Character alignment and political discourse

[sabotabby]

It's been a good few days for me, emotionally as well as politically, by which I mean that I've won every fight I've picked and that's put me in a hell of a good mood. And I've picked a number of fights in unusual places for me. Granted, with people far below the level to which I was accustomed (I was called a "Canuck faggot," "commie fascist," and "traitor," none of which are effective counter-arguments to the points I was raising)—and let's be honest, I didn't so much as win arguments by rational discourse as the people I was—ahem—debating kind of couldn't figure out what the polysyllabic words meant.

And there was another issue, which struck me as I was groggily impersonating a CSIS agent at 6 am before I had my morning coffee (these things happen). Which is that the sorts of arguments I've been getting into with people who hold reactionary political beliefs are simply not winnable by any party, owing to radically different character alignments.



I am new to the world of role-playing games, but not so new to the concept of character alignment.* It's about as useful as any form of character typing, which is to say it barely holds up in an RPG, let alone when analyzing complex fictional characters.**

It's kind of fun to do in political flamewars, though.

For the purpose of arguing on the internet, I will identify myself as Chaotic Good (in real life, I am Chaotic Neutral in a Lawful Neutral profession, but let's go with the goggle-wearing pseudonymous character that I play on LJ). The person I was flaming this morning was Lawful Neutral. The people my LN opponent votes for are Lawful Evil.

(Here we distinguish between Authoritarian Leaders and Authoritarian Followers. The latter are not necessarily dumb, but they frequently are.)

The subject was immigration. Our LN was a supporter of Rand Paul, anti-globalization by kneejerk fear of a One World Government and the Evil Jews; in favour of closed borders and jingoistic nationalism. I have a certain amount of sympathy for people like that because they are generally quite a bit nuts and at least they don't want to invade other countries. But they are easily manipulated, so they do need to be confronted and purged. He was arguing that Some People Are Illegal.

I, of course, roll my eyes at the phrase "anti-globalization." We are already globalized; that's not the point. The issues are resource distribution, mobility of people versus mobility of capital, global human rights, and social justice. How we globalize, not whether or not we globalize. The idea that one person is entitled to more rights and resources, simply by virtue of being born on one side of an imaginary line or having filled out the required paperwork, is ridiculous to me. Humans are entitled to rights by virtue of being human.

This is where the discussion broke down before it even started. A Lawful Neutral believes that people, by virtue of having committed an act that is currently illegal, are themselves illegal. There are no extenuating circumstances, no gray areas. These are the white folks who would have opposed the Civil Rights Movement had they been around back then, because civil disobedience breaks laws.

A Chaotic-anything simply can't understand this argument. It isn't even a matter of intelligence versus stupidity. It's just that the Lawful Neutral can't disentangle morality and legality, and the Chaotic can't see how one intrinsically has anything to do with the other.

Anyway, the argument progressed exactly as I thought. I paraphrase a little:

LN: The main point of a nation is to protect the borders. What's the point of having a nation if territorial integrity is not respected?
CN: What's the point of having a nation?
LN: You may want to review the Canadian Criminal Code section 46. 2 (a) and (c).
46 (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

Careful the conversations you engage in. Planning for the overthrow of our nation might get you in hot water.

Completely awesome. He couldn't even conceive of the idea that laws, or even national borders, could change if people got together and did something about it. It's like those Mormons who have to burn the old copy of the Book of Mormon when a new Word of God is issued. You can't ask them whether the old one was flawed somehow, and does this mean that the Word of God needed a correction? There is only the Word of God, perfect, as it has always been. The only way for current immigration laws to change is through the violent overthrow of the government.

Where it gets interesting for me is the cognitive dissonance that's inevitable with this kind of mindset. Because one cannot simply be Lawful Neutral in the real world; laws and governments are always changing, and no human being can possibly agree with them all. I suggested earlier that I think most authoritarian followers are Lawful Neutral in that they blindly worship authority because it is authority. But what happens when they are faced with a government that's not authoritarian?

I happen to think that Obama is neither left-wing nor anti-authoritarian, but that's irrelevant, because the LNs of the world think that he is. And now, holy shit, you have a guy in charge who is a socialistislamocommiefascist! What's a poor law-worshipper to do? Every instinct telling them that rules must be obeyed, that this is in fact the highest and only virtue, is coming into conflict with the utter terror that the rules are changing in a way that might not benefit them so much.

The result is the complete mental disarray of the Teabaggers and, closer to home, the conspiracy nuts. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object, and their entire mental framework shatters. You'd almost feel bad for them if they weren't such douchebags.

P.S. Sorry about the level of geekiness of this post. I think I grew a neckbeard just writing it.

P.P.S. Does someone know a good internet lawyer? I think I might have to go to internet-court to defend myself against charges of internet treason.



* The second one is stupid. Rorschach is not chaotic good.

** That's not to stop me from doing it anyway. When I'm bored, I figure out the alignment of my characters. I have been wrong or unable to tell in most cases, which leads me to believe that I'm doing something right.

Comments

[outcastspice.livejournal.com]

one of the things i loved about reading 'a little history of canada' was that it really reminded me that our country and laws only exist because some people got together and thought it would be a good idea, and managed to convince enough other people to go along with it. form is emptiness. some people just won't understand that, as you've said. this was a very interesting post.

[sabotabby]

Nations, and in fact, the entire economic system, only work because of consensual fictions. This can be frustrating, particularly for those of us who would prefer a different fictional genre, but it does give me hope for the potential for change.

[uncledark.livejournal.com]

No, Rorschach is not CG. He's definitely LN. Possibly LE, depending on who's running the game.

I find it sad and amusing when I have to demonstrate to some liberal friends the very principle you're geeking on here. They get these comical faces of utter dismay and confusion when it starts to dawn on them that some folks hold their reactionary principles as axiomatic, as so foundational to their identity that they can't see the world differently. The thought that patient, rational argument won't change minds is somehow Lovecraftian to them.

[sabotabby]

No, Rorschach is not CG. He's definitely LN. Possibly LE, depending on who's running the game.

I would say LN too, though he's evidence of both how the model breaks down, and also the phenomenon I'm marvelling at here. He's pure LN until the laws change, and then he's forced into Chaotic behaviour, and within two years he's batshit insane. (Though a much more sympathetic brand of insane than the Teabaggers.) The Comedian is LE.

They get these comical faces of utter dismay and confusion when it starts to dawn on them that some folks hold their reactionary principles as axiomatic, as so foundational to their identity that they can't see the world differently.

In fairness, it isn't just reactionaries; I've met liberals like that too. But making this realization has certainly made my life a little easier. I like patient, rational argument, but sometimes a girl just wants to let loose and screw with people's minds.

[dmlaenker.livejournal.com]

You've just started playing RPGs? Really?

What was the occasion for the CSIS impersonation? And so early, even? Were you at a LARP?

[sabotabby]

Yeah, curgoth dragged me into a game. It's good, because I'm not that wonderful at improvisation in fiction, and that's the basis of RPG.

I was impersonating a CSIS agent because I think it's really bloody stupid to plan potentially illegal and dangerous activities on Facebook, and I am appalled that conspiracy theorists, of all people, would be doing so. Also for the same reason I pretend to be an agent of the ZOG on anarchists: Because it's fun.

[lienne.livejournal.com]

I am a very slow typist sometimes, and I would totally join a LARP that involved impersonating CSIS agents at six AM.

[ironed_orchid]

In case you haven't seen the Batman Alignment chart.

[sabotabby]

*sporfle*


I love the last one especially. Though I am disappointed that "I'M THE GODDAMN BATMAN" is missing from the chart.

[marrythebed.livejournal.com]

You weren't kidding about the dorkiness!

[sabotabby]

It happens on occasion.

[numb3r-5ev3n.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting time all over for politics right now, that's true no matter what political stripe you ascribe to.

I may be completely off on my perceptions on this, but here is my take on a lot of the LN folks, at least in the US. The LE folks have sold them this fantasy that they are actually CG, stalwart foes of a LE system that has joined forces with Dark Forces to end their way of life and all that they love. As such, they have gone all foaming-mouth berzerk against what they percieve to be the 'left wing elite,' when the corporate juggernaught that has put us in the current mess we're in has far more ties to the current neoconservative right wing, which has rallied the LN folks into thinking they are rugged individualists who are standing up to corrupt 'socialist' government entities who they have been told are trying to turn the US into a communist state.

In reality, these dupes have fallen hook, line and sinker for a fantasy that is unfortunately borne up by our long habit of mistrusting authority in this country. During times when they have ascendancy in the government, the nevertheless convince the LNs that the "liberals in Washington' are still responsible for all social ills. When they do not have ascendancy, they cultivate the type on mindset that was rampant in the right-wing militia movements in the 1990s, and is rampant in the tea party movement now.

They have a contempt for education, because they associate it with the 'liberal elite,' and because anyone who can show them clear evidence that they have been misled is obviously one of the 'liberal elite' anyway. That, and the 'liberal elite' is trying to use Science to kill God. Or something. :/

[orpheus42.livejournal.com]

Ok if I repost this?

[northbard.livejournal.com]

That's ridiculous. Rorshach was chaotic randian.

[sabotabby]

Pshaw. Rand herself could only be Chaotic in the former USSR.

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

Good luck with the RPGs. Have you tried Munchausen? It might be right in your taste.


As for for Law and Nationhood and Ideas, I think that part of what makes the "chaotic" and "neutral" approached both break down in the world as we have it is the high complexity of the systems that we're working with. The federal legal code of the United States or Canada is just about impossible for a single person to understand in its totality, let alone precedent or the patchwork of smaller jurisdictions or international law. To keep the world working, we need to craft good systems - which is devilishly hard, and that very complexity that needs to emerge from them generally means that chaotic and neutral types are quite right to harbor a certain amount of distrust for those systems, full of Unintended Consequences as they are.

[fluffworld.livejournal.com]

Mmm, dorkery. :) I'm probably CG in real life, but find that Lawful characters are a huge amount of fun to play. It's am interesting place to visit, but I wouldn't like to live there.

[sabotabby]

Also the most fun to write. My two favourite characters that I've ever written were Lawfuls.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Every instinct telling them that rules must be obeyed, that this is in fact the highest and only virtue, is coming into conflict with the utter terror that the rules are changing in a way that might not benefit them so much.

The result is the complete mental disarray of the Teabaggers and, closer to home, the conspiracy nuts. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object, and their entire mental framework shatters. You'd almost feel bad for them if they weren't such douchebags.

That's very true. I find it interesting that to get around the lawful neutral concept, it turns their worldview changes in things like "but we know the TRUE constitution" or "this isn't the intent of the founding fathers". By appealing to a "true" law from the past they can get away with disobeying laws or generally not liking government while staying authoritarian, they aren't the traitors, the people who have "hijacked" the government are the traitors. So they remain ideologically coherent.

But the think the tea-party isn't all about authoritarianism, racism and a general feeling that white people are being dispocessed of their "natural" place in society has a lot to do with it too.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Before what I consider my political enlightenment, I identified as Lawful Good - I really did think that laws, ethics and the underlying morality of both were... you know... the same and thus for the benefit of everyone. I had a very sheltered childhood.

I suppose it's all fun and games until you're forced to work in a profession that purports itself to be LG, but is actually LE.

My model broke down and I went Chaotic and I veer between N and G, though in my more sadistic moments I feel very CE.

It's very disconcerting being a Chaotic anything in a society that is in a cognitive dissonance with itself - everyone thinks we're living in a Lawful Neutral place (some would say Good), but all he have is a Chaotic Evil pretending to Neutral!

Sorry, I went colloquial and quite possibly incoherent!

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

Ms Tabby, what is the difference between good and evil?

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

Ooo! Good question!

[evanharper.livejournal.com]

I like to think that I am a good Internet lawyer.

I wrote a FAQ for some Facebook group that was constantly getting drive-by idiocy from RWAs (which I guess is more-or-less the same as LNs in your D&D-inspired scheme, although God are D&D alignments ever stupid.) First I patiently refuted the legal misunderstandings inherent in the treason accusations. (In this case, obviously, questioning the philosophical or practical justification for the existence of nations obviously has nothing to do with "using force or violence" and isn't even really about "overthrowing the government.") Then I pointed out that the kinds of statements being called treasonous were far less out-there than any number of public statements by any number of fringe extremists, none of whom were ever even prosecuted let alone convicted for treason. So either there's a giant pro-treason conspiracy among prosecutors, or, just mouthing off at the government doesn't count as treason. Finally, I tried to bait them by pointing out that if they actually believed their own accusations of treason, they were absolutely bound to pick up the phone and call the federal police to report it; by posting schoolboy accusations instead of doing so, they are tacitly admitting that treason is not really an issue here and they know it isn't.

Also, I don't think it's really true that these people place any value at all in laws. They typically have other underlying motives, usually extremely awful ones such as xenophobia, racism, extreme Social Darwinism, or just really hating to pay their taxes. Then they use elaborate pseudolegal frameworks to axiomatically prove that their personal concept of the ideal state just happens to be the one that the law really demands. The law was, is, and ever shall be (fill-in-the-blank,) it's just that the law's secretly been taken over by evil forces (ie, the entire legal profession,) and corrupted from its true meaning. They see law codes as divine spellbooks from which the mage of sufficiently high level can extract great and terrible powers. Simply recite the proper incantation, and whatever (or whoever) you don't like disappears in a puff of smoke. There is an entertaining rebuttal of a particular form of this belief here.

Ultimately the thing to remember about arguing with RWAs is that you're not trying to convince them of anything; they are unreachable. You are trying to convince the audience.

[seanmonster.livejournal.com]

I haven't played a game that used alignment for a long time now...

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of the people I have met who are firm believers in laws and cannot think beyond or above them are simply simple-minded, although of course a lot are truly evil and have ulterior motives as above, too. And there is that psychologist I can never remember the name of but keep mentioning who said that only 10% of people are able to think of morality as something separate from the law.
But you've lost me on most of whatever you were saying. I think you live near the U.S., so have scary U.S. issues to worry about, while I just worry about the Welsh Assembly's plans to make Wales run entirely on renewable energy by 2020, and whether tea shops will open at five for high teas. Living on an island has its benefits...

[apperception.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this alignment business lately, maybe from having read your post. I think I have many of the same basic reflexes you do with regard to tradition. The argument "that's the way it's done" is not an argument so far as I'm concerned. Or it's not necessarily an argument.

I can't decide whether I'd be chaotic good or neutral good. I have a friend who's lawful neutral (sometimes lawful evil). I've gotten into trouble with him in the past because I identify more with ideas than I do with people or groups. He looks for my loyalty whereas I look for him to have the right ideas. I used to make the mistake of contradicting my friends in front of other people when they said the wrong thing. I still do it sometimes by accident. But that will upset people who are lawful neutral or lawful evil, because they want to know you have their back.

I'm thinking about this lately because this is the guy I might go to work for.

But I'm definitely not lawful, that's for sure. I feel either indifference toward tradition, or I ostentatiously flaunt it. (I try to remain indifferent, but I get excited sometimes.) I'm tempted to say I'm neutral good because of the indifference and the tendency to value what's true over everything else. But I don't think I could keep to myself if I tried. I like things to get shaken up just to see what will happen. I like disasters and crises because I feel like they test people and test connections between things. Yeah, I guess I'm chaotic.

[sabotabby]

You are pretty chaotic. I fluctuate. I crave stability; as much as I love to travel, I need to know there's a home to return to. Much of my trajectory has been a search for certainty.

But on an intellectual level, appeal to authority or tradition does nothing for me, and doesn't even compute.