Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rhialto" data-source="post: 348428" data-attributes="member: 630">Celebrim--I think you are showing just as much bias against the freedom of chaos (and to a lesser extent evil) as you proclaim others are showing towards it.  Your example shows this quite well--you blithely state that a chaotic neutral character will take the money.  Some would... some wouldn't. For example, what if said CN believed in the dignity of the individual above all else?  Such a character would probably try to find the owner of the wallet, because, after all, it's that person's money.  Said person might feel little qualms, however, in stealing from a magazine from a conglomerate store, as a  store is merely an unrighteous imposition upon an individual's right to goods.  (And forcing those small businesses out of business!  How dare they!)   Of course this disagrees with your view of chaos equaling being self-centered, but then again, I disagree with your viewpoint of law equalling putting the group first.  After all, if that were true, Lawful Evil would be an impossibility...In a way, this sums some of the problem that exists between the lawful and chaotic philosophies--each is certain of its own superiority, and feels that of course, it's the one that offers the best choices and true freedom, and the others are a bunch of deluded fools.  Lawfuls see Chaotics as selfish, weak-minded, and lacking discipline--Chaotics see Lawfuls as arrogant, narrow-minded, and lacking vision.  Neither view is correct, because both involve a ridiculous simplification of complex viewpoints.And about evil--I think you're missing what people are saying here.  Not every evil person has the mentality and habits of a serial killer.  They don't go around wearing dreary robes, and wielding bloody knives.  Some are cunning, and imitate good people, while secretly being horrid and depraved underneath--and some may be completely pleasant individuals who, of course, just happen to believe in reprehensible things.  For example, 'Grandpa' Hendres is a charming man, in early old age, well-loved by many of his fellow villagers.  A pillar of the community, he gives amply to the village charities, and has helped the welfare of many of his neighbors.  Ask most of the village, and they will tell you he is one of the finest souls there.  He is also a horrid racist, who believes in the superiority of humans over all other races.  He uses much of his funds to finance a little group called "The Sons of Man" who spend their time attacking other races, and trying to begin a great human empire that will overthrow the kingdoms of all other beings.  A few years ago, when a group of halflings tried to move into the village, he quietly hired some... proffessional harassers to move them away.  Quite a few halflings were killed, several of them children.  Hendres doesn't particularly care about that, and even paid the hirelings a bonus for a job well done.Much of the village has some idea of his viewpoints (if not quite the depths of his actions in furthering them) but is willing to let them pass as the eccentricties of an old man. (A few quietly agree with them).  Most will point out that viewpoints aside, Hendres is a kindly soul, a good-natured man of extreme generosity.  And they are, in a way, right.  To most of his fellow humans, Hendres is kind and generous.  He gives away money at the drop of a hat.  He will help an unfortunate soul without hesitation--if that unfortunate soul is a human, of course.  While he views humans who mix with "lesser races" less kindly, he still mostly views them as deluded, and pitiful.  This does not stop him from having them harmed, harrassed or killed, if he feels it is necessary, but it does make him feel a little guilty about it afterwards.  Still, the advancement of humanity makes such things necessary, on occasion...I think there would be little argument that Hendres is evil.  (As to what kind--probably Lawful, but an argument could be made for Neutral Evil...)  And yet to say the man has the moral sense you described is a clear mistake.  Hendres still percieves much of what is good and evil--he merely views it through a twisted, and hideous lens.</blockquote>

Verification