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: 6737944" data-attributes="member: 16814">Interesting, and I wish you luck in figuring out what you mean, but I'm quite happy with the dictionary definition and have no problems applying it.As for you concern about the negative connotation of self, I don't think that exists except in the way you're attempting to frame it.  Individual freedoms and personal rights are deemed correct and proper goods in modern Western morality (upon which both the D&D alignment and our discussion rests it's foundations upon), and both of those are uniquely tied to the self.  Okay... but you realize that the definition of good and evil that I've been discussing the post few posts is rooted in selfish and selfless motives, yes?  I think you're looking for a definition of self-determination that isn't good or evil, and I don't think you really have to find some definition of self-determination that is separated from self to avoid conditions of good and evil.  WHAT you self-determine can be good or evil, but the act of using your own views to define yourself isn't the same a selfish or selfless.  Those views can be characterized as such, but the act of finding them within yourself isn't. It's just personal.That's perhaps an interesting side jaunt, but please forgive me in saying that I'm not super interested in wandering down that hallway right now.Ah, see, but sacrificing the self for others is what's good.  Good requires giving, evil requires taking.  One can give of oneself or take for oneself.  The actual value of the self isn't what's judged for good or evil, it's just what you choose to do with that self. I disagree.  Although... I have to admit the idea of nihilist demons depressing the PCs with long rants on the futility of it all did get a chuckle out of me.   Eh, I have to disagree, again.  If you're talking about ideas, concepts, or ideals, then yes.  If you're talking about the material world, then mostly no.  Of course, a lawful society could collectively choose to devalue something like gold, but, in general, they are not going to do that.  Gold is valuable because it's rare and pretty.  Those are things the lawful society doesn't assign.I can see a specific chaotic person thinking that exact thing, but I don't think it's a good blanket definition of chaos.  No, can agree, as you just defined good as dependent on the same thing as chaos and law.  Good doesn't sit in between chaos and law, it exists separate from them.Again, your definitions of the axis are not independent, so this isn't coherent.  You can reach the same conclusions at different points of the grid because the values are so similar in many areas.I would not.  I would say that such a society is clearly Lawful Evil, but not that such a society is the only paragon of lawful evil.  I don't think you can accurately describe the dystopias of those books as the same as your LE society above.  I think that the majority of dystopias are lawful in nautre, as the perfect society of a utopia is generally lawful, and the goal of the dystopian society is to highlight how the utopia failed, but I don't think it's required.  Dust has a lovely dystopia, that's difficult to classify because the society is very structured and has harsh controls for breaking it's structure, but the overall intent isn't necessarily evil.  Not going any further on that train of thought for spoilers, because Dust is something everyone should read.If the society would crumble and fall without his intervention, or he believed that by taking power he could help the most people, then he would be obligated to take the power.  Turning his back on the people because he didn't feel like he should take the power isn't good, it's at best neutral.  He may make that choice, and I wouldn't call it horribad, but if he chose to sacrifice himself to assume power and help people, and take actions to increase individual freedoms while he was at it, then, yes, I see a CG person taking the power.I don't think there has to be only one.  Just as I don't think there's a perfect Lawful paragon, or a Good one, or an Evil one.  There's enough room in my definitions for there to be multiple such things and still be coherently useful.  Which, to me, is the point -- useful categorization without useless restrictions.Why would CE be that, anyway?  But, see above.GAH!  He's my guy.  I made him up.  I say that those are his motivations.  We're not discussing a randomly sampled character and analyzing him to see how we can categorize him, we're discussing my example guy, and guy that's LE through and through.  He loves the law, because it makes sense to him.  He loves it because he can take things from other people without risk, because the law is great like that.  He loves living in his safe house, with the watch patrolling the streets, and the knowledge that society is looking out for him while he robs it blind using it's own rules.  He likes being a respectable gentlemen, invited to the correct parties with the correct people, and he likes that people owe him things because of his position and ability in the system.  He likes be lawful, and he likes using the law for his own selfish ends.  This is all 100% true because he's my guy and I say so.Yes.  A devil will act within the rules of the system.  It will establish that his claim to the position is legitimate.  It will gather the necessary support to make it's move (paperwork, coalitions, etc.).  It will make it's attempt within the rules -- be that a formal challenge or maneuvering the opponent into a position of weakness and using the system to oust them.  If it doesn't, then the system will not tolerate him long.  Devils play the game.Demons can be just as cunning, but there are no rules to their game.  Ambush, backstabbing, direct confrontation, arranging an accident, all of these are 100% valid methods because the demon doesn't rule through vested authority and position, but through power and threat of force.  It doesn't matter how a demon takes out a rival and assumes power because he'll only maintain that power as long as he can personally enforce it.As do I, which is why most of my cosmology is a bit different from the sources.  Hell, in my current game, it looks nothing like the wheel, because it's a game based on creation and dissolution as the core conflict, not good, evil, chaos, and law.  Those exist, because so much of D&D is premised on those concepts and it's too much to extract them, but they're secondary to the thrust of the campaign and there is no great wheel.  There's the Shadow, the Wilds, the Elemental Planes, the Astral, the Ethereal (both only because it's too much work to take them out) and the Heavens.  Demon, Devil, and Angel all reside in the Heavens.  It's not a quiet place.No, I described a barrister that followed the law to a tee, used it, loved it, lived it.  Who used the banks because they are safe.  Who relied on the watch to clean out the riff-raff from  his street.  I described a man that always turned to the law, in every case, to achieve his goals.  Those goals were all selfish, but the manner in which he achieved them were all lawful (heh, in both senses of the word).Obviously, we violently disagree here.See above.  Yes, I did not say 'this barrister believes X', instead I showed him using the law and engaging in society properly at every turn.  Nothing the man did was chaotic.  He used banks.  He had appropriate friendships with his social peers.  He played organized sports.  He trusted the watch.  He was part of the entire legal system (and obviously a member in good standing as he is able to practice).  EVERYTHING he did is lawful.  While I didn't explicitly say what he believed, it's trivial from context to note that his every action was bent towards being a part of a society and not being individualistic.</blockquote>

Verification