Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6642921" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my OP, I envisaged the structure of argument slightly differently: "chaos" is defended as a means to wellbeing, and the desirability of wellbeing is treated as largely self-evident (at least within the scope of the alignment system), because it has been given the label "good".There was some discussion upthread of whether alignment makes sense as a property of social collectives (like kingdoms). I doubt that it does, unless it is simply a shorthand for widespread beliefs (or perhaps the beliefs of the rulers) - whereas there is a widespread tendency to use alignment as a label for social realities.A king who was committed to good and thought order necessary to ensure it might go to war with another king with similar convictions, because they disagree over the right form of social order (or, perhaps, over the precise nature of wellbeing). But I don't think that the alignment system helps frame or analyse that sort of dispute, precisely because it happens within the confines of convictions in respect of which the alignment system has nothing useful to say.</blockquote>