1. - Top - End - #362
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Sky_Schemer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR

    Default Re: Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

    Quote Originally Posted by Carry2 View Post
    I've addressed it many times over in this thread, including earlier in the very post you quoted. In addition, I have seen no substantiation of the claim that lies through omission are less chaotic than other kinds of lies. Over to you.
    As long as you continue to confuse "lawful" with "good' and "chaotic" with "evil" you will never see eye to eye with, apparently, any other person on this thread.

    There is nothing, not a single word, in the alignment descriptions that states that a lawful person cannot be hide secrets. The extents of such, and the intent behind it, may push them along the scale between good and evil, but keeping a secret is not a violation. Lawful does not mean you can't hide things that you believe need to remain hidden.

    Similarly, a lawful good person is not a robot, obliged to always blab all information they know about all situations all the time or when questioned. A LG character is allowed to think, reason, and make judgement calls about what is said to whom, and to consider what is in the interest of the greater good. Lies through omission can be a part of that. Granted, when questioned directly and forced into a corner this becomes much thornier, but no one said lawful good was easy, either, and the alignment still allows the player to make decisions based on whatever code of conduct drives them.

    Devil's are a prime example of lawful evil: they rely on omissions, misunderstandings, false assumptions, and similar deceptions. Their whole shtick is to never lie, but to intentionally mislead and rigidly adhere to their agreements, manipulating circumstances and events to achieve the desired outcome. These things do not make them chaotic.

    If you insist on equating "omissions" with "chaotic", then there is no point in continuing this discussion. You are not going to be convinced, and you are not going to find many (if any...I have yet to see one on this thread at least) supporters for such a rigid and narrow interpretation of the alignment system.
    Last edited by Sky_Schemer; 2013-06-09 at 12:12 PM.
    If you can read this you are too close.