Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 2511231" data-attributes="member: 10825">I generally chalk up Law and Chaos as a matter of &quot;Trusting authority and institutions&quot; and &quot;Distrusting authority and institutions.&quot;Chaotic individuals can have codes, discipline, and even predictability. What sets them apart, though, is that they have little trust in groups. They'll form personal bonds, but are reticent about forming impersonal ones - they might trust a specific knight, but hold nobility on the whole in suspicion. A chaotic individual can work within or support government and organizations, but strongly believe in accountability. Conversely, a lawful individual firmly believes in authority and the system. They might not like certain policies or trust certain leaders but, in general, believe that things would be far worse without the institutions in place. A lawful individual can engage in a revolution, but it will be orchestrated by already having people ready to step into leadership positions once it's finished. I also see that tying into stability and change; lawfulness prefers stability and won't risk a change for the better unless it's nearly guaranteed, whereas chaotic, err..ness...is more willing to risk change, even when there's a good chance it might be a change for the worse. As I see it, that makes for a more reasonable model of law and chaos than some presentations. It allows for the blindly lawful or the impulsively whacked out chaotic while letting in more believable presentations of both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trickstergod, post: 2511231, member: 10825"] I generally chalk up Law and Chaos as a matter of "Trusting authority and institutions" and "Distrusting authority and institutions." Chaotic individuals can have codes, discipline, and even predictability. What sets them apart, though, is that they have little trust in groups. They'll form personal bonds, but are reticent about forming impersonal ones - they might trust a specific knight, but hold nobility on the whole in suspicion. A chaotic individual can work within or support government and organizations, but strongly believe in accountability. Conversely, a lawful individual firmly believes in authority and the system. They might not like certain policies or trust certain leaders but, in general, believe that things would be far worse without the institutions in place. A lawful individual can engage in a revolution, but it will be orchestrated by already having people ready to step into leadership positions once it's finished. I also see that tying into stability and change; lawfulness prefers stability and won't risk a change for the better unless it's nearly guaranteed, whereas chaotic, err..ness...is more willing to risk change, even when there's a good chance it might be a change for the worse. As I see it, that makes for a more reasonable model of law and chaos than some presentations. It allows for the blindly lawful or the impulsively whacked out chaotic while letting in more believable presentations of both. [/QUOTE]

Verification