The Fox and the Hedgehog: a different take on law/chaos

[I'm A Banana]

This is a good take....and describes why Bards can't be lawful by the rules very well....if there ever was a class who wasn't unified...

So it's not really a new take on the same...it's the same take probably expressed a bit better.

About the unyeidling....I still maintain that law and chaos are equally balanced in their positive and negative aspects...

So Law doesn't change very often because it already has the right approach. The hedgehog doesn't change tactics because it found one that works in all cases. Because as long as a hedgehog adheres to that, they'll be successful in life. Law can change, but it would do it in an ordered way...it wouldn't just change for the sake of changing, it would change according to a plan that was devellopped to be perfection. Law persues perfection by traveling in a straight line to it, without deviation (unless they find that their goal is actually reachable by a different line, of course...though it would take a massive effort to change).

Chaos changes all the time because it persues perfection by trying any and all avenues it possibly can, and some that it probably couldn't. The fox is varied because that allows for freedom an adaptability. Where Chaos suffers is in being *unable* to travel straight to the goal. If there is a narrow path to follow, a chaotic would make it convoluted because they're unable to follow the straight, direct path.

Chaos is indecisive, undefined, and unfocused. It is also adventuruous, mutlifaceted, and adaptable.

Meanwhile, Law is unyielding, inflexible, and predictable. It is also dedicated, knowledgable, and unbreakable.

Choose your poison.

 

[Pielorinho]

About the unyeidling....I still maintain that law and chaos are equally balanced in their positive and negative aspects...

I agree with you, to a degree, although I think I lean toward the "fox" end of the spectrum myself. Berlin would probably disagree with you.

Another one of his central ideas is interesting and may shed more light on the discussion. (Moderators: this passage will discuss Christianity briefly; I believe it'll do so in a copacetic fashion, but if not, I'll gladly change it) He talks about Macchiavelli's discussion of Christian versus Pagan Roman's ethics. Christians value humility, self-sacrifice, chastity, repentance; Pagan Romans value bravery, strength, loyalty, shrewdness. Macchiavelli himself prefers Pagan Rome's values to Christiandom's values, and believes that the two sets of values are incompatible with one another -- but in doing so, he states that there's no objective way to choose one set of values over the other.

Berlin is fascinated by this idea, and believes that there are a lot of values in the human realm, some of which contradict one another, and we can't definitively choose one set over the other. A starving artist has a family to feed: should he take a well-paying menial job to support his family, or should he complete his masterpiece that will enrich humanity? Different people will answer this question differently, and passionately, based on their incompatible, irreducible values; we cannot choose between them.

My point in all this? First, Berlin is a fox . I think he is a paragon of a chaotic-good person, by this system, inasmuch as he doesn't have one set of values he holds as sacrosanct. Were he to say, "Some people believe the starving artist should feed his family -- and they are fools, for beauty is the essence of living, and art is born only from suffering," he'd be (contrary to what the traditional axis would suggest) much more lawful.

Second, his philosophy has (I think) a contradiction that foxes/chaotic folk often run into -- especially the chaotic-good ones. Although he thinks that there's no real way to judge one set of values over another (for the most part -- he makes problematic exceptions for Nazis etc.), that belief itself is a judgement of "lawful" values, of hedgehog values. When you say that "law and chaos are equally balanced in their positive and negative aspects," Berlin might disagree with you, but only to the degree that he himself, advocating a chaotic worldview, is lawful about his advocacy . However, if chaotic folks aren't allowed a minor inconsistency, who is?

Third, the professor who introduced me to Berlin back in 1998 would weep an ocean if he ever came across this thread.

I'll close with a quote from Goethe, a wonderfully chaotic quote, of which Berlin is fond: "From the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made."

Daniel

 

[Celebrim]

"Although he thinks that there's no real way to judge one set of values over another .... that belief itself is a judgement of "lawful" values, of hedgehog values."

Hee hee. Yes, exactly.

The set of inclusive beliefs includes everything except the set of exclusive beliefs. So, at some level, the upholders of inclusiveness are themselves a subset of the believers in exclusiveness, because they themselves believe in excluding those that believe in exclusiveness.

In other words, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want so long as they believe as I do that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

And, supposing that you reached the conclusion that the 'exclusivists' were evil and that they or thier beliefs had to be exterminated by any means possible, then you would reach the point of being a 'Intolerent Tolerence Fanatic', or dare I say, a 'Chaotic Fanatic'.

 

[Rel]

Well, I've read what has been written and given the whole thing some thought and figured I'd chime in.

First, I'd like to say that while I fancy myself a bit of a "redneck intellectual", the thoughts presented so far have been right at the edge of my ability to assimilate. So kudos to you guys who are clearly ahead of me in the philosophy category.

That said, I think that the Fox/Hedgehog idea is as good a way to categorize schools of thought as any I've seen (although I must admit that the actual analogy to a Fox and Hedgehog is a bit tenuous to me). At the surface, it seems a more easy categorization to make than the Law/Neutral/Chaos spectrum in D&D. However, for the sake of fairness, the D&D spectrum has 3 somewhat smaller boxes to fit people into rather than 2 somewhat larger ones.

The issue that I have with this idea and alignment in general is that personalities are very complex and I think it is completely possible to be "Foxlike" in some ways while being very "Hedgehogesque" in others. The same clearly goes for the Law/Neutral/Chaos alignments. That being the case, I think that calling someone a Fox or Hedgehog or Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic is only useful in tracking a tendency in their behavior dictated by the majority of their thoughts or actions.

I think this is one reason that we don't have many arguments about alignment in our games. Those in our game group seem to be of the opinion that "one chaotic act does not a Chaotic alignment make". But just because we allow a fairly wide lattitude in interpreting alignment doesn't mean that we find it useless. Clearly there are game mechanics that relate to alignment and by keeping the alignment system (and using the mechanics that apply to it) but interpreting it fairly loosely, we are sort of having our cake and eating it too.

Back to the Fox/Hedgehog discussion, I make this observation (and note that while, like Pielorinho, I'm going to mention religion but I'm making no value judgements about it): Living here in the south, it isn't hard to find someone who is a Christian and who puts great stock in what is written in the Bible. You might say that they relate their thoughts, actions and experiences back to that one central reference point and are therefore Hedgehogs. But many of these same people will hold beliefs that run contradictory to what is in the Bible and might make no attempt at reconciling these disparities (often the best course of action when you disagree with the divine).

My question then becomes, "In your view, does that make them Foxes or merely Hedgehogs with Foxlike tendencies in a few areas?"

 

[Pielorinho]

My question then becomes, "In your view, does that make them Foxes or merely Hedgehogs with Foxlike tendencies in a few areas?"

This is a good point: few people are absolutists in alignment or small-mammal-choice. Just as we discussed earlier folks like Berlin who are mostly chaotic, except that they have such a systematic take on their chaoticosity, there are folks like the ones you describe, who are mostly lawful, except for their occasional blatant self-contradictions.

In D&D, we should remember this (and I think most folks do): alignment is a set of guidelines, a set of descriptors, for characters. They don't dictate actions; rather, they are defined by them. A lawful-good person may believe that it's just and proper to treat servants like crap. A chaotic-evil person may have a fervent belief in her nihilism, in her belief that good and evil are meaningless concepts.

These contradictions are to be expected; when looking at alignment or fox/hedgehog systems, it's better to look for tendencies than absolutes.

Daniel

PS On a totally different note, I have a friend who likes to ask people to rate themselves on a scale of zero to ten, where zero is a hedgehog and ten is a woman. Where do y'all fit?

 

[Rel]

PS On a totally different note, I have a friend who likes to ask people to rate themselves on a scale of zero to ten, where zero is a hedgehog and ten is a woman. Where do y'all fit?

Hehe, I don't think I'd ask my wife this question phrased quite like that (although she knows she is married to a smartass and probably wouldn't slap me too hard).

I'd say around a 2. I am very "Hedgehog".

I am a pretty firm believer in what I call "moderate to heavy libertarianism". I am not quite signed on to the total libertarian adgenda (which looks pretty close to anarchy to me) but I believe in maximum freedom and minimum government. I hold some views that are fairly conservative, but I firmly believe in the rights of others to hold opposing views.

This set of principles relates back to almost every aspect of my life and I don't always like the conclusions it leads me to. But I'd rather live with those conclusions than feel that I have no guiding principles.

Although people frequently relate Libertarianism to the "Chaotic" alignment, on the D&D spectrum, I'm pretty lawful. Even though I believe in less government, I believe in peeling back the layers of government by following the existing constraints of our constitution and code of laws, not by revolution or simply disobeying the laws I don't feel are justified.

 

[Ysgarran]

He talks about Macchiavelli's discussion of Christian versus Pagan Roman's ethics. Christians value humility, self-sacrifice, chastity, repentance; Pagan Romans value bravery, strength, loyalty, shrewdness. Macchiavelli himself prefers Pagan Rome's values to Christiandom's values, and believes that the two sets of values are incompatible with one another -- but in doing so, he states that there's no objective way to choose one set of values over the other.

Very interesting, this reminds of the Pendragon RPG with its personality trait system. Makes me wonder if the creators of Pengragon read either Machiavelli or Berlin. I've always played with the idea of applying the personality traits to the alignment system of D&D but never have yet. I really enjoy posts like this because I think it puts a little more substance behind the D&D alignments.

later,
Ysgarran.

 

[incognito]

Great thread.

The only thing that concerns me is the absoluteness of the concepts -already elaborated on by others, but I will point to a specific exmaple.

Saying that you are a Hedgehog or a Fox is like saying you are a Scorpio, or a Taurus - and have theat compeltely define you personality

 

[Pielorinho]

Great thread.

The only thing that concerns me is the absoluteness of the concepts -already elaborated on by others, but I will point to a specific exmaple.

Saying that you are a Hedgehog or a Fox is like saying you are a Scorpio, or a Taurus - and have theat compeltely define you personality

I agree -- there's no way anyone should use these metaphors to describe their character's every action.

Long ago, in a music magazine, I read a great metaphor about metaphors: using a metaphor to describe something is like shining a spotlight on it. You illuminate certain aspects of the object, but at the same time, you cast shadows on other aspects.

This idea should be used as a way to think about a character's philosophy: are they utterly devoted to it, or do they make it up as they go along? But by no means should it act to define the character in toto.

Daniel