Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1824884" data-attributes="member: 5890">Law: Following what is laid out as law. Doing what is set out to be done. Tradition.Chaos: Specifically flouting what is laid out as law. Flouting tradition merely because it is tradition, not because it's bad or wrong.Good: Acting for the benefit of others at the expense of oneselfEvil: Acting for the benefit of oneself at the expense of othersHence - Stealing from someone who is living for your own personal benefit is neutral evil.Stealing from someone who is dead for your own personal benefit is neutral unless you know it will have a deleterious effect on someone in the future.Stealing from someone in order to upset the order of things is chaotic. If you keep the stuff, it's evil. If you give the stuff away, it's good. If you steal from someone who can afford it, that probably stops it from being evil. If you give it away because you can afford it, it stops it from being good. At a guess, robin hood falls in as chaotic and very slightly good. He stole, kept a 1/3rd (evil) gave 1/3rd to the poor (good) and gave 1/3rd back, because primarily he was making a point. He deliberately stole from those that could afford the loss (which ameliorates some of the evil, leaving a minor good balance).If, on the other hand, he'd given it all to the poor and stole primarily to help the poor, it would have come out as a good action with no law-chaos balance at all. If he stole from thieves to give to the poor and reinforce the local order of things, then he'd be leaning towards lawful good. If he stole from thieves and kept it - lawful neutral. If he stole from poor people to keep them poor and kept it for himself - lawful evil.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 1824884, member: 5890"] Law: Following what is laid out as law. Doing what is set out to be done. Tradition. Chaos: Specifically flouting what is laid out as law. Flouting tradition merely because it is tradition, not because it's bad or wrong. Good: Acting for the benefit of others at the expense of oneself Evil: Acting for the benefit of oneself at the expense of others Hence - Stealing from someone who is living for your own personal benefit is neutral evil. Stealing from someone who is dead for your own personal benefit is neutral unless you know it will have a deleterious effect on someone in the future. Stealing from someone in order to upset the order of things is chaotic. If you keep the stuff, it's evil. If you give the stuff away, it's good. If you steal from someone who can afford it, that probably stops it from being evil. If you give it away because you can afford it, it stops it from being good. At a guess, robin hood falls in as chaotic and very slightly good. He stole, kept a 1/3rd (evil) gave 1/3rd to the poor (good) and gave 1/3rd back, because primarily he was making a point. He deliberately stole from those that could afford the loss (which ameliorates some of the evil, leaving a minor good balance). If, on the other hand, he'd given it all to the poor and stole primarily to help the poor, it would have come out as a good action with no law-chaos balance at all. If he stole from thieves to give to the poor and reinforce the local order of things, then he'd be leaning towards lawful good. If he stole from thieves and kept it - lawful neutral. If he stole from poor people to keep them poor and kept it for himself - lawful evil. [/QUOTE]

Verification