Was this Lawful or Chaotic?

>which is still probably relatively lenient punishment for the sort of assfuck who would kill a man over a cup.

He should've replaced all his cups with lampreys and made him drink out of them for the rest of his life.

Wasn't Augustus full of shit, and killed Cleopatra?

well he didn't order them shoved up Pollio's ass, which is what I would have done

I'd say karmic punishments are Lawful.

Karmic punishments within society's systems of governance and judgement are lawful, those meted out on individual discretion outside these systems are chaotic.

Cleopatra committed suicide, this is well fucking known

Augustus was the fucking emperor, by definition he WAS the system of governance

>He should've replaced all his cups with lampreys and made him drink out of them for the rest of his life.

That just seems cruel to the lampreys.

Neutral Good

chaotic good
i doubt very much the law for such a thing was to have the man's cups broken and slave freed
the man's personal alignment can vary from his actions from time to time
this

>emperor Augustus
>emperor
>muh written code

Lawful.

>Lawful
the man was doing a wrong
he righted the wrong, and levied a fitting punishment

>muh written code
yes, law
precepts must be obeyed
he is an emperor, not a god
his action was chaotic

That would be Lawful Good if he explicitly reformed the law.
The act as is it described is neutral good.

You people are retarded. The act is a clear sign of Lawful Goodness in that he saw something unjust in a way that something worked in society, and had the man's cups broken as an example of other people to treat their slaves better.

It is the equivalent of say a good prince taking over the kingdom of an evil emperor father. The prince proceeds to kick out idiot government officials who bought their way in to the system lawfully, prevent priests from taking on indulgences through payment, and mandates that all peasants be treated fairly even if the law before was that the lords could do fuck all with their peasants.

You wouldn't call this prince a chaotic because he's going against the previous lawful established orders. You call him lawful good because he is using his authority now to change wrongs in to a better society.

What a joke. She was ambitious and power seeking.
She committed suicide when her new love, Mark Antony got destroyed by Augustus in a naval battle, settling the fate of the roman empire.
She was loving knowledge, and her people, she'd be have been a better ruler than augustus.

But Rome has always been full of shit, preferring war and blood over knowledge and culture.

If she committed suicide, it was of despair, if not it was a political murder because she was loved (egypt was the farm of rome so angering them would have been dangerous).

>He is an emperor, not a god

>Augustus' body was coffin-bound and cremated on a pyre close to his mausoleum. It was proclaimed that Augustus joined the company of the gods as a member of the Roman pantheon.

wrong, he was doing his own justice, to prove that he was all powerful
and he was doing what people would love (saving the poor guy), because roman emperors were teach to love people and to please them

He was a alive at the time. Chaotic Good. Beyond that gods do not exist in this setting.

Which goes to show the inadequacy of that definition of Lawful, because what if the Emperor were Chaotic?

Sez you

He's the emperor, therefore lawful by default

based on the laws and social mores of the place and time that dude was in his right to treat his slave how he wanted. But I guess the Emperor can do what the fuck he wants too.

Neither does cosmic alignment but then you're still bringing that up

He decides what the law is

Chaotic. The slave was that man's property and so by law he would be allowed to do whatever he pleased with it. but it was also a good action and i'm retroactively awarding augustus with bonus xp

Actually there were certain codified restrictions on how a Roman citizen could treat their slaves. This, of course, varies throughout Rome's history.

>She was loving knowledge, and her people, she'd be have been a better ruler than augustus.
No, nowhere as good as Augustus. Perharps a mediocre ruler, nothing more

the fuck crack you smoking. Rome was all about culture. Roman culture.

Cleopatra didn't want to get dragged back to Rome and paraded in the streets before getting the fuck murdered out her for crossing Augustus.

>Neither does cosmic alignment
We're arguing D&D or some variation here. This isn't /pol/.
And the universe decides what the law actually is.

If you don't know about roman laws, don't speak about it.

>And the universe decides what the law actually is
Then what the law says about slaves breaking cups?

>Rome was all about culture. Roman culture.
Roman "culture" was all about Bread and Games - equivalent of present day's welfare, fastfood chains and endless TV series that keep general population dumb and pacified.

result is the same, augustus fought against her
a way of thinking against another

come on, rome always have been full of shit
they plagiarized everything that worked (pantheon, than monotheism), but they never forget to add war and conquest on it
they are the ants of spiritual world/history
scared of others, so dominating them

Pretty much the same in any civilisation in the entire world

Neither. He wasn't a character in fucking D&D, alignment doesn't apply to him

Well, aside from also adopting from the local Italian kingdoms, Greek culture, and the other myriad of influences that helped shape Roman culture.
But sure, lets chalk it up to modern welfare.
After all, the only British culture is imperialism, China's is mass produced cheap goods and Opium, The Middle East is warfare. Russia's is vodka, potatoes, and CS:GO.

Oh Christ. That's a complicated question. To completely bastardize it, assuming complete ignorance of anything at large and it being unintentional, it's probably a True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral leaning if not Chaotic Neutral action. It's an undisciplined or unintentional action which results in chaos.

ITT: if you ever attempt to change or go against a the law that you think is unjust, or create a new system of laws you are chaotic.

The Five Good Emperors were chaotic because they changed the previous authoritarian law in to a more just state. Those dirty fucking rebel Robin Hood do-gooders!

The Founding Fathers of America were chaotic obviously because they rebelled against Great Britain. Forget that they spent a shit ton of time debating and making the Constitution and then a subsequent Bill of Rights to ensure they created the ideal government they wanted; they're chaotic because they went against the previous established order.

Suzuaku Kurugi from Code Geass? He's also Chaotic just like Lelouch because he questioned orders from that one general in episode 1 to execute who he thoughts were civillians caught up in a terrorist act. Because clearly if he was a lawful character he would have followed the order without question.

Holy autism people.

It was JUSTICE.

>It's an undisciplined or unintentional action which results in chaos.
Why?

Stopping a slave being gruesomely murdered is one thing.

Smashing more cups as punishment is definitely chaotic.

Changing law by a decree for everyone equally falls within Lawful conduct. Street justice decided on a whim does not.

How in the world is that street justice?

He is an Emperor. In this system of government the Emperor hands out punishments and makes decisions that are suppose to be good. There is no specific hyper autistic law that dictates how the Emperor should punish a man trying to execute a servant through cruel measures for breaking a cup. Having more cups broken in this case is a way of showing example to others that just because you own a human being you can't do whatever you want with him.

The Emperor didn't fucking spin a wheel to decide the punishment or go "Uhh lol I dunno, breaking his cups seems funny." He gave out a punishment that he deemed fair and would be looked upon in the future.

by this logic, it would be impossible for an emperor to ever be anything but lawful. an insane man who usurped the throne would be lawful.

>it would be impossible for an emperor to ever be anything but lawful.
Yeah, it is impossible.

>
that's fucking stupid

just because someone is a figurehead and wields a large amount of authority over others doesn't inherently make them lawful. a caligula-esque maniac who handles every situation thrown their way completely different and doesn't live by any set of guidelines or regulations isn't lawful, no matter how much say he has over his kingdom.

>I was the emperor, then I got deposed, so now I'm chaotic instead of lawful because of my social standing

come the fuck on

No it doesn't you dolt. It's called intentions and it's one of very basis in which today's modern world works. Nero would be Chaotic even if he was Emperor.

Lawful Emperor - Sincerely believes in what he does is right and actively tries to establish an order in which he thinks keeps society intact. The biggest important is that he keeps a strict belief/order system that he adheres to.

Neutral Emperor - Not sure if what he does is right. Will leave decision of law to appropriate subjects and if faced with something will ask them for advice. Will question the fact that he is one of the sole absolute powers, and if it is right. Tries to maintain balance.

Chaotic Emperor - Does whatever the fuck he wants. The law? Whatever bro. In fact, why am I even Emperor again? Well if I am let's use those tax coffers to party and get bitches. aka NERO.

I agreed with you already, user, if you cared to read I was calling out the other person's logic

>she'd be have been a better ruler than augustus.
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH oh god

"owner trying to punish slave through cruel measures for property damage" totally should be covered by some law in any country that has laws and does slavery.

Imagine if President (or Prime Minister) of your country rolled around in their limo while you are outdoors and just happen to be kicking away stray dog that tried to hump your leg. They pull over, step out, and order their bodyguards to give you random ironic punishment for animal cruelty. That's how much sense it makes.

>"owner trying to punish slave through cruel measures for property damage" totally should be covered by some law in any country that has laws and does slavery.

Feel free to link me the law to it. Because I'm pretty sure the law at Roman society was "owner can do whatever shit he wants," in which this example the Emperor clearly disagreed with it and attempted to exercise a show of force to countermeasure it but didn't go full autismo "SLAVERY IS BAD ALL SLAVES ARE FREE NOW BECAUSE MUH FREEDOMS" which would be chaotic.

>Imagine if President (or Prime Minister) of your country rolled around in their limo while you are outdoors and just happen to be kicking away stray dog that tried to hump your leg. They pull over, step out, and order their bodyguards to give you random ironic punishment for animal cruelty. That's how much sense it makes.

Except the situation you are giving is absurd and isn't even the equivalent. I'm pretty sure if the owner's punishment was "the slave goes tonight without dinner" or a smack on the head the Emperor wouldn't have felt the need to exercise his authority.

In your case with a dog it would be more akin to a teenager beating the shit out of his dog because it pissed on the floor instead of the newspaper, and the parents punish the teen by breaking his cell phone. And the teen argues "But you never made this strict kind of rule beforehand that I could follow., and this dog is strictly mine."

That's how it works.

The allignment system is stupid, it has always been stupid.

Quick rundown here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
more details through references at the bottom

>"Slaves were the lowest class of society and even freed criminals had more rights. Slaves had no rights at all in fact and certainly no legal status or individuality. They could not create relations or families, nor could they own property. To all intents and purposes they were merely the property of a particular owner, just like any other piece of property - a building, a chair or a vase - the only difference was that they could speak."

Lawful/Chaotic should be replaced with Honorable/Dishonorable

Renegade

>Because I'm pretty sure the law at Roman society was "owner can do whatever shit he wants,"
No, slave owners could not kill their slaves.

As everyone knows one of the big contributions Rome had on Western Civilization was their legal system. In particular the concept that the law wasn't just whatever the fuck the ruler wanted it to be, but instead based off of past cases setting a legal precedent that created a consistent pattern of laws and fitting punishments. I have no idea was Roman slave laws were during Emperor Augustus' reign so that gives us three options:

1. If the law had precedents determining acceptable punishments for the slave's crime and the master was going well beyond them in severity, than he was being needlessly sadistic. Emperor Augustus was using his power to uphold the fairness of the law, which therefore make his action LAWFUL.

2. If there was no legal precedent whatsoever to determine whether the master's punishment was too harsh or just harsh enough, than Emperor August made a new legal precedent to follow. This makes his actions either LAWFUL (since he's the Emperor and can do that shit) or NEUTRAL (since there was nothing on the books that supported or opposed his decision)

3. If the law had precedents determining acceptable punishments for the slave's crime and the master was well within those precedents, than Emperor Augustus was actively going against the law with his decision. In this case it makes him a swell guy for putting mercy over legality, but that does make his actions CHAOTIC.

Caesar is the law. For speaking out against our Emperor you are to be publicly flogged.

Lawful Good

He's demonstrating the idea of noblesse oblige by attacking the pride of somebody who was abusing his station to enact petty vengeance purely to appease his ego. Augustus directly challenges the perpetrator by showing his contempt for the ignorance of responsibility at play.

It's lawful because the entire point being made relies on this taking place within a structured society.

Are you a fucking idiot?

Rome had laws that determined how you could treat slaves. Having them flogged for being clumsy? Legit. Having them literally tortured to death? No, fuck you.

It's neutral good. He wasn't bound by proceduralism like the "lawful stupid", but people saying he was chaotic are stupid too, because he is tying the punishment to the thing that was done wrong, and going beyond eye-for-an-eye to actually teach a lesson without bloodshed (better than modern prisons), so for that he is good. If he does a law versus chaos balance, it's probably leaning towards lawful because he restrained himself from having the slaveowner fed to the eels instead because it would have been against the traditional mores of the country to impose restrictions on slaveowners "punishing" their slaves, or at the very least would have undermined authority of slaveowners and made slaveowners fear the emperor.

If be base lawful not on the law but on rigidly maintaining a set of morals then it's lawful. If lawful means following the actual codified law then it's chaotic

>take his coat!
>don't let him have his coat
>confiscate his coat
Well?

Wait.
Cleopatra is DEAD!?

It shows your definition ia inadequate. Lawful does not necessarily mean they follow law. It means they are navigate their lives depending on their own personal rules. Often one of these personal rules is don't break the law but not always. Their rule could be everyone must be punished in a karmic way which could very easily go against tne law.

The founding fathers were chaotic right up to the point where the revolution succeeded and they established a government, at which point they became lawful.

I did not state this very well but its that the live by their own personal lives rigidly, that these peraonal rules are unbreakable and to be always followed, that is lawful.

>Augustus
Lawful Good
>Tiberius
>Lawful Neutral
>Caligola
Chaotic Evil
>Claudius
Chaotic Good? His main fault was actually being a weak-willed idiot.
>Nero
Not sure if CN or CE, probably the latter.

He acted justly and likely with lawful authority, but his actions also likely fell outside of established laws at the time. So lean Lawful there. Saving someone's life who has committed a minor mistake is Good. So I'd call it LG or NG.

Lawful hilarious.

Nah, she works in a gas station in Cairo... Cairo, Georgia.

Blame the fuckers that killed Julius Cesar, her and him were a fantastic power couple

>starting an alignment thread
Someone should break all your cups.

But Julius-sama left her in Egypt without a fuck given. He was way too alpha to get dragged down by some greek slut.

This is Veeky Forums after all, so all his coasters get broken instead.

All except one. We're not monsters, after all.

Hopefully she'll like the Black Sea as much as the Mediterranean.

I think the real question here is why some guy had a bunch of lamprey eels just lying around.

>falling for the "Caligula was evil" meme
Pathetic

Lamprey eels were a popular cuisine in Roman Empire.

I take a third option:
D&D's alignment system is stupid.

Only that it was almost a century AFTER Spartacus uprising, which lead to codified system of rules of how you can (mis)treat your slave, precisely created to prevent another such uprising. Turns out if you mistreat people long and hard enough, they might kill you and grab arms. And unratified torture "but it's muh property" was in fact punishable by having the slave in question removed from your possession. Rome was not fucking American pre-Civil War South.

In short - the guy would be in a wrong, if the anecdote was true.

He's an absolute monarch, anything he does is lawful.

Yes.

Nero was a nice guy

>Cleopatra
>Greek

Lawful good: Would free the slave by buying him and following the usual rules, and replace the price of the cup.
Neutral good: Would forcefully free the slave
Chaotic good: Free the slave forcefully, and have all the cups broken

Lawful neutral: Would just buy the slave
True neutral: Wouldnt do anything
Chaotic neutral: Would break more cups before running away with hands behind his back

Lawful evil: The guy punishing his slave with eels for breaking a cup
Neutral evil: Would encourage the torture
Chaotic evil: Would go home to get more eels

Lawful.

First is the pedantic: Augustus is the law. By his right as Emperor, he can rule as he pleases.

But second is more to the spirit of lawfulness: Augustus saw a punishment being issued that was not proportional to the crime. Feeding a man a lamprey would be torturous, especially when his is over a matter as petty as a cup. He was able to extrapolate that this would not be the first cruelty enforced by the man onto his slaves.

He gave the slave his freedom, due to the slave having suffered many cruel and arbitrary punishments, and then punished the slave-owner for his cruelty by destroying his property in a symbolic gesture.

What I want to know is why this guy had all those lamprey eels on hand in the first place.