Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9314128" data-attributes="member: 4937">[USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] I generally agree with your essay, but would like to add that there is an important difference between how Lawful people view &quot;the Law&quot; and how Chaotic people view &quot;the Law&quot;, even where both agree that they are tools.First, let's be clear that &quot;the Law&quot; here does not necessarily mean &quot;the dominate social order&quot; or &quot;the civic laws of the land&quot;.&nbsp; You can be lawful, and I think your point makes clear why, without supporting constructions like &quot;the dominate social order&quot; or &quot;the civic laws of the land&quot;.&nbsp; Quite obviously, those things themselves do not need to be lawful (or good in the case of lawful good) and as such you wouldn't expect a lawful minded person to support them.But, whatever the lawful person considers &quot;the Law&quot; he view himself as subordinate to it, whereas the Chaotic person always views the law as subordinate to him or herself.&nbsp; The question is, &quot;What is the ultimate source of moral authority?&quot; and the lawful person always answers that it is some external source.&nbsp; In his own mind, he doesn't act on his own authority, but is subordinate to some external authority.&nbsp; His code is not his own, but one that exists independently of himself.&nbsp; Thus even in circumstances where his own judgement conflicts with the law, he's inclined not to trust in his own judgement but to follow the law, believing that it's more likely his judgement is wrong than the law is.Of course, by contrast, the chaotic sees all of that as complete horse hockey and indeed the source of most of what is wrong with the world.&nbsp; Blindly following the rules or the law or orders from so called superiors is to a chaotic how wrong happens.&nbsp;&nbsp; Viewing your own private beliefs as some higher truth is to the chaotic likewise the source of wrong in the world - a form of arrogance.&nbsp; The Chaotic always sees the source of all moral authority as his own judgement as an individual, and the law as a tool that if it has any good purpose at all still remains subordinate to that.&nbsp; If the law and his own judgement conflict, well then it's highly likely that the law is what is wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp; And of course, that presumption is the basis of the lawful seeing the chaotic as arrogant.&nbsp; The Lawful therefore hears the following statement as a bad thing: &quot;In those days there was no king...every man did that which was right in his own eyes.&quot;, where as the Chaotic hears that statement as a good thing.Note that the difference is not whether you have some moral code or code of honor - both CG and LG will have both.&nbsp; The difference what do you think is the source of that code and whether you think you are subordinate to it or it to you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9314128, member: 4937"] [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] I generally agree with your essay, but would like to add that there is an important difference between how Lawful people view "the Law" and how Chaotic people view "the Law", even where both agree that they are tools. First, let's be clear that "the Law" here does not necessarily mean "the dominate social order" or "the civic laws of the land". You can be lawful, and I think your point makes clear why, without supporting constructions like "the dominate social order" or "the civic laws of the land". Quite obviously, those things themselves do not need to be lawful (or good in the case of lawful good) and as such you wouldn't expect a lawful minded person to support them. But, whatever the lawful person considers "the Law" he view himself as subordinate to it, whereas the Chaotic person always views the law as subordinate to him or herself. The question is, "What is the ultimate source of moral authority?" and the lawful person always answers that it is some external source. In his own mind, he doesn't act on his own authority, but is subordinate to some external authority. His code is not his own, but one that exists independently of himself. Thus even in circumstances where his own judgement conflicts with the law, he's inclined not to trust in his own judgement but to follow the law, believing that it's more likely his judgement is wrong than the law is. Of course, by contrast, the chaotic sees all of that as complete horse hockey and indeed the source of most of what is wrong with the world. Blindly following the rules or the law or orders from so called superiors is to a chaotic how wrong happens. Viewing your own private beliefs as some higher truth is to the chaotic likewise the source of wrong in the world - a form of arrogance. The Chaotic always sees the source of all moral authority as his own judgement as an individual, and the law as a tool that if it has any good purpose at all still remains subordinate to that. If the law and his own judgement conflict, well then it's highly likely that the law is what is wrong. And of course, that presumption is the basis of the lawful seeing the chaotic as arrogant. The Lawful therefore hears the following statement as a bad thing: "In those days there was no king...every man did that which was right in his own eyes.", where as the Chaotic hears that statement as a good thing. Note that the difference is not whether you have some moral code or code of honor - both CG and LG will have both. The difference what do you think is the source of that code and whether you think you are subordinate to it or it to you. [/QUOTE]

Verification