Sociopath Community

Chaotic/Neutral in general is often used as the "I do what I want and don't care for the consequences" alignment, but it can be so much more. 

If you want to explore this concept more, look into The Azata for the good variant, considering their C/N outsiders are pretty weak conceptually: https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Azata

Demons are pretty obvious for it's other end. 

Money itself is a sense of authority. Even over goods that ultimately extends to being over people, as people create goods and services. Trusting yourself would be trusting the authority of yourself. 

I'd say it's actually important to accept the flaws of society and mitigate them to create the most ideal society. For example, trade is unlikely to ever be equal, as there is always value to be lost or gained or hoarded.
I won't really argue the "money and Non Aggression Principle is a government" angle as it's a bit pedantic and devolves into further political and idealistic theorizing. 

Turncoat said: 

Chaotic/Neutral in general is often used as the "I do what I want and don't care for the consequences" alignment, but it can be so much more. 

If you want to explore this concept more, look into The Azata for the good variant: https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Azata

Demons are pretty obvious for it's other end. 

 I answered the quiz in consideration to consequences. I don't think chaotic means ignorant to consequences but it might imply an alternative view on consequences. Arguably morality and law can be very ignorant to consequences as it can prefer to be a static entity over a rational one even if it likes to equate both things.

Money's just streamlined bartering, which represents the effort taken to achieve the material. 

In a rare wise moment from Mike Tyson, he refers to it as Paper Blood. 

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

Chaotic/Neutral in general is often used as the "I do what I want and don't care for the consequences" alignment, but it can be so much more. 

If you want to explore this concept more, look into The Azata for the good variant: https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Azata

Demons are pretty obvious for it's other end. 

 I answered the quiz in consideration to consequences. I don't think chaotic means ignorant to consequences but it might imply an alternative view on consequences.

Chaotic has no respect for authority or law, unless it can prove itself their better as a matter of power. It's closer to when Law becomes the immovable object when they themselves desire to be the unstoppable force. 

If 'Chaos' finds itself following a structure, if it is not purely to undermine it from within it is more likely Neutral, as they are more likely to frown upon it conceptually. The very idea of it is as if feeling suffocated for such extremists. 



One who follows laws of their own, while opposing others laws and codes, does not otherwise give up their sense of lawful inclinations. It's like how Batman remains a figure of law in spite of being a Vigilante. 

Turncoat said: 

Money's just streamlined bartering, which represents the effort taken to achieve the material. 

In a rare wise moment from Mike Tyson, he refers to it as Paper Blood. 

 You'd have to prove the labor theory of value or that it is relevant and applicable. There's a lot more elements to wealth while merit and work are smaller aspects to the way it operates.

I'd say Havik could almost be Chaotic Evil, but either way he actually does face opposition/consequences from those who consider themselves lawful who wish to hold his evil actions accountable, as chaotic neutral actions/inactions can be harder to outlaw. Seeing reason in killing someone, even if it's a coinflip, is still malevolent and it being 50/50 doesn't so much reduce that and make it also 50/50 as the bias towards evil was still ever present.

Tacky said: 

I'd say Havik could almost be Chaotic Evil, but either way he actually does face opposition/consequences from those who consider themselves lawful who wish to hold his evil actions accountable, as chaotic neutral actions/inactions can be harder to outlaw. 

Havik would just as soon die for the sake of chaos, while Chaotic/Evil would only die that way if they were stupid about it. 

Under the guise of his ego and pride he is not ultimately self-serving, he is a CLERIC of chaos and sees no other path worth taking. His willingness to kill is more of a whim than anything, and he'd just as soon rescue his greatest foe through the same urgency. 

There's a lot that seperates Chaos Realm from the Netherealm. 

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

Money's just streamlined bartering, which represents the effort taken to achieve the material. 

In a rare wise moment from Mike Tyson, he refers to it as Paper Blood. 

 You'd have to prove the labor theory of value or that it is relevant and applicable. There's a lot more elements to wealth while merit and work are smaller aspects to the way it operates.

The streamlining is where people lost what money was meant to represent. Looking at stacks of paper tends to hide where it's perceived value comes from. 

If the rich were bartering in goods as direct trades, there'd at least be that much less affluence. 

It would be very limited as to what people would want to give/get. I mean I respect Monero (meaningful currency) but I don't think it equals a lack of authority, government, or equality. 

And I would add the point you were making about "undermining," that I find neutrality/passiveness to be much more potentially abrasive to society than evil or extreme good. For example I don't think people being killed actually hurts society as society can rebound from that or even gain from it so it can be reasoned to minimize deaths even if it's not moralized. Too much good can turn rotten, essentially, which is why society tries to promote some amount of evil and can internally rationalize doing so. (Racism, artificial scarcity, and extreme slavery can be a few examples of these rationalizations of "necessary evil.")

Hence, chaotic neutral.