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.
It would not then be Good. You're ignoring the 'g'.
No, I'm not conflating Chaos with Evil. I'm pointing out that being Chaotic does NOT mean you can't be a slaver, keep slaves, or be made into a slave by a superior force. Chaos can and often is totally heartless, just like absolute Law. If you aren't strong enough, it will crush you without caring.
There are plenty of people who are given jobs and enjoy them. There are plenty more that find their niche and also love their jobs. It takes all kinds, man...we are still specializing!
A chaotic society places no restrictions upon the people, and that can be the harshest restriction of all.
==Aelryinth
It would not then be Good. You're ignoring the 'g'.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.
sure it is it's respecting life, the goal of the society is to see less harm come to society, the caste system is emplaced to protect the majority.
the rest you said about chaos is once again not in the chaos alignment but the evil alignment. :/
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
There are plenty of people who are given jobs and enjoy them. There are plenty more that find their niche and also love their jobs. It takes all kinds, man...we are still specializing!
A chaotic society places no restrictions upon the people, and that can be the harshest restriction of all.
on this, the lawful society would be less prone to allowing people to advance as promotions can cause instability in the system, it becomes harder for people to perform niche jobs as niche jobs don't benefit the system as a whole and thus aren't promoted or have a good ease of entry.
chaotic societies, love niche jobs as they show that an individual is benefiting society with their specific talent. once again the thing chaos explicitly mentions.
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.
My judgment is that tolerance is necessary.
i.e. you are looking at it as if only Chaos would be the right thing. You have to shift your framework.
Your duty is to be tolerant. Being less tolerant, i.e. more Lawful, is being Chaotic because you are not obeying the law.
I.e. it's neutral. Poor argument and example, Kryt.
==Aelryinth
Other than pointing out that lawful isn't a needed requirement for monks, what is the point of all this alignment debate? Myself, I'm happy to dump alignments almost entirely, leaving only outsiders and societies. What does this kind of debate add to the game?
this, I mentioned before that the name has a stigma attached to it. it's changed to where it means tradition versus innovation
I think part of the disconnect here is you're conflating CHAOS [absolute disorder] with the Chaotic Alignment.
What? I'm not sure what this is saying.
==Aelryinth
Other than pointing out that lawful isn't a needed requirement for monks, what is the point of all this alignment debate?Mental masturbation mostly
LOL Ok, just checking. I just hadn't seen the monk actually mentioned in the past several pages in a thread about monks. ;)
My judgment is that tolerance is necessary.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.
but you're not judging a duty. >_>
you don't feel that someone is not doing their supposed to like, finding a family or findign a good paying job to support the family.
i.e. you are looking at it as if only Chaos would be the right thing. You have to shift your framework.
the reverse is true of course, I'm simply stating that chaos isn't inherently disorderly or only causes grief, lawful has it's benefits but they aren't to the individual.
if you ignore their Racial and societal prejudice Nationalist Socialist is the prime example of a modern ultra lawful society. Fascism is all about making sure everyone has a place in society and that everything runs smoothly. people who break the law are judged harshly, but the majority of people thought that the benefit was far greater than the loss, they went from huge debt to a first world super power in a few decades.
We opposed Germany for their Belligerent status, the world didn't know about the concentration camps until the war ended. Adolf Hitler was the Man of the Year in one of the Time magazine articles.
most modern countries are not lawful, we do not uphold lawful ideals comapred teh the vast swath of history.
this, I mentioned before that the name has a stigma attached to it. it's changed to where it means tradition versus innovation
I think part of the disconnect here is you're conflating CHAOS [absolute disorder] with the Chaotic Alignment.What? I'm not sure what this is saying.
==Aelryinth
chaos's title "chaos" implies disorder and well chaos, even though the alignment is no longer about disorder and changed to be more about tradition and order versus freedom and experimentation(the positive sides of both alignments).
so it needs newer names.
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.
Incompetence might not be the right term, as it's not necessarily ineptitude of one degree or another in it's creation that can cause this kind of thing. Even the very well trained and smart people can produce results that fly completely contrary to what's expected with their plan. When the 18th Amendment was created and ratified, there was a lot of law that went into the intent, creation, and enforcement of said law...yet the massive amounts of crime and chaos it created dwarfed these efforts in the extreme. Is the 18th amendment lawful because of all the law that went into it or chaotic because of what actually happened due to it?
It would not then be Good. You're ignoring the 'g'.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.
sure it is it's respecting life, the goal of the society is to see less harm come to society, the caste system is emplaced to protect the majority.
the rest you said about chaos is once again not in the chaos alignment but the evil alignment. :/
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.There are plenty of people who are given jobs and enjoy them. There are plenty more that find their niche and also love their jobs. It takes all kinds, man...we are still specializing!
A chaotic society places no restrictions upon the people, and that can be the harshest restriction of all.
on this, the lawful society would be less prone to allowing people to advance as promotions can cause instability in the system, it becomes harder for people to perform niche jobs as niche jobs don't benefit the system as a whole and thus aren't promoted or have a good ease of entry.
chaotic societies, love niche jobs as they show that an individual is benefiting society with their specific talent....
Again, you're ignoring the fact that Chaos includes Good, Evil and Neutral behaviors. You're focusing on the ROsy CG person.
You're also downplaying the fact that advancement is normal in society. In Lawfuls, there's a system for it. In Chaotics, its whatever you can do. Promotion is NORMAL, because attrition exists. People and beings die, move away, new skills are required, new blood is necessary, people need to be managed, different skills need to be developed, businesses expand and contract.
Chaotics like niche jobs THEY PICK OUT, sure. But those niche jobs are not always to the benefit of society, they are to the benefit of the individual, and society may not benefit in the slightest. Too, being stuck in a niche is a grating restriction, and soon a true Chaotic will move on, or expand outside the niche. Being stuck in a niche is being dependent and relying on others, after all, meaning you are in their power.
Ignoring those realities is not wise.
==Aelryinth
this, I mentioned before that the name has a stigma attached to it. it's changed to where it means tradition versus innovation
I think part of the disconnect here is you're conflating CHAOS [absolute disorder] with the Chaotic Alignment.What? I'm not sure what this is saying.
==Aelryinth
chaos's title "chaos" implies disorder and well chaos, even though the alignment is no longer about disorder and changed to be more about tradition and order versus freedom and experimentation(the positive sides of both alignments).
so it needs newer names.
Chatoic and chaos are different things.
You keep using rosy terminology for chaos. 'Innovation' is a rosy term, until you add things like 'torture', 'mass destruction', 'medical experimentation', 'rogue AI' and similar things. Society frowns on them, but the CN/E person just wants to push the envelope and see what is possible!...
And you're ignoring those kinds of downsides to being Chaotic. "YOu can't tell me what to do!" is the cry of MANY the mad scientist.
==Aelryinth
Incompetence might not be the right term, as it's not necessarily ineptitude of one degree or another in it's creation that can cause this kind of thing. Even the very well trained and smart people can produce results that fly completely contrary to what's expected with their plan. When the 18th Amendment was created and ratified, there was a lot of law that went into the intent, creation, and enforcement of said law...yet the massive amounts of crime and chaos it created dwarfed these efforts in the extreme. Is the 18th amendment lawful because of all the law that went into it or chaotic because of what actually happened due to it?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.
instead of blatantly answering the question on a chaos-law scale i'll do one for good-evil to make it easier.
during ww1 germany was in a blockade, they needed supplies to create gunpowder, specifically nitrite. So a chemist created a process for his country to create nitrite which were used as an industry for war. he also went on to create the chlorine gas.
well after the war synthetic nitrite went on to become the easiest way to make synthetic fertilizer, this allowed us to substantially increase our food production (and our huge population boom after WW2) and reduced famine in several third world countries. he ended up getting the nobel peace prize.
So it's creation was evil, but it's implementation and use was good, in that the original creator shifted bad 1 degree, but anyone using it to feed people shifted good 1 degree.
does this clear it up?
My judgment is that tolerance is necessary.
not really, because looking down on people for not upholding tradition is written right in the lawful stuff
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.
but you're not judging a duty. >_>
you don't feel that someone is not doing their supposed to like, finding a family or findign a good paying job to support the family.
i.e. you are looking at it as if only Chaos would be the right thing. You have to shift your framework.
the reverse is true of course, I'm simply stating that chaos isn't inherently disorderly or only causes grief, lawful has it's benefits but they aren't to the individual.
if you ignore their Racial and societal prejudice Nationalist Socialist is the prime example of a modern ultra lawful society. Fascism is all about making sure everyone has a place in society and that everything runs smoothly. people who break the law are judged harshly, but the majority of people thought that the benefit was far greater than the loss, they went from huge debt to a first world super power in a few decades.
We opposed Germany for their Belligerent status, the world didn't know about the concentration camps until the war ended. Adolf Hitler was the Man of the Year in one of the Time magazine articles.
most modern countries are not lawful, we do not uphold lawful ideals comapred teh the vast swath of history.
Again, your context has not shifted. Your duty is to be tolerant. You are trying to ignore the fact that duty can mean positive behavior, and trying to associate it with repression.
We've become more Good. Not more chaotic. History is much more full of CN/LN behavior then today. You can see it playing out in the Middle East yet.
Facism is about rulership by strength...you make people obey by being strong, and extremely prejudiced against outsiders. Putin accuses everyone of being Fascist who oppose him, but he is running the very definition of a Fascist society, punishing all with strength and stirring up hatred of foreigners to give people something else to look at.
==Aelryinth
this, I mentioned before that the name has a stigma attached to it. it's changed to where it means tradition versus innovation
I think part of the disconnect here is you're conflating CHAOS [absolute disorder] with the Chaotic Alignment.What? I'm not sure what this is saying.
==Aelryinth
chaos's title "chaos" implies disorder and well chaos, even though the alignment is no longer about disorder and changed to be more about tradition and order versus freedom and experimentation(the positive sides of both alignments).
so it needs newer names.
Chatoic and chaos are different things.
You keep using rosy terminology for chaos. 'Innovation' is a rosy term, until you add things like 'torture', 'mass destruction', 'medical experimentation', 'rogue AI' and similar things. Society frowns on them, but the CN/E person just wants to push the envelope and see what is possible!...
And you're ignoring those kinds of downsides to being Chaotic. "YOu can't tell me what to do!" is the cry of MANY the mad scientist.
==Aelryinth
tradition and order are just as rosy. >_> should I start adding words like stubborn, stale, stagnant, dying, enslavement, and self-righteousness? society also frowns on those too.
you're also ignoring the downsides lawfulness has. China was lawful, so lawful(i mean they have records for almost their entire history) that they didn't advance even with westerners on their shores and were eventually taken over for a period by the British empire.
On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
"you can't tell me what to do!" is the cry of many traditionalists who can't advance to modern equipment.
Again, your context has not shifted. Your duty is to be tolerant. You are trying to ignore the fact that duty can mean positive behavior, and trying to associate it with repression.
what actually makes it a duty? there isn't a tradition in place to tolerate other people. tolerating other people is an ideal, specifically a chaotic ideal.
We've become more Good. Not more chaotic. History is much more full of CN/LN behavior then today. You can see it playing out in the Middle East yet.
not really, have you looked at China, Russian, eastern europe, most of india and sub-china, Africa. >_> western culture is largely chaotic, as it encourages talking and non-interference with other countries. most of history has been lawful, not evil or good.
Incompetence might not be the right term, as it's not necessarily ineptitude of one degree or another in it's creation that can cause this kind of thing. Even the very well trained and smart people can produce results that fly completely contrary to what's expected with their plan. When the 18th Amendment was created and ratified, there was a lot of law that went into the intent, creation, and enforcement of said law...yet the massive amounts of crime and chaos it created dwarfed these efforts in the extreme. Is the 18th amendment lawful because of all the law that went into it or chaotic because of what actually happened due to it?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.
instead of blatantly answering the question on a chaos-law scale i'll do one for good-evil to make it easier.
during ww1 germany was in a blockade, they needed supplies to create gunpowder, specifically nitrite. So a chemist created a process for his country to create...
Your first assumption is in total error. Synthetic nitrate's creation was simply Neutral, an event.
Using it for war is an event, neutral. War oppresses everyone equally.Its later usefulness is a good thing, but not a Good thing. there's no moral righteousness in better fertilizer. Said fertilizing also throws off the natural balance of the soil and causes pollution.
Those are all just neutral events.
But the guy who invented it was probably following the Scientific Method and quite lawful! ;)
==Aelryinth
Again, your context has not shifted. Your duty is to be tolerant. You are trying to ignore the fact that duty can mean positive behavior, and trying to associate it with repression.what actually makes it a duty? there isn't a tradition in place to tolerate other people. tolerating other people is an ideal, specifically a chaotic ideal.
We made it a law, therefore it is a duty to obey the law.
it's your example, remember?
==Aelryinth
tradition and order are just as rosy. >_> should I start adding words like stubborn, stale, stagnant, dying, enslavement, and self-righteousness? society also frowns on those too.you're also ignoring the downsides lawfulness has. China was lawful, so lawful(i mean they have records for almost their entire history) that they didn't advance even with westerners on their shores and were eventually taken over for a period by the British empire.
On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
"you can't tell me what to do!" is the cry of many traditionalists who can't advance to modern equipment.
Excuse me, quit putting words in my mouth.
Not ONCE have I said Law cannot have bad sides. As a matter of fact, I've included several examples and agreements of precisely that.
YOU, however, have never, ever said anything but that Chaos is the way to go, and Law is a Bad Thing. I am pointing out repeatedly that you are in error on BOTH sides. You are looking exclusively at CG rosiness, and LN/LE cold-heartedness.
==Aelryinth
Again, your context has not shifted. Your duty is to be tolerant. You are trying to ignore the fact that duty can mean positive behavior, and trying to associate it with repression.what actually makes it a duty? there isn't a tradition in place to tolerate other people. tolerating other people is an ideal, specifically a chaotic ideal.We made it a law, therefore it is a duty to obey the law.
it's your example, remember?
==Aelryinth
except it's not a law >_>, and following laws isn't your "duty".
and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
Except we MADE IT A LAW, and by your own words, following a law is a duty and judging others who don't follow that duty is lawful.
In other words, you are contradicting yourself by now saying no to both.
==Aelryinth
and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
Or, 'how to overcome the restriction on my country placed by these hostile powers'.
Context!
==Aelryinth
tradition and order are just as rosy. >_> should I start adding words like stubborn, stale, stagnant, dying, enslavement, and self-righteousness? society also frowns on those too.you're also ignoring the downsides lawfulness has. China was lawful, so lawful(i mean they have records for almost their entire history) that they didn't advance even with westerners on their shores and were eventually taken over for a period by the British empire.
On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
"you can't tell me what to do!" is the cry of many traditionalists who can't advance to modern equipment.
Excuse me, quit putting words in my mouth.
Not ONCE have I said Law cannot have bad sides. As a matter of fact, I've included several examples and agreements of precisely that.
YOU, however, have never, ever said anything but that Chaos is the way to go, and Law is a Bad Thing. I am pointing out repeatedly that you are in error on BOTH sides. You are looking exclusively at CG rosiness, and LN/LE cold-heartedness.
==Aelryinth
because lawful and chaos don't have any good or bad sides, they're just lawful and chaotic, any good or bad comes from good and evil. You keep bringing up bad sides that are actually evil and not influenced by chaos to be more evil or good.
specifically lawful is definitely more cold hearted, that what axiomites ARE, chaotic people are more compassionate(please use this word over rosiness). this doesn't stop a human however from being either, but someone who is more compassionate is more inclined to be chaotic.
in essence, you keep confusing chaos with the english language of chaos, when it is defined as someone who values the ideals of "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" A lawful person values the ideals of "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability".
these can be used negatively or positively but always that happens due to good-evil alignment shifts.
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.I've had many, many encounters with the Police [without ever being arrested I will note.] They are not a benefit nor a true necessity.
The police around here take hours to show up for critical events, they harass everyone at the site, they make baseless assumptions about those involved, and they arrest people for victimless crimes.
Welfare doesn't benefit me, nor does it actually benefit its recipients. I could get behind a 'work program' that provides low-wage public jobs that need doing to those who would otherwise be on welfare.
As for the National Military, when's the last time they actually did something in our defense? I'd wager that more than 95% of the time our national military is used to shove our viewpoints down the throats of other nations that should be allowed to shovel their own s&+!. I'd much rather go back to an era where the USA was more concerned about its own problems than pouring resources into the bottomless pit that is the rest of the world.
Individual experience does not equal overall need.
The police are there to do what the individual can not. Without them, we'd have vigilante justice, clan warfare, and worse.
They are human and make errors, do bad. Overall, they do far more good then harm.
Welfare benefits millions of people. The simple idea of food stamps keeps hundreds of thousands of farmers employed. Walmart's single biggest cash transfer customer is Social Security and food stamps, they RELY on it. Welfare gets money moving through the system, and if you don't think the rich profit from it, you need to look at how much the Walton family is worth, and how rich some farmers have gotten off of school lunches.
The EXISTENCE of a national army is a massive deterent. THe whole reason we have one was to stop other nations from doing whatever they wanted to with us, from impressing US citizens for their own naval ships (the british) to pirating and ransoming us ships and crews (Tripoli).
If you don't have a strong military, you are a victim for those that do. That's a historical and absolute fact. Just like at the Ukraine today.
You may be benefiting indirectly, but you are benefiting. Money makes the world go round,
==Aelryinth
and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
Or, 'how to overcome the restriction on my country placed by these hostile powers'.
Context!
==Aelryinth
I gave the context the creator gave... so. :/ he was not a kind man, his wife committed suicide because he wouldn't stop working on these things, and he simply continued working after she died.
instead of blatantly answering the question on a chaos-law scale i'll do one for good-evil to make it easier.
during ww1 germany was in a blockade, they needed supplies to create gunpowder, specifically nitrite. So a chemist created a process for his country to create nitrite which were used as an industry for war. he also went on to create the chlorine gas.
well after the war synthetic nitrite went on to become the easiest way to make synthetic fertilizer, this allowed us to substantially increase our food production (and our huge population boom after WW2) and reduced famine in several third world countries. he ended up getting the nobel peace prize.
So it's creation was evil, but it's implementation and use was good, in that the original creator shifted bad 1 degree, but anyone using it to feed people shifted good 1 degree.
does this clear it up?
This isn't anywhere near as good an example as you think. Developing something to use as a weapon isn't an evil act, nor is using the weapon if the cause is right. Think about the atom bomb and how using it ended WWII before an invasion of Japan had to happen (the Russian would have done so even if we hadn't). The situation only gets murkier in WWI, which was a cluster-f@#& in so many ways. It was less 'good vs bad' and more 'innovative vs stupid'. Generals were too set in their ways and leader too unaware of how the world had changed to avoid catastrophic death, destruction, and chaos. Unlike in the much worse WWII, Austria-Hungary was not really the 'bad guy', and so this inventor's support of his country cannot be unconditionally labelled as 'evil.
Except we MADE IT A LAW, and by your own words, following a law is a duty and judging others who don't follow that duty is lawful.
In other words, you are contradicting yourself by now saying no to both.
==Aelryinth
well than it's a poor law thus not very lawful, and it's intent is chaotic so it's ends up being net chaotic. anyone upholding it because it;s a law is being lawful, anyone who upholds it because they agree with it is being chaotic.
I said earlier that following a law is not a duty. duty has more to do with honor than adherence to a system.
This isn't anywhere near as good an example as you think. Developing something to use as a weapon isn't an evil act, nor is using the weapon if the cause is right. Think about the atom bomb and how using it ended WWII before an invasion of Japan had to happen (the Russian would have done so even if we hadn't). The situation only gets murkier in WWI, which was a cluster-f@#& in so many ways. It was less 'good vs bad' and more 'innovative vs stupid'. Generals were too set in their ways and leader too unaware of how the world had changed to avoid catastrophic death, destruction, and chaos. Unlike in the much worse WWII, Austria-Hungary was not really the 'bad guy', and so this inventor's support of his country cannot be unconditionally labelled as 'evil.instead of blatantly answering the question on a chaos-law scale i'll do one for good-evil to make it easier.
during ww1 germany was in a blockade, they needed supplies to create gunpowder, specifically nitrite. So a chemist created a process for his country to create nitrite which were used as an industry for war. he also went on to create the chlorine gas.
well after the war synthetic nitrite went on to become the easiest way to make synthetic fertilizer, this allowed us to substantially increase our food production (and our huge population boom after WW2) and reduced famine in several third world countries. he ended up getting the nobel peace prize.
So it's creation was evil, but it's implementation and use was good, in that the original creator shifted bad 1 degree, but anyone using it to feed people shifted good 1 degree.
does this clear it up?
all true but assuming that making an industry profiting on death and making an industry profiting on life are comparatively evil - good. does it make more sense. in that the creator's intent and then users intent matter equally?
and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
People don't fight and contribute to 'prolong' wars, they fight to end them. Usually, with the expectation of victory. Thus would end the fighting/killing and ensuring the 'right/proper/moral' ideals win.
People don't fight and contribute to 'prolong' wars, they fight to end them. Usually, with the expectation of victory. Thus would end the fighting/killing and ensuring the 'right/proper/moral' ideals win.and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
not this guy he was buying time so that germany could get a better peace deal.
in essence, you keep confusing chaos with the english language of chaos, when it is defined as someone who values the ideals of "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" A lawful person values the ideals of "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability".
to give more clarity to this statement
conversely, chaotic people tend to be also approve of "dishonor, untrustworthiness, disobedience to authority, and unreliability"
while lawful people also approve of "constrainment, rigidity, and predictability"
chaos and lawfulness are about ideals, their ideals HAVE to apply to other people or they're not ideals the person holds.
not this guy he was buying time so that germany could get a better peace deal.People don't fight and contribute to 'prolong' wars, they fight to end them. Usually, with the expectation of victory. Thus would end the fighting/killing and ensuring the 'right/proper/moral' ideals win.and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
So I did some research and these breakthroughs (the Haber-Bosch process for those interested) you're talking about all apparently happened no later than 1913. In other words, before WWI started. So, the intent wasn't to prolong a war. their scientific advancement in the production of synthetic nitrates merely had the side-effect of making Germany able to last longer in the coming conflict. If you're talking about something else, please specify what.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I get where this discussion came from, but I lost sight of the rails on this train of thought four pages ago. I think monks are neat, and unchained certainly gave us a different take on them that wouldn't have been possible in the initial "everything must be 3.5 compatible" phase of the game. If the Monks design was a sacred cow, it's going away if the designers have anything to say about it.
So I did some research and these breakthroughs (the Haber-Bosch process for those interested) you're talking about all apparently happened no later than 1913. In other words, before WWI started. So, the intent wasn't to prolong a war. their scientific advancement in the production of synthetic nitrates merely had the side-effect of making Germany able to last longer in the coming conflict. If you're talking about something else, please specify what.not this guy he was buying time so that germany could get a better peace deal.People don't fight and contribute to 'prolong' wars, they fight to end them. Usually, with the expectation of victory. Thus would end the fighting/killing and ensuring the 'right/proper/moral' ideals win.and synthetic nitrite wasn't made as "synthetic nitrite" it was made as "how to prolong the war by killing people"
you're probably right, i'm probably thinking about his creation of chlorine gas. :/
I know he field tested that on a trench with him personally there.
regardless if it was like that does it make sense? an act made with intent that can be used later to do good effect the creator and then later users separately?
so a laws creation and then people following it or not effects each person differently based on how they react and what their motivation to follow the law is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I get where this discussion came from, but I lost sight of the rails on this train of thought four pages ago. I think monks are neat, and unchained certainly gave us a different take on them that wouldn't have been possible in the initial "everything must be 3.5 compatible" phase of the game. If the Monks design was a sacred cow, it's going away if the designers have anything to say about it.
I would like to thank every good-aligned metaphysical being for this post
Now that we're not on a subject that is completely non sensible and intolerable, I feel like I must disagree with your assertion; much of what was wrong with the original Monk is still in tact, just shifted slightly. The Monk is still in this bizarre zone where everything gets an (Su) tag slapped on it but is still confined to standards of realism. They're still not allowed to do the really crazy good stuff that the other two Su classes can do (Barbarian and Paladin), which is the real "sacred cow" of Pathfinder game design.
Individual experience does not equal overall need.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.I've had many, many encounters with the Police [without ever being arrested I will note.] They are not a benefit nor a true necessity.
The police around here take hours to show up for critical events, they harass everyone at the site, they make baseless assumptions about those involved, and they arrest people for victimless crimes.
Welfare doesn't benefit me, nor does it actually benefit its recipients. I could get behind a 'work program' that provides low-wage public jobs that need doing to those who would otherwise be on welfare.
As for the National Military, when's the last time they actually did something in our defense? I'd wager that more than 95% of the time our national military is used to shove our viewpoints down the throats of other nations that should be allowed to shovel their own s&+!. I'd much rather go back to an era where the USA was more concerned about its own problems than pouring resources into the bottomless pit that is the rest of the world.
True, but it is an indicator, and enough individual experiences show a trend.
The police are there to do what the individual can not. Without them, we'd have vigilante justice, clan warfare, and worse.And this is worse than corrupt law enforcement how? Individual Justice >>> governmental justice.
They are human and make errors, do bad. Overall, they do far more good then harm.some overall do more good than harm. Others do FAR more harm than good. For every good cop I've met I've met three bad ones.
Welfare benefits millions of people. The simple idea of food stamps keeps hundreds of thousands of farmers employed. Walmart's single biggest cash transfer customer is Social Security and...
Individual experiences, when aggregated, show they do far more good then harm. You're using hyperbole. For every bad cop I've met, I've met a dozen good ones. See how that works? True, too.
Individual justice is far more prone to corruption, since it comes at the whims of individuals. You only need to look to mafia and crime families and organizations. Go down to Mexico. The first thing they do is shoot and subvert the local police, and ask the people if they are better off with the drug cartels running things. then look at the murder rate.
There's always been corruption in Law Enforcement. Then you have things like the 'wild west', called that because there was no Law Enforcement. Vigilantes SUCK at doing things right when it comes to dispensing justice. It becomes a tit for tat murder game.
Parts of welfare are a subsidy system. Parts of it are a necessary wealth transfer. Parts of it keep our agricultural system viable. Parts of it are exploited by extremely wealthy people.
And yet overall its a very necessary social safety net for those who have no recourse, giving them a chance at a better life that no amount of charity could ever accomplish.
No, State guards suck at national interests. Montana isn't going to dispatch anyone overseas to avenge the ship going out of New York, just because its carrying Montana beef. There would be jurisdiction problems, rivalries and downright violence between states, lack of coordination and cooperation on larger issues, lack of joint standards, lack of funding, more tension between have and have not states, etc.
Just look at history. Provincial guards died away because they could in no way compare to the integration and inclusion of a national army.
Now, the way the national forces are being used by politicians in today's day and age, yeah, I can disagree with those. But nobody's going to fear the might of the New Hampshire State Army on the international stage...it's literally a pointless argument, and in invitation for outsiders to exploit yet more divisions between the states.
All you have to do is look at the state of Europe's defense forces to realize that what you are saying is a pipe dream. The EU has no defense forces to speak of, its all individual countries, and so when the EU speaks on the international stage, nobody listens to it. The same thing would happen to America.
And there's no way any state in the union could support the total armed forces that we need without seriously beggaring its people.
==Aelryinth
Thread hijacks are chaotic and expressly permitted by lawful forum rules, thus neutral.
==Aelryinth
Thread hijacks are chaotic and expressly permitted by lawful forum rules, thus neutral.
==Aelryinth
i agree with this
edit: P.S. i'm staying out of any application of the alignment system to real world policies. real world policies are too nebulous to define as any alignment.
in fact i use the loyalty system, as it better fits people.
on privately funded military organizations though, they're called PMCs and they make a killing in the middle east and russia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I get where this discussion came from, but I lost sight of the rails on this train of thought four pages ago. I think monks are neat, and unchained certainly gave us a different take on them that wouldn't have been possible in the initial "everything must be 3.5 compatible" phase of the game. If the Monks design was a sacred cow, it's going away if the designers have anything to say about it.I would like to thank every good-aligned metaphysical being for this post
Now that we're not on a subject that is completely non sensible and intolerable, I feel like I must disagree with your assertion; much of what was wrong with the original Monk is still in tact, just shifted slightly. The Monk is still in this bizarre zone where everything gets an (Su) tag slapped on it but is still confined to standards of realism. They're still not allowed to do the really crazy good stuff that the other two Su classes can do (Barbarian and Paladin), which is the real "sacred cow" of Pathfinder game design.
Personally, I think the biggest puzzle with the unchained monk is why Paizo didn't remove the one chain THEY put there in the first place. Used to be the 3.X monk just punched through DR, similar to how the brawler works now. Paizo added the restriction (or 'chain', if you will) on ki strike of that last point of ki in their pool being needed. Unchained didn't really reduce the need for ki or increase the supply, either, so...yeah, somewhat disappointing.
on privately funded military organizations though, they're called PMCs and they make a killing in the middle east and russia.
a merc (Private Military contractor) in the middle east can make 10k a month. Most of them are ex-special forces guys who drop out of the special forces to finally make some real money.
Note: That 10k is also pay all your own expenses, and any soldier can tell you, making war is expensive. I think the cost of aviation fuel in Afghanistan works out to something like $50 a gallon because of transport costs...
Militia troops in the Ukraine are an increasing problem for the government, which doesn't have the military strength to stop them, stop needing them, or control them. They are basically controlled by their paymasters, and the biggest is the billionaire with the most influence in the contested territory. He basically controls about a third of the Ukraine...which is about equal to saying he rules Texas, because he's rich.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the biggest puzzle with the unchained monk is why Paizo didn't remove the one chain THEY put there in the first place. Used to be the 3.X monk just punched through DR, similar to how the brawler works now. Paizo added the restriction (or 'chain', if you will) on ki strike of that last point of ki in their pool being needed. Unchained didn't really reduce the need for ki or increase the supply, either, so...yeah, somewhat disappointing.Personally, I get where this discussion came from, but I lost sight of the rails on this train of thought four pages ago. I think monks are neat, and unchained certainly gave us a different take on them that wouldn't have been possible in the initial "everything must be 3.5 compatible" phase of the game. If the Monks design was a sacred cow, it's going away if the designers have anything to say about it.I would like to thank every good-aligned metaphysical being for this post
Now that we're not on a subject that is completely non sensible and intolerable, I feel like I must disagree with your assertion; much of what was wrong with the original Monk is still in tact, just shifted slightly. The Monk is still in this bizarre zone where everything gets an (Su) tag slapped on it but is still confined to standards of realism. They're still not allowed to do the really crazy good stuff that the other two Su classes can do (Barbarian and Paladin), which is the real "sacred cow" of Pathfinder game design.
All true. In fact, I was in the camp that thought untying Bab from HD by giving them full base attack bonus (represents intense martial training), and a d8 hit die would have been better balancing than removing the good will save that separated the class originally. Unchaining it from previous expectations of how classes are built if you will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aelryinth and Bandw2 you guys are WAAAAAAAAAY off topic. Maybe you should make a new thread? If you two keep this up this thread will probably get locked.
Anyway I feel like the monk could be fixed by just increasing amount of Ki, wis to hit and damage bonus=monklvl and giving one half movement speed while flurrying instead of being limited to a 5-foot step.
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.
In Australia a vein of chaos and independence runs strongly through the young body politic. It is not an old country.
Unfortunately a lawful evil government has got in. Concentration camps, torture of children, policies of surveillance, robbing Aboriginals of their heritage and kicking them out of settlements. All done for the country and to protect it apparently.
With these events I can assuredly say that law and chaos are not confined to outsiders.