Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8046622" data-attributes="member: 16814">There's more than those two theories of lawful.  I use one that doesn't look to either -- it's do you follow an external ethos?  If you follow the laws of a particular society because you believe them to be correct, you are lawful.  If you follow those laws because you are afraid of punishment, that's not lawful, although it may not be chaotic.Alternatively, if you believe you yourself is the sole arbiter or interpreter of your ethos, then you're chaotic.This leaves most people as neutral, with respect to law/chaos -- most people are mix of following some lawscodes because they believe them correct, following others for fear of punishment (speeding, for example), and ignoring others because they've made their own determination that those laws are BS.This follows for lots of things -- you can believe in one set of laws/codes/ethos that go against other sets of laws/codes/ethos and still maintain being lawful.  It nicely sidesteps the first theory's "lawful character must follow the unjust laws in the evil kingdom" problem of thinking lawful means you follow laws, and, also, the monkish character who isolates and avoids society because of their vows to a holy order being weirdly excluded from lawfulness in the second theory.</blockquote>