Lawful Good characters believe that laws exist to further the public good, and that fairness and equality before the law are necessary for good to truly exist. Order is a vital part of good, not for its own end, but because when people act arbitrarily, they will often harm each other, intentionally or unintentionally.
Shitty knows way too much about housing codes and property law. He initially learned property law to save the Haus from being condemned, but then he realized that reading archaic, flowery law opinions while high was the most fucking hilarious thing ever. Everyone at his law school is confused by and a little afraid of Mr. B. Knight, because while no one else wants to touch all those old, mostly nonsensical British common law cases, Shitty eats that shit up
oh, shit, people actually asked me to follow up on Preaching The Good Word of A Functional Alignment System, okay
i hope you people know what you’re unleashing here
(whole thing prompted by this right here, notably including the tag #unpopular opinion: the definition of lawful and chaotic has been thoroughly twisted over the years since od&d)
So some of you (the ones who didn’t request this) might be wondering: “Alterz, why would you want to go back to the old alignment method? If people generally agree on the new alignment definitions then why confuse things by trying to change them? Is this just some old system nostalgia?”
Well 1) I’m too young by far for old system nostalgia but more importantly 2) people don’t? agree????? on the alignments???????
And that’s a problem, because the whole point of the alignments is to give some rough guidelines on how any given character is likely to act. It should be inarguable. The very fact that people can have arguments over what an alignment is means that the system has failed.
If you look in the alignment section on the more recent D&D editions, they literally have to go into detail on each alignment to explain what each one means. Worse still, for a system theoretically set up as a gradient, the different alignments are basically buckets and it gets really confusing if a character doesn’t neatly fit into one of those buckets.
Some examples from characters I have actually played: a mercenary who I labeled as neutral because I could make equally compelling arguments for why he should be lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, neutral good, and neutral evil. A hermit who at any given time was chaotic neutral or neutral good, but could never reliably be described as chaotic good.
Under the system I’m about to provide you, the mercenary is inarguably chaotic neutral and the hermit is unambiguously lawful good. End of sentence, all cleared up.
The ATLA AU; in which Law and Sabo are waterbenders, Ace is a firebender, and Luffy bucks the world’s expectations and is an unconventional airbender.
It’s funny how everyone considers earth to be the stubborn
As far as Trafalgar D. Water Law is concerned, air is the
most persistent son of a bitch to ever exist. And he’s only saying this because
he knows Monkey D. Luffy, Airbender and humongous pain in the ass.