"Muahuahuahua!!!" - she uttered - "I've got you foooooled!" - she iterated.
Well, not really. The thing is ... sometimes a different perspective leads to insights that can shake up certain
things thought to be firm, which may therefore have become a kind of foundation that then needs to be ... re-evaluated.
Like ... check this out:
And while I guess for now I might have your attention - I guess some might also realize that whenever I do this it's like
... somewhat benign. And so it shall be as we then go further down the D&D related rabbit hole.
So, my concern for now is alignment. And by that I think of the pop-culture memefied alignment chart, rather than anything
involving a deep study of the history of the original text and all that. So, there's good, neutral and evil - and then there's
lawful, neutral and chaotic. And those are arranged in a 3 by 3 grid. And while so far I would have placed myself on the
chaotic good side of things, I'm now more convinced to place myself on the chaotic evil side of things.
I however can't do so because how the public might associate with that. For ... by that, chaotic evil might just be ...
maniacal insanity. Like, if lawful good is good on steroids, chaotic evil is the opposite. So, to take it from wikipedia:
"A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and usually do not behave themselves unless there is no alternative." - Chaotic Good on the
other hand reads as: "A chaotic good character does what is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society." - and all in all that
suits me really well. And whatever might rub me wrong can be disregarded as a nuance - while the alignment chart itself is
just too ... general.
On that note we might then wonder, if it's advisable to trust people who play any kind of evil character ... but that's
another topic.
Something we may have to learn - that certainly is what's implied here in a sense - how fundamentally different our perceptions
can be. It's kind of what this ... what's it called theorem suggests, supposing that language informs how we think of and perceive
the world; Of which therere's a 'greater' and a 'lesser' version - and what makes the most sense is that maybe culture is to
blame for how we individually/collectively associate with certain terms.
So, coming out as "Chaotic Evil" is a bold thing of me - following some personal reasoning - that I right away get to take back
when aligning with the provided definitions. And yea, I guess that's just a thing about labels. And why Clarity ends up to be ...
not all that simple I guess.
Respectively so I have my own reasoning that allows me to fit a lot better into the Chaotic Evil framework - than I do fit into
the official definition of Chaotic Good. Though obviously that implies some abstract association with the implications of good
and evil as found within the chart.
Well. Naturally, at first, one would try to capture the simplest of strokes. There's good, there's neutral and there's evil. The
simplest of distinctions - each individual category a realm of diversity in and of itself. Here, for sure, I'm good. Whether that
be innate or reformed ... would, I think, depend on a few things such as background, history, opportunity, nurture and whatever.
Maybe there's such a thing as innate goodness or evil - but I think us humans, we're innately complicated. I think we all have a
natural tendency towards good - but within different definitions and projected end-results ... it is necessary that we come to
some ... concept that works for everybody. And because God has a say on things too - this whole "getting along" thing won't really
work out if we exclude Him. Well, maybe that shouldn't matter as He effectively excludes Himself for the time being - though ...
maybe not so much anymore ... but ... whatever. Not our concern right now.
At any rate could I see myself being 'evil' - in a way - and depending on the context, perhaps even firmly so. Although ... that
would basically require an environment in which my 'good' tendencies would align with "the greater evil" - which is like the
counterpart to being lawful good - to say that my ambitions align with the dominant structure that some people might call evil;
And other good tendencies to not be nurtured properly. Which might then make me a tragic kind of villain - perhaps - or just
another nameless unit. And sure, when musing about these things, to me a lot of the back and forth comes down to the framework.
I mean, when some species in game environments are considered 'evil' - all that it implies is some more or less intrinsic fiendship
that isn't yet in a place of maybe getting reconciled. Like ... Mind Flayers. They need to eat brains to survive ... which then
to us would boil down to a very simple kind of 'evil' - going by our own framework. Whether or not Mind Flayer society, in and of itself,
is however evil from a more neutral perspective is a different question entirely; It would seem.
So, the thing with Vampires has become that they may, due to their moral code, choose to feast on 'ethically sourced blood'. And
a human - in dire circumstances - would expect a 'good vampire' to die, rather than feast on a human for survival. But if the
same idea is reversed, the Vampire expecting the human to die, well ... we would naturally get a little bit ... weird about it.
Then there's the middle ground of relying on our ability to produce blood - at which point good and evil is more about how the
dominant forces deal with this ... situation.
And in this sense - ignoring the divine for the time being - evil is mostly a matter of insisting on their own framework over
that of others. In that mindset we may then discover a lot of whataboutisms that are put forth to justify one framework - as any
kind of compassion for another would in turn be a matter of one framework being taken as more valid. At any rate is that how I
happen to think of "lawful good" as something that is somewhat intrinsically evil. It is good for a given group - a.k.a. those
that the laws are meant to protect - but not so much for those that it excludes.
And therefore, on the flipside, I deem chaos to be more ... intrinsically good. Obviously that's not all that simple either,
as at the end of the day there would yet again be some greater framework - that would then make a kind of lawful environment -
but the emphasis is a lot more on the intrinsic chaos of it all. And I suppose that that's somewhat mirrored within the history
and evolution of Dungeons and Dragons - ignoring the capitalism and ... substance of controversy. We may though get to that
yet. I mean, D&D as it was - it at first appealed to a narrow group of people while the world was yet very much ... a
matter of blacks and whites. No pun intended. As it would also be somewhat wrong. But certainly, without the internet, the
whole matter of what's familiar versus that which is alien informed our minds to a much greater extent; While all of that
had, in the aftermath of world war two, also been bolstered with the chaos of tolerance and diversity. Yet, as the game became
more appealing by a variety of ways to more people, some of it had to change. People might like Orks for their brutish strength;
And that already would change what role Orks might play in the world of D&D. I mean, starting with Humans, Elfs, Dwarves
and what not ... the game was already open to the idea of diversity and self-expression. So, why restrict the player to what is
'perceived' as "Good"? Where, if you tune into your average episode of Dwarf Fortress ... you might find the quotation marks
sigh under the stress of the weight they carry.
And so if we look at what's popular today ... there is some inherent Chaos with "classically Evil" concepts being featured far
more prominently than they might have some decades ago. Now, what we might identify as some kind of 'true Evil' therein, that's
what we might call the non-duality between Paladins and Warlocks. They're like two sides of the same coin - a simple by the
numbers power fantasy. A world where people speak of "DPS" and Dump Stats - which eventually then and therefore values the
Oathbreaker above any other category of Paladin. In a way abandoning the stress of maintaining Character within a roleplaying
environment - in favor of wanting to see any kind of monster get nuked in as few turns as possible. And that, certainly, isn't
a matter of chaos. And it is somewhat endemic of the evil in this world. At least a part of it. And Astarion's plotline; Sort
of. And it is ... somewhat ... lawful. Though, I guess, in the end ... very much 'Chaotic Neutral': "A chaotic neutral character is an individualist who follows their own heart and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although chaotic neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free."
Anyway. If we can take 'lawful good' and easily identify it as 'true evil' - it should be possible to take 'chaotic evil' and
easily identify it as 'true good'. Certainly not without nuances and caveats - but that's not the way I want to do this here.
As ... analytical reasoning ... might not help us a lot. By which I mean that analytical reasoning heavily depends on patterns
of logic - rigid, comprehensive frameworks and the like. To, well, allow for deduction. But if we span the desired framework
broad enough, we have to account for the nuances of reality in a way that defies what might be analytically retrieved. At least
as a default position, before knowing any specifics.
Which is also why ... the matter of co-operation is here placed higher as any kind of assumption as to how that cooperation
might look like. Cooperation is what we put forth as a prerequisite for peace - and beyond that are the nuances of supporting
or defying it. And in all of it we have to keep in mind, that of this concept we may find ourselves in a ... "box of lawfulness"
again - that could be abused and turned into evil. Around whatever contention. It is very much a contemporary problem.
So, as for me - when thinking about chaos or 'Chaotic' as an alignment, I think a fair node/item/concept to embolden is a certain
tendency for mayhem. If lawfulness is the absence of it, chaos is a welcoming of it. And some might look at this one way different
to someone else - yada yada ... well, like ... I wouldn't go as far as to call it a tendency for mayhem as I'd call it a disalignment
unto order. Well ... here's the thing: Chaos can mean many things. And ... well, to do right by me and avoid trying to reason it
out - I should just get to the point.
So ... by Chaotic Evil (my way) I mean, that while I much prefer an evil environment with all of its counter intuitive shenanigans,
as my paradise is certainly found therein, I do not support it entirely. As a concept. So, being Chaotic Evil in that sense is the
opposite to Chaotic Good - where Chaotic Good is a tendency within the good away from the rigid norm of the good - thus: Tendency
for mayhem - Chaotic Evil is a tendency within the evil away from its intrinsic mayhem.
I mean - some might classify Chaos as Bad/Evil because Evil as set against Good is all about destruction of all that we might hold
dear. Random, arbitrary, unmeasured ... that sort of thing. To me, there is no argument to say that Mayhem is good actually. Well,
I suppose there's always an exception - but overall, Mayhem is ... inconsiderate. Egotistical. Impulsive beyond reason. And so,
'lawful evil' would be all about ... being "Chaotic Evil" - in the sense of rigid adherence to Mayhem - as for the sake of it.
Conversely would 'lawful good' be all about rigidly adhering ... importantly: Not the opposite, but ... coexistence, harmony -
that sort of thing. Like ... what Druids are all about. Which, sure, requires a high Wisdom stat because the more you know about
all the things that affect the possibilities of harmful coexistence, the better you can therefore (try to) cultivate it.
So, I guess this is a very ... chaos heavy way of looking at the chart. Where classically the chart itself is seen through a very
... order driven lens. So, Chaotic Evil can be described as a tendency towards order ... as the evil itself imposes a chaotic
baseline. So is Chaotic Good a tendency towards disorder, with however an orderly baseline.
The thing there is, that the chaotic alignments have a lot more in common with one another - as the chaos, that is the ambiguation
or corruption or disalignment or however you wanna put it with the respective "Order"/way of things intrinsically aligns with
the chaos of other persuasions.
And sure - too much of anything can then turn out to be ... bad. Like ... someone so lawfully evil that they can't reasonably
exist ... that's just as bad as it gets. Which is to say that any reasonable form of 'lawful evil' does already adhere to some
kind of rule, law or oder - just as any 'lawful good' has to adhere to some kind of chaos and disorder.
While some might think that I'm lawful good by some stretch of the words - I find myself moreso in a disagreement with lawful
evil. Like someone who's chaotic good would be in disagreement with lawful good. Not in a competitive/exclusionary way though.
I mean, my presentation here takes me to a point where I'm excluding lawful evil - as I would, being Chaotic Evil. The thing
being that whether or not I might agree with it ... cannot be as easily captured into words. If we may assume that all squares
on the grid are some form of a higher good - then the true evil cannot be lawful as it'd destroy itself in the process. Which
is then where good and evil are redeemed from morality, in a sense, while being really just greater constants such as existence
and destruction; Which ... may then be further relativized into concepts that better serve our day to day life which is then
where we're back in the grid. At any rate am I assuming then, that lawful good and chaotic evil have a shared interest, such
as lawful evil and chaotic good. And neither is really superior - as all are more about keeping one another in check. Well,
so the idea at least. Well, ...
So, we can flip the chart on its side and put a pyramid on either end. And then we're back at some good, neutral and evil alignment
- though where either one of us is on that scale ... is up to the Cosmos to decide. Sotospeak.
And, as for some substance of controversy - I think the proper term to focus on is 'grit'. An understanding that things can't
always be smooth. More of a "no pain no gain" kind of attitude - one that cannot stand on its own. Like I'm saying: things can't
ALWAYS be smooth - not that they can't be smooth at all.
And with that ... I bid you farewell, for now. Peace and Good Bye!