Community

Feb 13, 2012 -- 12:22PM, CarlT wrote:

Feb 13, 2012 -- 9:46AM, Dewi wrote:

Again, are we using the same definitions? 

Possibly not.  But then I thought the stated purpose was to define what alignment was. 

Or did you just mean "Here is my definition - like it or break it".

Feel free to critique the original definition as too long, too unintuitive, too confused or too unworkable.  It wasn't clear to me whether you were saying 'you're starting from the wrong place: law and chaos shouldn't at all be about dictating behaviour to other people' or whether you were saying 'your definition is basically fine, but you can take out the bits about dictating behaviour to other people because they're incidental'.

A string of three or four posts by different people putting forward one line definitions of lawful and chaotic that are all subtly or not so subtly different just suggests that law-chaos axis is irredeemably confused.

How would you describe someone who believes that, for themselves, a life of discipline and adherence to a code is not ony the best way, but the only way - but who doesn't care how other people live their lives?

By your defnition he cannot be lawful because he doesnt believe in coercion of others.    So what is he?

It depends on why they don't care how other people live their lives and why they think they personally need a code?  They think other people ought to be coerced but they don't care enough about other people to do it themselves?  Lawful neutral.  They think most people get along fine without rules, but they, for individual reasons that don't apply to other people, need them as a crutch?  ('Good men don't need rules.  Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.')  That's compatible with being chaotic.

I don't think your sample adherent to a code has anything much in common with anyone who believes that the community should take priority over the individual or any of the other definitions of lawful.  Do they?  What do we gain by calling your adherent lawful (*)?

(*) I think the idea that being lawful could mean individual adherence to a code originated as an ad hoc justification of the alignment restriction on the 3e monk.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Feb 13, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Warrant wrote:

Lawful almost always follows the rules (whichever rules)

Chaotic follows, bends, breaks, ignores rules

But see that's a problem. Almost everyone has some sort of rules that they follow. One character follows the laws of his community. Another breaks them but believes his is following a higher code, a set of universal laws that should apply everywhere. Another doesn't care at all for anyone else but is extremely self-disciplined and follows his own rules religiously (criminal monk). Another is selfish and breaks laws all the time, but even he has his own set of rules (thief that tries to avoid killing unless it is in defense of himself or others, steals from others but not from the group, looks out for his friends, etc).

So what set of rules are we talking about?

Feb 13, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Warrant wrote:

Lawful almost always follows the rules (whichever rules)
Chaotic follows, bends, breaks, ignores rules

Why is that worth setting up an axis about on the level of good and evil?

In addition, it appears that we think bards are archetypally chaotic characters, yet nobody ever learnt how to play an instrument without following rules.