Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6407637" data-attributes="member: 71756">That's a good point and well-worth mentioning. I think that also ties back into what ThirdWizard mentioned that from a LG or CG character's perspective, law or chaos don't "corrupt" good but "temper" it.At the same time, I think it's also true that a lot of LG characters believe undisciplined kindness is ultimately prone to failure in the "real world" and that CG characters believe compassion that doesn't validate individuality is ultimately self-denying and oppressive."Hate" is too strong a word, I think, since it's kind of antithetical to D&D's conception of good. But it does seem to me the attitudes you describe are probably quite accurate and that each celestial race likely "disapproves of" each of the others to some degree. The fact that the celestial races don't war with one another and aren't particularly likely to doesn't mean they don't have their rows or disagreements: the Olympians in Greek mythology have very frequent and violent disagreements, but none of them have ever tried to slay one another. It is likely the archons, eladrin, and guardinals do come into conflict every now and then, but because of their nature as essentially good creatures, it rarely (if ever) results in open warfare.Again though, I think it's perfectly valid for three separate individuals to have equally accurate perceptions of what sapient well-being means. Different people want different things. One person may be happiest in a world where everyone goes to the same temple, worships the same gods, and happily obeys laws which promote peace and stability. Another person may seem that very same utopia and recoil with horror at it. The fact of the matter is that not everyone desires the same things, so there is no universal state of human well-being: it varies from person to person.I actually already noted some examples earlier, but I'll add a few others.Chaotic (but arguably non-evil) acts: stealing to feed one's self but not to feed others (good) or to do harm (evil), breaking a contract because it was inconvenient to you, disobeying orders because you disagree with them, avoiding law enforcement even when you've committed no crime because you distrust authority figures, destroying government property, etc.Lawful (but arguably non-evil) acts: deferring to authority figures by default because they're your superiors, committing suicide in order to restore lost honor, issuing a judgment based not on sympathy (good) or antipathy (evil) but on a strict examination of the law, sticking to a contract even when it is clear it is no longer advantageous to one or all parties, enforcing a law you don't even necessarily agree with because it is the law, etc.D&D chaos in its temporal form emphasizes diversity of form and individual expression, often to the detriment of stability and tradition; at its cosmological extreme (to a point beyond which mortals can actually manifest) this leads to entropy and volatile unpredictability. D&D order in its temporal form emphasizes stability and tradition, often to the detriment of diversity and individual expression; at its cosmological extreme this leads to stagnation and stasis.I'll grant you few real-life anarchist are likely to espouse a love for complete and utter chaos or utterly unyielding order, but few people are likely to be completely and unconditionally good or evil either. It's a stretch, but it's not an unbridgeable gap.Actually, while I'd agree with you that most modern versions of Robin Hood are more accurately described as neutral or even lawful good, that's not true of the original folk hero. The hero who rebelled against Prince John for illegally usurping his brother and dispossessing him of his rightful property is largely an invention of Sir Walter Scott in the novel Ivanhoe, although elements of his depiction are found in earlier (but still derivative) tales.The earliest stories of Robin Hood actually paint him as a much rougher and subversive character than the one we're familiar with today, who neither fights for the lost crown of King Richard nor even necessarily for the good of the poor (although he seems inclined to sporadic and occasional acts of charity). Instead, he's a bandit yeoman whose heroism comes less from his good deeds or his noble birth (he's a free man but not an aristocrat) than his spectacular feats of skill. He may be chaotic good or her may be chaotic neutral, but he's definitely not the deposed earl later stories depict him as.Well said. I believe I actually said something along these lines earlier in the thread, although I don't think it got much traction at the time.Ah yes, here it is:So there you are.I also like that particular reading of the nine-point system although, as you say, it's not really precisely canonical (even if it does draw on canon sources).</blockquote>

Verification