Alignment - because we ...ing can't let it pass

[schpeelah]

Orifinal post by PoliteNewb

Well, that's the whole problem with Chaos meaning individualism - all leaders are Chaotic, their followers are Lawful, talking and acting in a given way is Lawful of Chaotic dependiing on and whether other people are doing it too, the whole system falls apart.

Okay, I said I was done, but I can't let this pass.

Yes, of course what "chaotic behavior" and what "lawful behavior" are vary depending on culture ("who else is doing it too"). So the fuck what? You can act lawfully or chaotically without necessarily being lawful or chaotic, depending on situation.

Being lawful means you act lawfully even when it is not in your best interest...because you believe in fucking laws. You think collectivism, organization, hierarchy, etc...these are "right" things. Even if it might suck for you at a given moment, you don't want the system to break down because the system has generally worked for you before. (Or hell, maybe not even...I know tons of suckers who have been raped by the system yet steadfastly defend it as the right way for society to work)
You are a "when in Rome" kind of guy...and if Rome happens to be crazyland where there are no laws, you will probably feel very uncomfortable most of the time, because you feel there SHOULD be some fucking laws.

Being chaotic means you feel that individual freedoms are more important than consensus. That mob mentality is not necessarily the best way to run a society. That someone else's rules may in fact be entirely arbitrary. It also means that while a law may be in your best interest (and you may even sometimes take advantage of that fact), you generally are in favor of less laws, and would happily do without them. Again, I know people like this...there are people who refuse welfare money that they are entitled to because they believe "the government shouldn't be doing that". Likewise there are people that smoke marijuana or own weapons in places where those things are illegal because they feel regulating them is none of the governments business.

Owning weapons, smoking weed, swearing in public, prostitution and many many other things, are not inherently good or evil. But numerous governments have (and do) regulate these things. Whether or not you think that's a good idea determines whether YOU as a person are lawful or chaotic. Whether or not you OBEY those regulations determines whether you are acting lawfully or chaotically at any given moment.

So no, all leaders are not chaotic...though most of their followers probably are lawful. If a leader even believes in some sort of approval of the masses for justifying his rule (whether it be democratic republic, inherited right to rule, or just appointment by deity), he is being lawful. Because positing rules mean that those rules can be turned against you (there is a recount, someone proves you're a bastard, or the dude down the street works a better miracle).

[CatharzGodfoot]

Whether or not you think that's a good idea determines whether YOU as a person are lawful or chaotic. Whether or not you OBEY those regulations determines whether you are acting lawfully or chaotically at any given moment.

Do you mean that a truly lawful person believes that everything should be regulated in some way, while a truly chaotic person believes that nothing should be regulated?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Owning weapons, smoking weed, swearing in public, prostitution and many many other things, are not inherently good or evil. But numerous governments have (and do) regulate these things. Whether or not you think that's a good idea determines whether YOU as a person are lawful or chaotic.

Um, why?

That's a completely retarded definition, because 1) there's no such thing as an ethically-neutral law and 2) you will find no one out there who has a uniform opinion on 'neutral' laws. Some people are against taxes for a welfare state but are also for anti-sodomy laws. So if there are laws out there that require taxes to be collected to give money for the poor and laws out there that punish you for having consensual gay sex in the privacy of your own bedroom, would this persons' reaction to the government be lawful or chaotic?

Whether or not you OBEY those regulations determines whether you are acting lawfully or chaotically at any given moment.

And that's also stupid, because an evil person whether they are LE, NE, or CE will obey laws that require them to oppress minorities but LG, NG, and CG people will oppose them. Similarly, a LE, NE, or CE person will break laws that require them not to lie to stockholders but a good person won't.

Law and chaos won't determine whether someone will break or follow a law, good and evil will. Law and chaos is a completely meaningless distinction even for its intended purpose, seeing how people will react to an organization.

[Username17]

Person A has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They do not change their behavior and are now breaking the law where they are but staying consistent with their past behavior and stated goals.

Person B has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They change their behavior to fit in with the requirements of the land they are currently in, making a clean break with their previously established routine.

Which one is Lawful, which one is Chaotic. Why?

Would it make any difference if the difference in strictures was something essentially inconsequential like "wearing purple (required/restricted)?" Would it make any difference if the difference in strictures was something you personally felt strongly about like "eating ancestors (required/taboo)?"

-Username17

[PoliteNewb]

Do you mean that a truly lawful person believes that everything should be regulated in some way, while a truly chaotic person believes that nothing should be regulated?

YES. Thank you.
There are, necessarily, degrees (just as someone can detect as "strongly lawful" or "moderately lawful")...but by and large, lawful people believe that rules and strictures conceived of by a group are preferable to everyone doing their own thing. And chaotic people believe that, by and large, mass "one size fits all" rules do more harm than good, and there should be as few as possible (up to, ideally, none).

Note that most people are not lawful or chaotic...or good or evil for that matter. They may do lawful/chaotic/good/evil shit, but that doesn't automatically make them one or the other, unless they do that thing habitually.

Giving to charity one time doesn't make you good.
Breaking a law once doesn't make you chaotic.
Obeying a self-serving law once doesn't make you lawful.
And (I know some people may take issue with this) giving your kid a black eye one time doesn't make you evil.

I say this because making things too absolute does not allow alignments to mean anything. If every guy who smacks his kid once in a while is the same as the guy who murders kids (both are "evil"), then evil is banal and there is little point in defining it. Hell, most of the world would light up on a detect evil spell.

there's no such thing as an ethically-neutral law

While I'm not sure of your definition, I said that certain laws are not (in and of themselves) good or evil. And they're not.

A law that requires the wearing of seat belts. Some people feel this law is a good thing because it helps prevent accidental deaths. Others feel this is a needless infringement on their right to go through their windshields. Which group is right? Who the fuck knows? Why? It all depends on which you consider more important. In some cases, it depends on whether or not you even believe a law has it's intended effect.

EDITED TO ADD: A clarification...I think you were responding to my sentence: "Whether or not you think that's a good idea defines whether you are lawful or chaotic".

I didn't mean "whether you think that particular law is a good idea. I meant "whether you think it's a good idea for somebody to pass laws about that in the first place".

Some people are against taxes for a welfare state but are also for anti-sodomy laws. So if there are laws out there that require taxes to be collected to give money for the poor and laws out there that punish you for having consensual gay sex in the privacy of your own bedroom, would this persons' reaction to the government be lawful or chaotic?

It would be neither; it would be hypocritical. In this case, they are not basing their opinion of laws on the law/chaos dichotomy...they are basing in on personal tastes as to the behaviors themselves.
A lawful person might dislike one (or both) laws, but would believe in obeying them because they think the lawmakers know what they're doing, or because they believe in democracy by the people, or because X reason involving groupthink.
A chaotic person would dislike both laws and probably disobey them because they don't believe charity or sodomy are things that require laws, since they are personal matters and they believe in individual freedoms. People can give charity or not, as they like, and they can assfuck or not, as they like, and the government can butt out.

Law/chaos does not involve the end results of laws/rules...it's strictly concerned with how you feel about laws/rules in general. If you don't have strong opinions about laws vs. freedom in general, but react to each law based on your personal opinions/tastes, then you are not lawful or chaotic (like most people).

And that's also stupid, because an evil person whether they are LE, NE, or CE will obey laws that require them to oppress minorities but LG, NG, and CG people will oppose them. Similarly, a LE, NE, or CE person will break laws that require them not to lie to stockholders but a good person won't.

Actually, no, that's not true at all (by my definitions).

All evil people will oppress minorities if they can get away with it. CE people will oppress minorities even if the law says they can't, and will just avoid being caught at it, whereas LE people won't oppress minorities unless they can find a rule that says they totally can. If oppressing minorities is so important to them, they'll move somewhere with laws that allow it, or work to change the laws.

Good people won't generally oppress minorities, but LG will obey discriminatory laws if they can't find away around them (i.e. if the law says goblins ride on the back of the bus, LG won't let them ride in the front...they may make the back of the bus more comfortable, or charge less to goblins, or whatever they can to make up for the discrimination, but they'll obey the law...which they'll meanwhile be working to change).

LE people won't break laws that require them not to lie to stockholders; they may omit things, use weasel language, or otherwise pervert the meaning of the law, but they won't break it. A CG person won't break laws requiring them not to lie to stockholders, but not because they give a shit about the law.

Law and chaos won't determine whether someone will break or follow a law, good and evil will.

Not always. Whether or not someone obeys a law against jaywalking has fuck-all to do with good and evil. Whether or not one buckles their seat belt when they drive has fuck-all to do with good and evil.

Law and chaos is a completely meaningless distinction even for its intended purpose, seeing how people will react to an organization.

This may be a source of our disconnect; I don't think law and chaos should be intended as a factor for determining how people react to an organization. Law and chaos are about how you view freedom vs. rules.
It is entirely possible for two eminently lawful countries to go to bloody war with each other over some bullshit rule about which end you crack eggs at. And both countries are being lawful...and if you're a lawful guy, you could join either side. And the lawful (neutral) gods are smiling as they watch this shit, saying, "yup, everything's good here". Because as far as they're concerned, both countries get it: organization, codified rules, and mass consensus are the way to go.

I realize this is a break with how traditional D&D has defined law and chaos. But I also already admitted that traditional views of alignment are incredibly fucked up. I'm just trying to save the baby from the bathwater.

Law and Chaos are mindset that (I feel) can be detected, magically influenced, and even used (for instance, Conan the Libertarian will get more use out of that Anarchic Greataxe when he's slaying the Paladins of Lawfultown). But they are not by any means "teams", where all the lawful guys gang up against all the chaotic guys.

Person A has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They do not change their behavior and are now breaking the law where they are but staying consistent with their past behavior and stated goals.

Person B has a personal moral code and well defined pattern of conduct. They go to a new land that has different behavioral strictures than theirs. They change their behavior to fit in with the requirements of the land they are currently in, making a clean break with their previously established routine.

Which one is Lawful, which one is Chaotic. Why?

Would it make any difference if the difference in strictures was something essentially inconsequential like "wearing purple (required/restricted)?" Would it make any difference if the difference in strictures was something you personally felt strongly about like "eating ancestors (required/taboo)?"

First, yes, it absolutely matters how consequential the laws are...because it's easy to obey laws that don't affect you. Obeying a law that you're not aware of that has no impact on you says absolutely nothing about whether you are lawful or chaotic.

Person A is neither lawful or chaotic, generally speaking. It sounds (from your description) like his personal code and behavior is not a result of any organized system of rules or governance, so that makes it simply his personality. He does what he feels is right...congratulations, so do most people. If he feels that his right to do as he sees fit overrides another countries right to legislate his behavior, he's straying into chaotic...because he is taking a positive assertion that his rights/freedoms trump other people's right to pass laws and have governance.

Person B is lawful. He is also generally only likely to exist if a.) he is a mindless drone or b.) the laws of the two places are not radically different. But yes, he is the quintessential "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" kind of guy. He probably does not have strong feelings on what things are right and wrong, and so he believes in "rightness through consensus/authority". His new homeland has rules in place, and following rules is the right thing to do, so he does. If he has problems with some of them (i.e. his new home is vegan and he loves hamburgers, or his new home is nudist and he's a prude) then his lawfulness will be in conflict with his personality/morals. As is only natural. What he does with this determines if he is truly lawful.

I apologize if I mislead people into believing I was defending the classic "team good vs. team evil" system of alignment. I am merely taking the classic framework and trying to make it make some kind of sense. If this means changing some shit, I'm prepared to do that.

[PoliteNewb]

Incidentally, Schpeela: thank you for posting this, and I apologize because I should have just done it myself. Sorry. If you had a retort, I'm happy to answer it.

[CatharzGodfoot]

As an aside, I think a more interesting philosophical dynamic might be freedom of information vs. freedom of privacy. Although the degree to which people believe things should be regulated is interesting, it isn't particularly useful in determining how a given individual will behave. After all, people believe that different things should be regulated to different degrees. Knowing that person X feels that 80% of all things should be regulated (or that all things should be 80% regulated) is far less useful than knowing what they think should be regulated and how.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This may be a source of our disconnect; I don't think law and chaos should be intended as a factor for determining how people react to an organization. Law and chaos are about how you view freedom vs. rules.

And here we reach the core of the brokenness between your system, because rules and freedom is a false dichtomy.

Let's take a very simple law. Trespassing. Obviously saying where you can and cannot go is a clear infringement on your freedom. But on the other hand, preventing people from wandering into your house and refusing to leave also protects your freedom. So is obeying trepassing rules lawful or chaotic?

Or how about another simple law. We have laws against redlining, that is, discriminatory housing practices against racial minorities. It is against the law for, say, a bank to jack up the price of a mortgage on someone because they're Asian and want to discourage certain people from moving into a neighborhood.

It's a clear infringement on the bank's freedom to determine how they lend money and the neighborhood's freedom to determine who their neighbors are. On the other hand, it also protects Phi Doan's freedom to choose where they live. Does the 'freedom' person side with the bank and say that redlining is okay, or does the freedom person side with Ms. Doan and say she should live where she wants to?


Laws don't just exist to restrict peoples' freedom. They also exist to prevent people from infringing on the freedom of other people. You can't just say 'a chaotic person believes in as few rules as possible' because that would mean that they're against rules which prevent people from losing freedom.

[Username17]

Every "Freedom From" is opposed by a "Freedom To."

Frankly, I don't believe that there is such a thing as more or less freedom. There are freedoms that I think are important, and there are restrictions that I feel are unjust. But as Lago astutely pointed out, there really isn't a "Freedom!" argument that you can make that someone can't make a "Freedom!" argument against.

Person A defends their freedom to burn coal. Person B defends their freedom to breathe clean air. Fucking worthless argument that. Cannot be solved from first principals. At least, not if you think "freedom" is a first principal. Honestly, it's not. Freedom is just a buzzword, it doesn't mean shit.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Why would a Lawful Good person disobey laws that caused oppression? How is oppression not a useful tool for Good?

-Crissa

[PoliteNewb]

As an aside, I think a more interesting philosophical dynamic might be freedom of information vs. freedom of privacy.

From a "base freedom" point of view, you have no freedom of privacy...your freedom to be private is limited by your ability to keep your shit private. The only one who can defend your freedoms is you; if you can't, tough shit. Freedom only applies to what you can do, not what you think you have a right to, or deserve, or wish to force others to respect.

I'm not saying laws are always bad just because they're anti-freedom. We're so used to trumpeting "FREEDOM!" as a virtue that we forget that freedom also cuts both ways. Laws against discrimination and so forth are absolutely good laws. But they ARE anti-freedom. The freedom to discriminate against people and the freedom to kill people are absolutely freedoms. There is no freedom FROM things...though lots of people like to think so.

Let's take a very simple law. Trespassing. Obviously saying where you can and cannot go is a clear infringement on your freedom. But on the other hand, preventing people from wandering into your house and refusing to leave also protects your freedom. So is obeying trepassing rules lawful or chaotic?

Kicking people out of your place is neither lawful or chaotic; it's self-interested, since everybody likes to have their own place.
Laws that prevent people from walking into your place are, naturally, lawful.
Chaotic people believe they should be allowed to go wherever people can't stop them from going; the only constraints on their freedom of movement is their respect for other people (NOT laws) or someone else's sword.

Or how about another simple law. We have laws against redlining, that is, discriminatory housing practices against racial minorities. It is against the law for, say, a bank to jack up the price of a mortgage on someone because they're Asian and want to discourage certain people from moving into a neighborhood.

It's a clear infringement on the bank's freedom to determine how they lend money and the neighborhood's freedom to determine who their neighbors are. On the other hand, it also protects Phi Doan's freedom to choose where they live. Does the 'freedom' person side with the bank and say that redlining is okay, or does the freedom person side with Ms. Doan and say she should live where she wants to?

From a strict point of view, Ms. Doan has no "freedom" to live wherever she wants...just like I have no freedom to live in Singapore if I can't get there, or to live in a 3000 sf mansion if I don't own one. She can live anywhere she can physically settle that she can persuade people to let her live, be it through money or influence or force of arms...but not force of law.
So...laws against redlining are lawful, not chaotic.

Laws don't just exist to restrict peoples' freedom. They also exist to prevent people from infringing on the freedom of other people. You can't just say 'a chaotic person believes in as few rules as possible' because that would mean that they're against rules which prevent people from losing freedom.

I disagree. I don't believe that, ultimately, people have any freedoms that they can't protect themselves. Let's not get the word "freedom" mixed up with similar concepts like "rights" or such.
A chaotic person doesn't believe people HAVE any freedoms that need laws to protect them...if you need a law to give it to you, it's not a freedom.

And again...I am not making moral judgements here. Many laws protect people's rights, and they are good things...but they are absolutely lawful, and they do it by restricting the freedom of people to do bad things.

Every "Freedom From" is opposed by a "Freedom To."

I actually don't believe in "freedom from"...just "freedom to".

Person A defends their freedom to burn coal. Person B defends their freedom to breathe clean air. Fucking worthless argument that.

I'm sorry, but I think that person B is full of shit. There is no freedom to breathe clean air. Does a person in the fucking ocean have the freedom breathe clean air?

If there's coal, person A is free to burn it.
If there's clean air, person B is free to breathe it.
If there is no coal, person A cannot whine about his freedom to burn coal he doesn't have. He can try to enforce laws that say he is entitled to coal, but not because he has some "freedom" to burn coal.
If there is no clean air, person B cannot whine about his freedom to breathe it. He can try to pass laws that say people aren't allowed to dirty the air he wants to breathe, but not because he has some "freedom" to breathe clean air.

One can make a valid argument that one may have a right to things like air, food, medical care, etc. But these are not freedoms.

Freedoms are things are you able to do because a massive organized force doesn't say you can't and back it up with force of law/arms. Freedoms are not things you want to do that other random people won't let you do.

I understand that person B wants to breathe clean air, and in a perfect world he'd be able to...and laws that prevent air pollution could be great laws for the general good. But they ARE an infringement on people's freedom to do mean, self-centered shit.

[CatharzGodfoot]

As an aside, I think a more interesting philosophical dynamic might be freedom of information vs. freedom of privacy.

From a "base freedom" point of view, you have no freedom of privacy...your freedom to be private is limited by your ability to keep your shit private. The only one who can defend your freedoms is you; if you can't, tough shit. Freedom only applies to what you can do, not what you think you have a right to, or deserve, or wish to force others to respect.

Thank you for making my point so well. Freedom of information vs. freedom of privacy is a real issue that real people (like you and the people protesting Google street view) have strong opinions about. The best part is that it's not an issue of good or evil at all, and people with strongly opposing opinions can be equally good or evil.

I'm not saying laws are always bad just because they're anti-freedom. We're so used to trumpeting "FREEDOM!" as a virtue that we forget that freedom also cuts both ways. Laws against discrimination and so forth are absolutely good laws. But they ARE anti-freedom. The freedom to discriminate against people and the freedom to kill people are absolutely freedoms. There is no freedom FROM things...though lots of people like to think so.

So total freedom is complete anarchy where the only agreement is to not make agreements? I'm not buying that as a meaningful position, as nobody would be for that kind of freedom. Even hardline anarchists believe in creating standards of behavior as much as tearing them down.

Remember, if you can have freedom of speech then I can have freedom to make you shut the fuck up.

[PoliteNewb]

Freedom of information vs. freedom of privacy is a real issue that real people (like you and the people protesting Google street view) have strong opinions about. The best part is that it's not an issue of good or evil at all, and people with strongly opposing opinions can be equally good or evil.

Okay, I guess. Perhaps we're just using different definitions of "freedom". I can see how someone can say "I'm allowed to do this" and call that a freedom. For instance, you can say "I'm allowed to keep my shit private". But then you have to do it.

I don't feel you can say "I'm want to do this, and I'm allowed to stop everybody from stopping me from doing it, because it's my freedom".

So total freedom is complete anarchy where the only agreement is to not make agreements? I'm not buying that as a meaningful position, as nobody would be for that kind of freedom. Even hardline anarchists believe in creating standards of behavior as much as tearing them down.

Remember, if you can have freedom of speech then I can have freedom to make you shut the fuck up.

It's not that nobody can make agreements...it's that those agreements cannot be universalized and codified. A chaotic person can absolutely keep people out of his house, or tell another dude "I won't come in your house and you don't come in mine". What he won't support is a law saying "nobody can go in anybody else's house, and if somebody does we'll all stone him to death".

Yes, anarchists believe in standards of behavior...but those standards are self-enforced. A truly chaotic person would believe that people should do good things because they want to do good things, not because a law is forcing them to do good things.

Yes, you have the freedom to shut people up...and they have the freedom to shout louder, or just fucking kill you. What chaotics consider unfair and despicable is when the person saying "shut up" gets a big gang together who force the shutting up by weight of numbers and consensus.

Keep in mind if you wanted the chaotic to shut up, you could try just asking him...he might well do it. Chaotics aren't necessarily assholes who oppose other people's views for the hell of it. They just resent being forced to obey, rather than persuaded.

A clarification I thought of, re: the whole freedom to vs freedom from.

Laws do not provide freedom. They can provide ability or opportunity to do things, but this is not the same as freedom to do them.

A guy with no legs is free to jump up and down. What he lacks is the ability.
A lousy musician is free to play the guitar. What he lacks is the ability.
A dude on the prairie is free to climb a mountain. What he lacks is opportunity.
A homeless guy is free to make a million dollars. What he lacks (generally) is the opportunity (maybe the ability also, depending).

Laws can provide ability or opportunity to those lacking them, which permits those people to do things they otherwise couldn't...but laws can only restrict freedom.

[Username17]

Yeah, if the freedom to imprison and murder people who speak against the king exists, it's not super important if there is theoretically freedom to speak your mind. Freedom to only exists from a legal standpoint in reference to a freedom from retribution if you do it.

Anyone can burn coal, but if people who value their clean air are free to stab you for it then you aren't really "free" to burn that coal. On the other hand, if the people who want to breathe clean air can expect retribution for stabbing the coal burning guy then there's no freedom to breathe clean air and there is freedom to burn coal.

Whatever side of any disagreement the law comes down on is the side who has the freedom to do whatever the fuck it is that they wanted to do. Whatever side the law comes down against has no freedom to do whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do. That's all there is. You can talk about natural law and abstract freedom all you want but it seriously does not mean shit.

-Username17

[Kobajagrande]

Stiff like this made me treat law and chaos more as to how they see the world should resolve its problems.

Chaotic people feel that everyone in the world should make their own judgments. Whether its some "survival of the fittest" theory, or "goodness in every man" or "live and let other live" or whatever other philosophy they have, they believe that every intelligent being should have, for better or for worse, freedom to make their own choices and live as they want.

Lawful people, on the other hand, believe that life should be regulated in some way. Whether its because they think people are evil by nature or whatever, they think that things such as rules, laws, traditions, norms, values and society and stuff are a Good Thing and should be followed for prosperity of all.

That means you won't have stupid paradoxes such as Lawful Good person coming into an oppressive society and starts beating on peasants because "that's the law here". He should work to overthrow the evil king together with his Chaotic Good friends, but the difference is when they succeed, CG guys will leave and say "you're free now. Live your lives as you wish" the LG guy will say "We've overthrown one bad system. It is up to you to build a new, better one".

[Lago PARANOIA]

Chaotic people feel that everyone in the world should make their own judgments. Whether its some "survival of the fittest" theory, or "goodness in every man" or "live and let other live" or whatever other philosophy they have, they believe that every intelligent being should have, for better or for worse, freedom to make their own choices and live as they want.

That means you won't have stupid paradoxes such as Lawful Good person coming into an oppressive society and starts beating on peasants because "that's the law here". He should work to overthrow the evil king together with his Chaotic Good friends, but the difference is when they succeed, CG guys will leave and say "you're free now. Live your lives as you wish" the LG guy will say "We've overthrown one bad system. It is up to you to build a new, better one".

Okay, so what does this 'chaotic good' person do when, after the king is overthrown, people decide that it's cool to start lynching minorities they don't like and/or taking a shit in the town well? What does this 'chaotic good' person do when it turns out that the evil king actually had an elite army that was necessary to hold off the goblin hordes but now the army is disorganized?

[Kobajagrande]

Okay, so what does this 'chaotic good' person do when, after the king is overthrown, people decide that it's cool to start lynching minorities they don't like and/or taking a shit in the town well? What does this 'chaotic good' person do when it turns out that the evil king actually had an elite army that was necessary to hold off the goblin hordes but now the army is disorganized?

Why, throws in a bunch of troops in the country, then burns even more more money and shit in, and hopes people will forget how and why the whole fiasco ever started. In the meantime, will change face and try to fix relations with his former friends. Why ask?

Besides, are you playing D&D or damn Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator?

[Username17]

Chaotic people feel that everyone in the world should make their own judgments. Whether its some "survival of the fittest" theory, or "goodness in every man" or "live and let other live" or whatever other philosophy they have, they believe that every intelligent being should have, for better or for worse, freedom to make their own choices and live as they want.

Lawful people, on the other hand, believe that life should be regulated in some way. Whether its because they think people are evil by nature or whatever, they think that things such as rules, laws, traditions, norms, values and society and stuff are a Good Thing and should be followed for prosperity of all.

But that doesn't work either, because a personal contract only exists in the face of societal regulation. I am hired to dig a trench in exchange for clams. I dig a trench (or don't) and you don't want to give me any clams.

So again you're back to two people having a disagreement. The society can side with one or the other. Since they will be different in strength or at least initiative, taking "no action" is choosing a side by a knowable rubric.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

How is that outcome either 'chaotic' (as in, advancing freedoms, not disorganization) or 'good'?

[Kobajagrande]

double post.

[Kobajagrande]

But that doesn't work either, because a personal contract only exists in the face of societal regulation. I am hired to dig a trench in exchange for clams. I dig a trench (or don't) and you don't want to give me any clams.

Fortunately, we've reached that point in development where no human being, except an occasional pipeweed dreaming anarchist thinks that there should be absolutely no society. People may disagree as to how shat society should look like, how it should work, how it should affect us as individuals, but almost no one disagrees that it shouldn't exist, and those who do are a minority so insignificant no one cares about it.

So I do agree my vision doesn't cover the extremes of the spectrum, but again, they're so rare in real life this fantasy world doesn't really lose anything significant.

[Kobajagrande]

outcome

We're not talking about "I have all the facts and solid predictions of the future and making judgment based on that", we're talking about "I see this shit and will do what I feel I should do".

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's impossible.

If you are not reasonably sure of the outcome of your actions or you at least have a vague understanding of what will happen, then you're not making choices. I don't know what that is, but that's not making a choice. Randomly behaving in certain ways?

A chaotic good person should know that when they overthrow a government, either the people descend into anarchy (which is never permanent, because they either die out or the next thing happens) or a new one rises in its place. There is a really, really high chance of the next government being just as bad or even worse because bad societies spring up easily--good ones do not.

So when they overthrow an evil king and walk off into the sunset knowing that the slaver's guild or Bane's Fists are going to stroll in and make everything just as bad, the chaotic good person is not in fact acting good. He left the people he was trying to help in just as much as a state of suffering but also killed other people to get to this position.

[Kobajagrande]

Ah, yes. Because there have been countless stories about heroes overthrowing an evil king and causing a blasted mess by doing so. Right, that's a staple of fantasy right there.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Ah, yes. Because there have been countless stories about heroes overthrowing an evil king and causing a blasted mess by doing so. Right, that's a staple of fantasy right there.

Yeah, the cliché is that the hero always becomes the new king and makes her own just rules. Which pretty much destroys the idea of a 'chaotic hero' in the above context.