When you consider how many gamers think:
-that LG is the "most good" or "strictest good" alignment
-that LG means obeying systems and not trying to change them even if they're harming people
you really start to understand the deathgrip racism & sexism have on gamer communities
-that LG is the "most good" or "strictest good" alignment
-that LG means obeying systems and not trying to change them even if they're harming people
you really start to understand the deathgrip racism & sexism have on gamer communities
*sighs in Jewish*
It's really disappointing that people's takeaway from this is "CG is the only truly good alignment."
I feel like I should do my "charity vs. tzedakah" rant here but I'm too tired and I don't want to talk to any more gamers tonight.
It's really disappointing that people's takeaway from this is "CG is the only truly good alignment."
I feel like I should do my "charity vs. tzedakah" rant here but I'm too tired and I don't want to talk to any more gamers tonight.
Actually, you know what? I've already done this rant multiple times. The idea that helping others should be based on individual compassion rather than systematized is a very Christian one. Judaism says the opposite.
https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1005851622164107265
The easiest way to understand lawful vs. chaotic good isn't in terms of "what is the law of the land?" but in terms of "should I base my understanding of what the right thing to do is on a system or on what I think is right at the moment?"
And there are dangers in both. One isn't a better answer than the other. Systems risk one-size-fits-all answers that don't fit everyone, and individual judgment risks, well, everything that is wrong with individual judgment.
Another way to look at it is the means justify the ends (start with rules for what is right) vs the ends justify the means (start with the goal and decide how to get there).
Both of those have their own problems.
Both of those have their own problems.
but for all the "yes, CG is the only true good alignment!"
like, look around at what Protestant individualism has wrought
I'm not interested in relying on the goodness of people's hearts to make sure everyone has food and shelter, or fair treatment.
like, look around at what Protestant individualism has wrought
I'm not interested in relying on the goodness of people's hearts to make sure everyone has food and shelter, or fair treatment.
For that matter, here's Twitter's Rabbi talking about the concept of "legalism" as it pertains to Judaism:
https://twitter.com/TheRaDR/status/1094598093616676864
Early Christians (who had a strong antinomian bent) and were attempting to distance themselves from Judaism, characterized Judaism as "legalistic," by which they meant "dry, unthinkingly rigid, and inhumane," and that sense has stuck because they took over the world.
And I mean, given that the Pharisees (the founders of rabbinic Judaism--the Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent exile, enslavement, and genocides) were known by their contemporaries for *flexible, humane* interpretations of Jewish law...
...it's doubly frustrating (and again, has frustratingly managed to endure for two millennia and given us Shylock as literally a stock character).
But arguments about whether one can be flexibly "legalistic" sort of miss the point, which is that valuing law is not a bad thing, nor an unthinking thing, nor an inhumane thing.
There's an old Jewish joke that Moses comes down the mountain with the tablets and says, "Okay, God doesn't want us to work on Saturdays."
And one Jew looks at another and says, "What constitutes 'work'?"
And before you know it, you've got two opposing synagogues.
And one Jew looks at another and says, "What constitutes 'work'?"
And before you know it, you've got two opposing synagogues.
And of course the joke there is the Jewish love for an argument--and more so, Jewish "legalism".
Moses comes and proclaims a rather abstract value, and his Jewish audience immediately heads into the weeds of nitty-gritty details of practice.
Moses comes and proclaims a rather abstract value, and his Jewish audience immediately heads into the weeds of nitty-gritty details of practice.
Lurking behind what--in a Jewish context--is an affectionate in-joke, however, is the much darker specter of Christian canards about Jews: that we miss the forest for the trees (hence rejecting Jesus), that we're oblivious to a greater moral sense and caught up in nitpicking, etc
The thing is, though, you can proclaim all the lofty moral principles that you want:
they're meaningless (and historically, potentially harmful if anyone attempts to enforce them) without community agreement on *what they look like in practice*
they're meaningless (and historically, potentially harmful if anyone attempts to enforce them) without community agreement on *what they look like in practice*
What does "love your neighbor" actually LOOK like?
Because as long as that's not defined, you can have rich people claiming that NOT giving money to the poor is "helping" them because it's making them stronger, teaching them to help themselves, etc.
Because as long as that's not defined, you can have rich people claiming that NOT giving money to the poor is "helping" them because it's making them stronger, teaching them to help themselves, etc.
What does "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" actually MEAN?
Because again, as long as we don't have specific agreement on the details of how that works, you'll have behavior that some people see as loving and others see as harmful.
Because again, as long as we don't have specific agreement on the details of how that works, you'll have behavior that some people see as loving and others see as harmful.
(Incidentally, before Jesus put it in the positive formulation, Hillel put it in the negative--"that which is hateful to you, do not do to others"--which I think is a much safer construction.)
Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy--that is, it focuses on "correct" belief--while Judaism is a religion of orthopraxy--that is, it focuses on "correct" ACTION.
And you can get away with being like "fuck the rules!" when you're defining membership by what's in your heart.
And you can get away with being like "fuck the rules!" when you're defining membership by what's in your heart.
For an orthopractic tradition--a "put your money where your mouth is" tradition--we have to agree on what our principles look like when they're put into practice, into action.
To go back to the joke, sure, it's funny, but the question "what constitutes work?" is actually essential.
The Jewish practice of not working on Shabbat has major economic implications. You're giving up a day of profit.
The Jewish practice of not working on Shabbat has major economic implications. You're giving up a day of profit.
And in order for people to be able to hold to that, everyone in the community needs to be giving up a day of profit in the same way, otherwise it's not fair.
Not to mention that the actual details of daily life and what is and isn't part of "work" need to be worked out, otherwise "you shall take a day of rest each week" means your pets don't get fed. And maybe YOU don't get fed, which is hardly restful.
And you can work out the rules consciously, as a community, and with intention--law, at least when it's done well--or you can let them accrete on their own--custom.
But either way, you're going to end up with rules.
But either way, you're going to end up with rules.
And if you don't work them out with *intention,* if you don't debate them and think and talk about the details, you often end up with systems that have unintended effects, that end up being deeply unfair to some people, that are harmful.
Usually they become law anyway, and then you have a corrupt legal system, but even if they're not law, it doesn't mean they're not enforced.
So you're going to end up with "legalism" either way.
Loving law, loving the process of figuring out how principles become practice, loving *architecting* community, is how you get law that promotes equity and provides a blueprint for communities that succeed together.
Loving law, loving the process of figuring out how principles become practice, loving *architecting* community, is how you get law that promotes equity and provides a blueprint for communities that succeed together.
After all--while law is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used by the powerful to do harm--at its base, the whole point of law is to counter the idea that "might makes right."
And the negative view of law that we often have in the US (and the West in general) is very much derived from early Christianity.
So anyway, the fact that I talked about how bad so many gamers' understanding of LG is and y'all responded with "yes, LG ISN'T good!" "CG is the only good!" etc. is like
spare me your christian bullshit
spare me your christian bullshit
Also jfc I’m just going to start blocking anyone who responds as if, in the first tweet, I’m saying that’s what LG rather than *literally describing my frustration with gamers who understand LG that way.*
“Haha you just discovered LG is the worst alignment!”
sweetie, I was trying to get game designers to understand basic ethical systems when you were too young to drive
and if you think there’s objectively a “worst” alignment, you’re even more puerile than most of them
sweetie, I was trying to get game designers to understand basic ethical systems when you were too young to drive
and if you think there’s objectively a “worst” alignment, you’re even more puerile than most of them
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
