Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="No Name" data-source="post: 2511738" data-attributes="member: 31462">Both could definately be accurate, but I think a little more depth would be needed before an assesment could be made. Seeking profit in itself is not an evil act. Seeking profit at the expense of others welfare is. Selfless devotion to a cause, god, or whatever is more misguided than good or evil. Of course, that view is tainted a bit by my own belief that people should think for themselves and not be blind followers. Regardless, the motivation of the selfless devotee is the important part.The reason I went with predictability and consistency is because the things that defined lawful would often not hold true when it's opposite was applied to chaotic. In other words, lawfuls usually tell the truth, so therefore chaotics must usually lie. Lawfuls tend to follow tradition and work together in communal harmony. Yet when I imagine barbarian tribes, steeped in traditions handed down over generations, working together for survival, I can't apply the general chaotic definition. The same applies to elves, who are often referred to as mildly chaotic.The classes that cannot be lawful (barbarian and bard) easily fit into the not so predictable category. What drives them into a rage or strikes their fancy today may have no effect tomorrow. While the lawfuls (monk and paladin) will respond in the manner that their code (&lt;-- best word I can think of) directs them to. Even when angry, the monk or paladin should still behave according to that code most of the time, even if the monk cares only for himself and his quest for perfection. The only thing holding an angry barbarian in check would be the barbarian's moral compass (ie. good).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="No Name, post: 2511738, member: 31462"] Both could definately be accurate, but I think a little more depth would be needed before an assesment could be made. Seeking profit in itself is not an evil act. Seeking profit at the expense of others welfare is. Selfless devotion to a cause, god, or whatever is more misguided than good or evil. Of course, that view is tainted a bit by my own belief that people should think for themselves and not be blind followers. Regardless, the motivation of the selfless devotee is the important part. The reason I went with predictability and consistency is because the things that defined lawful would often not hold true when it's opposite was applied to chaotic. In other words, lawfuls usually tell the truth, so therefore chaotics must usually lie. Lawfuls tend to follow tradition and work together in communal harmony. Yet when I imagine barbarian tribes, steeped in traditions handed down over generations, working together for survival, I can't apply the general chaotic definition. The same applies to elves, who are often referred to as mildly chaotic. The classes that cannot be lawful (barbarian and bard) easily fit into the not so predictable category. What drives them into a rage or strikes their fancy today may have no effect tomorrow. While the lawfuls (monk and paladin) will respond in the manner that their code (<-- best word I can think of) directs them to. Even when angry, the monk or paladin should still behave according to that code most of the time, even if the monk cares only for himself and his quest for perfection. The only thing holding an angry barbarian in check would be the barbarian's moral compass (ie. good). [/QUOTE]

Verification