NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kingreaper" data-source="post: 5161283" data-attributes="member: 83870">You can have rules designed to maximise freedom; therefore being a chaotic set of rules (the rules only exist to prevent worse impingements on freedom) or a CG set of rules.See Minarchism, Libertarianism, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-communism, etc.If uncontrolled drunken foolishness is harmless to society, but might become dangerous a LG person will go "ban it, just to be safe". Which doesn't seem entirely good, does it?No, but then they're NOT entirely Good, they're Lawful Good.Same with CG being unwilling to ban it until it's EXTREMELY harmful (until the harm completely outweighs the loss of freedoms)Nazi Germany. It built a structure that caused people to be willing to stick with it.Was that not a lawful evil state?You seem to be defining law as "rules people follow willingly" which is sheer stupidity. Your nation (the US) and my nation (the UK) both have rule of law, enforced by the "hobnailed boot" of the "enforcer" (ie. police officers)In order to be organised crime, it must be organised. If it is organised, it must have a set of internal rules etc.Thus, to meet the definition of Organised Crime, it must be somewhat lawful. The individuals at the bottom end may be any alignment, but there's a certain lawfulness required to run a lawful organisation.It's simplistic, but still useful. As long as you don't overload the terms. For example Good is not Nice, and Organised is not Lawful.It's just that everyone has exceptions. And most people are neutral in the first place. Corner alignments are possibly rarer than side alignments (simply because people find it hard to balance the goals.)</blockquote>

Verification