• ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      6 months ago

      In the d&d alignment chart they are because capitalists have no inherent power outside of the laws that enforce their property. Devils in D&D will always break the rules(and rebel) if they think they can get away with it.

      • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        6 months ago

        Huh? Devils are the corporate “trap you in fineprint and kill you with subclauses” type of evil. They are the ones who sell you the monkey’s paw and come to collect your soul no matter how it shakes out. Catching them in airtight clauses (or narrow loopholes) is famously how you screw over devils.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    34·
    6 months ago

    This only counts because they use their money to make their lives “lawful” through legislation and capture of the courts, minimizing their very real crimes against humanity.

    Okay perhaps Buffett, Gates, and Cook haven’t gone as far as actual crimes against humanity but the rest have, and Buffett, Gates, and Cook are still unlawful but used their money to twist the laws in their favor.

    • sturlabragason@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      6 months ago

      By definition you can not get this rich without stealing the value of peoples labour - at scale.

      Aka evil as shit.

    • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      You don’t understand Lawful Evil.

      In the Nine Hells, bending and breaking rules to your whim is the norm. It’s whether you get caught, and piss off someone powerful, that matters.

      • festnt@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        breaking rules means they’re not lawful. that’s why demons are generaly described as chaotic

        if you do something unlawful, it means you’re not lawful, it doesn’t matter if you’re caught or not

  • Owl@lemm.eeEnglish
    31·
    6 months ago

    unless by lawful you mean they manipulate the law however they please with their money and connections, then no.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      Nah, he’s neutral evil since he both breaks the law when he wants to and exploits it when he can.

      Aa law isn’t inherently good or evil, that axis doesn’t have anything to do with HOW evil he is.

      In fact, I’d argue that, in a world where some laws (like “don’t murder” and “don’t enslave your workers”) are good but others (like “you don’t have equal rights if you’re any kind of minority or a woman” or “corporations have all of the rights of people and none of the responsibilities”) are inherently oppressive, the only consistently GOOD alignment is Neutral Good.

      • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        The chaotic good alignment isn’t any less good because they can simply follow the just laws and break the unjust laws. They might resent the institution of law, but they aren’t obliged to do the opposite of the law, they just will do it for their own reasons instead of the legality. They’re still fundamentally good.

        A lawful good character would probably prefer legal methods to fight legal injustice, while a chaotic good character might prefer to break the law as they don’t see legal methods as worth anything/don’t recognize its authority. Both are Good, but they might use different methods when confronted with the same problem.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          follow the just laws and break the unjust laws

          That would be the very definition of NG, not CG.

          they aren’t obliged to do the opposite of the law

          No, but they’re actively opposed to the very concept of laws. That’s what “chaotic” means in this context.

          • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            Maybe I’m confused what you mean. Being opposed to the concept of laws doesn’t mean you need to break them; you can still think “people shouldn’t murder” or “slavery is bad”. I don’t think incidentally following laws makes you not Chaotic. You just don’t care what the law is; you’d be doing the same thing regardless of whether it was the law or not.

            Besides, I’m not sure “opposed to the concept of laws” is really true for all but the most extreme examples of CG. It seems like its more about wanting freedom than just hating laws themselves.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              Being opposed to the concept of laws doesn’t mean you need to break them

              True, but being opposed to the concept of laws means that you’re more inclined to break laws to achieve your aims than to work within the law.

              Chaotic in this context means that you consider the very concept of law an impediment to justice whereas “do good things regardless of whether they’re lawful or illegal” kind of behavior you’re ascribing to chaotic good is the textbook definition of NEUTRAL good.

              Besides, I’m not sure “opposed to the concept of laws” is really true for all but the most extreme examples of CG

              There’s vast differences of scale, sure, but lawful - neutral - chaotic is about your relationship with laws as a concept that governs the actions of people for better or worse.

              It seems like its more about wanting freedom than just hating laws themselves.

              Nah, freedom and law aren’t inherently in opposition to each other.

              Sure, some laws restrict your freedom to do certain things that lawmakers want to discourage for one reason or the other, but some other laws are there to PROTECT your freedom to do other things deemed desirable or value neutral.

              Just like some laws existing to protect consumers from being exploited by corporations and others existing to protect corporations from the consumers they exploit doesn’t make “law” and “exploitation” synonyms or antonyms.

              • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                1·
                6 months ago

                I agree that chaotic characters would be more inclined to break laws. But I suppose to circle back, I don’t see why that makes them any less Good.

                Even your description of “law is an impediment to justice” sounds like a CG character would just do whatever they want without letting laws stop them, while NG might be more likely to consider whether or not to follow the law in any given circumstance and perhaps adjust their plan to be slightly more lawful, while CG might not respect the rule of law at all and just break into the prison and free the slaves or whatever.

                Neutral Good (NG). Neutral Good creatures do the best they can, working within rules but not feeling bound by them. A kindly person who helps others according to their needs is probably Neutral Good.

                Chaotic Good (CG). Chaotic Good creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect. A rebel who waylays a cruel baron’s tax collectors and uses the stolen money to help the poor is probably Chaotic Good.

                Side note: I agree that law and freedom aren’t necessarily in opposition as pure concepts. But part of my argument is that CG characters wouldn’t innately hate objectively good laws like “don’t keep slaves”. The laws they’d take issue with are ones that limit freedom, like “don’t steal”. Most probably wouldn’t be ideologues campaigning for the destruction of the government but they might just steal to fund their Good.