Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1482562" data-attributes="member: 17296">I disagree with this statement. Stealing to thwart laws would be inherently chaotic... or stealing for no reason at all, say on a whim or for joy, *could* be inherently chaotic. Stealing for personal gain is inherently neutral. You need something, you take it. No regard for the law, or for the good or evil consequences of the act.Simply disregarding the law is not chaotic. That's looking at things too black and white. You are NOT: 1) obeying the laws and lawful or 2) disobeying and therefore chaotic. That's the very REASON for the neutral axis. There is indeed a third option. You might simply not CARE about the law. That's neutral. Breaking the law is only chaotic if you do is because you care. Is following the law only lawful if you care as well? Yes. If you're simply doing it out of ignorance or because the laws where you happen to be are good, and you're good (or they're evil, and you're evil) that's neutral. If, on the other hand, you're rebelling against law(s), that's Chaotic."Why are we breaking into the Mayors house again?" --Fighter"Because that bastard locked me up for stealing. I'll teach him to think I can't steal" -- Rogue.THAT's chaotic. (And vengeful)If he simply said it was because he could get a lot of money, it would be potentially neutral. If it were to help others, it could be good. AND, for that matter, if it were because he belongs to a lawful organization from another state, and was on a mission/quest... he might be lawful.Remember, and this is very important. Breaking the law is in no way inherently evil. So many people confuse the lawful/choatic axis with the good/evil one.For instance, these two are not necessarily any different.Remember, survival IS personal gain. And "Having no other means" is simply justification. And some people can justify a LOT. Agreed.Now, if the stealing would cause the suffering of many, or few, or any, and the person just did not care one way or another... That, my friend, is the very definition and the heart of neutrality.Or, if the stealing would cause the suffering of only one, and it was done for the sole purpose of causing suffering, that's evil.If the stealing might cause suffering or might not, and the person did it to help another... that's iffy... But basically good. It was done with good intentions and poor forethought. It was done to help someone in need, and the thief just didn't really think how it might hurt. Low wisdom maybe, but good.If the thief stole the "bread of ages" that would prevent the destruction of a continent and all on it, in order to feed an orphan, well, that's good, right?Of course, as long as you didn't know what havoc you were unleashing.If, on the other hand, you were simply hungry... or no, simply greedy. And you took the holy seal of Antioch, which was Sealing up the Evil Rabbit for all eternityBut was also made of pure mythrilBecause you wanted that mythril, and you couldn't care one way or another about the residents of that contenent. "Hey, they can go get their OWN!"That's neutral. Even though it dooms thousands or millions to potentiall horrible deaths.Now if you just smashed the seal to watch them scream and burn. That, my evil compatriot, is pure genius... Wait! I mean evil.</blockquote>

Verification