Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment, prove me wrong.

>>51905449
Neutral is the best alignment.

File: stirner.png (563KB, 773x960px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 773x960px

Don't start us down this path, OP.

File: ancap train.jpg (85KB, 800x487px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x487px

>>51905576
What alignment is this?

>>51905608
Lawful dumb

File: image.png (293KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 640x360px

>>51905449
"CN" I'm on to you Demonspawn.

>>51905449
It's misunderstood too often by stupid shits, more than perhaps any other alignment. "Random" behavior, soulless characters who act Evil being brought into non-Evil games, or those same characters just trying to assume moral high ground in games that do have Evil members. So while this isn't directly the alignment's fault, it has a higher proportion of shitty players and if you had to take in a player knowing only the alignment of their character, you would have the worst odds of a good time if you picked a Chaotic Neutral one.

File: image.png (348KB, 975x520px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 975x520px

>>51905627
>Ancap
>Literally means Anarco-Capitalist
>Lawful

>>51905608
But if ANY of those five are napping themselves, you'll have violated that nap anyway, and more than one of them could be napping making it worse. It's not worth the risk.

Being a parasite who doesn't care when others suffer is Evil, not Chaotic Neutral. The majority of people are Neutral, and the majority of people feel fucking empathy unlike you.

>>51905875
>Ambivalence is Evil in D&D

Its not.

File: 1454902572036.jpg (221KB, 500x636px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 500x636px

>>51905694
>being this literal with alignment names
This is why so many people hate alignments

>>51905997
Being willing to put yourself out there to stop suffering is Good, caring but being unwilling to risk yourself to stop suffering is Neutral, and being a sociopath who doesn't care about the suffering of others is Evil. Not every Evil is a full-blown anti-paladin.

>>51906049
That can be the case in your IRL philosophy, but in D&D altruism is Good, ambivalence/indifference/non-action is Neutral and malevolence is Evil.

>>51905449
CN for players is just a way to be chaotic evil without suffering the consequences of being chaotic evil. You are practically a noncommittal douche bag who is too afraid to go all the way because you are afraid of paladins.

>>51905875
I just wanted to post a cute train comic :(

>>51906079
>t. Butthurt Paladin

File: IMG_0417.jpg (48KB, 780x466px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 780x466px

Who wouldn't pull the lever in this situation?

File: >plebs.png (271KB, 1914x828px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1914x828px

Lawful Evil

>>51906075
How is Law and Chaos explained?

>>51906166
In contradictory fashions. Really the entire alignment system is poorly explained and varies depending on source and edition,

Read this for an indepth look at Alignments and how they work in D&D [or more accurately, the various options for how they can work for your table]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#Law_and_Chaos:_Your_Rules_or_Mine.3F

>>51906116
> EMIYA.jpg

>>51906253
Fuck, meant for >>51906137

>>51905608
Violating the NAP -can- be justified in a case like this according to anarcho-capitalism if you want to get serious.

It makes for poor memes though.

File: SETO_KAIBA.png (433KB, 539x1023px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 539x1023px

What's his alignment?

>>51906359
He's Neutral Evil in the first episode.

He goes up the alignment ladder as the show goes on. He doesn't go above True Neutral though.

>>51906359
Neutral Evil.

>>51906359
Chaotic Billow.

>Chatoic Neutral: Fuck you, I do what I want
>Chatoic Evil: Fuck you, I do what I want
>Neutral Evil: Fuck you, I do what I want
Explain to me how these three alignments aren't interchangeable.

>>51907045
>chaotic neutral: Fuck you I do what I want, unless I don't find it morally reprehensible on a personal level
It was called the "free spirit" alignment, not the "I roll dice to decide if I'm going to eat porridge or infants" alignment.
>Chaotic evil: Fuck you I do what I want, unless its going to get me killed, arrested, or put in an otherwise dangerous situation I can't handle
Placing your own wants, needs, and impulses above the laws and moralities of others does not require being an idiot.
>Neutral evil: Fuck you, I do what I want if I can get away with it. Society is useful because it restrains others, I wouldn't want it torn down, then I would have some actual competition.
Honestly there's more of a blur between LE and NE than anywhere else.

>>51907045
CN: I might save you today, I might not
CE: I'm fucking better than you
NE: Fuck you, do what I want

>>51907045
>>51907174
Lawful-Chaotic axis can be seen as a difference in method.
Chaotic evil will not use orderly society as a tool to exploit people, he's a "take what you want, when you want, from whoever you want" type. Neutral evil might.
Chaotic Neutral does not deliberately screw others, otherwise he's Chaotic Evil

>>51906359
Chaotic money

>>51905449
>not True Neutral
Truly powerful people who give no shits are TN.

>>51907660
>>51907195
>>51907174
>>51907045
>Lawful Neutral- Fuck you, I'll do what I want, as long as it's within the boundaries of the law, pal!
>Lawful Evil- Fuck you, I'll do what I want, but I won't break my code of morals, nor will I cheat you out of a deal, but I aint a nice guy, pal!
>Lawful Good- Fuck you, I'm going to save you and give you a hug and some cookies and milk, maybe I'll even pay for your schooling, because I love you, pal!

>>51909604
TN is the cop out alignment
>Ehhh, I don't really wanna be punished for being an evil guy, but I also don't wanna get in trouble if I don't follow all the rules If only there was an alignment to truly capture my complete and total lack of decisiveness and just how bland I am

>>51909631
>cop-out alignment
TN has three meanings.
>I'm completely indecisive
>I literally have "centrism" as my views. I choose to not choose one side or another but believe both are needed i.e. druids and yin-yang shit.
>I literally could not give less of a shit because I'm level 80

>>51907174
Neutral Evil is "I will serve my own ends, and it may just so happen that the law is a good way to achieve those ends."
Lawful Evil is "I have a personal code of honor and know that laws are useful, and will follow them".

>>51909658
You forgot
>My brain is literally the size of a walnut because I am a deer

>>51909690
I thought animals just didn't have an alignment, period, because they're so stupid that they can't recognize morality.
That slots into the first anyway.

>>51906359
>screw alignments I have money.

>>51909696
Animals should be considered evil. Think about it.
>It's not sinful to kill an animal
>Animals have no regard for morality and would do the most horrific shit for the slightest gain
>animals are incapable of shame or guilt

>>51909725
>no regard for morality
Right but they literally cannot have malicious intent per D&D because they're too stupid to understand the difference between malice and benevolence. It's like how Jelly Cubes are unaligned despite literally bulldozing entire dungeons clean.

>incapable of shame or guilt
That's the thing though. If you use the benevolence-ambivalence-malice definition of good-neutral-evil, then true psychopaths are unironically not evil, because they're NOT malicious - they're simply insane. If you had an edgelord who tossed a guy overboard because he smelled like ass, like how we might throw out a coke because it tastes weird, then that action, specifically, isn't evil. It can't be evil. The psychopath doesn't understand good and evil, he knows what people generally call good and evil but that's it, he himself can't "feel" it.

>>51907045
>Chatoic Neutral: Fuck you, I do what I want but what I want is generally just to mind my own business and commit neither good nor evil actions
>Chatoic Evil: Fuck you, I do what I want regardless of the side effects (that I am aware of) as doing what I want is more important to me than any law and what I want to do generally involves Evil acts
>Neutral Evil: Fuck you, I do what I want and what I want is to commit Evil against everyone before me. The laws do not even factor into the equation for a second as they are insignificant compared to Evil

>>51909786
CN are basically just anarchists.

Any kind of Neutral - believable character. Someone you might meet on the street. Can be a great person or a total dick.

Any kind of Good or Evil (including Neutral Good/Evil) - literally beyond regular humanity due to a innate connection to evil or good forces. In case of good, a saint. Lawful Good person probably washes homeless peoples' feet, volunteers 80 hours a week at a charity organization. Chaotic Evil is a murderous psycopath that goes above and beyond someone you'll find in the worst corner of a max security prison. Very likely a serial killer. Probably smells like sulfur.

File: PC morality.png (984KB, 3180x2088px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 3180x2088px

>>51905449
You're like a baby. Watch this.

>>51909994
>Chaotic Evil is a murderous psycopath
Wrong. Chaotic Evil is just a huge prick to everyone and everything and doesn't give a shit about the consequences.

>>51910017
You know the one where it's you on the track vs. 5 other people is a pretty good test for being Good vs. Neutral/Evil.

>>51910033
I prefer the "prisoner dilemma" one, personally.

File: bane trolley.jpg (165KB, 1400x700px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1400x700px

>>51910017
Oh, and this.

>>51910044
why don't they just have one person walk off and the other gets out of the way after switching rails

>>51910033
That's Chaotic Neutral with an unpleasant personality. Chaotic Evil is demonic and no longer of human society.

File: true hell.png (20KB, 564x386px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 564x386px

>>51910064
Presumably, they are attached to the levers.

>>51910084
No. A psychopath can't feel empathy, and without empathy you can't have malice.

>>51910017
>Man in the middle trolley problem
That's a cool game of righteousness chicken, where the guy who pulls the lever dies for everyone else, assuming neither of them can leave their spot.
>>51910092
Well, I mean, you can hate something in an intellectual sense, even if it doesn't immediately fill you with rage. It's not quite malice, but someone who does things without an emotional payoff for the sake of being a dick is still evil. It's a far shot, but it could happen. Like someone who believes mentally that he should be good without feeling an emotional impulse towards it is still good.

>>51906079
It's also a way to have more opponents than even CE can pull off. When you want to fight the whole world but don't care about killing anyone CN is just right. Just imagine crawling over the dragon scales up to his noggin just to headbutt him into submission.

>>51910092
Does a demon have empathy? Alignment is meaningless without good and evil as core, measurable things in your setting.

>>51910123
>good and evil as core, measurable things in your setting
>implying that good and evil are measurable things IRL either
Good joke.

>>51910132
Alignment is a game concept that has no direct connection to RL. In other news, I fell 40 feet onto concrete last night, went home with 1 hp and I'm back to normal today!

>>51910172
And yet people still try to force moral relativism into DnD instead of just using it as a cosmic identifier of outsiders, with all humans by nature being True Neutral.

>>51910180
Which is why any mortal with Good alignment is an agent of heavens, and any mortal with an Evil one is an agent of the pit. Or whatever your setting has. They're not normal people. A peasant that steals shit when he can get away with it and beats his wife is neutral because his actions fall within the scope of normal, if rather shitty, human behavior.

>>51909764
Animals are psychopaths. Psychopaths are evil. Therefore animals are evil.
This explains why killing a deer to feed a family is good but killing a human to feed a bunch of vampires is evil.

>>51910808
>Animals are psychopaths
?

>>51910862
Come on now, don't you see birds outside your window violently killing each other? I just saw a cuckoo literally tear out a pigeon's heart outside, it's gruesome!

>>51905449
Chaotic Evil is the best alignment, because it lets you do anything. Do something selfish? That's okay, you're Evil. Do something altruistic? You were actually doing it for selfish reasons, so it's still Evil. Even if you made a big song and dance about "doing the right thing", that was just to make yourself look good in the eyes of others, so you're still Evil.

And of course, whether you obey the law or ignore it is entirely up to you, because you're Chaotic. You can flip-flop whichever way you like, because you're Chaotic.

Chaotic Evil is the best alignment. Prove me wrong.

>>51909725

So that's what I sounds like....

>>51910862
>no guilt or remorse
>only act out of self interest
>impulsive, only caring about short term gratification
>no self control
>no sexual inhibitions
psychopaths

>>51911025
And they can't even read! I bet every animal out there has 1 level of Barbarian.

>>51906166
Badly

>>51907195
>CE: I might rape you today, I might not

File: IMG_2208.jpg (99KB, 999x800px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 999x800px

What alignment is he?
>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl-e2PM1ITM

If you're good, you can't be a stinkin' monarchist. Power to the people!

File: 348619612.jpg (130KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 450x450px

>>51905875
>majority of people feel fucking empathy

>>51905875
Empathy.
>Makes people easy to manipulate
>Forces people into irrational decisions
>Overrides your emotions
>Forces you to feel things against your will
>Cannot be suppressed
>The most powerful men in the world can be considered to be lacking in empathy
>It disrupts your ability to think objectively and logically
>It drives normal people to violence and anger, sometimes in the form of riots or lynch mobs

Empathy is a mental illness.

>>51912325
Don't forget having feelings towards things that don't actually exist.

>>51909658
>I literally have "centrism" as my views. I choose to not choose one side or another but believe both are needed i.e. druids and yin-yang shit.
See I've always felt that was LN because you are going out of your way to maintain balance and order.

>>51912325
beep boop

>>51905449
Neutral Evil is so much better.
It you disagree, I'll stab you in the back, rob your corpse, and blame everything on your best friend. I Guess it's a strong proof.

>>51912368
The thing is it's not about maintaining order, it's about maintaining balance, because the original meaning of Good-Evil Lawful-Chaotic in D&D was just more or less heaven vs. hell, and TN Druid types were like, mediators or something. A TN druid works to preserve the balance of the natural world, not necessarily society or even the order of the natural world, just its balance.

File: 7637820bf0868f4925aca018c44ff92d.jpg (73KB, 550x1001px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 550x1001px

>>51911267
What if the monarch has everyone's best interests in mind and is uniquely capable of saving the species?

>>51907045
CN:Screw you, I do what I can
CE:Fuck you, I do what I want
NE:Fuck you

File: 1481206171948.png (308KB, 594x422px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 594x422px

>>51912325
Here you go, I made this for you. I hope you enjoy it.

>>51912397
The monarch needs to meet the needs of his closest men, that is, his family, his generals, and his scholars.

If he fails to do this, groups may conspire to over throw him.
This means if he tries to provide for the people at large, he's not explicitly providing just for his closest men. Humans are a jealous creature, they would grow cross at this.

But as your picture shows, the King in that scenario has cool powers and shit he could probably use to keep his men in line.

File: stirner.png (50KB, 254x550px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 254x550px

>>51912325
>Empathy is a mental illness.
Literally everything can be considered a mental illness, because the norm for mental health is completely arbitrary and set by the society, unlike physical health, for which there are quite clear-cut standards (if a little broad) - and even then people keep lying to themselves, because they simply cannot accept that things they enjoy doing simply are not healthy.

And being objective and logical doesn't necessarily bring the best possible result for the individual from his standpoint either, simply because nature isn't truly logical either.

Who cares about others' completely arbitrary norms as long as you can sustain yourself and your lifestyle successfully?

tl;dr Norms are a spook - a useful spook, but still just a spook.

>>51912397
What if pigs fly tomorrow?

File: Iberian-Peninsula-Neanderthal.jpg (101KB, 798x490px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 798x490px

>>51912325
Empathy is the only reason the human race exists. Without it, we'd be a species of sociopaths who'd never cooperate or form bonds.

Neanderthals were stronger, more robust and better adapted to the environment, but were rapidly out-competed by Cro Magnon Man because, whilst their tool-making and problem solving ability was, if anything, better than humans, their social abilities were stunted. They lived in small clans of 5-10 individuals with only sporadic contact with other groups to exchange females.

That critically restricted the flow of new technologies and ideas, and make them vulnerable to being wiped out peicemeal by environmental hazards and warfare.

Humans showed up in tribes already numbering in the hundreds, with close-knit family units and primitive trade connections with dozens of other tribes moving into northern Eurasia.

Superior empathy, arguably more than superior intelligence, is what allowed us to survive when all other hominids have gone extinct.

File: roylas1.jpg (209KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1536x1024px

>>51905694
Anarchy doesn't mean no rules - it means no rulers

>>51912462
Neanderthals are the "realistic" orcs.

>>51911267
>power to the plebian commoner retards in a world where there exist people with 20+ INT

>>51912487
>Only intelligent people deserve freedom and dignity.

>>51912463
Who makes up the rules?

Who enforces them?

>>51912463
Who is that semen demon?

>>51912462
Humans outcompeted Neanderthals due to tighter extended family bonds, greater empathy, and girls dripping pussy fluid at the drop of a hat.

>>51912497
Anon when you can literally measure someone's intelligence as a number and this is an unarguable number that doesn't depend on application, and when you can cast Detect Evil on the monarch to find out if he's an ass, then there is literally no reason not to give the throne to the sexy 10/10 banging hot wizard girl with 21 INT, the ability to singlehandedly stop minor natural disasters and end enemy armies, and a couple of divine ranks making her immortal and an actual god.
In fact, more importantly - who the fuck is going to stop Epic-classes from taking the top, beyond other Epics?

>>51912500
Not him, but presumably, I make the rules on my territory and regarding my property, and you make the rules on your own territory and regarding your property. "I am the government unto myself" and all that shit.
Or something like that - don't quote me on it.

>>51912521
>who the fuck is going to stop Epic-classes from taking the top
Exactly 1.34 hectopeasants.

>>51912480
Neanderthals were probably pretty territorial and aggressive, but wouldn't really have fought 'wars' much due to their small numbers and low birth rates (due to being totally egalitarian, they lost as many females to hunting accidents as males).

Before Man showed up, they'd have sat in their isolated forests, living in small family groups in equilibrium with the environment due to their small numbers, wrestling xbawksheug deer to the ground and making really technically advanced stone tools.

Neanderthals were elves. And we killed (and possibly ate) them.

Humans are the orcs.

>>51912521
>Wizard invents a detect evil spell.
>"Trust me berk, it works exactly like I say it does!"
>All wizard's enemies are detected as evil.

>>51912539
>134 peasants
Literally a single Fireball.

>>51912542
That means most humans are half-elves!

File: you didnt get it, that's what I'm saying.gif (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>51912513
>Anarchy doesn't mean no rules - it means no rulers
>

That's Lorde you nit

>>51912542
>we killed
We also fucked them silly.
We're literally the orcs.

>>51912521
I want to kneel before the sexy wizard queen and swear fealty to her for hours!

>>51912555
It was a joke, but in all seriousness, all it takes for an Epic-level character to die is to fuck up even once.
>but a super-smart character would never fuck up!
It is nice to assume that DnD characters exists in some sort of vacuum, but the truth of the matter is that they are controlled either by players, or by the DM.

>>51912571
>to fuck up even once
Clone exists anon.

>some sort of vacuum
Well yes I understand that, but theoretically at least a PC with 20+ INT has intelligence approaching foresight.

File: 14594670677640.png (262KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 768x1024px

>>51912562
Good point.

It'd be funny if they found a fantastically preserved Neanderthal corpse in a bog or something and discover they had pointed ears.

Cloned muscle-elf waifus when?

>>51909764
that's not psychopathy

psychopaths understand the notions of benevolence and malevolence, they just don't care enough to be bound by them (except when they do, it's a weird affliction)

>>51912463
You mean anarcho-communism.

Just straight up anarchy -does- mean no rules.

>>51912561
Sorry friend, we only listen to bluegrass and banjo twangin' round here

>>51912616
That's sociopathy. Psychopathy understand YOUR notion of benevolence and malevolence, in that they understand what to do so as to not be called malevolent and be called benevolent. Well-adjusted psychopaths are willing to work with that grain if it benefits them to do so or if not doing so would harm the, but they don't truly believe or feel empathy or understand what it means to be benevolent or malevolent.

>>51906359
Chaotic retarded

>>51912435
I can tell you are fat but your pragmatism is excelent.

>>51912652
Actually, I'm skinny skeleton, but nice try.

>>51910882
Pigeons and cuckoos are different species. Are you some of those vegetarian fags who thinks that killing other species is murder?

>>51912500
>>51912525

Errr...not always.

There's some kinds of anarchy, like the "my land, my rules" sorts, which pretty much always (de)volve into 'big man' tribalism once the guys with the biggest guns start taking all the land.

But there are other kinds of anarchy, where there are no rulers because *everyone* makes the rules, i.e. all laws are enacted by direct democracy (which has been pretty feasible since industrialization, at the least).

Enforcement is still an issue, of course, but the proposed solution is usually some combination of elections for the enforcers and mandatory term limits for the same, or alternatively some sort of opt-in rotation scheme to cut down on potential favoritism.

>>51912728
>where there are no rulers because *everyone* makes the rules
That's idealized marxism.

>all laws are enacted by direct democracy (which has been pretty feasible since industrialization, at the least).
Dying here anon.

>>51906315
Violating the NAP is never justified. What you can do is explain yourself to person you initiated aggression against and hope for their mercy.

>>51912709
Animals can't murder because murder is a legal concept understood, accepted and used only by humans. Most animals can't figure out how mirrors work, they're not ready for law.

>>51912462
>le outcompeted meme
it's already been proven that ancient humans interbred and mixed to varying degrees. assimilation isn't the samething as the superior garbage argument you're peddling.

>>51912753
If being a retard protects you from law, then it's a bad law that doesn't protect people from retards.

Animals should be in jail (but only if they kill animals of the same species and/or humans).

>>51912739
>t. fascist

>>51912831
Males fight other males for breeding rights in many species, sometimes with fatal results.

#DeerLivesMatter

>>51912739>
>That's idealized marxism.

The idea of direct democracy predates Marx by two fucking millennia

>>51912835
He's right, though.
If you want an example of how enacting laws through a direct democracy would work and why it would fail to work as intended, case of Justine Sacco serves as a nice example.
That is not how you want to run your government and enforce your laws.

>>51905449
>>51905527
In all practical cases in application, neutral=stupid. So, no.

>>51912864
Democracy is a terrible system of government. It's too bad all others are worse.

>>51912853
direct democracy in the modern sense is not two millennia old, the ancients would never consider giving citizenship to non-landed individuals.

>>51912853
Direct democracy in the Greek sense 1. did not literally include everyone, not everyone came to the city council to vote on every little fucking thing, the assembly was chosen at random, yes, but it wasn't literally 10k people, for the most part and 2. Marxism, at least in theory, bypasses the "tyranny of the majority" aspect of direct democracy, which is the opposite of anarchy. Anarchy seeks to get away from tyranny of the anything.

>>51912852
In time this will be solved because only those who are able to win the fight without killing will reproduce more than once. The rest are in jail after the first time.

>>51912872
Eh, it all depends on the quality of people in charge, unfortunately. A good system is a system that forces even bad people to play nice.
The other systems are worse only because they are more susceptible to subvertion and corruption.
In my opinion, a good dictator > a good democracy > a bad democracy > a bad dictator.

>>51906359
Isn't there a minimum intelligence threshold before you can have any alignment?

>>51912872
>quoting a genocidal imperialist

wew just wew lad

>>51912873
well since land ownership hasn't been the primary indicator of education or status for at least a century, I'd argue that even "the ancients" (whatever that fucking means, there's like two thousand years of civilization before the Hellenes) would realize the need for an update

>>51912910
>having a problem with genocidal imperialism

Hold on, lemme quote a pacifist who loved everyone and solved every problem by hugging it out!

>>51912872
This is incorrect though.
What actually happens is that democracy has a dampening and slowing effect on the efficiency of the government. This sounds like a bad thing, but in actuality it's often good because it prevents the government from fucking everything up in seconds.
Also, he's been proven wrong by all the failed democracies after the Second War.

>>51912920
in the past you wouldn't be able to publish your opinion, and no one would care about your drivel.

>>51912943
In the past literally fucking anyone could walk into the forum and start talking.

>>51912950
and you'd be lynched as a result

>>51912889
>Marxism, at least in theory, bypasses the "tyranny of the majority" aspect of direct democracy, which is the opposite of anarchy. Anarchy seeks to get away from tyranny of the anything.

Never claimed anarchism was marxism, that was the other dude.

The major theories of social anarchy were advanced by Bakunin, a vocal critic of Marx.

>>51912969
t. literally don't know shit about history but decided to speak nonetheless

>>51912943
and in the past we didn't have 4chan or hentai

so I like the present better I think

>>51912990
>never claimed
Yeah but you claimed it was direct democracy, aka the tyranny of the majority, which doesn't fit the ideal of anarchism. Also, the weird thing about marxism is that marxism implies both the existence of a strong state and the fundamental irrelevance of it.

>>51912463
Is will imposed by a king functionally different in practice that will arbitrated and imposed by the masses? Especially if you're one of the minority dissenters?

I mean, it probably is. Not a whole lot, but enough to have different titles at least.

>>51912941
The only redeeming grace of democracy is the ability to bog down political process with overwhelming bureaucracy which generally prevents anyone from fucking shit over quickly. Sure, the only improvements you'll see are incremental and over multiple decades, but at least in theory you don't slide down to shit.

And failed democracies didn't "prove" Churchil wrong. Most dictatorships aren't doing so well, at any time, especially without strong foreign help, and questionable stability at the cost of freedom, heath and livelihood of citizens doesn't make a successful state.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (40KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1280x720px

>>51912991
can't wait for western civilization to finally collapse. your false impressions of history won't save you then.

>>51912901
Of course almost any system will work if it has good people running it. Thus, the real question is "which systems choose good people?"

In that case, monarchies > democracies. Ascending to power in a democracy selects for good liars who can sell their platform to many different groups. Ascending to power in a monarchy is a matter of random birth.

Monarchies start out neutral while democracies start out in the negatives. Monarchies then educate their random people with ruling experience from an early age, and encourage the preservation of their property for the next generation. Democracies have a second negative feedback loop because their politicians don't "own" anything, so the most profitable course is to loot and run through short-term promises instead of investing for the future.

That's why historically monarchies are more peaceful, more stable, and have higher GDP than equivalent democracies (although they are equally corrupt).

>>51913013
no offense meant, seriously, not trying to talk down because you seem actually interested in engaging but Bakunin addresses the "tyranny of the majority" issue repeatedly and he said it way better than I can so check his writings out

>>51912950
I cannot believe anyone with the requisite education to be able to speak about human history with any amount of authority would conflate "open floor" with"freedom to express".

Therefore, I conclude you're some kind of armchair expert spouting bullshit you've learned from a handful of hamfisted google searches. I'm more than certain I'm right, too.

>>51913025
>it's a dumb pepe poster
Should've expected it.

>>51913036
But then you might get a complete idiot as an heir. I think Machiavelli had a good point about how adopting your heir ends up better than birthing it, as evidenced by the "Five Good Emperors" he mentions.

>>51913083
>Machiavelli
>The Original That Guy

>>51913036
>Ascending to power in a monarchy is a matter of random birth.

This would only be true if the monarch is randomly selected from the population.

Historically monarchies have seen "engineering" by previous generations through the murder of undesirable heirs and many have fallen apart due to competition between would-be "engineers".

>>51913100
He's horribly misrepresented in mainstream thought, he wasn't anywhere near the kind of dick people think he was.

>>51913070
It WAS freedom to express. You could say whatever the fuck you wanted because the floor was yours to take if you wanted to. If you got massive fucking backlash from it that's something else, and is still present even today. You won't be killed, [for the most part], but getting massive harassment, doxxing, and so on are relatively common retailations. And historically, besides a few things that you'd die for, people would let you way what you wanted. The thing is, since a random assembly of citizens was required to banish you, as long as you knew what you were talking about then theoretically no matter how offensive what you said was, they couldn't banish you if you could get them to agree. That's why oratory was so important, because the same thing said in different ways with different levels of sophistication led to completely different results.

>>51913036
>That's why historically monarchies are more peaceful, more stable, and have higher GDP than equivalent democracies (although they are equally corrupt).

(Citation needed)

>>51913022
>Most dictatorships aren't doing so well, at any time
Completely irrelevant. It proves Churchill wrong because Churchill is a meme spouting retard who doesn't understand that different governments are better suited to different cultures, histories, and present situations, and that no form of government is inherently superior to any other form. A dictatorship is better when the person on top knows what he's doing, and is fundamentally the only form that really works in crisis - even the Romans understood this, and historically in democracies there's always a failsafe mechanism that allows the guy on top to tell people to shut the fuck up and just listen under cases when shit has hit the fan. A dictatorship is trash when the top guy doesn't know what he's doing, or worse, doesn't care.

>>51913036
The problem with monarchy is that it has a single point of failure, with no backups. If your king is shit, then your king is shit.

>>51913100
Machiavelli was someone concerned with how to keep power. He wasn't writing about how to be a good person. It's like the Legalists in China - they're not talking about your personal life, they probably would advise you not to listen to their shit when it comes to your personal life, they're talking about how to rule a nation (and Qin was extremely successful before it fell apart due to various reasons, mostly related to the unsettled matters from the reunification and the second Emperor being a huge and completely worthless nutjob who murdered a dozen of his older brothers to get on top - one of the biggest problems of monarchy). Machiavelli's shit is talking about "so this is how you don't get overthrown, and this is how you make your state wealthy, prosperous, and stable". Not "so this is how you're going to be a swell guy".

>>51913146
A democracy having legislation to empower war-leaders doesn't make it less of a democracy.

>A dictatorship is trash when the top guy doesn't know what he's doing, or worse, doesn't care.

The benefit of a democracy is it's ability to remove inept leaders without warfare or civil strife. A dictatorship is a weaker form of government precisely because it has no legislative mechanism to remove inept leadership, not because 'hurr dictators bad'.

You're defeating your own argument.

>>51913083
>I think Machiavelli had a good point about how adopting your heir ends up better than birthing it

Definately. Family connections and the emotional responses that provides blind you to the failings of your offspring quite often, whereas an adoptive heir is selected for prexisting qualities and lacks those emotional ties to a degree.

It also dodges the issue with perception of an inherited superiority and entitlement.

>>51913146
Democratically elected leader having emergency powers does not a dictatorship make.

A dictatorship is not better when the person on top "knows what they are doing" because ultimately every dictator dies, most often than not in office, and whoever takes the reins next tends to be an even bigger dick. A perfectly good dictator, a philosopher king if you will, might be good for the country on entirely personal merit, not because of the political system involved.

There hasn't been any perfectly good philosopher kings and short of some kind of a godlike AI there never will.

>>51913208
>The benefit of a democracy is it's ability to remove leaders without warfare or civil strife.
current political climate seems to disagree with this.

>>51912325
You can have empathy and not be a gullible dumb ass they two arent mutually exclusive anons.

>>51913208
>A democracy having legislation to empower war-leaders doesn't make it less of a democracy.
It doesn't, but the original meaning to a dictatorship, as in a Roman Dictator, was that here is a man who Dictates what will be done in our time of confusion, and yes, stands down after his job is done. A democracy hands dictator powers to the guy on top precisely because they understand totalitarianism is far more efficient at actually getting things done - good or ill. During that period of time it's defacto a dictatorship. The fact that it has laws to facilitate going back and forth doesn't mean that this system is inherent to democracy.

>The benefit of a democracy is it's ability to remove inept leaders without warfare or civil strife.
It doesn't have this ability, that's simply a result of the concept that "nobody is above the law". This doesn't have to contradict with a dictatorship at all, and there are plenty of failed democracies today that have horribly inept leaders but don't remove them.

>A dictatorship is a weaker form of government precisely because it has no legislative mechanism to remove inept leadership,
But that's not a result of democracy in and of itself. That's a legislative system that can be applied to any form of government.

>>51913264
>Democratically elected leader having emergency powers does not a dictatorship make.
No, that's literally the original meaning of a dictator.

>A perfectly good dictator, a philosopher king if you will, might be good for the country on entirely personal merit, not because of the political system involved.
But this is wrong. The entire point of the totalitarian form of government is that the guy on top calls the shots. If he's competent, and the system oiled up, then his will will be done. If he's a shit, then his shit will will be done, and it will be done quickly and efficiently. This doesn't work under democracy because the entire point of democracy is that NO ONE PERSON can call the shots, ever.

>>51913264
>A dictatorship is not better when the person on top "knows what they are doing" because ultimately every dictator dies, most often than not in office, and whoever takes the reins next tends to be an even bigger dick
Not him but how does this refute his point? You could easily say that after a shithead, the next person has sometimes been a genius.

>>51912500
Whoever has the biggest stick.

>>51912621
>Just straight up anarchy -does- mean no rules
No you dingo. Anarchy is about getting rid of hierarchy, centralism and force. Do you even Кpoпoткин m8?

>>51913400
>anarchy is about getting rid of hierarchy, centralism, and force
How does one enforce a lack of hierarchy without a central power? How does one stop a man applying force without force?

>>51913375
A democracy has term limits and an enshrined tradition of democratic succession.

A dictator rules for life, or until they get so bored that they dump emaciated corpse of their nation onto their kids/ friends and go someplace else.

>>51913322
A system that depends on everything being excellent to function is a shit system. A system that depends on everything to be moderately fucked to totally fucked and still sort of trudges along is a good system.

>>51913301
All democracies inevitably fall towards oligarchy as the system progresses.

Nothing created by Man lasts forever.

>>51912864
>"That is not how you want to run your government and enforce your laws."
>>>>>run your government
>>>>>>enforce your laws
That's not how anarchy works

>>51913445
>A system that depends on everything being excellent to function is a shit system. A system that depends on everything to be moderately fucked to totally fucked and still sort of trudges along is a good system.

This. Concisely summed up.

This is why utopian systems that look great on paper when they can ignore the human element, inevitably fail and fail hard when introduced to the real world.

>>51913445
>A system that depends on everything being excellent to function is a shit system
All systems depend on this. Democracy? Trudging along when totally fucked? Democracy can't even fix the problems that are fucking it up if it's all fucked up. The one thing democracy does very well is slow down decay, because it's impossible for the guy on top to fuck it as hard as a dictator can.
Fuck, democracy isn't even necessarily better at preserving the peace - Imperial China had periods of internal peace lasting for 200+ years. The United States has only been at internal peace for 150.
Democracy with term limits also suffers from a lack of consistent direction due to the fast turnover rate - see Trump undoing half of Obama's shit as soon as he gets into office.

>a democracy has term limits
Wrong, that's not inherent to the democratic system.

>excellent to function
A dictatorship relies on
1. the guy on top is not a retard
2. the bureaucracy is working correctly

A democracy relies on
1. the guy on top is not a retard
2. the bureaucracy is working correctly

What's the difference? A dictatorship has a higher high and a lower low.

>>51913434
You are not doing it. If people want to live without forced hierarchy they would try to organise and defend themself. If they are ok with some kind of hierarchy (work, school etc) and still feel free then there is noone to be stopped. The point is it have to be voluntary

>>51913551
>they would try to organize and defend themselves
>organize
So...create a heirarchy?

>>51913541
>What's the difference?

That the democracy has mechanisms in place to remove the guy on top if he's a retard, a dictatorship doesn't.

>>51913571
>democracy has mechanisms in place to remove the guy on top if he's a retard
No it does not.

>a dictatorship doesn't
There is no reason you can't apply something like that to a dictatorship.

A dictatorship is unargubly better if the person on top is competent. A dictatorship is generally worse if the person on top is incompetent. The question is if you have a good way of finding competence - and democracy, unfortunately, is not the answer to consistently finding competence (although heirs aren't really either, but then again a dictatorship is purely a form of government while a democracy is just a way of selecting the ruler).

>>51913541
>Democracy with term limits also suffers from a lack of consistent direction due to the fast turnover rate

That's a strength not a weakness.

It means one retard has a limited time with which to run the entire system into the ground, compared to a dictatorship where they essentially have free reign provided they can fend off assassins and coup d'etat.

The benevolent dictator model is all about empowering the best-case leader. The democratic model is all about limiting the worst-case leader.

Historically speaking, the entire human race is a bunch of retarded hairless apes sometimes blessed by rare sparks of genius. Incompetence isn't a rare occurrence, it's a baseline.

>>51912641
Nice internet psych degree. Couldn't get into a real college, huh?

>>51913631
>No it does not.

Does in my country, no idea where you're from of what you're forming your idea of democracy from.

>There is no reason you can't apply something like that to a dictatorship.

If the dictator can be removed peacefully by the people, it's by definition not a dictatorship, it's a democracy with a undefined term of office for it's premier.

The Roman Republic had the office of Dictator, but still remained a (very oligarchial) democracy because, at least on paper, the Dictator could be, and were, removed from office. It didn't become what we'd class as a dictatorship today until Augustus appointed himself First Citizen for Life and appointed his own successor.

>>51913631
>Democracies can't remove inept leaders

Er....limited term times? Impeachment? Checks on the executive branch?

>>51913654
>that's a strength not a weakness
No, it isn't. It's a complete weakness. The idea that the guy on top has limited power is what you're talking about, which is neither a strength nor a weakness, but a dysfunctional overall direction for governance can be nothing but a weakness. If one person starts a plan to reinvigorate the economy through trickle-down and the other guy stops it halfway and tries giving out welfare and the next guy goes back to trickle-down then none of the plans work as intended. If Obama goes for TPP and Trump pulls out, you would've done better to not start it up in the first place from a geopolitcal level, because now China has a chance to swoop in and say "hope is not lost, I have the solution to the free-trade plan". Inconsistency is bad for a government - damage control is something else entirely.

>>51913690
Psychopathy and sociopathy are not generally used as actual medical terms, but when they are, a sociopath as a functioning ethical / morality system and has (weak) empathy but are 'misaligned', while a psychopath simply lacks morality and conscience altogether.

>>51913735
>>51913717
>the United States is conceptual Democracy
Kill yourselves. Democracy in and of itself has a definition. Term limits and impeachment has nothing to do with representative democracy as a system of government (short of an actual plebescite, but that's different because it's literally invoking direct democracy which is fundamental to the system itself).
Fuck term limits and removals aren't even incompatible with dictatorships if you give the idea that nobody is above the law, which is also not incompatible with a dictatorship.

>the Dictator could be, and were, removed from office
Removed? No, they were appointed to office by the Senate for a limited period of time, and they had to have their mandate renewed if the crisis was still ongoing. They were not "removed" - they were refused further time.

>not a dictatorship
Who said by the people?

>>51913380
It's funny how every proponent of anarcho-capitalism thinks they're gonna be the one with the big stick.

>>51913807
>They were not "removed" - they were refused further time.

...you are the most pedantic person I've ever spoken too.

>>51913807
>a plan to reinvigorate the economy through trickle-down

WEW good thing this is a fantasy thread

>>51913564
I like how you are picking only some words. Why didn't you pick "If they are ok with some kind of hierarchy and still feel free then there is noone to be stopped" or "The point is it have to be voluntary"?

>>51913866
And you apparently don't know the difference between removing someone when they would normally be able to continue, and not giving them extra time. One is stopping a plan or project midway. The other is not renewing that plan after expiration. Dictators were ONLY APPOINTED AS DICTATORS for a limited time. After that they were legally no longer dictators until the Senate appointed them as dictator again. If the Senate didn't do so, that means they weren't 'removed', they were not reassigned.

>>51913871
I didn't say which one I thought was reasonable, if any were reasonable.

>>51913690
Also, since you'll need a source or two.
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/2014/pdf/MacKenzie_714.pdf
>the concept and actual term psychopathy is no longer in and of itself an actual clinical diagnosis but rather refers to a specific cluster of traits and behaviors used to describe an individual in terms of pervasive dominating personality traits and behaviors (Gunn& Wells, 1999; Hare, 1993).

>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-psychopath-means/
>inb4 SciAmeri
It's not literally the best but it's good enough considering the credentials and sources down there.

>>51913893
Except it isn't voluntary, because unless they join the defensive heirarchy the attacking one will subsume them.

>>51913807
>If Obama goes for TPP and Trump pulls out

Ok, shot in the dark but you sound like someone who's become disillusioned with democracy after the recent US elections. When Obama was elected, sections of US society declared the imminent collapse of the USA. Now Trump is in and a different section has declared the imminent collapse.

The USA is still there, still the world's sole superpower, and most likely will be long after Trump and Obama are dead and gone.

As someone who was born into, and who's parents lived under a dictatorship in Zimbabwe for fifteen years, trust me, just because democracies are messy, doesn't mean dictatorships are automatically superior simply because they're not a democracy.

An efficient, decisive dictatorship ran what was previously one of the most prosperous nations on the continent into the ground in a matter of years, and the people who suffered had no legal ability to stop it.

I'd choose England over Zimbabwe any time, even if Mugabe is 'consistent'.

>>51913976
Shit that's the kind of thing I'd like to hear more when people whine about democracy

>>51913932
Ancient roman definition of dictator is irrelevant to modernity.

For reference, here are some great dictators of 20th century:

Fulgencio Batista
Vladimir Lenin
Mao Zedong

and many more!

These three in particular assumed power via a coup or a revolution, committed atrocities against their own people, killed and exiled their detractors in the government and among the populace, and ruled their nations for decades.

File: 1487703722850[1].jpg (96KB, 1133x809px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1133x809px

>>51905449
>>51905576
its too late now

>>51913976
>a shot in the dark
You're wrong, I've been disillusioned with democracy in general for a long ass time; the best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average citizen. In that respect the USA is simply lucky to have lasted this long with only one major war, but then again China, Russia, England, France, Persia, etc. have been "lucky" with monarchies too at different points in history. To that point it might be said that the USA is blessed by a very nice guiding light of the city on the hill that somewhat prevents them from losing their way too much, at least publically, and has also had a generally well-designed system of advisement, complete with high-class scholarship and thinking being done more or less from the get-go, and helped further by the huge tracts of relatively unclaimed land and resources to their west as well as relative isolation that served well to protect them from far-off wars.

>anecdotal argument
That's not the point. The question is whether or not Mugabe would be better than a "democratically elected" person on top (hint - yes, Mugabe is retarded beyond belief), and whether or not democracies are automatically better than dictatorships.
My own belief is NEITHER is better than the other, they apply to different political climates, social conditions, geopolitical situations, and different cultures differently, but that a dictatorship is by definition more efficient, for good or ill.

>>51914011
How do you NOT know about Zimbabwe, it's the laughingstock of the entire fucking world.

>>51914069
>>irrelevant
He runs away after being proven a retard.

>Lenin
You actually mean Stalin for your meme atrocity list for argument by cherrypicking.
Did you know that Deng and Jiang were modern dictators too? How about Phillipe II Auguste, a monarch if not a dictator? What of Ivan IV or Peter the Great? How about Frederick III or Charlemagne, or any of the many Persian and Chinese emperors who made their state rich as all shit?

>>51914150
A monarch is not a dictator. Traditionally, monarchy has been supported by the church before separation of church and state became fashionable. A king had the divine mandate to rule over the people, and it passed onto his descendants. Largely irrelevant in the past 200+ years, since countries with half a brain chased out, killed off, or neutered their monarchs.

This is the same retarded argument someone always brings up when discussing antiquity. You don't use modern ethical, philosophical and religious standards when you look at structures that predate them. Greek city states and Roman Empire were absolute shitholes rife with injustice by modern standards, but by the standards of ~2000 years ago, give or take a few centuries depending on cherry picking, they were as advanced as these things go.

Modern philosophy, political theory and ethics take their origin from Socrates and people before him.

>>51906359
Rich

>>51909658
>TN has three meanings.
90% of humanity can be categorized as True Neutral, I don't think there is only 3 meanings

>>51914299
>A monarch is not a dictator
Neither are most other dictators then, as those people are supported by the bureaucracy and other large structures that are largely beyond their control. Dictators become literally impossible as an entity beyond the immediate revolution.
Furthermore, the Persian and Chinese emperors were not beholden to the church in any way, and the original argument was about monarchs

>This is the same retarded argument someone always brings up when discussing antiquity. You don't use modern ethical, philosophical and religious standards when you look at structures that predate them.
So I'm not allowed to use ANY examples except for modern ones, when modern monarchies barely exist? Fine, you know what. Willy I.

>>51913301
The current political climate is dealing with a medium of information that moves faster than most people can, our technology i would argue has given a megaphone to the extreme and fostered resentment against the longer standing parties and institutions.

File: file.png (349KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 800x600px

What's his alignment?

>>51913445
>A democracy has term limits and an enshrined tradition of democratic succession.
Not nessecarily, i mean speaking as a british person if we wanted to we could've kept anybody we wanted in forever, every prime minister goes with a bang because of it.

>>51913631
>No it does not.
If you fuck up and make the lives of your subjects worse they tell you to fuck off and elect somebody they think will be better, with dictatorship you've gotta hope the retard catches something nasty and dies.

>>51914536
>i have to use modern examples of a system of government i'm defending? THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS
Most modern dictators suck shit, deal with it.

>>51914789
this

nobody is praising Mugabe for his leadership

>>51912752
Rather than "throwing myself upon their mercy" I think I'd be more inclined to shoot them dead if they showed any inclination to punish me for saving lives.

>>51905449
The difference between a monarchy and dictatorship is that monarchs exist in a balance of powers and are strongly restrained by the law; dictatorships avoid this by legitimizing themselves through popular acclaim.

Democracies become dictatorships so easily because they are founded on the same principle - the government is justified by the mob.

I like to think of it as lawful is something akin to stoicism (adhering to logic over emotion) and chaotic is more hedonistic or emotionally controlled.

>>51914069
> Vladimir Lenin
> ruled their nations for decades

File: image.jpg (122KB, 684x775px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 684x775px

>>51906033
Listen I'm not trying to be an asshole, I know that trying to fit a political view into the nine alignment is an effort in futility. But it's literally anarchism! If ANYTHING is inherently non-lawful it has to be that.

File: half orc qt.png (118KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 768x1024px

>>51912604

>>51905449
True Neutral and Chaotic Good are the best alignments
Neutral Good and Chaotic neutral are high-tier, though

>>51912463
>>51906033
Fuck it, I guess you guys are right. A society of lawful people ironically wouldn't actually NEED a government because they wouldn't need anyone to keep them in line.

>>51911025
you do realize that every one of those identifiers other than the very last would apply to babies as well. Does that mean murdering babies is morally correct in your view, because they lack knowledge of morality? If not, what about baby animals?

>>51918563
Not him, but babies have a very high chance of developing into something that possesses empathy and morality, I mean, I guess that's kind of different.

>>51914622
Chaotic Good

>>51912325
>overrides your emotions
>not innr psychopathy also known as ego

>most powerful men
>implying their power is important to the whole

>riots and lynch mobs
>not the act of actual psychopathy and ego

I want /pol/ out, thanks.

>>51918296
IS THAT CANON? I NEED TO KNOW!

>>51906359
What is the average alignment held by each dragon variety?

>>51907045
>CN: Fuck you, I do what I want, but I probably don't want to seriously hurt anyone, just saying
>CE Fuck you, I do what I want to the very limits of what I can do today and still be able to do it again tomorrow, unless it's something I think is totally worth it
>NE: Fuck you, I'm looking out for no. 1

>>51914475
That one's
>I don't particularly care about a greater cosmic place, because I need to get dinner, and if I screw anyone over they will probably get in the way of me and my dinner

>>51906315
>It makes for poor memes though.

Poor memes, like anarcho-capitalism?

>>51921103

It's down there with Socialism.