[From a discussion on Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic Neutral, and whether Chaotic Neutral implies foresight, and in response to the specific claim that highly disciplined people "get so wrapped up in the right way that they fail to see possibilities"]
Lawful != organized.
An interesting illustration is Captain America: Civil War. Tony signs the Accords because he figures, hey, I can always break them if I need to (and he does), and besides, this is what I need to do RIGHT NOW to keep what I want. IMO that's a Chaotic (Good) attitude Tony is displaying. Steve Rogers is very reluctant to sign them because he assumes he will be bound by them if he signs them (the idea of "hey, I could always just break them" doesn't seem to ever cross his mind) and worries about the possibility of being someday given orders that he doesn't agree with. IMO that's a clearly Lawful attitude.
What makes this particularly interesting is that the character who has a clear ethical code is the one who winds up an outlaw, because of that code, and the one who doesn't retains his position of power (despite continuing to flout the law even in the last scene of the movie) because he has no qualms about saying one thing and doing another. Now I wouldn't claim that Tony Stark is not capable of foresight (clearly he can invent things that he doesn't yet need), but with respect to the moral dilemma, it is Steve Rogers who is worrying about precedents and structure and things that haven't happened yet, and Tony Stark who is basically winging it.
AFAIC that is Lawful vs. Chaotic in a nutshell. Lawful Good individuals think through the Trolley Problem and the Tragedy of the Commons in their spare time. Chaotic Good individuals shrug it off until it actually happens and then go by their gut feel.
-Max
--
Lawful != organized.
An interesting illustration is Captain America: Civil War. Tony signs the Accords because he figures, hey, I can always break them if I need to (and he does), and besides, this is what I need to do RIGHT NOW to keep what I want. IMO that's a Chaotic (Good) attitude Tony is displaying. Steve Rogers is very reluctant to sign them because he assumes he will be bound by them if he signs them (the idea of "hey, I could always just break them" doesn't seem to ever cross his mind) and worries about the possibility of being someday given orders that he doesn't agree with. IMO that's a clearly Lawful attitude.
What makes this particularly interesting is that the character who has a clear ethical code is the one who winds up an outlaw, because of that code, and the one who doesn't retains his position of power (despite continuing to flout the law even in the last scene of the movie) because he has no qualms about saying one thing and doing another. Now I wouldn't claim that Tony Stark is not capable of foresight (clearly he can invent things that he doesn't yet need), but with respect to the moral dilemma, it is Steve Rogers who is worrying about precedents and structure and things that haven't happened yet, and Tony Stark who is basically winging it.
AFAIC that is Lawful vs. Chaotic in a nutshell. Lawful Good individuals think through the Trolley Problem and the Tragedy of the Commons in their spare time. Chaotic Good individuals shrug it off until it actually happens and then go by their gut feel.
-Max
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
No comments:
Post a Comment