Forgive me if this is just plain too geeky, but I started playing Temple of Elemental Evil last night and it gave me the urge to apply the D&D alignment system to world politics.
In D&D, moral alignment is described along two axes: the first includes "lawful", "neutral", and "chaotic"; the second is "good", "neutral", "evil". So a person or organization has an alignment with two components, one from each set, and there are 9 possible combinations. For example, "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral". If someone is neutral along both axes, they are "true neutral". Please refer to this post for more specific information on D&D alignments (I wrote it for reference).
With regard to "international law" and the interests of the United States, America can be seen as a neutral good actor. We tend to give lip-service to organizations such as the UN, but we really don't seem to care that much whether they go along with us or not. And from my perspective, our country is generally trying to do good.
Our diplomatic enemies, such as France and Germany, are lawful evil. They don't have the military or economic power to challenge us directly, so they fall back on international legal institutions such as the UN to thwart America and to further their own goals. Since they're willing to leave vicious tyrants in place for the sake of stability, I have no problem categorizing them as evil.
Saddam Hussein was pretty clearly chaotic evil. Sure, he used the legal system in his own country to control his people, but from everything I've read that system was pretty arbitrary. Saddam's laws were designed to keep people terrified; the populace could never be certain who would be the next to be dragged off to jail and tortured. And of course, Saddam had no respect for "international law" either.
Kim Jong Il does seem pretty insane, but I think that's by calculation, so I wouldn't categorize North Korea as chaotic neutral; it's more like neutral evil. They tend to use the UN and treaties when it suits their purposes, but they abandon them just as quickly when it doesn't. The concentration camps and threats of nuclear blackmail put them pretty firmly in the Axis of Evil.
As for Britain, they're more lawful good than we are. Tony Blair has to be concerned with respecting the UN because so much of his population does (and dislikes America). The UK is trying to do good, and it is trying to do so within the legal framework of the world, such as it is. Blair was willing to bend a little to help in Iraq even without (yet another) UN resolution -- because it was a good cause -- but it made him uncomfortable.
The terrorists and al Qaeda are, of course, practically the epitome of chaotic evil. Their whole purpose is to destroy the existing social structure of the world, and to bring about the end of America and the dominance of the "infidels".
Update:
Yes, I'm being mean to people in the comments here who say innane things. I know, I know -- I'm normally such a polite fellow, but it's kinda fun to indulge just this once.
As I have said elsewhere, in discussions of the political compass, the single largest error in U.S. foreign policy over the last fifty years was judging governments solely along a single axis, "left" vs. "right" while ignoring "libertarian" vs. "oppressive", let alone "good" vs. "evil". The result was that while opposing the "evil oppressive left" (quotes are for structure, not scare quotes) we, as the Left loves to point out, supported the "evil oppressive right". The world is a better place as a result, but it could have been better yet.
Well, I'm not sure how this was an error, however distasteful the policy may now be in hindsight. We were engaged in a cold war that we really thought we could lose, and we were willing to go to any length to win.
As it turns out, we probably couldn't have lost, because communism was so dreadfully inefficient. I'm not an expert on the exact timeline, but by understanding is that after the early 1970s, we were so far past the USSR militarily and technologically that they couldn't attack and defeat us even if they wanted to. Their nuclear program was a charade, and ours wasn't. So, that misjudgement may have been the greatest error of the past 50 years, although Reagan eventually called their bluff.
You are a fucking tool.
Jesus. Try next time.
Sorry...USA...clearly lawful evil. Paying lip service to the world governing organizations but really just attempting to amass our own power base by any means necessary...clearly lawful...clearly evil.
> Paying lip service to the world governing
> organizations but really just attempting to amass
> our own power base by any means necessary.
Yah, America the imperialist. Guess that's why we've taken the oppurtunity to make Canada and Mexico into US territories.
Oh, wait, we haven't.
But we did go to Iraq, overthrow the government, and dispose of the dictator, because we wanted to pay less to fill up our gas-guzzling SUV's.
But, we haven't made a dime off of Iraqi oil, and the Iraqi people like having us there, and look forward to a Saddam-free region. They're happy that his reign of terror is gone. Drats, guess we inadvertantly did something good.
Wow, if we're Lawful Evil, we really suck at executing.
I don't see why an anti-American would categorize the United States as lawful evil. We clearly don't respect "international law" except when it suits our purposes.
The most interesting parallel is that between America and North Korea; the difference between neutral good and neutral evil is largely in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
Lawful = bends to greater authority
Chaotic = self-serving
The USA ignores the UN, ignores global opinion and treaties on climate change, follows global trade treaties only when they fit its own agenda, wages overt and covert war on foreign powers (e.g. the Chilean coup, the continuing economic blockade of Cuba), over-consumes, pollutes, and is now declaring that the cost of repairing the damage it did to Iraq -- a country that was not threatening it except verbally -- should be a "loan". And it wants to decide how big that loan is, and the terms on which it will be repaid.
Chaotic neutral.
The original edition of D&D used to have a tenth alignment for stupid monsters: "Hungry". That fits even better.
it dosn't seem that you understand D&D or the series of propaganda that you have been ingesting.
Bitweever - A good corporate imperialist knows that it's not about ego, it's about money. And if we stuck our flag in a place, we'd just have to come up with schools, roads, health care, ad infinitum for all those peasants. That's what we learned on our last big imperialist spree, when we took over Cuba and the Phillippines.
This time, we're perfectly happy for them to act as sovereign as they like, as long as the money flows here. Think NAFTA. Mexicans have to work like dogs for crap pay to make us cheap clothes, and Canadian natural resources are flowing across the border so fast you'd think there was a landslide going on.
I'd agree with the assessment of the Bush Administration as Chaotic Neutral though. Ideology means you do things that fit the ideology, whether those things happen to be good for you at the moment or not. These guys clearly have no real ideology other than the raw accumulation of power.
Jimmy H
In terms of mapping foreign policy to the lawful-chaotic axis, "lawful" would follow the law of the (nonexistent) world government, and "chaotic" would ignore it and act in its own self-interest.
So, yes, the US foreign policy is probably "neutral good," falling somewhere between following the rules and doing what it wants. The foreign policy of countries ruled by tyrants, like North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and Hitler's Germany, are places you might call "chaotic evil", because they operate solely in the evil leader's interest.
Few countries' foreign policy can be classified as "lawful" because when that country's vital interests are put at stake, they'll act selfishly. Switzerland is one of the exceptions, typically being "lawful neutral".
"Lawful evil" is also pretty hard to imagine as a foreign policy, because to truly be "lawful" to international rule, it's pretty impossible to be "evil" as well.
But when you start talking about a country's domestic policy, that's where it's easier to see the whole spectrum. Most countries are "lawful" -- exceptions would be places with unstable governments, like Afghanistan or the Congo.
I would judge a country on the "good-evil" axis by how it treats its citizens. I would place the US, England, France, Germany, and most democracies as "lawful good". Communist countries like the USSR and China end up being "neutral/lawful evil," but their leaders are trapped between preserving their power and the "evil" system and letting go and creating a "good" system. It's a hard transition to make.
Yep you certainly don't seem to understand either US politics or D&D.
I essentially agree with YojimboUK.
This is just fucking rich:
"Our diplomatic enemies, such as France and Germany, are lawful evil. They don't have the military or economic power to challenge us directly, so they fall back on international legal institutions such as the UN to thwart America and to further their own goals. Since they're willing to leave vicious tyrants in place for the sake of stability, I have no problem categorizing them as evil."
Read up on history little boy. The US, Britian, Russia, pretty much any power in history has left "vicious tyrants in place for the sake of stability" since history began.
I'll say it again, tool.
It'd take too long to point out all the flaws in this piece - so I'll just pick the most glaring.
Our diplomatic enemies, such as France and Germany, are lawful evil.
The author has no sense of perspective. In one passage he deems the US neutral good (because we do our own thing, yet are some how inheriently good) but then quickly deems France and Germany lawful evil on the sole fact that they disagree with US forign policy.
The point is that even the same alignments could disagree or even be enemies - it's all about persepective. To someone living in France or Germany the US could be chaotic evil and their own countries lawful netural or good because they are opposing the US the only way they can - through legal means.
Other than that - what T-Bob said.
bitweever sez :
Such a sad little strawman.
Of course, there's really no need to make them territories when they're willing to be complicit on so many American issues... you tool
Today's theme is "tool".
My my, you're all very rude when you disagree, aren't you? How amusing.
Anyway, as I said above, good and evil in this context are clearly in the eye of the beholder. You'd do well to actually read things before commenting on them.
Filchyboy is certainly right: a lot of powers, including the US, have used tyrants to preserve stability. Who says that alignments can't change? Administrations change. For example, the Vietnam War was ended shortly after a Republican was elected.
I was simply writing about our current policies, and how they relate to the War on Terror.
Ahem. You could at least have the balls to put down France as neutral in your tiny little Manichean world view. If they were evil, they'd be breeding armies of orcs and so forth.
Wait, wait. What was the US when we installed Hussein? Sold him chemical weapons? Gave arms and training to Al-Qaeda?
I think when it comes to the US, Chaotic Neutral describes us perfectly. We're completely self-serving and Good and Evil don't really seem to mean much to us.
Tool!
Ha ha, take that!
Besides, that's a strange insult, considering how neat tools are.
Odd, that in afghanistan, when they suddenly thought to construct a gas pipeline to cross the country, all the paperwork and agreements were already in place.
What's the US's hand in the overthrow of the democratically elected ruler of colombia, and why does democracy in colombia threaten the US oil supply from that area?
The only WMDs that Saddam ever had were bought from, hmm, which country again? Why again?
Why is it that the millions and millions funneled into Israel, is going to buy tanks? What's the UN feel about all this?
Hey, what's the story about Depleted Uranium and the US using its founding-member veto power in the US to prevent its own investigation for war crimes, as recommended after the first gulf war? Any idea how this plays in review of the US's blocking of any kind of world court that could, ultimately, have power over the US and could bring that case back up again? Hey, how're the stories about the outrageously high cancer rates in Iraq and (now) Afghanistan, in paces where the US/UK used DU slugs?
Americans preaching the beneficence of the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, etc, need to learn about the Fear of States' Right to Self-Govern (1865), Revenge for the Chespeake (1812), Revenge for the Lusitania(1915), and other True Wartime Motivations.
What part of 'good' allows fear and revenge to be answered with military might that poisons the very people the US claims to be 'helping'? With all the over-acted despair over the 'sudden discovery' each day of a new domestic threat - power lines over schools, chromium in the water - and the lawsuits that arise, I'd LOVE to see the US 'help' itself.
Hey, maybe the US can attack itself over the unjust deaths of 160,000 people last year, due to global warming! yeah! They can shell chrysler, ford and chevrolet with those DU slugs that are 'totally safe. we promise'. Then watch as the kids in 8-mile all grow extra ears.
Good? The only difference between your good and my evil is jingoism.
That, and the fact that one of us needs to stop watching out the window for black helicopters long enough to take his medication.
"Since they're willing to leave vicious tyrants in place for the sake of stability, I have no problem categorizing them as evil."
This being a direct quote of yours, intended to thusly categorize France and Germany as "evil," what say you to the likes of Kim Jong-Il? So-called "president" Musharraf? Saddam Hussein himself the first 20-odd years of his rule?
Or, for that matter, Pinochet?
If you know who all these people are and what they've done, you'll see that according to your own definition, America is "Neutral Evil." If, however, you don't know who all these people are, a quick Google search should straighten you out.
And if, Mr. Clark, you were to actually read the comments before posting criticisms that have already been addressed, you wouldn't look like a fool.
I've read each comment and each response by you, and yet fail to see how my direct question has been properly dealt with... perhaps it was the relativist concession about North Korea? Perhaps the concession that one's "alignment" may change over time? Or was it, perhaps your ever-so-erudite dismissal of the anonymous poster's admittedly Chicken-little-esque entry?
Tbe main point of my issue is not that the United States in the past has supported tyrants, but that the US is doing so right now.
According to one of your reponses: "...a lot of powers, including the US, have used tyrants to preserve stability. Who says that alignments can't change? Administrations change. For example, the Vietnam War was ended shortly after a Republican was elected.
"I was simply writing about our current policies, and how they relate to the War on Terror."
Current policies indicate that the US is not in favor of Regime change in North Korea, or Pakistan. And my point, though dismissed out of hand, still stands:
"Since they're willing to leave vicious tyrants in place for the sake of stability, I have no problem categorizing them as evil."
Musharraf in Pakistan: an ally in the War on Terror, and few, if any, would disagree with the assessment that he is a vicious tyrant.
Kim in North Korea: not an ally, but the United States is more than willing to "leave [a] vicious tyrant in place for the sake of stability."
Pray tell, where are these current, timely examples addressed in your responses? Perhaps my foolvision glasses aren't letting me see them? Or, more likely, have you resorted to namecalling because you don't want to have to answer it, or heaven forbid, concede that perhaps your definition of France and Germany under those terms was made in haste?
To add, I'm also not saying, necessarily, that I disagree with your assessments: do I feel that the United States would best be described as "Neutral Evil?" Certainly not, but neither am I willing to simply watch you paint those nations with a brush that applies to the US as well -- and ignore the fact that it does.
There are other, better reasons for someone to redefine France and Germany as "Lawful Evil," as you say, without using criteria that includes the US.
The notion that simply because they opposed American action in Iraq, and on that term is classified as "evil" sounds like all you're doing is spouting the party line. Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, and Tucker Carlson all rolled into one, I guess. So where is the original thought? The critical assessment of the US leadership?
I, personally, am a Republican and voted for GWB, and though I believe that the removal of Saddam was the Right Thing To Do, I do not believe that Spring 2003 was the Right Time To Do It.
I also contend that it is rarely, if ever, in the United States' long-term interests to take the side of one evil to foster the removal of another. Or does the fact that US support of "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan (radical fundamentalist Muslims with a propensity to bite the hands that feed them) started a thread which could (only in hindsight) be traced through to 9/11 not already support that position?
It was a mistake to lay in with a small group of evil radicals against the larger Soviet evil. And here may have been no need to consider the connection in hindsight between support of Al-Qaida in mid-80s Afghanistan and 9/11 had the US taken the true high-ground and opposed both the evil of expansionist communism and the evil of militaristic Islamic fundamentalism.
Mr. Clark,
Yes ok, I admit it, I used overbroad generalizations while I was writing a little piece about applying a fictional morality system to one of the most complex issues of our time.
I'm pretty sure that current US policy doesn't include propping up Kim Song Il, and I'm also pretty sure that Musharraf isn't an evil tyrant of the same sort as Saddam Hussein.
I disagree with your belief that it was wrong to align ourselves with the enemies of our Enemy during the Cold War, but I do agree that we are reaping the consequences now. As I wrote last night, America's biggest mistake of the past century was overestimating the USSR and underestimating ourselves. As such, it may not have been necessary to fight proxy wars to the extent that we did, but it was still a useful policy to some degree. The world would be in a far worse position now if we had lost the Cold War.
Clearly Germany and France were being evil when they said they didn't believe Iraq had anything like what we claimed they did.
I mean, after all, look at all the WMD we've found so far!
Well... hmmm...
damn. I nearly forgot, we never did find any.
Interesting article, if only for the idiotic responses from your anti-fans. The alignments are hard to apply to nations because it requires such a monolithic view. Most nations are too complex. But I get your point.
The comedy comes in from your critics. People who blast America as evil don't know anything about the world. The insane sh*t that most of the world's governments do to their people is nothing short of demonic. I've been to Bosnia and seen what the Serbs did, been to Iraq and seen what Hussein has done. No, America is not evil. America and Britain are the only countries doing anything about the world's problems. And to interfere with trying to stop these problems from getting worse... is it apathy? Nope! Too much is at stake. It's evil.
The French are not Lawful Evil. They are Rude Smelly.
Hey, if I'm a tool, I want to be a Porter-Cable 19.2 Cordless Drill.
An excellent treatise. As a former DnD'er (chaotic good monk), I have to say I like the application.
Though I would consider the U.N. itself more of a chaotic neutral/evil organization.
Thanks Nicodemus.
I'm constantly amazed by the rudeness, idiocy, and shallowness of the great unwashed internet masses. I imagine these are the same people who slink around in the dark corners in Real Life because they actually don't know how to interact with people in a setting where it's really possible to get socked in the face.
I write a half-humorous piece of nonsense, and because some people disagree with my politics they instantly work to disagree as offensively as possible. It's like they aren't even trying to make a point, so much as they're trying to offend, or shock, or something. It's really mind-boggling.
Correction.
People of the United States may very well be considered neutral good.. but the US government is very definitely neutral evil.
Given their power, Bush and his cronies apply equal amounts of lawful principles and chaotic actions, all for their own evil and selfish purposes.
Don't ever fuck with DnD folks about alignments. It shows your naivety, as does your political analysis of the World At Large. The American Brand Myth will always live on in fools like you, while the powers that support true evil--death, destruction, and world instability for their own agendas--will operate with your tacit agreement.
I don't know what your alignment is (you seem to want to be good...), but I'd definitely put your INT at somewhere around 7.
D.
Thanks for the tips, Dick!
And the powers-that-be don't merely have my tacit agreement, they have my explicit support. Only someone as naive as you would fail to realize that! I'm part of the machine baby, and you can't stop us. We own everything, we've got all the guns, and we'll crush you whiny commies like the bugs you are.
I think that if anything, the USA is true neutral - not in the sense that we believe in any sort of ultimate balance, but because sometimes we follow the rules, sometimes we ignore them; we try to do overtly good acts but at the core of the American dream you find "me, my, mine, and f*** you, world". Even when it's not all "me" or "my family", it's still "my friends", "my race", or even "my nation", with that implicit "f*** you world" right there.
For the love of Christ! Morgan, your knowledge of the role the U.S. played in Saddam's history is repugant. Read, learn, then shut the hell up.
http://www.darrenkaplan.net/archives/000323.html
My understanding of the D&D ethics system is that Good and Evil represent our intentions such that "Good" characters will act in the "greater good" while "Evil" characters will be self serving.
I don't believe the use of these terms in D&D necessarily equates to real-world definitions for the terms. So you could easily have a character who is Neutral Good, for example, but their actions could be considered evil. Early communists (eg Trotsky) for example clearly had a "Good" alignment. Even take the evil Hitler as an example. As a leader he truly believed his policies were the best for Germany and the world. Even his hatred for Jews, non-whites, homosexuals, etc were based on a twisted form of altrusim. Based on that, it's hard to see how he could have an alignment of anything other than Good. But he was racist and wrong and evil.
I guess my point is that it's naive and self serving (would that define you as Evil?) to call the US "Good" while calling France and Germany "Evil."
As it relates to the war on terror, I believe the US actions are very self serving, particularly in regards to Iraq. Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda (in fact Ba'athism is fundamentally opposed to al Qaeda, and one of bin Laden's main goals was the removal of Saddam Hussein)... if I were to guess I'd say the US was making an overture to Israel. By getting rid of Iraq, Israel maybe wouldn't feel so threatened and they could start working towards solving the Palestinian problem (another of bin Laden's goals)... Gez, all the US would have to do is pull troops out of Saudi Arabia and bin Laden's three main goals would be met! And if you take away the cause.. you take away the terror.
Terrorism is not new. Rogue regimes are not new. Rogue regimes seeking WMD are not new. What is new is that America has become a (if not the) prime target for terrorists and that's not good for business. The US acted because they became the target. They wiped out two regimes killing thousands of innocent civilians in doing so.
Whether the US is right or wrong doesn't matter. In relation to the war on terror they weren't acting until they became prime targets. In retaliation they've killed thousands of innocents. Overthrown an innocent (in terms of the war on terror) regime in Iraq. To me, this seems self serving, and thus in D&D terms, evil.
Based on how they've used and abused the law (international and domestic) and flaunted international conventions. I'd definitely say they are not lawful. Neutral seems to fit the best.
So I'm saying the US alignment is Neutral Evil.. though the US may be doing good things. History will probably find GWB Neutral Good...
My two cents.
TJ: By your definition, then, everyone is evil; every single person on the planet generally acts out of their own self interests.
Thanks for reading a post in a thread so old. ;) It's a very interesting discussion I think.
Not everyone is evil, no. I gave three examples above of people I would consider (in a D&D ethics system) "Good," and I can think of many more.
My main point was that D&D's usage of the words good and evil is not the same as the standard usage.
Osama bin Laden might be a delusional bad man.. but I don't think he'd be evil in D&D either.
By my understanding, Han Solo would be Chaotic Evil... though he was a good guy.
It's about motivation, not your judgement of them.
TJ: It's easy to find recent comments from the main page :)
I don't think your understanding of the D&D alignment system is correct. Good and evil there are defined by external sources, specifically the various deities, and generally line up with what society as a whole considers good and evil.
Here's my take on the D&D alignment system (ar, at least, how best to apply it to the real world):
Good: Attempt to help others
Evil: Put yourself ahead at all costs
Lawful: Enforce discipline, structure, and hierarchy
Chaotic: Support individual rights and limited government
Based on this, we arrive at the following conclusions:
Bush Administration: LE-Enforces obedience and patriotism through fear and as epanded the govenrment immsensely throguh the Patriot Act
Saddam Hussein: NE-forced order and obedience on his own people, but would not conform to inernational law
Al-Qaeda: LE-works thrugh guerilla tactics and employs the rhetoric of anti-colonialism, but wishes to set up a totalitarian caliphate once the U.S. is destroyed
Europe: L/NG-mostly wished to bring Saddam back into line through the international order, althoguh a few countries cooperated with the U.S. thinking that the good done by removing Saddam would be greater than the harm done by flouting international custom
U.S. Opposition: Any Non-Lawful, Non-Evil-Various factions have different alignments:
ACLU: CN/G-mostly about the liberty of the individual, but has gotten involved innsome more collective rights cases, such as racial profiling
Paleoconservates: True Neutral-tend to support U.S. noninvolvement in the world at large
Black Community: NG-tend towards a hierachical structure based around the church, but have always been among the Bush Administration's most vocal opponents, especially on civil rights issues
Libertarians: CN-support individual freedom above all and have stauchly opposed the Patriot Act from Day One
I hope you find this enlightening.
Anon: Your comments only enlighten me as to your leftist anti-American ideology! Sieg heil!
OK,for all you anti-american poeple that posted even saying america is neutral good is totally bullshit.All you anti-americans are fucking tools like t bob said.Your saying that US is lawful evil?Did you look at the world you idoits?We have it great here better than any countries that are starving and in critical economic debt.PLease we spend multi billions to restore Iraq and you say we went their to capture a couple millions in oil?Bush is also a very good president and yes we needed to take out saddam becuase we all no he had nuclear weapons to blow up the US.Were Lawful good you assholes.We try to help the world as a whole not just for us to prosper.Did we risk our standing to help Russia in WW1 just for ourselves?Ya you guys have no clue what its like in other countries you guys better be kissing our four fathers asses for this damm country!!Whos with me!!?
PS:those D&D standings are wrong I know I play the game alot and Michael Williams you are a sorry excuse for a polition and you are chotic neutral becuase you cant make up your mind.OHH ya france and Germany are neutral good becuase they didnt wanna get hurt by joining in on the war.
Regarding whether or not people are 'good' or 'evil':
Compared to God (Gen. 6) "Now the LORD observed the extent of the people's wickedness, and he saw that all their thoughts were consistently and totally evil. So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart. " and (Gen. 8) "21And the LORD was pleased with the sacrifice and said to himself, "I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things, even though people's thoughts and actions are bent toward evil from childhood. " (NLT)
Not to say that there is no distinction between one person and another when compared to other men (humans). We *can* wrong other people, who are innocents. But nobody is innocent to God, and noone is unjustly punnished by him. Because we are all evil.
We talked about the meaning of 'good' in my son's Sunday school class this week, that's why it is on my mind.
LT: Quite right, but D&D alignments are a very different context :)