Would you describe this as lawful or chaotic?

Would you describe this as lawful or chaotic?

Attached: agustus.jpg (765x403, 129K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-romanlegal120.shtml
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I would describe it as neutral on the law/chaos axis.

this is what happens when chaotic good is in charge of the laws.

Since Lawful/Chaotic is dependent on who is the position of power, he's Lawful.

This
/thread

Slaves in the Roman empire had a surprising number of rights and laws protecting them. Laws that the master in this situation violated. Really, this just an example of an authority figure preventing a crime as it was happening and then collecting the fine for it in the form of cups. I'd say it was lawful.

Lampreys aren't eels. So whichever alignment doesn't know that.

The action is Lawful Good.

It's a perfect example for how the 2 axis alignment system fails to model reality.
That is why I demand all my players to describe their alignment as Big Five personality traits.

Paladins get to smite agreeableness two standard deviations below the mean.

Lawful. He did it to correct an overpunishment whit an eye for an eye basis (well, kinda, but a slave is a slave).

>alignments are retard nonetheless

Neutral good, because lawful isn't allowed to have a sense of humor and that's fucking hilarious.

Lawful evil. Destroying a man's cups for what he chooses to do to his property is wrong.

I'm pretty sure even Romans had some rules regarding what you can and cannot do with slaves. Not everyone was a bunch of 18th century ancap Muhricans when it came to slaves.

You are correct, unfortunately here in America no one learns shit about that and all anyone knows of slavery is what we did. Never about the differences from place to place where it was practiced, hell most don't realize it is active today and was far before America was established.

Kind of hard not to be lawful when it's the guy who makes the laws who does it

Augustus was a cheeky bastard, man.

"Augustus" means "divine" or "godly", doesn't it?
whats a law to a king?
that automatically makes any decision he makes lawful

Attached: 1512455450437.png (1000x1000, 1.22M)

>Lamprey eels

Attached: 1504619394951.jpg (435x334, 36K)

It's lawful because slaves were public property in rome
or was it in Sparta? hell if I know, they were all some boylovin cunts these toga wearing dickwads

>Slaves in the Roman empire had a surprising number of rights
It's only really surprising in the context of American slavery which is a clear outlier in the history of slavery in the world.

Mind that this also coexisted with the right of the pater familias having the right to kill any member of his family ( slaves included).

That doesn't really mean much, since all cultures are outliers in their own ways.

This

Attached: con_won.jpg (311x310, 66K)

If he'd fed the owner to the eels and abolished slavery, that would have been justice.

where the fuck did he even get those, anyway?

Chaotic obviously. The man could do what he wanted with his slaves.

Wrong.
Was it a law he followed or set when he freed the slave and broke the cups? No. Was it a personal code that he would free slaves and break cups when he saw abuse? No.
It was a Chaotic Good act.

>Slaves in the Roman empire had a surprising number of rights and laws protecting them.
No they didn't, until like the 2nd century or so. Roman slaves were one of the least protected classes in history.

>It's only really surprising in the context of American slavery which is a clear outlier in the history of slavery in the world.
No it isn't. Fuck off with your American exceptionalism. The contemporary Ottoman slave trade was just as brutal, for example.

Why are people missing the fact that Lawful Good characters are meant to be doing good, primarily within the confines of the law but also according to their own honourable code? Letting the law stop them from doing good when they're in a decent position to do so would be lawful neutral at best.

>Paladins get to smite agreeableness two standard deviations below the mean.
Genius

You can get fined or arrested for mistreatment of pets which have even less rights than slaves

>all slavery is chattel slavery
lmao

It is not wisdom but authority that makes a law.

Says who? He's literally the guy that makes the Laws that define Justice.

How is our slavery being one of the worst exceptionalism

Okay I apparently missed that last line about breaking the man's cups. That's not Lawful Good at all; it's completely disproportional in a society that generally allows slavery. Definitely Chaotic.

In Rome, America and the Ottoman empire? Yeah, pretty much. Rome abolished debt bondage in 326 BC, three hundred years before the empire was established.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
>unique among nations in positive or negative connotations

>Ottoman slave trade

what the one where the slaves end up running the place?

you realise there were societies outside of Rome, America and the Ottoman empire? dumbfuck.

the one where the slaves are stripped of their culture, name and religion and are forced to fight for the padishah?
the jannissaries rebelled and were put down

You're probably thinking of the Mamluks in Egypt; Ottoman Janissaries didn't get that far. It's also nice of you to think of "the slaves" as a monolithic entity, as if a few freed Ottoman slaves rising to high positions would erase the suffering of millions of women taken as concubines to be raped, boys being turned into crossdressing fuckslaves, and the strongest of the men being castrated with heated sticks being inserted into their urethras.

The vast majority of historical slavery has been chattel slavery, but I'd be happy to discuss any society you want.

it's not like Anglo Saxons had slaves with rights or anything like that, its not like Papua new guinean tribes had slaves with rights, etc etc etc etc

"Slavery with rights" does not mean it isn't chattel slavery; every fucking historian agrees that British slavery after the Anglo-Saxon settlement was chattel slavery. And you're going to have to be more precise with your Papua example, it's the most ethnically diverse island in the world, with thousands of tribes and hundreds of languages.

read some of the laws anglo saxons had in place for slaves. slaves had to be guarenteed a house, crops, good treatment, etc. learn some history

It more means "majestic" or "venerable", and is not necessarily related to the divine. Also traditionally it would be applied to objects or places of importance. Augustus was the first time it was applied to a person.

His original name was Gaius Octavius Thurinus; Caesar named him as his heir in his will, and therefore at that point he changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Anglicized as "Octavian").

I fail to see what that has to do with whether or not American slavery was uniquely brutal.

I'd recommend Wyatt's Slavery and warriors in Medieval Britain and Ireland (800-1200), especially the interesting chapter about the attemp to erase the history of Medieval European slavery, but as a well-read man you're probably already familiar with it.

>That is why I demand all my players to describe their alignment as Big Five personality traits.
>Paladins get to smite agreeableness two standard deviations below the mean.
Elaborate?

Lawful. He believes in humanity, in order, in justice, and in goodness. He sees a man using the current laws to cause evil and declares them unjust, then he rights this wrong.

huh my stupid feminist cunt of a history teacher in high school always said that it meant divine. Guess thats another one for the list when I finally snap and decide go on a rampage falling down style.

so I suppose it'd be chaotic then, considering roman "don't fuck slaves in the ass with a cactus covered in barbed-wire" laws weren't passed centuries later
if that stupid cunt wasnt lying again, I mean

By American do you mean the US or the Americas as a whole?

If the former I'd have to disagree. Haiti, as a fine example of European colonialism, was working its slaves to death fast enough that they had to constantly import more to keep the workforce supplied.

The only thing noteworthy about the way the Americans was that we didn't castrate them like the durkas or work them to death as a matter of course, so our slave population grew on its own, similar to Sparta in a way.

>we didn't castrate them like the durkas or work them to death as a matter of course
Cause they were fucking expensive. Haiti was just so insanely profitable it didn't matter.

Burgers weren't able to do business properly. Learn from the best my dudes.

Attached: MXQmKVy.jpg (1920x1080, 601K)

Paladins get to smite people that are statistically significantly below the generally accepted amount of swellness in a dude.

Didn't mamluks have it pretty good anyway, afaik they were pretty highly valued elite who'd been trained for the art of war their whole lives and shit

No, no, Octavian was very much Lawful. He deplored the moral state of his fellow debauched countrymen and introduced some harsh laws on marriage and adultery, hoping to raise the number of Italian children born and gain the approval of pious, patriotic Romans.
stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-romanlegal120.shtml

Antoninus Pius was the first emperor to rule that masters couldn't kill their own slaves at will without a trial, and also prohibited the torture of children under 14 and pregnant women when trying to extract confessions, testimonies and eyewitness accounts from them. This sounds pretty silly to modern sensibilities but was considered a logical practice - slaves were seen as lazy, lying and child-like, in need of a good whipping to keep working. These important laws were only passed in the mid-2nd century AD, later emperors would pass more.

Also, please don't shoot anyone at your old highschool, no matter how much you dislike them.

>tell me my teacher was a lying cunt
>asks me not to try and beat the highscore
sending mixed signals there buddy

>thinking there's more than one America
Found the skub snorter.

Neutral evil

This brings up a weird question. How many lampreys did this guy just have sitting around to be able to feed a human to? Was this just a thing people did, keep pools of lamprey?

>not having a lampray farm
>disdainforplebs.jpg

>The French abolish slavery
>Decide this is the perfect opportunity to revolt against slavery
>Instate an even more brutal form of slavery (without the Code Noir that actually assigned rights to slaves) and create even more slaves than before

The Haitians are human filth and deserve everything that happened to them after the most underemphasized genocide in human history (because it's okay if black people exterminate white people).

Attached: 61doRYVlAoL._SX352_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (354x499, 61K)

>he doesn't have tank replete with lamprey and with larger viewing ports so the other slaves can see the fate of those that displease
Philistine shouldn't be allowed slaves.

Publius Vedius, the old jester, had had that pool at his villa specifically made for gory sea lamprey executions. He also enjoyed displaying statues of various married women he had had affairs with, and once went to a meeting with Cicero carrying a baboon in his chariot. Roman pisciculture mainly consisted of oyster farming.

Ng

>French
>proper business
>no less thinking they're better than Americans, British, or Dutch at such
This is a joke, yes?

Attached: John_D._Rockefeller_1885.jpg (338x488, 106K)

Well have they done anything innovative recently? For the most part US has been leading in world innovation, with the other nations tagging along or adding onto it when they could.

>Octavian was very much Lawful. He deplored the moral state of his fellow debauched countrymen and introduced some harsh laws on marriage and adultery
How ironic that he couldn’t keep his own family in order considering his daughter was a slut and Tiberius was well Tiberius.

Remember Marcus Aurelius? He was regarded as a good emperor but his personal life was a disaster.

I was unironically thinking about Big Five instead of alignment a few days ago. That's pretty cool.

Augustus was the epitome of LAW in the Roman world.
He was then deified for being so goddamn based.
Since D&D morals derive directly from godly authority, and are absolutes.
And since Augustus is a god.
It logically follows that his actions are the very essence of lawful good.
Case closed, thread over.

To be fair, Augustus did claim some divine heritage as Julius Caesar was deified after his death, which coincidentally also made him to son of a God
that said he would have never claimed to be a living god, every single title he held and every single bit of power he wielded was always veiled.
He wasn't a king, he was simply the first senator with some extra-ordinary powers given to him by unanimous vote of the senate, so no need to worry about tyranny.

No it's not. Law means respecting order, establishment, and civility.

American slavery was relatively tame. It was Arab slavery that was brutal

Yes. Butthurt /pol/acks simply can't wrap their heads around this idea. At best, they pretend shit like is on par with New World slavery (it's quite right to point out the USA was not the only shit slaver state).

>American slavery was relatively tame
What the fuck are you smoking

Arab shittery doesn't preclude American shittery

Nah the one where they kidnap white woman and rape the shit out of them.

Attached: barbarians.jpg (1280x720, 104K)

>That is why I demand all my players to describe their alignment as Big Five personality traits.
>Paladins get to smite agreeableness two standard deviations below the mean.
Does that make Jordan Peterson a level 20 paladin, or has he ascended to demi-god?

Attached: peterson lobsters.jpg (1200x720, 110K)

IIRC Lamprey's are one of those things wealthy Romans loved to eat that people mostly moved away from later on.
So presumably it was the Roman equivalent of a tank of fish in a fancy restaurant.

Does divine heritage pass through adoption?

Yes.

What if I take a talent to base my smite requirements on the chi squared of a persons morality fit towards the goodness model?

Attached: imagine.jpg (1280x720, 59K)