Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8007035" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Not if we want consistent definitions. If neutral means “obeys the law, except when it doesn’t suit them” and chaotic means “doesn’t obey the law except when it suits them” then the line between them is both subjective and extremely fuzzy. Better that chaotic mean “actively opposes Law” and neutral means “does not actively oppose or support Law.” (And that’s Law with a Capitol L, as in the forces of Law, not necessarily local legal code.)You’re advocating for an “I know it when I see it” definition of chaotic here, and I don’t think that’s useful. To serve a meaningful function, alignments need clear, objective criteria.Also, Dhali identified as a communist, an anti-monarchist, and anti-clerical when he first joined the surrealist movement, so I think it would be safe to say that he held highly anti-establishment ideals at that time. He gave lectures for the Workers and Peasents front, and contributed to their journal, and at one point got arrested for being “intensely liable to cause public disorder.”Of course, he grew more apolitical over time and eventually completely flipped over to pro-monarchy. People are complex. At any rate, I would characterize Dhali as ideologically Chaotic at first, shifting to ideologically Lawful later in life, but remaining fairly Neutral in action throughout most of that time. Which is a pretty typical story, honestly.Now this argument speaks my language. Can we find support in the text for Robin Hood opposing establishments beyond the political establishment of whatever adaptation we’re looking at?I think we can say that his opposition is to the system under John, not the system itself, and that is not an ideologically Chaotic position in my evaluation. We can say that he acted against the system while John was in power, which is Chaotic. We can say that he did not act against the system when Richard returned to power, which is not Chaotic. How much he actually supported the system under Richard we can’t say, because that’s generally where the story ends, so we can’t say whether his actions were Lawful or simply Neutral at that point. So I think depending on the adaptation, we have a character who is likely either Lawful or Neutral ideologically, but whose actions are Chaotic, until the proper social order is restored, at which point his actions shift to more Neutral or perhaps Lawful, though the text doesn’t give us enough support for either option to evaluate.Indeed! His actions are undoubtedly Chaotic through the majority of the story, in just about any adaptation. And ceasing that action does not undo the effects they had on his alignment. But, his actions after Richard returns to power have their own effects on his alignment.Apologies, I don’t follow.</blockquote>

Verification