once again, not according to chaos. :P you're going to have to point me to some place where chaos is defined differently.once again, not according to chaos.following laws does not make your lawful. following laws because they are laws is lawful and breaking laws because they are laws is chaotic. but following the laws because it overall leads to people being more free is a chaotic endeavor.No, they are neutral to lawful societies. We have a great, great many laws.
By definition, it's almost impossible to build a chaotic society, because those involved will find it difficult to knuckle under the needs of others, which is what societies are built on. Chaotic societies are extremely self-reliant...one man is hunter, fisher, farmer, rancher, weaver, leatherworker, smith...the ultimate Chaotic can do everything for himself, and needn't rely on anyone, and so doesn't care to suppress their desires for others.a Democratic society is a chaotic society...
so America, Canada, the UK, Germany, France especially, are all chaotic Societies.
once again, they work on the principle of harmony to have society flow. You don't get in the way of other people to allow them to shine and make the nation as a whole better. that's literally what chaos says it stands for in the description.
No. Following laws because it keeps law enforcement out of your life is Neutral. SETTING laws that help people be more free is quite Neutral, as you're balancing extremes. A true Chaotic would consider the very idea of having laws that define freedom to be a total contradiction.
==Aelryinth
Once again, you are wrong.
You realize you're arguing that setting laws that help preserve freedom is chaotic?
If you can find someplace where THAT is defined, I'll be highly amused.
Ergo, you are indeed wrong. That's a NG behavior, balancing the extremes and respecting individuals in society, without disregarding laws entirely, but using law to limit itself.
==Aelryinth
once again, not according to chaos. :P you're going to have to point me to some place where chaos is defined differently.
You realize you're arguing that setting laws that help preserve freedom is chaotic?
If you can find someplace where THAT is defined, I'll be highly amused.
Ergo, you are indeed wrong. That's...
Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
wow that was easy.
hose who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
on the flip side making laws that allow people to do more doesn't create a society where you can depend on people more.
I mean to a lot of southern opinions in america the emancipation proclamation stopped a ton of people from doing what they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.this even shows that a chaotic person is interested in how society carries itself.No. You're taking it out of context. They are saying other people can benefit if everyone is chaotic...it's a completely self-serving argument. It makes no mention of how such a society functions. It's basically saying 'the world should be this way because it should be this way.'
The only thing it is saying is our society should be determined by whatever any person wants. Which is not the definition of any society other then Anarchy. And of course anarchists would want anarchy!
==Aelrynth
IT does give an example of society functions, when everyone is given freedom they all may do their INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT to society. axiomites have a strong class system, they ignore the individual, chaos exemplifies freedom and the individuals strengths.
a chaotic society, believes each person as an individual is important because they can do their own benefit to society(whatever their individual alignment). lawful believe everyone should be the same so that society runs smoothly.
proteans won't even destroy the universe only make sure nothing is like anything else.
Again, you're taking it out of context.
A chaotic society has no laws or rules. Each person is free to do what they want, because there is no law to restrict them. The only check on behavior is what others might do back to you if you cross them. So interaction is based on power and fear, not on 'harmony'. There is no defined 'society', there is people you understand who think like you, and people who don't.
'Society' doesn't care about individuals in this instance. Individuals have to do the caring, and that's totally along the Good-Evil access, not Chaotic.
And the defined goal of the protean race is to return the multiverse to primordial chaos it arose from.
Rose-colored glasses, my friend.
==Aelryinth
...once again, not according to chaos. :P you're going to have to point me to some place where chaos is defined differently.once again, not according to chaos.following laws does not make your lawful. following laws because they are laws is lawful and breaking laws because they are laws is chaotic. but following the laws because it overall leads to people being more free is a chaotic endeavor.No, they are neutral to lawful societies. We have a great, great many laws.
By definition, it's almost impossible to build a chaotic society, because those involved will find it difficult to knuckle under the needs of others, which is what societies are built on. Chaotic societies are extremely self-reliant...one man is hunter, fisher, farmer, rancher, weaver, leatherworker, smith...the ultimate Chaotic can do everything for himself, and needn't rely on anyone, and so doesn't care to suppress their desires for others.a Democratic society is a chaotic society...
so America, Canada, the UK, Germany, France especially, are all chaotic Societies.
once again, they work on the principle of harmony to have society flow. You don't get in the way of other people to allow them to shine and make the nation as a whole better. that's literally what chaos says it stands for in the description.
No. Following laws because it keeps law enforcement out of your life is Neutral. SETTING laws that help people be more free is quite Neutral, as you're balancing extremes. A true Chaotic would consider the very idea of having laws that define freedom to be a total contradiction.
==Aelryinth
Once again, you are wrong.
You realize you're arguing that setting laws that help preserve freedom is chaotic?
If you can find someplace where THAT is defined, I'll be highly amused.
Ergo,
"UNFETTERED". NO limitations. No laws, no rules, no restrictions.
You're still ignoring what that implies. So, that sentence does not mean what you think it means.
And still conflating Chaotic behavior with good behavior.
==Aelryinth
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.this even shows that a chaotic person is interested in how society carries itself.No. You're taking it out of context. They are saying other people can benefit if everyone is chaotic...it's a completely self-serving argument. It makes no mention of how such a society functions. It's basically saying 'the world should be this way because it should be this way.'
The only thing it is saying is our society should be determined by whatever any person wants. Which is not the definition of any society other then Anarchy. And of course anarchists would want anarchy!
==Aelrynth
IT does give an example of society functions, when everyone is given freedom they all may do their INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT to society. axiomites have a strong class system, they ignore the individual, chaos exemplifies freedom and the individuals strengths.
a chaotic society, believes each person as an individual is important because they can do their own benefit to society(whatever their individual alignment). lawful believe everyone should be the same so that society runs smoothly.
proteans won't even destroy the universe only make sure nothing is like anything else.
Again, you're taking it out of context.
A chaotic society has no laws or rules. Each person is free to do what they want, because there is no law to restrict them. The only check on behavior is what others might do back to you if you cross them. So interaction is based on power and fear, not on 'harmony'. There is no defined 'society', there is people you understand who think like...
sure maybe a protean chaotic society, but just like how we aren't axiomites we do have SOME laws, and those laws empower the individual.
Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
No, they are neutral. You are combining extremes.
Chaotic would mean unwritten traditions and beliefs, not a strictly defined set of parameters on what needs to be defined as 'freedom'. It's a neutral solution to the L vs C problem, based on inherent respect of individuals.
It's Good. Conflating Chaos = Good is a problem.
==Aelryinth
'Society' doesn't care about individuals in this instance. Individuals have to do the caring, and that's totally along the Good-Evil access, not Chaotic.
actually that's the axiomites... the lawful domain. they don;t care about individuals.
Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
'Society' doesn't care about individuals in this instance. Individuals have to do the caring, and that's totally along the Good-Evil access, not Chaotic.actually that's the axiomites... the lawful domain. they don;t care about individuals.
Axiomites believe that every individual has a proper place in society, to operate harmoniously as a whole.
Chaotics believe that a person defines his own place in society, and how you get there is up to you.
'Society' in the latter case is just a bunch of people with the general belief that they can do whatever they want to, and only their Good/Evil inclinations are going to inhibit what they do.
And yeah, Anarchy isn't bad...it's just very different, and unworkable in large numbers. If you are the rugged individualist survivor, no problem, that's perfect. Once you start getting bunches of people together, you either start butting heads, or you set up rules of behavior to stop conflicts.
If you want specialization, public work projects that benefit everyone...you haven't got anarchy. Chaotic socities don't advance, they spread and diversify. It's their dominant trait, because the degree of cooperation just doesn't endure like N and L societies do.
==Aelryinth
Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
No, they are neutral. You are combining extremes.
Chaotic would mean unwritten traditions and beliefs, not a strictly defined set of parameters on what needs to be defined as 'freedom'. It's a neutral solution to the L vs C problem, based on inherent respect of individuals.
It's Good. Conflating Chaos = Good is a problem.
==Aelryinth
Conflating Law = Good is also a problem Aelryinth.
And yes, there are Chaotic Laws. Without certain Laws [perhaps rules might be a better term for you?], no Chaotic Society would ever survive, they would eventually be taken over by someone with the power to enforce their will on others.
I'm not conflating law = good, I'm pointing out that Chaos /= Good. Chaos is chaos.
Cerebus, rules and laws are very different things. Laws are things that are absolute, and have power greater then themselves. Rules are more like guidelines that can be broken, and are often directly based on the power of people to enforce.
True laws are valid when people obey them without need to enforce them. Rules are something people follow in specific circumstances to not get in trouble.
And Chaotics chafe at even rules. Chaotic societies DO tend to devolve in someone strong taking power and taking the lead over others - by force of charisma, knowledge and skill if CG; by force of might or example if CN, or by force of strength/fear if CE. If you don't like what the boss says, then leave or take the consequences. Might maketh the right!
Rules, traditions, obligations, and the like define societies. The problem with true chaotics is that all of those things are fetters on individuality, and they want to shirk them whenever possible.
Any such things a chaotic follows are of his own free will and desire, not because of external influences.
==Aelryinth
Where is government getting these funds for these programs? If it's taking them from people against their will then it's a Tyranny.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
that's a classic argument of rich vs poor, individual vs society. "I'm not benefiting directly from this project, so I don't want to pay for it. I'll pay for that project over there because it makes me money."
Public works projects have Always faced this kind of harassment. Not wanting to spend your money on the NEA just means you have to consider that your portion was spent on the highway system instead. Just because you're not the one who benefits doesn't mean it's not worthy.
==Aelryinth
Where is government getting these funds for these programs? If it's taking them from people against their will then it's a Tyranny.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
No-one likes paying taxes. No-one likes being without a military to protect them, either. Or without working roads and utilities. People are free to leave the country and stop becoming citizens, of course. That would prevent them from paying taxes. Of course, you then surrender the benefits of being a part of that nation's society at the same time. You can't walk into an American embassy five years after fully and legally renouncing your citizenship and just expect the red carpet to be unrolled for you. Like with many things involving government and morality, it's a mixed bag.
But again, these rules I mention aren't restrictions on the individual.
They're restrictions against amassing power and restricting the individual with it.
You're now restricting my right to amass power.
How is that not a restriction on certain individuals?
Unfettered is unfettered, not 'unfettered, but leaving the manacles on just in case we have to reattach the chains later.'
==Aelryinth
Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.
Where is government getting these funds for these programs? If it's taking them from people against their will then it's a Tyranny.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
that's a classic argument of rich vs poor, individual vs society. "I'm not benefiting directly from this project, so I don't want to pay for it. I'll pay for that project over there because it makes me money."
Public works projects have Always faced this kind of harassment. Not wanting to spend your money on the NEA just means you have to consider that your portion was spent on the highway system instead. Just because you're not the one who benefits doesn't mean it's not worthy.
==Aelryinth
I am among 'the poor.' I make my living doing seasonal carnival work while seriously attempting [and thus far failing to so much as land an interview, let alone a job] to find something more stable.
That doesn't change my philosophical perspective. Public projects should be funded by voluntary donation, not by theft.
Which means they would never get done.
Voluntary donations would not fund the military, get highways built, pay for a police force, or do ANY of the basic requirements of civilization. Anything 'voluntary' would very quickly turn into 'private paid' and you get a situation like Russia and the Ukraine, where the billionaires pay militia and run the governments like their own private fiefdoms.
If you don't want individuals amassing even more power, you tax. You may not want to pay for the military, but you're benefiting from their existence even if you don't like it.
==Aelryinth
'Society' doesn't care about individuals in this instance. Individuals have to do the caring, and that's totally along the Good-Evil access, not Chaotic.actually that's the axiomites... the lawful domain. they don;t care about individuals.Axiomites believe that every individual has a proper place in society, to operate harmoniously as a whole.
Chaotics believe that a person defines his own place in society, and how you get there is up to you.
I agreed with you up until after this. Axiomites don't choose their place in society, they simply are.
People who believe that an individual should make his own destiny or livelihood are inherently chaoticly tinged by that belief. Lawful people are more inclined to believe in a caste system like the one in india.
the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I would argue that 'stopping people from causing conflicts with others by creating an atmosphere of tolerance for differences' is by its nature REDUCING chaos.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
But again, these rules I mention aren't restrictions on the individual.
They're restrictions against amassing power and restricting the individual with it.
You're now restricting my right to amass power.
How is that not a restriction on certain individuals?
Unfettered is unfettered, not 'unfettered, but leaving the manacles on just in case we have to reattach the chains later.'
==Aelryinth
we're restricting freedom that restricts freedom. it's chaotic but not as chaotic as anarchy or true democracy.
the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I'm not sure I understand how that locks people into alignments permanently. I'm talking about a law here, a written and understood rule of a system. That is very different from a conscious being making decisions.
The results of a thing being used does not necessarily indicative of its nature. If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.
not really, because looking down on people for not upholding tradition is written right in the lawful stuffthe intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I would argue that 'stopping people from causing conflicts with others by creating an atmosphere of tolerance for differences' is by its nature REDUCING chaos.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
so removing the judging or idea that they have a duty to do something is reducing lawfulness.
the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I'm not sure I understand how that locks people into alignments permanently. I'm talking about a law here, a written and understood rule of a system. That is very different from a conscious being making decisions.
The results of a thing being used does not necessarily indicative of its nature. If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.
"it's intent doesn't undo it's very nature" humans are inherently neutral, but we can change that with our intent.
|
I didn't say privately funded, I said donations.
Or crowdfunding.
There are plenty of ways to fund a project without stealing from the citizenry. If the citizenry doesn't care enough to pay for it, then clearly they don't want it badly enough and if they don't want it then there's no point in forcing it down their throats.
Going that far would likely run into similar problems that socialism/communism does. Everyone would slack-off, hoping to ride the benefits from other peoples' donations. (as opposed to the hard work they hope to sponge off of in socialism/communism)
If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.
alignment mentions and placed importance on conscious effects.
Going that far would likely run into similar problems that socialism/communism does. Everyone would slack-off, hoping to ride the benefits from other peoples' donations. (as opposed to the hard work they hope to sponge off of in socialism/communism)I didn't say privately funded, I said donations.
Or crowdfunding.
There are plenty of ways to fund a project without stealing from the citizenry. If the citizenry doesn't care enough to pay for it, then clearly they don't want it badly enough and if they don't want it then there's no point in forcing it down their throats.
the catholic church rides off of donations, they seem well funded for how little they actually do.
The organization would need an air that they're trying to help. Kickstarters get funded regularly and several other platforms lead to innovation through donations.
also the free market and selling products is also how this basically works. you sell someone a road, the town can put together a potluck to buy a road, etc.
I think part of the disconnect here is you're conflating CHAOS [absolute disorder] with the Chaotic Alignment.the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I would argue that 'stopping people from causing conflicts with others by creating an atmosphere of tolerance for differences' is by its nature REDUCING chaos.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
this, I mentioned before that the name has a stigma attached to it. it's changed to where it means tradition versus innovation
'Society' doesn't care about individuals in this instance. Individuals have to do the caring, and that's totally along the Good-Evil access, not Chaotic.actually that's the axiomites... the lawful domain. they don;t care about individuals.Axiomites believe that every individual has a proper place in society, to operate harmoniously as a whole.
Chaotics believe that a person defines his own place in society, and how you get there is up to you.
I agreed with you up until after this. Axiomites don't choose their place in society, they simply are.
People who believe that an individual should make his own destiny or livelihood are inherently chaoticly tinged by that belief. Lawful people are more inclined to believe in a caste system like the one in india.
You are again conflating Chaos = Good.
A LN or LE society will certainly want to impose a caste system to define society to the benefit of the elite class.
A LG society will avoid the same thing, and a person could rise to a high place on their own merits, not a circumstance of birth. That's a Good thing, not just a Chaotic thing. A Chaotic thing would be bucking the society entirely to do what you please. They are liable to run head on into established beliefs and get quite frustrated (class conflicts still quite common in India and China).
And while Lawful societies may dip into caste systems, Chaotics dip into lack of caring about others entirely. Both are G to N to E progressions. Consigning a person to 'untouchable' status by birth, or setting fire to the world to watch people burn are both bad things.
Axiomites are appointed a place and a role and expected to, and do, fill it zealously. They can still be promoted up and down for performance and experience.
Going that far would likely run into similar problems that socialism/communism does. Everyone would slack-off, hoping to ride the benefits from other peoples' donations. (as opposed to the hard work they hope to sponge off of in socialism/communism)I didn't say privately funded, I said donations.
Or crowdfunding.
There are plenty of ways to fund a project without stealing from the citizenry. If the citizenry doesn't care enough to pay for it, then clearly they don't want it badly enough and if they don't want it then there's no point in forcing it down their throats.
You're assuming the average person is going to donate to/fund a public project that supports sponges? I sure as hell know I wouldn't.
I'd fund things like Road Maintenance, Fire Departments, My State Guard...
I'd not fund things like the Police [unless they made a serious shift in policies, which they might if their funding was getting cut out from under them], Wellfare or a National Military.
Which is why it all goes into one pool and stuff is paid out of there. You benefit from Police, Welfare and National Military whether you like it or not. Ergo, you pay.
==Aelryinth
not really, because looking down on people for not upholding tradition is written right in the lawful stuffthe intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I would argue that 'stopping people from causing conflicts with others by creating an atmosphere of tolerance for differences' is by its nature REDUCING chaos.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.so removing the judging or idea that they have a duty to do something is reducing lawfulness.
I think that section is more a bunch of guidelines for typical alignment-based behavior, rather than ironclad requirements. Police officers can lie, doesn't make them non-lawful or their actions in serve of chaos. The section right below those sentences speaks with terms like "implies" and "can include". Read as a whole, that section paints alignment more as a spectrum, not a checklist.
"it's intent doesn't undo it's very nature" humans are inherently neutral, but we can change that with our intent.the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I'm not sure I understand how that locks people into alignments permanently. I'm talking about a law here, a written and understood rule of a system. That is very different from a conscious being making decisions.
The results of a thing being used does not necessarily indicative of its nature. If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.
What makes you think human beings are inherently neutral with respect to either axis?
My take is that both Law and Chaos are insane and terrible, and Neutrality is the only sane choice for people to make.
Just like every Shin Megami Tensei game ever.
no a LG system could still impose a caste system, it would simply have to be one that heavily favored the majority. Such as the Noble caste being indentured to serve the citizenry.
you're conflating chaos with evil tendencies, such as slavery as you mentioned before, or complete disorder.
once again if chaos was only what you were saying lawful would only be caste systems, and no one could ever be promoted out of their caste.
axiomites fill it zealously because they're outsiders, they love their alignment. humans put in the same situation would hate it and feel oppressed.
a chaotic society is simply one that does not impose harsh restrictions on the people.
I think that section is more a bunch of guidelines for typical alignment-based behavior, rather than ironclad requirements. Police officers can lie, doesn't make them non-lawful or their actions in serve of chaos. The section right below those sentences speaks with terms like "implies" and "can include". Read as a whole, that section paints alignment more as a spectrum, not a checklist.not really, because looking down on people for not upholding tradition is written right in the lawful stuffthe intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I would argue that 'stopping people from causing conflicts with others by creating an atmosphere of tolerance for differences' is by its nature REDUCING chaos.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.so removing the judging or idea that they have a duty to do something is reducing lawfulness.
i know it's a spectrum, but aelry keeps imposing things not on the spectrum to the alignment or sometimes just imposing them wrong.
What makes you think human beings are inherently neutral with respect to either axis?"it's intent doesn't undo it's very nature" humans are inherently neutral, but we can change that with our intent.the intent and use of something determines it's alignment. else people couldn't change their alignments. does it create more chaos or more lawful, more chaos hence it's chaotic.Yes, yes it is chaotic Aelryinth.
Laws that restrict government rather than the public are by their nature Chaotic, they exist only to preserve the freedoms of the individual.
It's both, really. It's a rule (lawful) meant to preserve freedom (chaotic). The intended purpose doesn't undo it's very nature. That's what neutral alignments are for, finding a balance of the opposing viewpoints.
You also need to consider the inherent limitations of these laws you're talking about. Simply because is restricts government, is that the same thing as empowering the individual? What if the law in question prevents government from providing funds for programs meant to help or empower its citizens? The NEA is a good example.
I'm not sure I understand how that locks people into alignments permanently. I'm talking about a law here, a written and understood rule of a system. That is very different from a conscious being making decisions.
The results of a thing being used does not necessarily indicative of its nature. If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.
a human is born with only 1 instinct, self preservation, a neutral action, like all animals. our conscious actions change our alignment.
If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.alignment mentions and placed importance on conscious effects.
Except that, by your own mention, something which creates more chaos than law is chaotic. If the importance is mostly, if not wholly, based on intent, said law I talked about is lawful despite producing a LOT of chaos.
Going that far would likely run into similar problems that socialism/communism does. Everyone would slack-off, hoping to ride the benefits from other peoples' donations. (as opposed to the hard work they hope to sponge off of in socialism/communism)I didn't say privately funded, I said donations.
Or crowdfunding.
There are plenty of ways to fund a project without stealing from the citizenry. If the citizenry doesn't care enough to pay for it, then clearly they don't want it badly enough and if they don't want it then there's no point in forcing it down their throats.
the catholic church rides off of donations, they seem well funded for how little they actually do.
The organization would need an air that they're trying to help. Kickstarters get funded regularly and several other platforms lead to innovation through donations.
also the free market and selling products is also how this basically works. you sell someone a road, the town can put together a potluck to buy a road, etc.
The Church does not run a military, make roads, etc. Except in rare cases of wealthy areas, it runs schools that tend to be underfunded compared to many public schools, has churches, etc.
You're ignoring the fact that serving in the Church is also largely a donation. Priests, nuns and those who work for the faith are paid very, very little for their time compared to the private sector. Asking people to do what a priest does for money would probably require a 100k salary.
The Catholic Church would quickly collapse if it simply had to pay market rates for its serving priests and nuns, and had to pay taxes. It simply does not make enough money to survive without such, and that goes for basically every religious denomination out there. Indeed, the zeal to be compensated fairly for their time is a hallmark of some superchurches and the like. Give, give, give, so I can preach, preach, preach, and spend, spend, spend. Pay me like the celebrity I am!...etc.
kickstarter is about niche markets. it's market research. If you can't get enough money to sell your product, you don't make it. It's a cost-free way of finding out if you can sell something, and so MUCH more useful then going through the hassle of developoing a product, producing it, and then finding no one will buy it and losing your shirt!
I applaud Kickstarter to the fullest that way. Circumventing the loan process and bankruptcy is thumbs up!
But Kickstarters only work on niches. It's not charity. It's a way of finding out if people want to buy what you are selling.
You can't fund public works for minor areas with voluntary contributions. It won't happen, it has never happened, it's been tried. People will always find something else to do with their money, instead of donating it to public use. They'll let someone else do it, the rich will find a way to make money on their money instead, and the poor can't donate enough to make a difference.
So, you tax, and you get it done. It's the only way it can happen. Altruism has never been able to do the job.
==Aelryinth
Except that, by your own mention, something which creates more chaos than law is chaotic. If the importance is mostly, if not wholly, based on intent, said law I talked about is lawful despite producing a LOT of chaos.If I have a law that is meant to restrict certain types of 'bad' things but is ill-thought out and creates lots of chaos as a result, is that law a chaotic thing? Remember, it's intent and function are both lawful, intended to bring about good for society through control. However, the results are far, far different from what was intended.alignment mentions and placed importance on conscious effects.
yes if the intended effect creates more chaos (if it works as intended), i wasn't considering incompetence at the time of writing the first part.
the intent of the law is to create freedom, if it creates freedom, then it is chaotic wholly chaotic. if it instead creates law, then it's creation was chaotic it's enforcement is lawful.
Going that far would likely run into similar problems that socialism/communism does. Everyone would slack-off, hoping to ride the benefits from other peoples' donations. (as opposed to the hard work they hope to sponge off of in socialism/communism)I didn't say privately funded, I said donations.
Or crowdfunding.
There are plenty of ways to fund a project without stealing from the citizenry. If the citizenry doesn't care enough to pay for it, then clearly they don't want it badly enough and if they don't want it then there's no point in forcing it down their throats.
the catholic church rides off of donations, they seem well funded for how little they actually do.
The organization would need an air that they're trying to help. Kickstarters get funded regularly and several other platforms lead to innovation through donations.
also the free market and selling products is also how this basically works. you sell someone a road, the town can put together a potluck to buy a road, etc.
The Church does not run a military, make roads, etc. Except in rare cases of wealthy areas, it runs schools that tend to be underfunded compared to many public schools, has churches, etc.
You're ignoring the fact that serving in the Church is also largely a donation. Priests, nuns and those who work for the faith are paid very, very little for their time compared to the private sector. Asking people to do what a priest does for money would probably require a 100k salary.
The Catholic Church would quickly collapse if it simply had to pay market rates for its serving priests and nuns, and had to pay taxes. It simply does not make enough money to survive without such, and that goes for basically every religious denomination out there. Indeed, the zeal to be compensated fairly for their time is a hallmark of some superchurches and the like. Give, give, give, so I can preach, preach, preach, and spend, spend, spend....
it actually did at one point. The swiss guard was a paid mercenary group by the Vatican. They paid for roads and builds and services in rome and other holdings. having very few holdings it managed to raise an army to defeat Spain with a weakened France.
and the number of kickstarters spent on feeding people would say otherwise about it being a donation.
a human is born with only 1 instinct, self preservation, a neutral action, like all animals. our conscious actions change our alignment.
Look at any toddler ever and tell me they have a sense of self-preservation. We know nothing about our world when we're born. What we do know is mostly hard-coded desires. We want to be close to mom and dad, for example; we want to be held and loved in their company. It's a desire for joy and comfort from those we know and grow to love. We have lots of other biases and instincts, too, like not wanting to see others suffer or being afraid of the dark. These things can change over time, it's true, but it's not 100% your consciousness guiding it.
a human is born with only 1 instinct, self preservation, a neutral action, like all animals. our conscious actions change our alignment.Look at any toddler ever and tell me they have a sense of self-preservation. We know nothing about our world when we're born. What we do know is mostly hard-coded desires. We want to be close to mom and dad, for example; we want to be held and loved in their company. It's a desire for joy and comfort from those we know and grow to love. We have lots of other biases and instincts, too, like not wanting to see others suffer or being afraid of the dark. These things can change over time, it's true, but it's not 100% your consciousness guiding it.
they fear strangers, animals and heights. several self preservation instincts. :/ these are seen immediately after birth.
the rest is actually learned.