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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6268378" data-attributes="member: 4937">Based on my reading 'a' is true.  He places his own (personal and random) code above alturism.  We may presume that the code actually encourages people to avoid altruism.Likewise, the code also seems to encourage people not to do active harm to others.   So we are dealing with a code of passivity, which makes it neutral on the good/evil axis.I think you are misusing this quote and taking it out of context.  What the quote in the 1e DMG means that Chaotic Neutrals view death as part of the process of life, a necessary step leading to growth and renewal.   They believe that life is a circle, and that death and rot, properly viewed are beautiful things.  The believe that destruction is really just part of the creative process, a necessary step in preventing the undesirable state of stasis (true deeath).    But CN's would be just as appalled as NG at the process of life ending without renewal, and of stopping the process.   And they would likely also consider it tragic for life to be cut short in its fruit, but they'd probably also point out that the blooming flower just fed an antelope and the young antelope just fed the lion, so who is to judge?From what we know of the swordsmaster, this belief isn't incompatible with his code.Ditto with this.  It's entirely possible that this is congruent with the code of the swordmaster.Here 2e shows the general trend of being less intellectual, less consistent, and less deep in its understanding of alignment compared to the prior edition - the 1e Gygax write up.  Second edition makes the mistake of thinking alignment is personality and confuses the description slightly.  However, it's not a wholly bad description - chaotics do believe that there isn't (or shouldn't be) underlying order and consistency, that actions are always situational, morales are always relative, and that true wisdom requires being changable and adaptable rather than persisting in a single mode of behavior.  So we aren't yet as bad off as we will get in 3e, where they start going from slightly confused to just totally incoherent.   And here I still maintain what I told you the first time.   Without actually looking at the code, we can come to no conclusion about 'd', 'e', and 'f'.   It's entirely possible that the code would make him unorderly, unreliable, and subject to mainly his own whim - because the code might well encourage him to do that (consider my examples of Discordianism or the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition).So, again, I disagree.   At most we can't say for certain whether he is or not.  But there is in my opinion strong hints that he's not in direct contridiction to some of them and could potentially be congruent with all of them.Again, I left this open as a possibility.  It could be that this is exactly the intention of the code.   But without seeing the code, I can't give a definitive answer.</blockquote>

Verification