Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9512008" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Correct.Well, no, they just hold no direct power there. Which is likely just as the infernal beings and their servants wanted it.Again, mortal followers of a lawful good god have the moral agency to behave in chaotic ways in the short term, in order to make it possible for their god’s power to take root there again. This is why mortal followers are a very important thing to have.Temporarily engaging in chaotic behavior in order to make it possible for the power of lawful good to re-establish itself there is not turning one’s back on those gods.It can be, when the law supports good. You were specifically asking about the context of an authoritarian state - a place where the law is itself evil. In a just society where the law was in support of good, opposing evil in a way that is in accordance with law would be trivial. Indeed, in such a case the law would be designed specifically to support the opposition of evil. Lawful good vs lawful evil is the stuff of wars. Subversive action against lawful evil from within is a story of chaotic good vs lawful evil.Maybe, though not really in the same way. Law is restrictive by nature. For one thing, a place where chaos and evil reigned could barely be said to constitute a society. The closest thing I can picture is some kind of Randian anarcho-capitalist dystopia, though even that has some element of law, in order to preserve any concept of personal property. At any rate, I do think lawful good beings would have an easier time acting in opposition to the dominant chaotic evil powers-that-be than chaotic good individuals would. Since lawful good could combat said powers by attempting to impose a just order, whereas chaotic good individuals would have to try to combat evil without the benefits of centralizing power. Probably that would make for less effective resistance, but not impossible.</blockquote>

Verification