Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 231193" data-attributes="member: 5171">I disagree.&nbsp; A chaotic person can be lawful 90% of the time TO OUTWARD APPEARANCES and still be completely chaotic.Saying that if he doesn't do something stupid or revolutionary half the time, he's neutral, is ascribing Chaos the same discipline as Law.&nbsp; There's a reason that Paladins and Monks have to be lawful, while Bards and Barbarians can be either chaotic or neutral.&nbsp; Law and Good, by their very natures, are limiting ethical sets.&nbsp; Chaos and Evil, by their natures, are enabling ethical sets.&nbsp; Law and Good stop you from doing chaotic or evil things.&nbsp; Chaos and Evil don't STOP you from doing lawful and good things.&nbsp; They just let you do them or not, as you choose.Yes, if you ALWAYS chose to do the good and lawful thing, with good and lawful motivations, a DM would be right to question you.&nbsp; But you can play a CE character who is brave, noble, friendly, and affable, but has a horrible temper -- and once he gets angry, he kills.&nbsp; He feels bad about it later, in a distant way, but he doesn't turn himself in, because the people DID get him angry.&nbsp; He usually just finds a new town and goes to live there for awhile, being friendly and helpful and fighting off orcs or whatever until someone makes him lose his temper again.By your definition, a chaotic neutral character locked in a white room with nothing to break, steal, or liberate would eventually become neutral, and then lawful.&nbsp; While it's an interesting prisoner dilemma -- does incarceration really change your alignment? -- it confuses action with philosophy.But then, most players confuse action with philosophy, too.So maybe in practice, your way works out alright.-Tacky</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 231193, member: 5171"] I disagree. A chaotic person can be lawful 90% of the time TO OUTWARD APPEARANCES and still be completely chaotic. Saying that if he doesn't do something stupid or revolutionary half the time, he's neutral, is ascribing Chaos the same discipline as Law. There's a reason that Paladins and Monks have to be lawful, while Bards and Barbarians can be either chaotic or neutral. Law and Good, by their very natures, are limiting ethical sets. Chaos and Evil, by their natures, are enabling ethical sets. Law and Good stop you from doing chaotic or evil things. Chaos and Evil don't STOP you from doing lawful and good things. They just let you do them or not, as you choose. Yes, if you ALWAYS chose to do the good and lawful thing, with good and lawful motivations, a DM would be right to question you. But you can play a CE character who is brave, noble, friendly, and affable, but has a horrible temper -- and once he gets angry, he kills. He feels bad about it later, in a distant way, but he doesn't turn himself in, because the people DID get him angry. He usually just finds a new town and goes to live there for awhile, being friendly and helpful and fighting off orcs or whatever until someone makes him lose his temper again. By your definition, a chaotic neutral character locked in a white room with nothing to break, steal, or liberate would eventually become neutral, and then lawful. While it's an interesting prisoner dilemma -- does incarceration really change your alignment? -- it confuses action with philosophy. But then, most players confuse action with philosophy, too. So maybe in practice, your way works out alright. -Tacky [/QUOTE]

Verification