Yes it does. It's a preference for or against government.
herein lies our difference. However, I don't need to sway you to my beliefs. Please feel free to believe as you do. In my view alignment has nothing to do with government what so ever (despite the awful choice of the prefix LAW in Lawful).
In my view, you can be a lawful character who is not interested in politics what so ever.
Having a preference for something is being interested in it?
I have a preference for spicy foods, I'm not at all interested in cooking, or learning how to cook spicy foods. It's a simple preference between spicy and not spicy. That's Lawful and Chaotic at it's basest state.
A preference for a system of order isn't the same as being interested in politics. Also government is simply a system of order for a group. Not just an entire country, or even a whole state, it can apply to a small community.
Monk Orders have strict laws, they follow a strict daily schedule, that's still a government.
Law has completey nothing to do with the government, and what if the government is chaotic? Would Law be impossible then? I don't need a group to put myself limits.
Besides which, you can be a monk to no order, a paladin of a CG church (Sune's, in paticular) with no tie to an order, or a LG cleric of say, Mystra who has little tie to her temples and religious order. Even if you want to say that an order is a government' (which, really?), you can play a LG character that has no ties to orders and no care for government. Rasaad is out of favor with his order and is acting with no contact with it for most of BG2, and he never shows much of an interest in politics one way or another. He's still very obviously lawful good.
Likewise, Mazzy and Aerie aren't tied to religious orders and don't seem to give much attention to government, yet are still lawful good characters. I don't think 'government' or 'hierarchy' is the only thing that makes someone lawful. Someone can be lawful due to their devotion to a certain ideal, but someone could be chaotic due to their devotion to a certain ideal. There's more to law then that.
A Monk Order is an organization. The rules of their order are their laws.
, and what if the government is chaotic
By definition a government isn't chaotic.
Besides which, you can be a monk to no order,
No you can't. You'd just be someone trying to be a Monk.
a paladin of a CG church (Sune's, in paticular) with no tie to an order,
Which really is flaw of the system. The god can be Chaotic Good but the system still required Paladins to be Lawful Good.
or a LG cleric of say, Mystra who has little tie to her temples and religious order. Even if you want to say that an order is a government' (which, really?),
Government applies to an organization as much as a state.
you can play a LG character that has no ties to orders and no care for government. Rasaad is out of favor with his order and is acting with no contact with it for most of BG2, and he never shows much of an interest in politics one way or another. He's still very obviously lawful good.
Last I check, preference for something doesn't require the person to be tied to a specific example of that something.
Government applies to an organization as much as a state.
No. It does not.
A monk order is *not* a government. Is a church a government? Is a football club a government? Is a book club a government?Is a family a government? Is a pickup basketball team a government? Is the after-school chess club a government? Is this forum a government (we even have leaders who enforce laws)?
If you really say that these are governments because they have a hierarchy and a set of rules, then I don't think you are even trying to have an honest discussion.
A religion still has system of order and rules. Which is practically what a government is.
If I wasn't having an honest discussion I'd do what other people are doing and limit Lawful to "LAWS" because Lawful has the word LAW in it. And not just any LAW but the ones established by a political state. Or use varying degrees of Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid. Or say a Chaotic character who just happens to have the same goals as a government means they're supporting that government.
When nothing in the various source materials say that a Lawful character only equates to a specific type of set of order or laws. It equates to a preference for a system of order and laws. Governments being one of them. But not the only one that Lawful characters will be "tied" to
A religion still has system of order and rules. Which is practically what a government is.
I think "practically" is the key word here, and I don't think that is even accurate. The key difference is that governments are, by definitions, involuntary institutions.
When nothing in the various source materials say that a Lawful character only equates to a specific type of set of order or laws. It equates to a preference for a system of order and laws. Governments being one of them. But not the only one that Lawful characters will be "tied" to
Having a preference for a system of order and laws is not the same as being in favor of government. If you want to get political in this discussion (which I think is a bad idea) then you could even look at famous philisophical anarchists like Noam Chomsky and Murray Rothbard and say that they were in favor of order and principles but certainly not in favor of government(s).
@booinyoureyes@Zyzzogeton has a point. A church is a government! or, at leas was. Separation of church and state is a relatively new principle, considering the length of human civilization, and this is especially relavent in a game with a medieval setting, and a monks order is a religious ordination so yes, a monks order is a governments. A government, for reference is "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government."
I thought you would not return to this thread after stirring up the pot! XD
I enclose this paragraph from the 2E Player's Handbook about law:
"... Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society..."
Based on the above description, we can infer that in the D&D world:
- lawful philosophers believe there is a universal law that exists independently of man-made structures like governments. This universal law is the underpinning of order, organization and society - lawful 'commoners' (for the lack of a better word) believe that laws should be made and followed, which presumably also applies to situations where there appears to be chaos (if we define it as the absence of law) since there is no exclusion clause - law manifests as order, organization and society, which goes beyond the individual, hence law is 'external'. The individual may be a part of the community, but the community exists apart of any specific individual
IMO, not having the source materials as a reference point was the reason why the discussion has gone off tangent. Is this a discussion about alignment as described in D&D (as an approximation of worldview) or how it should be transposed into real life? If we are merely talking about alignment as a game mechanic, taking the game material at face value without further imposing individual interpretations on the framework, law is more likely external rather than internal.
@booinyoureyes@Zyzzogeton has a point. A church is a government! or, at leas was. Separation of church and state is a relatively new principle, considering the length of human civilization, and this is especially relavent in a game with a medieval setting, and a monks order is a religious ordination so yes, a monks order is a governments. A government, for reference is "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government."
Dude, we are now stretching to the *third* definition of a term, and not from Merriam-Webster or Oxford... literally from dictionary.com. C'mon guys... dictionary.com?
If people keep trying to get mired in silly semantics this ceases to be a serious and honest conversation. Nobody in the original discussion was talking about government in terms of religious organizations. When people say governments lets at least be honest about what they mean.
Churches are not governments. Monk orders are definitely not governments. *Some* governments have been run by religious organizations, but that does not make religious organizations governments. Yes some governments were religious, but no never was this sentence true:
Just because something has rules does not mean it is a government. That is literally the flimsiest definition I have ever heard. When I play pickup basketball, we have rules. Is the official rulebook of the NBA now a constitution?
Is the traditional family a government? My dad laid down some rules too, but I never called him Mr. President. Let's try to have an honest discussion instead of hunting down technicalities.
Um, boo, the NBA is a government. It is the governing body of professional basketball, and it does have a constitution, btw.
You don't call you dad Mr. President because he is not a president of anything, not because he has no power.
Also, your example there implies that a president is inherently the only leader a government could have. I don't think you meant that, but it's there and it doesn't really help your argument. Also, if you don't like dictionary.com, or third definitions, for some reason:
I should clarify. All churches are not governments, but they can function as if they are, which is what a monks organization does.
-------------------------------------------------
Aside from that, I think we are overcomplicating things. As @jacobtan said, we are distorting what has been written because we are to far from the source material. The handbook clearly states that lawful means you believe that rules, laws, and regulation are not only necessary and integral to humanity and civilization, but are inherent in the order(or lack thereof, I guess) of the cosmos. It's not this complicated. Lawful means what it sound like. Someone who prefers rules and order. Chaotic prefers minimal law and regulation and order is not as important on his scale of values.
If people keep trying to get mired in silly semantics this ceases to be a serious and honest conversation. Nobody in the original discussion was talking about government in terms of religious organizations. When people say governments lets at least be honest about what they mean.
Except people started limiting how Lawful desiring a system of order to this concept of government. When a political government is not the only system of order. So if you're going to use the term government with the term lawful you use it in it's most broad form because Lawful is a preference for a system of order. Government, a political government, is merely an example of it.
Um, boo, the NBA is a government. It is the governing body of professional basketball, and it does have a constitution, btw.
It is not an government. That is nuts. Give me one example in which any sane person on God's Green Earth refers to the NBA as a government and I will jump off a cliff.
Also, your example there implies that a president is inherently the only leader a government could have. I don't think you meant that, but it's there and it doesn't really help your argument.
I just finished explaining why I don't have the patience for stupid technicalities that turn honest debate into a stupid you know what measuring contest, and then I see this
All As you suggested. I think this actually supports my position a little more than my original definition.
Again, this is completely out of context. There is three pages of discussion in this thread. If you read them again and possibly come and tell me that anybody in the first three pages of this discussion was using the term "government" as it relates to a social club, corporation or religious organization, I will jump off a second cliff. Probably the one next to Candlekeep!
Aside from that, I think we are overcomplicating things. As @jacobtan said, we are distorting what has been written because we are to far from the source material. The handbook clearly states that lawful means you believe that rules, laws, and regulation are not only necessary and integral to humanity and civilization, but are inherent in the order(or lack thereof, I guess) of the cosmos. It's not this complicated. Lawful means what it sound like. Someone who prefers rules and order. Chaotic prefers minimal law and regulation and order is not as important on his scale of values.
Here we agree. As you can see from what jacob shared, "Law" does not reference government.
Consider substituting "government" with "authorities". The authority of any social grouping (e.g. club, company, country) is a subset of its membership that has the power to set rules and make decisions. Setting rules is likened to the establishment of laws. Governments are a special type of authority whose rules have legal power.
Governments are a special type of authority whose rules have legal power.
And I would argue that this is where people of Lawful alignments tend to move away from external structure, which leads to my stance that such people do not necessarily follow legal principles and rules. They can line up, but this is not always the case.
And I would argue that this is where people of Lawful alignments tend to move away from external structure
I have already enclosed relevant passages from the sourcebook regarding law: Quoting myself:
"... Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe..."
Your statement is a blanket statement implying that all people of lawful alignment tend to move away from external structures. What then do external structures represent? What functions do they play? Is there any meaning for their existence? Is this something like communism that says "first you need the structure, then you no longer need the structure as it outlives its purpose?"
Please reconcile your stand to what the sourcebook has clearly stated.
I quote further from the descriptions in the sourcebook regarding alignments:
"Lawful Good - Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
"Lawful Neutral - Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy..."
"Lawful Evil - These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant..."
In none of the descriptions of lawful alignments is there any hint of what you claim, that is the moving away from external structures. All three lawful alignments need external structures to live out their alignments. Please reconcile your stand to what has been furnished.
They can line up, but this is not always the case.
Again, I quote from the descriptions in the sourcebook:
"(From the description on chaos)... Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over his own destiny..."
Comment: If you move away from external structures, you can only look within yourself... the power of the individual
"Neutral Good - ... Social structure itself has no innate value to them..."
"Chaotic Good - ... They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations... Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society..."
Comment: From the text, it should be clear that the rest of society will form the external structure, and rules/laws will be determined by the society which is the amalgamation of many individuals
Your espoused stand fits the description of the non-lawful alignments to a greater degree compared to the lawful alignments. You can try to reconcile that if you are feeling up to some massive contortion
If this is your subjective interpretation of alignment based on your RL worldview (yes, I am aware that many modern governments and societies are in bad shape and have turned people off, so you could be a cynic), and you want to use your definition when you are DM, of course you are free to do so, but it will not be consistent with what the sourcebooks have to say. In an earlier post, I have already stated that imposing individual interpretations on the framework is not going to get anyone anywhere, at least not here on this thread.
Should you wish to discuss how the D&D alignment system ought to be transposed into RL, it should properly belong to another thread. There would be less need to quote evidence from sourcebooks if that is the case. We can then move away from the restrictions that the D&D system imposes on us.
@booinyoureyes, alright. You seem to take great issue with the term government, so I will cease to use is, though I maintain my belief that if an organization can be referred to as a governing body, than it can be called government, as per the definition of the English word. How does "authority" as @jacobtan suggusted, or "ruling body" sound?
As a piece of friendly advice, I think if you toned down the hyperbole (I'm going to jump off a cliff) and judgmental/subjective phrases(stupid, crazy) your argument would be a little more convincing. I don't mean to go all ad holmenim on you, but your present writing style doesn't seem (to me, at least) foster a pleasant or reasonable argument, or as you put it, "honest debate"
I didn't call anyone stupid, and I was quoting Zoolander of all movies. Chill, bro.
The pursuit of an honest debate was lost when people decided that instead of trying to find an answer they would just try to "win the debate" by moving the goalposts when it came to terminology.
An honest debate is when everyone tries to reach a consensus, not salvage their pride and try to find "gotchas".
As far as what jacob shared, what I understand is that many lawful people see a "natural order" of rules. This strikes me as similar to thinkers like Locke who was a proponent of "natural rights" and Hume who believed in a "science of man" as well as people who believe in an objective morality (Kant). They have a "natural law" that guides their actions that has absolutely nothing to do with government, though they all seemed to have preferences for government (the same way that chaotic people do) that mirrored the natural order they believed in.
The same can be said of Daoists who favored "natural sponteneity" and were opposed to most government... yet still favored a life of rules that fostered independence from desire and simplicity. This seems the most clear influence on the Monk Orders of the Forgotten Realms as far as I can see. There are enough cultural references (shaved heads, mountain retreats, rejection of material wealth) in the Baldur's Gate monks to see the connections.
though they all seemed to have preferences for government (the same way that chaotic people do) that mirrored the natural order they believed in.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if both lawful and chaotic have a preference towards government, then how are the different? Btw, very good point with John Locke. Very insightful.
If all monks believed that then they obviously have a system of order. Rejecting most governments doesn't automatically make you chaotic. It simply means the system of order doesn't exist as a government.
Lawful: believes that there is a natural order to the universe, and that's laws and rules are not only important to civilization, but a innate part of creation.
Neutral: believes that we cannot know if laws are inherent to creation, or does not care either way. It is what it is, and whatever. A law/chaos agnostic, if you will. They do not have a preference to the existence of man-made rules and laws, and any way that works works.
Chaotic: believes that there is no order or reason to the universe, no laws or order is inherent to humanity. They favor minimal laws and regulation, preferring to be the individualist, to make their way on their own, and may simply not follow any rules they oppose.
If all monks believed that then they obviously have a system of order. Rejecting most governments doesn't automatically make you chaotic. It simply means the system of order doesn't exist as a government.
I didn't say the rejected most governmentS, but that they rejected most *government* (no S). Not specific governments, but governance in general.
For example, Lao Tzu: "The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers there will be." "A government can be compared to our lungs. Our lungs are best when we don't realize they are helping us breathe. It is when we are constantly aware of our lungs that we know they have come down with an illness."
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if both lawful and chaotic have a preference towards government, then how are the different?
The same way that the governments of North Korea and the United States are very different.
@booinyoureyes could you elaborate? These governments are wildly different, and I'm not sure to which differences you're referring.
What I mean is similar to what @the_spyder was saying. Some governments are chaotic others are lawful
Most modern "successful" governments make room for individuality and liberty, whereas more backward regimes like the one in North Korea do the opposite. A person doesn't need to be a chaotic or an anarchist to have a preference.
And again, chaotic and lawful people are likely to have a preference toward a type or level of government, but this doesn't make this preference the defining quality on the lawful-chaotic scale.
Comments
In my view, you can be a lawful character who is not interested in politics what so ever.
I really don't see Rasaad teaching Civics to young Sun Soul monks in training.
I have a preference for spicy foods, I'm not at all interested in cooking, or learning how to cook spicy foods. It's a simple preference between spicy and not spicy. That's Lawful and Chaotic at it's basest state.
A preference for a system of order isn't the same as being interested in politics. Also government is simply a system of order for a group. Not just an entire country, or even a whole state, it can apply to a small community.
Monk Orders have strict laws, they follow a strict daily schedule, that's still a government.
Likewise, Mazzy and Aerie aren't tied to religious orders and don't seem to give much attention to government, yet are still lawful good characters. I don't think 'government' or 'hierarchy' is the only thing that makes someone lawful. Someone can be lawful due to their devotion to a certain ideal, but someone could be chaotic due to their devotion to a certain ideal. There's more to law then that.
Specifically the sixth definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law?
A Monk Order is an organization. The rules of their order are their laws. By definition a government isn't chaotic. No you can't. You'd just be someone trying to be a Monk.
a paladin of a CG church (Sune's, in paticular) with no tie to an order,
Which really is flaw of the system. The god can be Chaotic Good but the system still required Paladins to be Lawful Good.
or a LG cleric of say, Mystra who has little tie to her temples and religious order. Even if you want to say that an order is a government' (which, really?),
Government applies to an organization as much as a state. Last I check, preference for something doesn't require the person to be tied to a specific example of that something.
Really man? Now you are just stretching. Your own definition describes a *political* unit or organization. No. It does not.
A monk order is *not* a government. Is a church a government? Is a football club a government? Is a book club a government?Is a family a government? Is a pickup basketball team a government? Is the after-school chess club a government? Is this forum a government (we even have leaders who enforce laws)?
If you really say that these are governments because they have a hierarchy and a set of rules, then I don't think you are even trying to have an honest discussion.
If I wasn't having an honest discussion I'd do what other people are doing and limit Lawful to "LAWS" because Lawful has the word LAW in it. And not just any LAW but the ones established by a political state. Or use varying degrees of Lawful Stupid or Chaotic Stupid. Or say a Chaotic character who just happens to have the same goals as a government means they're supporting that government.
When nothing in the various source materials say that a Lawful character only equates to a specific type of set of order or laws. It equates to a preference for a system of order and laws. Governments being one of them. But not the only one that Lawful characters will be "tied" to
A government, for reference is "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government
I thought you would not return to this thread after stirring up the pot! XD
I enclose this paragraph from the 2E Player's Handbook about law:
"... Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society..."
Based on the above description, we can infer that in the D&D world:
- lawful philosophers believe there is a universal law that exists independently of man-made structures like governments. This universal law is the underpinning of order, organization and society
- lawful 'commoners' (for the lack of a better word) believe that laws should be made and followed, which presumably also applies to situations where there appears to be chaos (if we define it as the absence of law) since there is no exclusion clause
- law manifests as order, organization and society, which goes beyond the individual, hence law is 'external'. The individual may be a part of the community, but the community exists apart of any specific individual
IMO, not having the source materials as a reference point was the reason why the discussion has gone off tangent. Is this a discussion about alignment as described in D&D (as an approximation of worldview) or how it should be transposed into real life? If we are merely talking about alignment as a game mechanic, taking the game material at face value without further imposing individual interpretations on the framework, law is more likely external rather than internal.
If people keep trying to get mired in silly semantics this ceases to be a serious and honest conversation. Nobody in the original discussion was talking about government in terms of religious organizations. When people say governments lets at least be honest about what they mean.
Churches are not governments. Monk orders are definitely not governments. *Some* governments have been run by religious organizations, but that does not make religious organizations governments. Yes some governments were religious, but no never was this sentence true: Just because something has rules does not mean it is a government. That is literally the flimsiest definition I have ever heard. When I play pickup basketball, we have rules. Is the official rulebook of the NBA now a constitution?
Is the traditional family a government? My dad laid down some rules too, but I never called him Mr. President. Let's try to have an honest discussion instead of hunting down technicalities.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
You don't call you dad Mr. President because he is not a president of anything, not because he has no power.
Also, your example there implies that a president is inherently the only leader a government could have. I don't think you meant that, but it's there and it doesn't really help your argument. Also, if you don't like dictionary.com, or third definitions, for some reason:
Merriam-webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government
First definition: "the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc."
Oxford
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/government
First definition: "[TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The governing body of a nation, state, or community:"
All As you suggested. I think this actually supports my position a little more than my original definition.
----------------------------------------------------
I should clarify. All churches are not governments, but they can function as if they are, which is what a monks organization does.
-------------------------------------------------
Aside from that, I think we are overcomplicating things. As @jacobtan said, we are distorting what has been written because we are to far from the source material. The handbook clearly states that lawful means you believe that rules, laws, and regulation are not only necessary and integral to humanity and civilization, but are inherent in the order(or lack thereof, I guess) of the cosmos. It's not this complicated. Lawful means what it sound like. Someone who prefers rules and order. Chaotic prefers minimal law and regulation and order is not as important on his scale of values.
Again, this is completely out of context. There is three pages of discussion in this thread. If you read them again and possibly come and tell me that anybody in the first three pages of this discussion was using the term "government" as it relates to a social club, corporation or religious organization, I will jump off a second cliff. Probably the one next to Candlekeep! Here we agree. As you can see from what jacob shared, "Law" does not reference government.
Consider substituting "government" with "authorities". The authority of any social grouping (e.g. club, company, country) is a subset of its membership that has the power to set rules and make decisions. Setting rules is likened to the establishment of laws. Governments are a special type of authority whose rules have legal power.
"... Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe..."
Your statement is a blanket statement implying that all people of lawful alignment tend to move away from external structures. What then do external structures represent? What functions do they play? Is there any meaning for their existence? Is this something like communism that says "first you need the structure, then you no longer need the structure as it outlives its purpose?"
Please reconcile your stand to what the sourcebook has clearly stated.
I quote further from the descriptions in the sourcebook regarding alignments:
"Lawful Good - Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
"Lawful Neutral - Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy..."
"Lawful Evil - These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant..."
In none of the descriptions of lawful alignments is there any hint of what you claim, that is the moving away from external structures. All three lawful alignments need external structures to live out their alignments. Please reconcile your stand to what has been furnished. Again, I quote from the descriptions in the sourcebook:
"(From the description on chaos)... Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over his own destiny..."
Comment: If you move away from external structures, you can only look within yourself... the power of the individual
"Neutral Good - ... Social structure itself has no innate value to them..."
"Chaotic Good - ... They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations... Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society..."
Comment: From the text, it should be clear that the rest of society will form the external structure, and rules/laws will be determined by the society which is the amalgamation of many individuals
Your espoused stand fits the description of the non-lawful alignments to a greater degree compared to the lawful alignments. You can try to reconcile that if you are feeling up to some massive contortion
If this is your subjective interpretation of alignment based on your RL worldview (yes, I am aware that many modern governments and societies are in bad shape and have turned people off, so you could be a cynic), and you want to use your definition when you are DM, of course you are free to do so, but it will not be consistent with what the sourcebooks have to say. In an earlier post, I have already stated that imposing individual interpretations on the framework is not going to get anyone anywhere, at least not here on this thread.
Should you wish to discuss how the D&D alignment system ought to be transposed into RL, it should properly belong to another thread. There would be less need to quote evidence from sourcebooks if that is the case. We can then move away from the restrictions that the D&D system imposes on us.
How does "authority" as @jacobtan suggusted, or "ruling body" sound?
As a piece of friendly advice, I think if you toned down the hyperbole (I'm going to jump off a cliff) and judgmental/subjective phrases(stupid, crazy) your argument would be a little more convincing. I don't mean to go all ad holmenim on you, but your present writing style doesn't seem (to me, at least) foster a pleasant or reasonable argument, or as you put it, "honest debate"
The pursuit of an honest debate was lost when people decided that instead of trying to find an answer they would just try to "win the debate" by moving the goalposts when it came to terminology.
An honest debate is when everyone tries to reach a consensus, not salvage their pride and try to find "gotchas".
The same can be said of Daoists who favored "natural sponteneity" and were opposed to most government... yet still favored a life of rules that fostered independence from desire and simplicity. This seems the most clear influence on the Monk Orders of the Forgotten Realms as far as I can see. There are enough cultural references (shaved heads, mountain retreats, rejection of material wealth) in the Baldur's Gate monks to see the connections.
Lawful: believes that there is a natural order to the universe, and that's laws and rules are not only important to civilization, but a innate part of creation.
Neutral: believes that we cannot know if laws are inherent to creation, or does not care either way. It is what it is, and whatever. A law/chaos agnostic, if you will. They do not have a preference to the existence of man-made rules and laws, and any way that works works.
Chaotic: believes that there is no order or reason to the universe, no laws or order is inherent to humanity. They favor minimal laws and regulation, preferring to be the individualist, to make their way on their own, and may simply not follow any rules they oppose.
For example, Lao Tzu:
"The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers there will be."
"A government can be compared to our lungs. Our lungs are best when we don't realize they are helping us breathe. It is when we are constantly aware of our lungs that we know they have come down with an illness."
Most modern "successful" governments make room for individuality and liberty, whereas more backward regimes like the one in North Korea do the opposite. A person doesn't need to be a chaotic or an anarchist to have a preference.
And again, chaotic and lawful people are likely to have a preference toward a type or level of government, but this doesn't make this preference the defining quality on the lawful-chaotic scale.