I was reading another thread and was reminded of my gaming days, many moons ago. Yes, I played Dungeons and Dragons. No, I did not dress in costume nor play in engineering tunnels under college campuses, etc.
In the course of that game, however, one thing was useful for determining how you acted and how others could be expected to act, and that one thing was called "alignment". There were nine possibilities from which you could choose,
as explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
This excerpt, I thought was particularly relevant:
Let's consider Good v. Evil first:
In the course of that game, however, one thing was useful for determining how you acted and how others could be expected to act, and that one thing was called "alignment". There were nine possibilities from which you could choose,
Code:
[U]________Lawful Neutral Chaotic .[/U]
Good ___|_____|_______|______|
Neutral _|_____|_______|______|
Evil ____|_____|_______|______|as explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
This excerpt, I thought was particularly relevant:
Let's consider Good v. Evil first:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
It is into this category I would place the majority of this group.
Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
It is here that I would put the "wolves" from LtCol Grossman's excellent article. I would also place the "gun grabbers" here, mostly because of the "duty to some malevolent ... master" line.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Sheep, in other words.
Now, let's consider law v. chaos:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Sheep, in other words.
Now, let's consider law v. chaos:
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as
they should.
they should.
To be "lawful" is a positive trait, normally, but it can be used against people. It is for this reason that I normally use "peaceable" rather than "law-abiding" when describing those who purchase guns in gun stores and would use them only defensively. The real-world "downside" of lawfulness, however, would describe those who, given an order to confiscate all civilian- and non-LEO-owned firearms would do so because it's what they were ordered to do. This term would also describe those who would turn in their firearms and would even inform upon their neighbors who did not do so.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Chaotic is normally a term we use to describe someone whom we cannot pigeonhole into a particular pattern, perhaps even an "urban commando"-type, camo-wearin' gun-totin' militia-type... all of which terms I use with tongue planted firmly in cheek. This is the term I would use for many of us here, because we cherish and love our freedom and wish to protect it from those who would abolish it in the name of "law and order".
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Chaotic is normally a term we use to describe someone whom we cannot pigeonhole into a particular pattern, perhaps even an "urban commando"-type, camo-wearin' gun-totin' militia-type... all of which terms I use with tongue planted firmly in cheek. This is the term I would use for many of us here, because we cherish and love our freedom and wish to protect it from those who would abolish it in the name of "law and order".
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Some of our INGO members fall into this group, in that they respect authority to a point, but are willing to defy it as well, as long as the stakes aren't too high.
So what does this all mean? I'm not sure. The idea struck me as I was reading a post on here, describing how our freedoms are being impinged upon by gun grabbers in the name of "law and order"- they cherish order above freedom, insisting that all must fall into line and obey or society as a whole falls apart. I agree that some order and some law are necessary, but I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn to define "too much". Clearly, having Congress define how much water your toilet is allowed to use per flush is an excess. Clearly, punishing a murderer or child molester is not. The lines blur as the examples come closer together, however.
The point? I'm curious. I've already said where I think the majority of this group falls. I want to know into which of the nine choices you place yourself.
Feel free to comment as to why you chose what you did.
Blessings,
B
Some of our INGO members fall into this group, in that they respect authority to a point, but are willing to defy it as well, as long as the stakes aren't too high.
So what does this all mean? I'm not sure. The idea struck me as I was reading a post on here, describing how our freedoms are being impinged upon by gun grabbers in the name of "law and order"- they cherish order above freedom, insisting that all must fall into line and obey or society as a whole falls apart. I agree that some order and some law are necessary, but I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn to define "too much". Clearly, having Congress define how much water your toilet is allowed to use per flush is an excess. Clearly, punishing a murderer or child molester is not. The lines blur as the examples come closer together, however.
The point? I'm curious. I've already said where I think the majority of this group falls. I want to know into which of the nine choices you place yourself.
Feel free to comment as to why you chose what you did.
Blessings,
B
I'm slowly moving away from that lawfulness.
