Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snapdragyn" data-source="post: 3692504" data-attributes="member: 12432">You lost me in this paragraph.Firstly, I disagree that Law is 'commitment to a set of principles for action' while Chaos is not -- to my mind, the difference is in which principles each commits to holding. My own view of Chaotic alignment is one who advocates the importance of the individual over the group -- either for good (i.e. protecting individual freedoms from oppression, even if it is well-meaning) or for evil (i.e. the individual who is powerful enough to get what they want has earned it, even if it interferes with the plans of fellow outlaws). Contrast this with a Lawful alignment where one advocates the importance of the group over the individual -- again, either for good (i.e. working for the greater good of society over the understandable but selfish needs of individuals) or for evil (i.e. working as part of an organization to conquer or steal, &amp; accepting that individual goals must be subservient to the greater goals of the group in order to best achieve greater power/wealth/whatever).Secondly, calling Chaos 'negative' blurs the Law/Chaos axis into being just a synonym of the Good/Evil axis, with Chaos paired with Evil by your statement here. Note that in my limited examples above, neither Lawful nor Chaotic is inherently 'positive' or 'negative' - that plays out through the good or evil moral focus, as (IMHO) it should. If L/C is to exist as an independent axis (a point which some debate), then it must actually be an independent axis, not a parallel one; if it is to be viewed as a shadow-axis of the G/E axis then I don't really see why it needs so much analysis.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snapdragyn, post: 3692504, member: 12432"] You lost me in this paragraph. Firstly, I disagree that Law is 'commitment to a set of principles for action' while Chaos is not -- to my mind, the difference is in [i]which[/i] principles each commits to holding. My own view of Chaotic alignment is one who advocates the importance of the individual over the group -- either for good (i.e. protecting individual freedoms from oppression, even if it is well-meaning) or for evil (i.e. the individual who is powerful enough to get what they want has earned it, even if it interferes with the plans of fellow outlaws). Contrast this with a Lawful alignment where one advocates the importance of the group over the individual -- again, either for good (i.e. working for the greater good of society over the understandable but selfish needs of individuals) or for evil (i.e. working as part of an organization to conquer or steal, & accepting that individual goals must be subservient to the greater goals of the group in order to best achieve greater power/wealth/whatever). Secondly, calling Chaos 'negative' blurs the Law/Chaos axis into being just a synonym of the Good/Evil axis, with Chaos paired with Evil by your statement here. Note that in my limited examples above, neither Lawful nor Chaotic is inherently 'positive' or 'negative' - that plays out through the good or evil moral focus, as (IMHO) it should. If L/C is to exist as an independent axis (a point which some debate), then it must actually [b]be[/b] an independent axis, not a parallel one; if it is to be viewed as a shadow-axis of the G/E axis then I don't really see why it needs so much analysis. [/QUOTE]

Verification