D&D Alignment test, what's your affinity?

"

A3Phantom schrieb:

Neutral Evil to Chaotic Neutral.
Thx for the fun, got bored as hell atm :D

Out of curiosity, what's the worst you've ever screwed somebody over on PoE in a trade? Judging by your affinity spread, you shouldn't have any qualms about doing it.

Anyway, this was years ago, back when Eternal Orbs still dropped. I was selling a bunch of junk uniques, and this player messaged me. I think it was a Geofri's Baptism? I asked for 1c. The guy was like "what's that"? Complete noob. 1 chaos orb. He was like uh, I don't have one. So I was like just post what orbs you've collected so far. One of the orbs he posted was a freaking Eternal Orb, and I was like I'll take that. Geofri's Baptism for Eternal Orb, lolololololol #REKT. Every once of evil affinity in me screams with excitement.

"

MrSmiley21 schrieb:

Out of curiosity, what's the worst you've ever screwed somebody over on PoE in a trade? Judging by your affinity spread, you shouldn't have any qualms about doing it.

Well I don't remember, really. Maybe that Kaom's Primacy I sold for like 3 exalts back at the start of open beta.

But I never lie or scam people intentionally. I will buy your loot without hesitation if you selling it underpriced, I will ask you for a way too much currency for this unique strongbox I just found if you are ready to pay it, but I will not try to deceive you about prices or game mechanics if you ask me directly. Once I gave my party member his exalt that he missed amongst other loot.

It's a pragmatic decision: you don't want to scam people you may as well trade or play with in future, you don't want them to ignore you because of couple of chaos orbs or so. You don't want to scam noobs coz new players are essential for any game, you want them to be fair and trustworthy to get some benefits from them.

I do flip currency tho :D
Sometimes.

"

MrSmiley21 schrieb:

Geofri's Baptism for Eternal Orb, lolololololol #REKT. Every once of evil affinity in me screams with excitement.

Put a smile on my face :D

"

MrSmiley21 schrieb:

"

ScrotieMcB schrieb:

Interesting that I'm the only one who's identified Lawful so far this thread. Especially since I believe both US political party establishments are thoroughly corruptted by special interests.

You think the system is corrupt, but you probably seek change through this corrupt system anyway. Maybe because you don't see a better alternative? Correct me if I'm wrong here. But if this is correct, that's still within the realm of being Lawful.

Hmm. Here's an analogy...

Weapons have a purpose: to injure and kill people effectively. They have no other direct purpose; everything else is indirect. As such, the naive might promote a society without weapons, shaping a culture where weapon ownership and carriage are discouraged. But the malicious care not about this taboo on weapons, and will use them anyway, overpowering those too principled to use weapons. Thus, to protect against the malicious, the just should not allow themselves to be technologically outmatched; they should carry arms in self-defense.

Similarly, I view laws and the enforcement thereof to have a single purpose: to compel people to act against their own will, to subdue and enslave. They have no other direct purpose; everything else is indirect. As such, the naive might promote anarchy, shaping a culture where the formation of laws and the enforcement thereof are both discouraged. But the malicious care not about this taboo on governments, and will use them anyway, conscripting slaves into armies to first conquer and then enslave the just. Thus, to protect against the malicious, the just should not allow themselves to be technologically outmatched; they should form governments in self-defense.

With both, I believe the best policy is deterrence, not active use. To me, the sword of justice remains within easy reach, but sheathed and unstained by blood; it achieves peace through threat alone, a threat directed at those who would initiate use of the sword on others. In the same way, the best government is one that acts rarely, but is felt ominously by those who would consider the enslavement of others.

Because I view government as not just currently harmful, but inherently so, I've never really considered myself to be the "Lawful" type. But on second thought, perhaps I am exceptionally Lawful: I have stared into the essence of what the law is, without blinders or excuses, and still found justification for its usage. I can drink it black, no sugar.

"

ScrotieMcB schrieb:

Similarly, I view laws and the enforcement thereof to have a single purpose: to compel people to act against their own will, to subdue and enslave. They have no other direct purpose; everything else is indirect. As such, the naive might promote anarchy, shaping a culture where the formation of laws and the enforcement thereof are both discouraged. But the malicious care not about this taboo on governments, and will use them anyway, conscripting slaves into armies to first conquer and then enslave the just. Thus, to protect against the malicious, the just should not allow themselves to be technologically outmatched; they should form governments in self-defense.

Interesting, you're saying here that the malicious band together naturally but the just require laws and regulations to keep them together? Can't say I haven't noticed it myself, it's probably the nature of alliance, the first group tends to form for immediate gain while the needs of second group are long term.

Scrotie, what annoys me about governments and systems is the people overusing the pen to push legislation and agendas. It's like they feel like it's their duty to continue the process of signing more and more garbage into laws, rules and orders. Fast track 100 or 200 years later, and eventually you got something that's so bloated, and inefficient that it's not even serving it's original purpose.

So my approach to a "system" would be a baseline of freedoms that are set-in-stone, that cannot be amended. Put in extremely plain, easy to understand English. So there is no open ended interpretation. This won't be a system that requires lawyers just so average people can defend themselves. The average guy on the street who's literate is capable of interpreting it with no confusion.

Everything else is decided on the local level. Even laws. I want the system segmented into as many pieces as possible. I'll live with the cons of a segmented, decentralized system. Things are more efficiently done on a local level. In one area you might have a farming community, and another area is an industrial center. The needs of those 2 communities could be distinctly different, so the way their local governments function could be as well. Decisions aren't decided by assholes surrounded by marble using pens.

"

raics schrieb:

"

ScrotieMcB schrieb:

Similarly, I view laws and the enforcement thereof to have a single purpose: to compel people to act against their own will, to subdue and enslave. They have no other direct purpose; everything else is indirect. As such, the naive might promote anarchy, shaping a culture where the formation of laws and the enforcement thereof are both discouraged. But the malicious care not about this taboo on governments, and will use them anyway, conscripting slaves into armies to first conquer and then enslave the just. Thus, to protect against the malicious, the just should not allow themselves to be technologically outmatched; they should form governments in self-defense.

Interesting, you're saying here that the malicious band together naturally but the just require laws and regulations to keep them together? Can't say I haven't noticed it myself, it's probably the nature of alliance, the first group tends to form for immediate gain while the needs of second group are long term.

Not quite. Imagine two groups: one entirely of peaceful people honor-bound to the ancap's beloved non-aggression principle, and one not. Assuming a moderate distance separating these groups, the first will tend towards peaceful free trade, while the other will develop government first - some strongman will declare himself chieftain, assemble a group of thugs for enforcement, and essentially make serfs of everyone else. This chieftain will make the first laws (per his whims) and the first army to enforce them. Eventually, when the two groups meet, the clash will be: individuals practiced in trade and workmanship, versus an army practiced at violence. It is a foregone conclusion: the brutes win, and seize some additional technology in the process.

Everything noble about us as humans is advanced by the lack of government, free trade, free speech, liberty, reason, and the lack of violence. But one cannot reason with a human given over completely to the demon of violence, there are no words, no arguments that will soothe and no offering of material goods nor of knowledge that will appease. Force must be fought with force, animal with animal. The only alternative is surrender, enslavement, death.

"

MrSmiley21 schrieb:

Scrotie, what annoys me about governments and systems is the people overusing the pen to push legislation and agendas. It's like they feel like it's their duty to continue the process of signing more and more garbage into laws, rules and orders. Fast track 100 or 200 years later, and eventually you got something that's so bloated, and inefficient that it's not even serving it's original purpose.

So my approach to a "system" would be a baseline of freedoms that are set-in-stone, that cannot be amended. Put in extremely plain, easy to understand English. So there is no open ended interpretation. This won't be a system that requires lawyers just so average people can defend themselves. The average guy on the street who's literate is capable of interpreting it with no confusion.

Everything else is decided on the local level. Even laws. I want the system segmented into as many pieces as possible. I'll live with the cons of a segmented, decentralized system. Things are more efficiently done on a local level. In one area you might have a farming community, and another area is an industrial center. The needs of those 2 communities could be distinctly different, so the way their local governments function could be as well. Decisions aren't decided by assholes surrounded by marble using pens.

Wouldn't it be nice if malicious hackers would simply stop making new malware. If they would just stop innovating new exploits, then we wouldn't need to continuously update our security programs; one well-written set of detection algorithms and BAM! hacking solved forever. Unfortunately, the malicious care not about this, and are continuously finding new and innovative ways to subvert defenses. In this way, the ideal of "constitution without legislation" is folly. There is no way that even the most brilliant legal mind could anticipate the enslavement techniques of the warlord of the next decade, much less the next century. Law requires continuous updating.

The problem there, as you've undoubtedly noticed, is that the corrupt are likely to use legislation itself as a means of enslavement. Democracy is needed to fight this. An effective free press is needed for democracy to work. Propaganda is a weak point in the system.

I am a fan of local governance to an extent, but mostly due to the current climate of hyper-federalism. Ultimately the government needs to be strong enough to overpower a powerful entity - say, a malicious multinational corporation - which seeks to use force and fraud on the people. The more centralized the government, the greater the risk an entire portion is corrupted by this entity; the more decentralized, the more difficult it is for the smaller elements to form an effective coalition against this large foe, so they may act as one. I believe both extremes are poor strategy.

I never said anything about Democracy. I don't think every idiot should have the right to vote. Voting rights should be earned, IMO.

But if the power is decentralized, and localized, corruption by default will be decentralized, and localized. It would be easier to isolate and remove.

"

MrSmiley21 schrieb:

I never said anything about Democracy. I don't think every idiot should have the right to vote.

But if the power is decentralized, and localized, corruption by default will be decentralized, and localized. It would be easier to isolate and remove.

While I agree idiots voting doesn't help, allowing government to set the standards for idiocy is a disaster.

If by "corruption" you mean government subverted by a malicious entity, then yes. But the malicious entity itself may exist independently of such government, and be of virtually any size.

Sorry, but I have a "other" alignment. There are more alignments than the ones that society says there are, there are thousands of alignments, maybe even millions. And quite frankly, I am offended by a post this bigoted that only offers these limited choices of alignments.