#importance of upholding freedom of belief and opposing hate crimes | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

iridescent-honey · 3 years ago

Text

Mysterion characterization

In my opinion, he is one of the most mischaracterized people in the hero franchise.

He is often portrayed as an angsty, edgy, and a ruthless antihero.

Although I can see how that conclusion is come to, here are my thoughts:

*TL;DR at the bottom in red*

*This information is coming from both the game and show, if I can find direct clips, I will show them*

I used the word anti hero, allow me to elaborate on that briefly. For anyone unaware, an antihero is described as “a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.” I would also describe it as someone who is fighting for good while being uncaring/unhelpful to others if it means the majority of the public is helped. Note that the definition of what an antihero is varies from person to person. Poorly characterized antiheroes are written as villains who are part of the hero’s team for some unknown reason.

The first episode we see Mysterion in is in S13E2, he is seen as a rival to The Coon, however he does not view himself that way, in his eyes, he is helping because that’s what he should do, not to spite Cartman.

I think this episode is often forgotten when people view him as an anti hero. We see him expose his identity and putting himself in danger to not have citizens caught in The Coon’s attempt at blackmail. Not my exact idea of an antihero however I digress.

Spoilers for the the game

In the game, the entirety of freedom pals aren’t introduced until the halfway point, however Mysterion, Wonder Tweek, and Tuppaware are introduced very early as opposition. After a lovers quarrel between Tweek and Craig, Doctor Timothy have an argument causing the two factions to fight. Craig is a mandatory player on your team.

While you fight the Freedom Pals, Tweek is the one doing the most talking (I say Tweek because it is very out of character for Wonder Tweek). Throwing insult after insult at Craig, even when the insults aren’t at him directly, Craig respondes as though they were. Tuppaware is not to important, he does his job and fights you, nothing too noteworthy there. But this is about Mysterion so I’ll move on.

In this fight, nearly every time you attack him or his teammates, he responds with how we are only being used by The Coon and we can do better than the Coon and Friends franchise. Also, note that when the opposition show interest in attacking Wonder Tweek he appears fearful, Tuppaware looks disgusted, but Mysterion appears surprised? Disappointed? I’m not quite sure but it’s definitely different than the rest of the Freedom Pals’s reaction. (I know how pointless it may seem to analyze the facial expression when they’re drawn, well, like that. But also consider this! I don’t care.) The best way I could describe it is as being upset/disappointed that that he is being attacked. It is my belief that this is because he doesn’t want to fight. This is countered by the fact that he is a relentless fighter. The only time he isn’t is stated before: the first time you fight him.

The second time however is a different story, he attacks you ruthlessly. He gives you one chance at the beginning of the of the fight, saying that “Fighting Doctor Timothy is a mistake beyond your comprehension.” But afterwards makes no attempts to help you, instead changing to his one liners.

This is another thing I need to talk about. I have a post made for the future where I talk about way too many of his quotes but I’ll summarize it for you.

Being angsty

Being ruthlessly

Being dark

Being concerned for his teammates

Cheering his teammates on

There are some more types but these are the most important because a lot of his lines are dark, angsty, and ruthless and tend to overshadow his other quotes. The appeal to throw in the towel and say that he’s an antihero would be very easy but I truly don’t see it. Despite his quotes he isn’t as angsty in most parts and is seen being distressed for other teammates and trying to help whoever he can.

I believe that he says his quotes only to scare the opposition. When he interacts with his teammates and civilians he stops the angsty-ness and acts as a protector. In my opinion, an antihero would not care about their perception, if the job gets done that’s all that matters. But clearly Mysterion doesn’t abide by those rules.

Although alignment charts are a gross oversimplification for explaining characterization but I think it is a very simple way to explain it. On the character sheets, the alignment is more simplified and only allows lawful, neutral or evil. He describes himself as lawful but that is not a proper alignment. I am still torn on his alignment but I will show three alignments definitions then my thoughts.

Definitions

Lawful Good

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. They combine a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They tell the truth, keep their word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Lawful Neutral

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. Order and organization are paramount to them. They may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or they may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

Neutral Good

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. They are devoted to helping others. They work with kings and magistrates but do not feel beholden to them.

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Neutral good can be a dangerous alignment when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.

*I did not add lawful evil because it is so wildly out of character there is no point in talking about it.*

Breaking it down

Lawful Good

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.

Mysterion shows himself to be a good person without wanting payment many times. Most notably when he reveals his identity to prevent harm to other citizens, and when he shows kindness and hope to the player despite the character and their teammates showing none back.

They combine a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.

The commitment to fight evil seems self explanatory so I will not acknowledge that, what I will elaborate on is the “discipline to fight relentlessly”. Earlier in the post, I explain how he seems to not want to fight but does so fiercely. This explains it. He is the calmest out of the heroes at nearly all times, the only time this is false is when a teammate is unjustly injured. While he does get angry, he is never seen actively trying to start a fight, but he will always end one.

They tell the truth, keep their word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice.

Throughout the series and the game, he never lies, however, he is never asked to tell the truth and I’m hesitant on saying that the lack of evidence is evidence. Despite that he does keep his word, his promise to protect his city, and promise to protect Karen are always fulfilled. When the Coon acts against the group, Mysterion is quick to shut him down.

A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

In the game, he tells us multiple times that being a hero is ugly. That the merciless don’t deserve mercy. He has made it clear that he is the bringer of karma.

Lawful Neutral

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them.

Mysterion is an upholder of morals. His own ethics pave how he reacts and behaves. For the most part, he follows the law very closely, but he will break off and actions will become unforgiving if the person deserves it.

Order and organization are paramount to them. They may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard…

His origin as Mysterion was to organize the town through peace and to help stop crime. He tries to keep his team peaceful and succeeds when part of freedom pals. When the franchise was whole, the Coon could break his peaceful exterior.

or they may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

This is the most difficult to defend. Yes, he does feed information to the police, but only when they are passive crimes. When active crimes occur, he attempts to deal with the issue himself.

Neutral Good

This is not in line with his personal alignment identity, but this seems the most plausible. Allow me to elaborate:

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do.

This has been explained in many places throughout this post and so I do not feel the need to repeat it.

They are devoted to helping others.

Once again, Mysterion is constantly seen putting others first: revealing his identity, handling Hindsight by himself, and risking his life and immortality to save them from Cthulhu.

They work with kings and magistrates but do not feel beholden to them.

This feels more natural than the last explanation for lawful neutral. He works with the cops in certain situations but is quick to work by himself or with his teammates if needed.

The alignments have been broken down and the evidence has been laid out, feel free to make your own decision.

TL;DR

Mysterion is not a dark antihero, he is a vigilante, a defender of peace, and beacon of hope to his citizens. He puts the needs and safety of others before himself.

Alignment possibilities: lawful good, lawful neutral, neutral good.

#Character analysis #Mysterion #South Park: The Fractured But Whole #SP: FbW

44 notes · View notes

disembodiedapparition · 4 years ago

Text

Is The Right To Freedom of Speech Under Siege?

In the days following the riots in the U.S. Capitol, legions of large social media companies moved to either permanently or temporarily ban President Trump from their platforms, citing rampant misinformation and incitement of violence. President Trump had been spreading unevidenced claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 elections for months, escalating his rhetoric after his Democratic opponent, President Biden, was declared the winner. In the days leading up to January 6th, the day that President Biden’s electoral victory was to be legally confirmed, President Trump delivered speeches and tweets claiming that “if [his supporters] don't fight like hell [they’re] not going to have a country anymore”, and instructed them to go to the Capitol. Though he clarified that he was in favor of a “peaceful protest”, his armed supporters wound up storming the Capitol, participating in an attack that culminated in the deaths of five people, including one police officer.

The bans, intended to block President Trump’s main avenue of spreading alternative facts, seemed to lessen the amount of false information being shared on the internet. However, many were concerned that, no matter how noble its intentions, it constituted an attack on Mr. Trump’s freedom of expression.

Was Trump’s Twitter ban a violation of his Freedom of Expression?

The answer is no. The freedom of expression protects individuals from censorship or restriction of speech by the government, subject to certain limitations depending on the laws on hate speech, defamation, and other protectionary speech regulations. The key word in this equation is “government”. Twitter, an independent and private corporation, can legally censor and remove anyone who violates their own set of terms and conditions. Since the platform is theirs, they can decide who gets to join it and what they’re allowed spread on it, as long as their practices are not discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. It’s much like how a restaurant owner can kick customers out for being drunk, or not following a certain dress code.

Was the ban effective? Was the ban right?

While it’s true that technically Twitter reserves the right to ban whoever they want, some claim that, given the sheer number of social media users and the amount of regular life that has been transferred online, it’s unfair to permanently ban someone from an online platform. Despite the fact that it is not a direct attack on your freedom of speech (you can always join a new platform or walk out into the streets and make the same statements), it limits your ability to communicate with a wider audience. The internet is a far more powerful communication platform than any stage in the world due to its ability to reach millions of more people at the same time. The fact that a capitalistic, unregulated corporation can control what is being said, seen, consumed, and promoted on the internet is dangerous — the corporation has the power to control which narratives are heard, and even mold them to serve their best interests. There’s too much power in the hands of companies that cannot be trusted to act in favor of the greater good, since their sole purpose is to create more profit.

The simplest solution to this is to break these companies’ power down with government regulation. Although companies would still have full control over their platforms, they would have to adopt a set of clear, consistent guidelines on what can and can’t be said, and what consequences any violators would have to face. Misinformation spreads six to seven times more than facts due to their intentionally provocative nature. Given the damage we’ve seen that misinformation is capable of, it’s clear that the relationship between governments and tech giants must be taken more seriously.

The idea of government regulated social media has been met with a lot of criticism. While some governments can be trusted to uphold the basic tenets of freedom of expression, there are plenty of non-democratic governments that have been known to suppress dissent and protest against their regimes. Not all governments can be trusted to fairly determine what can and cannot be said.

The future of free speech on the internet:

A growing phenomenon online, and increasingly in real-world situations, is “cancel culture”. A movement which started out as a collective mini-boycott of individuals or organizations supporting or doing questionable things, has escalated into something that could cost a person their job and reputation for disagreeing with the general consensus on a topic. Often correlated with “political correctness”, people are increasingly being persecuted for their words and actions: not only online, but in workplaces and higher education institutes as well.

It is often claimed that while we have the freedom of expression, we do not particularly have the freedom from consequences or reactions to that expression. This may be true, but the growing restrictions on personal beliefs and opinions are creating echo chambers at a time when we need as many new ideas about the issues plaguing our world than ever. While exposure to opposing beliefs may trigger our innate fight or flight responses, it’s important to engage with these opinions in order to understand and address them.

Cancel culture severely undermines the value of dissent, and if continued, could be disastrous. People are afraid to express opinions that they haven’t already seen “approved” on the internet already, watching people who do so getting their addresses and places of employment leaked online. In a crime called “doxxing”, an internet user’s personal information is posted online for other users to use to harass. Not only does this cause real harm to real people for exercising the right to an opinion, it effectively shuts down any productive discourse, instead creating online echo chambers where new ideas are not encouraged, and existing opinions are not questioned.

Bringing back the concept of government regulation: despite its misgivings, regulation would protect internet users from the dangers of social media, such as doxxing, cyberbullying, and fraud. It would also fight against users aiming to spread baseless or harmful misinformation online.

Conclusion:

With the integration of the internet into our everyday worlds, we need an effective way to regulate what goes on there just as much as we do in real life. Government regulation isn’t a perfect solution, but evidently there must be a fair set of guidelines restricting hate speech, doxxing, violence, misinformation, and other crimes online; while simultaneously protecting the rights of those who have dissenting opinions. Our freedom of expression, so far, is safe. But we need to stop shutting out opinions that we don’t agree with.

#freedom of speech #trump #donald trump #twitter #tech #big tech #cancel culture #protected speech #tolerance #intolerance #trump twitter ban #free speech #doxxing #fake news #misinformation #article #analysis #writerscommunity

0 notes

thornstocutyouwith · 8 years ago

Text

Lawful Good

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. The are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest. (1)

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 the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. These characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. (2)

These characters have a strong moral character. Truth, honor, and the welfare of others is all-important. They are convinced that order and laws are absolutely necessary to assure that goodness prevails. Lawful good beings will not want to lie or cheat anyone, good or evil. They will not stand for treachery and will not let obviously dishonorable people use their own honor against them, if they can help it. They will obey the laws and customs of the area that they are in, but will attempt to find legal loopholes to disobey a law which is clearly evil or unjust. (3)

Lawful good characters are group and order oriented, and will cooperate with authority in all cases to promote the common weal. Not all lawful good beings view the cosmos with an equal desire for lawfulness and goodness, so there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced "lawful good" attitude (nor a perfectly balanced attitude for any other alignment, for that matter). In general, however, a lawful good character promotes the ideals and rights of the majority over those of the individual (and this includes himself as well as others) and upholds the rights of the weak and oppressed members of society, who should be allowed to reap society's benefits with equanimity. The lawful good being feels this is the best way that all members of society can enjoy the rights of existence together. Life is important to the lawful good being, but life is not exclusive of order, and vice versa. (4)

Lawful good can appear to be a difficult alignment to uphold, but it must be remembered that lawful good characters are not necessarily naive or unrealistic. At the heart of a lawful good alignment is the belief in a system of laws that promotes the welfare of all members of a society, ensures their safety, and guarantees justice. So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the lawful good character whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator. Though all lawful good systems adhere to the same general principles, specific laws may be different. One society may allow a wife to have two husbands, another may enforce strict monogamy. Gambling may be tolerated in one system, forbidden in another. A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens. (5)

However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a lawful good character may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In this character's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, he may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law. Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the lawful good character to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The lawful good character's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area. (5)

When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime. Otherwise, a lawful good character avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does this character necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills an innocent being. (5)

A lawful good character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A lawful good character will never use poison. He will help those in need and he prefers to work with others. He responds well to higher authority, is trustful of organizations, and will always follow the law. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend (though he will attempt to bring an immoral or law-breaking friend to justice, in order to rehabilitate that person). Lawful good characters respect the concepts of self-discipline and honor. (6)

Here are some possible adjectives describing lawful good characters: friendly, courteous, sensitive to the feelings of others, scrupulous, honorable, trustworthy, reliable, helpful, loyal, and respectful of "life, love, and the pursuit of happiness."

Well known lawful good characters from film or literature include: Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Mister Spock (Star Trek), Hermione Granger (Harry Potter), and Superman (DC Comics).

Equivalent alignment in other game systems: Principled (Palladium), Road of Heaven (Vampire), Light Side (Star Wars), Law (Warhammer), Virtuous and Ethical (Alternity).

The Ten Lawful Good Commandments

A list of Ten Commandments for a lawful good religion may look like this:

1. You shall not lie.

2. You shall not harm the innocent.

3. You shall not murder.

4. You shall help the needy.

5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness.

6. You shall follow the law.

7. You shall not betray others.

8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice.

9. You shall not steal.

10. You shall seek unlimited good for others and unlimited order in society.

Ten Lawful Good Sins

Likewise, a lawful good religion may list the following as sins. This list is given in the order of least severe infraction to most severe.

1. Failing to show respect to lawful good churches, governments, and/or beings.

2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc.

3. Being motivated by pride, avarice, gluttony, or some other sinful impulse.

4. Theft, robbery, or willful vandalism.

5. Causing harm to a pious or virtuous being.

6. Failing to assist or aid good beings when in need.

7. Blasphemous or heretical acts.

8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished.

9. The murder of an innocent.

10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil.

The Lawful Good Adventurer

The following two lists detail common actions undertaken during "adventuring" that are considered honorable and dishonorable for the lawful good alignment. An honorable action is one that is in keeping with the spirit of this alignment, while dishonorable actions tend to be those which bring shame to the character in the eyes of his or her alignment peers. Note that an action which is considered honorable by one alignment may be considered dishonorable by another alignment and vice versa.

The following actions are honorable for this alignment:

Allowing a disarmed enemy to pick up his weapon

Allowing the enemy to attack first

Allowing the enemy to remove their dead/wounded from the field

Defeating a superior opponent

Picking up the funeral expenses of someone you slew in combat

Refusing medical treatment for the good of the party

Reporting illegal and immoral actions to the authorities

Saving the life of another at great risk to own self

Taking an arrow or hit for someone else

Taking prisoners

The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:

Accused of crime (innocent or not)

Attacking an unarmed or obviously inferior opponent

Being taken prisoner

Convicted of a crime

Defeated by an inferior opponent

Delivering death blow to a helpless opponent

Desecrating an enemy's corpse

Dirty fighting

Falsely claiming the 'bragging rights' that belong to another or outright lying

Fleeing a battle that's obviously going poorly

Fleeing a fight with a superior opponent

Fleeing a fight with an equal opponent

Gloating over a victory

Killing a host who has provided you food or shelter

Neglecting to properly bury a member of one's own race

Paying off an extortionist or shake-down

Perpetrate humiliating prank on enemy

Rash or improper social behavior

Refusing a fair contest/challenge

Surrendering

Taking a bribe

Taunting an enemy into fighting

Treason

Unjustly slaying a prisoner or unarmed opponent who has yielded

Walking away from a challenge

Lawful Good and Society

A lawful good being...

Respects the authority figures in his family and obeys their mandates.

Values lifelong commitment to a romantic partner.

Obeys all personal contracts.

Respects the laws and authority figures of the community and nation.

Considers public service in a leadership role an honor.

Supports the legal procedures of the nation, without regard to their own discomfort.

Seeks secure employment, believing hard work will pay off in the end.

Will not want to disappoint his family.

Will support their family even if it means personal discomfort.

Will never betray a friend and enjoys having close friends.

Considers the needs of the community in personal life.

Will give his life in defense of his community.

Will take actions to aid others during times of crisis, even if unprofitable to do so.

Believes everyone should be treated fairly and kindly.

Feels guilt when he commits a wrongdoing and will seek to right his wrong.

Uses wealth to help others who are less fortunate.

A community with a lawful good government usually has a codified set of laws, and most people willingly obey those laws. In a lawful good society, the people are generally honest, law-abiding, and helpful. They mean well (at least most of them do). They respect the law. As a rule, people don't walk around wearing armor and carrying weapons. Those who do are viewed with suspicion or as trouble-makers. Some societies tend to dislike adventurers, since they often bring trouble.

Lawful Good and Other Alignments

Lawful Good vs. Lawful Neutral

Conflict between lawful neutral and lawful good characters will center around the nature of laws. Lawful good characters want laws to protect the weak and punish the wicked, while lawful neutral characters are only interested in maintaining or expanding laws to cover every foreseeable problem within society without compassion or moral judgment. Lawful neutral characters will apply laws in a rigid manner, not worrying about whether the spirit of the law is upheld. It is the letter that is important to them. The language of the social compact and the wording of laws are all they are interested in, since that is all that is apparent from written documents. A lawful good character will be just as offended by a lawful neutral character's preference of letter over spirit as they are contemptuous of the neutral good character's insistence that the spirit is more important. The lawful good character will question the utility of laws that do not take into account all circumstances to provide a just and equitable settlement that coincides with their moral beliefs. The lawful neutral character does not consider morality when applying laws, only the effectiveness of the law to keep society stable.

Lawful Good vs. Neutral Good

Since neutral good characters see no inherent worth in laws, other than how well they provide for the common good, they may disagree with lawful good characters on a number of issues. Conflicts between characters of these types will center around the lawful good character always wanting to work within the law to accomplish good, even if breaking the law might result in more good for people. They will not accept the neutral good character's argument that working around the law is sometimes a better way to accomplish the spirit of the law. To lawful good characters, the letter and spirit of good laws should not be violated. They see a legal system as something that should be followed, as long as it is good, even if an illegal, or shady way might accomplish better results. Neutral good characters will be disgusted by their lawful good allies' adherence to laws, when the path is clear for them--break the law. Lawful good characters will contend that if they do not follow the law to accomplish what is right, how are they different from criminals? Their ethical sensibilities will be offended by the way that a neutral good character might do things.

Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil

When operating as leaders within society, this is how characters of these three alignments may behave. The lawful neutral character will advance the aims of society and apply the law impartially to all citizens. He will follow laws and fight to ensure that all citizens follow laws. He will use legitimate means to change to social order if the state would benefit more from the change. He will promote fairness, using the law to reward those who act in accordance with the social order and punish those who act to the detriment of the state. He will tolerate corruption as long as the strength of the state is not jeopardized. The lawful neutral character will enjoy his position and its perks, but will not abuse his authority. The lawful good character will view his position as an opportunity to selflessly serve his fellow citizens. He will work to increase weal throughout society through the apparatus of the state. He will tirelessly fight corruption and work to eliminate social ills such as poverty, uneven wealth distribution, abuse by the state, and other problems. The lawful evil character will use his position of power over others to ruthlessly pursue his own agenda using the apparatus of the state. He will follow laws and encourage all citizens to follow laws by severely punishing criminals. He will increase his own wealth and power at the expense of the population as long as he can use legal means. The lawful evil character views his position as proof of his superiority over the common rabble.

Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good

In situations where goodness must be advanced in society, this is how characters of these different alignments may respond. The lawful good character will promote weal throughout society through increased legislation or a more powerful government. They will work to provide laws and procedures to protect the population against every foreseeable ill in society. They will protect citizens against abuse from unscrupulous individuals. They will advocate and construct power structures and economic systems that provide the most benefit for the population as a whole. Lawful good characters will provide equality of result. The chaotic good character will promote happiness in society by increasing freedom and allowing its citizens to decide the best way to increase prosperity for all. They will promote systems which give maximum freedom and opportunity for citizens to increase their own happiness and the happiness of others. They will ensure that the population is protected against every possible abuse by the governing system. Chaotic good characters will provide equality of opportunity. Neutral good character will build a system that promotes both harmony and freedom. They will attempt to balance opportunity and results. They will use only enough laws and order to protect the freedom of its citizens to promote prosperity and happiness for all. They will guard the population against abuses from within the power structure, but also against abuses from individuals. Neutral good characters will build a flexible social order that allows both public and private action to increase goodness in society.

How Lawful Good Views the Other Alignments

The chart below shows how Lawful Good views itself and the other eight alignments.

Lawful Good

Honorable and Humane

Neutral Good

Humane but Unreliable

Chaotic Good

Humane but Dishonorable

Lawful Neutral

Honorable but Apathetic

True Neutral

Unreliable and Apathetic

Chaotic Neutral

Dishonorable and Apathetic

Lawful Evil

Honorable but Ruthless

Neutral Evil

Unreliable and Ruthless

Chaotic Evil

Dishonorable and Ruthless

Lawfuls tend to view actions on a scale ranging from honorable to dishonorable. They hold themselves honorable while chaotics are seen as dishonorable in their eyes. Lawfuls view ethical neutrals as unreliable as they are concerned with doing the right thing some of the time whereas other times they seem to disregard society's expectations.

Characters of good alignment wish to advance altruism, compassion, and mercy. They view themselves as humane. At the opposite end of this spectrum is ruthlessness, while moral neutrals are seen as indifferent and apathetic.

The Philosophy of Lawful Good

Lawful good is the philosophy that goodness is best achieved through law and order. It is a philosophy of altruistic collectivism. This philosophy holds that people should behave altruistically and put the needs of the group ahead of individual desires. Lawful good can also be associated with rule utilitarianism and ethical altruism.

Lawful good philosophers generally maintain that there is metaphysical order in the multiverse and thus may support doctrines of hard determinism, predeterminism, fatalism, predestination, and/or necessitarianism. They may believe in fate or destiny. They tend to be moral objectivists, holding that values exist in the external world independently of and external to our comprehension of them; that they can be found and known; and that they must be used as principles for human judgments and conduct.

The ideal government for this alignment is an authoritarian state with codified laws supporting a social order in which altruism is rewarded and radical egoism is punished. Lawful good beings want the power of the state to be used for the benefit of all. Rehabilitative justice is used to reform criminals and evil-doers.

#WillowInformation #Alignment #Moral Alignment #Moral #Lawful Good #Skies #The Delacroix-Levitt kids are such good brats #Unlike those snobby bitch Murray kids XD

4 notes · View notes

thornedflower-blog1 · 8 years ago

Photo

-Day 8-

Where do they generally align on the morality spectrum? Laurie is Lawful Good.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

What, if any sort of circumstances might sway them from this usual alignment to another?

Laurie is unlikely to change moral alignment, at her heart she'll always believe in the Lawful Good viewpoint. Laurie wants to believe that those in authority have the best interests of others at heart, but she knows that isn't always true. If the law were to stop being "good" she would fight for the downtrodden and suppressed, regardless of what the law said, but she would always believe that the law should already fight for the downtrodden and suppressed.

{In Depth on Lawful Good Under Cut}

Detailed Results:

Alignment: Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25) Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23) Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22) Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21) True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19) Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18) Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12) Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXX (9)

Law & Chaos: Law ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8) Chaos --- XXXXXXX (7)

Good & Evil: Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15) Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11) Evil ---- XX (2)

Lawful Good and Society

A lawful good being...

Respects the authority figures in his family and obeys their mandates.

Values lifelong commitment to a romantic partner.

Obeys all personal contracts.

Respects the laws and authority figures of the community and nation.

Considers public service in a leadership role an honor.

Supports the legal procedures of the nation, without regard to their own discomfort.

Seeks secure employment, believing hard work will pay off in the end.

Will not want to disappoint his family.

Will support their family even if it means personal discomfort.

Will never betray a friend and enjoys having close friends.

Considers the needs of the community in personal life.

Will give his life in defense of his community.

Will take actions to aid others during times of crisis, even if unprofitable to do so.

Believes everyone should be treated fairly and kindly.

Feels guilt when he commits a wrongdoing and will seek to right his wrong.

Uses wealth to help others who are less fortunate.

The Ten Lawful Good Commandments

A list of Ten Commandments for a lawful good religion may look like this:

1. You shall not lie.

2. You shall not harm the innocent.

3. You shall not murder.

4. You shall help the needy.

5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness.

6. You shall follow the law.

7. You shall not betray others.

8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice.

9. You shall not steal.

10. You shall seek unlimited good for others and unlimited order in society.

Ten Lawful Good Sins

Likewise, a lawful good religion may list the following as sins. This list is given in the order of least severe infraction to most severe.

1. Failing to show respect to lawful good churches, governments, and/or beings.

2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc.

3. Being motivated by pride, avarice, gluttony, or some other sinful impulse.

4. Theft, robbery, or willful vandalism.

5. Causing harm to a pious or virtuous being.

6. Failing to assist or aid good beings when in need.

7. Blasphemous or heretical acts.

8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished.

9. The murder of an innocent.

10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil.

#20 day challenge #writing prompt

1 note · View note

boargored-blog · 8 years ago

Text

alignment:lawful good

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Well known lawful good characters from film or literature include: Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Mister Spock (Star Trek), Hermione Granger (Harry Potter), and Superman (DC Comics).

source: ( x )

#➤ ( HEADCANON )#➤ ( ABOUT )#nevermind the fact type moon classifies him aw lawful neutral for some odd reason #*as #thus far i've found nothing in his legend that leads me to believe he's lawful neutral #personally i hc diar as lawful good; it makes much more sense :-/#i've bolded stuff especially particular to diar

7 notes · View notes

nicholemhearn · 7 years ago

Text

Deep Nationalism and the Ideology of Trumpism

Every academic I know (including me) was surprised by the Trump victory. Whether we looked at the survey data with false assumptions or missed a shift in the culture is unclear. I believe most of us also missed what this election means in terms of ideology. Is there something we can call Trumpism?

I’m going to argue that there is, and that this ideology is more potent than many have recognized. It is also an identifiable branch of conservatism, although many never-Trump conservatives will disagree after their coughing and sputtering subsides. Trump clearly communicates a form of conservatism—just not the kind that most observers expected from a Republican nominee (much less a Republican president).

I would have said in 2016 that Trump’s brand of conservatism was not electable. The underestimated appeal and unexpected success of Trumpism make it (and its possible future) all the more important to understand.

Deep Nationalism

The heart of Trumpism is deep nationalism. By “deep” nationalism I mean that everything else—American interests, policies, language, culture, and traditions—is seen through a nationalistic lens.

Some values are co-equal or subordinate to others. A deep value colors how all the others are seen.¹ Trump sees economic policy through the lens of nationalism: protection of American jobs, opposition to free trade, beating other countries in deals. His foreign policy is also nationalist: America first, no avoidable ideological wars, make allies pay for protection. And of course Trump’s views on immigration are nationalist: stop uncontrolled immigration across the southern border and the flow of refugees from the Middle East. In Trump’s view, past policies on immigration have increased competition for low-wage jobs, are eroding English as the national language, are raising public costs for social services, and are reducing our security from crime and terrorism. Trump is an economic, immigration, and foreign policy nationalist (and likely a nationalist about everything else as well).

As recently as his Afghanistan speech on August 21st, Trump connected Afghan War policy to nationalism, and then nationalism to Charlottesville (which is what ideologies do—they connect the disparate into a symbolic whole). And he offered nationalism as a replacement for identity politics: “When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry and no tolerance for hate.” This was not just in response to Charlottesville, however. Trump has used this kind of rhetoric many times before.

At the Boy Scouts National Jamboree in July: TRUMP: You are the young people of character, integrity who will serve as leaders of our communities and uphold the sacred values of our nation.

CROWD: USA! USA! USA!

TRUMP: But the words “duty,” “country,” and “God” are beautiful words. In other words, basically what you’re doing is you’re pledging to be a great American patriot.

And if you do these things, and if you refuse to give in to doubt or to fear, then you will help to make America great again, you will be proud of yourself, be proud of the uniform you wear, and be proud of the country you love. CROWD: USA! USA! USA!

In his CPAC speech in February:

“The core conviction of our movement is that we are a nation that put—and will put—its own citizens first.

“There is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency, or a global flag.”

In his inaugural speech in January:

“At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”

During the campaign it was much the same. Consider Trump’s foreign policy speech in April 2016:

“America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.

“The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.

“Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.

“I will view as president the world through the clear lens of American interests. I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion.”

Of course, Trump said other things as well—on topics both expected and unfortunate—but no theme in his rhetoric runs as clearly and repetitively as nationalism. His bombast, bullying, and bluster have misled some into thinking there is no idea-set there, but that is a mistake. Trumpism is an ideology, the ideology of deep American nationalism. And there is growing evidence that this ideology played a significant role in the motivation of Trump’s supporters. A paper by Eric Oliver and Wendy Rahn, for example, reveals a dominant strain of nationalism—along with mistrust of experts and anti-elitism—in a national sample of Trump supporters compared to both Clinton voters and supporters of other Republican candidates.

Nationalism as a Value, Identity, and Symbol

My goal here is to understand Trump’s deep nationalism on its own terms by employing interpretive charity, as Jeffrey Friedman described it in an earlier post. Friedman has addressed nationalism and authoritarianism as possible sources of Trump’s support (see my comments on his authoritarianism post), and he plans to examine other factors such as racism, anti-elitism, and a backlash against political correctness. While these other factors may have been important influences on the election, none but nationalism captures the set of ideas that Trump has expressed clearly. That is, none but nationalism explains Trumpism as an ism.

An ideology is a vision of a better society, grounded in a constellation of beliefs—values (normative predispositions), premises (empirical predispositions), identities, and symbols—that fit together in a cohesive way. Ideologues tend to be narrow thinkers and unreliable observers. They are hedgehogs, not foxes. While most Americans are not active ideologues, they do hold values and identities (gut-level ideologies) that guide their thinking.

In one sense, nationalism is a value, little different in form than individualism or egalitarianism. Values are predispositions shaping our perceptions of better or worse goals. They are what Philip Tetlock calls “backstops”—things we can’t justify but can justify nothing without. We may think that following certain values will have positive consequences, but that is not why we hold them. Like other core beliefs, values settled in our minds long before we could argue for or against them. (On this point, my view of nationalism differs from Friedman’s, which holds that Trump’s nationalism, at least, is consequentialist.)

In another sense, nationalism is an identity, similar to group loyalties grounded in ethnicity, gender, religion, or anything else that makes us feel connected to other people we don’t know. Nationalism is a form of tribalism that replaced previous forms, to some degree, with the rise of the nation-state as a core facet of the modern mind. More recently it has been replaced, to some degree, by newer forms of tribalism. It is as defensible (or indefensible) as any other kind of identity. (Here I definitely depart from Friedman, who rejects nationalism as illegitimate).

Perhaps most importantly, nationalism is a powerful symbol. Michael Walzer described symbols as things that “tell us more than we can easily repeat.” They facilitate a core goal of politicians: “Politics is an art of unification; from many, it makes one. . . . If symbolization does not by itself create unity (that is the function of political practice as well as of symbolic activity), it does create units—units of discourse which are fundamental to all thinking and doing, units of feeling around which emotions of loyalty and assurance can cluster.” In The Phantom Public (1924), Walter Lippmann offers a definition of politics that again focuses on the symbolic: “the use of symbols which assemble emotion after they have been detached from their ideas.” Ideas (values, ideologies, etc.) may be primary, but the important thing is that they carry emotions with them, which can be organized for citizens symbolically. The artful and successful politician is the one who can mobilize the symbols that will trigger the emotions that motivate voters.

Trumpism as a Branch of Conservatism

In polarized America, ideologues seem more likely to talk past each other than to attempt mutual understanding. In my experience, most conservatives cannot accurately describe the beliefs of liberals or vice versa. The heart of the difficulty is that the ideologies are not polar opposites, so an ideologue cannot just reverse his or her own beliefs to understand what the other tribe thinks. Instead, the two competing ideologies ask different core questions, which those of the opposing view do not see as vital concerns.²

Conservatives see society as fundamentally fragile, facing a host of internal and external enemies that challenge our desire for ordered liberty (the combination of freedom with responsibility). This situation demands the appropriate balance (a Golden Mean) between liberty and authority.

The answers to the core question of conservatism—how do we glue together a free and fragile society?—lead to the different branches of the ideology. Economic conservatives believe that private property and the work ethic answer the glue problem. National-defense conservatives believe the answer is patriotism and a strong military. Social conservatives believe it is religion and a shared moral system. Cultural conservatives believe it is a shared tradition, which includes a common language.

Liberals, on the other hand, perceive society as fundamentally perfectible, with improvement defined as the achievement of greater equality and social justice. The core liberal goal is to reduce oppression, but disagreement remains about which groups are most oppressed, including the poor, Blacks, Hispanics, women, and non-heterosexuals. Traditional liberals believe that the main source of oppression is poverty, while the newer camp of multiculturalists believes the main source of oppression is the suppression of identity.

Trump is surely not a conservative along the lines of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or the editors of National Review and The Weekly Standard (many of whom were never-Trumpers). Nonetheless, Trump can be described as a conservative. He is primarily a cultural conservative whose answer to the glue problem is tradition and shared language. As an economic, immigration, and foreign-policy nationalist, Trump is a cultural conservative who identifies multiple threats to national power, traditions, and stability.

This is not to say that only conservatives feel the pull of nationalism. As Friedman points out, Bernie Sanders frames his defense of economic equality in nationalist terms. Government programs to promote equality can only be successful on a national basis, redistributing from wealthy to poor within (say) the United States. If we redistributed to the poorest people on the planet, this would not reduce inequality among Americans. One of the reasons people support the welfare state (and do so more the more culturally homogeneous the nation) is that they are willing to give their money to people who are like them, but less so to people unlike them. As soon as we internationalize attempts at equality, support for them goes down. Increasing equality relies, to an important degree, on accepting nationalism.

Friedman would argue that Sanders should be just as happy if wealthy Americans subsidized poor Africans or Asians as if they subsidized poor Americans. But the concerns of egalitarian nationalists are focused on the people they can see with their own eyes, not on abstractions they cannot see. People have a strong tendency to identify with people closer to them rather than those farther away. We may as well insist that people have no preference for their family members or neighbors over people on the other side of the world. That is a hard sell psychologically. On the rational side of the argument, if I believe that my co-nationals share my values (like egalitarianism, or social justice, or constitutionalism), which Russians or Chinese do not share, it is perfectly rational to prefer policies that help my co-nationals.

The nationalism displayed by Sanders supporters may help explain why a surprising number did not come back to Hillary, but instead voted for Trump.

Are All Nationalisms Created Equal?

Many fear nationalism, whether it is the American or Chinese or Russian variety. Some equate nationalism with fascism.³ This overlooks the important distinction made by historian Liah Greenfeld between civic and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism includes commitments to individual rights, the rule of law, and other core principles that the nation aspires to at home and promotes abroad. Ethnic nationalism is based purely on blunt feelings of group superiority. As Friedman’s post on nationalism notes, nationalism is not equivalent to xenophobia. His evidence against Trump supporters’ xenophobia may also be evidence that their nationalism is civic, not ethnic.

If the Trump presidency continues—or if Trumpism continues after its namesake is no longer the president—the important question will be what sort of nationalism it turns out to promote in the long term. The fear is that ethnic nationalism without principle will dominate the better angels of civic nationalism. Thus far, Trumpism has been a nationalism of walls and borders. It has not veered toward the nationalism of military adventurism or conquest. The balance of civic or ethnic nationalism among Trump supporters is unclear. We can only hope that the nationalist heart of Trumpism remains civic, defensive, and principled, avoiding nationalism’s darker aspects. Trump and Trumpism have surprised many of us before, and regardless of our expectations, they may well again.

Morgan Marietta is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He is the author of A Citizen’s Guide to American Ideology: Conservatism and Liberalism in Contemporary Politics, The Politics of Sacred R

#nicholemhearn digest

0 notes