Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[Chrisling]

I could just as easily demonstrate that "Groups of being sthat work for the collective" are Lawful Evil. Or just plain Lawful, which it is, IMO.

"Groups of beings that work for the collective" by giving of themselves are LG.

"Groups of beings that work for the collective" by, say, killing those who break the rules, are LE.

Julius Caesar was working hard to improve the lot of his collective, Rome. Does that make him good? No.

You're attributing collecting people in a functional group to good.

I could just as easily prove that it's evil because it's precisely the impluse that is ultimately responsible for war, famine, and overpopulation.

Sure, you could demonstrate that beings working for the collective are lawful, and non-good. But since working for the collective is also a trait of goodness -- this isn't me saying this, BTW, but lots of other people who have told me in clear terms -- that <I>chaotic good beings work together</i> to solve problems which threaten them all.

Which is my point. Helpfulness of the group is seen by many as lawful <i>and</i> a good trait. That is is a lawful trait does not mean it is not a good trait -- people keep telling me that it is, which is why I'm bringing it up and why I'm unsatisfied with the group vs. the individual as a description of the difference between law and chaos. It isn't seperate enough from good and evil.

 

[Chrisling]

Monk: Must be Lawful. Why? Largely for the same reason they cannot multiclass -- focus. Intesne, unbending, unyielding, immutable focus. Ritual. Inner order and development. Logic, purposefullness, and reason. In order to focus that tightly, one cannot waver in the slightest -- they must be an unbending rod of internal and external order. For much the same reason as the Bard, but nearly the antithesis. Monks cannot deviate from their practice, or they can never return. They don't draw their power from order itslef (like the Barbarian draws on at least a little chaos for their power), but they draw it from the ritualized and rational honing of their body. Focus, focus, focus.

I could accept a nonlawful monk if they somehow described how they would keep the intense focus and ritualism of the class.

As a part-time Taoist and lover of kung-fu movies, I feel driven to point out that amongst the movies and literature of the martial arts guys, a lot of the best mystically powered martial artists are not particularly lawful.

Indeed, in true Taoist fashion, adherence to the rules usually becomes a limitation towards people finding their true potential. For good examples of this, I suggest (right off the top of my head) Tsui Hark's The Swordsman and Jet Li's Fist of Legend and Tai Chi (where you also get to see Michelle Yeoh, woo woo!) -- in all three movies, the hero achieves the highest levels of skill only by rejecting the traditional teachings of his school.

Furthermore, in the "real world" the (arguably) greatest martial artist of the 20th century, Bruce Lee, was contemptuous of rigid systems of martial arts. He referred to them as "organized uselessness" and repeatedly said that a really good martial artist has an open mind that reacts naturally to whatever happens. Again, now in the real world, a person reaching the highest levels of skill does so by <I>rejecting</i> traditional training. Unsurprisingly, Bruce Lee was a Taoist, too.

Also, about the barbarian rage thing, there's a PrC in Oriental Adventures, the singh rager, who <i>must</i> be lawful and can rage identically to a barbarian.

 

[Chrisling]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is a reaction against the 'self-sacrificing' demands of romantic altruism in nationalism, communism and socialism ('liberalism' in the USA) - "The love that asks no questions, the love that stands the test, that lays upon the altar the brightest and the best". Considering the results of this belief in WW1 & WW2, I'd say Rand sensibly points out that selfishness is not only good but can be the only sane option. Her writing style is a bit OTT though.

I found this post <i>way</i> more inflammatory than Canis' post about how we can reject Rand and Smith. There is an imputation that Rand's viewpoint -- which I find incoherent, non-sensical, ill-concieved, poorly considered, badly executed, and I've read both her novels and a number of her philosophical works -- "can be the only sane option." Which implies the rest of us aren't being sane. Which I find way more offensive than when Canis sort of dismissed Smith, a philosopher of whom <I>I</i> am quite fond.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Sure, you could demonstrate that beings working for the collective are lawful, and non-good. But since working for the collective is also a trait of goodness -- this isn't me saying this, BTW, but lots of other people who have told me in clear terms -- that <I>chaotic good beings work together</i> to solve problems which threaten them all.

Which is my point. Helpfulness of the group is seen by many as lawful <i>and</i> a good trait. That is is a lawful trait does not mean it is not a good trait -- people keep telling me that it is, which is why I'm bringing it up and why I'm unsatisfied with the group vs. the individual as a description of the difference between law and chaos. It isn't seperate enough from good and evil.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Because, if I were asked to attribute good and evil to Society vs. Individualism, I would come squarely down on the side of Society as Evil.

First of all, it's very nearly a truth that if you place 1 person on a deserted island, he'll be lonely. If you place 2 people, they'll fall in love. If you place three people, 2 of them will find a reason to ostracize the third. And if you place 4, they'll choose up sides and start a war.

Social dynamics in action. Individually, human beings are wonderful creatures. Groups of human beings, however, are dim, venal, argumentative, and violent.

I fight a daily internal battle with the notion that our need to congregate in larger and larger groups is responsible for a vast array of evils.

 

[Theuderic]

modern examples would be WW2 Germany or modern Iraq.

Nazi Germany Lawful? Not so ( although the ideal was held to be the greatest triumph of the party). If anyone would like some good reading on The truth about nazi Germany I suggest Albert Speer's INSIDE THE THIRD RECH or William L. Shirer's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH.

 

[Theuderic]

LOL! I have always thought that the assertion of a certain alignment being used to describe a state or a nation or what have you has always been absurd. One can easlily pick it apart until the title of LG, LE, CE, CG, etc. has no more significance and will always end up lacking in many of the more intimate details. LOL! This is the part were alignments fold. Society is just too multifaceted to be neatly categorized by such a rigidly (Lawful?) defined manner. This arguement could go on and on until we are all old. And the truth is , it just can't be done. The alignments can't be used to acurately define a system of government and or nation/state or even an individula for that matter without serious leeway being given. Thus alignments hold little value other than what is on the surface before digging.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

LOL! I have always thought that the assertion of a certain alignment being used to describe a state or a nation or what have you has always been absurd. One can easlily pick it apart until the title of LG, LE, CE, CG, etc. has no more significance and will always end up lacking in many of the more intimate details. LOL! This is the part were alignments fold. Society is just too multifaceted to be neatly categorized by such a rigidly (Lawful?) defined manner. This arguement could go on and on until we are all old. And the truth is , it just can't be done. The alignments can't be used to acurately define a system of government and or nation/state or even an individula for that matter without serious leeway being given. Thus alignments hold little value other than what is on the surface before digging.

Shush!

You're ruining our fun!

 

[Chrisling]

Social dynamics in action. Individually, human beings are wonderful creatures. Groups of human beings, however, are dim, venal, argumentative, and violent.

I fight a daily internal battle with the notion that our need to congregate in larger and larger groups is responsible for a vast array of evils.

We probably don't disagree as much as all that. This is a way for me to pass some time while my gf does her nasty physics homework, hehe. My favorite writer is actually Nietzsche and he said (this might be a near quotation 'cause I'm too lazy to find the book and look it up), "Madness is rare amongst individuals. Amongst nations, empires and ages, it is the rule."

<I>Personally</i>, I probably do come down on most people's conception of chaotic good. I am distressed at the urge that nations have for continual self-aggrandizement and eternal increase of power for the good of those in power. I believe in participating, too, and it being an evident good for everyone. I enjoy, daily, the benefits of modern technology that have been assisted by large scale societies, but when I weigh that against the evident evils that large scale society has also created, I fight something along the same battle you do, probably.

 

[Chrisling]

Theuderic,

LOL. I agree. Nations are made up of large number of people, all of whom seek to define their environment in terms sensible to them.

Normally, this sort of thing is not on my mind, but I'm in this Planescape game, so I've got to come up with some <i>rulings</i> based on this alignment stuff.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Normally, this sort of thing is not on my mind, but I'm in this Planescape game, so I've got to come up with some <i>rulings</i> based on this alignment stuff.

Of course, it being a Planescape game, your societies have no need to function as real world ones do. Modron society ISN'T multi-faceted. The individuals ARE actually meaninless, even to themselves. Slaadi don't even bother trying to have a society. etc.