Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Dude" data-source="post: 4229629" data-attributes="member: 30511">GOODThis isn't meant to pick on theeo123; what I quote above seems to parallel what a lot of folks are saying, but he says it pretty succinctly.&nbsp; The &quot;neutral&quot; as not caring about whether to be lawful or chaotic is chaotic.&nbsp; They have no intention of following the law; if their actions happen to be in accord with the law, it is only by coincidence because the character doesn't care.&nbsp; In fact, so-called &quot;chaotic good&quot; probably weren't breaking every law all of the time, so sometimes their actions happen to coincidentally follow the law as well!&nbsp; The only real difference between so-called &quot;neutral good&quot; and so-called &quot;chaotic good&quot; is how often their actions break the law and how often the character actively tries to break the law (because its not all the time).&nbsp; So I am ok with dividing good characters into &quot;those who just care about being good and don't really care about following the law (and whose actions will sometimes follow the law by conincidence)&quot; and &quot;those that care about being good and always following the law&quot;.A &quot;lawful good&quot; character is a little different.&nbsp; Unlike the so-called &quot;neutral goods&quot; and &quot;chaotic goods&quot;, these folks do care about following the law.&nbsp; Their obedience to the law is no mere coincidence, as with other good folks; it is intentional and believed to be necessary.&nbsp; Unlike the difference between good folks who don't care about following the law and good folks who don't care about following the law a lot, there is a distinct difference between those good folks who absolutely follow the law and those folks who do good and don't care about the law.&nbsp; I am ok with them getting their own label.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Dude, post: 4229629, member: 30511"] GOOD This isn't meant to pick on theeo123; what I quote above seems to parallel what a lot of folks are saying, but he says it pretty succinctly. The "neutral" as not caring about whether to be lawful or chaotic [b]is[/b] chaotic. They have no intention of following the law; if their actions happen to be in accord with the law, it is only by coincidence because the character doesn't care. In fact, so-called "chaotic good" probably weren't breaking every law all of the time, so sometimes their actions happen to coincidentally follow the law as well! The only real difference between so-called "neutral good" and so-called "chaotic good" is how often their actions break the law and how often the character actively tries to break the law (because its not all the time). So I am ok with dividing good characters into "those who just care about being good and don't really care about following the law (and whose actions will sometimes follow the law by conincidence)" and "those that care about being good and always following the law". A "lawful good" character is a little different. Unlike the so-called "neutral goods" and "chaotic goods", these folks do care about following the law. Their obedience to the law is no mere coincidence, as with other good folks; it is intentional and believed to be necessary. Unlike the difference between good folks who don't care about following the law and good folks who don't care about following the law a lot, there is a distinct difference between those good folks who absolutely follow the law and those folks who do good and don't care about the law. I am ok with them getting their own label. [/QUOTE]

Verification