Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6736563" data-attributes="member: 4937">No.  What he believes he is doesn't matter all that much.  In the real world, people can argue over whether or not what you just said is true.  In the real world, it's still a point of philosophical debate whether or not morality is relative or absolute.  I've got no real interest in delving into that real world argument in this forum.But since this is the D&D forum, we can state with absolute assurance that the alignments are real things and morality has absolute and real existence.  If you don't actually believe in and conform to the things that are absolutely congruent to an alignment, it doesn't matter what you think you are upholding.   If your idea of freedom is replacing the current regime with something that upholds even less the value of freedom, then you aren't fighting for freedom, and liberty, and natural human dignity and ergo aren't in fact upholding some chaotic good principle.  You can call yourself a freedom fighter all you want, and inarguably within a world where things like freedom are tangible measurable traits of the universe, it doesn't matter if you aren't actually for freedom.The point is that they don't, so no, they can't.  That's one of the main ways that we know someone is lawful evil.  Complete disregard of individual liberty, human rights, and human dignity is the mark of LE both in individuals and at the level of societies.  LE sees everyone, including their own selves, as merely means toward a higher purpose - insuring the security and power of the collective.  LE sees freedom as the source of all the worlds 'evils'.   Freedom is the most loathsome thing in the world to a lawful evil person.  Freedom is hateful.  Freedom is the well spring of destruction, because it says to people that they don't have to do their duty, that they don't have to value their fealties higher than they value themselves, and that they don't have to submit to their lawful liege.  LE believes a desire for freedom is a curse, and really one of the few things that can't be repurposed to the health of the collective.  Does that sound strange?Well, the philosophy espoused in the movie isn't evil necessarily, but in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' one of the main themes of the movie is the contradictory self-destructive nature of freedom.  It's a bit of "lawful aligned" anti-freedom propaganda.  The main character is seeking freedom, but every time she finds happiness, she realizes that it brings with it a fealty and therefore reduces her freedom.  So she flees the very thing that would be good for her, each time destroying the very things she loves.  Ultimately, only one sort of freedom brings with it no obligation, so a commitment to her own self-interest ends up destroying her is the moral of the movie.Quite a few Chinese movies have lawful messaging that is contrary to the messaging we expect to see in the West.  'Hero' is another example that just doesn't end the way an American movie would.I don't see an effective difference between those two things.  What you believes defines what you are willing to do, and what you do defines what you actually believe.  This is the old 'faith'/'works' dilemma.  If you believe something, the evidence of that is what you do.  You can't actually have one without the other.  Your real ideas and your actions are always inseparable.  This is starting to skirt into territory that I want to avoid.  The point is that what you describe in inherently in tension.  It inherently creates a moral crisis.  Something, some belief, some commitment eventually has to give.   A character that truly wants freedom but is willing to hurt the innocent, is evil, but they aren't lawful.</blockquote>

Verification