Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8568505" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As mentioned before, I don't see how we cannot do exactly the same analysis on your own proposed metric.A Lawful person can be solitary. Holding true to the spirit of the rules when everyone else is cheating is almost definitionally lawful, despite being both a common trope and, sadly, actually a real life event in many cases.A Chaotic person, as you yourself note, can form a group and seek solidarity. They just do so as a free association; in the ideal Chaotic group, no one is &quot;bound&quot; to stay, but each stays because they wish to, with no coercion felt or implied. (Also, I find it very humorous that you consider opportunities a group thing when...well, opportunity seems definitionally personal to me.)The only difference is between adherence to consistent and predefined rules (you can't &quot;play by the rules&quot; if there are no rules to play by) vs evaluating each choice as it comes (freedom from coercion means...pretty much exactly that.) But both identities can be internal or external (&quot;the law of the land&quot; vs &quot;truth is not decided by popular vote,&quot; &quot;I do as I like&quot; vs &quot;you'd do the same for me&quot;) and both can operate as individuals or as groups.A further benefit: these conceptions (&quot;Lawful&quot; as &quot;adherence to consistent and predefined rules,&quot; &quot;Chaotic&quot; as &quot;evaluating each choice as it comes&quot;) are actually consistent with the descriptions you referred to as &quot;unhelpful,&quot; meaning we don't have to completely discard the descriptions and advice given by the books.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8568505, member: 6790260"] As mentioned before, I don't see how we cannot do exactly the same analysis on your own proposed metric. A Lawful person can be solitary. Holding true to the spirit of the rules when everyone else is cheating is almost definitionally lawful, despite being both a common trope and, sadly, actually a real life event in many cases. A Chaotic person, as you yourself note, can form a group and seek solidarity. They just do so as a free association; in the ideal Chaotic group, no one is "bound" to stay, but each stays because they wish to, with no coercion felt or implied. (Also, I find it very humorous that you consider opportunities a group thing when...well, opportunity seems definitionally [I]personal[/I] to me.) The only difference is between adherence to [I]consistent and predefined[/I] rules (you can't "play by the rules" if there are no rules to play [I]by[/I]) vs [I]evaluating each choice as it comes[/I] (freedom from coercion means...pretty much exactly that.) But both identities can be internal or external ("the law of the land" vs "truth is not decided by popular vote," "I do as I like" vs "you'd do the same for me") and both can operate as individuals or as groups. A further benefit: these conceptions ("Lawful" as "adherence to consistent and predefined rules," "Chaotic" as "evaluating each choice as it comes") [I]are[/I] actually consistent with the descriptions you referred to as "unhelpful," meaning we don't have to completely discard the descriptions and advice given by the books. [/QUOTE]

Verification