Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 8007644" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I'd agree that Law isn't the same thing as the local legal code. But if it isn't, then the fact that a character follows the local legal code doesn't tell us whether or not they're opposing Law. And it presents us with the further problem that characters probably know what the local legal code is, but they might not have any idea what Law is, or exist in a context where Law and Good are seen as a single entity (e.g. medieval Catholic England), and so not have the opportunity to actively oppose it even if they wanted to.Even if you're right that clear, objective criteria are desirable here (and you probably are, but it's debatable), it does not follow that the specific clear, objective criteria you're proposing are desirable. A different set of clear, objective criteria may be better -- and we usually evaluate "better" by seeing how well they line up with the "I know it when I see it" version.Now, obviously, things get fuzzy around the boundaries of a know-it-see-it definition, and figuring out exactly how to draw the line through the fuzz is part of the, ah, "fun" of developing a clear-objective definition. But that's at the boundaries. Hopefully our clear-objective definition doesn't have a problem matching the know-it-see-it definition at the center. If our definition of "Europe" says that Turkey is not a European nation, that's arguable; if our definition says that France is not a European nation, we may have a problem.It is in this light that I would suggest not placing <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/photography/Spark/nikon/Dali_Atomicus_black_and_white-xlarge.jpg" target="_blank">this freaking guy</a> firmly and unequivocally in the "chaotic" category constitutes a weakness of your proposed definition scheme.I think it's pretty clear from his characterization that a Robin Hood like the Flynn or Disney version doesn't have much use for social protocols and proprieties and is bored out of his skull by routine and regularity. (Seriously, the whole golden arrow escapade is less "strategic move to counter John's regime" and more "alternative to spending another day in the woods staring at trees".) I have no reason to believe he'll suddenly become a square after returning to civilization under King Richard; it's a safe bet that he'll keep finding ways to disrupt the orderliness of his life and the lives of those around him, just not in a criminal fashion.Now, maybe he does mellow out and stop causing chaos, evolving into a neutral character. Getting married often does that to a person for some reason. But simply abiding by local laws is insufficient evidence on its own to indicate that this has occurred, when there are so many other areas in which he can continue to be a scoundrel.I think this is an asymmetry that squares with most people's intuitions: an evil character can perform a good act for their own purposes, and that's still evil, but when a good character performs an evil act for the greater good, that's not good. This is because good is normative and evil is not. Evil doesn't tell you what kinds of behavior aren't allowed; on the contrary, it says that good is dumb for doing that, rejecting such restrictions. Law and chaos have a similar normative/antinormative relationship, and thus a similar asymmetry where chaotic characters can get away with lawful acts more than lawful characters can get away with chaotic acts.On top of that, merely not breaking the law doesn't usually constitute a lawful act, because it's not an act at all. It's an omission: you're passively not doing something you could be doing. And very few conceptions of any alignment, I'd venture, hold that it is necessary to perform acts of that alignment all the time, at every opportunity. Evil characters don't lose many or any "evil points" for deciding not to burn down a particular orphanage; chaotic characters don't lose many or any "chaos points" for deciding not to break a particular law.</blockquote>

Verification