Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8561774" data-attributes="member: 6932123">Law to me is the idea that mankind is responsible for itself, and that &quot;rule of law&quot; matters.&nbsp; The gods have removed themselves from the material plane so that the mortal races can rule themselves, and forge their own destiny.&nbsp; Law is mankind as a whole trying to shape its own future.&nbsp; There may be disagreements about how to go about it, but there's still a fundamental agreement that society is defined and determined by mortals.The other side, chaos, is a rejection of that mortal self-determination.&nbsp; A chaotic priest doesn't want to merely be guided by his deity's precepts; he wants the deity itself to be in charge, to rule society, to administer judgement, and so forth. Divine (or infernal) power is in and of itself justification for rule; might makes right, and godly might trumps anything mortals can wield.'Selfishness' often gets lumped in with chaos — the idea that personal choice and desires trump society's rules.&nbsp; I'd argue that such perspectives are closer to Law than Chaos, because they still depend on mortal self-determination.&nbsp; For example, a chaotic good thief that robs people and gives money to the orphanage is not being &quot;chaotic&quot;; she's simply rejecting the manner in which society has decided to treat orphans and their caregivers. A change in government might very well change such policies, in which case her desires now match society's structure.&nbsp; She no longer has to act against society, and could easily transition to &quot;lawful&quot;.&nbsp; That means the chaotic designation was not a true evaluation of her character, but merely a matter of perspective.I would assign such selfish personalities to the neutral column, rather than the chaos column.So law and chaos are both outward-looking views on how the world is run — either mortal self-determination, or godly intervention — while neutral would be inward-looking selfishness that largely ignores either side.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 8561774, member: 6932123"] Law to me is the idea that mankind is responsible for itself, and that "rule of law" matters. The gods have removed themselves from the material plane so that the mortal races can rule themselves, and forge their own destiny. Law is mankind as a whole trying to shape its own future. There may be disagreements about how to go about it, but there's still a fundamental agreement that society is defined and determined by mortals. The other side, chaos, is a rejection of that mortal self-determination. A chaotic priest doesn't want to merely be guided by his deity's precepts; he wants the deity itself to be in charge, to rule society, to administer judgement, and so forth. Divine (or infernal) power is in and of itself justification for rule; might makes right, and godly might trumps anything mortals can wield. 'Selfishness' often gets lumped in with chaos — the idea that personal choice and desires trump society's rules. I'd argue that such perspectives are closer to Law than Chaos, because they still depend on mortal self-determination. For example, a chaotic good thief that robs people and gives money to the orphanage is not being "chaotic"; she's simply rejecting the manner in which society has decided to treat orphans and their caregivers. A change in government might very well change such policies, in which case her desires now match society's structure. She no longer has to act against society, and could easily transition to "lawful". That means the chaotic designation was not a true evaluation of her character, but merely a matter of perspective. I would assign such selfish personalities to the neutral column, rather than the chaos column. So law and chaos are both outward-looking views on how the world is run — either mortal self-determination, or godly intervention — while neutral would be inward-looking selfishness that largely ignores either side. [/QUOTE]

Verification