Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6886214" data-attributes="member: 4937">There are I think two important reasons for that.First, TSR/WotC over the years have given at times conflicting definitions of different alignments.&nbsp; This has resulted in a lot of confusion with regard to what particular alignments mean, and lacking clear guidance some very common mistaken views of alignment have become popular even though most people who have discussed this at great length know they are completely unsustainable.&nbsp; An example of this would be your mistaken understanding that being lawful means, &quot;Following the law.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; As I tried to explain, that definition is unworkable because not all legal systems serve lawful ends, and further two different legal systems can advance conflicting and contrasting statutes.&nbsp; If you try to define &quot;lawful&quot; as &quot;follows the law&quot;, you quickly find you have all sorts of dilemmas and paradoxes. A related idea is that if a character follows a code, then they must be &quot;lawful&quot;.&nbsp; This theory runs into the problem that &quot;a code&quot; is so nebulously defined that pretty much any character can be thought about as following a code.&nbsp; If your code for example is, &quot;Everyone ought to be able to do whatever they can get away with.&quot;, then it ought to be pretty clear that this code isn't based on a Lawful theory and doesn't seek to set up a Lawful world.&nbsp;&nbsp; Worse yet are codes that appear to be personal, private, and even uncommunicatable, where you have characters clearly acting according to some sort of internal logic that only makes sense to them.&nbsp; If &quot;follows a code&quot; implies lawfulness, then many archetypal insane villains have some sort of code they are following.The second problem is you haven't actually given us a lot of information to go on, in part because of your misunderstanding about what would actually be pertinent information.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, when you say, &quot;The fact that he cares little about the law suggests that he is probably not lawful...&quot;, all you are really communicating is your own basic confusion.&nbsp; What do you mean by &quot;cares little about the law&quot;, and why does he care so little about it?&nbsp; It would be more clarifying to tell us what he cares about more than the cares about the law.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6886214, member: 4937"] There are I think two important reasons for that. First, TSR/WotC over the years have given at times conflicting definitions of different alignments. This has resulted in a lot of confusion with regard to what particular alignments mean, and lacking clear guidance some very common mistaken views of alignment have become popular even though most people who have discussed this at great length know they are completely unsustainable. An example of this would be your mistaken understanding that being lawful means, "Following the law." As I tried to explain, that definition is unworkable because not all legal systems serve lawful ends, and further two different legal systems can advance conflicting and contrasting statutes. If you try to define "lawful" as "follows the law", you quickly find you have all sorts of dilemmas and paradoxes. A related idea is that if a character follows a code, then they must be "lawful". This theory runs into the problem that "a code" is so nebulously defined that pretty much any character can be thought about as following a code. If your code for example is, "Everyone ought to be able to do whatever they can get away with.", then it ought to be pretty clear that this code isn't based on a Lawful theory and doesn't seek to set up a Lawful world. Worse yet are codes that appear to be personal, private, and even uncommunicatable, where you have characters clearly acting according to some sort of internal logic that only makes sense to them. If "follows a code" implies lawfulness, then many archetypal insane villains have some sort of code they are following. The second problem is you haven't actually given us a lot of information to go on, in part because of your misunderstanding about what would actually be pertinent information. For example, when you say, "The fact that he cares little about the law suggests that he is probably not lawful...", all you are really communicating is your own basic confusion. What do you mean by "cares little about the law", and why does he care so little about it? It would be more clarifying to tell us what he cares about [I]more[/I] than the cares about the law. [/QUOTE]

Verification