chaotic good in my opinion is someone who wants to help but is either too stupid or too weak willed to do it peacefully that or someone who wants to do good and get into a few fights.
@Heindrich1988, I marvel at your political and moral insight. If you're not already considering or training for a career in politics, communications, or journalism, you should.
Sadly, in reality, a career in politics has little to do with political theory and ideology and everything to do playing the game of politics. In China I do not have the necessary 'guanxi' (relationships/influence), in the UK I am not representative enough of the general populace to win any elections.
I actually have quite an aversion to journalism... forgive me for my upcoming rant on a subject I feel quite passionately about...
It is my belief that 'journalism', i.e. the provision of information to the public, has always been a means of serving the interests of various groups and individuals sponsoring the media platform in question, and rarely about actually delivering objective and accurate information. In China the media is blatantly censored and used as a means of government control. Ironically this means nobody actually believes what they see in the news, even when the information is actually truthful.
In the West, the media maybe largely 'free' from governmental manipulation, but that does not mean it is 'fair'. There is a culture of trying to tell a story in the most shocking and sensational way possible (incentivised by commerical interest), at the expense of accuracy and objectivity. This results in inherent bias, because in order to tell a good story, you always need a compelling narrative, which creates systematic error in mainstream journalism, even if it is free.
I once watched a very interesting BBC documentary about a hugely respected British journalist, John Simpson, who has covered major global affairs for decades. The documentary was billed as an insightful look into the preparations, techniques and daily life of the veteran journalist. It was in no ways meant to be critical. However in it John demonstrates 'professional practises', which nobody considered questionable in the slightest, that I personally think is wrong. Before he conducts an interview, John conducts preparatory research to form a pre-existing opinion and then devises a line of questioning in order to reinforce the story he already plans to tell.
For example, before he interviewed an Afghan police chief, he was already convinced that the war was not going well and that the Taliban were resurgent. Thus his questioning aimed to poke holes at the official line given by the Afghan authorities, and his commentary/analysis strongly implies that the official is lying and covering up the truth. In this case, John Simpson might have been correct, the Afghan official probably was glossing over setbacks in the war effort and playing up tactical victories. However I feel the role of a truly 'free and fair' media platform should be simply to provide information, maybe with a little factual analysis, but certainly not go out to 'look for stories to tell' and then look for evidence to back up that story.
A similar issue arose with the Tibetan Riots of 2008, in which the Free Tibet movement became something of a populist bandwagon everyone jumped on. A mainstream view quickly formed in the western media where facts became irrelevant and ignored, as media outlets competed to tell a sensational David and Goliath story about the "peaceful, wise and kind Tibetans bravely resisting Chinese oppression in their quest for freedom". Of course most credible news media made an attempt at providing both sides of the story, but almost always in a way that reinforced the main plot. Public opinion is not formed in small print and academic studies, but big bold headlines, memorable images and by the power of implication.
@Heindrich1988 - I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head for the early-mid 20 crowd right there. Non-conformist is simply the new standard for conformity. After saying that though, I need to go take a long shower as I now reek of hipster.
I think Neutral Good is the purist of all the goods though. Don't get me wrong, I believe an ordered society is good, but law is a repression of the people for the greater good which I think is a necessary evil otherwise you have anarchy which would never work. Unfortunately law is largely based on precedence and has very few ways to accept exceptions precedence when they are sometimes necessary or become outdated. I think we still need it as a good law tends to be generally right, but we need to be able to detach ourselves from a norm and as individuals (chaotically) perceive a law and be able to, at any time, deconstruct a system of law once it begins to prove it can no longer uphold a system beneficial for the greater good. Note I say deconstruct rather than destroy, I'd like to think that a large part of the world has transcended past the part where we need to needlessly kill each other to fix a system of law which is no longer working.
Chaotic Good, seeing as I burglarize the very people I help while in their homes and don't feel a particular need to follow laws and rules to do what I think is right.
I've never understood Neutral Good the way it's explained in any of the games, but I assume that doesn't fit me.
Chaotic Good, seeing as I burglarize the very people I help while in their homes and don't feel a particular need to follow laws and rules to do what I think is right.
I've never understood Neutral Good the way it's explained in any of the games, but I assume that doesn't fit me.
Stealing from people that trust you isn't chaotic good, it's chaotic neutral at best.
I'm problem more neutral good than chaotic good, because I generally try not to provoke people, and stay impartial, though I do consider myself chaotic good because I care little for rules or authority, and have no issues with manipulating the system, for good. I also don't mind profiting from my good deeds. Ido the ends justify the means? It's a grey area.
Hard to really define about 4 of my characters are good aligned LG Paladin Undead Hunter NG Elf Ranger Archer CG Ranger Beastmaster and Thief Swashbuckler
No matter what i play, i am usually honorbound, and have a personal discipline, even when playing an evil character. Thus, i would be Lawful, or Neutral(if i play a Berserker or something equivalent that forbids Lawful).
I usually play CG, but honestly good characters I tend to play as fairly close to my own views (unless I have a strong RP character in mind), so NG is closer to what I actually ought to pick.
...I will refrain from elaborating on my political views.
I like Chaotic Good because it lets you be good without having to always play by the rules. You follow your own personal code and you can constantly reexamine that code. You do what's right without being fettered by obligation.
Comments
LG for BG
Thanks, you are too generous
Sadly, in reality, a career in politics has little to do with political theory and ideology and everything to do playing the game of politics. In China I do not have the necessary 'guanxi' (relationships/influence), in the UK I am not representative enough of the general populace to win any elections.
I actually have quite an aversion to journalism... forgive me for my upcoming rant on a subject I feel quite passionately about...
It is my belief that 'journalism', i.e. the provision of information to the public, has always been a means of serving the interests of various groups and individuals sponsoring the media platform in question, and rarely about actually delivering objective and accurate information. In China the media is blatantly censored and used as a means of government control. Ironically this means nobody actually believes what they see in the news, even when the information is actually truthful.
In the West, the media maybe largely 'free' from governmental manipulation, but that does not mean it is 'fair'. There is a culture of trying to tell a story in the most shocking and sensational way possible (incentivised by commerical interest), at the expense of accuracy and objectivity. This results in inherent bias, because in order to tell a good story, you always need a compelling narrative, which creates systematic error in mainstream journalism, even if it is free.
I once watched a very interesting BBC documentary about a hugely respected British journalist, John Simpson, who has covered major global affairs for decades. The documentary was billed as an insightful look into the preparations, techniques and daily life of the veteran journalist. It was in no ways meant to be critical. However in it John demonstrates 'professional practises', which nobody considered questionable in the slightest, that I personally think is wrong. Before he conducts an interview, John conducts preparatory research to form a pre-existing opinion and then devises a line of questioning in order to reinforce the story he already plans to tell.
For example, before he interviewed an Afghan police chief, he was already convinced that the war was not going well and that the Taliban were resurgent. Thus his questioning aimed to poke holes at the official line given by the Afghan authorities, and his commentary/analysis strongly implies that the official is lying and covering up the truth. In this case, John Simpson might have been correct, the Afghan official probably was glossing over setbacks in the war effort and playing up tactical victories. However I feel the role of a truly 'free and fair' media platform should be simply to provide information, maybe with a little factual analysis, but certainly not go out to 'look for stories to tell' and then look for evidence to back up that story.
A similar issue arose with the Tibetan Riots of 2008, in which the Free Tibet movement became something of a populist bandwagon everyone jumped on. A mainstream view quickly formed in the western media where facts became irrelevant and ignored, as media outlets competed to tell a sensational David and Goliath story about the "peaceful, wise and kind Tibetans bravely resisting Chinese oppression in their quest for freedom". Of course most credible news media made an attempt at providing both sides of the story, but almost always in a way that reinforced the main plot. Public opinion is not formed in small print and academic studies, but big bold headlines, memorable images and by the power of implication.
I think Neutral Good is the purist of all the goods though. Don't get me wrong, I believe an ordered society is good, but law is a repression of the people for the greater good which I think is a necessary evil otherwise you have anarchy which would never work. Unfortunately law is largely based on precedence and has very few ways to accept exceptions precedence when they are sometimes necessary or become outdated. I think we still need it as a good law tends to be generally right, but we need to be able to detach ourselves from a norm and as individuals (chaotically) perceive a law and be able to, at any time, deconstruct a system of law once it begins to prove it can no longer uphold a system beneficial for the greater good. Note I say deconstruct rather than destroy, I'd like to think that a large part of the world has transcended past the part where we need to needlessly kill each other to fix a system of law which is no longer working.
Chaos =/= Destruction
I've never understood Neutral Good the way it's explained in any of the games, but I assume that doesn't fit me.
Ido the ends justify the means?
It's a grey area.
LG Paladin Undead Hunter
NG Elf Ranger Archer
CG Ranger Beastmaster and Thief Swashbuckler
I chose LG with LN tendencies.
...I will refrain from elaborating on my political views.