For Zaeed to be evil he should refuse to kill other evil people? Why? Out of solidarity?
"Well, I got a contract to kill that guy but then I learned he eats babies so you know... I'd feel uncomfortable about killing such a cool dude. That's why I joined Team Evil
. When you join Team Evil
you need to be willing to stand up for your comrades. Because I think the world would be better if everyone just ate more babies and I am willing to make a personal sacrifice to make that world a reality.Team Evil:
Because babies are delicious."
1. He is only interested in the benefit for himself
2. He is indifferent to other people's problems
That's not evil?
The alignment system as defined:Evil:
- I will harm others for personal benefit.
- Maybe eating babies is fun, maybe it's delicious, or maybe it's profitable. Either way, if there's a baby in my belly that doesn't bother me.
- I won't harm others just because it benefits me, but I am not responsible for harm inflicted by others.
- I won't eat babies but if someone else wants to eat babies then that's not my problem.
- I am responsible for preventing others from causing harm. I should make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.
- If someone else tries to eat a baby, I should stop them even at personal cost.
IN ADDITION, the stupid alignments:Stupid Evil:
- I will harm others even at personal cost.
- Babies taste terrible but I eat them because I mean... uh... you know... babies. They don't like it. You gotta eat them.
- I literally can't tell the difference between good and evil. I think they should all just compromise.
- Person A wants to eat a baby (evil). Person B (good) doesn't want Person A to eat a baby. How about we compromise and let Person A eat half a baby?
- I will be "nice" even at personal cost, and even at cost to others.
- If I meet someone who likes eating babies, then at personal cost I will provide that person with a dining table and a cooking pot and politely ask them to use these items for good. I'm a nice person. Yay!
You're also wrong about Zaeed being "neutral" in terms of lawfulness by the way. Every possible answer is both correct and yet completely and utterly wrong.
That we're able to have this argument shows how broken the alignment system is.