Maybe, just maybe a native american tribe that was based on agriculture and hunting could of been lawful good or neutral good. But they were wiped out by the colonization of the americas.
That is the problem! Good nations will fail in the face of other nations.
|
Why is 100% Good alignment within a nation required for the nation to be considered Good?
It isn't. That wasn't what I meant at all. For instance:
I don't think 100% of the people within a nation need to be Good for it to be considered such. I'd instead consider the criteria be such:
1) Evil acts are abhorred within society
2) Evil acts are not committed by the will of the people (ie, the government they invest their authority in)
3) Good members of society represent a simple majority (50.1% or more)
These seem extremely reasonable criteria. The last is impossible to achieve on any scale given the vast majority of people being of Neutral Alignment, though...a fact that makes the other two rather unlikely as well. Which is sorta where I was going with the whole 'not on a large scale' thing.
Maybe, just maybe a native american tribe that was based on agriculture and hunting could of been lawful good or neutral good. But they were wiped out by the colonization of the americas.
That is the problem! Good nations will fail in the face of other nations.
Eh. Most evidence suggests that the various Native American tribes were no more Good than the Europeans. It was lower technology that was their problem, not being Good.
Which, by the way, is something I think is unlikely to matter. If you somehow get a Good society, they'll be as likely to survive as any other, not more but not less either.
|
I am proposing an alternate way of answering the original question. That is, assuming generously that 2% of each nation's population consists of paladins, what nation's paladins are the least likely to lose their paladin powers considering that nation's actions historically?Excuse me, what?Vatican City?Sorry, going to go laugh forever. You must be joking.
The Mwangi Inquisition no longer jokes as most of the laughs we hear are our own echoing back from across the Expanse.
Let's assume that every nation has an equal quantity of paladins that is proportionate to their respective populations.
Which country has had the smallest percentage of their paladins fall?
None. They are individuals, they have to fall themselves. If they are paladins, they won't commit atrocities, no matter which nation they are for.
Then which nation's paladins would be least likely to renounce their country per the clause of "avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code"?
On Earth
Iceland
The Scandanavian countries, but many people still alive can remember a time when this was not so
On Golarion
Andoran
Some Good-aligned country in Tian Xia that I can't remember the name of
Maybe Kyonin
Mendev gets put in artificially -- not that it's so good (it isn't, especially once you get outside the capital), but everybody there is under such pressure from the Worldwound invasion that they dare not think about questions related to the above. Lastwall might also get in artificially for a very similar reason, although Lastwall isn't as much of a dump as Mendev, and so might have some legitimacy to its claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tibet was a monarchy which made the US look like an egalitarian paradise. It was so bad, so glaringly terrible, that the general reaction to China occupying it was relief. That is certainly something not often discussed today, is it?
show me some good slavery. I'll wait.Slavery does not equal evil.The United States for about 30 seconds after the Constitution was ratified. Then the political fighting started...With slavery enshrined in the Constitution?
And the political infighting started before that. How do you think we got the Constitution?
Are you Christian.
In theory, that's all about slavery. The only choice is which personage you've sold yourself too.
Normally it speaks of one sinning and thus having sold their soul...but then it being bought in blood by the savior.
There's a reason he's called the master...and the idea that no man can serve two masters.
Interestingly enough, the bible doesn't condemn slavery, but gives rules for it in the old testament, and ideals of it in the New.
AS for slavery, James begins his epistle stating that he is a slave (though the easier word to hear is bond servant...which is a more specific type of slave).
And in essence, if you are a Christian, you are either a slave to your passions, or a slave to the Good Master.
Most people find the idea is revolting and won't agree to it (Even if that's basically what the Bible states) because they feel all slavery is evil.
However, slavery is only evil when the master is evil and treats their slave as such.
They forget, that slavery in the Middle East in ancient times was NOT exactly the same type of slavery in the South US.
Maybe it's not lawful good, but it might not necessarily be evil in how the Bible, and some cultures in the ME had it portrayed.
A prime example is Joseph. People don't realize the reason the tribes were slaves in the time of Moses was due to Joseph.
He was a slave and then he brought his entire family to live with (and under him). For the people of Moses's time, slavery was evil to them.
However, in Joseph's time, it was a good thing for them. A slave in this culture was seen as an extension of their master. As the chief slave of Pharaoh...Joseph could in effect act as Pharaoh if given the right by Pharaoh. Due to this, he was the second most powerful man in all of Egypt, over any and all freemen with the exception of his master.
This also held true for several Middle eastern cultures. Some, were the most feared militaries on earth (the Mamluks, who were seen as basically undefeatable in battle, were slaves and could only do their training by having a slave they could force to do things so savage and harsh only a slave could be forced to do it). (The Janissaries were also some of the most powerful slave armies...people literally gave their children to them in hopes of having the privilege of being a slave and thus becoming part of that privileged class).
Now, it would be debatable on whether the Mamluks and Janissaries were good or evil organizations...but they were powerful, and by being one you were given a great deal of power in their respected nations.
Of course the way they were treated, and how they were slaves were different in dynamic and experience to those in the Southern United states...but that's the one which most people seem most familiar with these days, and hence associate the word with, rather than other types of slaves from history.
There IS another type of slavery that came into the US, but was more similar to the Bond Servant that James refers to. I believe the most common were people that wanted to come to the US but didn't have the money. They would sell themselves into slavery, with a bond or contract that would state they would be someone's slave (in this case though, it was for a certain time, rather than forever in James's case) in return for getting them across the ocean. Most of these were White Northern Europeans if I recall correctly. A different dynamic though, and normally not thought of when thinking of slavery in the US.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the view that "everyone is a slave" is a) not something you have to accept, and b) a good reason not to adapt to said religion.
And the view that "everyone is a slave" is a) not something you have to accept, and b) a good reason not to adapt to said religion.
This is true. Most of the world are not Christians, and even of those that are, many either don't utilize the Bible, or read it, or even sometimes understand it.
Sometimes those who claimed to be Christian, once they do understand it, are horrified and cease to claim it.
And then you have others that understand, and have complete faith in it.
However, I find that a majority on these boards seem to fill in the area that would be ascribed to the Christian majority.
Revulsion to Slavery however, is actually rather recent in Christian memory. Christians have practiced it for a LOOOONG time prior, and part of that is because the Bible doesn't actually condemn it.
In addition, most people believe there is only ONE type of slavery, that which was found in the South US, Bahamas, and other areas. However, slavery is much more complex than that, and ranges in how it was practiced. White slavery, or Europeans as slaves in the US was actually rather large in it's effects during the colonial days, but it was different in practice than the slavery that was prominent during the US Civil War period.
And of course, there's the Slaves as an extension of rulership, where the slaves are the actual extension (or enforcement arm sometimes) of the rulership. In those instances, you actually see slaves as a higher class than freemen...which could be seen as an irony in today's views of slavery.
That does not mean I'm pro-slavery by any shot (and think what occurs in many nations, such as China and other places growing in industry practice what seems to be very close, of not another form, of slavery), but it's interesting to see how adverse people are to slavery based upon an incorrect assumption of what slavery entails and what status a slave has in every situation.
Much better to understand it for what it is, and then decide whether it is good or evil.
Myself, I think it tends to breed bad things (for when a slave caste is in power, they tend to abuse that power...which is never good, and when they are the lowest rungs of the social order, they tend to be abused themselves), but most don't understand that slaves are not necessarily the poor abused souls of the US southern Slave system...but throughout history have held various ranks of power and prestige.
And the view that "everyone is a slave" is a) not something you have to accept, and b) a good reason not to adapt to said religion.
Right on. And THAT'S one of the enormous reasons I am not a Christian, nor a member of any other religion, and one of the reasons I feel a stab of pain every time I think about how slavery is a big institution in Rahadoum. I admire their First Law, but honestly, I have to suspect strongly that a large reason they were able to pull off the revolution that ended the Oath Wars and that they were inclined to outlaw the religion of Saranrae (and everybody else) rather than just the religions of Nethys and Norgorber is that those Sarenite do-gooders probably tried to end slavery, and those in power didn't like that.
Slavery is Evil, and guarantees Evil. The slavery examples in the Bible and of the Janissaries (etc.) were Evil as well as the example of the US South (along with similar systems elsewhere in the Americas, including the US North initially), even though in different style. People selling their children into such system shows just how depraved and desperate these people were, and how thoroughly these societies were in addition. As for Indentured Servitude, at the least bad this was a system a step short of slavery but heading down the slippery slope in that direction, and head in that direction was what it did, becoming a significant contributor to outright slavery in the American Colonies and thence in the US.
And even when slaves are given positions of power over other other people, whether officially slaves or not (which, by the way, was also part of the US system), slavery is still an abuse, and giving slaves positions of power over other people is in fact a method of facilitating and enforcing the abuse.
Stuff about military slavery
While Islamic military slavery remains fairly opaque to me, there are two things that I would add:
The first is that military slaves were not always current slaves; the term frequently referred to status at birth or purchase rather than current status. It was not uncommon for 'military slaves' to hold freedman status, and still be referred to using the same terms.
(Further research is required before I could say so confidently, but I think that freedmen military slaves may have been more characteristic of Mamluk Egypt than of the Ottomans)
The second is that military slaves, even those who continued in slave status, were rarely if ever sold, and in the major military slave systems, could not be. Ceasing to be a commodity was a major break that marked the distinction between them and the slave population.
(ps, the extent to which the Janissaries actually fit under the umbrella of military slavery is somewhat unclear to me. Bought slave, raised free, was certainly a common feature in Turkish administrative 'slaves').
Slavery of any kind is bad. It's that simple. Nobody can own another human being.
I'm all for bringing back Chain Gangs into the prison systems. Commit a crime, tossed into prison, forced to make a meaningful contribution to society as opposed to free room and board??
Absolutely.
'Own' is a nebulous word. However the idea of one person controlling what/how another person lives/works/exists... is pretty much a constant throughout history. Every time there's a new war... SOMEONE talks about reinstituting a draft. That's just slavery by another name.
I think the key difference is 'political' slavery. Prisoners of war or criminals losing their rights vs. 'you were born looking different then me... so I own you.'
That's just stupid wrong.
Slavery of any kind is bad. It's that simple. Nobody can own another human being.
I'm not arguing. But, for example, if there is an overlooked role that manumission played in climbing the Mamluk social ladder, it could lead to overestimating the prestige that that society attached to slave status.
Slavery of any kind is bad. It's that simple. Nobody can own another human being.I'm all for bringing back Chain Gangs into the prison systems. Commit a crime, tossed into prison, forced to make a meaningful contribution to society as opposed to free room and board??
Absolutely.
'Own' is a nebulous word. However the idea of one person controlling what/how another person lives/works/exists... is pretty much a constant throughout history. Every time there's a new war... SOMEONE talks about reinstituting a draft. That's just slavery by another name.
I think the key difference is 'political' slavery. Prisoners of war or criminals losing their rights vs. 'you were born looking different then me... so I own you.'
That's just stupid wrong.
if peonage and corruption hadn't been such a major part of chain gangs and the legal system entirely, I might agree.
What about Voluntary servitude? Bargaining one's own life for some kind recompence.
Well more so in the cotext that the "boss" has a lot more to say about your life than our current employers do.
What about Voluntary servitude? Bargaining one's own life for some kind recompence.
Indentured servitude. A lot of immigrants and original colonists did that. Get money to cover passage and initial set-up in the New World and then owe their benefactor 7, 10, 14 years of servitude til the debt was paid off and they were their own person again. Almost slavery, but not quite.
What about Voluntary servitude? Bargaining one's own life for some kind recompence.Indentured servitude. A lot of immigrants and original colonists did that. Get money to cover passage and initial set-up in the New World and then owe their benefactor 7, 10, 14 years of servitude til the debt was paid off and they were their own person again. Almost slavery, but not quite.
This
Always evil?
What about Voluntary servitude? Bargaining one's own life for some kind recompence.Indentured servitude. A lot of immigrants and original colonists did that. Get money to cover passage and initial set-up in the New World and then owe their benefactor 7, 10, 14 years of servitude til the debt was paid off and they were their own person again. Almost slavery, but not quite.
I believe it's considered a form of slavery actually. It's just not the slavery people look at when they think of slavery.
It's one of the forms still included in slavery with the UN I believe. It's also one of the types of excuses I think some slavery rings in the US and the West use in some of their arenas that they use.
In the current context they use it for (and yes, many of those with those rings do sign a contract in regards to employment, being subject to the employer...etc...but are lied to in regards to the type of work sometimes, or other things in regards to the actual terms) I'd consider it totally and completely evil.
In the past, especially in regards to those who used it to get to the US...much more murky.
Slavery, it isn't just horrible, it is a bad idea. Economically it is a massive drain for the slave-owner that would not exist with free employees. See, once someone is no longer rewarded for working well, they stop, only doing what they have to when observed and just enough to avoid punishment. And if you punish the slave, the above gets worse, plus you risk injuring the slave, thereby impacting his ability to perform well. Slaves are investments and make the slave owner tied down to them. Further, a slave that truly hates the slave owner will be very dangerous to be around... And always was. It is truly a chilling thought. But surely, there were upsides? Well, the owner could kill, rape, hurt and abuse the slave as he wished. Some people have always been rotten enough to see that as an advantage. Guess which people became slave owners?
The only truly lawful good society would be a single person on an island saying "Yep, I'm LG..." Adding anyone else, even an observer, introduces bias based on perspective. I'd assert that true lawful goodness can only exist on "Schrodinger's Island" any other scenario, is subject to either relativistic differences in G/E or interpretation of a dogma.
We can, of course, continue to argue who would come closest to the LG society we would create on our own islands...
Carry on!
LG society? Singapore. Well, Lawful at least.
There were a minute # of slave owners who treated the slaves with respect. Even friends. The slave owner worked the fields with the slaves and were truly only slavers because that was only way to save them. They educated their slaves which was against the law. If you called that slavery would you call it evil still.
re: OP question.
if discussing Pathfinder alignment, at least use the Pathfinder definitions and not personal interpretation of 'good' and 'lawful'
"A nation with the lawful good alignment is one in which strict laws protect its citizens, evil is not tolerated, and the poor are cared for. Chaotic characters may find these locations to be difficult to navigate socially and legally, but if one is conscious of the local laws and customs, it is usually possible to stay out of trouble.""A nation with the neutral good alignment is one in which citizens and the government try to live in peace, and safeguard the rights and lives of the nations inhabitants children, evil is not tolerated, though not hunted or prosecuted with the same zeal as a lawful good nation, and the unfortunate and sick are well-cared for."
Scandinavia/north Europe perhaps fits the NG description better than the LG one (except the 'hard to navigate part' which is certainly true). You amercians can discuss the 'poor are cared for' bit and what alignment to put of USA. However large organizations are not per definition evil when using the pathfinder definitions.
"Lawful neutral characters are the judges of Golarion. Typically driven by a strong sense of fairness and duty, these characters are often willing to take extreme personal risk to stay true to the accepted behavior and beliefs of their deity or society. Being morally neutral, a character of this alignment sees both good and evil as tools to use to maintain order".
Realpolitik! Seems to fit US fairly well from where I'm standing. Obvisouly also fits many religious groups.
|
show me some good slavery. I'll wait.Slavery does not equal evil.The United States for about 30 seconds after the Constitution was ratified. Then the political fighting started...With slavery enshrined in the Constitution?
And the political infighting started before that. How do you think we got the Constitution?
The closest I feel would be that of the Roman Empire. The reasoning is that some people did have a choice. If someone was in debt, the could sell themselves into slavery to cover the debt. But with the treatment of the slaves overall and how most found themselves slaves, it was still evil.
Even if the obtaining of the slaves is not evil, the treatment of the slaves has proven to be evil.
As an american, we aspire to be lawful good, or even lawful neutral. Yet although have lots of laws, we do not enforce them. When our elected leaders continually break laws, we continue to re-elect them. I see my country as a chaotic neutral one.
|
|
re: OP question.
if discussing Pathfinder alignment, at least use the Pathfinder definitions and not personal interpretation of 'good' and 'lawful'Scandinavia/north Europe perhaps fits the NG description better than the LG one (except the 'hard to navigate part' which is certainly true). You amercians can discuss the 'poor are cared for' bit and what alignment to put of USA. However large organizations are not per definition evil when using the pathfinder definitions.
You left out CG, which is what I'd argue the US aspires to be in many ways (and fails, mind you).
A nation with the chaotic good alignment is one in which citizens live in peace with autonomy, the government being a loose structure designed to provide aid to those in need and orchestrate larger projects for the nation that individuals couldn't do alone. The people of these nations are typically charitable and the needy and sick are often well cared for.
Which strongly implies that it's not the government per se that cares for the needy and sick. Caring for the needy and sick is certainly a necessary part of a Good society...but having the government be the ones to do it is a Lawful idea.
As for the Scandinavian countries falling under LG or NG...I'd strongly argue that certain varieties of Evil are very tolerated indeed (major corporations leap to mind...)
Realpolitik! Seems to fit US fairly well from where I'm standing. Obvisouly also fits many religious groups.
I feel like the U.S. is more CN or N than LN, but eh.
The fact that America is generally a good place to live, work and invest suggests it is probably a lot more lawful than that. Real chaos would be somewhere like Somalia.
Not inherently, no. There are a few different ways for a nation to be Chaotic. Having no meaningful central government is one, but hardly the only one. A society can also be philosophically Chaotic, emphasizing individualism, individual right and achievements and enshrining in law limits on the governments power, as well as allowing widely varying laws from region to region.
Does that describe the US? Not pertfectly, but there are certainly elements of that.
You left out CG, which is what I'd argue the US aspires to be in many ways (and fails, mind you).A nation with the chaotic good alignment is one in which citizens live in peace with autonomy, the government being a loose structure designed to provide aid to those in need and orchestrate larger projects for the nation that individuals couldn't do alone. The people of these nations are typically charitable and the needy and sick are often well cared for.Which strongly implies that it's not the government per se that cares for the needy and sick. Caring for the needy and sick is certainly a necessary part of a Good society...but having the government be the ones to do it is a Lawful idea.
Interesting point!
US was indeed designed to be a place with minimal government and maximal personal freedom. At the same time we see you as having some kind of fetish for law enforcement and punishing the wicked (though uch of that comes automatically with being a superpower). You could well argue that a chaotic society logically needs more law enforcement, and that US society is CG-ish while government is LN-ish (that model also explains distrust in politicians)
I would absolutely not describe US as a pit of chaos. But individual-oriented and heterogeneous, yes.
As for the Scandinavian countries falling under LG or NG...I'd strongly argue that certain varieties of Evil are very tolerated indeed (major corporations leap to mind...)
You can't run a society without certain pragmatism. The NG-light version "we don't like it, but we're not zealots" possibly applies. We complain and demand the govt to do something, then forget it. Very little zeal in rooting out evildoers - we go for negotiations first.
At the same time we very much subscribe to very 'lawful' ideas of government health/unemployment/child care etc and have some kind of conformity culture where everything is easy if you fit in but harder if you don't.So, possibly a case of LG-ish society and a more LN/NN-ish pragmatic government (but at the very least the gap is smaller, so we trust our government a lot more).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that America is generally a good place to live, work and invest suggests it is probably a lot more lawful than that. Real chaos would be somewhere like Somalia.
So...LE then? ;-)
|
|
Tibet springs to mind. A nation of Buddhists led by (arguably) the most peaceful leader in the world.
Then in 1950 China decided they would be better off without neighbors like that.
with a side note: Defended by Ninja
Though I will say that Scouting (boy/girl/cub/venture) in the ideal form is Lawful Good.
|
The fact that America is generally a good place to live, work and invest suggests it is probably a lot more lawful than that. Real chaos would be somewhere like Somalia.Not inherently, no. There are a few different ways for a nation to be Chaotic. Having no meaningful central government is one, but hardly the only one. A society can also be philosophically...
I think people misunderstand how western capitalism works. You need the rule of law, a functioning justice system, and property rights. These things don't come out of nowhere, they come from a strong state. By buying into that, you buy into the state's role in regulating behaviour. You can't do exactly what you want in America - the law won't let you do quite a lot of stuff. Most people understand why. So the fact that America is, as I said, a good place to do business and to live is because everyone gets the inherent bargain between state and individual. And suggests a lawful outlook. The fact that Americans are often (rightly) seen as being extremely ready to turn to the recourse of litigation to get their way also suggests a lawful outlook. The fact that individualism is also considered a big deal suggest not chaos, but good - freedom, within the bounds of the law, is good, I'm sure most of us can agree. America - Lawful Good (along with pretty much most of the western democracies).
But since there is no such thing as society, the original question's probably moot. And since notions of what is good and evil are, in any case, driven by context and culture - those guys chopping heads off in Syria almost certainly do not consider themselves evil at all - the question in the end makes no sense.
|
|
Tibet springs to mind. A nation of Buddhists led by (arguably) the most peaceful leader in the world.
Then in 1950 China decided they would be better off without neighbors like that.
Tibet was a miserable medieval country rules by a religious dictatorship. It certainly wasn't peaceful. They very violently defneded their borders and tried to kill people coming in. Most dalai lamas died when they were poisoned by their courtiers. I don't mean to defend the Chinese invasion or the subsequent suppression of their culture, but the Tibet you are thinking of is fantasty Tibet.
|
|
In truly chaotic societies you are subject to arbitrary violence, seizure of your property, and so on, without recourse. No one values that. Being able to stay up past ten o'clock doesn't mean you have a chaotic society. At best you would CG as one of these imaginary anarchic communes where there are no laws and everyone somehow lives in harmony - but places like that don't actually exist.
And, let me get this right - the headcutters of ISIS are more lawful than the US? I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to someone who can seriously imply that.
|
|
Interesting point!
US was indeed designed to be a place with minimal government and maximal personal freedom. At the same time we see you as having some kind of fetish for law enforcement and punishing the wicked (though uch of that comes automatically with being a superpower). You could well argue that a chaotic society logically needs more law enforcement, and that US society is CG-ish while government is LN-ish (that model also explains distrust in politicians)
I would absolutely not describe US as a pit of chaos. But individual-oriented and heterogeneous, yes.
Yeah, the US has been growing increasingly Lawful (and not in a good way) over time. The increasing militarization of law enforcement being a prime example.
A lot of other things are still Chaotic, though. Firearms ownership, for example, is a pretty Chaotic societal principle. Ditto freedom of speech.
You can't run a society without certain pragmatism. The NG-light version "we don't like it, but we're not zealots" possibly applies. We complain and demand the govt to do something, then forget it. Very little zeal in rooting out evildoers - we go for negotiations first.
True enough, but I still feel like a truly good society finds a way to do better on these kinds of things. Which would, quite possibly, be one reason I think they're pretty close to impossible, I suppose.
At the same time we very much subscribe to very 'lawful' ideas of government health/unemployment/child care etc and have some kind of conformity culture where everything is easy if you fit in but harder if you don't.
So, possibly a case of LG-ish society and a more LN/NN-ish pragmatic government (but at the very least the gap is smaller, so we trust our government a lot more).
Yeah, the Scandinavian countries are pretty nice from all accounts. Certainly their governments are a bit closer to Good than, say, the US.
A bit more Lawful than I'm personally comfortable with, though.
I think people misunderstand how western capitalism works. You need the rule of law, a functioning justice system, and property rights. These things don't come out of nowhere, they come from a strong state. By buying into that, you buy into the state's role in regulating behaviour.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's face begins." is a perfectly acceptable Chaotic societal principle, especially as the only principle restricting behavior. The U.S. certainly has more laws than that, but laws that fall under that umbrella don't prevent a society from being Chaotic at all.
You can't do exactly what you want in America - the law won't let you do quite a lot of stuff. Most people understand why. So the fact that America is, as I said, a good place to do business and to live is because everyone gets the inherent bargain between state and individual. And suggests a lawful outlook.
No it doesn't. Any society with laws has such a social contract, but it's the nature of that social contract that determines whether the society is Lawful or Chaotic. A society that prizes personal freedom and allows widely divergent laws in different areas is very much a Chaotic social order.
The fact that Americans are often (rightly) seen as being extremely ready to turn to the recourse of litigation to get their way also suggests a lawful outlook.
Not necessarily. A litigious society could be either Lawful or Chaotic depending on why people sue, under what circumstances, and whether the results of such litigation are consistent.
The fact that individualism is also considered a big deal suggest not chaos, but good - freedom, within the bounds of the law, is good, I'm sure most of us can agree. America - Lawful Good (along with pretty much most of the western democracies).
Depends on what you mean by freedom. I'm a big advocate of freedom, actually, but that makes me leaning towards CG, not just leaning towards Good.
The freedom to bear arms, for example, while something I support with a near fanatical devotion, is not something all Good nations would need to support. It's based on the very Chaotic notion of needing to protect oneself, from both criminals and the excesses of government, while a more Lawful attitude might lead to the state being responsible for that sort of thing.
And America enshrines a lot of other freedoms in a similar way, inasmuch as they are valued because they are freedoms, not because they improve quality of life.
But since there is no such thing as society, the original question's probably moot. And since notions of what is good and evil are, in any case, driven by context and culture - those guys chopping heads off in Syria almost certainly do not consider themselves evil at all - the question in the end makes no sense.
Okay...so why are you arguing it?
In truly chaotic societies you are subject to arbitrary violence, seizure of your property, and so on, without recourse. No one values that.
No, those are CE societies. CN societies you're likely to have some recourse to a group you belong to or something, and CG societies, people who try to do that kind of thing wind up lynched.
Being able to stay up past ten o'clock doesn't mean you have a chaotic society. At best you would CG as one of these imaginary anarchic communes where there are no laws and everyone somehow lives in harmony - but places like that don't actually exist.
No it doesn't. Living in a city with entirely different laws regarding a dozen different things than the one next to it, which is part of the same society, and where individual liberty is prized? That's getting there.
And of course CG societies are imaginary on any large scale. All Good societies are.
And, let me get this right - the headcutters of ISIS are more lawful than the US? I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to someone who can seriously imply that.
They are indeed. Lawful Evil, specifically. They have a very explicit and specific code of behavior (a harsh interpretation of Sharia Law, plus some additions of their own) that they enforce savagely. That's what LE is.
The Nazis were also Lawful Evil, albeit in a very different way.
The US people seek justice, yet don't like the justice dished out by the courts.
The people try to bend the laws to their desires instead of what the laws were created for.
The people use laws to subjugate others by making those who work hard for their money to forcefully give money to the lazy people.
The people run their big businesses to cut govt. corners and ethical corners for the bigger buck.
The US is NOT LG, not the society and not govt.
There were a minute # of slave owners who treated the slaves with respect. Even friends. The slave owner worked the fields with the slaves and were truly only slavers because that was only way to save them. They educated their slaves which was against the law. If you called that slavery would you call it evil still.
I've got some swampland for sale. I have a feeling you might be the buyer I have been looking for.