Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Amal Shukup" data-source="post: 2153881" data-attributes="member: 6291">Again, my sense is you're dismissing him as 'lawful' because he breaks 'laws' and fights against the putative authorities. Lawful is not 'Legal'. Nor is Chaotic neccesarily 'illegal'. He definitiely does things that are evil AND very much against the law (hence I don't seem him as Lawful Good) - but he does them in a structured, organized fashion in furtherance of a defined goal. Hence he is absolutely, 100% Lawful...What might he have done were he chaotic?Chaotic Good&nbsp;- Donate his earnings (which he now feels weren't 'earned') to a relevant charity&nbsp;- Randomly select other targeted children and protect them from the kidnappersChaotic Neutral&nbsp;- Just walk away - what does he care? He's been paid...&nbsp;- Write some free verse poetry&nbsp;- Hook up with the Reporter chick, just 'cause she's hawtChaotic Evil&nbsp;- Randomly kill people, just cause he's pissed&nbsp;- Offer services to bad guys, just 'cause they got a good racket going&nbsp;- Go on a killing spree - but with less planning. Get bored and move on&nbsp;- Just start killing cops - because they were the 'bad guys' who shot himI agree that it's a somewhat blunt tool. I also suspect that individuals shift around amongst the nine alignments (which seem to work better descriptively than prescriptively) a lot more than the mechanism supposes - which makes it MUCH more difficult to pigeonhole people. For instance, a nominally Lawful Good character could conceivably lose their temper and commit what would objectively be considered a Chaotic or Evil act (haven't we ALL?).&nbsp; The 'Alignment' effectively describes the behavior - but does it DEFINE the character? That said, I think that the MAIN reason the system seems to break down is because individuals don't know (or, charitably, do not agree about) what the different qualities MEAN.A'Mal</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Amal Shukup, post: 2153881, member: 6291"] Again, my sense is you're dismissing him as 'lawful' because he breaks 'laws' and fights against the putative authorities. Lawful is not 'Legal'. Nor is Chaotic neccesarily 'illegal'. He definitiely does things that are evil AND very much against the law (hence I don't seem him as Lawful Good) - but he does them in a structured, organized fashion in furtherance of a defined goal. Hence he is absolutely, 100% Lawful... What might he have done were he chaotic? [B]Chaotic Good[/B] - Donate his earnings (which he now feels weren't 'earned') to a relevant charity - Randomly select other targeted children and protect them from the kidnappers [B]Chaotic Neutral[/B] - Just walk away - what does he care? He's been paid... - Write some free verse poetry - Hook up with the Reporter chick, just 'cause she's hawt [B]Chaotic Evil[/B] - Randomly kill people, just cause he's pissed - Offer services to bad guys, just 'cause they got a good racket going - Go on a killing spree - but with less planning. Get bored and move on - Just start killing cops - because they were the 'bad guys' who shot him I agree that it's a somewhat blunt tool. I also suspect that individuals shift around amongst the nine alignments (which seem to work better descriptively than prescriptively) a lot more than the mechanism supposes - which makes it MUCH more difficult to pigeonhole people. For instance, a nominally Lawful Good character could conceivably lose their temper and commit what would objectively be considered a Chaotic or Evil act (haven't we ALL?). The 'Alignment' effectively describes the behavior - but does it DEFINE the character? That said, I think that the MAIN reason the system seems to break down is because individuals don't know (or, charitably, do not agree about) what the different qualities MEAN. A'Mal [/QUOTE]

Verification