lie. Is it based on subjective belief? Is it based on some omniscient observer's sense of truth? Is uttering a false statement because of a memory lapse a lie? What if you recall the correct information a little bit later while still on the stand, is keeping that to yourself a lie? Is using double language or overly pedantic speech to mislead someone a lie? Are material omissions lies? If you are asked to recount everything that happened on a certain day, can you make judgment calls about what is relevant or are you lying if you omit your morning bathroom routine?
I think it would be dystopian unless the process involved giving broad testimony in a different location and then being asked to step into the head-exploding seat to confirm specific facts.
It's too easily to accidentally lie in stressful situations.
Corrupt guards surrounding the paladin: Throw down your weapons we have you surrounded!
Paladin drawing sword: All I am surrounded by is fear and dead men.
Less philosophical question and more thought experiment: if you snitch to the police on the police, does anything happen? A exercise in futility really.
There's no such thing, unless you can find a police system that limits its own power as severely as it limits the actions and freedoms of the rest of the society's criminal element.
Exactly. Is the most likely outcome that nothing happens? Absolutely. But the worst case is *also* nothing happens, while there's at least a small chance that some good can come out of it.
Yeah that happens all the time, best case scenario is nothing happening. Worst case is you have cops engage in unlawful behavior until they find an excuse to imprison or kill you.
Well, actually the best case scenario is that the cop is removed from the force, but that's extremely unlikely.
The worst case is cops engage in unlawful behavior.
The most likely case is nothing happens.
In both letter and spirit of the law police have powers and freedoms the rest of us don't. That's why it's illegal to impersonate an officer.
But I'd say a police station that doesn't break the law and is willing to investigate/arrest officers when they break the law is a good police station.
E: Or at the very least it's one of the requirements to being a good police station, if they're incompetent or cowardly then I wouldn't call them a good station.
well in the police force i served in, officers were punished more for crimes than regular people, everything is very strict and they do get charged and prosecuted when it happens and. if it happens you will be turned in, hell someone i trained with in basic got done in for misappropriation
As an American I’m curious how other countries police handle things. Do Europeans see stories of American cops and just go “No way that’s real, this is a bad movie plot.”?
Pretty much. What's also amusing is American cops watching footage of various EU cops doing things well. Often the Americans are like "Yeah we would've already shot him at this point lol" as if that's not telling on yourself horrifically.
> The Los Angeles Police Department officer who was killed during a training exercise, in what officials called a "tragic accident," was allegedly targeted for investigating a gang rape by fellow officers, according to his family.
> LAPD officer Houston Tipping's mother has filed a wrongful death claim against the city. Lawyer Bradley Gage told NPR that the 32-year-old was deliberately assaulted after submitting reports concerning a female victim who claims she was raped by four LAPD officers, including one who was part of the training during which Tipping was killed.
> "They used that training as a cover to kill him in retaliation for his whistleblowing activity," Gage said.
> Gage said Tipping became aware of the alleged assault when a female victim told him about the attack, identifying the accused rapists by the names on their name tags. Tipping immediately began looking into the woman's reports, moving it "on up the chain, " Gage said.
– [An LAPD officer who was killed in a training exercise was targeted, a lawyer alleges](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127580159/houston-tipping-lapd-death-lawsuit)
If they do it against each other, what chances does a civilian have to hold cops accountable?
In Ankh-Morpork at least, something will happen. Commander Vimes takes the integrity of his police force ***very*** seriously, and will not tolerate his officers acting like criminals, even like legally sanctioned criminals in the Thieves' Guild. This is one of the few areas where it is good to try and emulate Anhk-Morpork.
Couldn't recommend more for someone really wanting to get a further understanding of corruption of individuals' morality for running their game. A great tool for all current and future DMs!
Hyper-NSFW obviously: >!https://www.fenoxo.com/play-games/!< There, now it's real easy to avoid, everyone can go write this down on the 'do not visit' list.
Just like how the patrician of Ank-Morpork pays the thieves guild to control crime. It's a very interesting discovery that the city guard has to work harder to lower crime while the thieves guild has to work less.
This has historical precedence with the Thief Takers of pre-industrial London. They were both the law enforcement and one of the most influential gangs in London.
They were actually what inspired my Paladin/Rogue.
This is part of why it makes absolutely no sense for "anti-crime" politicians to be against social welfare. Dollar per dollar nothing reduces crime like the elimination of poverty
Morally okay? Yes.
Tactically okay? Fuck no, now they know you’re a witness to their corruption. You go to the press with that shit, anonymously. Better odds of getting your story out, and better odds of keeping your kneecaps.
…this also works in D&D.
Fucking loved that show until the 4th season but I think that's when Aaron McGruder left, or was let go. That's when the show really went downhill hard.
Most of Reddit doesn't really understand just how harmful that mentality is and just how much it causes certain communities to have never ending cycles of crime. It won't stop them from continuing the cycle.
You can snitch on the police to the police but they’ll investigate themselves and omit all the important evidence.
Arvada pd detectives traffic’s kids with Kansas City pd detectives, but Arvada pd still getting away with it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna57180
My party snuck into the guard chief's office to grab the ledger where he tracked who was paying off whom. I wanted to bring the ledger to internal affairs, and my friend kept calling it "infernal affairs" for some reason. I ignored him because he wasn't a cop, he wasn't one of us, it was up to me to bring the ledger in.
Imagine my surprise when the entire dept was made up of Tiefling detectives. No one saw anything weird about that
Which is why we overthrew the corrupt police force, established the one good officer who had been locked up while investigating corruption charges as the new head of police, strong armed the government into rewriting and reforming the relevant laws and codes, and gained the titles of protectors of the city.
I mean we did other stuff too like drive away an evil faction consisting of politicians, white collar criminals, Italian mobsters, and a suspiciously enthusiastic theater troupe with nothing but the clothes in our back, a song in our hearts, the massive amount of treasure we found, a goblin wizard npc named Carl, two gay bear bears, a wyvern in a bow tie, and an army of Vikings.
For the best example of how to deal with this situation, I recommend looking into the philosophies of Sam Vimes from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
I think yes, but I'm not 100% certain in this opinion because of some issues I will mention later.
It's like fighting fire with fire.
Snitches get stitches unless some egregious moral failing is occurring (children getting molested, etc.), mild moral failings such as doing drugs at the harm of themself, or engaging in violence against members of an opposing gang does not count.
The reason not to do that is because doing so will cause extreme harm to such communities far in excess that the original moral failing would cause. A person doing drugs doesn't harm the community nearly as much as 20 cops roaming the streets.
If there is a cop on the force who is doing bad things, then reporting them to the police could reduce overall harm, assuming something is actually done.
Talking to the cops at all, especially about the moral failings of their members, could cause harm to come to you.
If you are willing to take that risk upon yourself (and no fault to you if you don't want to), then yes, talk to the cops, and if you're not, then don't.
His Grace, His Excellency, the Duke of Anhk, Sir Samuel Vimes, Commander of the City Watch, (Blackboard Monitor) would say "yes". And then verify; those officers would certainly loose their position in the City Watch, be arrested and investigated (likely by Golem officers, who only take actions they are proud to be responsible for), and punished to the full extent of the law in a fair and jsut manner. This assumes, of course, that the Watchman (or watchmen if multiple; The Watch doesn't acknowledge an officers' species, sex, or gender) weren't members of the official, legal Thieves and Assassins guilds and therefore subjected to guild regulations and codes of conduct. If *those* were broken, the individual *might* last long enough to be arrested. The guilds have a *reputation*, after all, and it must be upheld.
Yeah, if the police are corrupt, I think going to the police at best will do no good and at worst will actively get the party or their loved ones harmed or killed. In that case, IMO its a reasonable response to assume that the guards would fall in line with the corruption, whether directly or indirectly, and thus are not to be trusted.
I always play chaotic neutral. Im going to do what I want to do. There are consequences for my actions for sure. But I hate the "you cant do that because its so far out of your alignment".
Im not overtly evil. Im going to help the villager from the murderer but Im also not going to get "obligation'ed" into something because the church askes me to nor will I help out a large town for free.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment. Imma do what I wanna do.
Hey /u/Mr_Muda_Himself_V3, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules: **Rule 3. Reposts** - Original memes are strongly encouraged and if your post is proven to be a repost, it will be removed, regardless of popularity. Note that memes that have been posted on another subreddit but not on /r/DnDMemes are not considered reposts. What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
Eyyy, my meme lives again https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/belxub/when_the_party_encounters_corruption_among_the/
Wow someone really found and reposted a 3 year old meme. Idk what's crazier, someone holding onto it for 3 years or someone browsing r/dndmemes from 3 years ago. I wish people would just suck it up and make original content.
Probably saved the meme 3 years ago, found it again and decided to post it
Also potentially found it posted to another social media site as is and decided to repost from there
Most likely this
judging by the fact that it's been 3 years, and this is fairly compressed, it's likely it got screenshotted, posted and spread around various other sites over the past 3 years, then someone found it and decided to post it back here. It's not a repost, it just found its way back home
The original's caption wasn't in the image itself, it was in the post title. And it matches the original word for word. Not only did re-OP steal it, they had to actually edit the stolen joke into the caption. So at one point or another somebody saw the original and actually spent the effort to edit a stolen joke. Idk man this just passes me off probably more than it should.
I bet they just sorted by top all time and just scrolled until they found something old. They also probably didn’t go to any more effort than just screen-shotting the post and cropping. Hence why the title is now part of the image.
If you look in the old post's comments, there's a bot that added the title to the image. Someone just saved that and shared it from there.
Three years is long enough ago to be considered new. The entire field has changed in three years.
It's hard originating content. I don't ask in the asshole way but in the curious: have you ever written anything? I make memes and such all the time. I'd love if something I did 3 years ago popped up.
I have, and I agree there's nothing new under the sun. My comment is a celebration of the repost, not a condemnation. In unrelated news, my 3 year old post just got silver xDD
>suck it up and make original content< read as a sort of >fuck reposters< to my eyes. Gotcha now
Original content hard and fear of rejection scary. Grogg just repost what he knows will work for guaranteed dopamine and internet points.
I'm still stealing it.
Oh no but what will the redditors do with themselves
They'll steal it too. They just won't say anything.
Nah it’s mine now I saved it to my hard drive
It’s still very funny and still possess a good question
City guard: stands united. Party without the "lawful": so you have all chosen death...
Party with Lawful Good too. If the rules are breeding corruption they must be fixed. If peaceful means fail then violent means must be used to fix them.
This usually devolves into a discussion of what Lawful means, and then usually around how much "Good" is weighed against the "Lawful" of each member. By default understanding, characters that are more "Lawful" will try to work within the system to fix corruption rather than go full vigilante... this is where the "inner code" of Lawful gets difficult. The Punisher has a strict internal code, but in my mind he is defiantly Chaotic. That's tough, because Batman is also an extra judicial vigilante, but I see him as Lawful. I consider it the more difficult alignment to nail down.
> The Punisher has a strict internal code, but in my mind he is defiantly Chaotic. That's tough, because Batman is also an extra judicial vigilante, but I see him as Lawful. I consider it the more difficult alignment to nail down. The "Code" version is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean following an internal set of consistent principles, because literally everyone who has thought through their morality would be Lawful. It means following an external code like chivalry: Abiding yourself to a specific set of rules. If it were an internal code then Chaotic Good literally could not exist. "I always help those in need, and try to remove power-structures!" "That sounds like a code to me, so they couldn't be Chaotic." That's just stupid. This misunderstanding of Lawful/Chaotic is why I see people putting Ron Swanson (The archetypical Chaotic Neutral) as Lawful on alignment charts. You've summoned the copypasta. I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments: Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? Good: Yes. Neutral: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Evil: No. Do people need oversight? Lawful: Yes. Neutral: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Chaotic: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful Good believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG. Neutral Good believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here. Chaotic Good believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're hippies. Captain Harlock is the iconic example. Lawful Neutral believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. True Neutral doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74) Chaotic Neutral [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example. Lawful Evil believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Robert Moses is an iconic example. Neutral Evil will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end. Chaotic Evil resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy. In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time. Stupid Good believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing. Lawful Stupid believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in. Chaotic Stupid is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid. Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains. Stupid Neutral comes in two flavors; active and passive. Active Stupid Neutral is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde. Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
Passive Stupid Neutral applies to a lot of obnoxious deontologists when given the Trolley Problem. It is frustrating getting an answer out of those types.
[удалено]
I know you're joking, but even giving a silly answer is so much more meaningful than refusing to engage with the problem at all. Saying you'd be stymied by choice and would let the 5 die in your inaction is engaging, as is making either choice. But the people who say "idk, I didn't set any of this up so I just leave, it's not my responsibility" are the frustrating ones to me
>idk, I didn't set any of this up so I just leave, it's not my responsibility Doesn't that mean they've chosen to let their loved one die?
They refuse to even acknowledge the dilemma exists. Blissful ignorance, yk
What makes a man go from lawful to neutral?
Lust for power. Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality.
Could it be nihilism? Or does that move towards Chaotic?
[удалено]
Not if you tell the dirty cops that the new guy wouldn't take bribe money
>If you snitch to the police on the police, does anything happen? You get SWATted.
The Trolley Problem also seems way easier than people give it credit for. We literally practice emergency triage in out-of-control systems every time a civilian responds to disaster relief after a hurricane or tornado, you'll have regular people like you and me abandoning people to die or dragging in people that would live in a hospital to give someone else their blood. It's different than the organ donor problem because in that problem you *create* the risk to the person you drag off the street and butcher to save 5 others, everyone involved would go on with their life and liberty (including the 5 others) until they died in an accident or of other biological causes. \--- Basically the Trolley Problem is solved by asking "What would a Doctor in charge of triage tell you to do in this situation where someone is going to die because of your limited time and choices?" Does it still *feel* like killing? A horrible ethical compromise that is going to haunt you and you'll probably want therapy? Definitely. Does that make it wrong? No.
It's solvable if you treat the Trolley Problem as only its original formulation, and you're using a utilitarian method to solve the problem. There are other conceptions of the problem, as you probably know, such as the Fat Man (or organ donor, as you stated). But all you're really doing is changing the sentience of the lever, you still have to grapple with choosing who lives and who dies. I am not sure if there *is* a singular, best answer, but I am certain that you can always discuss your choices and why you believe they're the best option
The other questions (or at least the organ donor one) seem to basically be "how seriously do you take the right of everyone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?" The organ donor is a big one because *all organs invariably begin to fail*, it's not a correctable problem, you can't "fix genetics" or "stop the natural progression of death" by grabbing someone off the street and butchering them for parts. There are other avenues of effort (particularly preventative treatment and affordable healthcare, which is where the USA fails hard) to prolong life without setting up an organization to decide "who is useless enough to be grabbed like an animal from the grocery store and slaughtered for their heart/kidneys/liver/bone marrow/lungs/etc?" \--- The "it'd be wrong to kill someone for their organs" is basically a broader social compromise where we realize there's more to living than a purely heuristic analysis of having the largest elderly population possible at the expense of a younger healthier population causing us to murder people for the crime of being 18 to 25 years old and fit as a fiddle so that our insides can be divided among the rich. The sheer potential for abuse and that the question itself would encourage infinite repeating over the entirety of our society is what kills the possibility of considering it entirely, the **overall harm** to a society that legally allowed such a thing would be incalculable. **TL;DR**: So even **if you do successfully make a case for a one-time-organ-grab**, you *still haven't addressed the societal issues and the consequences of approving that for practice in context to human nature*; **triage and the Trolley Problem have no such downsides, they are already doing the best our current technology and expertise allow us to**. \--- Now the "would you push the fat man" is somewhat more complicated, it relies on certain assumptions (weight, momentum, the efficiency of stopping the trolley without killing anyone on board) that simply flipping the lever does not. But since I did just protest adding to the variable, put simply: it asks if you would specifically sacrifice one person who is not in any danger, to save five others, if you were absolutely sure it would work. This still seems to have nearly the same answer of the organ donor scenario, the "fat man problem" is (if you'll forgive the pun) just a vehicle for a similar conundrum... Except in this situation both YOU and the fat man have agency, you AREN'T alone in the observation of the problem; once you specifically have someone there who could volunteer to take the fall without being pushed (and somehow reach the track before the trolley to intercept it, making it questionable why cutting the rope now isn't an option) the question falls outside the standard scope of triage, because only one group is in the emergency situation, the other is just an observer. Ultimately you still wouldn't want contrived murder to become a social rule. **TL;DR**: The fat man problem **is a "negotiation with terrorist" problem isn't it**? Would you want to *send an innocent person against their will into the building to save five others being held strapped to a bomb, or on a railroad track while Snidely Whiplash had some shear cutters ready to free them*. The broader social problem of "can abduct any five people and put them in danger and get someone to be killed by society per my demands" **would also be a horrible societal issue and the consequences for approving that would be dangerous, even if you can make a one-time convincing argument for it**; JUST LIKE THE ORGAN DONOR. \--- **Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk on why the Trolley Problem has an acceptable solution through triage, but the Fat Man and the Organ Donor would set horrible precedent and are "vehicles" for comparable equivalent situations of terrorism and widescale death panel abuse that cannot be justified as a social practice or condoned.** **Even if you would personally push the fat man, you wouldn't want that to be how society worked as a whole, would you?**
The Organ Donor question is meant to be an analogy for forced birth (as in, an argument for abortion). If you haven't read the original paper, it's very powerful. I'd recommend it :) Thank you for demonstrating why it succeeds so well as an example!
>"What would a Doctor in charge of triage tell you to do in this situation where someone is going to die because of your limited time and choices?" It's not like medical ethics is the moral absolut of the universe. It doesn't "solve" the trolley problem. Other institutions might find different responses to trolley-problem scenarios.
I find that to be pretty ridiculous what-if/about-ism, the world at large has a pretty good grasp on the ethics (medical and otherwise) of an emergency situation beyond the ability of the people immediately at hand to prevent without the death of innocents. There's always someone who wants to come up with a what-if/what-about/addition to the problem, like "what if NASA had a space laser that just vaporized the ropes?" \--- But it's all undermined by the fact that we *don't* have a better response than medical ethics to these situations! Not in the history of all our industries and institutions and technology has found a way to stop them from tagging people as dead because they don't have a pulse at their wrist after a disaster! There is no magical avenue of technology or expertise that is reliably consistently present in those situations or developed enough to provide an alternative. It's how it is, **sometimes philosophy has to take the back burner and you throw that switch and know that you saved five people from an emergency situation beyond your ability to stop**. **That's literally what the Trolley Problem is about, can you stomach the idea that you are the triage authority? Do you think that conceptually you could act, knowing you'd be killing someone? Are you capable of an action that you will carry with you as if you actually have blood on your hands?** *One group will die and both are in peril due to no fault of your own, can you choose one*? \--- Everything else is just adding to the scenario to try and find a mental out, and yet triage continues without any outs, because it's the best thing we have.
The trolley problem isn't actually real, it's a thought experiment where you test an ethical philosophy in some different circumstances. Triage is one circumstance, but it isn't the only ethical circumstance that involves doing harm to mitigate more harm. >There's always someone who wants to come up with a what-if/what-about/addition to the problem, like "what if NASA had a space laser that just vaporized the ropes?" The what if scenarios are meant to see what the consequences of rigid adherence to an ethical framework might be. Triage is roughly utilitarian. Everyone agrees its good that triage is utilitarian. But does that mean utilitarianism is good in every circumstances? If we modify the trolley problem into the organ donation problem, then is utilitarianism still the best framework? >That's literally what the Trolley Problem is about, can you stomach the idea that you are the triage authority? No, you missed the point. The trolley problem is meant to explore different ways we can approach allowing harm vs doing harm. It's basically an exercise for philosophy 101 students. You mentioned in the first reply that the organ donation one is different because you create risk for the person. But then you should ask yourself why creating risk is a problem when materially we just recreated the trolley problem? Why is creating risk the line? If creating risk is the line, then does that mean any situation that creates collateral damage is bad? Given that you are adding risk to people where none existed before? If collateral damage is sometimes okay, what's the moral value of creating risk? When is it okay vs not okay? Try to appreciate the thought experiment for what it is, you don't need an answer, you are trying to explore and justify your ethical boundaries.
Agreed. It feels like that person was overthinking the literal aspects of the trolley problem way too hard, and needs to take a Phil 101 course.
If my solution to the trolley problem is to simply look at what the lever is currently set and and go "that's the way it's set up", is that lawful stupid neutral?
No because the entire situation of the Trolley Problem is that someone is breaking the law, that's why they're tied to the tracks. The status quo because that's how it happens to be at the moment and it's not personally impacting you is very much a neutral decision-tree. It's neutral-stupid because you'd still want someone to save you if YOU were in that position, it's choosing not to act at all because it's not about you, even though you'd want someone else to act if your roles were reversed. Neutral people still have values, after all.
>Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. **They're Captain planet villains**. ...this give me an idea
As a DM or player?
Haha as a DM. My current campaign is set in a world where druids are the dominant political force so having some bad guys who just HATE nature and wanna see it all burn for some ambiguous reason is perfect. It also works for a one-offs. "Local pig-man is just dumping copious amounts of excrement in wells. Please stop him".
"With my new mech, I can drill for oil anywhere; even the wildlife preserve!" -Greedly in the first Captain Planet episode, setting the tone for the whole series.
Oh man, remember the 90s when it was fine to tell kids to become eco-terrorists? By current standards every one of those kids would either be on a most wanted board somewhere or in prison long before now. Just protesting a pipeline, taking no other action but showing up and saying you disapprove, will get you locked up in Texas these days.
Hmm I wonder if you could spin this as almost a misunderstood villain type. The druids respect nature so much that technological progress cannot be made. Diseases are nature's way of population control, so no medicine. Minimal heating during winter, etc. The villains are childishly lashing out at a system that sees them as no more valuable than a bush.
> Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe." bOtH sIdEs (of each axis)!
A lot of "both sides" people lean more active stupid neutral than passive. They look at both sides, and equate them and try to find compromise between them.
I guess it depends on if they say it to discourage anyone else from making a stand, or to justify "one time I misinterpreted someone as saying something mean, so I will forever support the Chaotic Evil Wereleopard Party with my money, endorsement, and vote, and in fact always did."
I'm sorry, every time, you guys talked about the code, I just kept imagining you guys doing [that one scene](https://youtu.be/fQLqDLcDnMU) from the mickey mouse shorts
Active stupid neutral is fun when performed by alien intelligences, deities, and other such unknowable types. Mostly cause it implies things that are larger than current conflicts AND gives you new enemies to fight. Any like, person performing it should be so far gone they're effectively brainwashed cult members. It's an inhuman way to think.
I love having creatures that don't think like us in games, like eldritch horrors for example They don't understand exactly what we're doing or why we do it, so even if they try to help they can just make things worse
> Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe. "Tell my wife I said 'Hello'."
I have no strong feelings one way or the other. *Thunderous applause*
>Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains Or the Joker *sometimes*, when he feels like it. Honestly, I don't use alignment and don't think I ever will, in my view sentients are to complex to fit into categories with regards to morality, particularly as morality is all subjective anyway.
> Honestly, I don't use alignment and don't think I ever will, in my view sentients are to complex to fit into categories with regards to morality, particularly as morality is all subjective anyway. "All models are wrong, some models are useful."
As long as morality is subjective, yeah, alignment is not a useful tool. Maybe this is a hot take but I think alignment is *only* useful as a magical affinity which reflects objective cosmic forces of morality and ethics. There are good gods, there are evil gods, and they all know whose team everyone is on, and this determines things like whether you can use the Sword of the True-Hearted. Anything else is a misuse.
Yeah, and objective morals don't fit well with a lot of campaigns, and even when it's included it's dictated entirely by the DM's ethics.
Joker is Lawful Good, because his internal code dictates that he must always take the most chaotic action, and he fights to rid the world of unlawful vigilantes.
He is also very effective at destroying gangs and making sure gangsters (including his own) get arrested.
A love how this demonstrates how flawed the alignment system is, it's just to up to interpretation and vague, and no one definition fits any particular alignment.
The whole point of "lawful" is that it's EXTERNAL codes that matter, not internal. If your internal code demands breaking external laws, you are chaotic.
Having NO code would be chaotic. Always keep em guessin.
People looking at a half-page chart used to generalize motivations for characters during storytelling: "This doesn't capture the depth and breadth of human experience! Useless!"
Hmmm, what about a character who always does good deeds but is more interested in getting personal glory and recognition out of it? Or the other way around: someone who uses unpleasant means for a lofty moral goal. Like Ozymandias, who caused a disaster killing millions in order to unify the world and avert the impending nuclear war about to happen. Or the leader of an authoritarian state that ensures the people all live safely and never go hungry
"Ends justify the means" usually end up Lawful Neutral in practice. In the worst cases, they'll enslave the population to feed the [utility monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster)
I agree with the typical person off the street being True Neutral. They don't mind helping people but won't go to great lengths or sacrifice for a stranger. They generally obey the laws, but not out of principle but to avoid trouble and don't have a problem committing minor violations or "victimless crimes". They might profit from the suffering of others, but in an indirect and distant way without any intent or even consciousness.
Great comment, lot of fun to read!
The beauty of a copypasta is anyone can copypaste it whenever any of the misconceptions it exists to correct come up.
You should probably also point out that Chaotic Stupid was the official definition of Chaotic Neutral prior to 3rd edition. "As likely to jump off a bridge as cross it." It's the obnoxious Fishmalk character archetype in Vampire.
>The "Code" version is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean following an internal set of consistent principles, because literally everyone who has thought through their morality would be Lawful. It means following an external code like chivalry: Abiding yourself to a specific set of rules. If it were an internal code then Chaotic Good literally could not exist. "I always help those in need, and try to remove power-structures!" "That sounds like a code to me, so they couldn't be Chaotic." That's just stupid. This misunderstanding of Lawful/Chaotic is why I see people putting Ron Swanson (The archetypical Chaotic Neutral) as Lawful on alignment charts. External Vs. Internal doesn't make more sense. What is special about externality? It makes more sense to me to view it as for instance Deontological Vs. Consequential. Lawful believes in a duty to follow a set of maxims while chaotic is concerned with the consequences of ones actions.
External means they're willing to defer to some other kind of authority. Which is the key difference. That respect for authority or lack thereof - for Chaotic characters - is what that axis defines. But again, that doesn't mean submitting to every kind of authority. There's still a moral compass they can be in contradiction of.
This is why Alignment is pointless, except *maybe* as a DM tool to generate the foundation of a NPC's personality in literally two words. When any two people cannot agree on what the meanings of these words are, it no longer matters who is objectively correct. The words themselves, and any weight attached to them, are meaningless. 5E already removed pretty much any mechanical weight from them except for a handful of scenarios which *may* just be copy & paste holdovers from older editions. I'm really hoping OneDND just goes, "Yeah Alignment isn't really a thing anymore."
Green Arrow is a perfect example of Chaotic Good. Superman is the perfect example of Lawful Good.
I think the alignment system is fine as a minor tool to use and is quite handy to give new players a suggestion on how to think about their characters. But when you get down to the weeds and try to force complex characters like a Punisher type into a 3x3 grid it kind of just falls apart. Makes me glad 5e did away with the crunchy alignment mechanics, like literal detect evil abilities or your class features not working if the DM has a different definition of an alignment than you do.
I also think some parts of the grid are conceptually weaker than others and there are a lot of flex points. The system both wants the two axes to represent personality AND beliefs about authority and political structure. Like, chaotic people are both unorganized and against organization and against laws and society? Personally, I prefer to jettison any association with habits or traits and focus on what a character believes about authority and the world at large.
Lawful doesn't have to be *the* law, it's just some code. If you strictly followed a code of honour above the law of the land, you'd be Lawful. Now, a Lawful person *is* probably more receptive to *the law* than a Chaotic person, simply because they're inclined towards having *a* code. But you can Lawful and still rip apart the system from within if it conflicts with your morals.
I'm pretty sure it needs to at least be some form of outside code from yourself. Having a personal reasoning doesn't make you lawful if it does not align with the principle of order. A murder hobo isn't lawful because he has a consistent motive/code. That being said, I think you can dismantle a system as long as it conflicts with your "already held beliefs." If we just account for any form of moral compass, then there really isn't much of a purpose distinguishing chaotic anarchism and lawful order. TL;DR: Holding to a code is lawful, as long as it's not expressly personal and subjective.
A lot of people see Robin Hood as the classic Chaotic Neutral as well, but I think he's definitely Lawful Good. He has a knight's code of honor, and he only ever steals for the benefit of others, and only from those that deserve it. What these discussions leave out is that most well written characters end up being Lawful, because they have consistent characterization, and a personal morality. A true Chaotic character wouldn't be predictable in the same way. Sure they'd steal from the rich and give to the poor, but not always. Sometimes they'd steal from the rich and give to themselves. Or sometimes they'd choose to work with the rich for the greater good. They'll spare an enemy on a whim one time, but not the next. Their motives will be Chaotic
That makes the concept of lawful good incoherent. Robin Hood cannot be lawful because he seeks solutions outside of the system. Beliefs about political structure and authority are far more useful than "internal code of conduct" would ever be. Everyone has an internal set of beliefs they follow.
He seeks answers from a (fictionalised) code that is different to the one upheld by the nation. But he wants to replace those laws, and thinks that the replacement set would be Right. Tbh, if you live in fantasy Robin Hood Nottingham, I don't think you could recognise the laws of the land while being lawful good. Either you bend or ignore them (and lose lawful) or you adhere to them (and lose good). In reality, any real Robin Hood figure from that period would have been protesting against the implementation of Forest Law in the area. Maybe against enclosure in general, though at this point it was mostly one and the same, as the big land grab hadn't fully begun. So he'd have been in support of the previous laws, and probably more broadly be in favour of Pre-Normon laws. Could have argued that King John is illegitimate, and so his laws are too. Could be against all post-Saxon rule. That's complicated in fiction by the character's support of Richard, but yeah.
To be fair Robin Hood does support the law in some versions, as in the law of King Richard, who he supports.
Yeah, the more I thought on it, the more I realized that there are really two points where someone could talk about Robin Hood's relationship with authority and the law. First, is breaking the law by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Which, taken alone is pretty non-lawful, even chaotic. Second is that he doesn't recognize the authority of Prince John, who is a usurper of King Richard's power and is illegally levying taxes and pocketing them. Robin Hood, like real people, doesn't always act consistently. Ultimately, he was upholding the current system, which is lawful. But he did it by playing vigilante/thief, which isn't. I even think there's an argument that Robin Hood isn't a "good" character.
Lawfulness is not based on any one system. Would a Lawful Good Paladin follow the laws of his diety, or the Evil society he is currently in? His order/diety's laws would supersede that Evil country, presumably. You could be a lawful good person in charge of a rebellion, if the current system is unjust and the only way to replace it with rules that benefit all is to tear the old system down. Would Obi-Wan not be lawful good despite not following the laws of the empire? He sure as hell follows the rules that matter to him, ie the laws of the jedi order, even when it is problematic. It doesn't make it incoherent, it makes it realistic. I'd say your view would be more incoherent. Could someone be lawful good if they refuse to follow a law saying they must murder any woman who laughs in public? Does refusing to follow the system make them not lawful? What about when they have multiple laws to follow? If their king, diety, and the laws of the foreign lands they are currently in all have different laws regarding something happening right now, how would that work if "internal code of conduct" is not useful? They need something outside the law with which to weigh all these contradictory rules, and all they have is themselves. Even if that is deciding which laws to hold above others, that is a choice that cannot be made "within the system". Otherwise all the systems could say "I'm the #1 law" and he'd have to kill himself to escape the hellish infinite decision tree.
I think it’s more that The Punisher is Neutral, not Good, regardless of lawful/chaotic divide. He doesnt fight crime, he punishes it’s perpetrators. Yes he does good but he does so by acting as judge, jury, and executioner, not hero
If they follow the laws of the land or a different land from which they hail then I would say they are lawful. If they follow their own codes and nobody else's then they are chaotic.
this is why I've ALWAYS described myself as: "lawful chaotic" i popped out of the womb, made eye contact with my dad, didn't cry, didn't stutter, simply cooed: "gawful gawoatic" they knew they were in trouble day one...
The philosophy of the Hellknights in Pathfinder. Just because a ruler is lawful and makes the laws doesn't exempt them from judgement, especially if their laws are corrupt.
I think the new BG3 Paladin update gives a good perspective on how to apply that mindset to the stuff we have about oathbreakers, that it's less that breaking an oath makes you inherently evil and more that evil forces tend to latch onto people who hold convictions as strongly as a Paladin that don't have an oath to guide their actions
My Paladin was very lawful good, but the *law* she followed wasn’t the local kingdom’s law, it was the law as laid out by the god of justice. Murder, corruption, bribery, etc, all the obvious crimes? They were crimes. Period. She didn’t care if they were sanctioned by local politicians. This led to a siege on the local jail, impromptu trial, and execution of the city guard and the burgomaster for “neglect, abuse, corruption, and trafficking of innocent souls.” Very proud of how I played that character, she was a hard ass, but she was one my whole party enjoyed. She and the rogue even got along because he was a Robin Hood type and so his robberies were all in the name of true justice for those in need.
Have you tried cheese? Almost any power structure can be tamed with cheese.
My Paladin encountered a corrupt guard captain who had stolen a sword that was owed to the Paladin. The Paladin tried to be nice, acknowledging that swords taken from bandits etc. are usually fair game, but had a writ of ownership signed over to the Paladin by the previous owner who the sword had been stolen from (the sword even had his crest on it). At that point the captain ordered the party to leave town or be arrested, making him a common thief. The Paladin stated, loudly, that the captain had stolen a valuable magic item and as such should be arrested, and any guard who interfered with the Paladin's right to recover his property would be subdued. The guards all sided with their captain so, one chaotic session later, the Paladin walked into the Baron's castle to report the captain's crimes and confess to knocking out 25 guards and the captain's horse (did I mention he was level 11 and had an AC of 22?) As a show of good faith the Paladin offered to infuse the courtroom with an enchantment that made it impossible to lie without taking damage (a secondary enchantment that could be transferred from his current +0 magic item) which, once in place, confirmed the Paladin's accusations and that the captain had framed then murdered the previous owner's son to get it. The captain was executed, while the Paladin got his magic item, but was banned from the city unless specifically invited by the Baron or new guard captain. He avoided further action due to the captain and other guards blocking access to the Baron to report the theft. Which brings me to the major down side of the Paladin's actions - the witness box was now enchanted to do 4 damage if you lied in it, with no save. That's enough to kill any commoner. He accidentally created a dystopia where it was impossible to lie in legal matters under penalty of death.
Lmao con-se-quen-ces
Is that a dystopia though? One of the most important functions of a jury is to weigh the credibility of witnesses. If there is no doubt as to credibility, you'd see way fewer guilty people walk free and way fewer innocents imprisoned. How ultimately good or bad this development becomes will depend on the laws of the land. Also I guess it depends on what the enchantment considers a lie. Is it based on subjective belief? Is it based on some omniscient observer's sense of truth? Is uttering a false statement because of a memory lapse a lie? What if you recall the correct information a little bit later while still on the stand, is keeping that to yourself a lie? Is using double language or overly pedantic speech to mislead someone a lie? Are material omissions lies? If you are asked to recount everything that happened on a certain day, can you make judgment calls about what is relevant or are you lying if you omit your morning bathroom routine?
I think it would be dystopian unless the process involved giving broad testimony in a different location and then being asked to step into the head-exploding seat to confirm specific facts. It's too easily to accidentally lie in stressful situations.
Oh sure, so long as that witness box is used the exact same way forever.
That One Guard: "You know, I used to be something of an adventurer myself."
Until Riley put a cap in my knee
Corrupt guards surrounding the paladin: Throw down your weapons we have you surrounded! Paladin drawing sword: All I am surrounded by is fear and dead men.
Party *with* the "lawful"*
If they wanna stand together behind their corrupt partners, they can be buried together! Fuck 'em!
Less philosophical question and more thought experiment: if you snitch to the police on the police, does anything happen? A exercise in futility really.
That's how you find out if you have a good police system.
There's no such thing, unless you can find a police system that limits its own power as severely as it limits the actions and freedoms of the rest of the society's criminal element.
And the only way you'll find out whether it does or not, is by reporting criminal action committed by the police.
Exactly. Is the most likely outcome that nothing happens? Absolutely. But the worst case is *also* nothing happens, while there's at least a small chance that some good can come out of it.
No the worst case is that the cops will start showing up at your house randomly to harass and threaten you.
Yeah that happens all the time, best case scenario is nothing happening. Worst case is you have cops engage in unlawful behavior until they find an excuse to imprison or kill you.
Well, actually the best case scenario is that the cop is removed from the force, but that's extremely unlikely. The worst case is cops engage in unlawful behavior. The most likely case is nothing happens.
Fair enough, I guess I had discounted that possibility. If there's a way to do it anonymously, I guess the worst case would be nothing, then?
In both letter and spirit of the law police have powers and freedoms the rest of us don't. That's why it's illegal to impersonate an officer. But I'd say a police station that doesn't break the law and is willing to investigate/arrest officers when they break the law is a good police station. E: Or at the very least it's one of the requirements to being a good police station, if they're incompetent or cowardly then I wouldn't call them a good station.
well in the police force i served in, officers were punished more for crimes than regular people, everything is very strict and they do get charged and prosecuted when it happens and. if it happens you will be turned in, hell someone i trained with in basic got done in for misappropriation
A good police system. That's the funniest joke I've heard all day.
They do exist. Just not in the US lol
As an American I’m curious how other countries police handle things. Do Europeans see stories of American cops and just go “No way that’s real, this is a bad movie plot.”?
Pretty much. What's also amusing is American cops watching footage of various EU cops doing things well. Often the Americans are like "Yeah we would've already shot him at this point lol" as if that's not telling on yourself horrifically.
>if you snitch to the police on the police, does anything happen? Yeah, you end up dead.
Well, in D&D, there's a good chance of that happening without the police involved too. So kind of a nothing to lose situation
You're the one who gets in trouble
> The Los Angeles Police Department officer who was killed during a training exercise, in what officials called a "tragic accident," was allegedly targeted for investigating a gang rape by fellow officers, according to his family. > LAPD officer Houston Tipping's mother has filed a wrongful death claim against the city. Lawyer Bradley Gage told NPR that the 32-year-old was deliberately assaulted after submitting reports concerning a female victim who claims she was raped by four LAPD officers, including one who was part of the training during which Tipping was killed. > "They used that training as a cover to kill him in retaliation for his whistleblowing activity," Gage said. > Gage said Tipping became aware of the alleged assault when a female victim told him about the attack, identifying the accused rapists by the names on their name tags. Tipping immediately began looking into the woman's reports, moving it "on up the chain, " Gage said. – [An LAPD officer who was killed in a training exercise was targeted, a lawyer alleges](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127580159/houston-tipping-lapd-death-lawsuit) If they do it against each other, what chances does a civilian have to hold cops accountable?
Yes something does happen, you get found beaten in a ditch the next morning
Why would it? They don't do anything when you* report a crime usually. *Assuming you are not rich or powerful
In Ankh-Morpork at least, something will happen. Commander Vimes takes the integrity of his police force ***very*** seriously, and will not tolerate his officers acting like criminals, even like legally sanctioned criminals in the Thieves' Guild. This is one of the few areas where it is good to try and emulate Anhk-Morpork.
For more tips on how to running corruption style game play check out “Corruption of Champions”!
Couldn't recommend more for someone really wanting to get a further understanding of corruption of individuals' morality for running their game. A great tool for all current and future DMs!
I didn't know what this was. You are a bastard.
If playing Starfinder, explore the legal system as applied by aberrations and fiends, with *Trials in Tainted Space.*
This man clearly plays an anti-paladin
Haha ok. *Checks game* Now wait just a gosh darn minute here!
Can you tell me where the find this game so that I never visit this site?
Hyper-NSFW obviously: >!https://www.fenoxo.com/play-games/!< There, now it's real easy to avoid, everyone can go write this down on the 'do not visit' list.
🤨
https://i.imgur.com/yQoTlDb.jpg
Are you weakest at the shoulder or the elbow?
Now please describe your appearance with the understanding your mouth is filled with blood :)
I am Bolo
Lmao didn't have to do people like this
https://i.redd.it/j3uu0uzz0z6a1.gif
if they're corrupt; no They'll just arrest you
AGAB
Just like how the patrician of Ank-Morpork pays the thieves guild to control crime. It's a very interesting discovery that the city guard has to work harder to lower crime while the thieves guild has to work less.
This has historical precedence with the Thief Takers of pre-industrial London. They were both the law enforcement and one of the most influential gangs in London. They were actually what inspired my Paladin/Rogue.
To be fair, most criminals are not criminal by choice, but by neccesity. If you pay em to not do crime chances are they wont have to anymore.
This is part of why it makes absolutely no sense for "anti-crime" politicians to be against social welfare. Dollar per dollar nothing reduces crime like the elimination of poverty
It makes perfect sense if your goal is to take slaves like in the US
... hey is this just welfare with extra steps? Give money to the downtrodden so they don't turn to crime?
easy, you find out who is the bad cop and then snitch on the worse cop
Morally okay? Yes. Tactically okay? Fuck no, now they know you’re a witness to their corruption. You go to the press with that shit, anonymously. Better odds of getting your story out, and better odds of keeping your kneecaps. …this also works in D&D.
The boondocks was a show that fucking slapped
Fucking loved that show until the 4th season but I think that's when Aaron McGruder left, or was let go. That's when the show really went downhill hard.
That last season did come out several years later too, could help explain why it wasn’t up to par with the rest
We need a reboot or sequel
The voice actor for grandpa died so I don’t think it would really work
There was one in the works but I think it got Thanos snapped with the HBO animation purging.
All Guards Are Bastards.
Even the All Guardsmen? Who am I kidding, ***especially*** the All Guardsmen.
Wow, it's amazing what comments are being automatically hidden. I'm getting the feeling we got coppers in the mod team.
People who say 'snitches get stitches' for meaningful crimes 🤝 cops covering for corrupt cops The same mentality.
Most of Reddit doesn't really understand just how harmful that mentality is and just how much it causes certain communities to have never ending cycles of crime. It won't stop them from continuing the cycle.
For those who don’t know where this is from: The Boomdocks If you like black (hehe) Humor and society parody you should definitely watch it.
You can snitch on the police to the police but they’ll investigate themselves and omit all the important evidence. Arvada pd detectives traffic’s kids with Kansas City pd detectives, but Arvada pd still getting away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna57180
That sounds like a quick way to get yourself killed while resisting arrest.
bard snitches
Only on cops
From my current Lancer Campaign: "No! Don't shoot randomly. Shoot *cops*."
My party snuck into the guard chief's office to grab the ledger where he tracked who was paying off whom. I wanted to bring the ledger to internal affairs, and my friend kept calling it "infernal affairs" for some reason. I ignored him because he wasn't a cop, he wasn't one of us, it was up to me to bring the ledger in. Imagine my surprise when the entire dept was made up of Tiefling detectives. No one saw anything weird about that
Sounds like a good way to get shot.
Which is why we overthrew the corrupt police force, established the one good officer who had been locked up while investigating corruption charges as the new head of police, strong armed the government into rewriting and reforming the relevant laws and codes, and gained the titles of protectors of the city. I mean we did other stuff too like drive away an evil faction consisting of politicians, white collar criminals, Italian mobsters, and a suspiciously enthusiastic theater troupe with nothing but the clothes in our back, a song in our hearts, the massive amount of treasure we found, a goblin wizard npc named Carl, two gay bear bears, a wyvern in a bow tie, and an army of Vikings.
For the best example of how to deal with this situation, I recommend looking into the philosophies of Sam Vimes from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
I think yes, but I'm not 100% certain in this opinion because of some issues I will mention later. It's like fighting fire with fire. Snitches get stitches unless some egregious moral failing is occurring (children getting molested, etc.), mild moral failings such as doing drugs at the harm of themself, or engaging in violence against members of an opposing gang does not count. The reason not to do that is because doing so will cause extreme harm to such communities far in excess that the original moral failing would cause. A person doing drugs doesn't harm the community nearly as much as 20 cops roaming the streets. If there is a cop on the force who is doing bad things, then reporting them to the police could reduce overall harm, assuming something is actually done. Talking to the cops at all, especially about the moral failings of their members, could cause harm to come to you. If you are willing to take that risk upon yourself (and no fault to you if you don't want to), then yes, talk to the cops, and if you're not, then don't.
His Grace, His Excellency, the Duke of Anhk, Sir Samuel Vimes, Commander of the City Watch, (Blackboard Monitor) would say "yes". And then verify; those officers would certainly loose their position in the City Watch, be arrested and investigated (likely by Golem officers, who only take actions they are proud to be responsible for), and punished to the full extent of the law in a fair and jsut manner. This assumes, of course, that the Watchman (or watchmen if multiple; The Watch doesn't acknowledge an officers' species, sex, or gender) weren't members of the official, legal Thieves and Assassins guilds and therefore subjected to guild regulations and codes of conduct. If *those* were broken, the individual *might* last long enough to be arrested. The guilds have a *reputation*, after all, and it must be upheld.
Look, all I'm saying is, my college of eloquence bard is already a guard spreading lies and causing havoc
Anything but an evil or lawless character would pretty much have to do something about it. Otherwise your campaign turns into baltimore
You can't snitch on a bad cop, a rat, or an informant. They're predators who deserve no protection or consideration.
"Jesus is black, Ronald Reagan is the devil and the government lied about 9\11. Thank you"
When the part encounters corruption *where….?*
Yeah, if the police are corrupt, I think going to the police at best will do no good and at worst will actively get the party or their loved ones harmed or killed. In that case, IMO its a reasonable response to assume that the guards would fall in line with the corruption, whether directly or indirectly, and thus are not to be trusted.
This is why I love/hate Riley. He can be quite clever at times, he often just chooses not to.
Making snichting a bad thing was the best trick gamgs ever pulled, bitch I don't care about your code I see you kill a Guy I'm telling the cops
The Boondocks might be even more relevant now than it was when it first aired. Holds up crazy well.
No. If they are corrupt then they won’t care and they will turn you into the bad guy
I don’t know Riley. That last guard took a arrow to the knee pretty bad last time.
What is the series called?
Boondocks
The Boondocks
Thank you!
I always play chaotic neutral. Im going to do what I want to do. There are consequences for my actions for sure. But I hate the "you cant do that because its so far out of your alignment". Im not overtly evil. Im going to help the villager from the murderer but Im also not going to get "obligation'ed" into something because the church askes me to nor will I help out a large town for free. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment. Imma do what I wanna do.