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: 6736794" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure.  But in that case, the origin of the meaning is still within the self.  It's still in that sense, self-centered, even if the values that it decides to find are not selfish (that is, not evil).  It's a tangent, but I'm curious as to what you are thinking there.I didn't say it was.  I said it was a chaotic act.   As a chaotic act and assuming that chaos is independent of the good/evil axis (that is, neither CE nor CG is a contradiction), then presumably there would be some way to commit that act that would be good, neutral, or evil.  But how could believing that things only had the meaning you personally gave them based on the valuation you made personally be selfless?  Sure, I agree that it is not selfish, but how could that act be actually selfless given that it not only admits to the self, but gives primacy and principle authority to the self.This contains bundles of contradictions.  If you admit a caste system can be good, then it is a contradiction to say that one is clearly evil.  Likewise, quite obviously, the lords of the Celestial hierarchy are both interested in maintaining their own power and at the same time not selfish for thinking so, so it's clearly a contradiction to assert that being interesting in maintaining their own power and authority makes something clearly evil.  Now, it might be reasonable to think that the lords of CG don't actually want to rule over anyone, because they don't think anyone has that right (and even that it is a source of much of the world's evils), but the lords of LG presumably think that they have not only the duty to rule but the right to do so because it is their proper place and role.  As such, they'll be as insistent on their prerogatives as any lawful - but again, not for selfish reasons.The same logic incidentally applies to Asmodeus down in hell.  As the Lord of LE, he doesn't rule out of a desire for personal power, but because he believes he has both the duty and the right to do so, as his proper place and role.  It's reasonable to assert that Grazz't believes that the entire universe exists for Grazz't, but Asmodeus - being lawful - believes that he exists for Hell.  It just so happens that he rules by right, but Asmodeus presumably would not cast down Hell to preserve himself - where Grazz't would presumably cast down everything to preserve himself.  This makes for a meaningful difference between the two evil schemers.  First, how do we know this man is lawful?  What part of his description indicates his lawfulness?  Could not a chaotic evil person also bilk people out of their homes through predatory lawsuits?  Are we to take the existence of predatory lawsuits as proof of respect for the law?  We really know nothing about this barrister's motivations, and all you've given us is a very superficial trait - a profession.  I would argue that there is a very big difference between an evil lawyer bilking people out of their homes because he desires to enrich himself, and an evil lawyer bilking people out of their homes because he honestly believes that they don't deserve them and that they deserve the treatment.  The later lawyer could presumably be working pro bono out of conviction that what he was doing was right, and not out of selfish regard at all.It's worth noting CE persons can thrive within a LE society by merely pretending to respect authority and giving the outward appearance of serving the group.  It's particularly easy for a CE ruler to do this, because as the ruler, the whole rest of the society is geared to obey the ruler and so the ruler alone is in a position where indulging his whim is at least somewhat expected as his prerogative as the one that rules himself.   I brought up Asmodeus earlier because as a non-mortal and actual incarnate embodiment of LE, that's not what we would expect is actually happening there.</blockquote>

Verification