Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 2500519" data-attributes="member: 9952">This is why there is a need for free associations, in recognition that untrammelled free choice can impinge on anothers free choice. Well we are entering into the debate of whether man is by nature a bad, noble or calculating creature; which by my re-definition is whether the person is considered evil, good or neutral in alignment. Also we must bear in mind that in the d&d world, like in our own, the difference between the strongest individual & weakest is not so significant that the weakest cannot, through collective action or guile, bring down the strongest.A true chaotic neutral is not an opportunistic evil doer, they will not by default exploit their freedom of will to the obvious & explicit harm to anothers free will. They calculate that it is reasonable to not do this so as to not invite this behaviour back on themselves. A chaotic evil otoh will think to quickly stuff over others to offset the inevitable getting stuffed over. Remember, my re-definition is based on rational actors with a reciprocal internal logic, for better or for ill they expect the same behaviour in return. Your Hobbesian view is concerned with the individual yes, but it is concerned with the individuals of society not the society of individuals, which I think you & I can both distinguish the subtlety in difference. In this resepect I would consider it (back in d&d terms) a lawful alignment philosophy; while on the means axis it emphasises the evilness in individuated (wo)men while justifying the benefit in terms of security & morality, perhaps an argument for a neutral suffix in terms of good & evil? Maybe would need to be further clarified.You may be touching here on the difference between CG & CN, the CG would want for the best not only in themself as an individual but are also concerned for the welbeing of other individuals. Also, chaotic people do not necessarily have no uses for laws but rather the freedom to enter into the rights & obligations on a case by case basis; only the most depraved, invulnerable or overconfident CE would not volunteerily enter into the law of not killing others. [Edit: the word "rule" would suit better in this sentence, a "law" implies universality] A free community of 'chaotics' may indeed form a commune for protection & for satisfying their social needs but this is not lawful by my re-definition because the individual has ultimate right to leave at any point. The commune will have agreed rules of conduct, likely minimalist, but these are not laws as they may be opted out of, with the consequences that entail. I am reminded of exile being one of the worst forms of punishment in medieval history, albeit not from in the communal sense that I have outlined, but I think it nonetheless outlines how leaving a social grouping is not something that a social creature takes lightly.</blockquote>

Verification