Post/Author/DateTime	Post
imparooo 09-17-04, 10:21 AM	Hello everybody. In your opinion, what is the most "active" Good alignment? [By saying "active", I intend "Ready to take arms against Evil"] Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic Good? I think that Neutral Good could be the most wishy-washy alignment (the "every living being is Good at its heart, so we can't do much else than plainly react to bad guys' efforts" syndrome)... but it could be also the most proactive (the "I do Good because it's the right thing to do" - which alignment does this sentence apply best to?), depending on the situation. I'm just curious to explore the Neutral Good alignment, because IMO it's much more than a "Mother Theresa attitude". What do you think about it?
Camellan 09-17-04, 10:38 AM	Depends on the character and the campaign. In general, I play NG proactive. I'm Good. I want to do good things. Don't really care that much about Rules or Freedom, and in fact, I wouldn't mind a nice mix of both. But, they really don't matter, because rigid adherance to a code, or total freedom can get in the way of Good. The lawful person has to compromise his Goodness to fit into his codes, and the chaotic person has to compromise his Goodness to fit his desire for freedom. I do neither of those things. I care only about the Good.
Martryn 09-17-04, 11:05 AM	That was probably the best description of neutral good I have heard to date. I was always confused about how I play a neutral good character.
Board_Rider 09-17-04, 02:34 PM	I too also like NG and found that Camellan hit the bullseye with that interpretation. However I think the most proactive, depending on the campaign, good type alignment would be LG. They are usually the good guys that "seek" out those who are not only "evil" (think: Paladin) but also try their best to enforce the Law of the Land. They hold the Law to the highest regards and if they see someone breaking it will do something about it, or at least find someone who can or will.
annalivvie 09-17-04, 03:11 PM	I think truly it's about how you play the character. I believe that neutral good is most likely the essence of good. As has been pointed out, LG is interested in the law of good, and good to a NG character is not mandated but anything else, it is less philosophical and more tangible. With CG, there is a lot of self-interest involved. They use good as they see it to protect their freedom and the freedom of others. There may be a balance between order and chaos for a neutral character, but a NG is supposed to be unbiased working simply for the True Good, whatever that may be, regardless of alliances, relationships, and so on. I play a LG paladin, and she is certainly more proactive, she goes on quests to seek evil and destroy it, but LG can be blindsided by things that arent truly evil because they have such a strict adherence to codes, while my NG druid protects the sanctity of good where she sees it, and knows it is happening even if her actions are questionable to others members of the party. For example understanding that good actions give a glimmer of goodness and thinking evil can not only be destroyed but redeemed, she saved the life of a NE druid who had been tortured and raped for a month or two, because she has seen her good actions and her evil actions, knowing her personally, but knows that no one should be tortured, good or evil, and she was being tortured by what she viewed as very harmful evil, and set her free and restored her. There is a lot of gray area in game, and in actually roleplaying a character, but I think NGs action without bias, makes neutral good the closest to true good. Just something to think about.
Board_Rider 09-17-04, 04:19 PM	:) Very good point. Well written annalivviem... can I change my answer?
psionichamster 09-17-04, 04:29 PM	well, as far as proactive, the neutral good char will most likely seek out more info about a particular baddy/baddies... if they still fall into the "desperately bad and needing to be stopped" category, then the NG char will act...but not without weighing the consequences and repercussions beforehand... LG is more of the "seek out and destroy evil" while CG leans towards the "subjective evil, but there's stuff i won't stand for (slavery/kiddy smut rings/drug dealers/etc.)" and when the evil is of those varieties, usually dealing with the loss of personal freedom and whatnot, they act. so, rather than being "wishy-washy" the NG char is more "ambivalent" in wanting to go every way at the same time (ambi-means all in greek, valence-movement or going out IIRC), so the NG would be torn, for example, if the Good religion is not acting/speaking out against something they see as obviously bad, but not actually supporting the baddies... um i may be skewed seeing as how i always place NG on those internet alignment/char class tests, though oh well, the hamster
jnrhayz 09-17-04, 05:34 PM	Well, my view anyway is that NG is not bothered by the constraints of law or chaos. If there is an evil government, then make it fall. If there is an evil "barbarian" tribe, use the good kingdom to help defeat them. Good is good no matter what alignment you are. Lawful good believes that only through law can good happen, while chaotic good people believe only through the removal of law can good happen. While that is overly simplistic it is true. They would all see the same act as good or evil (in a D&D black and white world - neutral is for grey), they just believe in different ways of correcting the evil. One through law, one through any means necessary, and one through chaos. I see lawful more as characters who benefitted from a lawful society or were hurt by chaotic individuals (or some combination). I see chaotic people the exact opposite, hurt by a lawful society or helped by a chaotic one (or some combination). I think that is the biggest missing piece of the D&D world, a battle between law and chaos. Well, that is my rambling thoughts on the matter. I have much more, but I don't want to bore too many people. :)
Cathon 09-17-04, 08:34 PM	I almost always play neutral good characters, as in my opinion they are the most flexible about being good. A neutral good character looks to do the greatest good they can, and topple the greatest evil they can. If it takes cooperating with the thieves guild to topple the evil baron, that's fine. If it means helping the theocracy crack down on devil worshippers among them, that works too. As I see it, a lawful good character may build a mission for the poor, and a chaotic good character may try to make things better with random acts of kindness, but a neutral good character will do it all. Neutrals in my opinion are either the essence of an alignment, try to strike a balance, or are utterly indifferent to the other forces. So strong neutral good is obsessed with good vs evil (NG Cleric). Medium wishes to do good but thinks chaos and law both take things to extremes (NG Druid), and light seeks to do good and figures everything else will just workout somehow (NG Fighter). Hopefully, you've gleaned a few ideas.
Supercilious 09-17-04, 08:41 PM	Chaotic Good is kind of an enigma to me, their Chaotic aspect is pro freedom, and their good aspect is anti-villain. But good dictates that killing is wrong, so taking them prisoner is better, whereas the chaos dictates that nothing is more valuable then your freedom (Ala give me liberty of give me death). What would they do?
imparooo 09-18-04, 05:40 AM	Well, my view anyway is that NG is not bothered by the constraints of law or chaos. If there is an evil government, then make it fall. If there is an evil "barbarian" tribe, use the good kingdom to help defeat them. Good is good no matter what alignment you are. Lawful good believes that only through law can good happen, while chaotic good people believe only through the removal of law can good happen. While that is overly simplistic it is true. They would all see the same act as good or evil (in a D&D black and white world - neutral is for grey), they just believe in different ways of correcting the evil. One through law, one through any means necessary, and one through chaos. Doesn't the Neutral Good character run the risk of becoming too much a "means justifies the ends" character, thus becoming Evil in order to justify his beliefs? I see lawful more as characters who benefitted from a lawful society or were hurt by chaotic individuals (or some combination). I see chaotic people the exact opposite, hurt by a lawful society or helped by a chaotic one (or some combination). Right. I think that is the biggest missing piece of the D&D world, a battle between law and chaos. Blood War anyone???? Well, the Blood War in Planescape (and everywhere on the planes) is all about the determination of true Evil: will the Lawful Bateezu (who are just a few, but so well organised) or the Chaotic Tanar'ri (who are countless, but so disorganised and whimsical they suffer so many losses) preveil? Or will the hideous Neutral Evil Yugoloths win the tide of the war? It is one the of the defining events in the D&D cosmology, and you "dare" :D to say that it is the biggest missing piece? Well, that is my rambling thoughts on the matter. I have much more, but I don't want to bore too many people. :) Well, just write! If they are not interested, they just have not to read what you wirte. I will do!
imparooo 09-18-04, 05:46 AM	Chaotic Good is kind of an enigma to me, their Chaotic aspect is pro freedom, and their good aspect is anti-villain. But good dictates that killing is wrong, so taking them prisoner is better, whereas the chaos dictates that nothing is more valuable then your freedom (Ala give me liberty of give me death). What would they do? Well, a CG character has to balance the two aspects of his alignment: he cannot more too much Chaotic than Good, becaouse otherwise he would be CN. But he also can't bee too much Good, because otherwise he would be NG. So I think that a CG character wouldn't care at all about the villain himself, but would just to try to stop him from preventing his or someone else's freedom. I the villain is driven away, killed or just left where he is, is not a concern of the CG character, who wouldn't stop too much thinking at the consequences of his deeds (depending also from his Wisdom).
Lina_Inverse 09-18-04, 12:12 PM	id say there equally active.simply becuase there are so many varietys of good in each.
Ogre Mage 09-18-04, 03:21 PM	I would agree that LG, NG and CG could all be equally active. They are just active in different ways. LG is most likely to work with an organized society or group to champion good. Through organization, order and working with others, they feel the most good can be done. Even in the absence of a group to join, LG will still have a strong personal code that he or she lives by. They are most likely to set aside their own desires for "the good of the group." CG has a hard time dealing with rules and regulations. They are most likely to be free agents, often working alone and pursing the cause of good as they see fit. This is not to say that CG has no personal code for as good characters they certainly do. But their codes tend to be more ... pragmatic and flexible than LG. I also do not mean to imply that CG is incapable of working with an organized group or society. But I think this would tend to be more out of necessity rather than choice. NG is comfortable with an organized group, a not-so-organized group, solo, whatever they feel would be best to pursue the goals of good. In a sense this make them the most flexible of the good characters. When the laws of the land start to resemble tyranny or an excessive amount of freedom starts to hurt the lives of people, NG becomes equally antsy.
Callista 09-19-04, 05:27 PM	Re. Temptation for NG's to become an "ends justify the means" character type and turn to evil: This is a temptation for any character, probably for Chaotics most and Lawfuls least. However, "the ends justify the means" is not necessarily always evil. Minor evil acts that don't hurt anyone severely or leave a lasting impact, done for the purpose of a much greater good, can be counted as "not evil". However, they are very likely to be Chaotic (against the law or against someone's code, etc.). For example: Party is in a small town; nearby, an evil cleric has taken a hostage. They have no weapons and no gold, and the only source of them nearby is an NPC blacksmith (say, aligned LN) who refuses to lend or give away weapons because he needs the gold to feed his family. The party decides to break in and steal what they need; when the blacksmith sees them, they knock him unconscious and escape. They rescue the hostage and return later on, in disguise, and anonymously leave gold to pay for the weapons and the injury the blacksmith has suffered. In this case, I'd say extenuating circumstances justify the (very minor) evil act of stealing an innocent person's means of livelihood... In fact, in these circumstances, I'd not call it evil at all. Chaotic, yes (a Lawful character might simply have cut a club or quarterstaff from the trees nearby), but not evil.
imparooo 09-20-04, 05:05 AM	Re. Temptation for NG's to become an "ends justify the means" character type and turn to evil: This is a temptation for any character, probably for Chaotics most and Lawfuls least. I don't agree with you, at least not in every case. A Chaotic is generally more spontaneous than a Lawful, so Goodness could come more easily from his heart than from a Lawful, who is bound by a code... that could prevent him from temptation. This is why I don't like neither Law nor Chaos! :D However, "the ends justify the means" is not necessarily always evil. Minor evil acts that don't hurt anyone severely or leave a lasting impact, done for the purpose of a much greater good, can be counted as "not evil". However, they are very likely to be Chaotic (against the law or against someone's code, etc.). Well, an Evil act is an Evil act, period. Even though someone could try to justify it a "necessary" step to be taken in order to get to greater Good, it is still Evil, and furthers the cause of Evilness. IMHO, of course. For example: Party is in a small town; nearby, an evil cleric has taken a hostage. They have no weapons and no gold, and the only source of them nearby is an NPC blacksmith (say, aligned LN) who refuses to lend or give away weapons because he needs the gold to feed his family. The party decides to break in and steal what they need; when the blacksmith sees them, they knock him unconscious and escape. They rescue the hostage and return later on, in disguise, and anonymously leave gold to pay for the weapons and the injury the blacksmith has suffered. In this case, I'd say extenuating circumstances justify the (very minor) evil act of stealing an innocent person's means of livelihood... In fact, in these circumstances, I'd not call it evil at all. Chaotic, yes (a Lawful character might simply have cut a club or quarterstaff from the trees nearby), but not evil. The example is ok, but I think that knocking him unconscious is not a Good act, maybe not even Neutral. If they just stole the weapons, that would be ok (not Lawful, but still could be Neutral Good or - more easily - Chaotic Good); but to knock someone unconscious in order to steal something from him, even if it will be used for Good ends, does not sound Good to me. Maybe it's Chaotic Neutral tending to Good (the alignment of Ysgard)... any thoughts?
Thorak 09-20-04, 07:22 AM	The two axes of alignment are utterly independent. Your lawfullness or chaoticness has absolutely nothing to do with how good or evil you are. It just has to do with how you feel it would best be expressed. LG feels that a comfortable, well-structured society is ideal, while the CG finds that concept incredibly restrictive and boring, and would prefer to see personal freedom as the ultimate ideal. But neither is more inherently "good" than the other; those are factors of the law-chaos difference. NG is either indifferent to the law-chaos axis, or it sees the benefits of each. NGs are the ones who see that both laws and personal freedom are necessary, and that the two must be carefully balanced to have an ideal society. They might cooperate with a thieves guild to take down an evil empire, but only if they're convinced the guild isn't evil (because they're Good), and they would have some qualms about having criminals as allies, though they'd get over it. But if you're playing a happy-go-lucky, whatever-Good-requires type of character, you're playing a much more Chaotic than Neutral character. Neutrals hold law and order in just as much esteem as they do freedom and personal choice (whether that's high esteem for both, or complete disregard for both).
imparooo 09-20-04, 12:07 PM	How can possibly every NG character have the necessary judgement (i.e. Wisdom) to understand what is the ultimate Good when he has to make a choice? For example, let's imagine that character X meets a very troubled and poor family (I'm presenting a limit case). The mother is ill, and needs a lot of expensive cures. The father keeps getting drunk and beating his daughter, because she is quite rebellious and constantly refuses any marriage offers (that would give the family enough money to sustent the mother), as she knows that marrying one of the pretenders would make her unhappy for the rest of her life - so she is preparing to leave her family in secret. What would our character X suggest the girl to do? SInce the answer is shady and not very definite, I think that the NG character would be taken by the Buridano's donkey syndrome: i.e. he would not do anything. This is why I'm saying that NG characters are the most wishy-washy of all the Good ones: because when it is not clear where the ultimate Good actually lies (we are talking about objective morality here - it's D&D!), they don't have neither the code that a Lawful has, nor the desire of freedom that a Chaotic has. So they stay there, undecided. And sometimes not doing things is the best way to let Evil prevail. A really look forward an answer that clears my doubts, as NG is my favourite alignment, and I would like to understand it better. Thanks!
Rotipher 09-20-04, 12:17 PM	Here's another way to look at it: Lawful Good means doing what's right because a code of behavior you want to live up to says you should. If personal feelings say otherwise, your code overrules your personal feelings. This can go wrong if the code turns out not to account for a given situation, as no code can ennumerate every possible moral quandry. Chaotic Good means doing what's right because your personal conscience says you should. If social codes say it's not appropriate to do what your conscience demands, your conscience overrides those codes. This can go wrong if your conscience fails to see what's right in specific circumstances, as no individual is free from "blind spots" and biases. Neutral Good means doing what's right because it *is* right, whether you know it's right for reasons of code or of conscience. You pick out the best aspects of various benign codes of behavior to follow, but also weigh them against your personal values to decide whether such codes are valid. If your conscience turns out to be the one in the wrong, due to you limited P.O.V., you establish new rules for yourself to ensure you don't fall prey to your own limitations. Neutral Good isn't about being wishy-washy. It's about working to improve the quality of your own Goodness, rather than rely exclusively on your code or personal conscience to set the standard. Being NG means setting the moral bar high for yourself, and assessing your own Good in light of *both* Law (codes) and Chaos (conscience), in order to make yourself a better person.
Thorak 09-20-04, 06:29 PM	For example, let's imagine that character X meets a very troubled and poor family (I'm presenting a limit case). The mother is ill, and needs a lot of expensive cures. The father keeps getting drunk and beating his daughter, because she is quite rebellious and constantly refuses any marriage offers (that would give the family enough money to sustent the mother), as she knows that marrying one of the pretenders would make her unhappy for the rest of her life - so she is preparing to leave her family in secret. What would our character X suggest the girl to do? That's an easy one; stop being a selfish twit and marry a rich guy to make your mother better. Self interest to the point of harming others is never a Good characteristic, it's at best Neutral if not downright Evil. If she was refusing to marry any of these wealthy guys because Nasty Bob the highwaymen is a looker and smiled at her a year ago as he robbed them blind, she's a selfish evil little beast. A LG character would even more strongly feel she should give up her freedom to save her mother, no problem whatsoever as to what the right choice is. And a CG character would tell her to pick the nicest one of the lot. It's not like her father is forcing her to marry Ugly Joe, the horse-faced womanizer who publicly boasts about his jaunts in the worst *****houses around. She's waiting for Mr. Perfect when there's tons of wealthy Pretty Darn Nice's at the door, and her mother is suffering because of her unwillingness to do what's needed to help her. Marrying a nice guy who happens to have money is hardly a horrible choice. To the CG guy, it's less about the "you should do what your family needs", and more about "the kindest thing you could do for your mother is to marry someone wealthy to help her, so why aren't you?" Freedom to choose is a Chaotic ideal. But she has freedom to choose. The problem is that she's unwilling to make a choice, and that refusal forces another she cares about to suffer needlessly. Morally, it's no different from standing by and watching someone torture your mother, knowing if you married a rich guy the torturer would go away, and thus choosing to stand there and watch the torture rather than try and find a rich husband you can perhaps learn to love as quickly as possible to reduce your mother's pain. If you choose to watch, you're being Evil, because you're stating that your potential happiness is worth the suffering of another innocent.
Lincoln Hills 09-20-04, 08:32 PM	Don't overlook the fact that there are degrees of goodness, just as there are in evil. Learning of an evil-doer and smiting him is mildly good: learning of an evil deed and attempting to aid the victims is somewhat more: managing to learn of an evil deed being planned and stopping it beforehand is best. (And also most difficult, no argument there.) A lot of characters, especially PCs, will probably be content with the first level of goodness. The second level often requires hard work, and no glorious battle, so it's not quite as popular: while the third level... well, usually PCs don't bother with the third level unless it's "on their turf." ("Listen, this is MY city, and if the Assassins think they can just move in...") So - I'd say there is no alignment that is, in and of itself, the "most good". But it's not like I've got a doctorate in ethics, eh?
FriendoftheDork 09-20-04, 11:46 PM	Remember there are alot of ways of playing a character aligned with good, law, chaos and evil. Thus each character should have his own moral code (could be inherited) despite his alignment. But to answer the initial question I would say lawful character are more prone to use violence against what he percieves as evil. lawful good especially is considered the "crusading" type (although LN and LE could do this as well). Being lawful means you respect authority and tradition, and would therefore be more prone to fight when expected to. Neutral good characters are more likely to question orders and fight only when necessacy. Chaotic good characters ignores tradiiton and authorites and simply do what they want, while trying not to hurt others. Still, characters of all three alignments could be pacifists, so it actually boils down to personal code and preferences.
imparooo 09-21-04, 10:56 AM	That's an easy one; stop being a selfish twit and marry a rich guy to make your mother better. Self interest to the point of harming others is never a Good characteristic, it's at best Neutral if not downright Evil. If she was refusing to marry any of these wealthy guys because Nasty Bob the highwaymen is a looker and smiled at her a year ago as he robbed them blind, she's a selfish evil little beast. A LG character would even more strongly feel she should give up her freedom to save her mother, no problem whatsoever as to what the right choice is. And a CG character would tell her to pick the nicest one of the lot. It's not like her father is forcing her to marry Ugly Joe, the horse-faced womanizer who publicly boasts about his jaunts in the worst *****houses around. She's waiting for Mr. Perfect when there's tons of wealthy Pretty Darn Nice's at the door, and her mother is suffering because of her unwillingness to do what's needed to help her. Marrying a nice guy who happens to have money is hardly a horrible choice. To the CG guy, it's less about the "you should do what your family needs", and more about "the kindest thing you could do for your mother is to marry someone wealthy to help her, so why aren't you?" Freedom to choose is a Chaotic ideal. But she has freedom to choose. The problem is that she's unwilling to make a choice, and that refusal forces another she cares about to suffer needlessly. Morally, it's no different from standing by and watching someone torture your mother, knowing if you married a rich guy the torturer would go away, and thus choosing to stand there and watch the torture rather than try and find a rich husband you can perhaps learn to love as quickly as possible to reduce your mother's pain. If you choose to watch, you're being Evil, because you're stating that your potential happiness is worth the suffering of another innocent. Thorak , your answer is very, thank you, that is ok for me (even if I'm curious to know what would have you answered if the one to marry was not a nice guy but Ugly Joe, the horse-faced womanizer who publicly boasts about his jaunts in the worst *****houses around - maybe the same applies). Lincoln Hills, I think that the degrees that you have presented are, in order, Chaotic (smite evil), Neutral (aid innocents) and Lawful (thwart the plans). This implies that LG is "more Good" than CG, which is not always true. Rotipher, I like your definition - should hand it to my DM, who always has problems on how adherent to alignment we are! FriendoftheDork, your last line is Still, characters of all three alignments could be pacifists, so it actually boils down to personal code and preferences. For everyone: What is the differnce between a "Lawful" code and a "Good" code? IMHO, being Lawful is all about trying to behave consistently with an internal code, possibly imposing it to the outside. Isn't being Good (in a sort of way) adhering to a personal code, too? I mean, does "Chaos" really exist ? Does "Law" really exist? Are Law/Chaos [I]completely different from Good/Evil?
Thorak 09-21-04, 02:20 PM	Thorak , your answer is very, thank you, that is ok for me (even if I'm curious to know what would have you answered if the one to marry was not a nice guy but Ugly Joe, the horse-faced womanizer who publicly boasts about his jaunts in the worst *****houses around - maybe the same applies). If it were this one guy she were being forced to marry, I see two alternatives. Marry him, and then (assuming you're living in a decent society where wife-beating and adultery aren't allowed) catch him at his exploits, and divorce him, taking as much of his property as possible. Or refuse to marry him, knowing your mother is suffering and willing to take the first reasonable alternative. The 'best' option is to marry Joe and work from there, because then you're placing your own potential suffering as of lower value than your mother's current suffering. But my inherently chaotic nature chafes at that kind of restriction, but that's due to my belief in personal freedom of choice as an ideal as worthy as that of helping others. If we're just looking at Good reasons, then marrying Joe is the 'best' of the two, unless you've got another option. For everyone: What is the differnce between a "Lawful" code and a "Good" code? IMHO, being Lawful is all about trying to behave consistently with an internal code, possibly imposing it to the outside. Isn't being Good (in a sort of way) adhering to a personal code, too? I mean, does "Chaos" really exist [I'm quite diverting from the original topic]? Does "Law" really exist? Are Law/Chaos completely different from Good/Evil? A Lawful code would be about following the code, regardless of the consequences. These are the Knights who let an unarmed enemy go, knowing full well he'll report back to his superiors but unable to do anything else due to honourable constraints. A Good code is primarily about the consequences; if you're better off going outside the code, then do so. Basically, is order and pattern more important to you than helping others, or vice versa? The former isn't as harsh as it sounds, as it's based on the belief that order and pattern are the foundations of society, with which everyone is benefited in the long run. Law and chaos are entirely separate from good and evil, though. It's Good to steal bread to give to starving people. But it's unlawful. It's Evil to foreclose on a mortgage you really don't need to, when the person you're evicting is a penniless widow with nowhere else to go. But it's perfectly lawful. That something is legal in no way makes it necessarily good or evil, and the same for chaotic acts, they can be either depending on the circumstances.
The Man from Uncle 09-21-04, 05:25 PM	I do love these subjects. Thorak has once again made the very strong distinction between the 2 axis of alingment that are in play. Absolutley right, i totally agree. I think though that the biggest area not generally covered is that ones conception of good (certainly in the game world and argueabley in real life) is the biggest factor in play here. The second axis really has no influence on it at all. Being lawful to some characters might be part of what they conceive as good. Just as being unrestrained by contigent law can be viewed by some as closer to true goodness. My gut tells me that the gaming world is set up for this more subjective version of good and evil. When we play a character, we choose how we want to play them like and we choose an alignment based on what we think is suitable. We may choose a personality that on the surface could be judged as one thing but underneath those true intentions are different. Thats why, on the whole, the player has a better idea of the characters alingment than the DM (there is also the rather obvious arguement that a character in the DnD world can be physically affect by their alingment. This could cause inconsistancies if that character sees themselves as but gets treated like neutral. Their world view might change significantly as a result. We are not burdened by such worries in reality) Anyway, bedtime for me. I'll finish off tomorrow if i think anyone is interested.
FriendoftheDork 09-21-04, 08:14 PM	Thorak For everyone: What is the difference between a "Lawful" code and a "Good" code? IMHO, being Lawful is all about trying to behave consistently with an internal code, possibly imposing it to the outside. Isn't being Good (in a sort of way) adhering to a personal code, too? I mean, does "Chaos" really exist ? Does "Law" really exist? Are Law/Chaos [I]completely different from Good/Evil? Lawful isn't adhering to a personal code, being lawful has more to do with tradition and norms of a society (even a really small one inside a bigger). A thief can think that will never steal from the poor. He might think of it as a personal code. That doesen't make him lawful, especially if he thinks it's ok to steal from everyone else and screw society. However, an assasin part of a secret guild that refuses to kill anyone but his targets might be lawful, in that he obeys the Guild's law and seeks to preserve it's tradition. So basically being lawful means that you agree with/supports exisiting thoughts, dogma, ways. Being chaotic means you rejects such notions and do what you feel like. And chaotic good persons do not like to make innocents suffer etc. Being good has alot to do with conscience, a mental barrier that usually prevents one from doing what you see as evil. Although the idea of what is good and what is evil often comes from the environment you live in, that doesen't necessarily mean that you accept the traditions of your society. Although I do agree that one can use both terms for the same thing. You can say it is unlawful to steal, or you could say that it's evil. But D&D seperates this into good/evil and law/chaos.