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: 4234768" data-attributes="member: 4937">The American constitutional document is an attempt to enshrine values that are in D&D terms enherently chaotic and born in large part out of a generation of radicalism and rebellion.  Of course, the framer's themselves would not have for the most part used the term 'enshrine' as I have, as the never intended or expected the document to be enduring and socially protected in quite the context 'enshrine' implies.  So what you have in America is something of an apparant contridiction, in that for example 'conservative' economic values in America are what in most parts of the world are called 'liberal'.  In America we have an essentially Libertarian system which is codified in an increasingly baroque system of laws.  For example, you won't find hardly anywhere that has quite the same values of 'Freedom of Speach' as the American system, nor will you find hardly anywhere that has quite the same commitment to individual gun rights as America.  Likewise, the United States isn't a single unified government, but a patchwork quilt of governments and laws with degrees of sovereignty going all the way down to the local level.  It is almost unique in this.  A person from France would probably be shocked to learn that local elected officials - Sheriffs - with a constuiency of a few thousands in some cases can in practice and theory excercise soveriegn jurisdiction rights within thier county.  France, for those that don't know, has a single national police system.Of course, this originally vibrant and Libertarian system is increasingly ossifying, but that doesn't change its original character - minimalist, individualist, and populist.And sure, not every founder could be said to have a chaotic disposition in D&D terms.  Notably, men like Washington and Hamilton are classic examples of 'lawful' minded individuals.  But on the whole, the country was founded by a bunch of radical firebrands.  It's hard to make a claim that isn't controversial, but I'm prepared to defend them.More or less, yes.  Lawful minded individuals always favor government by the few, by the able, or by the elect.  Rule by the mob is always feared by the lawful minded.  Democracy is not an inherently 'lawful' system of government in the D&D sense of the word.  A lawful person in an existing democratic system can have allegiance to that system, even an unwavering one, but then again a lawful system can have a chaotic ruler too.  Nothing forbids things getting complicated and messy, and in a realisticly detailed system we would expect them to.  I think you get a good contrast in how a chaotic system views the law when you notice that the Constitution is subject to ammendment, and not just ammendment by anyone or someone, but by everyone.  Contrast that with the account of the government of Persia recorded in the Book of Daniel, where it reports that the law 'of the Medes and Persians' was by inflexible custom not even overturnable by the sovereign ruler who excercised by todays standards virtually unlimited autocratic authority.  I think it is pretty easy to see which system holds the law and which individuality on the higher platform.  We have no notions of irrevocable law.  We largely take for granted that all customs are overturnable.  We even have a word 'fashion' which refers to the customs that change with the seasons according to whim.I would strongly agree that the leadership of the Nazi party were highly 'chaotic' individuals for the most part who governed not through laws but rather through personal relationships and decrees.  However, this core 'chaotic evil' leadership harnessed the naturally highly organized culture of the German people which on the whole was lawful in inclination to set up a very efficient police state.  So again, you have a tension in that you can't easily classify the whole system, but bits and peices of it are quite clear.Well, of course it is.  What am I supposed to be doing, writing a book?While that is true, its easily dismissed by noting that you've substituted 'what is good' for the essential question, 'what is most good'.  Protestantism broke to a certain extent from traditional Christianity by denying the inherent moral value of poverty, reading for example the beautitudes as 'blessed are the poor in spirit' rather than 'blessed are the poor', but it did not in doing so claim that charity to strangers was rendered less good than miserliness.  Rather it moved prosperity up into the virtuous category without displacing charity as a value.  I don't think it is necessary to suggest that to suggest that in the ideal the West holds altruism as being more virtuous than mere prosperity, even if in practice we may celebrate something different.Then in D&D terms we would hold that those individuals are lawful good.Woah. Woah.  Woah.  The traditional D&D alignment rules make no argument that good and law are independent notions.  In fact, if anything traditionally, D&D has had as its implied assumption - perhaps in error and perhaps not - that 'lawful good' is more good than other sorts of good.  D&D has traditionally reserved its most saintly and virtuous descriptions for the followers of 'lawful good'.  So I don't think you can argue that at all. I think primarily, the traditional D&D alignment system makes no argument about which moral philosophy is the 'right' one.  It traditionally has not forced you to play anything, and in particular in earlier systems only very weakly or not at all encouraged you to play 'Good' or choose 'goodness'.  As far as the D&D alignment system is concerned, any of the nine subgroups could be righly aligned at the top of the chart as the most correct set of beliefs.  It isn't forcing a particular interpretation on you.  It is merely suggesting that for the purposes of fantasy, these are useful philosophical groupings, and that you can only get further with them by examining the philosophical and literary value of terms like 'good', 'evil', 'law', and 'chaos'.  Certainly there is nothing within the D&D system which suggests that the adherents of the various philosophies with in the game universe admit the truth of say 'Nuetral Good' as the highest good if they themselves believe something different.  Perhaps it could be that real goodness as you define it is found by embracing the tenents of law and evil, and not the one conventionally labeled 'good' at all. In fact, this balance between the systems was so inherent in 1st edition AD&D that I was convinced shortly after encountering it that the designer of the cosmology had to be a student of Hinduism, Taoism or one of the other Eastern religions promoting 'harmony' as its highest virtue.  It is obviously true to me that the particulars of the US culture and government are extremely particular.  In fact, I dare say that I believe them to be more particular than you do unless you are a particularly 'extremist' sort of person yourself.  But it is not at all obviously true to me that any argument I'm making depends on these particulars, and I've repeatedly made reference to other systems and cultures separated from modern America in both time and space.Agreed, and agreed.  Even to the extent that I agree with you, I don't see how that follows from what you've said.  More ancient systems are actually typically easier to classify than more recent ones by the virtue of the fact that they are generally much simplier, much less internally diverse, much smaller, and so forth.</blockquote>

Verification