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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6736732" data-attributes="member: 16814">I disagree that chaos places the value of everything in it's intrinsic self.  That may be an acceptable chaotic philosophy, but it's not the only possible chaotic philosophy.  Another chaotic philosophy may be that nothing has intrinsic value -- things only have the value that one gives to them.  Therefore everything has every possible value, with distinct values only being valid for specific viewpoints.  Relativism is a chaotic trait (though not a necessary one -- not all chaotic things must also be relativists).I think you meant a binary condition -- they are antonyms.  And I did say there was a range of selfish and selfless, so I didn't say that you could only be one or the other.  As you note, it is possible that some actions are neither.Nope, I disagree that defining your self by your own values and not others is a selfish act.  It's a neutral act.  The values you personally value could be selfish or selfless, but that act of choosing them due to their personal value to you is neither.  This is one of those 'not selfish or selfless' acts.I was mum on the utility of it as it applies to good and evil, actually.  Considering it, I can easily see that it would be a workable definition, though, and wouldn't conflict with lawful in any way.  For instance, a caste system which exists to harshly stratify society into have and have nots, is clearly evil in that the perpetrators are interested in maintaining their own power -- selfish, but it's also clearly lawful in that the system defines itself by dint of a social order -- the caste system.  A caste system can also be good, though, as shown in the Celestial hierarchy, where there are tiers of power, authority, and responsibility, but the whole is bent towards the enactment of selfless acts for others and not for the selfish pursuit of power.The other thing to consider is that a person may be lawful evil -- a barrister that loves using the law to bilk people out of their homes through predatory lawsuits, frex -- and that is different from a society that may be lawful evil -- like the rigid and harsh caste example above.  The people in the LE society may not be LE, even in the majority, so long as the power that directs it is LE and enforces LE outcomes.  Again, the caste system works well as an example here as the people of the lower castes may well not believe in it and could be of any alignment, but are still ruled by the iron expectations of the system as dictated and controlled by the upper caste.  Even members of the upper caste may be not be evil, working perhaps to ease the burden on the lower caste while still expecting that all of the formalities of precedence occur (like making sure bread and clothing is given away to the lower caste but still insisting that no one from the lowest caste is permitted to stand it their presence).  That would be LN or even LG, depending.However, our LE barrister would thrive in the LE caste system as well as he could thrive in a LG kingdom.  Individual alignment needs to be considered a bit differently from organizational or governmental alignment.</blockquote>

Verification