Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chrisling" data-source="post: 403292" data-attributes="member: 6816">The PHB is where the problems start, not where they end.&nbsp; &quot;Honor&quot;, for instance, is a dodgy word.&nbsp; What does it mean?&nbsp; A lawful evil Mafia murderer is being honorable when he kills someone only within the context of his criminal society.&nbsp; A lawful good policeman thinks that the Mafia killer is profoundly dishonorable.&nbsp; The chaotic good vigilante is being honorable, from his conception of honor, by defying legal traditions that enslave people for the good of no-one or a narrow class of people.&nbsp; The same lawful good policeman that arrested the Mafia killer will say the CG vigilante is honorless for violating his code of honor, which includes lawful behavior.Likewise, chaotic people -- particular good ones -- are quite capable of trustworthiness.&nbsp; So is that a characteristic of law or good?And, like I said about tradition, and applies equally to duty, what the traditions and duties are is important.&nbsp; Is a person being lawful when they follow their culture's tradition of &quot;voting with their feet&quot;, leaving their community to form their own?&nbsp; Is a person being lawful when their society's traditions require plunging the rest of the world into chaos and disorder to make a profit on them?&nbsp; It is easy to find in history traditions and duties that the adherence of which did not create any discernably lawful effects, but increased the tendency towards chaos and anarchy.Furthermore, in all your examples you do have a centralized authority: the people who control the traditions, their promulgation and education in them.&nbsp; These rules of society that everyone should follow, these social rules, etc., are social constructs which someone made.&nbsp; The fact of their universality bespeaks centralization -- ideological centralization is as valid a form of centralization as authority vested in the hands of a single king.&nbsp; However, that nevertheless speaks to Umbran said more than to what I said, so . . . .It does mean that it is possible that a clannish society can be lawful.&nbsp; I've argued myself into a corner, hehe.&nbsp; Too bad my player didn't bother to get this far with me.&nbsp; ;p</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chrisling, post: 403292, member: 6816"] The PHB is where the problems start, not where they end. "Honor", for instance, is a dodgy word. What does it mean? A lawful evil Mafia murderer is being honorable when he kills someone only within the context of his criminal society. A lawful good policeman thinks that the Mafia killer is profoundly dishonorable. The chaotic good vigilante is being honorable, from his conception of honor, by defying legal traditions that enslave people for the good of no-one or a narrow class of people. The same lawful good policeman that arrested the Mafia killer will say the CG vigilante is honorless for violating his code of honor, which includes lawful behavior. Likewise, chaotic people -- particular good ones -- are quite capable of trustworthiness. So is that a characteristic of law or good? And, like I said about tradition, and applies equally to duty, what the traditions and duties are is important. Is a person being lawful when they follow their culture's tradition of "voting with their feet", leaving their community to form their own? Is a person being lawful when their society's traditions require plunging the rest of the world into chaos and disorder to make a profit on them? It is easy to find in history traditions and duties that the adherence of which did not create any discernably lawful effects, but increased the tendency towards chaos and anarchy. Furthermore, in all your examples you do have a centralized authority: the people who control the traditions, their promulgation and education in them. These rules of society that everyone should follow, these social rules, etc., are social constructs which someone made. The fact of their universality bespeaks centralization -- ideological centralization is as valid a form of centralization as authority vested in the hands of a single king. However, that nevertheless speaks to Umbran said more than to what I said, so . . . . It does mean that it is possible that a clannish society can be lawful. I've argued myself into a corner, hehe. Too bad my player didn't bother to get this far with me. ;p [/QUOTE]

Verification