Some rules are made to be broken. What happens to the guy who follows them anyway?
Everybody knows “the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao,” right? It’s old news. Older than traffic laws, even. Funny thing is about traffic laws these days, everybody breaks ’em but nobody breaks ’em all. I mean, when’s the last time you actually signaled a lane change, or pulled out a ruler to check how far your tires are from the curb? But at the same time, even Bodybags wear seatbelts when they’re not jonesin’ for mojo.
That’s why the Categorical Imperative is such a can of worms. There’s always an exception, except when there isn’t. So, when there isn’t, nobody knows what to do. Any algorithm, averaged across all possible situations, has exactly the same payoff as a random algorithm. When the cops take you in, and you tell them exactly what they want to hear, but it’s not what they thought they wanted to hear, who’s in control of that situation?
The law that is written is not the true law. Rebel by complying.
In D&D, wouldn’t the most chaotic thing a chaotic neutral individual could do is behave in a perfectly lawful manor?
I could easily see an adept school arising from the application of this rumor. Good job.
On a more tangential note, the answer is no, because alignment is measured against an objective standard. If a chaotic neutral individual acts lawfully, then he’s simply acting against his current alignment, and his alignment may eventually change.
If UA had something like D&D’s alignment system, you might be correct, given that D&D relies on objective measures, while UA makes certain that there’s never any black or white. This site is kind of ironic when viewed in that light.
The answer to Blupe’s question is sometimes. Acting in a perfectly lawful manner becomes un-chaotic when it starts to become routine or predictable.
My CN characters always had their moments of calm before the storm so to speak.
Looking at it, I did forget the word “consistently”. Oops.