Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3558121" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think that CN 'societies' can really thrive.  The biggest problem that they have is that without a moral center, when the society is put under pressure it comes to peices.  CE societies don't thrive, but then again, they don't really care to.  Thriving as a society is not thier goal, and indeed can be counterproductive to thier goals.  So the biggest problem I see with CN is that its one step from the Abyss, pardon the pun. No.  Again, no alignment assumes irrationality.  Merely being lawful doesn't mean you have to have a Wisdom score of -6.  Lawful societies are more prone to reject individuality, and they'll strongly reject certain types of individuality (deliberate attempts to undermine the society), but they don't reject the individual.  They just place the needs of the society ahead of the individual on the grounds that they believe that no individual can thrive outside of society.  They would see most claims of 'individuality' to be attempts to prey on the society in a parasitic fashion, enjoying its resources while contributing nothing back.In some cases, although this is more likely to be an evil society than a merely lawful one if that's really the case.  IMO, a good test on the good/evil axis is how you respond to the notion of 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' as a basis for justice.  The original code was introduced to limit the scope of punishment.  Evil societies tend to believe 'At least an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'  The evil society believes that when insulted/afflicted, it is right and just and proper to payback with interest and meat hooks.  Thus, 'A hand for a loaf of bread, a blow for a word, a life for a blow' tends to be its code of justice.   The Neutral society tends to believe that punishment must be balanced, literally to 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'  The good society tends to believe, emphasising mercy, 'At most an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'  It holds that it is right and just and proper to refrain from paying back insults and afflications whenever it is possible, especially if they are affronts to your personal dignity and safety alone.  (Affronts to the weak, innocent, or helpless is another matter.)In part.I agree with Hussar that in most lawful societies, most individuals are happy to be a part of the community and willingly contribute to it.  If you don't truly believe in the system, then you aren't lawful.  Becoming a repressive police state is not the biggest danger a lawful society faces.  Repressive police states tend to be instituted by chaotic evil types, because they are the ones that really need one.  A lawful leader of a lawful community probably has few enemies within the community, especially if the community is homogeneous.  I think that the biggest threat a lawful society faces is stagnation.  When they have something that works, they are unwilling to change it.  That's both a strength and a weakness (in the same way that a chaotic societies freedom is both its strength and its weakness).  It's a strength because 'If its not broken, don't fix it' is a very rational attitude.  It's a weakness because changing circumstance might cause a previously functional system to stop working, and its very hard to convince a lawful society (particularly a lawful neutral society) that there is any consideration (even utility) which is more important than the continuing observance of the law.</blockquote>

Verification