[The Darklord]

Returning to law and chaos, I don't know whether I'd subcribe to a gentle alignment mellowing over the years. If anything it seems that one's ideas become more entrenched with age. Although I can quite imagine a tearwaway chaotic young man growing up into a grumpy old lawful  type.

But that is returning to the d&d way of viewing law and chaos surely?  Not that its wrong just a different concept.  Being a follower of chaos on Illyria for example dosn't just mean you don't like rules.  Surely it means you are working towards - to a greater or lesser extent - the end of the universe?  That is why you are a follower of chaos not because you wear odd socks and cannot follow rules.

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

I kind of think we are trying to rationalise out actions of individuals, which may or may not be lawful or chaotic at any given moment.
Law and chaos are absolutes - but the followers are not ... yes a chaos champion may retire to his pipe and slippers.
Both are ways of looking at powers beyond mortality - aliken it to judaeochristian good and evil. God is good - his followers may follow him but don't always live up to his expectation (hence the doctrine of sin) - it doesn't mean they don't follow - they don't follow perfectly all the while.
The closer to the higher powers you are the more likely you are to stay in step with the big picture of your doctrine.

But if the chaos champion turned up to a formal no smoking dinner - in said pipe and slippers ...

each action has an individual consequence.

[The Darklord]

My idea about pipes and slippers was intended to be fairly light hearted but I like your example.  My point about law and chaos is that the followers are working to an agenda which they believe in - that agenda should not automatically govern the way they act, either because they are not perfect examples of their (for want of a better word) faith as you point out or because they are employing other methods to achieve their aims.  Look at some of the GW jack yeovil novels for examples of highly organised chaos.

[Artemisia]

So, identifying followers of either law or chaos is through their key belief rather than practice?, rather like a colleague of mine, who Chris rather aptly described as an evangelical atheist. ie an atheist who is passionate about converting others to his non-belief.
I take issue with one's ideas becoming entrenched with age. True in many cases, but often it is when we are young when we are more adamant about the right of our personal choice of belief. I hope to reach old age with an ability to be both open minded and self critical - there's a challenge, God help me!

[alec42]

"an atheist who is passionate about converting others to his non-belief.
I take issue with one's ideas becoming entrenched with age. True in many cases, but often it is when we are young when we are more adamant about the right of our personal choice of belief.l"

Hmmm. This does seem to fit with my personal experience. My wife was a classic 'evangelical athiest' in her younger years. Similarly, I had particularly strong views which we'll not go into. Now we've both learned to accept the other's position, whatever it may be. Moreover, I've reached the stage where I'm basically proud and appreciative of anyone who has a 'universe theory' simply because of the intellectual and existential effort involved. Neither of us are any less passionate about our views - we're just less vocal (and hopefully more tolerant). Does this count as 'mellowing'?

[Artemisia]

Could it just be that with age, you reach the stage where you just can't be arsed with arguing the point again. ie a chaos warrior who decides that tonight he is staying in his favourite armchair with a bottle of Ralean vodka rather than marauding across the Jhun wastes.

[The Darklord]

As captain jack sparrow once so wisely said "There are only two rules, what a man can do and what a man can't do"  You can either accept that someone has a different viewpoint to your own and carry on regardless or you can't.  It isn't mellowing if you are as firm in your belife as ever but can accept that someone is different without having to convert or condemn them, its just wisdom.  Unless of course the difference is so fundamental you simply have to do something about it - I could probably share a flat with someone who belived that aliens are controlling the government as long as they were not actually expecting me to sleep in the tinfoil hat and werent likely to try and lobotamise me at the breakfast table.  I couldnt share a flat with someone who went out and attacked people based on the colour of their skin.

[Artemisia]

It's not so much a difference in viewpoint but the imposition of it that can be the problem. This is regardless of age or experience. maybe mellowing is a refined version of 'can't be arsed to argue the point again' -reduces the stress levels.
Okay- here goes...am I beginning to grasp this?...
A similarity between Law and Chaos is therefore an entrenchment of ideas with absence of critical examination - law trying to maintain established order, chaos trying to bring about the undoing of order. Neither is a value judgement but a set of ideals worked towards in ways ranging from fervent to casual. Both are able to use structures of societies to further their cause.
So one does not cancel the other out and both present a threat to critical thinking.