>I've been a long time entropy
>player, but I've never successfully
>been able to get more
>than about a sentence out
>of Pico.

I'd say that's pretty typical for characters that I interact with in passing through tells. I have Pico do this on purpose so that the other character only has a limited about of feedback/information/response to work with. I also tend to be gruff and/or unresponsive at first. Both are intended to make the other character define where the conversation goes and not rely on me to define the path for them.

>I guess
>Ishmael and the past entropy
>imms followed more my conception
>of "chaos."

I think the CN Imms for Entropy (Nighthawk and Ishmael) had a different take on Chaos than I do which is probably more "fun" for many players. One of the (many) reasons I was sad to see Ishmael leave is that he was a good foil for Pico in that he had more the zany goofball type. If played well, this is a legitimate role for Entropy and Chaos. My preference against it is that 1) it doesn't fit my own personality, so having Pico play this role would probably not work well and 2) for most people attempting to play this kind of role, it comes out as Chaotic Stupid.

>Pico (the
>character's) conception of what "chaos"
>appears to me to be
>relegated to the nonsensical (yet
>strangely predictable) disappropriation of what
>would be cliched words and
>phrases.

Language is certainly one way in which society can control its members. Many of the differences between British and American English arose from American colonists' desires to be different than the home country; "jive" was/is a rebellion against "white" English. Pico manipulates the use of language (as well as customs such as bowing) to make other characters conscience of words they are using and things they are doing which are constructs of society. I try to both instruct and harass at the same time, but these can be competing goals. For instance, Pico might always respond negatively to someone telling him "what must I do in order to join Entropy?" Yes, it might be chaotic to sometimes answer this and sometimes point out that there 1) is not set path for anything (i.e., "what must I do") so long as Chaos reigns and 2) the choice of the phrase "in order" is rather ironic given the desire for Chaos. However, Pico will generally chose the latter, sacrificing IC consistency for an OOC desire to demonstrate the other character's adherence to convention.

If most of your interactions with Pico were through tells, I'm not surprised that your view of him is limited to his use (or abuse) of language.

>This brings me to a question
>about you, the player behind
>Pico. I've often wondered
>if you are involved and/or
>interested in the postmodern movement
>since Derrida. Much of
>Pico's seeming obsession with almost
>ridiculously complicated words (hence your
>title I would imagine) reminds
>me a great deal of
>the post structural application of
>inordinately complex rhetoric (in my
>opinion to mask the fact
>that the postmoderns are just
>the next step in the
>corporate "forced consumer" culture).
>I might just be imagining
>the whole Pico/Derrida thing, but
>after speaking with the character
>I usually come out of
>the interview feeling the same
>way I do after sloshing
>through a passage of "Of
>Grammatology." Is any of
>this true or is it
>a product of my overworked
>imagination?

You're not the first to ask this kind of question. I remember a year or two ago answering a similar question on Dioxide or Glimo's forum that revolved around Nietzche or Sartre or both (I can't remember -- it was asked by a former Entropy bard whose name escapes me). I can tell you that I (Pico's player) haven't read much philosophy, other than a couple of Ayn Rand novels. In a graduate American Lit. class last spring we talked about how Mark Twain's later writings and Stephen Crane were the beginnings of the post-modern movement in literature, but the name Derrida doesn't mean anything to me.

My background is engineering and so I've taken a rather rationalistic approach to what Chaos is. I started in Entropy in July of 1994 thinking Entropy/Chaos wasn't much more than being able to kill Midgaard gate guards for exp without being flagged for it. Over time, especially after I immed around the time of the Purge and started doing interviews for the cabal, my understanding of Chaos grew. I see it as defining Chaos properly (i.e., what it is, not what it isn't) and then systamatically applying it to all facets, possbilities, and interactions in Thera.

In other words, if a player has an understanding of Chaos, then whatever their character encounters in the game they can react to it based on what they see as "Chaotic." This is the method behind my interviews -- I'm trying to find out if you, as the player, know what is "Chaotic," reasoning that if you do then you'll know how to react chaotically in the game (i.e., roleplay a chaotic character). Thus, if your character uses catch-phrases, yells a lot in Galadon, has a pet rock, or hates the Arbiters/Tribunal, you're much less likely to understand Chaos and, consequently, an ability to act Chaotically. Instead, you've developed an "angle" or gimmick before you even know what will happen and the insert that angle/gimmick into a situation, hoping that it'll make you seem Chaotic. Thus, "euk euk," "moo," and a shovel are merely eccentric and not truly Chaotic. Eccentric sometimes can be Chaotic, sometimes it can make you appear Chaotic to those who don't know better, but most of the time it gets labeled "Chaotic Stupid."

wow! you're the first person I've seen who looks at chaos the same way I do. Knowing full well that it's an oxymoron, I've taken to calling my view "logical chaos, and chaotic logic"
I've been into roleplaying games (namely Dungeons and Dragons) much longer than I've known about CF, and I've always tried to figure out what Alignment I am IRL. I've come to the realisation that I'm chaotic good. In fact, my whole family is. For as long as I can remember, we've always acted based solely on what we wanted to do, which was in turn, based on a high moral code of our own choosing. Tenets of society have never held sway over the way we live our lives, and we all get extremely annoyed when we see people behaving like sheep and following the rest of the flock "becuase everyone else is." It's rather gratifying to know that you control your own life, totally (with the exception of the possibility that at any time, someone could jump you and kill you, thus ending your control). The only drawbacks to this kind of lifestyle is A. it tends to be very lonely, and B) the price of freedom is responsibility. You are totally free to do what you want, but you have to know that whatever you do, there will always be reactions, not all of which are going to be pleasant. Being free to decide for yourself what you are going to do, also mean deciding if you want to risk those unpleasant consequences for your actions. For example:

Let's say, I think that Microsoft's attempts to gain a monopoly on everything they're involved in, is evil because it's trying to control what people can and cannot do, thus taking away their valuable freedom. So I consider hopping on the internet and, being the computer super genious that I am (HAH!), planting a virus in Microsoft's system which will spreads throughout all systems containing anything Microsoft, and thoroughly destroy anything Microsoft. I know this is "illegal," but "illegal" is not something that concerns me and has never stopped me before. However, I know that if I get caught, the pentalies will be extremely high. I can avoid the penalties easily enough; just don't send out the virus, and I won't have to worry. But MICROSOFT MUST DIE!!! So I send the virus. Unfortunately, I'm not QUITE the computer super-genious I thought I was, and they figured out who sent it. I realise that I'm caught an hour before the FBI storms my house. Now I have another decision. I can escape (in which case I'll have no choice but to accept the fact that I'll be pursued, and possibly even shot), I can lay down and them take me, or I can stip naked and hop around in circles yelling, "Euk! Euk!" (in which case they'll probably put me in a straight jacket and lock me in a padded room) The choice is mine, and no one can force me to do anything I don't want to do. I am free. Since I'm sane (well maybe a LITTLE insane since I thought such a virus would be a good thing!), the last choice is probably not going to be it. I don't rellish the idea of spending life in prison, and I know that if I leave now, I can get away for a little while. I think I'm intelligent enough to evade capture for the rest of my life (as long as I continue to make the effort), and I'm willing to take that risk. So now I spend the rest of my life on the run, and while I may not LIKE doing it, I chose to plant the virus and go on the run, and thus, accepted the consequences of my actions (even if they weren't the consequences that the rest of society had intended for me). The virus was planted with the intent of helping all man-kind, and even though it may not have helped, my intentions were good. Yeah, most people think it was an evil thing to do, but who the hell cares what other people think? If I cared that much what other people thought, I wouldn't be chaotic.

Although a bit exagerated, I think that's a pretty good example of a good person leading a chaotic life. I agree that there are too many Entropy characters who are simply "Chaotic Stupid" (I love that term!!!) and don't know what it really means to lead a chaotic life. I'm curious to know if you (as Pico's player) are a chaotic person IRL, or if you have just learned how to play on in-game.

Klaak

Great spirits have always met violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

I would say that this is a pretty good analogy to real life. Maybe it will help illustrate, to some extent, what CG is. However, (and with the full realization that I don't know you at all) I would say you're not really Chaotic Good, but more Neutral Good. I say this because much of what you suggest doing and, more importantly the method by which you go about it, are reasoned. You are being Chaotic in relation to society, but the way you do things is fairly methodical.

As an example, I'm not sure if you've read Without Remorse by Tom Clancy, but in there a man (former SEAL) vows vengeance on drug dealers in Baltimore. Being the trained special forces person he is, he meticulously plans and carries out physical training and marksmanship, gathering information about his prey, and then proceeds to kill a bunch of them. He breaks many laws beyond murder, including forcibly restraining a police officer, while carrying out his retribution. Yes he's Chaotic because he is seeking a moral good without regard to established laws and norms, but he certainly did not go about that morally good end by chaotic means, but by very Ordered (i.e., lawful -- not Lawful) means. I would term this person Neutral Good because he chose both chaotic and lawful means by which to achieve his goal. You would seem to fall into the NG category as well, based on your scenario.

As for me, I think I covered this in my previous post when I mentioned my approach to Chaos and the Chaotic role. I would definitely characterize myself as a lawful (and Lawful) person, although I'm not a archetype of that ethos (just as I doubt anyone IRL or in Thera could be completely chaotic or lawful). There are many aspects of "Chaos" -- some which you alluded to in your post -- that appeal to me. I mentioned reading Ayn Rand in my previous post. While I wouldn't consider myself an Objectivist, many aspects of that philosophy appeal to me. It is very much a "lawful" philosophy, but several of the Chaotic beliefs (such as choosing a moral code of one's own and being unfettered by the selfish needs of others) are precepts of Objectivism as well.

I think it's fair to say that your Chaotic Logic doesn't have a monopoly on contradictions, that most real life philosophies borrow from both ends of Thera's ethos spectrum in an effort to achieve their intended goals. What I hope you draw from this discussion, however, is that Thera is structured to be rather black and white about such lofty issues. There's good, evil, and neutral; there's lawful, chaotic, and neutral. This waters things down for the players who have a great understanding of roles, but makes things clearer for those who don't know how to roleplay very well. Thus, a Chaotic is someone who is truly random and unpredictable, both externally toward society and its constructs as well as internally toward his own thoughts and actions.

This is something I've never quite understood myself, how it works in the game. Chaotic has been said as the opposite of Lawful, and the opposite of Order before...how is it intended to be in the game, or is it both? It would make a significant difference in how I termed my characters' ethos (whatever the plural would be).

In this post I used "chaotic" and "lawful" as the ethos found in Thera; I used "Chaotic" as the adjective for someone who is random, unpredictable, etc.; I used "Lawful" to mean following the Laws (either RL laws or Thera's); I used "Ordered" to mean someone who uses and/or follows structure, plans events, etc.

More generally, someone who is of a chaotic ethos in Thera should be Chaotic and someone who is of a lawful ethos should be Ordered. However, two things make this a bit tricky. First, chaotic and lawful are the extremes of a three point scale. As a consequence of only having three points on the ethos spectrum, there is a lot of grey area in between the endpoints that leaves latitude for interpretation of what exactly makes someone lawful, chaotic, or neutral. The second issue which muddies the water is the Laws of Thera (variously enforced by Justice, Arbiter, and Tribunal). Obviously the Laws are part of an Ordered existence, but for various reasons (or unreasons or no reason) people can choose to follow the Laws, not follow the Laws, sometimes follow the Laws, or ignore the Laws altogether.

A character's ethos plays a role, either in whole or in part, in his view of the Laws. However, the Laws, in and of themselves, do not define ethos in Thera.

>This is something I've never quite
>understood myself, how it works
>in the game. Chaotic
>has been said as the
>opposite of Lawful, and the
>opposite of Order before...how is
>it intended to be in
>the game, or is it
>both? It would make
>a significant difference in how
>I termed my characters' ethos
> whatever the plural would be).
>

Actually, in the example I gave, I hadn't intended it to sound like it was all planned out in advance, and then executed. I tried to write it so that each decision was made as at the moment it was presented to the character (i.e. the moment I concieved the virus in my mind, followed by the moment I planted the virus, when I heard that I had been found out, and every follow-up cross-road throughout the rest of my life). My own personal interpretation of chaos is that the words "always" and "never" should be avoided. From that viewpoint, to "always make your choices randomly" is not totally chaotic because there is a consistancy. "Logical Chaos, or Chaotic Logic" suggests that everything contains it's opposite. That, without the contradiction existing within as well as without, there can be no deffinition, and thus no existance. I'm not sure if I explained that well enough to be understood correctly, but I can't think of any other way to say it. Hmm... perhaps I can demonstate it more clearly by comparing good and evil, since the same thing applies there.

In all of us exists the capacity for good and evil. Without that capacity, we could not even concieve of what an evil deed, or good deed, would be. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind (who knows me) that I'm a good person. I abhor seeing people unhappy, (for whatever reason) and do whatever I'm capable of to aliviate such feelings (even to the point of sacrificing my own mental stability in the process). However, for all my struggles to do good wherever I go, and for all my hatred of evils things, I have an incredibly dark side as well, (the brighter the light, the deeper the shadows) which I seem to be in eternal struggle against. Unfortunately, I'm not always able to overcome it. In such instances, I hate myself more than I've ever hated anyone else. The times when I'm unable to overcome my darker side, however, are very slim in comparison to the times when I'm triumphant. (In fact, I'm proud to say that I'm actually beginning to gain ground in my eternal struggle for light within myself.) The fact that a good person will occasionaly do an evil deed does not, by any means, make that person evil, or even neutral. It simply makes them human. The same thing can be said for chaos vs. order/lawful. There exists within chaos, the capacity to sometimes do things by way of a set structure. This is what allows chaos to define its own nature, or realise itself. Same thing for order. The example I gave in my last post may have had a little bit of structure to it, but throw it in with every other example that COULD and WOULD exist in that alternate me, and it comes out to be a chaotic good person who happens to occasionally act in a structured fashion.

Of course, that's just my own view of chaos. Others may see it differently, and it's that very freedom of choice that allows us to call ourselves chaotic, or not. There's actually more aspects that I could go into, but it would get extremely wordy. You (pico's player) seem to be a pretty intelligent person, and I'm quite certain you understand what I mean.

It's SO refreshing to be able to talk to people who sit at the same intellectual level as myself, for a change. IRL I'm cursed with living in Hicksville, USA; surrounded by people who are too worried about "who slept with who," and "who am I going to sleep with tonight," (amoung other things) to take time and consider (let alone understand) some of the more abstract concepts, such as this.







"Small minds talk about people.
Mediocre minds talk about things.
Great minds talk about ideas"
----Unknown (Einstein?)


"Great spirits have always met
violent opposition from mediocre minds"
----Albert Einstein

Klaak

Great spirits have always met violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

I'll first discuss your post in general and then I have some comments about specific points in your post.

Overall, I'd say you grasp the concept of Chaos and as long as you systematically apply that understanding to instance in your character's life in Thera, you shouldn't have much trouble pulling it off. Of course the biggest issue that arises is if you're truly Chaotic (embodying Chaos, not strictly the ethos "chaotic") then why would that character want to be a part of Entropy. I think it can be done, but it amazes me that just about every sphere Chaos mortal I meet wants desperately to join Entropy, which should not be an automatic.

More generally, Chaos is full of the contradictions you mention. My choice of phrase is: "nothing is every 100%, including this statement." If everything is totally random, then the presence of randomness isn't random; if everything is totally random, then the presence of Order and its constructs are just as likely to occur as any Chaotic happening. Of course, if everything is possible, then the chance of any one thing occuring is zero (1 divided by infinity is equal to 0). So if nothing has the chance of happening, then does anything really happen? These mind games are interesting, especially in a real life context. However, I choose to think that in real life humans have latched onto Order in an effort to simplify things. Oversimplification leads to the mentality you abhor, but Order in and of itself is not at fault. Even Einstein, who you seem to hold up as a brilliant human being, developed Ordered theories (e.g., his special and general theories of relativity) to explain phenomena he observed. I think humans need to simplify things in order to function (i.e., "I think, therefore I am"). The fine line about too much or too little Order/simplification comes with wisdom and/or genius.

>Actually, in the example I gave,
>I hadn't intended it to
>sound like it was all
>planned out in advance, and
>then executed. I tried
>to write it so that
>each decision was made as
>at the moment it was
>presented to the character (i.e.
>the moment I concieved the
>virus in my mind, followed
>by the moment I planted
>the virus, when I heard
>that I had been found
>out, and every follow-up cross-road
>throughout the rest of my
>life).

You're correct, I did interpret this incorrectly. However, the Order that it would take to code that virus, the existence of cause and effect to know that the virus you create will behave in the way you intend, even something as simple as knowing that the siren you hear is the police and not some new plant you've never encountered before are all part of Order. Along the continuous scale from lawful to chaotic ethos this might be very far toward chaotic, but realize that you are leveraging Order too.

My own personal
>interpretation of chaos is that
>the words "always" and "never"
>should be avoided.

"Always" and "never" are absolutes. How can you have absolutes in a world of relativism? Order establishes baselines and limits (i.e., boundaries) and absolutes (i.e., certainties that can be counted on) whereas Chaos has no limits and no certainties. An absolute can not be present because it could change at any moment.

From
>that viewpoint, to "always make
>your choices randomly" is not
>totally chaotic because there is
>a consistancy. "Logical Chaos,
>or Chaotic Logic" suggests that
>everything contains it's opposite.
>That, without the contradiction existing
>within as well as without,
>there can be no deffinition,
>and thus no existance.

See my introductory paragraph.

>I'm not sure if I
>explained that well enough to
>be understood correctly, but I
>can't think of any other
>way to say it.
>Hmm... perhaps I can demonstate
>it more clearly by comparing
>good and evil, since the
>same thing applies there.
>
>In all of us exists the
>capacity for good and evil.

Many RL religions use this as a fundamental precept. In Thera, which is not limited by humanity by itself, this may or may not be true.

> Without that capacity, we
>could not even concieve of
>what an evil deed, or
>good deed, would be.

Offers an interesting take on what is/could be chaotic good and evil, doesn't it?

>There can be no doubt
>in anyone's mind (who knows
>me) that I'm a good
>person. I abhor seeing
>people unhappy, (for whatever reason)
>and do whatever I'm capable
>of to aliviate such feelings
> even to the point of
>sacrificing my own mental stability
>in the process).

Ayn Rand and the Objectivists would say this is not morally good and that sacrificing yourself (i.e., giving up yourself for someone else's benefit) is one of THE most reprehensible things a person can do.

However,
>for all my struggles to
>do good wherever I go,
>and for all my hatred
>of evils things, I have
>an incredibly dark side as
>well, (the brighter the light,
>the deeper the shadows) which
>I seem to be in
>eternal struggle against. Unfortunately,
>I'm not always able to
>overcome it. In such
>instances, I hate myself more
>than I've ever hated anyone
>else. The times when
>I'm unable to overcome my
>darker side, however, are very
>slim in comparison to the
>times when I'm triumphant.
> In fact, I'm proud to
>say that I'm actually beginning
>to gain ground in my
>eternal struggle for light within
>myself.) The fact that
>a good person will occasionaly
>do an evil deed does
>not, by any means, make
>that person evil, or even
>neutral. It simply makes
>them human.

In real life this obviously works well as a crede, but what about Thera where not everyone is human? What about an elf who does one bad deed? (Bonus question I've always found fun to contemplate: what if that evil deed was unintentional, is that less evil than if it were intentional?)

The same
>thing can be said for
>chaos vs. order/lawful. There
>exists within chaos, the capacity
>to sometimes do things by
>way of a set structure.
> This is what allows
>chaos to define its own
>nature, or realise itself.
>Same thing for order.
>The example I gave in
>my last post may have
>had a little bit of
>structure to it, but throw
>it in with every other
>example that COULD and WOULD
>exist in that alternate me,
>and it comes out to
>be a chaotic good person
>who happens to occasionally act
>in a structured fashion.

Yes, chaotic and lawfuls are absolutes, so it's not really practical to judge everyone to be neutral who don't live up to the absolutes. However, eachh are not the same. Lawful has certain standards and expectations. Those who are lawful may very well consider someone to be unlawful (whether this is the same as chaotic is another issue) if they break even one of those standards or absolutes. However, Chaos is nebulous and what exactly constitutes it is not defined. Thus a chaotic person can act in an Ordered manner from time to time (as mentioned in the opening discussion, an Ordered action is a possibility just as anything else) without becoming unchaotic. The two ethos are not made equal, but the criterion that can be used to judge both certainly is that no one can act in RL or in Thera completely lawful or chaotic.

>
>Of course, that's just my own
>view of chaos. Others
>may see it differently, and
>it's that very freedom of
>choice that allows us to
>call ourselves chaotic, or not.
> There's actually more aspects
>that I could go into,
>but it would get extremely
>wordy. You (pico's player)
>seem to be a pretty
>intelligent person, and I'm quite
>certain you understand what I
>mean.

Of course. A role with Chaos can be played myriad ways. The benefit here is that you are not forced to adhere to what other have established in Thera to be a role; the downside is that the pressure is totally on the player to come up with that role and not make it trite.

>
>It's SO refreshing to be able
>to talk to people who
>sit at the same intellectual
>level as myself, for a
>change. IRL I'm cursed
>with living in Hicksville, USA;
>surrounded by people who are
>too worried about "who slept
>with who," and "who am
>I going to sleep with
>tonight," (amoung other things) to
>take time and consider (let
>alone understand) some of the
>more abstract concepts, such as
>this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Small minds talk about people.
>Mediocre minds talk about things.
>Great minds talk about ideas"
>----Unknown (Einstein?)
>
>
>"Great spirits have always met
>violent opposition from mediocre minds"
>----Albert Einstein

Another Einstein quote for you:
"The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax."
-Albert Einstein

I just felt I had to answer this...I'm not entirely certain how I feel, myself, but this was Rohen's view. (My Shokai Paladin). I think Garenth disagreed in how I saw it, actually...

> In real life this obviously works well as a crede, but what about Thera where not everyone is human? What about an elf who does one bad deed? (Bonus question I've always found fun to contemplate: what if that evil deed was unintentional, is that less evil than if it were intentional?)

The deed itself, is good or evil based on the results. If an anti-paladin came and slaughtered a whole town, it's no worse than if some invoker came to help them, and killed the anti-paladin, but also everyone else in one big fireball.

However, in judging the person, it is the intent which matters, rather than the deed. The invoker is a good person, but did an evil deed. If the anti-paladin missed killing someone with his lightning bolt, and jump-started the mayor's car, it'd be a good deed, but evil person yet.

Just my two cents. Taithin

OK, the next step is to extrapolate the scenario for purposes of understanding the implications of such a definition. What if a person always had good intentions, but their deeds always turned out to be evil? The cliche in real life is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." By your conception this person would be part of the community of Good people. I'm assuming by your post that good and evil are related to how much something helps or hurts others. So that begs two questions. First, intentions never do anything to help or hurt others, so how can they be good or evil? Second, how can a hurtful person remain among the community of Good people if they consistently do harm to others?

I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, I'm curious about the implications of your conception of good and evil. My understanding of Christianity gets around this issue by saying that God knows what's in your heart and will decide if you're good or evil. In Thera, there is no luxury of circumventing the issue this way. Plus, the Immortals are the "God" that would do this, so that just moves the question to the players of Immortals -- do we judge intent or action? If it's better to judge one or both, does that mean in real life it should be the same way?

> OK, the next step is to extrapolate the scenario for purposes of understanding the implications of such a definition. What if a person always had good intentions, but their deeds always turned out to be evil? The cliche in real life is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." By your conception this person would be part of the community of Good people.

Correct.

> I'm assuming by your post that good and evil are related to how much something helps or hurts others. So that begs two questions.

OK, I'll try and define the "Good" and "Evil" concepts, as I envision them. "Good" is probably easiest (mind, this is merely a basic, rough, simple definition) said...in my view, as the desire to benifit/help. "Evil" occurs when you intentionally, through action or inaction, cause/allow harm/detriment. This does define it rather strictly, and I doubt many, if anyone, would be truly "Good" or "Evil". These are the concepts I would base things on though.

> First, intentions never do anything to help or hurt others, so how can they be good or evil?

As I define it, it is the desire to harm/help that causes "Good"/"Evil". Not the act itself. To me, "Good" and "Evil" are merely concepts. Not things that you point at, and say that was "Good", or that was "Evil".

> Second, how can a hurtful person remain among the community of Good people if they consistently do harm to others?

As before, I see their desire to help, classifying them in the conceptual area of "Good". Hopefully, other "Good" people would figure out a way to keep him from causing "bad" things. Like dealing with a clutz. They mean well, but tend to cause more problems then help.

> I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, I'm curious about the implications of your conception of good and evil. My understanding of Christianity gets around this issue by saying that God knows what's in your heart and will decide if you're good or evil.

My explanations sofar, have been primarily the IDEAS, rather than application. The application is more what we deal with. I see a good person as someone whose intents are "Good". An evil person is defined as those who, usually through a lack of desire to be "Good", have intents of "Evil".

> In Thera, there is no luxury of circumventing the issue this way. Plus, the Immortals are the "God" that would do this, so that just moves the question to the players of Immortals -- do
we judge intent or action?

That depends on how you choose to define these classifications. Whether the classifications are based on what you strive for, or what you result in.

> If it's better to judge one or both, does that mean in real life it should be the same way?

Personally, I like to see (both in real life, and MUD), people classified by the intent, rather than the results. I would classify the results more into good, bad, right, wrong, harmful, helpful. Merely what they are (taking into account perspective), rather than as concepts.

I suppose this is like Shokai told me of Honor, in character...it's much easier to live something (honor, in that case), than actually define it. I enjoy debate, as both a chance to state my perspective, and hopefully, actually *define* it. The responses also give me a chance to think on, and clarify (both to myself, and the debater) those views as well.

-Taithin

>OK, the next step is to
>extrapolate the scenario for purposes
>of understanding the implications of
>such a definition. What
>if a person always had
>good intentions, but their deeds
>always turned out to be
>evil? The cliche in
>real life is "the road
>to Hell is paved with
>good intentions." By your
>conception this person would be
>part of the community of
>Good people. I'm assuming
>by your post that good
>and evil are related to
>how much something helps or
>hurts others. So that
>begs two questions. First,
>intentions never do anything to
>help or hurt others, so
>how can they be good
>or evil? Second, how
>can a hurtful person remain
>among the community of Good
>people if they consistently do
>harm to others?
>

This is the way I've always looked at it. If the person had good intentions, yet the deed was hurtful, a good person would feel bad that they caused such pain, and try to attone for it (both to ease the suffering they caused, as well as ease their own conscience). A person who continually did things with good intentions yet always hurt someone, and never attempted to make restitution to ease the wrongs or their own peace of mind, is not a good person, but rather someone who is trying to make everyone THINK he's a good person. That, in and of itself, would be an evil person because the TRUE motivation is entirely self-centered (there's a more accurate term than that, but I've been up for 24 hours now, and it presently escapes me) and not benevolent at all. However, if this misfired "good-intentioned" deed was simply a part of a larger intent, it's allows for the person to be either evil or neutral. It's impossible to say which in this instance because there are too many variables and not enough information to make an accurate determination. I think the cliche would be more accurate if it were phrased, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and no repentance." In the example of CG that I gave several posts ago: After the virus had been sent and, instead of setting the world free, caused global economic failure and intense strife and turmoil in every remotely civilized area on the planet, the alternate me (being a good person) would feel intense remorse for the incredible harm that he had done to the world. While he still might not accept the punishment that scociety intended for him (by running for the rest of his life), he would probably commit himself to doing everything imaginably possible to fix the the wrongs he had done, for the simple reason that if he didn't, he'd never be able to live with himself (HEARTFELT self-punishment is always the harshest). If he didn't, the high moral code of his own choosing wouldn't be with spit.

As I said, I've been awake for quite a while now, and my mind is really starting to slow down so I won't say much more about that. However, there's one other thing I'd like to touch on.


>I'm not saying you're right or
>wrong here, I'm curious about
>the implications of your conception
>of good and evil.
>My understanding of Christianity gets
>around this issue by saying
>that God knows what's in
>your heart and will decide
>if you're good or evil.
> In Thera, there is
>no luxury of circumventing the
>issue this way. Plus,
>the Immortals are the "God"
>that would do this, so
>that just moves the question
>to the players of Immortals
>-- do we judge intent
>or action? If it's
>better to judge one or
>both, does that mean in
>real life it should be
>the same way?


You briefly mentioned Christianity. This is something I feel a have a good understanding of (I could very well be wrong), and I despite my own chaotic nature, I consider myself a Christian (not a perfect one, though. No one is a perfect Christian). In respects to Christianity, much of what determines a good person is based on repentance. There are countless places in the Bible where it states (I can't quote them, but I'll paraphrase) that it doesn't matter how many times you've sinned, or how many times you commit a single sin, so long as you confess it (to God and possible the person you sinned against, not to a person in a screened booth) and repent of it. Repentance meaning that A) you are truly sorry from the bottom of your heart that you did it, and B) you planned to do you uttmost to not do it again. God knows that none of us are perfect, and he knows that we're not always going to succeed at not comitting that sin again. So long as we are always sorry for it and try our best not to do it again, that is all that's required.

Now, many people like to jump at that seeming contradiction of my chaotic nature and Christian beliefs, and start shouting, "Hypocrite!" I know there are many people who play this mud who think that Christianity is a farse, and so, before someone tries to jump in and try the age-old tactic of refuting my post by turning my own beliefs back on me, let me tell you now that there is no contradiction. Christianity is, for the most part, a CG religion (at least in my understanding of it, which is why I say I could be wrong). If God didn't want man to decide things for himself, he wouldn't have given us free will and the ABILITY to choose. Someone who follows a code/tennet/religion simply because they're afraid of retribution is not going to be able to defend that code/tennet/religion when it's attacked. However, someone who was given the freedom to choose, and chose it anyway, entirely of their own vollition, will defend that code/tennet/religion the a furry unrivaled by any other means. They do so because by choosing it on their own, they are not defending someone else's code/tennet/religion, but they're defending their own.

If it seems like I left out bits and pieces anywhere in this post, it's because my eyelids are revolting against my mind and I haven't the brain power to spare to fill those gaps right now. That said, I'm going to call in and find out if I have to work tonight, and then I'm going to bed.

Klaak

Great spirits have always met violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

>>I've been a long time entropy
>>player, but I've never successfully
>>been able to get more
>>than about a sentence out
>>of Pico.
>
>I'd say that's pretty typical for
>characters that I interact with
>in passing through tells.
>I have Pico do this
>on purpose so that the
>other character only has a
>limited about of feedback/information/response to
>work with. I also
>tend to be gruff and/or
>unresponsive at first. Both
>are intended to make the
>other character define where the
>conversation goes and not rely
>on me to define the
>path for them.
>
>>I guess
>>Ishmael and the past entropy
>>imms followed more my conception
>>of "chaos."
>
>I think the CN Imms for
>Entropy (Nighthawk and Ishmael) had
>a different take on Chaos
>than I do which is
>probably more "fun" for many
>players. One of the
> many) reasons I was sad
>to see Ishmael leave is
>that he was a good
>foil for Pico in that
>he had more the zany
>goofball type. If played
>well, this is a legitimate
>role for Entropy and Chaos.
> My preference against it
>is that 1) it doesn't
>fit my own personality, so
>having Pico play this role
>would probably not work well
>and 2) for most people
>attempting to play this kind
>of role, it comes out
>as Chaotic Stupid.
>
>>Pico (the
>>character's) conception of what "chaos"
>>appears to me to be
>>relegated to the nonsensical (yet
>>strangely predictable) disappropriation of what
>>would be cliched words and
>>phrases.
>
>Language is certainly one way in
>which society can control its
>members. Many of the
>differences between British and American
>English arose from American colonists'
>desires to be different than
>the home country; "jive" was/is
>a rebellion against "white" English.
> Pico manipulates the use
>of language (as well as
>customs such as bowing) to
>make other characters conscience of
>words they are using and
>things they are doing which
>are constructs of society.
>I try to both instruct
>and harass at the same
>time, but these can be
>competing goals. For instance,
>Pico might always respond negatively
>to someone telling him "what
>must I do in order
>to join Entropy?" Yes,
>it might be chaotic to
>sometimes answer this and sometimes
>point out that there 1)
>is not set path for
>anything (i.e., "what must I
>do") so long as Chaos
>reigns and 2) the choice
>of the phrase "in order"
>is rather ironic given the
>desire for Chaos. However,
>Pico will generally chose the
>latter, sacrificing IC consistency for
>an OOC desire to demonstrate
>the other character's adherence to
>convention.
>
>If most of your interactions with
>Pico were through tells, I'm
>not surprised that your view
>of him is limited to
>his use (or abuse) of
>language.
>
>>This brings me to a question
>>about you, the player behind
>>Pico. I've often wondered
>>if you are involved and/or
>>interested in the postmodern movement
>>since Derrida. Much of
>>Pico's seeming obsession with almost
>>ridiculously complicated words (hence your
>>title I would imagine) reminds
>>me a great deal of
>>the post structural application of
>>inordinately complex rhetoric (in my
>>opinion to mask the fact
>>that the postmoderns are just
>>the next step in the
>>corporate "forced consumer" culture).
>>I might just be imagining
>>the whole Pico/Derrida thing, but
>>after speaking with the character
>>I usually come out of
>>the interview feeling the same
>>way I do after sloshing
>>through a passage of "Of
>>Grammatology." Is any of
>>this true or is it
>>a product of my overworked
>>imagination?
>
>You're not the first to ask
>this kind of question.
>I remember a year or
>two ago answering a similar
>question on Dioxide or Glimo's
>forum that revolved around Nietzche
>or Sartre or both (I
>can't remember -- it was
>asked by a former Entropy
>bard whose name escapes me).
> I can tell you
>that I (Pico's player) haven't
>read much philosophy, other than
>a couple of Ayn Rand
>novels. In a graduate
>American Lit. class last spring
>we talked about how Mark
>Twain's later writings and Stephen
>Crane were the beginnings of
>the post-modern movement in literature,
>but the name Derrida doesn't
>mean anything to me.
>
>My background is engineering and so
>I've taken a rather rationalistic
>approach to what Chaos is.
> I started in Entropy
>in July of 1994 thinking
>Entropy/Chaos wasn't much more than
>being able to kill Midgaard
>gate guards for exp without
>being flagged for it.
>Over time, especially after I
>immed around the time of
>the Purge and started doing
>interviews for the cabal, my
>understanding of Chaos grew.
>I see it as defining
>Chaos properly (i.e., what it
>is, not what it isn't)
>and then systamatically applying it
>to all facets, possbilities, and
>interactions in Thera.
>
>In other words, if a player
>has an understanding of Chaos,
>then whatever their character encounters
>in the game they can
>react to it based on
>what they see as "Chaotic."
> This is the method
>behind my interviews -- I'm
>trying to find out if
>you, as the player, know
>what is "Chaotic," reasoning that
>if you do then you'll
>know how to react chaotically
>in the game (i.e., roleplay
>a chaotic character). Thus,
>if your character uses catch-phrases,
>yells a lot in Galadon,
>has a pet rock, or
>hates the Arbiters/Tribunal, you're much
>less likely to understand Chaos
>and, consequently, an ability to
>act Chaotically. Instead, you've
>developed an "angle" or gimmick
>before you even know what
>will happen and the insert
>that angle/gimmick into a situation,
>hoping that it'll make you
>seem Chaotic. Thus, "euk
>euk," "moo," and a shovel
>are merely eccentric and not
>truly Chaotic. Eccentric sometimes
>can be Chaotic, sometimes it
>can make you appear Chaotic
>to those who don't know
>better, but most of the
>time it gets labeled "Chaotic
>Stupid."


I am a long time Cf'er been round since late 94. I have had many chars who at some point interacted with Pico. Through all of the interaction. No matter which char. Pico was consistant in his responses to be not only vague but annoying to say the least. The one thing I will say is no matter how hard i tried to get to Pico he always seem to one up me. Though i have to this day wondered If Pico Was the entropist Quigly the Jail Bird.

>I am a long time Cf'er
>been round since late 94.
>I have had many chars
>who at some point interacted
>with Pico. Through all of
>the interaction. No matter which
>char. Pico was consistant in
>his responses to be not
>only vague but annoying to
>say the least. The one
>thing I will say is
>no matter how hard i
>tried to get to Pico
> he always seem to
>one up me. Though i
>have to this day wondered
>If Pico Was the entropist
>Quigly the Jail Bird.

Nope, didn't play Quigly (though I thought it was spelled Quigley...?).

Aye you are right. It was spelled Quigley. I tell ya man alot of changes have happened since i returned to Cf. I was gone for like 15 months or so. Could not continue to play with the regularity i once was. Started to affect my grades in school.

I can say this. All the people who cry for more imm interaction is all but a waste. there is plenty of imm interaction if you rp. I always managed to have interaction with almost every imm on CF. Though i do wonder about this a little. Do you think it is best for the imm to start the interaction or a mortal to try and interact with the gods. Being i never waited for the imm to interact with me, i usually was the one who initiated it. I have had so many different Titles from many different imm for many different reasons. Though to this day i have often wondered who gave me the title Afriad of Puddles. was almost to fitting being i was a Felar warrior, Yet is was an oxymoron also being i was a Rager too. Kinda takes away from that old philosiphy of courage of the village.

I did always enjoy interacting with you. I still to this day say to all who ask me that you were the most intent person to interact with among the imms. Most others just blatently tell ya what ya need or should do. To where you on the other hand Always said enough to keep the intrest of the person there but all make them search the answer themselves. I hope that you never lose. So many just want to be told how to do it without having to figure it out alone. You never gave direct responses but alway managed to find a way to hint around it without making it so blatantly obvious. I still have yet to make it into entropy. mostly because i could never convience you. Maybe i never sought the right person. but i alway ended up interviewing with you and somehow either ended up one of your slaves or in some instances your bitch. Non the less i have enjoyed ever moment of interaction with you. And look forward to more in the future.

Though
>i do wonder about this
>a little. Do you think
>it is best for the
>imm to start the interaction
>or a mortal to try
>and interact with the gods.

I'd say that what is "best" depends on the Imm in question. Pico has concept of etiquette, so he sees nothing wrong with charging right up to him (either literally or figuratively) and presenting yourself. On the other hand, other Imms' roles would dictate a more refined and dignified approach. For instance, I don't forsee a dragon being nice if you ran up to them, slapped on the nose, and said "howdy."

More generally, I'd say that you should approach an Imm if you want the interaction. This doesn't necessarily mean a direct approach. Quests, Eternal Star contents, a mob in the forest being a bit more animated than usual, etc. -- these are all ways to "approach" immteraction. You'd be surprised that more than a few people walk away from such occurrences.

As for the titles, imteracting with a deity can be a double-edged sword....

Ok now here is one. Being i have had many a chaotic chars and yet failed to make it in to entropy. Not that it made me less chaotic. what are the real gains for joining entropy Does it make you more chaotic. does it make you less chaotic. Does it add to your chaos. does it take from it. Personally i dont feel that Entropy does any of these things. Because chaos is chaos. You can not add to chaos or take from it by joining a group of chaos makers. All i see Entropy being over all is a group who has a safe place to hide from there eneimeis.

Now pico do you honestly believe that the Cabal Entropy serves any purpose to chaos in general and if so could you explain how it does??????