Philosophy of agency and free will

**Agency**. Free will is the ability to choose between
different possible courses of action. It is closely linked to the
concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgments
which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also
connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and
prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are
seen as deserving credit or blame. There are various concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by
how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate. Free
will also closely ties to the concept of **agency,** which is the
capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living
being in general) to deliberately act in any given environment. (as opposed to non-sentient objects which do not act deliberately).

Issues of agency deal not just with a binary of whether free will
exists or not, but to what degree and in what instances will is free.
Megaten touches on this as well, dealing in many games with the
relation between individuals and the structures they emerge from, and
how the latter effects them. In practice, most people in philosophy
of mind believe that humans have some degree of free will. (quantum
physics gives reasons to doubt determinism, but most saying that even
if it were true there would still be a degree of free will. This
position being known as compatibilism) And megaten seems to share
this perspective.

Questions of agency and free will are related to, but distinct
from psychology and philosophy of mind, which can be read about on
their own pages for more context.

## Agency

**Intentionality** refers to the
capacity of the mind to orient toward an existent or nonexistent
object or concept. In other words, the content of thoughts. More
simply, the power of the mind to be able to form representations. The
claim that all mental states are intentional is called
**intentionalism**, the contrary being **anti-intentionalism**.
Intentionality is an important prerequisite for agency, because
agency presupposes willful action on the part of a mind towards
something.

**Agency** is the independent capability or ability to act on
one's will, and to make choices. It is widely agreed that agency
involves the initiation of action by the agent. But it has been
controversial what this consists in, and how much a degree of agency
people truly have over their actions. This is because one's ability
to act on one's will is affected by the cognitive belief structure
which one has formed through one's experiences, the perceptions
held by the society and the individual, the structures and
circumstances of the environment one is in, the position they are
born into, and even their biology, all of which exist prior to the
formulation of their will. Agency exists in the intersection of deliberate intentionality of the will, and the power to carry out one's will.
When specifying agency that is considered responsible, a level of
intelligence and self awareness is seen as necessary.

Agency is contrasted to objects
reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking processes. In
this respect, agency is related to the concept of free will, which is the idea that that our choices are in some relevant way
significantly free or “owned” by us. Human agency entails the
claim that humans do in fact make decisions and enact them on the
world. How humans come to make decisions, by free choice or other
processes, is another issue. Agency is relevant to the concept of
morality, due to the necessity of agency and deliberate action for
moral action to be meaningful. This is because human agency entitles
the observer to ask *should this have occurred?* in a way that
would be nonsensical in circumstances lacking intelligent
decisions-makers.

In social science, agency is contrasted with structure, which is
factors of influence (such as social class, religion, gender,
ethnicity, ability, customs, etc.) that determine or limit an agent
and his or her decisions. The relative difference in influences from
structure and agency is debated—it is unclear to what extent a
person's individual actions are constrained by social systems, or even necessarily how the question should be formulated. This
also ties to the nature vs nurture debate, asking what proportion of
someone's actions that ultimately occur are for genetic or epigenetic
reasons versus social ones. An important note being pointed out that
genetic influences never exist outside of culture, so always have to
be understood in the light of their environment. More information about social structures on the psychology and sociology page. As such, free will as a whole has to be understood not just as a metaphysical issue, but in relation to tangible boundaries on action.

Agency may either be classified as
unconscious, involuntary behavior, or purposeful, goal directed
activity (intentional action). An agent typically has some sort of
immediate awareness of their physical activity and the goals that the
activity is aimed at realizing. In ‘goal directed action’
an agent implements a kind of direct control or guidance over their
own behavior. Neuroscience has also revealed evidence for an
intermediary category it calls the **adaptive unconsicous,** that
is unconscious drives that still are active and take part in active
decision-making and goal-setting, and so are a relevant to
discussions of agency. The adaptive unconscious is seen as evolving
before the conscious mind, and is the source of things such as
intuition which seem to come to you without conscious reasoning. Some suggest that this was a thing that many early people perceived
as influence from spirits, because they sensed that thoughts came
from outside their conscious.

The philosophical discipline in charge of studying agency is
called **action theory**. There is often identified to be three
general types of agency: **individual**, **proxy**, and
**collective**, which is when one undertakes one's own actions,
acts for another, and when groups act together respectively. The
degree to which collective agency and intentionality exist are
another thing studied within action theory. In certain philosophical
traditions such as the works of hegel, agency is considered a
collective historical dynamic, tied to humanity's existence as social
beings rather than tied to the actions of individuals.

**Collective intentionality / agency**. In the philosophy of
mind, collective intentionality characterizes the intentionality that
occurs when two or more individuals undertake a task together.
Examples include two individuals carrying a heavy table up a flight
of stairs or dancing together. This phenomenon is approached from
psychological and normative (moral) perspectives, among others. From
a moral perspective, it is important for understanding the degree of
responsibility members of groups hold for collective action. The
notion that collectives are capable of forming intentions can be
found in literature going back thousands of years. For example,
ancient texts such as Plato's Republic.

Although at first glance collective intentionality may seem like a
construct that is less real than individual intentionality, there are
important reasons to think that that is not the case. For starters,
what we think of as individual intentionality is in and of itself a
construct, and in a big way is actually similar to collective
intentionality. Since we know from neuroscience that the brain is not
a single monadic thing that operates with a single line of thought,
but a collection of different processes that are structured to add
together. So while the brain is more integrated such to make this
stream seem to be a single intention, groups in the larger sense may
simply be a less integrated analogue of a similar idea. This can tie
into the sociological concept of social organisms, and the analogous
philosophy of mind concept of group minds. As such, it can be
possible to talk about the collective intentions of something such as
for example the united states or a church group. Nietzsche compared
the differing competing drives within an individual to the differing
competing people in the world.

However, in the moral sense, when talking about collective
intentions, there is disagreement about what degree of deliberateness
is necessary in order to count as collective agency. For instance,
one distinction being whether people need to deliberately be working
together versus, whether they have vague goals which point to the
same end, but are working independently without knowledge of
eachother or direct integration. To some degree this distinction of
course is going to be a bit abstract.

**Neurophilosophy**
or **philosophy of neuroscience** is the interdisciplinary study
of neuroscience and philosophy that explores the relevance of
neuroscientific studies to the arguments traditionally categorized as
philosophy of mind. One major aspect is the neuroscience of agency
and free will. As it has become possible to study the human living
brain, researchers have begun to watch decision making processes at
work. Findings could carry implications for our sense of agency,
moral responsibility, and our understanding of consciousness in
general. Although the field remains highly controversial. There is no
consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their
meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn.

One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain
seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware
of having made them. Researchers have found delays of about half a
second (discussed in sections below). With contemporary brain
scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict
with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their
left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware
of having made that choice. So while this doesn't deny agency, it
does relegate a lot of it to unconscious action. And in some ways
forces us to assess the nature of agency in this light.

Some problems with these studies have been found however, in that
they involve some degree of introspection on the part of the test
subject which can lead to misleading results. Some thinkers like
neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can
still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain
are involved before decision making, and so don't meaningfully imply
that decisions lack a conscious basis at the time of decision.

Dan denett stresses to not try to use these findings to reject
free will as a whole, because free will is more of a gradient of
ideas and ownership of action, and just because certain forms may not
be compatible with the findings does not mean that people lack the
ability to make decisions.

## Free will

**Free will** is the ability to choose between different
possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to
the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other
judgments which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is
also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation,
and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed
are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different
concerns about threats to the concept of free will, varying by how
exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate.

Free will is not a binary, but seen as
something that comes in degrees. Even in situations like courtrooms
where no talk about metaphysics is going on, discussion still comes
up about how various situational factors effect people's will in
various ways, and have to do with parsing to what degree an action
was directly willed by them versus bounded by the situation. Theories
of free will range heavily from saying that near absolute control
exists to the idea that none exists whatsoever. However, most modern
views take an intermediary position, saying that while the will is
bounded by various things, and people's nature exists and is shaped
by things external to them, that there is still a relevant sense in
which one's actions are one's own.

Although to many people it might seem
intuitive that determinism is incompatible with free will, most
modern philosophers of agency consider them compatible. (a position
called compatibilism. Which contrasts incompatibilism that thinks
determinism and free will are not compatible). This is because even
if there are underlying causal lines leading to actions, there is
still an important sense in which they are freely willed by you, and
“belong” to you. Because your will is part of the world, not
something that the world “forces” to violate its own interests.
Which is why Dan Denett stresses that the findings of modern
neuroscience do not violate the concept of free will as a whole. Just
certain dualistic conceptions of it. (Note that determinism has not
been proven either. On the quantum level, physics actually implies
that the world may be indeterministic. Although that is not proven
absolutely.)

Although some outside the field might
assume that the concept is bound to classical christian concepts of
near unlimited libertarian free will, modern discussions of free will
take into account the need to understand agency in light of
understanding modern physics and neuroscience, and how various
influences effect the will. Considering free will compatible even
with a determinsitic world is not a new idea either. It was common in
ancient greece, since the greek religion itself considered human
action bound by fate, and the stoics had the position of determinism
outright based on materialistic reasons. But both considered that
humans have freedom within the context of this system.

## In megaten

### General

Now, to understand how megaten
approaches the concept of agency requires understanding some things
about the depiction of the world. To get it out of the way at first,
the games obviously do imply that agency and free will exist to some
degree. Krishna even mentions it openly. But they also have many
different reflections on the nature of things that bind the limit of
one's will. At the same time, the games admit that the future at the
very least has a high degree of determination (although it does not
specify how high).

This is how things like the laplace from devil
survivor work, which is named after the first thought experiment
about the physical ability to predict the future indefinitely using the
present. And Serph Sheffield says that the human heart is a machine, and so by extension people can theoretically predict the outcome of any action. The games do not deny this degree of determination, but does not consider it totally opposed to the first person nature of agency.

One thing that is shown is that humans
tend to emerge from structures similar to them. This means that they
are irrevocably a product of the environment they come from, and that
while this may go different ways, you can see that people are
inherently shaped by where they come from in a large way. Law worlds,
neutral worlds, chaos worlds work because they tend to produce people
who, coming from that situation, from structural or even biological
reasons tend to perpetuate it.

Even in iva, it shows that your
teammembers still end the game with ideologies that are inspired by
the place they came from, even though they united to make a loosely
neutral world for the time. This does not mean its not possible for
people to deviate from their cultural situation, but that even
deviations have to be understood in terms of one developing from
their environment. Walter for instance deviates from the situation in
mikado, but even that reaction has to be understood in the light of
being shaped and influenced by his experiences from there (and tokyo
as well, of course).

Note how the way it depicts people and their environments being relates also has a very eastern tone. Historically, it has been more common for the east to depict people as continuous with the environment in a more literal way, whereas the west focused more on them as distinct. So, modern philosophy of agency aside, many of the depictions in-game, and their depiction of people as irrevocably part of the larger world-system are coming from a specifically eastern tone. This eastern tone does not downplay agency however. Since in the past in general, and especially in the east, there would be heavy focus placed on collective agency of the tribe or clan as well. The modern western idea of the monadic individual would not have been as intuitive to early people. Agency was often seen as the collective desires of clans. Though obviously in practice this stifled the individual's agency at times.

In soul hackers 2, ringo has a short conversation where she talks about how while she sees figue has her other half, that this idea was probably implanted in her. Saizo sees this as unsettling, questioning whether this means the idea is really her own. But she points out that all ideas people have are influenced by outside sources, and so there is never an easy way to divide between which ideas are your own. Addressing the reality that your personal internal agency can coexist with the reality that you ultimately aren't the one who shapes yourself.

### Humans and demons

Another important aspect here is the
fact that this relation between individuals and their environment
veers into concepts of structure and collective intentionality.
Humans effect structure, but structure effects individuals. And some
decisions are made on larger group levels, or directions society goes
in are based on collectives of will rather than specifically anyone's
single will. This is where demons and gods come in. In iva it points
out how the archetypes gods appear as exist due to group observations. That is, the similar
ideas held in the minds of many people. And the gods themselves are
embodiments of larger aspects of the world, like nature, or even
social forces and ideology. So in a very direct way, these gods are
depictions of the collective intentionality of groups, as well as
structure in general. (Note that the animistic essence they were originally composed of pre-existed these forms being shaped by observation. Observation just delineates it into specific forms).

This is reflected in the description of
how gods work in general. Gods are shaped by human observation. That
is, the collective of human thoughts. But this is not a one-way flow.
Humans are influenced by gods and demons as well. Like steven says,
gods try to goad humans to their side. Which in a major sense is a
metaphor for the influence of groups and structure on the individual.
In SMTI they also point out how what demons you have on your team
effects your alignment. And directly point out that this is them
influencing you as well. So humans effect gods, and gods effect
humans. This shows agency in either direction as not fully autonomous, but part of an
endless cycle of influences. (Note that even though gods represent and are embodiment of these collective influences, they are depicted as having an element of individual will as well. So the metaphorical aspect feeds into the tangible existence of them as a distinct entity within the plots).

Gods are also tied to subconscious
archetypes as well. So this ties these ideas of structure to
influences that effect you on a subconscious level. Since a large way
of how structure works is by effecting what thoughts or drives are
even likely to enter your will. This has to do with the ambiguity of
agency, and how despite you having ownership over your actions, the
influences that make up your will exist prior to it, both outside of
your own body, and which your particular will emerges from, but also
even into the subconscious level, effecting your will before it is
aware of these lines of thought. Which also has to do with the adaptive unconscious, and why its archetypical form is conflated with demons influencing you. In-game, demons are often depicted as literally living in the human mind to some degree, so its a direct depiction of these overall influences and how they effect the individual.

This ties to the direct depiction of
demons and gods in game. Some ask whether the demons being shaped by
observation means that they have no agency of their own, but that is
not quite what is being gotten at. For the same reason that
collective agency and structure are real, despite being effected by
the individual, individual agency is real despite being effected by
structure. The games focus not only on human thoughts effecting
demons, but on demons trying to get humans to align with them as
well, but even in such a case, the individual human still has the
will to make decisions. So the archetypes and the individuals are
both depictions of agency, just at different levels of magnification. Gods have their own agency in part because in some sense they literally *are* this collective agency, just zoomed out more. And it isn't necessarily "less real" than individuality viewed on the individual level. Which means that there is also a sense in which what is being depicted is something that exists in real life as well. Because these forces, and more zoomed out views of the flow of agency aren't necessarily "less real" than the individual level.

Note of course something in addition to
that. Even though demons are embodiments of archetypes, they are
still depicted as when manifested in a form, having an individual will. The aspect of their will
that is formed from collective intentionality seems limited to the
structure of the archetype they represent, on top of which
they have the ability to act independently. So while their agency
works a bit different from that of humans, they are not meant to be
seen as lacking it any more than humans are due to the gods and
demons as archetypes controlling them through their subconscious.
(also, individual demons with their own independent wills can also
change form, shifting to a different archetypal form, so that form of
agency and will shift exists for them as well).

Because in the end, their form being shaped by observation is not that different from humans being shaped by structure. Its just that these collective observations form a collective structure that every incarnated demon of that archetype shares to some degree. In IV you get lucifer talking about how he lives by the power of his own will, while claiming that angels are too bound to the collective will of god. This is because even demons have their own personal will, and even demons see the more relevant question being what alignment you live in tune with.

This is also because demons of the same archetype do not have to all be the same, either. Observation might shape the overall archetype of the angel "power," and what it represents to humans, but that does not mean that individual powers do not act by their own will, even if they collectively represent a collective observation of certain human thoughts. And individual demons by their actions can change their nature and archetype, such as an angel becoming a fallen angel. So even if the archetypes represent certain collective thoughts and structures, individual demons by changing forms can represent different ones at different times. Even incarnating in various forms. So demons are not really lacking in their own agency. To demons, they see themselves as their own real beings with their own lives. Not just as representations of human thoughts. The latter of which they might see as more of a resource or food.

Note that one of the few demons who is not okay with this arrangement, dagda, is an uber individualist in general. He rejects outside influence for everyone, emphasizing that it is better to be a true individual who exists outside of peer pressure. However, it is not clear that that is even a coherent idea for anyone, even humans, since there is no such thing as a monadic individual not shaped by influences that exist prior to their will. So while his plan wants to shape people to be more resistant to peer pressure, they still can't avoid their mental content being shaped heavily by outside forces. Which interestingly may be why it depicts for demons, the absence of accepting that one is shaped in part by outside forces as essentially ceasing to exist. (Interestingly this ties to the buddhist idea of how all forms you have are conditioned in a chain of causes, but dissolution of your mindstrream into paranirvana returns your nature to the unconditioned).

### Psychological restructuring

Another common feature of megaten games
is situations that involve some degree of psychological restructuring (or brainwashing), and the
question of how that effects agency. Interestingly, the games do not
imply that brainwashing totally erases agency. In strange journey for
example, it implies that the way it works is that people have orderly
and chaotic aspects to their mind in general. What we see as
brainwashing isn't necessarily totally changing their mental content,
but rather a heavy shift in its focus, bringing one side to more
prominence. This is why it can only work in certain people. If
someone has no orderly side whatsoever, there is nothing for the
process to work with.

This provides an interesting point. On
the chaos end, there is brainwashing too, but it is to bring the
chaotic aspects to prominence. Releasing people's inhibitions,
causing their egoistic impulses and repressed emotions to be
something they are more likely to act on. This brings up an
interesting question of how it ties to one's own agency. Because on
the one side, this mental content already existed inside of them
before now. But on the other hand, the balance was upset. Because
there are competing drives within one's own mind. So even if the
drive was really already there in your mind, your agency was effected
by an outside force making it come to prominence. And upsetting the balance is in and of itself a change in the overall content.

This interestingly relates to the
actual thing that is being taken issue with in certain law scenarios.
Chaos figures do not seem to mind psychological restructuring in
general, even if done forcibly. Rather, what they take issue with is
the mentality of the law world itself. Whether it is gotten to via
brainwashing or not seems barely a concern to them. Because
brainwashing or not, they consider this mentality of acting in tune
with the whole rather than acting on your own impulses to involve a
decreased emphasis on your own agency. (even though it is ultimately
your mind that makes you do it). They consider being psychologically restructured to be more chaotic to actually *improve* your agency, because now you are more likely to act on your own impulses, rather than to consider such to be unthinkable. In IVs chaos end, lucifer says that you have given free will to mankind. Implying that they think of their path as a heightened sense of agency.

Persona 5 delves into some of these same questions, albeit brushing them off somewhat. If you effect someone's mind, then to what degree is the result really true to their original mind? Because is the content that was changed merely a small part that caused them to veer into more damaging actions, with the core aspects remaining, or is it so core to their mind that the result barely qualifies as meaningfully being a direct continuation of the same flow of will? Part of why this is glossed over is because the characters it was done to are villains who it was seen as regardless of the dubiousness of the action, people who it was necessary to put a stop to. The end of the game notes that these people were in a sense imprisoned since you were pulling them closer to the will of society rather than their own will. But does not expand on the nuances of this depiction.

This ultimately goes back to the
questions of structure in general. People in any situation come from
a structure, and this effects how their mind develops. But what is
the difference between coming from a structure, and having certain
effects put into your mind in a faster way, such as in these
psychological restructuring in-game situations? The distinction may
not be entirely clear and delineated. Which is why though agency does
exist, it has to be understood not as an absolute thing, but a
particular flow of will that is inherently in tune with the world at
large.

### Preprogramming

The intersection of the above questions of things like brainwashing and other things has to do with the question of preprogramming. If people were specifically designed with certain mental content in order to arrive at certain ends, then how do you make sense of how free they are. And what's more, what is even the difference between whether they are preprogrammed or not.

This question comes up a bit in certain games like SMTII. Most of the main cast was grown in a lab to fulfill specific roles within the world. And interestingly, while many did not fulfill the role in exactly the way intended, they did still have personalities that are irrevocably shaped by this. Beth was programmed to be in love with and obsessed with aleph, and remained that way even into the afterlife. Daleth was programmed tor rebel and challenge aleph, and ultimately did rebel. Zayin is an interesting case, since his programming was overridden by the soul of satan, designed to pronounce judgement. And yet ultimately, what he did was a reflection of those roles. So even though there were acts of true rebellion, you have to ask whether that wasn't a limit or mistake of the programming as much as it was a true reflection of freedom. Or even to consider whether there's a difference.

These are questions also considered by the blade runner movies. Which is interestingly reflected in satan's outfit looking like roy batty from blade runner, who likewise was created as a tool, but who rebelled against his creator. Interestingly, this question comes up in a chain between humans and demons as a whole. Demons are shaped by observation, and so to some degree are preprogrammed by humans. Yet humans are shaped by unconscious desires that are identical to demons, with demons being shown as living in the human mind. So no one exists without some degree of preprogramming, and the questions of their freedom have to account for this. Likewise, the games show that society itself counts as preprogramming you, since different types of society, much less human nature and other things all shape individuals. So the monadic individual has to be replaced with a structural interpretation of a cycle of feedback. And the gods are in a way a metaphor for society also.

The question also comes up when applied to lawful worlds, since the angels preprogram humanity to facilitate a certain kind of order. Yet once the worlds are set into motion, the people act freely, because this preprogramming simply becomes the baseline human nature. And the question exists of what makes that nature different from any other human nature that likewise has a beginning structure. The essence of the "humanism" that neutral purports to represent is the idea of humans being more autonomous from gods in this sense. Which here also implies a claim to some autonomy from preprogramming. Which is why the emphasis is placed on freedom. But the question still arises whether that freedom really exists in the way they choose to imagine it. While neutral might take an optimistic stance, implying that it must at least enough to make sense of, the pessimistic undercurrent is still there. Showing in the visionary items in II that even after his death lucifer still appears in and rests in your mind.

An even more direct blade runner parallel shows up in imagine, where there is a race of replicants called innocents who look like humans, but are designed to be subservient, and not think for themself. With the plot revolving around some of them becoming more self aware to assert their autonomy.

### Ethics

Agency of course ties to ethics as
well. Ethical issues relate to it in the sense of not only how
directly one's actions are their own, but also to what degree agency
should be respected, and how. This ties to concepts of positive and
negative freedom as well, since freedom of various kinds is necessary
to be able to enact agency. Negative freedom is the lack of any
particular laws against things, while positive freedom is a tangible
structure that provides the ability to actually do them. I.E. if
there is no law against something there may still be other
impediments to doing it such as it being prohibitively expensive or
difficult, something that involves a loss in tangible positive
freedom to actually act.

Different sides consider their own
paths to be important in terms of agency as well. Neutral for example
considers law and chaos to both necessitate living orderly or chaotic
lives. And it considers its own path normatively superior for
respecting people's agency and ability to take that line of thought
in either direction, so long as it is not so far that it disrupts the
ability of people to do the opposite. Chaos considers that it
respects people's agency to do as they wish if they have the power to
do so, although this is in an immediate impulsive sense, and accepts
that it has to be dynamic and constantly upheld, since there is not
enough order to take it in a direction that avoids this struggle in a
chaotic world. Law, while it focuses less on these questions of
agency due to its nature, considers that external situations that
harm people effect their ability to live their own lives in a
fulfilling way, and so ensuring that everyone is protected allows
them to be allowed to actually act on their interests without those
inhibitments.

One of the claims made against law
worlds is that in exchange for a guaranteed happier outcome, certain
aspects of agency are lost. Namely, that human minds are inherently
ordered more towards big picture thinking instead of egoistic
thinking based more on their personal desires. Where egoistic thinking for yourself is considered more in
tune with acting on one's own agency, rather than more often as a
proxy of the collective. The problem with those claims however is
that if human nature is shifted to desire this, its not clear that
there isn't agency in the individual sense. And so the type of agency
that may be being lost may not be a coherent concept to begin with.
In many important ways the higher protections can give rise to more
positive freedom due to lack of problems inhibiting you, and so
certain forms of agency may be more well respected there.

This goes
back to the concept of psychological restructuring, and if a world is
planned out, but people's minds are aligned to the interests of that
plan, then do they really lack agency in many of the relevant senses
if they then freely put it into practice? And if not, then how do we conceptualize the nature of agency in general, when no one can be free from these influences? Notably, the outcome of law
worlds is heavily socialistic, which people argue that the ideal
forms of would actually enhance your agency, by making you have more
control over your individual life. And so the need to preserve the
system is hardly a major loss in exchange.

For chaos, you have an inverted
problem. While on paper it calls you to freely act uninhibited for
your will in a dynamic world where you are more able to do anything,
in practice it shows that without certain protections, the weak would
have very little of any meaningful agency. And so despite claiming more on paper, in
practice it amounts to the loss of very relevant kinds as well. Which
in iva, neutral being named “freedom” is meant to call to mind
that in certain respects it really does have more than chaos. Due to
the overall being higher, even if the heights are lower for the
strong. (and even that is debateable, considering that the strong
have to fight to maintain their position). Interestingly, that means
that despite chaos emphasizing your will more, and law doing it less,
chaos might have less of that actually existing in the ways that
matters than advertised, whereas law has more than expected for that
reason.

The neutral path obviously considers
that you need a balanced amount of restrictions and protections in
order to properly be able to act on your agency. When contrasted with
chaos this obviously has to do with needing protections to prevent
abuses and people having power over your agency, and when compared
with law, this has to do with wanting people to be more capable of
working for themselves rather than the big picture even if this can
lead to worse endings overall.