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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 1917043" data-attributes="member: 2268">Well, the "operational function"...or the intent, in easier terms...of any kind of consequential rule is of course to encourage the respective behaviour the rule is about. In the paladin's example, which is kinda an extreme in any alignment discussion, the rule goes that a single willing evil act will cause the permanent loss of a paladin's powers. Which is the consequence of the mentioned behaviour, and as such can be taken as an encouragement not to act evil, at least not willingly.Going back to your original problem, the thing about chaotic alignment barring people from forming a group to support their plans...I have to say I don't really see where in the alignment dscriptions that is written. True, the group might not be organized along formalized structures, and members might tend to start an action on impulse, because they feel the moment is just right for it, no matter if the whole group is there or not...but it can still be a group, with common goals, acting together for as long as they want, and need? Lets try and have examples <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 1) A group of chaotic good rangers, banding together to hunt down the orcs that are raiding the woodcutter villages in the forest. Each hails from a different part of the forest, they all know each other, maybe, by name only. They agree that combined, they stand a better chance of dfeating the orcs. There's no leader, each simply pitches in according to his or her strengths, with each individual acting as effective as it can. If, while scouting, one of them meeets a small group of orcs, he might decide to attack them to vanquish the group, weakening the enemy, or track them to find the main lair, or get back to the others to report, but he certainly won't run back to base camp to get the agreement of everybody else. The group is only bound together by one goal, with each individual keeping it's decision rights to itself, and bringing in it's strengths on it's own judgement.2) A group of lawful good fighters assembles to hunt down the gnolls that have terrorized the area. After getting to know each other for a bit, a small but effective hierarchy is formed, with the most experienced as leaders, dispensing assignments based on their judgement of the strengths and weaknesses of the others. Everybody gets his orders from them, and no part of the group acts without them, or without consulting a higher ranking fighter for new orders based on the changed situation. They form a highly efficient, but slow fighting unit that employs the strengths of it's members in accord to the judgement of it's most experienced members. It is bound together by one goal and the obedience and trust of the younger members on the older, more experienced members to think for them. The first example is a pretty chaotic group, in my opinion, and still a group, with one goal in mind. It can be very fast, flexible, and effective, as everybody knows his own strengths best, and applies them when he judges it needed.The second group is lawful, forming a group hierarchy, pursuing their goal with strategy and orders. It is slow, and if the orders aren't thought through well, can be unflexible, but it is also hard to break up into single, disordered parts, and will always exactly know what is up with each and every member.The same principle can be applied to most other examples, I think. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification