Where do you stand in the Order-Chaos axis?

[eldskald]

So, danielxcutter started this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530869-Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic) thread about the Order-Chaos axis. While I do like discussing the alignments and reading people's points of view, these types of discussion are old and stale in my opinion. There are many different points of view, and since they are all opinions of people, that means none of them are the right definition. So I thought, instead of reading and sharing different definitions of alignments, why don't we listen about the alignment from someone who aligns itself with it? Like, if you have inner guidelines and structures to make you function on daily tasks, why do you have them? Listening to that might teach is more about order then we expect. So I thought of starting this experiment.

While we can discuss each others alignments, as long no one gets offended or angry because others disagree they are the alignment they believe they are, I think we are fine. So, here I go first:

I believe I am Chaotic. That's funny, since I was raised in orderly enviroments. I studied many years in a military school, which is lawful as eff. I got in because that was the best school in my city, so I thought the price was worth it. Someone in the original thread described lawful as being a cog in the machine. That's exactly the same words I used to describe the military at my school! Brainwashed tools, cogs in the machine. They used to say "It's pointless to question it, just do it" and, the worst one, "a given mission is an accomplished mission!". I cringed at that. I just can't do something without knowing why I'm doing and without agreeing with it. I followed their rules just to not get expelled, even though I was always forgetting something and was out of their standard all the time. Eventually, I realized I only needed to not get caught breaking the rules instead of following them. It was all about calculated risks and dealing with consequences. Of course that led to some disasters, but I guess that's part of growing. Even though my grades were great, they also had a behavior grade and mine was crappy. Father always told me that discipline and responsibility would make me better at school and a better person. While I listened to him, I just failed at it... I simply don't work like that. I couldn't even keep a schedule, my production rate goes at random inspiration spikes, and once I accepted how I am, I started to work a lot better. At home, I was the unruly child. My brother usually complied to make everyone happy, but I couldn't stand injustice. I always spoke out my mind and questioned my elders' authority when I thought they were unfair or wrong as a kid. As a teen, luckily I didn't got involved with anything my parents would disaprove, so my family and I didn't hate each other. Still, questioning my mother led to lots arguing with her, she usually got angry and let emotion take over but once we accepted each other, we got along well. Father always tried to convince me with logical arguments, and that's what worked with me. We had many philosophical talks and learned a lot from each other.

In resume, consequences is mostly what I care about. I get that rules were made to some end, but sometimes that end is unnecessary today or they don't get the expected outcome and people don't realize it. So the cogs just keep spinning and the machine, now purposeless, keeps functioning. But what is real in the end, are the consequences. You can do whatever you want, as long as you can deal with the consequences. While this philosophy is kinda neutral, the wild untamable beast within makes me move away from structure. I don't let anyone tell me what to do, and when deciding what to do, I only consider the consequences of abiding to or breaking the rules. Right or wrong has no voice in deciding it. Of course I have empathy and would never hurt people for no reason, always considering other people in my judgment, more so when I like them.

So, what about you folks? The others who went along on the original post might do again so here.

[GrayDeath]

In daily life I tend towards somewhere between neutral and lawful neutral with a slight good bend, laws over here are many and disobeying them is dangerous unless you are really really wealthy.

WHile I believe in keeping promises and basic order being better than basic Chaos, I do not think even remotely all of our laws are important (or even not-hindrances). Rules for Rules sake are not my thing, ever.

if I had the power/Money or society was more open to "good before law" I´d opt for more Chaos, ultimately tending towards Chaotic Good. ut at this moment in time I am not brave enough for it. ;)

[flappeercraft]

I'm probably on the line between Neutral and Lawful, generally I'll follow the rules, aid them and help others follow them. I usually also try avoid breaking the rules, but instead finding loopholes where I can do what is needed without having to break such rules. Even when that is the case, I will occasionally break some rules if I deem it necessary but such cases are rare. If completely required chances are my attitude will be more of **** this, to **** with this, it's going to be done.

[Remuko]

On the law-chaos axis only I'm likely neutral leaning towards chaos. I care too much about personal freedoms to have any deep respect for laws, codes, etc personal or imposed from on high.

[RedMage125]

I am absolutely Lawful Neutral on a D&D alignment scale.

In my personal life, I adhere very strictly to my personal ethics, even when doing so is not to my benefit.

I love the structure and discipline of military life (10+ years and counting of active duty service).

Even on the "con" side of things...when plans are made and obstacles come up, it is very difficult for me to abandon the plan altogether, I am more likely to try and find ways to "make the plan work" in spite of obstacles. I don't shift gears easily at all.

I also tend to be very rigid in my outlooks of "right way" and "wrong way" to do things. Ironically, this does NOT extend to tabletop gaming, which I believe thrives on houserules and variety. For gaming, my stance is "The only wrong way to play is when people are not having fun". Although I do tend to stick to RAW when I run games, and any house rules or exceptions are explicitly made known to players beforehand. I like for my players to be able to look into the books to know what to expect from the way I will run the game.

[Afgncaap5]

I tend to see myself as Neutral Good with Chaotic leanings, but every personality test I've taken actually pegs me as Chaotic Good instead. And I can accept that; I really do dislike schedules and being forced into things, and I think every rule should have enough leeway for kindness and grace to make exceptions where needed.

Granted, people are, I think, too complex for really being reliably measured by an alignment chart except in the broadest of terms, but it's a fun thought experiment. :smallcool:

[Particle_Man]

As I get older I get more lawful and see the value of laws, policies, etc.

[NamelessNPC]

I value rules because I hate uncertainties. I need to feel that life is logical, that the same actions will always lead to the same consequences. We need rules to protect ourselves.
I firmly believe that one must strive towards the greater good, respect and support the underlying structure, even if it's not to my personal benefit. I always think "what would happen if everyone did this?" before doing anything that's against the rules.

Edit: I didn't clarify that I was Lawful but it should be clear

[Elkad]

Chaotic. And the older I get, the more I shift that way.

Personal freedom is everything. There should be no restrictions on actions, or required actions, until they harm others (which is the Good side of my alignment).
Government should be almost powerless within it's own borders. All it should be doing for it's free citizens is advising them, but they should be free to ignore those advisories. Taxes should be minimal (or even voluntary). Government social programs shouldn't exist at all. Contracts between individuals are none of the government's concern, no matter if they are business contracts or social contracts (like marriage).
Only when someone directly infringes on the personal freedoms of another should the government step in, and then only at the request of the injured party (or his estate), or if the party is unable to provide for themselves (mentally infirm, children, etc).

[SangoProduction]

I am Neutral erring on the side of Lawful. My word is good as gold, but I won't stick in a bad agreement for long (though I won't just skip out without saying anything). Of course, I also believe that you ought to follow any laws that are in place, and if you dislike it, get them changed - do some activism - get people inspired to actually do something about it, or at least think about it. Maybe you will even see the other side of the argument, and expose yourself to more perspectives, and see why they were there in the first place.

I really don't see the point in breaking most laws. I may be against several (such as the weed laws that remain in the US), for needlessly limiting personal freedom, but...it's a rather petty thing to do it illegally. Either do something about the law, or don't do it at all. (Don't get me wrong, it's also petty to prosecute them for it, but it's not as though it's unknown that it's illegal. You've been warned that it's not allowed and can be punished.)

There is a point at which laws become oppressive, but for the life of me, I can't think of any in the western nations.

[martixy]

So far up Chaos, I'm making snow angels in Limbo.

I value freedom. Sometimes I even rebel against authority to my own detriment. And while I dislike uncertainty, I have no use for the rules of men, because they are imperfect. Instead I trust the rules of the universe.

[Kordak]

I used to be Chaotic, but after a bit of growing up I found myself as Neutral. I still dislike arbitrary rules and think critically about laws, but I've started to see the benefits of an orderly society and that reasonable limits on freedoms are necessary for that order.

I suppose my view now is that authority is flawed and should be questioned with the goal of improving it, rather than my old view that authority is all tyranny that needs to be resisted.

[OldTrees1]

My mind structures things in Order biased language, however I would use whichever of the two is more appropriate to my goals.

[tiercel]

Alignments probably work less well for real life than even for D&D.

That said, because I value freedom and choice, I'm Lawful.

Yeah.

The thing is that freedom comes with consequences, and the world is big. An orderly, well-functioning world allows for more personal freedom than a fractious, dysfunctional, violent one. I like living in a place in the world which, news reports aside, is actually remarkably nonviolent. I have the luxury and privilege of being nonviolent because I generally don't have to live with the threat of violence.

And personally, I like stability and the feeling that I can be mostly in control of my schedule, my decisions, my life, but acknowledge that I have to work within the rhythms (natural and social) of the world.

Which means my D&D characters tend to smack of outgoing Chaos, because I tend not to just play "myself."

[Tiri]

Neutral. I always do what I say I will, to the best of my ability and there are rules that I consider to be good and worth following, although rules are as a rule not as important to me as anything I have personally promised.

On the other hand, if I don't find a rule to be worth following, I break it as often as I want, although of course I try not to get caught.

[Darth Ultron]

Chaotic. I can care less about rules or laws or any sort of order. I do what I want. I don't think of myself as a rebel. I think Lawful Order is great for the people that need it, but I'm not one of the people that need it.

I'm also Evil.....

[Florian]

Alignments probably work less well for real life than even for D&D

Alignments work very well when you harbor no illusions, don´t get distracted by the small fry and understand it as a set of core values.
What doesn´t work is having "Does the Paladin Fall?"-style discussions based on individual actions.

@Topic: LN.

[eldskald]

And how do you people see your alignment? What do you think makes you that alignment? What is it's core? I always described lawful people as people who mindlessly obeyed the rules without thinking what they meant, but I'm pretty sure that's downright offensive to most lawful folk (also my point was to mock :smalltongue:). Though rules are important for order, I don't actually think they're order's defining core. I think rules are one manifestation of it, and maybe the easiest. How do you lawful ones see it?

[Novolin]

Chaotic, I do not care rules

[Florian]

And how do you people see your alignment? What do you think makes you that alignment? What is it's core? I always described lawful people as people who mindlessly obeyed the rules without thinking what they meant, but I'm pretty sure that's downright offensive to most lawful folk (also my point was to mock :smalltongue:). Though rules are important for order, I don't actually think they're order's defining core. I think rules are one manifestation of it, and maybe the easiest. How do you lawful ones see it?

Try to look at it in this way: Each alignment has something that it sees as "the greater good" and that has a positive effect once reached.

- The L-axis sees the group as the important point and the individual as subservient to it.
- The C-axis sees the individual as the important point and the group as subservient to it.
- The N-axis accepts both stances to be true.

Therefore, talking about "rules" or "laws" is a bit misleading without looking at what those actually promote (and why). A C-based society can actually have quite strict and complex laws governing (Edit: and securing) the rights and freedoms of the individual, and no C-type would complain, for example.

[NecroDancer]

I'm more or less neutral lazy but st times I can become chaotic hungry.

[Hackulator]

The vast majority of humans in the first world are lawful. Modern society is far too ordered for someone of chaotic alignment. Not to say there aren't chaotic people, but they probably all live lives that are clearly outliers (those people you know who travel the world using couchsurf.com, criminals, people who provide relief aid in third world countries, etc), or are from less developed areas.

[Florian]

The vast majority of humans in the first world are lawful. Modern society is far too ordered for someone of chaotic alignment.

That´s ... so far away from the truth at it can get.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's weird for me. I always thought of myself as very lawful-aligned. But after dealing with the insanely strict rules and bureaucracy of certain prior employers, I apparently am quite chaotic. I absolutely cannot stand stupid rules that make no sense and no one can explain why they're a good idea, but are still followed simply because that's the rule, and question them incessantly, to the point that I know for sure I've annoyed the people around me and alienated myself on various occasions.
Just as with D&D, I despise mindless adherence to "RAW" in real life as well.
But...does that make me chaotic? I'll fight it out and complain and argue and speak up...but almost always in a direct, open way trying to utilize the proper channels as I hopelessly bang my head against a brick wall. And when it's clear I'm not getting anywhere, I'll (very; vocally) begrudgingly follow the stupid rule. If I didn't care at all about order or rules, I'd just ignore it pretend to follow it while not doing so, and wouldn't be nearly as passionate about getting said rule changed. Because its existence burdens everyone just trying to do the right thing and sways people to become bitter to think less of the rules in general.
So perhaps in that sense, I'm a paragon of law, for wanting law to be as intelligent and sensible as possible. You criticize because you care.

[GrayDeath]

The vast majority of humans in the first world are lawful. Modern society is far too ordered for someone of chaotic alignment. Not to say there aren't chaotic people, but they probably all live lives that are clearly outliers (those people you know who travel the world using couchsurf.com, criminals, people who provide relief aid in third world countries, etc), or are from less developed areas.

Living a Life restricted by todays overabundance of laws does not a Lawful Person make. :smalltongue:
Its at least as much about what you want/hold dear than how you live dy to day. After all, I am assuming only a select few of us live EXACTLY how we want to.

I do however agree that most people in "civilized" countries live law-abiding lives.

[Inevitability]

Lawful (I know, what a surprise!).

I firmly believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that structure and long-term planning are some of the most important things in life, and that if left to themselves, people tend to make selfish, short-sighted, or uninformed decisions.

[Darth Ultron]

The vast majority of humans in the first world are lawful. Modern society is far too ordered for someone of chaotic alignment. Not to say there aren't chaotic people, but they probably all live lives that are clearly outliers (those people you know who travel the world using couchsurf.com, criminals, people who provide relief aid in third world countries, etc), or are from less developed areas.

As a Chaotic person in a Lawful world, I can say it's easy enough to live life and get along. I do what I want, and all the lawful stuff and order does not effect me.

I also see most people around me being lawful. For example at the cookout people are told to ''form a line and wait and get your food slowly one at a time''....and everyone does this. Ever ordered and lawful and ''fair'' (to them). I ignore the line, walk around to the other side of the table and get my food. A busybody lawful watcher might cry out and say something, but I'm just going to ignore them or make a smart...but funny..comment back. She will say ''you can't go on that side of the table!'' and I will say ''you are right, I can't" and stuff a whole boneless wing in my mouth..yum,tum, yum.

I come up to a railroad-crossing...gates are down and lights are flashing and cars on both sides are stopped. But there is no train. I wait a couple seconds...look and listen for a train.....and if I see and hear nothing I pull around the Lawful people sitting there and drive past the crossing. Often several cars will ''suddenly'' follow me...but not all of them. Some people will sit there forever it seems...or turn around and go another way.

[Elkad]

I do however agree that most people in "civilized" countries live law-abiding lives.

Many only because they are afraid of the consequences.

If we struck down all penalties for violating laws (leaving the laws intact-but-toothless), most wouldn't run around committing murders, but they sure wouldn't obey speed limits or pay their taxes or file for marriage licenses.

[Florian]

If we struck down all penalties for violating laws (leaving the laws intact-but-toothless), most wouldn't run around committing murders, but they sure wouldn't obey speed limits or pay their taxes or file for marriage licenses.

Well, exactly that is the dividing line of the L-C-axis. It´s always interesting to see who feels that institutions and laws protect and empower them, and who see them as force or coercion.

[Elkad]

Well, exactly that is the dividing line of the L-C-axis. It´s always interesting to see who feels that institutions and laws protect and empower them, and who see them as force or coercion.

And I'm firmly in the second camp. Laws exist to oppress others. People don't vote for laws that restrict themselves. Oh sure, they'll sometimes rationalize it as "it applies to me too", but it's always something they wouldn't do even in the absence of the law.

[Recherché]

Neutral to Chaotic. Rules and laws are simply social constructs with no real power behind them except for that which we give them by willingly participating in them and acknowledging them. Rules aren't necessarily bad, sometimes the guidelines are there for a reason. However following the rules should never be more important than preventing harm or helping someone.

[Zombulian]

It's weird for me. I always thought of myself as very lawful-aligned. But after dealing with the insanely strict rules and bureaucracy of certain prior employers, I apparently am quite chaotic. I absolutely cannot stand stupid rules that make no sense and no one can explain why they're a good idea, but are still followed simply because that's the rule, and question them incessantly, to the point that I know for sure I've annoyed the people around me and alienated myself on various occasions.
Just as with D&D, I despise mindless adherence to "RAW" in real life as well.
But...does that make me chaotic? I'll fight it out and complain and argue and speak up...but almost always in a direct, open way trying to utilize the proper channels as I hopelessly bang my head against a brick wall. And when it's clear I'm not getting anywhere, I'll (very; vocally) begrudgingly follow the stupid rule. If I didn't care at all about order or rules, I'd just ignore it pretend to follow it while not doing so, and wouldn't be nearly as passionate about getting said rule changed. Because its existence burdens everyone just trying to do the right thing and sways people to become bitter to think less of the rules in general.
So perhaps in that sense, I'm a paragon of law, for wanting law to be as intelligent and sensible as possible. You criticize because you care.

That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure that makes you lawful necessarily. Fighting against something but eventually realizing that the fight is a waste of energy and subversion may be needlessly risky sounds more like neutral to me.
Personally I feel a very similar way, and tend to categorize myself as Neutral Good.

[eldskald]

It's weird for me. I always thought of myself as very lawful-aligned. But after dealing with the insanely strict rules and bureaucracy of certain prior employers, I apparently am quite chaotic. I absolutely cannot stand stupid rules that make no sense and no one can explain why they're a good idea, but are still followed simply because that's the rule, and question them incessantly, to the point that I know for sure I've annoyed the people around me and alienated myself on various occasions.
Just as with D&D, I despise mindless adherence to "RAW" in real life as well.
But...does that make me chaotic? I'll fight it out and complain and argue and speak up...but almost always in a direct, open way trying to utilize the proper channels as I hopelessly bang my head against a brick wall. And when it's clear I'm not getting anywhere, I'll (very; vocally) begrudgingly follow the stupid rule. If I didn't care at all about order or rules, I'd just ignore it pretend to follow it while not doing so, and wouldn't be nearly as passionate about getting said rule changed. Because its existence burdens everyone just trying to do the right thing and sways people to become bitter to think less of the rules in general.
So perhaps in that sense, I'm a paragon of law, for wanting law to be as intelligent and sensible as possible. You criticize because you care.

Haha, I like that. That and other stuff people have said here makes me think that abiding to laws and rules have little to do with chaos and order. If you work better by restricting yourself within a code, wanting that code to make sense makes total sense to me. And willingly restricting yourself makes a lawful person, I think.

[Florian]

And I'm firmly in the second camp. Laws exist to oppress others. People don't vote for laws that restrict themselves. Oh sure, they'll sometimes rationalize it as "it applies to me too", but it's always something they wouldn't do even in the absence of the law.

You should probably reflect a bit about the nature of institutions and laws.

Do you feel oppressed by laws that guarantee your personal freedom, guarantee inclusive economic institutions, protect your property or ensure your access to basic civil services?
Even an anarchist society will develop some form of structure, institutions and laws to govern and protect itself, as, for example, violence as a means for results is a known quantity.

So the presence or absence of institutions and laws give no indication about the L-C-axis.

(On a personal note: While I do get some speed limits, like going 30 in a densely populated residential area with many kids, I do suspect that some are just part of a money-making scheme by the state)

You want to talk, let´s talk about the "greater good". Both sides of the axis have that concept as their highest goal, they just follow to very fundamentally different core values as their means to attaining it.
(L sees the individual as subvervient to the group, C sees the group as subservient to the individual, N accepts both stances)

You can do an "acid test" by questioning people how their stance on universal public healthcare is, the violence monopoly of the state, VC-based entrepreneurship, and so on. That will give an actual useful picture.

[Pleh]

I'm solidly in the lawful camp, but I balk at "lawful stupid" and LE side of the spectrum (that is to say, the people manipulating and manipulated by legalese). I feel true lawful conduct seeks to abide by the spirit of the law more than the letter and laws that can't allow for exceptional circumstances is tyranny.

Some might say this is more of a neutral good perspective than lawful, but I feel it's more of a realistic lawful than neutral, because I definitely care a great deal about the existence of good laws and adherence to them.

[Hackulator]

Well, exactly that is the dividing line of the L-C-axis. It´s always interesting to see who feels that institutions and laws protect and empower them, and who see them as force or coercion.

The dividing line is more than being annoyed at following rules, it's actually choosing not to follow them. At most, people who live almost completely within the system but dislike it have slipped to neutral.

[lbuttitta]

Strictly Lawful. When I make a promise, I follow through, no matter what.
Also, I always read the fine print.

[Strigon]

Very, very Lawful. I'm of the opinion that if you give anyone enough rope, they'll hang themselves with it, and my experiences have seen this play out time and time again.


It's weird for me. I always thought of myself as very lawful-aligned. But after dealing with the insanely strict rules and bureaucracy of certain prior employers, I apparently am quite chaotic. I absolutely cannot stand stupid rules that make no sense and no one can explain why they're a good idea, but are still followed simply because that's the rule, and question them incessantly, to the point that I know for sure I've annoyed the people around me and alienated myself on various occasions.
Just as with D&D, I despise mindless adherence to "RAW" in real life as well.
But...does that make me chaotic? I'll fight it out and complain and argue and speak up...but almost always in a direct, open way trying to utilize the proper channels as I hopelessly bang my head against a brick wall. And when it's clear I'm not getting anywhere, I'll (very; vocally) begrudgingly follow the stupid rule. If I didn't care at all about order or rules, I'd just ignore it pretend to follow it while not doing so, and wouldn't be nearly as passionate about getting said rule changed. Because its existence burdens everyone just trying to do the right thing and sways people to become bitter to think less of the rules in general.
So perhaps in that sense, I'm a paragon of law, for wanting law to be as intelligent and sensible as possible. You criticize because you care.

I'd still peg you as Lawful. Lawful doesn't mean you think every law, ever, is necessary or even right. It means you see the value in laws and structure, in general. Laws can be overdone, and laws can get in the way. They have to be intelligent.

[eldskald]

The dividing line is more than being annoyed at following rules, it's actually choosing not to follow them. At most, people who live almost completely within the system but dislike it have slipped to neutral.

If it were that way, there would be no lawfuls or chaotics in a place with no law. How can you choose to follow or to break the rules if there are no rules to follow or break? It's not about choosing not to follow, it's choosing not to care if you're following or not. It's about agreeing that personal freedom for everyone is better for society than restricting people.

For example, in my school times, I used to hide from the inspectors, trespass, prank and even steal from school property. Sometimes out of spite, most times out of whim, but always calculated. They had lots of rules to break, and most of them were stupid. Now that I'm in college, no one cares if I show up late or if I even show up. No one cares how I look, how I talk, what I think or what I do. They give the professors the most freedom they can. Professors can teach (mostly) what they want, how they want and the way they want. There are very few rules and they're changing all the time, like every semester something changes. The one golden rule is "don't stick your finger on my things and I won't stick mine in yours". There are many chaotics around (me included), and they all thrive. All of them follow the rules. Most lawfuls have no power to change things, and the ones that do have power do so a few times, but then the rest of the people change things again if they dislike it, and most of the times they change it to something new. But it's not like the lawfuls here dislike personal freedom, they just keep to their self restrictions anyway. They just dislike seeing others doing things in a way that they deem inefficient or wrong.

[Elkad]

You should probably reflect a bit about the nature of institutions and laws.

Do you feel oppressed by laws that guarantee your personal freedom, guarantee inclusive economic institutions, protect your property or ensure your access to basic civil services?
Even an anarchist society will develop some form of structure, institutions and laws to govern and protect itself, as, for example, violence as a means for results is a known quantity.

Because I'm not an extremist, and I'm also Good, I'll agree we need roughly one law. If it isn't causing involuntary harm, it's none of your business.
Which means the only laws should be restricting others (especially The Government) from interfering with free people.
And some guidelines defining those who aren't capable of making their own choices (children, mentally infirm, etc).

Personal Freedom? I'm already either free, or you are harming me against my will. Covered.

Inclusive economic institutions? I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'm guessing you mean to interfere with my right to choose who I do and don't do business with, by whatever criteria I so choose to utilize?

Protect my property. Taking my stuff is Harm. I'll take action to prevent and/or punish that. That may mean land mines, zombies or Explosive Runes in my driveway. Or hiring security (including by voluntarily paying taxes to a police force). That also means I'm liable for misuse of same. Telling the Mailman he's safe when he isn't is harm to him. Failing to provide reasonable safeguards for those not responsible for their actions (the same children or mentally infirm) if they wander onto my property is also on me. Maybe I should use Sepia Snake Sigils instead, so I can bargain that it was only an unlawful taking of time (instead of life) when I screw up and harm someone.

Basic civil services? You mean provided via involuntary harmful taking of my property?





So the presence or absence of institutions and laws give no indication about the L-C-axis.

(On a personal note: While I do get some speed limits, like going 30 in a densely populated residential area with many kids, I do suspect that some are just part of a money-making scheme by the state)

You want to talk, let´s talk about the "greater good". Both sides of the axis have that concept as their highest goal, they just follow to very fundamentally different core values as their means to attaining it.
(L sees the individual as subvervient to the group, C sees the group as subservient to the individual, N accepts both stances)

You can do an "acid test" by questioning people how their stance on universal public healthcare is, the violence monopoly of the state, VC-based entrepreneurship, and so on. That will give an actual useful picture.

OK, I'll bite.

Public Healthcare. Wrongful taking of my property (via taxes backed by threat of violence).

Violence Monopoly of the State. Abhorrent. Government (if any) should be held to FAR higher standards of violence than "normal" citizens. To choose one example, a policeman shouldn't be allowed to fire on (or otherwise assault) anyone based on the mere presence of a weapon, and should have a duty - that's a bit strong - obligation to retreat if there is a reasonable doubt as to the intent of the bearer of that weapon.

Venture Capital. Great. Private individuals gambling their own money to help other private individuals, all in a completely voluntary fashion.
Unless you meant government grants. If I pay involuntary taxes to fund those grants, that's more wrongful taking of my property.

Go ahead and throw out more if you want.

"Taxes" should all be voluntary. Government sends you a nice letter saying "Hey, we'd like 1,000gp, here's what we are going to use it for", with a detailed breakdown. I should be free to modify the amount freely (including to zero), and specify which parts of the budget I want my taxes applied to. Maybe I trust the government to find a use for my money, but I only want to give them 500gp. Or maybe I think 1,000gp is fair, but I want 600 ear-marked for government-managed space exploration, and the other 400 for state-run orphanages. Or I'm feeling old and vulnerable, but rich, so I give 100,000, but want it all used for researching ways to halt/reverse aging, with all data to be freely published for the use of everyone.

[NamelessNPC]

Violence Monopoly of the State. Abhorrent. Government (if any) should be held to FAR higher standards of violence than "normal" citizens. To choose one example, a policeman shouldn't be allowed to fire on (or otherwise assault) anyone based on the mere presence of a weapon, and should have a duty - that's a bit strong - obligation to retreat if there is a reasonable doubt as to the intent of the bearer of that weapon.



I think you missed the point. You are giving your opinion on institutional violence abuse; he asked for opinions on the existence of police. That is, should there be a monopoly of violence or should there be no restrictions on anyone who wishes to unleash violence on others.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm a rule-follower. Since I figure most people are somewhere in the neutral zone (few are truly evil, few are truly good, few are truly lawful, few are truly chaotic), I figure I'm at the lawful edge of neutral and the good edge of neutral.

I need there to be a commonly-shared set of rules to make sense of other people's actions. I prefer that those rules are clear and designed to encourage people to help each other, but can deal with (and still obey) rules that I think are misguided or silly. Overt rebellion is just not in my nature.

If we plot the alignments on a scale from 0-100 on each axis (law-chaos, good-evil), with 0,0 being the corner of chaotic evil, I'm somewhere around (70, 60). A little more lawful than good. I find it hard to play truly evil characters in games that have options to do so.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I am a chaos guy.
I follow the law only when it is in my favour(or when I wear my army uniforms because I want to support my country and I don't want to give my army a bad name).

I am very good in finding holes in the rules for my to use without getting into a mess but when I can't find any I usually just ignore the law.

I live by my own set of rules and beliefs that doesn't go with the law in my country.

[NamelessNPC]

I am a chaos guy.
I follow the law only when it is in my favour(or when I wear my army uniforms because I want to support my country and I don't want to give my army a bad name).

Why do you think that disrespecting the law makes your country look bad, if you don't think following the laws make you good?

It's legitimate question, i'm not trying to "get you". I'm just interested in the chaotic perspective.

[Florian]

I think you missed the point. You are giving your opinion on institutional violence abuse; he asked for opinions on the existence of police. That is, should there be a monopoly of violence or should there be no restrictions on anyone who wishes to unleash violence on others.

Interesting, isn´t it?

@Elkad:

"Inclusive" and "Extractive" are technical terms when talking about institutions (and the laws they create) that roughly translate to "protect the individual from the state" or "exploit the individual by the state".

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Why do you think that disrespecting the law makes your country look bad, if you don't think following the laws make you good?

It's legitimate question, i'm not trying to "get you". I'm just interested in the chaotic perspective.

Mr NPC,

1)I am just an individual that brakes the law in a way that benefit my believes and rules, and I want to support my country which mean I will not break it in a way that will make my country look bad(if I have to break it in a way that will make my country look bad I am making sure that it will not contact to my country but I didn't came to it, yet).

2) Following​the law only make you able to live easy live, because the law os only there to make order and sometimes it is easier to work outside ok the law.
The law is not bad or good, the law is only order(Red Fel mad a very good guide on Lawful-Evil and I am sure you know what a Paladin is) and that is one of the reasons this thread is Order-Chaos and not Good-Evil.

Edit:
Oops, I miss read you reply.

I am in the Army, every act I made while wearing my uniforms is related to my army, if I do something the looks bad my army looks bad and people look at the rules as justice and good.
I live in a country full with people and I am bound to their way on thinking(not a good place for a psychopath and I am very close to be one).

BTW, I never claimed to be good! Being good only holds you back and I have some things I want to do.

I think this is to much. Oops.