How do Governments Align?

[Celebrim]

It's important I think to also remember that very many of the trappings and specifics of government, besides being handed down to whoever is currently using them by their forebearers, probably don't have alignment features. They been created accidently or deliberately through some process that isn't necessarily tied to the alignment of the person or persons that invented them. For example, in both the United States and Great Britain, you see bicameral legislatures, and in both cases that bicameral legislature really was a compromise between two factions with different legal theories that might mean something on the order/chaos spectrum. But the fact that most US States have bicameral legislatures is probably better explained as a function of imitation than continuing tension between aristocratic and populist leanings. And we shouldn't necessarily be trying to draw alignment conclusions about the number of persons appointed to the supreme court or the colors on a nations flag, and so forth.

In many ways, the particular trappings and modes of government are probably much like things like clothes or cuisine. A nation's cuisine generally has only the very loosest relationship to its culture, and instead mostly represents one take on how the sort of corps and foods that were locally available could be prepared and organized. Likewise, national dress tells us very little about the national character of a group of people. Foolish people think that things like music, visual arts, architecture, clothing and food represent the culture of nation, when in fact they are only the most superficial expressions of that culture. There may be deep connections hidden in surprising ways once you know a nation's culture and history, but no one actually partakes of another person's culture just by eating their food. All those surface expressions, however valuable as a legacy, are no more a nation's culture than clothes are literally the person.

So in the same way that we'd be rather foolish to judge the alignment of a person by their taste in food or their clothing, one should be very careful in assuming that there is a very close association between particular modes of government and the alignment of the nation - particularly if we mean the nation as it is presently constituted, since in most cases a government is rather like a hand-me-down suit that some younger child has inherited. The only really close association you might expect between a particular mode of government and alignment is the alignment of the persons who originally found the institutions of that government. We can learn a considerable amount about the ethics of say the Founding Fathers from what sort of government they aspired to create and the documents that they left, but we can't necessarily draw strong conclusions regarding people two hundred years later using that government - especially if we don't pay particularly close attention to the sort of changes that they've made.

A good example of this is that in your typical fantasy setting, they'll be a bias toward instituting monarchies of various sorts simply because those will in a typical consensus fantasy setting be the prevailing way things are done and even most chaotic will want to preserve at least some of the forms of what is commonly associated with a legitimate government. But in a modern setting where democracies have become the fashion, even after a revolution with a particularly strong lawful inclination you'd expect a very strong tendency to create at least the forms of a democracy. To actually get some understanding of the alignment beliefs involved, you'd have to consider subtle features of the government in question and not its overall form. A Chaotic monarchy is likely to have strong checks and balances against the powers of the monarch, often to the point of being a monarchy in name only with real power vested elsewhere. A Lawful democracy is likely to have a legislature which is effectively only a rubber stamp for the will of the ruling class or caste.

Likewise, special attention needs to be paid as to how the government actually functions as opposed to its stated forms. Medieval France is supposedly a Monarchy, but real power is actually vested in the nominal Vassals of the King since they control the majority of the property and have sufficient wealth and military power to defy the King at need. This suggests a reality that is far more chaotic than its actual structure would appear. Likewise, as I mentioned, a feudal system superficially appears to be a very lawful hierarchy, but in practice if the vassals in a feudal system have sufficient freedom and economic power, the actual functioning of a feudal system tends to be very close to government by an enormous number of individually negotiated private contracts - which is about as close to a purely Chaotic system you can have short of having no system.

Another thing to notice is that there may well be a very strong correspondence between a theory of government and where someone stands on the law/chaos axis, and this is rather expected, but it's not at all clear how a theory of government corresponds strongly to the good/evil axis. Instead, you have to look very closely at what the purpose of that government is. Some of the correspondence is fairly obvious. You can get a very strong indicator of overall societal alignment by their theory of justice. Neutral societies tend to hold very strongly to the idea of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Good societies - influenced by the desire for mercy - tend to hold something more like, 'At most an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but preferably something rather less cruel'. Evil societies - influenced by the desire for vengeance - tend to have rather more vindictive laws where the punishment is never less than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and tend to be more along the lines of life for a tooth and a hand for a loaf of bread. Some of the correspondence is going to be rather less obvious, and even theory of justice has its complications. For example, how merciful a society can be is largely going to depend on its affluence and security. Mercy has a cost to it, and if the society can't bear the cost it's not going to seem very merciful. Likewise, how cruel or unusual a punishment is will likewise be a matter of perspective colored by things that aren't necessarily alignment features. A society may decide that bondage, even slavery, is less cruel and more merciful than incarceration arguing that both take a way or person's freedom, but that only incarceration takes away a person's worth and dignity. Another society, particularly one with a past of disgraceful slavery, might decide that the idea of slavery is so reprehensible that any amount of incarceration is yet still preferable. Another society may decide that floggings are more merciful than prisons, since the flogging is over in but a moment whereas a prison takes a way a person's life and means of livelihood. If both are meant to teach the same lesson, which is less cruel? The particular feature here is probably less salient than what is intended.

 

[Illithidbix]

Putting aside my rabid anti-alignment nerd rage buttons at the door.

Trying to reconcile Alignment as very broad strokes over the behaviour of many individuals and the sorta romantic psuedo-feudalism that many D&D settings have.
Also how much the ruler mirrors the alignment of the majority of the population.

Good - Evil axis:
How much those at top genuine invest in the happiness and safety of those they rule over, and how this manifests as the community spirit of the middle and lower classes.
To put simply: A "Good King" and "Evil King" might tax the same amount, but the Good King invests it in infrastructure to support the people in the kingdom, whilst the Evil King invests it in their own comfort and power.
They might even spend the same amount on soldiers to maintain their standing army, but the Good King sends them out to clear bandits and monsters who threaten farmers. The Evil King uses them as personal enforcers to discourage threats.

A good society is in theory at least one where people share with those in need and seek to support neighbors.

Lawful - Chaotic axis:
Obviously easier to imagine societies with how much their laws that they care about and are enforced.
- But also how much the rulers are beholden to the law rather than just adjudicating it.
Lawful societies in theory show more genuine respect for authority beyond just intimidation.

Of course societies may treat outsiders very different.
A "barbarian clan" might be fiercely devoted to each other and their wellbeing, and uphold customs and laws, yet raid and act without care in raiding those beyond their culture.

 

[Celebrim]

Trying to reconcile Alignment as very broad strokes over the behaviour of many individuals and the sorta romantic psuedo-feudalism that many D&D settings have.

Thanks for putting aside your nerd rage. I'm well aware that it's far from a perfect system, but I find that at least within the context of D&D it's easier and usually better to make it work than to try to expunge it. Exactly what 'making it work' means varies from table to table, but I'm rather inclined to think that it always starts with a consistency that has been rather lacking in describing what alignment is even in published canon.

But, to help you imagine the idea.

Signs of a Lawful Society:

1) General distrust of oneself and of one's ability to judge their own affairs, and so a tendency to prefer the judgment of others.
2) High trust of others, and often trust of your ability to make choices for others. Consequently, a greater tendency to think you can manage other people's affairs better than your own.
3) Marked trust for authority, and in particular a tendency to defer to the judgment of trained specialists such as magistrates, lawyers, academics, judges, and priests and to disparage the tastes, judgments, preference and wisdom of the common man or of crowds or committees. A general desire to try to enumerate the solution to all problems and indeed a firm conviction that by and large this can be done. Preferences therefore for lengthy detailed laws which cover all possible situations, so that judges need only discover what the law already is rather than rely on their own judgment and interpretation.
4) A tendency to have belief in destiny or other inescapable qualities that are a matter of birth.
5) Marked distrust of private property, and a tendency to believe that the primary purpose of private property is to serve the public good and that it is in some sense not private but owned by or owed to the large society.
6) Marked distrust of individual liberty, and a tendency to describe rights in terms of socially provided benefits subject to limits of decency or custom.
7) A general belief in uniformity and conformity. A tendency to see that all people, particularly all people of a certain caste, are basically the same and have the same experiences. In other words, belief that a person's identity is simply or at least largely the collection of groups which they belong to - race, gender, sexual preference, nationality, social class, etc. A tendency to see problems as being universal and having universal solutions, and thus to be placed under the rule of a single expert. Both things and people are seen largely as being the same and interchangable, and are to be governed by universal standards.
8) The private life and the public life are the same and inseparable, and the expectation is that you have no private affairs but all decisions are made collectively or by society for you.
9) Great emphasis on the sanctity and majesty of the state and the collective it embodies, and of the wisdom of those that make up the state. A tendency therefore to prefer state regulation of everything and to see all problems as requiring state solutions. Individuals exist solely to serve and protect the majesty of the state, who in turn is in no way obligated to sacrifice their dignity to protect the individual and to the extent that they do so does so only out of rational self-interest.

The signs of a Chaotic society are therefore the opposite of these things:

1) General distrust of others and of one's ability to judge the affairs of others, and so a tendency to prefer your own judgment. For example, if the law or custom and your own consciousness are in conflict, the tendency is assume this condemns the law and not your belief.
2) High trust of self, and trust of your ability to make choices for yourself. You judge no one can make choices for you better than yourself, and in the extreme that what you believe trumps even physical reality.
3) Marked distrust for authority, and in particular a tendency to distrust to the judgment of trained specialists such as magistrates, lawyers, academics, judges, and priests and instead to prefer the tastes, judgments, preference and wisdom of the common man or of crowds or committees.
4) A tendency to believe that there are no universal solutions, but that solutions are very particular to the highly individual problems that solve. A tendency to trust distributed uncoordinated solutions made on the local or individual level over broad managed solutions.
5) A tendency to believe in choice, free will, opportunity and that a person is largely self-made rather than a product of circumstances or birth. .
6) Marked trust of private property, and a tendency to believe that the primary purpose of public institutions is to serve the individual good and that it is in some sense all public property is owned by the individual.
6) Marked trust of individual liberty, and a tendency to describe rights as inherent and inalienable. A tendency to believe that the ills caused by personal freedom, regardless of what they may be, are nonetheless preferable to giving up these liberties.
7) A general belief in diversity and in non-conformity. A tendency to see that all people are primarily individuals and cannot be judged according to the group they belong to. Or in other words, that you could list the collection of all the groups which an individual belongs to - race, gender, sexual preference, nationality, social class, etc. - and you'd still know next to nothing about them. A tendency to see problems as being particular, wicked, unique and having unique solutions or indeed no solutions.
8) The private life and the public life are distinct, and the expectation is that you will exclusively manage your private affairs.
9) Great emphasis on the sanctity and majesty of the individual, and of the wisdom and dignity of the individual. The collective, state, or society exists as an institution solely to serve and protect the individual's dignity, who in turn is in no way obligated to sacrifice their dignity to protect the state and to the extent that they do so, does so only out of rational self-interest.

Of course, real societies are often complex and you may see a culture that predominately can be described using the above as lawful, but in some areas they have attributes that seem to favor chaotic beliefs. And different cultures will take different points above to different extremes, so that a society that on the whole seems chaotic on point #3 may not be nearly as extreme on that point as another one.

To put simply: A "Good King" and "Evil King" might tax the same amount, but the Good King invests it in infrastructure to support the people in the kingdom, whilst the Evil King invests it in their own comfort and power.
They might even spend the same amount on soldiers to maintain their standing army, but the Good King sends them out to clear bandits and monsters who threaten farmers. The Evil King uses them as personal enforcers to discourage threats.

That is correct in as far as it goes, but a word of caution. You've defaulted to a contrast between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil motivations in your rulers, and this has the tendency to confuse people into thinking that certain aspects of Law are inherent aspects of Good and conversely certain aspects of Chaos are inherent aspects of Evil. An Evil King need not necessarily have self-centered and selfish motivations in order to be evil. You can have an Evil King who lives like an aesthete monk, and who takes no comforts or selfish pleasure at all, nor whom burdens the treasury with his personal wants and needs. Likewise, you can have an Evil King who is without corruption, nepotism, or favoritism, and who would never use soldiers to enforce mere personal whims or vendettas but who is indeed always acting in what he believes is the best interests of securing the territory. Destroying monsters and executing bandits are not the sole province of benevolent sovereigns; evil kings are perfectly happy to destroy such pests and scourges as well.

The other danger in your contrast is that it forgets that Evil can be quite popular, and populist, and perceived as working in the public good.

A good society is in theory at least one where people share with those in need and seek to support neighbors.

Well sure, but there is a difference between a society where charity is valued and one where support of the public good is compulsory. One is good, and the other is lawful. The society where people are both charitable because they wish to be and because they must is lawful good, but if people are compelled to assist others whether they will it or not, we can't necessarily say it is good.

Lawful societies in theory show more genuine respect for authority beyond just intimidation.

This is certainly true, even in a Lawful Evil society, but its worth again noting that much like charity in a lawful good society, in lawful evil society genuine respect for authority both exists and is compelled to exist through fear and intimidation.

A "barbarian clan" might be fiercely devoted to each other and their wellbeing, and uphold customs and laws, yet raid and act without care in raiding those beyond their culture.

Whether you are willing to extend charity, compassion, and benevolence beyond your 'in group' or self is a big marker of the difference between a 'good' culture and an 'evil' one. Of course Lawful Evil cultures generally at some level desire what is good for their 'in group', and of course Chaotic Evil cultures generally at some level desire what is good for their self. But a good culture would not generally think that raiding others and making war was a honorable or desirable thing, even if regrettably the ill will and violence of the other culture made war a necessity. The classic example here (or at least a non-political one) is organized crime, as shown in various Hollywood movies, where you have a person who desires ordinary good and even laudable ends for his own family, but whose affairs are marked with violence, vendettas, crime, corruption, and predation upon the weak (gambling, narcotics, prostitution, extortion rackets, etc.) with the justification that they are deserving of it.

 

[N'raac]

Without digging into every nuance, I disagree with your "private property" points. A Lawful person might well believe "what's mine is mine - stay off my land" while a Chaotic person sees a "no trespassing" sign as an arbitrary limitation on his free will which he can, in full good conscience, ignore.

"As I went walking,
I saw a sign there
And on one side it
said no trespassing
But on the other side,
It didn't say nothing

This land was made for you and me!"

"This land is my land
It isn't your land
I got a shotgun
And you don't got one
If you don't get off
I'll blow your head off.

This land is private property!"

 

[Celebrim]

Without digging into every nuance, I disagree with your "private property" points.

Because what I said has lots of nuance, I can agree with your disagreement to some extent, and not feel discomforted.

A Lawful person might well believe "what's mine is mine - stay off my land" while a Chaotic person sees a "no trespassing" sign as an arbitrary limitation on his free will which he can, in full good conscience, ignore.

One complexity you can run into is that it is possible for a Chaotic (at least one less than supernaturally pure) to create laws and institutions intended to sustain and protect their chaotic ideas and way of life, and it is likewise possible for a Lawful to give his loyalty to those laws and institutions particularly once they become established tradition and custom even though their original purpose is not Lawful. And the two rather strange persons you speculate about in your post aren't really all that strange or unexpected in cases where that has in fact happened.

The Lawful person seeing a "private property" sign respect the private property because it is a matter of law and custom. A Chaotic person might do the same, but for an entirely different reason - because they respect the owner, or because they themselves would want to be treated that way where the situation reversed.

But it's entirely possible to equally speculate on a lawful person who would not respect the "private property" sign, either because he believes private property is a reprehensible concept responsible for much of the evils of the world, or because he believes he has the force of law on his side - a warrant, or a claim of eminent domain, or probable cause, or what not and so doesn't need to respect the property. And of course, you might have a chaotic person believe that he has no need to respect the law or even the person, but that he may trespass either because the law is wrong or because as long as he does no harm then no one has cause to constrain him.

In this case it is not enough to know what a person does, but why he does it.

 

[N'raac]

Because what I said has lots of nuance, I can agree with your disagreement to some extent, and not feel discomforted.

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s the only real basis for a good discussion. I’m going to cut up and rearrange your post, with the hope I don’t lose its meaning in the process.

But it's entirely possible to equally speculate on a lawful person who would not respect the "private property" sign, either because he believes private property is a reprehensible concept responsible for much of the evils of the world

Here, I do not believe we are getting into the question of Law vs Chaos, but a question of Good vs Evil (indeed, you use the latter word yourself). A Lawful, but Good, person might well find the two concepts come into conflict. Lawfully, this is private property, and he should respect the No Trespassing sign. However, the tenets of Good might not permit him to respect the sign – perhaps he has to cross this land to assist someone in need.

He might even consider the tenets of Good to overcome the tenets of Law Let’s say some fellow possesses an ancient artifact, which is rightfully his property, but which is also needed to exorcise an evil Demon which has possessed an innocent child. The fellow is unwilling to part with this valuable artifact. What’s more important, respecting the Law or carrying out the Good of protecting that innocent child, and the potential victims of the Demon? A NG character won’t think twice – the child takes priority. A LN character will respect the law of the land (perhaps he will bring a case before the courts to be granted lawful use of the relic, even though that will delay matters, during which time the innocent will suffer). An LG character – well, he has to compromise one of the two.

or because he believes he has the force of law on his side - a warrant, or a claim of eminent domain, or probable cause, or what not and so doesn't need to respect the property.

Here we have a different law overriding private property interests, not a lack of respect for that property. The Chaotic or Neutral fellow will pursue the suspect onto his private property. The LN character (thinking only of the law) will seek that warrant before he will enter the property, where entering the property without a warrant would be unlawful. He follows the rules.

And of course, you might have a chaotic person believe that he has no need to respect the law or even the person, but that he may trespass either because the law is wrong or because as long as he does no harm then no one has cause to constrain him.

Absolutely. A CN may not care if he’s doing some harm (“your grass will grow back, old man”), and a CE might well be trespassing to rob or kill the owner, or to light a fire because he likes lighting fires – what he wants is all that matters.

One complexity you can run into is that it is possible for a Chaotic (at least one less than supernaturally pure) to create laws and institutions intended to sustain and protect their chaotic ideas and way of life, and it is likewise possible for a Lawful to give his loyalty to those laws and institutions particularly once they become established tradition and custom even though their original purpose is not Lawful. And the two rather strange persons you speculate about in your post aren't really all that strange or unexpected in cases where that has in fact happened.

Emphasis added. Real people are not 100% Lawful, or 100% Chaotic. That LN character might still find a motivation to unlawfully trespass, and that Chaotic might actually respect the private property and suffer the inconvenience of walking around.

The Lawful person seeing a "private property" sign respect the private property because it is a matter of law and custom.

Indeed, I would expect any Lawful person to respect the Law and Custom. This highlights the fact that Law cannot exist in a vacuum – for the Lawful person to respect laws, there must be laws for him to respect.

Before I can accept that the Lawful person respects private property only because it is a “matter of law and custom”, I would need to be sold on the concept that private property is inherently non-Lawful. I see no special case for this assertion. Thieves are typically viewed as Chaotic, not Lawful, and it is thieves who violate rights of private property. Robin Hood is the stereotype of non-Lawful Good – he robs from the rich to give to the poor because he cares for the welfare of the poor, and not for the property rights of the wealthy, who would clearly give of their surplus freely if they were remotely Good.

Whether he is CG or NG is a matter of much greater interpretation. He is, in many stories, loyal to King Richard, which may show a Lawful, or at least not entirely Chaotic, bent. However, it may simply show that he’s OK with a Lawful ruler provided that Lawful ruler adheres to his vision of what is Good. Once the King departs from his vision of Good, he is quite willing to ignore his Lawful duties to the King.

A Chaotic person might do the same, but for an entirely different reason - because they respect the owner, or because they themselves would want to be treated that way where the situation reversed.

Here again, I’m not seeing a lot of Chaos in this reasoning. In particular, “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You” seems much more in keeping with Good than with Chaos. I don’t think that CE Demon wants to be treated in the same manner he treats his victims, although he may expect such treatment from others, consistent with what he would do, were the positions reversed, and might refrain from indulging his own desires out of fear of the consequences.

In this case it is not enough to know what a person does, but why he does it.

Certainly an important issue in any question of alignment. The Lawful person stops at the stop light because that is the rule. The Chaotic person stops at the stop light because of concern for his safety and that of others. At 3 AM, when a clear line of sight shows that no one else is going to pass through the intersection, the Chaotic person is much more likely to run the light than the Lawful person.

 

[Celebrim]

Here, I do not believe we are getting into the question of Law vs Chaos, but a question of Good vs Evil...

On the whole, I don't think we are very far apart.

I do get into matters of good and evil, at least indirectly, when I give examples of different sorts of lawful and chaotic behavior but I think you are rather jumping the gun to introduce it here or to see it in this. And I'd rather not deal for now with the complicated issue of when the demands of the two axis conflict in a person trying to adhere positively to both. I admit though that I've hindered understanding with my wording in the phrase, "because he believes private property is a reprehensible concept responsible for much of the evils of the world", because unfortunately "evil" here must carry two distinct meanings. I would have been better off saying, "ills of the world" or "what is wrong with the world", in that statement, as the key thing to understand here is that obviously - if anyone deliberately holds to evil ways - then not everyone believes that Evil is what is really wrong with the world.

While the system I've outlined is by necessity absolute, I'm not meaning to say that with respect to the opinions individual believer it is not somewhat relative. In this case, when I put into the mind of an example LN the opinion that private property is responsible for much of the worlds evils, that LN person might well as I did phrase it in that manner or think of it in that manner - particularly if he's not overly intellectual and scholarly within the D&D cosmology we are describing. If the alignment is like a great wheel, with each alignment being a spoke or section thereof, then each believer is allowed to spin that wheel as he likes according to his own perspective and say, "What I believe in is the best. It is the most right. It is the most correct." This is true of every alignment, even evil. Each believer is allowed - indeed of necessity - must believe that his way is the right way, even if it is not in fact 'Good'. In the case of someone whom is Lawful Neutral, what is evil to his point of view is Chaos and what is all wrong with the world is ultimately always Chaos. Good and Evil are rather irrelevant and missing the point, as each departs from the Truth of Law and thereby introduce greater and greater error in the form of Chaos until it converges way around on the opposite end of the wheel - it's lowest and most despicable point - in ultimate Chaos. Thus, when a LN talks of what is 'good' he means Law, and when he talks of what is 'evil' he means Chaos. Conversely, you'd expect a CN when he says the word 'good' to mean Chaos, and when he says the word 'evil' to mean Law. So the CN will say that all the sum of evil is compulsion and subjugation of the individual's will and desires, and that the sum of all good is individuality and freedom. But these are not the sum of the terms 'Evil' and 'Good' we are using to label other spokes of the wheel.

An LG character – well, he has to compromise one of the two.

Yes, but that's a bit advanced ahead, and I'd rather not overextend until we firm up our lines of communication. (Sorry, I'm reading military memoirs at the moment.)

Before I can accept that the Lawful person respects private property only because it is a “matter of law and custom”, I would need to be sold on the concept that private property is inherently non-Lawful. I see no special case for this assertion. Thieves are typically viewed as Chaotic, not Lawful....

First, it's wrong to suggest that thieves are typically viewed as Chaotic. Thieves are typically viewed as Evil. If the Law allows them to steal, we don't generally think of it less theft. And in particular, we must admit to the existence of a Lawful sort of thief, who has a certain code of honor which is reviewable and by which he thinks he may rightly be judged and which others may also be judged, and who is loyal to his criminal family. Again, the Mafia or other sorts of brotherhoods of criminals makes an important counter example.

Now, we may also admit to a situation where a person - typically a Chaotic Good sort who allows for situational ethics - finds himself in a situation where he must weigh between two courses of action, and choose which is the better path. So we might have an altruistic thief, who while he wouldn't generally endorse theft, believes that by doing so he prevents some greater harm from happening. Thus, yes it is possible for a Chaotic Good person to go against his beliefs and steal something, but only because he believes in something else more strongly - for example preserving life.

Robin Hood is the stereotype of non-Lawful Good – he robs from the rich to give to the poor because he cares for the welfare of the poor, and not for the property rights of the wealthy, who would clearly give of their surplus freely if they were remotely Good.

Robin Hood could be made even Lawful Good, if we were to put him in a situation where he could convince himself honestly that law which deprived the poor of their property was not lawfully made - as for example the law being made by a usurper king without right to the throne (which at least in the myth of Robin Hood, Prince John is said to be, although the reality is rather different). In this case, Robin Hood is allowed to disrespect the property rights of the wealthy, because he does not perceive himself as doing so and so doesn't perceive himself as stealing. And in any event, in such case the Lawful Robin Hood is proceeding from the theory that the law DOES have the right to deprive people of their property. The CG Robin Hood on the other hand is proceeding from the theory that it DOES NOT, so that whether the law is lawfully made or not is irrelevant.

But back to the notion of private property, I hold that it is a part of the general 'Chaotic' spectrum because I hold that chaotic here means what is unrelated, distinctive, unique, and changing and as such the notion of individuality is part of what is central to it. And, in as far as it applies to something of the mortal realm, it's just about impossible to have individuality or to protect individuality or to seek individual private ends and pursuits without private property. Indeed, private property is the quintessential individual right, without which the rest are pretty meaningless, and certainly from the Enlightenment on the notion of individual sovereignty is rooted in private property. That isn't to say that every chaotic philosophy will embrace private property, or that every lawful philosophy will reject it, but it is to say that the pure idea of Chaos rejects public property entirely and that any system that rejects this will be pulled hard by its rejection away from the ideas it claims to on the whole uphold. So sure, you'll find Anarcho-Syndicalist-Communalism attempting to marry hard Chaotic concepts with lack of private property, and you'll find ideas like Objectivism attempting to marry moral absolutism with highly Chaotic ideas, but in my opinion - other than being delightfully Chaotic in being inconsistent and even incoherent - these concepts prove very hard to put into any sort of practice that resembles the theory unless they abandon the inconsistent attributes.

Here again, I’m not seeing a lot of Chaos in this reasoning. In particular, “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You” seems much more in keeping with Good than with Chaos.

You are half right I think, because you fail to note that while it is in keeping with Good it is not in keeping with Lawful Good. It is in fact an expression of Chaotic Good specifically, and if you depart far from Chaotic Good much you find that the expression is distasteful in some fashion. In particular, note that buried in that statement is the fact that the individual person is the judge of what ought to be done. That is to say, it is up to the individual to examine their own wants and consciousness and decide how they ought to behave. And as such, the axiom doesn't describe a single universal or even necessarily predictable mode of behavior. Each individual will interpret it slightly differently, and there are some cases where it will seem like it really matters - for example, the madman can rationally answer that he is treating you the way that he would want to be treated but you might not like it very much and in any event there will almost always be cases where how someone decided they would want to be treated is very much at odds with how you'd like to be treated. As such, if you investigate, you'll find that there are some people who criticize the 'Golden Rule' as being wrong (or immoral) on precisely that basis and I would argue that this attack on the morality or ethics of the 'Golden Rule' is very much congruent with a lawful perspective on ethics.

Similarly, the passive variation of 'the Golden Rule' - "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself" - is one succinct summation of the ethics of Chaotic Neutrality. It remains very much rooted in the individual, but it is now largely passive with regards to the good/evil axis.

I don’t think that CE Demon wants to be treated in the same manner he treats his victims, although he may expect such treatment from others, consistent with what he would do, were the positions reversed, and might refrain from indulging his own desires out of fear of the consequences.

And of course, CE disagrees with "the Golden Rule" on a very different basis than the claim that the problem is that it is centered on the self, claiming of course that one should not only always treat oneself better than one treats others, but that the only way to ensure a good result for oneself is at the expense of others - what you might call "Do unto others before they do it unto you."

Certainly an important issue in any question of alignment. The Lawful person stops at the stop light because that is the rule. The Chaotic person stops at the stop light because of concern for his safety and that of others. At 3 AM, when a clear line of sight shows that no one else is going to pass through the intersection, the Chaotic person is much more likely to run the light than the Lawful person.

Agreed, though I think it would be better to say "for his safety or that of others", since some chaotics may not care for the safety of others one whit.

 

[N'raac]

On the whole, I don't think we are very far apart.

I can agree with this, but only with the caveat that I do not believe we are close in the matter of private property specifically. That’s probably a big part of why it leapt out at me.

First, it's wrong to suggest that thieves are typically viewed as Chaotic.

In my view, humans tend towards Law rather than Chaos. We build structured societies, organize into groups, large and small, and tend towards the Rule of Law. I cannot think of a human society which does not have a concept of private/personal property. Some variance exists (American Indian culture, for example, found the concept of owning land to be incomprehensible), but I cannot think of a one which lacks any concept of private property (an Indian’s bow, knife, etc. were his own, not community property).

Thieves are typically viewed as Evil.

Robin Hood is not. Ali Baba is not.

Situations where “private property” is evil (hoarding, “the 1%”, slumlords) abound. Examples which use the Law to frustrate the general benefit to the less fortunate abound. The ability to be altruistic – to give of one’s own property – presupposes one has a right to that property (Law) in the first place.

I see nothing to suggest private property is an inherently Chaotic virtue, rather than conforming with a Lawful bent of how ownership is determined.

If the Law allows them to steal, we don't generally think of it less theft.

Examples of legal systems which permit what we would call theft?

And in particular, we must admit to the existence of a Lawful sort of thief, who has a certain code of honor which is reviewable and by which he thinks he may rightly be judged and which others may also be judged, and who is loyal to his criminal family. Again, the Mafia or other sorts of brotherhoods of criminals makes an important counter example.

Now we get into who we steal from. “Honour among thieves” becomes a concept here, in that these criminal organizations respect their own internal laws, and not those of the broader society within which they operate. Again, that human tendency to Law and organization.

Now, we may also admit to a situation where a person - typically a Chaotic Good sort who allows for situational ethics - finds himself in a situation where he must weigh between two courses of action, and choose which is the better path. So we might have an altruistic thief, who while he wouldn't generally endorse theft, believes that by doing so he prevents some greater harm from happening. Thus, yes it is possible for a Chaotic Good person to go against his beliefs and steal something, but only because he believes in something else more strongly - for example preserving life.

Here we are again with the counterbalance of one’s Good/Evil axis interacting with Law/Chaos. Your conclusion can just as easily be stated that “it is possible for a Lawful Good person to go against his beliefs and steal something, but only because he believes in something else more strongly - for example preserving life.“

Do you envision the stereotypical Paladin, the archetype of Law and Good, generally condoning, even carrying out, theft? I do not. He would have to be placed in a situation where the negative consequences of NOT stealing would outweigh the compromise of his Lawful principals.

Robin Hood could be made even Lawful Good, if we were to put him in a situation where he could convince himself honestly that law which deprived the poor of their property was not lawfully made - as for example the law being made by a usurper king without right to the throne (which at least in the myth of Robin Hood, Prince John is said to be, although the reality is rather different).

Emphasis added. How was this “their property” if the poor lacked property rights – that is, if private property were not itself a Lawful concept? In your example, Robin Hood is made lawful only by the fact that those making “the laws” he violates have done so outside the precepts of Law. Those very laws are unlawful in your example.

In this case, Robin Hood is allowed to disrespect the property rights of the wealthy, because he does not perceive himself as doing so and so doesn't perceive himself as stealing.

In the absence of a respect for private property, why would a person need to convince himself he is not truly stealing? You are going to great lengths to justify a Lawful person violating property rights, which suggests that private property is typically a Lawful concept. It’s much like the Good person being persuaded that, of necessity, harm must be done to some person or persons to prevent greater harm to others (for example, violence in defense of the innocent).

But back to the notion of private property, I hold that it is a part of the general 'Chaotic' spectrum because I hold that chaotic here means what is unrelated, distinctive, unique, and changing and as such the notion of individuality is part of what is central to it. And, in as far as it applies to something of the mortal realm, it's just about impossible to have individuality or to protect individuality or to seek individual private ends and pursuits without private property. Indeed, private property is the quintessential individual right, without which the rest are pretty meaningless, and certainly from the Enlightenment on the notion of individual sovereignty is rooted in private property.

Even under pure marxist communism, one is expected to “give according to his ability” (which presupposes the choice NOT to give) and “take according to his need” (which seems to indicate what is taken becomes his private property). Capitalism, under your interpretation, is a strictly Chaotic concept. I find that difficult to agree with.

That isn't to say that every chaotic philosophy will embrace private property, or that every lawful philosophy will reject it

I again come back to the belief humans tend to Lawful behaviour, and organized, structured societies require more Lawful attributes than do Chaotic “societies”. Which modern societies embrace Lawful structure but lack a respect for private property, considering everything to be public, available for the use of society as a whole?

You are half right I think, because you fail to note that while it is in keeping with Good it is not in keeping with Lawful Good. It is in fact an expression of Chaotic Good specifically, and if you depart far from Chaotic Good much you find that the expression is distasteful in some fashion.

Here again, we will have to disagree. Valuing what is best for others, not just what is best for oneself, is an inherently Good concept, in my view. It is neither Lawful nor Chaotic. It does illustrate the difficulty in summarizing any ethos in a short phrase. The spirit of the Golden Rule is not, at least in my view, “well, I like lima beans, therefore I should force-feed them to anyone who dislikes lima beans”. It is “I would not want to have something I dislike forced upon me without good reason, and I should apply that same standard in my treatment of others”. Contrary to the suggestion that “he is treating you the way that he would want to be treated but you might not like it very much” being an appropriate interpretation of the rule.

Similarly, the passive variation of 'the Golden Rule' - "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself" - is one succinct summation of the ethics of Chaotic Neutrality. It remains very much rooted in the individual, but it is now largely passive with regards to the good/evil axis.

Again, I find this more relevant to good/evil than law/chaos, in that it considers the welfare of others a constraint on the actions of the individual. Where do you find “My right to swing my fist ends where my neighbour’s nose begins”? I suggest that a “pure” Lawful person will accept what the law says regarding the extent to which he has the right to swing his fist, while the “pure” Chaotic person will consider the right to swing one’s fist should not appropriately be restricted – you get to choose where to put your nose, so keep it out of where I am swinging my fist if you don’t like the results.

A Good person will agree that his rights (whether governed by laws or by the “rule” of absolute personal freedom) are appropriately constrained by the rights of others, and accept that his actions are not appropriate where they harm, or carry a significant risk of harm, to others. The Evil person, as you note, hits first as a preemptive strike (I had also thought of the “Do unto others before they do unto you” model as a good example of an Evil mentality).

 

[Celebrim]

In my view, humans tend towards Law rather than Chaos. We build structured societies, organize into groups, large and small, and tend towards the Rule of Law.

I'm a bit surprised you think that. We build societies, but we have to impose order by force. And we tend toward Rule of Man and not Rule of Law, with an authority figure largely governing by whim. Rule of Law is a concept we had to invent, and its only rarely carried out with much vigor. For every instinct which makes us social, there is a counterbalancing instinct toward individuality and willfulness - such as the demand to hold property exclusively.

I cannot think of a human society which does not have a concept of private/personal property.

I think it's instructive to look at medieval theories of property. Under medieval law, in theory the King owned everything. Because the King owned everything, he had a right at least in theory to take back whatever portion of it he desired. The King lent his property to his vassals, but that doesn't mean that they then owned it. Rather than ownership, what the King was granting was usury - the right to use the hold the property but not to have it. The vassal then was to use the property for their own upkeep - this was considered a gracious dispensation that they should be quite grateful for - and the surplus they were to return to the lord. The King's vassals then in turn passed this right of usury - but not ownership - down to their vassals and so forth all the way down the individual slaves who worked the fields. So in a sense, you could say that everything was the king's private property and thus they had the idea of private property, but equally the King and his vassals are 'the public' as well and everything is theoretically owned by the state. It's also worth noting that at the bottom level, lots of the property - grazing land, forests, etc. - would have been held and used communally in trust to the lord. So while the concept and feeling that property ought to be 'mine' existed, what the law actually said is that this feeling was wrong and indeed criminal, and in fact property was not private.

This is actually a very ancient and far from unique theory of property ownership. The same sort of theory pervaded most of the cradle of civilization, where the majority of citizens (even powerful persons of high social standing) were slaves and in theory owned nothing, but had only use of property loaned them by their lord. It shows up in places like the Parable of the Talents in the bible, and the vestiges of it that theory that all property is actually owned by the Lord and loaned to others is illustrated well in the movie 'Far and Away' several times, perhaps most affectingly when the Slum Lord casts out the Tom Cruise character and confiscates all his property. In the Slum Lord's mind he isn't stealing anything, and he explains this by saying that everything the Tom Cruise character had actually belonged to the slum lord and had been loaned to him - without which he'd have nothing. This isn't a philosophy invented for the slums, but the aristocratic/feudal idea of land lords that been imported back from how things actually legally worked in Ireland.

Actually, this theory might seem bizarre, but it's really just family or tribal property custom applied to a much larger group. Families in general don't have a strong concept of private property, but tend to in practice and in theory hold most property communally and even to the extent that someone - like a child - thinks that something is 'mine' the family in fact believes and acts like it believes that they have only granted use of the property and not actual ownership.

And this is also the central theory of for example Marxism, which borrowed much of its economic theories from the High Middle Ages that Marx was an admirer and student of. And actually, even in highly Liberal economies like the United States, there are still vestiges of this ideology underlying the basis of taxation. Marx is a lot more famous because his followers were violent, but are you familiar with the Georgists and their critique of property taxes?

Some variance exists (American Indian culture, for example, found the concept of owning land to be incomprehensible), but I cannot think of a one which lacks any concept of private property (an Indian’s bow, knife, etc. were his own, not community property).

Yes, but to me that just proves that humanity has a strong chaotic bent, and this is why theories of pure lawfulness don't actually apply well to humans. Nonetheless, it is pretty easy to imagine alien races which didn't have theories of private property, and I think if you apply your mind to that you'll realize that they'll all stand tall on the lawful end of the spectrum.

Robin Hood is not. Ali Baba is not.

Well, first of all, Robin Hood is a idealized romantic bandit figure. And we don't consider Robin Hood evil because he is only stealing back what has already been stolen. Ali Baba on the other hand is the villain; I'm not sure where you get the idea that he's not evil. He exists in the story to give the hero some treasure he can steal without being evil, since Ali Baba's treasure is itself stolen.

Examples of legal systems which permit what we would call theft?

Any legal system where we believe that grant someone the ability to take something which does not belong to them, typically speaking, systems that allow the rich to take from the poor in order to enrich themselves. Most libertarians in fact believe that most taxation is simply legalized theft, enforced at the point of a gun. Georgists believed any tax on the ownership of something, rather than on its employment, in fact proved that the real owner of a piece of property was the one that collected the tax on it - and that this was theft. The purer you get on your stand on individual liberty, the more all state actions seem like a sort of theft. Also any legal system that makes piracy legal, for example. Again, one way to prove that private property is chaotic and not lawful, is that the more strongly the society believes in private property, the more chaotic it self evidently is until in the extreme, when you abolish public property entirely you are left without much in the way of government or public law.

How was this “their property” if the poor lacked property rights – that is, if private property were not itself a Lawful concept?

Again, examine medieval law. If someone took something from a serf - that is to say a slave - the actual crime wasn't mostly against the serf, but against the lord who actually owned the property. The thief was guilty of stealing from the serf only the use of the property, but the thief had actually stolen from the lord. Robin Hood's thefts aren't thefts in this sense, because the thief - Prince John - was actually the one that had misappropriated the property from the lawful lord using falsely constituted laws that where made in defiance of lawful authority. Thus, we don't see Robin Hood's thefts as being really thefts at all, and thus not evil.

In your example, Robin Hood is made lawful only by the fact that those making “the laws” he violates have done so outside the precepts of Law. Those very laws are unlawful in your example.

Yes.

In the absence of a respect for private property, why would a person need to convince himself he is not truly stealing?

They don't. Neither Robin Hood nor Prince John truly think of themselves as stealing, though of course, for very different reasons.

You are going to great lengths to justify a Lawful person violating property rights, which suggests that private property is typically a Lawful concept.

No no no no no. I'm going to great lengths to explain how a person can steal without being evil. I'm justifying good people doing things that appear to be theft. Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral examples haven't even been brought up, and if you want to explain how private property is lawful concept you need to show its a distinctive and pervasive feature of LN society. I think you'll find that difficult, except by claiming that property is private when its owned by a representative of the state or by claiming that the state and the individual are the same thing, which I think you should see is self-evidently opposed to the chaotic viewpoint.

Even under pure marxist communism, one is expected to “give according to his ability” (which presupposes the choice NOT to give)...

What?? No. You have no choice about what you give or receive in a Marxist economy. Choices are made for you collectively at the level of the State, which decides for you what your needs and abilities are.

Capitalism, under your interpretation, is a strictly Chaotic concept. I find that difficult to agree with.

Capitalism is such a loaded term. But, to the extent you mean a Free Market Economy, this is strictly speaking a non-Lawful concept. Even this ought to be obvious by definition, as the extreme end of a Free Market Economy would be laissez-faire - that is free from rules or interference by the state.

I again come back to the belief humans tend to Lawful behaviour, and organized, structured societies require more Lawful attributes than do Chaotic “societies”. Which modern societies embrace Lawful structure but lack a respect for private property, considering everything to be public, available for the use of society as a whole?

Cuba, North Korea, for example. The more lawful end of the spectrum has been banged up pretty hard by reality lately, at least as far as it comes to economics, as I think it obvious that humans don't tend toward Lawful behavior strongly or at all. I mean it's pretty possible to find or make any law that won't be violated repeatedly simply because humans do tend to strongly consider their own wants and needs to have priority and are in fact individuals.

But by and large, I find your arguments incoherent on their own terms. You want to argue that private property is lawful, and theft therefore chaotic. But you are also going to argue to me that the basis of good is doing unto others what you'd have done to you, so under what theory is stealing from others not doing things to them you wouldn't have done to you?

Here again, we will have to disagree. Valuing what is best for others, not just what is best for oneself, is an inherently Good concept, in my view.

Again no. Strictly speaking, "Valuing what is best for others, not just what is best for oneself", is a neutral concept since it implies that both the self and others have value. Valuing others over the self is the lawful concept, and its easy to show that this is not inherently good, since the participants in a fascist culture where people fanatically serve the collective even to the point of self-sacrifice and suicide isn't Good simply because everyone is valuing what is best for others over their own interests. Indeed, situations where individuality are repressed to that level typically strike people - particular for example modern Western Americans - as being examples of ultimate and most repulsive evil. 'The Force Awakens' uses that sort of repression of the personal identity as short hand puppy chewing to show how despicably evil The First Order is.

It is neither Lawful nor Chaotic.

It's certainly Chaotic. A Lawful Good person, hearing the Golden Rule, recognizes it as an attempt to make a statement of Good, but finds that statement problematic and prone to ills and wrongs because it is also a Chaotic statement. A Lawful Good person, rather than preferring flexible maxim subject to questionable interpretation prefers a list of rules describing how one ought to behave which - if it is open to interpretation at all - is interpreted by experts appointed for that purpose. It's appalling to the idea of Law that how one should behave should be left up to personal interpretation - however Good the intention of that interpretation may be.

Again, I find this more relevant to good/evil than law/chaos, in that it considers the welfare of others a constraint on the actions of the individual.

No, it doesn't. It depends no altruism at all. It's a pragmatic declaration of the limits of one rights, without which everyone's rights would be trampled by the strong and no one would have them. An equivalent statement might be something like the Wiccan Rede: "Harm no one; do what you please". These are examples of Chaotic Neutral ethos, since they only demand you refrain from actively doing harm, but make no demand on you to actively do good. In fact, the good they define is ones own interests and violition - "what you please".

 

[zabom]

Standard alignments are designed to reflect the philosophies/actions of individuals. I don't believe they can apply to any collective since motivations of a collective are many. You cannot say a government is specifically good or evil without defining the motivations of those that rule it. Since viewpoints will always be contested there is no way to judge the group as a whole. For example let's look at guns. Those that fear guns will call them evil, so any government that allows citizens to own them would be, by their definition, evil. However those that are in favor of guns see disarming of citizens as evil and a precursor to tyranny. To them a government that would take away the right to own a gun is evil. What truly determines whether that government is good or evil is the reason for the decision to disarm. If it is to save lives the government would be doing it for what they considered good reasons. If on the other hand they did it to leave the citizens defenseless against their rule, they are now most likely evil. Now consider that any such law created would be supported by both good and evil people.

Chaotic and lawful also fall short when applied to collectives since one can follow the laws of the land or the laws of morality. The question of whether the letter of the law or the intent of the law is more important once again becomes unanswerable when looking at a group as opposed to an individual. An individual can understand the intent of a law, but a group will offer different translations based on their own motives, requiring a strict adherence to the letter of the law.

My conclusion is that an entirely different system must be applied to governments.