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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1771796" data-attributes="member: 17296">Someone might. It depends, why was it done?It easily could be. It easily could be. Once again we need to determine the reasons behind the actions. It's definitely an act of change, but the act itself isn't as important as the motivations behind the act. It could be a consistent, lawful change, or it could be an inconsistent, unlawful change. There could even be a law in that area against having houses made of stone. It doesn't... but it's very, very helpful.Actually, the throwing off the yolk of a kingdom and declaring independence is a very good example of an extremely chaotic act. The later writing of the constitution and building laws could be seen as a lawful act to balance this, an atonement of sorts. The founders could easily have been lawful, but the revolution was practially the definition of chaotic.Law, by it's nature, cannot change without an influx of chaos. Structure, law, order, custom, these are the things of law. Innovation, change, inspiration, and creativity are the things of chaos. So yes, Law cannot change. But lawful people can change. This is because the alignment Lawful is not Law to the exclusion of Chaos. A few minorly chaotic things does not comprise changing an alignment. Just because a man whose daily regieme consists of always eating eggs and ham does not make that man chaotic if he has steak and eggs one day, or even if he decides to go with waffles. But it IS a minor act of chaos. Just because a man who never lies tells his wife one day that she's still as pretty now at 45 as she was when they married at 16 does not make him chaotic, or even neutral. There are a number of minor acts of chaos within law all the time. Law without chaos leads to stagnation and death. By the same accord, Chaotics often have and indeed NEED bits of law in order to even exist, for chaos taken it it's extreme, chaos without law leads to dissolution and death. So yes, all change is, by definition, chaotic. But minor chaotic acts don't make a person non-lawful.A MAJOR chaotic act, however, like throwing off the old rules and rulers and coming up with your own... well, that person or group really has to at least for a while be considered chaotic. A group of Paladins who decided one day that their rulers and their kingdom was just wrong, who revolted and make a country of their own. Well, that country would likely be Lawful, as the people who made it were by nature Lawfully aligned. On the other hand, those Paladins likely needed to make an atonement for their actions, even given that those actions were needed (perhaps it had become an evil kingdom, perhaps the rulers were acting themselves in flagrant violation of the law, or any number of situations where such a group would come into conflict with itself to the degree that it needed to revolt). Now, non-Paladins might not need to "atone", but their actions at the time are clearly, IMO, not only non-lawful but chaotic. However, I would argue that those characters would maintain their status as lawfully aligned as long as they did take actions to establish a proper new kingdom, with appropriate new laws, and as long as they acted in the balance of their lifes as lawful.But the idea that revolution is Lawful is, as far as I'm concerned, not looking at the axis completely enough. As, for that matter, is the thought that change is NOT chaotic. Sure, bits of chaos lead to new law, but that's not terribly surprising. Chaos NEEDS law in order to exist as a meaningful concept. Just as law needs chaos in order to not stagnate into oblivion. And so saying I reiterate (and requote):I believe that you see this as incorrect because you are looking at the larger picture, and you are not seeing the details. Certainly the end result is Law, but the details... Bringing in Law or changing Law is defintely chaotic. And there you are, essentially stating my point. Imposing law causes change. The initial seed of chaos that has the end result of law. Is this act lawful? Overall, when you look at the big picture, yes. Is this small, tiny act outside of the big picture lawful? No. And there you are saying it again. As orderly a fashion as possible. Acknowledging that it cannot be completely orderly, that an element of chaos is introduced with each and every change, that the act cannot be accomplished without an influx of some amount of chaos. Your examples against the fact that change is chaos contains within it the very elements of chaos that are needed. You just haven't looked at them or haven't acknowledged the fact that they are indeed there, and that they are indeed chaos. Are these examples of lawfulness? Yes. Was chaos present? Inescapably.</blockquote>

Verification