Crimson Longinus
Legend
That was the implication of provided interpretations of lawful.No. That’s not what chaotic means. It’s not “lol, I’m so randumb. That’s a purposeful misreading of chaos as it’s already been explained above.
That was the implication of provided interpretations of lawful.No. That’s not what chaotic means. It’s not “lol, I’m so randumb. That’s a purposeful misreading of chaos as it’s already been explained above.
Well, yes - if you remove all the nuance there isn't much nuance.The answers above seemed to boil down to lawful meaning that a lawful person obeys 'law' (however if that is defined) if they agree that it is just (however that is defined) or if it personally benefits them. But certainly basically everyone does that anyway? Or do you think chaotic people are rebels without a cause that break laws just for the hell of it, even if they would morally agree with the action prescribed by the law or following the law would personally benefit them?
A bad faith reading of implication. They are not "rebels without a cause".That was the implication of provided interpretations of lawful.
Only people who don't like alignment keep insisting that a lawful person must follow the laws of the land. It's dumb.
But it’s not meaningless as that’s what lawful is. It’s respecting the (generally just) laws and customs of a society, whatever that may be.
For example, a lawful person in America, provided they abide by the right laws and codes can carry a gun. If they fly over to the UK, they cannot. There is a difference in law, but those difference would be respected.
Some countries have other laws that we might find oppressive, but again, to some extent, as generally lawful people, we would respect those (for example, a woman dressing in a more “modest” attire in some countries).
Note that I said respecting the (generally just) laws and customs, not “must follow”. It’s not a blind imperative. There’s no contradiction, stop trying it.
Chaotic good for example acts more based on conscience rather than prescriptive law. Generally a good person, but if they want to smoke a joint and the law says it's illegal, so what?
Right. So in practice there is no difference between your definitions of lawful good and chaotic good. In effect both follow laws that have obviously good outcomes because to not do so would require doing something evil, but they can break laws they don't agree with.Note that I said respecting the (generally just) laws and customs, not “must follow”. It’s not a blind imperative. There’s no contradiction, stop trying it.
Not quite, you’re missing the nuance. Remember these are broad descriptors, they are not meant to be pre controlled programming of input -> response.Right. So in practice there is no difference between your definitions of lawful good and chaotic good. In effect both follow laws that have obviously good outcomes because to not do so would require doing something evil, but they can break laws they don't agree with.
Again ... you're reading into statement what you want while ignoring what people are saying.