I don't think I expressed my view very well before. By laws and customs I don't only mean laws in the sense of the legal strictures of a given state, but also societal laws, cultural laws, moral laws.
I would not call Lenin chaotic at any point, really. Yes, he was a revolutionary that worked towards the overthrow of the czarist regime. But how did he do that? He published political tracts, organized an elite and highly trained underground political party, did consciousness raising/education in benefits of socialism type activities, attended international socialist conventions etc etc. While those activities certainly violated the law of the czarist regime, and he was arrested as a result, they don't in my view of things violate higher "laws" of acceptable political/societal activism. It was not Lenin's prerogative to adopt widespread campaign of public assassinations, as some groups at the time did. There was no campaign of shooting or bombing of military barracks, police stations, other symbols of imperial power. It was not Lenin's Bolsheviks even who initiated the first revolution/overthrow of the czar. He kept within certain limits, even as a revolutionary.
Likewise, its not Thorn's 'revolutionary' activities that make me see him as chaotic. It's the specific tactics he deliberately chose to employ. He could have striven, as the leader of a revolutionary organization, if we want to call it that, to publicize the details of the Deathly regimen, under the assumption that the wizarding public in general would have revolted against Hucksteen if they knew the full extent of what he was doing. He could have attempted to organize some large-scale form of nonviolent civil disobedience. If he really wanted to take the violent route, he could have stuck more closely to the kinds of guerrilla tactics that still pay respect to some degree to established 'rules of war': targeting military and police personnel (in this case, aurors and the like) and facilities, high level politicians directly collaborating with Hucksteen, and very clearly political symbols, ONLY. He could have deliberately aimed for targets with symbolic value in ways which were much less likely to hurt civilians. Yes, it would have been more difficult and possibly less efficient to do so, but a Lawful person, to me, is someone who would have prioritized staying within certain boundaries, even at a cost; Thorn seems to have had no such inclination.
Even looking just at revolutionary figures, I see a big difference there - if your first instinct is 'screw all conventional norms of legality, morality, proportionality, etc' that is not indicative of a Lawful mindset.
Re: Law vs. Chaos
I would not call Lenin chaotic at any point, really. Yes, he was a revolutionary that worked towards the overthrow of the czarist regime. But how did he do that? He published political tracts, organized an elite and highly trained underground political party, did consciousness raising/education in benefits of socialism type activities, attended international socialist conventions etc etc. While those activities certainly violated the law of the czarist regime, and he was arrested as a result, they don't in my view of things violate higher "laws" of acceptable political/societal activism. It was not Lenin's prerogative to adopt widespread campaign of public assassinations, as some groups at the time did. There was no campaign of shooting or bombing of military barracks, police stations, other symbols of imperial power. It was not Lenin's Bolsheviks even who initiated the first revolution/overthrow of the czar. He kept within certain limits, even as a revolutionary.
Likewise, its not Thorn's 'revolutionary' activities that make me see him as chaotic. It's the specific tactics he deliberately chose to employ. He could have striven, as the leader of a revolutionary organization, if we want to call it that, to publicize the details of the Deathly regimen, under the assumption that the wizarding public in general would have revolted against Hucksteen if they knew the full extent of what he was doing. He could have attempted to organize some large-scale form of nonviolent civil disobedience. If he really wanted to take the violent route, he could have stuck more closely to the kinds of guerrilla tactics that still pay respect to some degree to established 'rules of war': targeting military and police personnel (in this case, aurors and the like) and facilities, high level politicians directly collaborating with Hucksteen, and very clearly political symbols, ONLY. He could have deliberately aimed for targets with symbolic value in ways which were much less likely to hurt civilians. Yes, it would have been more difficult and possibly less efficient to do so, but a Lawful person, to me, is someone who would have prioritized staying within certain boundaries, even at a cost; Thorn seems to have had no such inclination.
Even looking just at revolutionary figures, I see a big difference there - if your first instinct is 'screw all conventional norms of legality, morality, proportionality, etc' that is not indicative of a Lawful mindset.