(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2007 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prismakaos[11:09] David Green: you can care about a person more than the fate of the world and still be lawful right?
[11:09] Me: uhj
[11:09] Me: i dunno
[11:09] Me: maybe
[11:10] David Green: thing is, i don't see why not
[11:10] David Green: i couldn't find anything, upon further examination, that made the two contradict
[11:11] Me: because if you care more about the person
[11:11] Me: than about the world
[11:11] Me: then if the bad guy who has the person
[11:11] Me: says "betray the world for this person" and you do...
[11:11] Me: that's chaotic
[11:11] David Green: whoa, no way.
[11:11] Me: because lawful people'd be like "um, no"
[11:11] David Green: nonono
[11:11] David Green: GOOD people would be like um no
[11:12] David Green: Lawful people could do it so long as they were clear on what was going on, and they got the evil guy's word that he'd let the captive go afterwards.
[11:12] David Green: i mean, wouldn't a lawful evil person do that, certainly?
[11:12] Me: but i think you compromise the majority of the world
[11:13] David Green: i don't have a responsibility to the world though
[11:14] David Green: well, no more than anyone else
[11:14] Me: see, i always felt that chaotic basically meant that you were out for yourself above all
[11:14] Me: and that lawful was the communal thing
[11:15] Me: and then good vs bad were moral type things
[11:15] David Green: ah
[11:16] David Green: yeah, we have different conceptions then
[11:16] Me: yeah
[11:16] David Green: well, i agree on good vs bad being moral/ethical
[11:16] David Green: but to me law/chaos have nothing to do with other people
[11:16] David Green: they just have to do with your own personal code of behaviour
[11:17] Me: so, whether you follow the laws or not?
[11:18] David Green: yes, but also whether you subscribe to discipline and order in your actions and way of living, or if you're more of a free spirit, wander-about carefree soul who does what she wants because it feels good.
[11:18] David Green: in fact, it's moreso the latter. following laws are a possible subset of consequences for having discipline and order.
[11:18] Me: see but i think that gets into personal responsbilitiy vs not
[11:19] David Green: in one's actions
[11:19] Me: you'd have a greater personal responsibility to respect others
[11:20] Me: in my mind, the uber lawful person is a democrat, and the uber chaotic person is libertarian
[11:20] David Green: whoa
[11:20] Me: coz on the one hand, government should protect and mandate all
[11:20] Me: and on the other hand, libertarians firmly believe that no power should EVER rest with the government
[11:21] David Green: but, see, those are political philosophies...i don't think they're congruent with the concepts of lawful or choatic behaviour.
[11:21] Me: but in ideals, they are
[11:21] David Green: they may have some overlap, sure, but i don't think the overlap for one is limited to touching only one of the other.
[11:22] Me: i'm curious as to what matt would say
[11:22] David Green: Okay, I want to ask you why you think the lawful person would have a greater responsibility towards others.
[11:22] David Green: But I think you're just going to answer with what you already said, which is "Because I believe law means X and choas means Y"
[11:22] David Green: Which I can't really accept because I disagree with that outlook.
[11:23] David Green: Yeah, I'm curious too.
[11:23] David Green: Or Mike.
[11:23] Me: because to a lawful neutral person (which is the extreme of the law, untainted by morals) believes that the law/rules set down for a society mandate his actions
[11:23] Me: thus, if you're evil or good, you're twisting those laws to suit your purpose, but never really stepping over them
[11:23] David Green: Ooh...right there. RIght there I disagree.
[11:23] Me: a chaotic person says "fuck the laws"
[11:23] Me: and runs with it
[11:24] David Green: You're equating "lawful" with "laws" set down by society. It's the same word, but one are concrete rules written on paper and the other is a behavioural philosophy.
[11:24] Me: i basically think that *in the realm of DnD*, laws are the external expression/framework for lawful characters
[11:24] David Green: I don't think lawfulness as an alignment has any inherent binding to societal laws.
[11:24] David Green: What about lawful people who exist in realms where there is no government?
[11:25] Me: then they're basically ignoring societal norms, and i'd argue that in that context, they'd probably be chaotic
[11:25] Me: i don't think you can have absolute lawfulness
[11:25] Me: there needs to be an external expression of it
[11:25] David Green: Okay. Yeah, we have a very different outlook. I'm not sure we're going to agree on this.
[11:25] David Green: Hmm, right there.
[11:25] Me: yeah, i somehow doubt it
[11:26] David Green: Great word choice.
[11:26] David Green: That's the crux.
[11:26] David Green: Internal vs. external expression.
[11:26] David Green: I'm arguing internal, you're arguing externa.
[11:26] David Green: external*
[11:26] Me: yeah, basically
[11:26] Me: i think this goes back to expression and demeanor
[11:26] David Green: Oh, nature and demeanor you mean?
[11:27] David Green: Yeah. Kind of.
[11:27] Me: where on the one hand, you can have internal beliefs and then do something against that
[11:27] Me: and i remember we had a talk about what makes alignment and i think we argued that actions define alignment
[11:27] Me: not necessarily how you feel inside coz otherwise dirk would be chaotic
[11:27] David Green: Right.
[11:28] Me: but the actions can only be seen in a relative light, right?
[11:28] David Green: But the actions can only be influenced and controlled from the inside.
[11:28] Me: so...
[11:28] Me: i guess the quesiton becomes whether alignment is determined by observers to the actions or the person whose actioning
[11:28] David Green: *nod*
[11:28] David Green: External vs. internal again.
[11:29] David Green: And I would vote the latter.
[11:29] David Green: Because I think intent plays a large part of this.
[11:29] Me: and i'd argue that if you were born into a chaotic socity, that would be the norm and what was expected (thus appearance of lawful) and being lawful in that context would make you appear chaotic
[11:29] David Green: If you intend to not shoot the criminal who just killed your mother but you slip and pull the trigger and kill him, that doesn't make you chaotic.
[11:29] David Green: It might make you seem chaotic to observers, though.
[11:30] Me: right
[11:30] Me: the actions are chaotic, perhaps the intent is not
[11:30] David Green: Yeah, I'm sorry, I have to really disagree with the example you just gave.
[11:30] Me: hehe
[11:30] Me: okay
[11:31] Me: we're going to end up disagreeing on thi
[11:31] *** "David Green" signed off at Wed Jul 25 11:31:09 2007.
[11:31] *** "David Green" signed on at Wed Jul 25 11:31:18 2007.
[11:31] David Green: sorry, can you say that again?
[11:31] David Green: AIM keeps crashing on me
[11:31] Me: basically, we're going to end up disagreeing on this point
[11:31] David Green: *nod*
[11:32] Me: it's like matt's original character, sameryn
[11:32] Me: where he was lg
[11:32] Me: and he kept doing things in a way that was lawful and in sticking with his god
[11:32] Me: at least to his mind
[11:33] Me: and the rest of us were arguing that no, it wasn't lawful what he was doing
[11:33] Me: i think with enough chaotic actions, regardless of their original motiviation, you become chaotic
[11:33] David Green: Well, okay, I might agree a little with that conclusion, just not necessarily the steps you took to arrive there.
[11:34] David Green: I think it's possible that with enough chaotic actions, it can change how you feel as you realize that choatic actions can be good or useful or worthwhile. You might realize that you enjoy them. I think those qualities can help to bring about the alignment shift.
[11:35] Me: okay
[11:35] Me: i need to work
[11:35] Me: otherwise i'd continue this
Thoughts?
[11:09] Me: uhj
[11:09] Me: i dunno
[11:09] Me: maybe
[11:10] David Green: thing is, i don't see why not
[11:10] David Green: i couldn't find anything, upon further examination, that made the two contradict
[11:11] Me: because if you care more about the person
[11:11] Me: than about the world
[11:11] Me: then if the bad guy who has the person
[11:11] Me: says "betray the world for this person" and you do...
[11:11] Me: that's chaotic
[11:11] David Green: whoa, no way.
[11:11] Me: because lawful people'd be like "um, no"
[11:11] David Green: nonono
[11:11] David Green: GOOD people would be like um no
[11:12] David Green: Lawful people could do it so long as they were clear on what was going on, and they got the evil guy's word that he'd let the captive go afterwards.
[11:12] David Green: i mean, wouldn't a lawful evil person do that, certainly?
[11:12] Me: but i think you compromise the majority of the world
[11:13] David Green: i don't have a responsibility to the world though
[11:14] David Green: well, no more than anyone else
[11:14] Me: see, i always felt that chaotic basically meant that you were out for yourself above all
[11:14] Me: and that lawful was the communal thing
[11:15] Me: and then good vs bad were moral type things
[11:15] David Green: ah
[11:16] David Green: yeah, we have different conceptions then
[11:16] Me: yeah
[11:16] David Green: well, i agree on good vs bad being moral/ethical
[11:16] David Green: but to me law/chaos have nothing to do with other people
[11:16] David Green: they just have to do with your own personal code of behaviour
[11:17] Me: so, whether you follow the laws or not?
[11:18] David Green: yes, but also whether you subscribe to discipline and order in your actions and way of living, or if you're more of a free spirit, wander-about carefree soul who does what she wants because it feels good.
[11:18] David Green: in fact, it's moreso the latter. following laws are a possible subset of consequences for having discipline and order.
[11:18] Me: see but i think that gets into personal responsbilitiy vs not
[11:19] David Green: in one's actions
[11:19] Me: you'd have a greater personal responsibility to respect others
[11:20] Me: in my mind, the uber lawful person is a democrat, and the uber chaotic person is libertarian
[11:20] David Green: whoa
[11:20] Me: coz on the one hand, government should protect and mandate all
[11:20] Me: and on the other hand, libertarians firmly believe that no power should EVER rest with the government
[11:21] David Green: but, see, those are political philosophies...i don't think they're congruent with the concepts of lawful or choatic behaviour.
[11:21] Me: but in ideals, they are
[11:21] David Green: they may have some overlap, sure, but i don't think the overlap for one is limited to touching only one of the other.
[11:22] Me: i'm curious as to what matt would say
[11:22] David Green: Okay, I want to ask you why you think the lawful person would have a greater responsibility towards others.
[11:22] David Green: But I think you're just going to answer with what you already said, which is "Because I believe law means X and choas means Y"
[11:22] David Green: Which I can't really accept because I disagree with that outlook.
[11:23] David Green: Yeah, I'm curious too.
[11:23] David Green: Or Mike.
[11:23] Me: because to a lawful neutral person (which is the extreme of the law, untainted by morals) believes that the law/rules set down for a society mandate his actions
[11:23] Me: thus, if you're evil or good, you're twisting those laws to suit your purpose, but never really stepping over them
[11:23] David Green: Ooh...right there. RIght there I disagree.
[11:23] Me: a chaotic person says "fuck the laws"
[11:23] Me: and runs with it
[11:24] David Green: You're equating "lawful" with "laws" set down by society. It's the same word, but one are concrete rules written on paper and the other is a behavioural philosophy.
[11:24] Me: i basically think that *in the realm of DnD*, laws are the external expression/framework for lawful characters
[11:24] David Green: I don't think lawfulness as an alignment has any inherent binding to societal laws.
[11:24] David Green: What about lawful people who exist in realms where there is no government?
[11:25] Me: then they're basically ignoring societal norms, and i'd argue that in that context, they'd probably be chaotic
[11:25] Me: i don't think you can have absolute lawfulness
[11:25] Me: there needs to be an external expression of it
[11:25] David Green: Okay. Yeah, we have a very different outlook. I'm not sure we're going to agree on this.
[11:25] David Green: Hmm, right there.
[11:25] Me: yeah, i somehow doubt it
[11:26] David Green: Great word choice.
[11:26] David Green: That's the crux.
[11:26] David Green: Internal vs. external expression.
[11:26] David Green: I'm arguing internal, you're arguing externa.
[11:26] David Green: external*
[11:26] Me: yeah, basically
[11:26] Me: i think this goes back to expression and demeanor
[11:26] David Green: Oh, nature and demeanor you mean?
[11:27] David Green: Yeah. Kind of.
[11:27] Me: where on the one hand, you can have internal beliefs and then do something against that
[11:27] Me: and i remember we had a talk about what makes alignment and i think we argued that actions define alignment
[11:27] Me: not necessarily how you feel inside coz otherwise dirk would be chaotic
[11:27] David Green: Right.
[11:28] Me: but the actions can only be seen in a relative light, right?
[11:28] David Green: But the actions can only be influenced and controlled from the inside.
[11:28] Me: so...
[11:28] Me: i guess the quesiton becomes whether alignment is determined by observers to the actions or the person whose actioning
[11:28] David Green: *nod*
[11:28] David Green: External vs. internal again.
[11:29] David Green: And I would vote the latter.
[11:29] David Green: Because I think intent plays a large part of this.
[11:29] Me: and i'd argue that if you were born into a chaotic socity, that would be the norm and what was expected (thus appearance of lawful) and being lawful in that context would make you appear chaotic
[11:29] David Green: If you intend to not shoot the criminal who just killed your mother but you slip and pull the trigger and kill him, that doesn't make you chaotic.
[11:29] David Green: It might make you seem chaotic to observers, though.
[11:30] Me: right
[11:30] Me: the actions are chaotic, perhaps the intent is not
[11:30] David Green: Yeah, I'm sorry, I have to really disagree with the example you just gave.
[11:30] Me: hehe
[11:30] Me: okay
[11:31] Me: we're going to end up disagreeing on thi
[11:31] *** "David Green" signed off at Wed Jul 25 11:31:09 2007.
[11:31] *** "David Green" signed on at Wed Jul 25 11:31:18 2007.
[11:31] David Green: sorry, can you say that again?
[11:31] David Green: AIM keeps crashing on me
[11:31] Me: basically, we're going to end up disagreeing on this point
[11:31] David Green: *nod*
[11:32] Me: it's like matt's original character, sameryn
[11:32] Me: where he was lg
[11:32] Me: and he kept doing things in a way that was lawful and in sticking with his god
[11:32] Me: at least to his mind
[11:33] Me: and the rest of us were arguing that no, it wasn't lawful what he was doing
[11:33] Me: i think with enough chaotic actions, regardless of their original motiviation, you become chaotic
[11:33] David Green: Well, okay, I might agree a little with that conclusion, just not necessarily the steps you took to arrive there.
[11:34] David Green: I think it's possible that with enough chaotic actions, it can change how you feel as you realize that choatic actions can be good or useful or worthwhile. You might realize that you enjoy them. I think those qualities can help to bring about the alignment shift.
[11:35] Me: okay
[11:35] Me: i need to work
[11:35] Me: otherwise i'd continue this
Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 10:48 pm (UTC)