Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4702867" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, that's pretty much it.I adopted that interpretation from among the competing after getting frustrated with the other ones because it seems to me to be the one most easy to relate back to the other ideas that we gather together in 'chaotic'.&nbsp; For example, 'individualism' derives directly from the fact that internal decision making process is primary, 'libertarianism' derives simply from extending the rights you grant yourself to everyone else, 'insanity' derives directly from the fact that people who are insane are marked by an internal and uncommunicatiable decision making process not shared by anyone else, and so forth.But I freely admit there are other ways to define the problem.&nbsp; For example, I played in one group where the law/chaos spectrum was defined by the question, &quot;Do the ends justify the means?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Under this definition, 'Lawful' people answer the question, &quot;No.&quot;, and chaotic people answer the question, &quot;Yes.&quot;&nbsp; That's a perfectly internally consistant definition and it gives a suitable conflict, albiet not necessarily the immediate one we think of when we talk about 'law vs. chaos'.&nbsp; Adopting this definition with respect to Watchman gives us a completely different (and arguably equally interesting) answer.&nbsp; Under this definition, Rorschach clearly represents an uncomprimising agent of law, and in fact is probably lawful evil (he wants to punish humanity for its trangresses, not save it).&nbsp; The person at the heart of the conspiracy clearly does believe that the ends justify the means, and clearly has a very good purpose (saving humanity), in which case the story may be about the conflict between lawful evil and chaotic good.I don't particularly like that axis, despite its internal consistancy, because I don't think its truly independent of the good/evil axis, since the question of 'Do the ends justify the means?' has I think a moral component.&nbsp; With such a definition lawful good might really mean 'more good' than 'pure good', which explains Paladins and might make it a very suitable interpretation for 4e.&nbsp; However, even if I don't favor the definition, provided I have an internally consistant definition, I can adapt my thinking accordingly.&nbsp; The important thing is for the DM to decide on a suitable and clear definition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4702867, member: 4937"] Yes, that's pretty much it. I adopted that interpretation from among the competing after getting frustrated with the other ones because it seems to me to be the one most easy to relate back to the other ideas that we gather together in 'chaotic'. For example, 'individualism' derives directly from the fact that internal decision making process is primary, 'libertarianism' derives simply from extending the rights you grant yourself to everyone else, 'insanity' derives directly from the fact that people who are insane are marked by an internal and uncommunicatiable decision making process not shared by anyone else, and so forth. But I freely admit there are other ways to define the problem. For example, I played in one group where the law/chaos spectrum was defined by the question, "Do the ends justify the means?" Under this definition, 'Lawful' people answer the question, "No.", and chaotic people answer the question, "Yes." That's a perfectly internally consistant definition and it gives a suitable conflict, albiet not necessarily the immediate one we think of when we talk about 'law vs. chaos'. Adopting this definition with respect to Watchman gives us a completely different (and arguably equally interesting) answer. Under this definition, Rorschach clearly represents an uncomprimising agent of law, and in fact is probably lawful evil (he wants to punish humanity for its trangresses, not save it). The person at the heart of the conspiracy clearly does believe that the ends justify the means, and clearly has a very good purpose (saving humanity), in which case the story may be about the conflict between lawful evil and chaotic good. I don't particularly like that axis, despite its internal consistancy, because I don't think its truly independent of the good/evil axis, since the question of 'Do the ends justify the means?' has I think a moral component. With such a definition lawful good might really mean 'more good' than 'pure good', which explains Paladins and might make it a very suitable interpretation for 4e. However, even if I don't favor the definition, provided I have an internally consistant definition, I can adapt my thinking accordingly. The important thing is for the DM to decide on a suitable and clear definition. [/QUOTE]

Verification