Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bauglir" data-source="post: 347987" data-attributes="member: 6982">Wanted to respond to a couple of points in this thread:IMO he will fulfill promises, but only those he makes himself.  Chaos is about individualism, not untrustworthiness (although a lot of people play chaotic characters as untrustworthy)I would even go as far as to say the CN character could be most trusted to keep his promises.  A good character would break the promise rather than allow someone to be hurt or even killed needlessly, an evil character would break the promise if they had something to gain, and a lawful character would break the promise if it was superceded by some 'greater authority' (eg a lawful neutral monk would not honour the promise if doing so violated his own code of conduct).  The CN character on the other hand belives in individuality above ALL things and as such he will honour his promise, freely and individually given above all other concerns.The second point: "Is good and lawful alignment constrictive"IMO yes.There are certain things a good character WILL NOT DO, period (not wanting to get into an ends justify the means discussion).  This doesn't mean that an evil person in the same situation would always do that thing.  Take the blacksmith killing.. no good character could EVER do that and keep their alignment.  On the other hand, should the evil character choose not to do it they wouldn't suddenly become good.. after all it's in their own interests not to have the guard hounding their every step, isn't it?So while the good character has limited options, the evil character does more or less whatever they think they can gain from - they are unconstrained.A similar balance is seen in Law/Chaos.  A lawful character has a framework that defines their actions, be it a personal code of conduct or the law of the land..  A chaotic character believes in their own empowerment to weigh each situation and decide on a course of action.  Should this course of action conform with some law then so be it, and if it doesn't, then that's ok too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />For an example look at stealing.  A 'law of the land' lawful character would never steal as it's directly contrary to their belief system.  Does this mean that every chaotic character is a raving kleptomaniac?  No.. the chaotic character WOULD resort to stealing, but only if they saw a reason to do so.  They are unconstrained in their choice.Edit: fixing some typos <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification