Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="muffin_of_chaos" data-source="post: 4230841" data-attributes="member: 65007">I'm basing my argument on my definitions.  And the reason for the argument is that people are defining concepts differently than WotC has decided to define them.  Definitions are tricky things, are they not?All right...explain to me how a wedding vow is Good in and of itself.The definition of "Chaos" implies not reacting to codes at all, because they cannot apply.All right.  An action is lawful And evil.  We're not talking about lawful/evil actions, but actions designed to achieve evil through law, as Lawful Good actions are designed to achieve good through law.  There are no such Lawful Evil actions, therefore they cannot exist on the same axis.There can be evil results of good-intentioned actions.  I don't consider those actions to be evil, because otherwise there's no point in considering good and evil as being possible at all.To clarify towards the central point, it isn't functional to base a system of alignment on actions that you have no one way of knowing are evil.  It doesn't help the character.You understand that I'm not saying that Lawful/Good and Lawful Good are the same thing right?  Lawful/Good equates to the past editions, Lawful Good to the current.  Not mutually exclusive systems, but one's better than another.I'm saying there is a distinct difference, and no one else seems to see that.  Which is kinda cool, it means this argument means something.Lawful/Good would be troubled by the indecision between whether to be Lawful or Good.  In 4E, if this was a serious issue, that person would probably be Unaligned because their focus isn't Good or Evil.What?  The point is that championing anything is to take a moral stance.No...?  I don't get it...this still has nothing to do with chaotically good action or lawfully evil action. (Read: as differentiated between Chaotic/Good action and Lawful/Evil action.)Never did claim so.  I'm claiming that the action to break down a door to save a child you think is in danger isn't chaotic.  This is because we still have different definitions of chaotic, mine having more to do with the current edition and the actual definition and yours having to do with an idealistic chaos.Slavery is evil, by the common connotations of the word.  It isn't indentured servitude, it isn't doing it for someone's own good, it is using someone else for your own good without their consent.Personally I don't really believe in evil, because I'm a Spinozist.  Functionally, though, it describes what we see.Lawful by the ideals of the people involved.  Unless their ideals didn't dictate their action, but some sort of intuitive sense of good.Insane.  Or with actions based on illogical premises.Rampant stupidity is a good cause of this, and probably why most people are Chaotic/_____.</blockquote>

Verification