>the empire builds infrastructure, bans cruel customs, introduces new luxuries, turns Chieftains into puppets, expands agricultural output, and spreads literacy among the tribals at the expense of their freedom
Would a lawful good person oppose this empire?
Other urls found in this thread:
news24.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
bbc.co.uk
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
The empire has even crueler customs.
Depends on how far they go. There's a certain amount of realpolitik in every government, you just need to keep things from getting out of hand and rein in conspiracy and terror.
Isn't this the fundamental question at the core of the second half of LoGH?
Noble Empire vs. Corrupt Democracy?
Depends on how much better the common man's life is with these changes
The needs of the many...
THIIIIIIS!!!!!!!!!
FOR TEH MASSIVE ****EPIC**** WIIIIIN XDDDD
It depends on whether the Empire is using evil means in order to instill this order, and where the lawful good person originated from.
Back to with you. Go on, get!
A lawful good person from the tribes might. You make it sounds like they've been turned into vassal states so I could imagine people wanting greater sovereignty or better leadership then puppets.
No, because there isn't anything here indicating that the Empire is less democratic. The tribal groups might be completely undemocratic.
Lawful good person would be fine with any form of government so long as they do things right
chaotic good person would hate the shit out of it though
What said. The freedom the tribes lose is just a cost of living under a competent and stable form of government. Laws are just rules that reduce freedom in exchange for greater stability, productivity and safety, after all.
However, there are more factors that could possibly come into play. If the empire enacts the rule of law on the tribes through excessively dishonorable and heinous methods, the "good" part of lawful good could lead to the character opposing it. Similarly, if the empire is horribly corrupt, the lawful part of lawful good could also lead to the character opposing it.
Not to mention that it all depends on the perspective the character holds. IE, what one character could think of as good, another could think of as bad.
Honestly, opposition of the empire you described is less an alignment question and more of a "would my character agree with this" question.
Most people hate imperialism because they assume "our empire is totally legit guiz" as they take their resources, destroy their pride, put their people above the natives, and enact customs just as cruel if not crueler than their own.
so they actually have BE good administrators and leave the place better than they came to. What separates Rome from the British, French, and Ottomans.
>alignments
Ugh.
>What separates Rome from the British, French, and Ottomans.
The Ottomans I'll grant you but
>British, French
Hold the fucking phone.
news24.com
Even in the most critical articles, it cannot be avoided that the Zulu king "reflected" on how parts of apartheid were favorable over the status quo.
youtube.com
Do I need to translate what this? I really hope not.
Now let's do some case studies: a country that maintained good ties with its former overlord
en.wikipedia.org
>Senghor avoided the Marxist and anti-Western ideology that had become popular in post-colonial Africa, favouring the maintenance of close ties with France and the western world. This is seen by many as a contributing factor to Senegal's political stability: it remains one of the few African nations never to have had a coup, and always to have had a peaceful transfer of power.
and one that did not
en.wikipedia.org
>from 2000 Mugabe encouraged the violent seizure of white-owned land. The unrest severely impacted food production and brought international sanctions, heavily damaging Zimbabwe's economy.
Now let's look at how "cruel" colonial policy truly was
bbc.co.uk
>I liked to be in the French army because it gave me more opportunities than the Senegalese army. With the French army, I could have easily become a captain, whereas with the Senegalese army that was not possible.
And let's not forget the old classic: the yellow tongue is harsher than the white whip.
youtube.com
And let's not forget that the Romans introduced slavery in their "colonies", where the Brits and French ended it.
A LAWFUL good person won't even oppose an outright evil empire. He'd try to change the empire for the better by working within it.
Because you're a brainwashed milk-drinker who deepthroats imperial propaganda and refuses to acknowledge the needless cruelty and suffering that the empire inflicts on others.
Maybe if it was your peoples' freedom and way of living you might think differently. Oh wait that's already going to come crashing down along with the false empire and its abuses.
>being a stormcuck supporter
If they're from the empire, yes, if not, probably no.
assuming this Empire was not, in fact, secretly evil, or spreading evil customs, or oppressing the people cruelly?
No.
In fact the philosophical argument over Benevolent Dictatorship vs Social Freedoms is one of the few situations where you could have evil and good working together (LG, LE) against other goods (CG)
From a Chaotic Good perspective, the Empire's removal of agency from the populace is itself a crime and one that has a degenerative effect on society - all Dictatorships eventually go bad, absolute power corrupts, democracy is a terrible system of government whose one saving grace is it's not as terrible as all the others, etc etc.
The Roman slavery system was different from the european/american model
It was still really really fucking bad from the post 2nd punic war boom up until like, Caesar due to economic reforms and changing economy making mistreating slaves no longer cost effective. There was a reason there were so many revolts and why Spartacus got crucified after killing a lot of Romans.
You need to be gulaged by Le Pen.
As a native Hawaiian, lemme tell you about how 'great' it would've been without America....... and that's about it.
Fuck the missionaries tho. Those were the real dicks.
>spreads literacy
Is it the "spreads literacy" that means "forcibly remove the children from their families and completely sever all cultural ties"?
If the empire was all that without too many compromises to make it happen then a Lawful Good person should support such an empire.
>native culture
>having any inherent worth
>the empire builds infrastructure, bans cruel customs, introduces new luxuries, turns Chieftains into puppets, expands agricultural output, and spreads literacy among the tribals at the expense of their freedom
If a truly benevolent Empire as you describe existed, a Lawful Good person could still oppose it if they held that the imperial subjugation itself was Unlawful, regardless of what the empire was doing with it. LG follows a Deontological moral code, and Deontological morality by definition prioritizes the Right over the Good. If denying freedom to the local population is held not to be Right, then it doesn't matter to the LG character how much "Good" the Empire may be doing with it, the Empire MUST go.
Usually what Empires actually do is that they destroy earlier infrastructure and trade routes before building their own, leave cruel customs untouched, take luxuries and resources from the original population, establishes a harsher uber-chieftain to rule the puppet-chieftains, "expands agricultural output" by forcing the local population to plant a cash crop monoculture in order to pay their taxes (thus making their crops more prone to failure and their diet poorer) and only bothers to "spread literacy" among the nobility. A LG person (with some prodding from a CG companion) could also hold that the Empire - regardless of how much good it may be doing now - will eventually become corrupt, and in the long-term best thing to do is to oppose the Empire altogether.
Remember that the /pol/ak infestation thinks lawful means authoritarian
What I've come to notice about these /pol/ trolls is that they always, always have some list of links to "studies" that support them, and that these links are always devoid of the context that would throw them down.
Hawaii's is just mixed with imperialism, on one hand they probably would have been stuck to just surfing and living on the island in isolation forever if imperialism didn't rely on exploration to expand. While on the other it also lost its independence and got bullied around by U.S marines and plotters.
and then later angry japs
>If denying freedom to the local population is held not to be Right, then it doesn't matter to the LG character how much "Good" the Empire may be doing with it, the Empire MUST go.
>LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. They 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.
>CHAOTIC GOOD: To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Law, order, social forms, and anything else which
tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.
>NEUTRAL GOOD: Creatures of this alignment see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness, and prosperity to all deserving creatures. Order is not good unless it brings this to all; neither is randomness and total freedom desirable if it does not bring such good.
>thinking the Civil War even matters when there's vampires to kill and a guy running around with three dragons in his pocket