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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="muffin_of_chaos" data-source="post: 4233879" data-attributes="member: 65007">Actually, I could.  I probably won't, because it doesn't fit in with the new edition, but I could.Yeah...there are so many different kinds of "being devoted to chaos" that pinning them into one alignment doesn't make much sense to me.  And no one is really devoted to chaos, because it takes an organized mind to be devoted, and an organized mind devoted to chaos would be forced to go insane if they are actually devoted to chaos and not some weird ideal of chaotic action.I actually don't think most people's intentions are good.  Is that your own contention?If you're asking how we can decide whether others are good or evil, I'd argue that we can't.  I don't see this as an issue when we're talking about a stat on a character sheet that presumably no other character can see.You seem to be claiming that the ends define the means.  Which I find odd.Objectivism is an interesting idea.  Accepting it means that you will never be able to understand moral truth, ever, by the nature of being human.  Therefore, any absolute objective moral truth you think that you are right concerning, you are automatically wrong.  You cannot consciously do good acts and you cannot do evil acts because you must acknowledge that you can never know the truth unless you take it on the authority of someone else, and then you are rejecting objectivity.  Theorists can claim that there is a moral truth, but they'll never understand what it is, and if they will never understand what it is, they'll prescribe to false principles.  Even if it's a true idea, it's also completely useless as far as determining moral action.This still has nothing to do with the actual argument, unfortunately.Emphasis mine.Unfortunately, there are so many varieties of each due to the complexity of one's nature with order and chaos that I don't think they're really descriptive at all; the only method by which they're descriptive is when they in fact previously prescribed stereotyped Lawful and Chaotic actions (uphold the man-made law or free the peoplez).Ok...this has nothing to do with whether or not they are actually acting in a good or evil fashion.  If it did, good and evil would be defined by causal chains that stretch back into an infinite regress.  And those things just suck...Accepting determinism as a basis for moral philosophy?  Doesn't work.This is only a problem if you accept the outdated definitions of lawful and chaotic.But you've yet to actually give evidence of why the suckiness is sucky.Anyway, I'd argue that it's more logical (there's no "bucket" that covers a multitude of differing philosophies), more thought provoking (blanket statements of Lawful and Chaotic tend towards defining people into stereotyped personas based on said alignment), and more useful (having no system of alignment has always been more fun than having a system, and this is closer to that if not actually that).Unaligned would be anyone who doesn't have a 100% chance of aligning with good or evil under pressure.  You can be sort of aligned, but that doesn't make you fully aligned.  That's where Unaligned comes in, where alignment goes out the window as mattering.Glad to hear it.What's strange and conflicting is: I agree.</blockquote>

Verification