Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6737778" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay, but then I don't follow at all.  Is this is relation to your use of 'selfless' below?  I address that use below, but if this is different, I'm not following.Relativism is the belief that there is no objective standard by which to judge something.  Each person/group creates their own standards, and all standards are equally valid if viewed from within their respective origins.  That doesn't sound lawful to me (using my definition, of course), in that it's expressly refusing to use something outside the individual to judge something, but instead focuses only on the philosophy that all believes are valid for the people that hold them.Sorry, but, huh?  Some have a negative connotation, but self doesn't.  Selfless doesn't.  Selfish does, but it also has a negative denotation, so that's expected.  Self-centered has a negative connotation, yes, without a necessarily negative denotation, so that one fits.  But overall, I'm not sure I can agree with this statement.Oh.  I was using the dictionary, which says that it's putting others before yourself.  I think that's sufficient for the definition of good/evil as selfless/selfish.  I see what you're doing, but I don't think it's necessary to delve into philosophy to find a condition where you try to separate your essence from your physical self.  That's cool and all, and a great idea for a character philosophy, but I don't see how it bears on the discussion.Okay, again, I used the dictionary.  Still, you have a valid point -- the conjecture that there's a LE society that subsumed individual desire for group desire -- a collective evil, as it were.  Interesting.  However, I would say that, as a society, it's still clearly LE -- it's organized and structured according to a social construct outside the individuals and it's goals are to act in way that are collectively selfish.  The individuals in this society, since you label them as absolutely without individual evil intent, just blindly following the collective urge, could be anything.  Would they have any existence outside of the collective?  If they do, then their individual alignment is whatever it would be outside the collective.  If they don't, then they're intrinsically part of the collective and would still be LE.  A gear removed from a machine is still part of the machine if it's nothing but a gear outside of the machine.Okay.  I'm not terribly interested in providing a case study when the particulars can be assumed -- the lower castes are treated harshly by the upper castes in order to maintain power and exploit the lower castes -- without me going into detail.  Right, yes, but please remember that the statement you're responding to was discussing celestial LG societies, which are a paragon of LG.  That non-paragon societies of any alignment would have imperfect characteristics is obviously true, and beside teh point.Yes, the source material is all over the place on this.  Nope, disagree.  I'm perfectly okay with a CG person even forcibly seizing power if they think that, by doing so, they are acting selflessly.  An example would be the overthrow of an evil ruler and the assumption of power to make sure that the previous regime could not come back. i would agree that there's room for a chaotic philosophy that decries all forms of power over others.  Perfect anarchy is very chaotic, to me.  However, I disagree that that is the ultimate expression of chaos.  Chaos is just fine with power determined by egalitarian principles (the smartest among us leads because we value intelligence) or brutality (the strongest among us leads because we fear him).  The scope of the leadership could further be graduated from mere advice to total power.  Chaos isn't adverse to power.You can't argue a specific case into the general.  Gandalf is a great study, but he remains a single data point and not representative of anything other than Gandalf.No, I think it's clear Asmodeus values his personal power because he takes extreme care to see that it is maintained.  There are others that can do the same job, and want to, but Asmodeus makes sure that it is exceedingly difficult to oust him from the position.  There are always machinations in Hell to unseat the ruler of this plane or that, or their lieutenants, all the way down to the manes at the bottom (or is it dretches, I don't recall).  Hell is a place where treachery is expected.  Failure to be treacherous is a great way to not be in power.  So, without personal ambition, it's difficult to assume that Asmodeus could possibly maintain his position.Note that this is drawn from the source material.  The way Hell is organized is certainly not the only way a paragon LE society could organize.  You seem to be pushing the collective LE organization -- every cog understands it's position and doesn't wish to change -- vs the combative LE organization that Hell represents.  If I were to opine, I would say that the collective LE prioritizes the Lawful aspect over the Evil one, whereas Hell prioritizes the Evil over the Lawful.  That may not sit well, but remember that the source materials are not exactly coherent on alignment.Loved that book.  Ah, but if we're following your example, I would also have had to add that the barrister had a incongruous aspect.  I did not.  I stated the barrister was LE and gave no other information that would contraindicate that.  You're welcome to invent something that might make him not LE, but at that point you're adding the additional information and my example doesn't have to accomodate that.The barrister is LE.  He has the Lawful and Evil traits as I have defined them.  He places his believe and faith in a social construct (the law) and uses it to act selfishly by oppressing others with it (Evil).  He doesn't feed stray animals, or care for the elderly.  He does enjoy a snack at the Fried Endangered Animals, but he never donates to the Injured Fire Brigade Members Fund when he buys his Dodo meal.  He is a jovial, sort, though, and laughs himself silly all the way to the bank to deposit the proceeds from his latest case, where he sold the orphanage out from under the orphans on a legal technicality, leaving them destitute and homeless, and glad-hands the bank manager who is often his partner in doubles Half-Stick on Tuesdays.  On his way home, he sees a young, emaciated man in shabby clothes digging in a refuse bin.  He approaches the young boy and asks if what's happening.  The young boy, very embarrassed, tells the barrister that his orphanage was just closed and he's looking for some food.  The barrister asks the boy if he'd like some food.  The young boy lights up and thanks the barrister, who smiles at the young boy and tells him, very kindly, to wait just a moment.  He then goes to the corner watchstand and reports an unlicensed beggar in the street.  He whistles the theme to the latest popular minstrel act on the way home.Yes, it's possible, except I said he was LE, not CE.Yes, of course.  My example was not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely a possibility.</blockquote>

Verification