"And I say he violated all that social convention and law!  Even early on!  He ran away from all his responsibilities!  He threw aside his father's wishes!  He refused to recognize his evil step -"

He grins and shrugs.  "I mean, his Lawful stepmother.  Though I suppose she's somewhat Chaotic herself, what with her romancing a man who was still officially monogomously married at the time.  But either way, the petitioner refused to give her any honor or recognition."

Feanor is starting to like this snake-horse person.  Though if Indis is Chaotic, maybe he wants to be firmly Lawful.

"We're arguing Law-Chaos first?  Wake me up when that's over."

The large fluffy dog sitting in for Nirvana snorts at Abaddon.

"I agree with Elysium here that to a large extent, Petitioner's society does not have a clear Law-Custom distinction.  But that means that most of his actions cannot count for anything on the Law-Chaos axis, unless we can point to a specific law they were conforming to or violating.  In re Coates:  a law must be specific and clear as a law."

"Wake me up when we get past this early life crap. The petitioner is obviously lawful no matter what they got up to in their carefree youth.”

Hell’s advocate doesn’t even feign tiredness, merely boredom.

Elysium shoots Heaven a glance that reads, 'See this guy? Careful with arguing for Lawful before we establish not Evil' 

"There’s other conceptions of Lawfulness besides obeying regulation—coöperation via predictability, for example, and you’ll note the petitioner took no actions towards establishing predictability for that purpose, or seeking out the opportunity to create lawful environments or precedents out of chaos, which the petitioner also did not try to do."

Fëanor still isn't sure whether he wants to be Lawful or Chaotic, but that feels like an insult.

"But I couldn't create any new environments till I got out of Valinor!"

"And Petitioner has in fact been working toward that ever since he realized he was not suited for Valinor - and before then, he was traveling around looking for a better environment within Valinor."

"Yes, the petitioner sought out new environments within and without Valinor, but not for the purposes of establishing lawfulness out of chaos, but rather for personal freedom from a cultural system that he struggled to thrive in. That’s chaotic, not lawful."

"Ah, now we get to the important part—he attempted to do so, and did so, first as a prince and then as a king. In a sense it was because he wanted freedom, but not as an individual but as a nation. Circumstance put him at the top, but Asmodeus is hardly less lawful than the lowest Imp."

"What, are you saying every revolutionary around is Lawful as long as they're planning to be a king at the end of things?"

"But establishing a new country is not necessarily the same thing as being a revolutionary.  In re Michelsen et al.  Petitioner did not levy violence against, or overthrow, the established government."

"You're just forgetting the time he launched a coup and overthrew the king?  Against the orders of the gods, I might add!"

"Fingolfin wasn't the king!  And of course I wasn't caring about the Valar!"

"Alright, let's dig into the succession of the Noldor. I want to point out a number of things, here. First, the petitioner had already received a verbal guarantee from the other candidate for the throne that his right to it would be respected. Second, civil wars are rarely defused by the most legitimate candidate—and there's lots of precedent for eldest sons of hereditary monarchs being the most legitimate—sitting it out. Those two are arguments against the succession madness being evidence for Chaos. Thirdly, the petitioner didn't actually enjoy politics or rulership, and took up the throne out of a duty to his people—clearly a Lawful impulse."

"Are the Noldor considered a hereditary monarchy? There'd never been a succession before—not even just of the Noldor, in the entire world—and the initial monarch was chosen via acclamation. I don't think the reasoning in the precedents applies."

"Also, 'duty to his people'? That's bull. He did it to gain a tool for his revenge, and last I checked—Calistria is chaotic, not lawful!"

"No!  I took the crown because it was mine!  To get back my Silmarils, too - but they were all mine!

"Like the... red person with horns from Hell; do you have a name in your language for your sort of person?... but like you say, I didn't particularly like the kingship, but it was mine once my father had died, and I wasn't going to leave it for someone else who didn't have a rightful claim to it."

"Really?  Were you going to just let Morgoth go if he gave back your shiny rocks?"

"Shiny rocks?  No!  They're not just random polished pebbles like the Teleri have!  They're perfectly carved to hold and reflect the Light of Lights!  For both beauty and magic!"

"War is certainly a regrettable thing - even when it is a Good war against Evil - but this Court has often held it to not be a determining factor in Law versus Chaos.  See, for example, Iomedae v. Deskari; Iomedae v. Erastil; Iomedae v. Sarenrae."

"But the petitioner’s motivations for the war can be classified as Lawful or Chaotic. So far the motivations suggested are revenge, duty, and enforcement of property rights. That’s two to one in Law’s favor."

"Freedom was also a motivation, so that’s actually a tie. Additionally, motivation is secondary to act. The petitioner’s acts show a much more significant Chaotic bent—defying the rulers of the land he lived in, attacking a neutral group for failing to aid him, abandoning half of the people to which you claim he was acting out of duty."

"The latter two acts are also Evil, by the way! If we want to get into that."

"That presupposes the Valar were the rulers of his country.  They never claimed to rule over his people.  Perhaps they claimed the land, but in that sense, he was quite Lawfully trying to get out of that land as quickly as he could.  We have never claimed that Law demands gods be obeyed simply because they are gods."