Alright: I like this way better than the original version. Good job. In retrospect, I probably should have done more outright editing in the sandbox; it isn't something I'm used to.
However, I'm afraid I still have to question tying Character Alignments to "For Great Justice" and "For Happiness" at the exclusion of each other. The poster children for Chaotic Good, Robin Hood and V (movie edition) operated on principles and clear "this villain must be punished" streaks, and I wouldn't dare try to list all the Lawful Good characters (and people) who make other people's well-being a priority unto itself. (Superman once tried to solve world hunger. It didn't pan out.) While I'm on the subject, to pick up on a slightly more obscure character, I would characterize Ruby of Ruby Gloom (a personal favorite cartoon of mine) as both Neutral Good and someone who practically lives to make her friends happy. (If she has any deep moral imperatives behind this, besides the obvious, I haven't heard them.)
Despite the description in the bottom paragraph, I still can't see why a Chaotic Good character (roughly characterized as "acting for the good of the people, and if the law impedes that, I'm hardly going to let that slow me down, assuming if I don't go ahead and fight against it") would shirk personal principles altogether, or why a Lawful Good character ("the law has the right idea; barring exceptional circumstances, see to it that you follow it") would disregard the results of their actions in favor of purely "principle"-driven thinking. One doesn't displace the other, even without D&D's Neutral Good as a compromise.
Edited by Caswin Hide / Show Replies
I guess Lawful Good would be a rule-utilitarian and Chaotic good an act-utilitarian, to put it very glibly.
I'm... afraid that's too glib for me to understand. However, it still sounds like a disservice to both, at least to make a blanket statement out of it.
Yeah, you are right: It's only one of the possible interpretations of Order vs Chaos. I have now toned it down to that level.
One can also use Lawful means for Chaotic ends (either side being Good or Evil), and vice versa. A Rules Lawyer is generally looked down upon in RP Gs...but he can be seen as using Lawful means ("follow the rules") for the Chaotic end of limiting the game master's power (which in RP Gs is generally not conducive to things working out).
A more arguable example, though, is the ACLU, whether you like them or you don't. Their means are Lawful: Force those in power to follow the law and constitution even when it's inconvenient. Their ends, though, are Chaotic: Limit the power of those in power. Complicating this is that they are fighting For Great Justice rather than For Happiness (Those who dislike them might see them as Knights Templar in that fight, but that's clearly their goal).
Bottom line: The correlation between alignment and deontology vs. consequentialism is certainly murky, and even alignment ends and means can differ. Deontology also can be described better than "For Great Justice." It's accurate to use Principles Zealot for the view taken to extremes, and "For Principles," which is more accurate, might sound too similar. "For Honor" might describe deontology better than "For Great Justice," although there is probably a better title than either of those.
Annnd I'm back. And we're at odds again. The short version is this: Aren't there a lot of tropes related to making people happy? Why single out two fairly specific forms of pleasure-seeking, which is itself a separate (though related) concept from happiness?
Edited by Caswin Hide / Show Replies
>>"Aren't there a lot of tropes related to making people happy?"
Not really, no. Maybe people think it's too much People Sit On Chairs?
Anyway, Safe, Sane, and Consensual is not in any way limited to sexual activities, it includes non-sexual stuff as well. Sports, hobbies, games, whatever.
"Safe, Sane, and Consensual" may not be technically limited to sex, but the majority of the page — the description, examples, and "see also" tropes, as well as the connotations of the title — is about it. But that's beside the point.
Just based on a quick skim, I think some of the Goodness Tropes (Friend to All Children, Good Feels Good), Peace Tropes (Care-Bear Stare / Mind Hug), and Happiness Tropes (natch) alone, while not strictly about the all-purpose spread of happiness, are at least as closely related as the ones on the page. I'm sure I could find more if I really looked, though it was a bit harder than I expected; you may have something there. (Again, Ethical Slut describes on a specific take on a specific form of pleasure which isn't exactly "happiness" anyway. It's kind of a stretch and makes it sound like having lots of sex is a core component of making people happy.)
Edited by Caswin
Added Good Feels Good.
Ethical Slut is not about having a lot of sex or having it with a lot of people, it's about a morality focused on handling sexuality with respect for everyone involved and maximizing happiness for everyone involved.
And yes, the concept of SSC do have it's origin in a sexual subculture, it's just that it's not limited to that subculture and not limited to sexuality in general either.
But... wait. Both pages specify promiscuity as part of "Ethical Slut" behavior. (Which is kind of to be expected.) Besides the specificity itself, "Handling sexuality with respect to everyone involved" is altogether...
...actually, I give up. You win this one.
Edited by Caswin
Two things about the introduction bug me. First, "maximize the happiness for me, and never mind the suffering as long as it only happens to other people" is a downright villainous, or at least very selfish outlook, but here — unless I'm reading it wrong — it sounds like the clearest alternative to "ethical hedonism". Second, unless I'm mistaken, For Great Justice (and Lawful Good in general) is largely based on keeping people from getting hurt, at least among other things.
Hide / Show Replies
Blech. This whole description's giving me a giant headache. I think I understand what it's describing but the words just don't make any sense.
I think the title's part of the problem. For The Happiness would establish this better as a parallel trope to For the Evulz- without the "the", it could be any kind of happiness, not abstract happiness for everyone. I could rename this and rewrite the description to be more succinct and coherent. Opinions, anyone?
See you in the discussion pages.
Thanks for the input. I have now clarified the trope a bit, adding some Alice & Bob to make it less theoretical.
I also corrected the mistake of claiming that it was about happiness for everyone. Of course it's about happiness for as many as possible: Almost the same thing, but nott quite.
Less of a headache now?
I can't speak for SomeGuy, of course, but everything that bugged me before is still in there. I can certainly say with conviction that Lawful Good and fighting "For Great Justice" (a catch-all term for fighting for what's "right") do not stand at the polar opposite of "making people happy".
Same kind of polar opposite as "lawful good" versus "chaotic good". In other words, they usually get along just fine, but they have different ideas about the bottom line.
In moral philosophy, the great divider is whether actions should be judged based on their consequences or on the principle behind them.
While that is an interesting way to look at it, the broader subjects of deontology and utilitarianism aside, isn't there a great deal of overlap between the things described here? Someone fighting in the name of what's right will do so because they believe it's the best thing for everyone, and presumably, anyone spreading the love does so because they feel it's right.
Or, from another angle, not only will a Lawful Good character most likely fight evil to put a stop to their evil ways first and to punish the villain in the name of the moon second, it's not as if you wouldn't catch a Lawful Good character working on a community project (possibly with anime-esque hot-blooded fervor and/or inspirational maxims) when they aren't fighting clear-cut bad guys. Surely that qualifies as a push to make more people happy?
Real world philosophers and fantasy world clerics would disagree with you, but I don't. I think most people *don't* chose any one single foundation for their morality and their actions.
These tropes are subtropes of having a moral driving force, just like "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Good" are subtropes of "Good".
The idea is NOT to categorize everyone as being either one or the other.
These sorts of ethical and philosophical dilemmas are exactly what I think is wrong with this trope. There's too much emphasis on the heroic archetype, and not enough on the "spread happiness" message. The base assumption for this page should be "such and such character wants to give happiness for everyone", not "hero with unrelated other goals may also want to give happiness for everyone".
See you in the discussion pages.
I agree.
This trope started out on YKTTW as "Ethical Hedonist", but that version of the trope was stillborn. It appears the trope still suffer a bit from it's theory-heavy origin.
The philosophical division between deontology and theleology need to remain the core of the trope, but it should not be the emphasis.
I'm making a trope repair shop entry as well as a sandbox entry. Lets fool around with those together, :-)
I don't want to make such a radical edit without sticking this in discussion and letting people kick it around, but it seems like the difference between For Happiness and For Great Justice should not be linked closely (maybe not at all) to character alignment.
It seems very possible to be a Lawful consequentialist or a Chaotic deontologist (the first might think law and order lead to a happy public; the second might think the central principle is a duty not to coerce).
Consequentialists are probably a little more likely to be Chaotic than Lawful and the reverse for Deontologists, but the correlation just isn't very strong, at least IMO.