Lawful and chotic are easy enough to deal with...
Lawful tends to go with wisdom, and Chaotic almost always goes with foolishness. The wise think before they act, and the foolish act without thinking. They don’t even see this as foolishness, they are proud of it… yeah, great for them…
But for good and evil...
Priorities should be set in order to strengthen the personality of the character. Some key points are where you place the value:
1. Yourself.
2. Your Religion. (Or lack of one.)
3. Your Friends.
4. Your Enemies.
5. Your People.
6. Your Family.
7. Your Rulers.
The order isn’t the only thing that is important, and can’t really be used as a sole method of determining alignment.
If you value yourself above all others, you are an egotistical maniac, a.k.a. “Evil”. If you only value the lives of those you like, there is nothing special or redeeming about that at all, I’m sure Hitler had friends too.
If you value your life equally with all other life to the extreme (animal, plant, bacteria, insect, etc.), you are probably a silly person, but you are probably also “Good”, unless you exact equal punishment for the “murder” of non-sentient beings, in which case “Evil”.
If you value the life of others above your own, you are probably also very silly, but again, probably “Good”, unless you are suicidal, in which case “Evil”. Dying to save another is “Very Good”, *BUT* you **DON'T** have to value yourself any less than the person you are saving to choose to do that.
If you value your life as equal to the life of another sentient being (assuming you are sentient in the first place), “Good”. Well, unless you don't value your life at all, but then, that goes back to evil...
The more you love the ideal you serve, be it a philosophy, a god, or even abstaining from having one at alll, the more you will endure to uphold its principles. This is your conviction toward whatever ideal you serve, the higher it is on your list, the more your life style will match with the principles of it. You can and will serve something if you are a sentient, mortal being. If you are an athiest, you "worship" evolution, and will probably argue your point with anybody who believes in God or something.
If you “care” about your people, typically you will be “Lawful” and either good or evil based on how you define “care”, and if you don’t, you will typically be “Chaotic Evil”, because really not caring about your people at all simply isn’t good.
The same goes for your ruler, the more you value him, the more lawful you will be. If you where a good person under tyrannical rule, you could still “value” your ruler, because he is a powerful enemy, and you must appraise him as worthy of being taken out. Or, you could be Exaltedly Lawful Good, and try to make him see the error of his ways.
If you value your people, you would value a good leader, so these often go together. You *don't* have to *serve* something because you value it. Like I said, if an evil leader is hurting your people, you will value him enough to break whatever laws it takes to take him out, and you will (... should
) still be considered lawful.Caring about your family is an important piece of personality for your character, but not a terrific base for alignment without background. The family is like religion, except that you can’t choose your family. Typically, if you value your family no matter how much there values differ from your own, you would be “Good”. But you can easily value your family and still be evil.
As for neutrality.... Neutrality isn’t an option for a sentient being, as far as alignment goes when concerned with as good and evil. Good is the only “real” thing, and Evil is really a choice made not to do good. The only way you could be neutral is not to know that there is a choice. Hence, an animal would be neutral, but a neutral person would be impossible, either you want to do good or you don’t, and hence, are either good or evil as a result of your sentience.
Lawful and Chaotic have room for Neutrality, though. A person can actively decide to be helpful or harmful to a government, or a person can live his entire life without interfering at all. He could, for example, be a hermit, wanting to be left alone, and leave others alone as well. He could be a good man, who helps those in need when they arrive, or he could be a bitter hermit living alone in spite, or even actively going out to cause some form of harm on occasion, but he could still be Neutral as far as Chaos and Law go.
I do not see the alignment restriction for druids as making sense, even though I see why *others* might think it would. Nature (I would say confidently and unabashadly) isn’t sentient enough to have a choice, so therefore, it can’t choose. A druid, however, is a sentient being. He has a choice to make, and it should be seen as perfectly natural to have an alignment. A Lawful Good druid? Impossible? Why? Is it so hard to picture a person in tune with both man and nature? Can there not be a person who can lead a group to do something good for nature? Who better than a druid to rally up a city to change its ways to include nature, but why would a “Neutral Good” person bother with the people enough to see it through. It is a big step (I’m talking “change in alignment” big step) to go from the “who cares about the laws” to “I care about the laws enough to see something done about it”. Why would a Lawful (…*sigh*) Neutral druid bother talking… if he cared enough, he would rain down death from above without moral stipulation (…evil…). A lawful evil druid would just plain slaughter everyone with his might, and wouldn’t even think twice about it. And what if the druid is intelligent? I mean… what if the druid is actually smarter than the average bear ( druid int > int. 2 )? How could you rationalize that that druid wouldn’t have enough sense to make his own decisions? He isn’t a druid if he doesn’t have a relatively high wisdom score, so there is nothing that would allow him to be neutral rationally if you are able to choose to be Good, and hence, are responsible for either acting or not acting that way.
Also, the Barbarian can’t be lawful? What keeps a tyrannical person from flying into a rage? What happened to righteous fury? I really don’t want options for these “special cases”, like prestige classes or anything, I would like to see the restriction go away. Good, Lawful, and Evil are all good restrictions, but having to be neutral or chaotic are… awful restrictions…
Law and Goodness are both hard choices, and evil people will sink to great depths to do what they want to do, so these are terrific specifications for alignment, but to be “Neutral”… *blahg* I say!!!!
DnD's alignment system works well enough for those who don't want to go in to deep into ethics, but it is plain to me that there *is* a crowd out there who cares more about ethics, and they want to get something deeper than what is in the PHB.
True enough.
Lawful and chotic are easy enough to deal with... Lawful tends to go with wisdom, and Chaotic almost always goes with foolishness. The wise think before they act, and the foolish act without thinking. They don’t even see this as foolishness, they are proud of it… yeah, great for them…
Ummm, this is a joke, right? Please? If this is not the case, being lawful doesn't imply wisdom, nor does chaos imply lack thereof. Lawful, in this sense, prepares. A lawful character would analyze all options and create one masterplan to cover everything that could happen. In a perfect world, that is. But, if something unexpected happens, the lawful caricature would be unable to react. In similar way, a chaotic caricature wouldn't plan excessively, not beyond "I'll charge in, you two kill the guards." He has no need to. He improvises as he goes, with no preparation time nor excessive need of details.
Priorities should be set in order to strengthen the personality of the character. Some key points are where you place the value:
1. Yourself.
2. Your Religion. (Or lack of one.)
3. Your Friends.
4. Your Enemies.
5. Your People.
6. Your Family.
7. Your Rulers.
The order isn’t the only thing that is important, and can’t really be used as a sole method of determining alignment.
Players of course should have this clear for their characters, but this order isn't all too tied to alignment.
If you value yourself above all others, you are an egotistical maniac, a.k.a. “Evil”. If you only value the lives of those you like, there is nothing special or redeeming about that at all, I’m sure Hitler had friends too.
If you value your life equally with all other life to the extreme (animal, plant, bacteria, insect, etc.), you are probably a silly person, but you are probably also “Good”, unless you exact equal punishment for the “murder” of non-sentient beings, in which case “Evil”.
Quite true, but punishing equally for killing of everything would imply lawfulness, usually. Equal values, as there simply is no rational way besides "We are sentient." to justify not doing it.
If you value the life of others above your own, you are probably also very silly, but again, probably “Good”, unless you are suicidal, in which case “Evil”.
Being suicidal to help others is good, though not long-lived. How do you make it evil?
Dying to save another is “Very Good”, *BUT* you **DON'T** have to value yourself any less than the person you are saving to choose to do that.
If you die to save someone else, you give greater value to the other, in one way or another, otherwise you wouldn't have died. Unless, of course, you can be resurrected and the other one can't...
If you value your life as equal to the life of another sentient being (assuming you are sentient in the first place), “Good”. Well, unless you don't value your life at all, but then, that goes back to evil...
Yup, but sentience part is redundant.
The more you love the ideal you serve, be it a philosophy, a god, or even abstaining from having one at all, the more you will endure to uphold its principles. This is your conviction toward whatever ideal you serve, the higher it is on your list, the more your life style will match with the principles of it. You can and will serve something if you are a sentient, mortal being. If you are an atheist, you "worship" evolution, and will probably argue your point with anybody who believes in God or something.
Atheists do not necessarily support evolution, but that's just a nitpick.
If you “care” about your people, typically you will be “Lawful” and either good or evil based on how you define “care”, and if you don’t, you will typically be “Chaotic Evil”, because really not caring about your people at all simply isn’t good.
Yes, caring for people is usually lawful, but it is more of a symptom of the fact that there is no rationale why you are more worthy than the others. Any lawful; LN ones simply think that people will live or die by their own merits and help if it benefits him or is likely to benefit in future, LG will help because that is the right thing to do, LE thinks that the strong have the authority to rule over the weak, and this is universal. Chaotics will think in terms of "person", not "people". Neutrals are in between, probably thinking about "group"s, such as (to use RL example), the poor in Africa.
The same goes for your ruler, the more you value him, the more lawful you will be. If you where a good person under tyrannical rule, you could still “value” your ruler, because he is a powerful enemy, and you must appraise him as worthy of being taken out. Or, you could be Exaltedly Lawful Good, and try to make him see the error of his ways.
Not at all. Lawful will value the rules as the ruler (perhaps also personally), while chaotics will love or hate the person who just happens to be the ruler. LG would likely think that entire system is corrupt if single one abuses it; CG would simply think that it is the person, not the position.
If you value your people, you would value a good leader, so these often go together. You *don't* have to *serve* something because you value it. Like I said, if an evil leader is hurting your people, you will value him enough to break whatever laws it takes to take him out, and you will (... should
"Respect" might be a better word, but whatever. Valuing your people is part of good leadership, but hardly the definition. Chaotic ones would value the persons they have met, not the people as a whole.
Typically, if you value your family no matter how much there values differ from your own, you would be “Good”.
Chaotic, more likely. Possibly both. A chaotic person understands that there is not one true way to do things, and would accept other viewpoints. Lawful ones have this idea that there is a single truth and others are wrong.
As for neutrality.... Neutrality isn’t an option for a sentient being, as far as alignment goes when concerned with as good and evil. Good is the only “real” thing, and Evil is really a choice made not to do good. The only way you could be neutral is not to know that there is a choice. Hence, an animal would be neutral, but a neutral person would be impossible, either you want to do good or you don’t, and hence, are either good or evil as a result of your sentience.
No, not at all. Good is valuing others to the same level as yourself, right? Neutrality is healthy self-appreciation, in that a neutral person would kill someone if it is a "me or you"-situation. Good would have to think about it, and would feel bad about it. Evil is hurting others even if it conveys no benefit, or lesser benefit, to yourself. For example, let us take two beggars. Both have single coin. They find a coin on a street. A good beggar would probably give it the other beggar, or maybe keep it if there is a great need. A neutral beggar would take the coin, it hurts nobody and his survival is more important than that of the other beggar. An evil beggar would take the coin and also rob the other beggar of his coin, for he has the power to do so. The evil one first takes the coin, and is a lot richer than his fellow beggar. Then, the evil robs the other beggar, though the coin was more valuable to the other beggar, who had less.
Lawful and Chaotic have room for Neutrality, though. A person can actively decide to be helpful or harmful to a government, or a person can live his entire life without interfering at all. He could, for example, be a hermit, wanting to be left alone, and leave others alone as well. He could be a good man, who helps those in need when they arrive, or he could be a bitter hermit living alone in spite, or even actively going out to cause some form of harm on occasion, but he could still be Neutral as far as Chaos and Law go.
A lawful character can oppose civilization, and a chaotic one could help it, though the latter is rarer. Lawful persons put more value on restrictions, while chaotics to freedom, usually.
I do not see the alignment restriction for druids as making sense, even though I see why *others* might think it would. Nature (I would say confidently and unabashedly) isn’t sentient enough to have a choice, so therefore, it can’t choose. A druid, however, is a sentient being. He has a choice to make, and it should be seen as perfectly natural to have an alignment. A Lawful Good druid? Impossible? Why? Is it so hard to picture a person in tune with both man and nature? Can there not be a person who can lead a group to do something good for nature?
A druid can choose or not choose. That is the gift of sentience and that of free will. Druids are agents of balance, to one degree or another, the same way as paladins are of good. They gain their powers from nature and must be similar to it to gain them. A manifestation of the law of similarity.
Who better than a druid to rally up a city to change its ways to include nature, but why would a “Neutral Good” person bother with the people enough to see it through.
A NG person would care for the people. That's why. Not as people, not necessarily only as individuals, but as sentients.
It is a big step (I’m talking “change in alignment” big step) to go from the “who cares about the laws” to “I care about the laws enough to see something done about it”.
Of course, nonlawful persons care about laws, too.
Why would a Lawful (…*sigh*) Neutral druid bother talking… if he cared enough, he would rain down death from above without moral stipulation (…evil…).
Well, you have found the difference between evil and neutral! Embrace it. LN druid would care, because the society has better possibilities of making a difference then he himself does. And killing all the people is distasteful, and not justified.
A lawful evil druid would just plain slaughter everyone with his might, and wouldn’t even think twice about it.
More probably, enslave them to renew what they have spoiled. And kill them after that is done.
And what if the druid is intelligent? I mean… what if the druid is actually smarter than the average bear (druid int > int. 2)? How could you rationalize that that druid wouldn’t have enough sense to make his own decisions? He isn’t a druid if he doesn’t have a relatively high wisdom score, so there is nothing that would allow him to be neutral rationally if you are able to choose to be Good, and hence, are responsible for either acting or not acting that way.
I don't think that creatures of animal intelligence can take class levels, so a druid has, by definition, int 3 or more. What stops the druid from choosing neutrality? That is a valid decision. Balance is the key, all extremes are dangerous.
Also, the Barbarian can’t be lawful? What keeps a tyrannical person from flying into a rage? What happened to righteous fury? I really don’t want options for these “special cases”, like prestige classes or anything, I would like to see the restriction go away. Good, Lawful, and Evil are all good restrictions, but having to be neutral or chaotic are… awful restrictions…
Barbarian alignment restriction stems from the innate wildness needed to rage. The rage is reckless; thus, the AC penalty. Losing control like that is extremely distasteful to a lawful character.
I think that restricting anything to good or evil is usually simply overdone. Law and chaos makes or more logical restrictions, though they should simply be suggestions.
Law and Goodness are both hard choices, and evil people will sink to great depths to do what they want to do, so these are terrific specifications for alignment, but to be “Neutral”… *blahg* I say!!!!
Balance, chaos and evil are all hard choices, and good people will go to great lengths to meddle in your affairs, as will the lawful types, too. But for brainless do-gooders, to preach that the Paladin's way is the only true way... "*blahg* I say!!!!
* Lawful and chaotic is a matter of whether you prefer to build a society through safety, or through freedom. Put another way, if you are a collectivist or an individualist. It's not any sort of wise/not wise distinction, and being an individualist is not the same as not thinking before you act, or being foolish.
* The next part of the text is a bit hard to draw any conclusions from. You name a lot of things that are good, unless other things make them evil, again unless other things make those things good. The idea of ranking various affiliations is in no way new. The best one I have seen so far is the system in d20 modern.
* I have yet to meet an atheist who "*worships*" evolution. Subscribing to a scientific theory is in no way the same as believing in a religious dogma. The difference is that a scientific theory is always tested, religious dogma never is. Most of those discussions on evolution or creation are started up by religious people who feel offended by the fact that someone is ascribing to the theory of evolution.
* On family: If you value your family no matter their values, and their values are abysmal, chances are you will be "evil" too. Or perhaps you "value" them enough to "take them out", like with an evil ruler?
* Neutrality is not an option? Wow. How about someone who doesn't go out of his way to help other people, who respects people enough not to meddle, but who dedicates his entire life to making sure the rules of the community are followed? I would place him squarely at lawful neutral, like a very large number of humans. Chaotic neutral is also quite possible. Completely neutral means that the person finds other goals more important, such as protection of nature. Again, check out the d20 modern affiliation system.
* Your views on what a Lawful Evil druid would do and the like are... problematic. "just slaughter everyone with his power"? *boggles at the concept*
* I really don't see any reason why chaotic or neutral is a worse restriction than lawful, good or evil.
If this is going "deeper" in ethics, I'll stick with the PHB definitions any day.
Lawful and chaotic are easy enough to deal with...
Lawful tends to go with wisdom, and Chaotic almost always goes with foolishness. The wise think before they act, and the foolish act without thinking. They don’t even see this as foolishness, they are proud of it… yeah, great for them…
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. Lawful does not mean wise nor does Chaotic mean foolish. It's probably more correct (though still limiting) to say Lawful equates to inflexible and Chaotic equates to flexible. Also, I consider the Law/Chaos axis of alignment at least as important as Good/Evil...possibly more important.
For comparison purposes lets look at the four extremes, Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Evil.
Lawful Good (LG) alignments are often equated with Paladins and other paragons of 'goodness'. Yet a LG judge must enforce any law recognized as good. This leads to situation where said judge must punish a thief, even if she is a mother stealing food to keep her child alive. Admittedly the judge is good and may temper the punishment with mercy, but there must still be punishment. Ethically, the mother did a 'good' thing, she saved the life of her child. Yet this is something a LG character could never do...break the stated law to benefit an individual.
y your article, you equate Lawful Evil (LE) with someone who 'cares' for a group of people, even though the care may be misguided. Hitler was probably as close an example of LE as real life can get. Yes I know some will call Hitler chaotic, but consider his actions. He regulated daily life in Germany to a degree seldom seen, manipulated and created laws for the benefit of those he saw as 'good', and was (Thankfully!) extremely inflexible...he micromanaged events and did not react well to unexpected problems.
A Chaotic Good (CG) person is arguably the 'goodest' person around. He is flexible enough to evaluate a given situation and pursue the best outcome. In most societies he'll be a law abiding citizen simply because the laws are there to benefit society. Yet when the law is inadequate, he is flexible enough to enact the best solution to the problem in spite of the law.
The opposite of CG is of course Chaotic Evil (CE). A CE person reacts in whatever manner they deem appropriate at the time. Generally in the manner most likely to benefit themselves. Essentially the most selfish alignment.
As for neutrality.... Neutrality isn’t an option for a sentient being, as far as alignment goes when concerned with as good and evil. Good is the only “real” thing, and Evil is really a choice made not to do good. The only way you could be neutral is not to know that there is a choice. Hence, an animal would be neutral, but a neutral person would be impossible, either you want to do good or you don’t, and hence, are either good or evil as a result of your sentience.
I'm afraid I don't see the world, or ethics, in such a black and white manner. Neutrality, or gray, exists. Consider the law enforcement officer who doesn't care why or who benefited, just that the law is unbroken. LN. Or the CN politician who simply wants political power...what he does with it depends more on who is able to influence him than on personal ethics. How about a scientist whose only goal is the advancement of knowledge? Is she LN, NN, or CN? She's certainly not good or evil, both require intention.
Lawful and Chaotic have room for Neutrality, though. A person can actively decide to be helpful or harmful to a government, or a person can live his entire life without interfering at all. He could, for example, be a hermit, wanting to be left alone, and leave others alone as well. He could be a good man, who helps those in need when they arrive, or he could be a bitter hermit living alone in spite, or even actively going out to cause some form of harm on occasion, but he could still be Neutral as far as Chaos and Law go.
Just curious, but why don't you think this attitude can apply equally to good and evil? Is the hermit doing either by avoiding interaction with others?
I do not see the alignment restriction for druids as making sense, even though I see why *others* might think it would. Nature (I would say confidently and unabashedly) isn’t sentient enough to have a choice, so therefore, it can’t choose. A druid, however, is a sentient being. He has a choice to make, and it should be seen as perfectly natural to have an alignment. A Lawful Good druid? Impossible? Why? Is it so hard to picture a person in tune with both man and nature? Can there not be a person who can lead a group to do something good for nature? Who better than a druid to rally up a city to change its ways to include nature, but why would a “Neutral Good” person bother with the people enough to see it through. It is a big step (I’m talking “change in alignment” big step) to go from the “who cares about the laws” to “I care about the laws enough to see something done about it”. Why would a Lawful (…*sigh*) Neutral druid bother talking… if he cared enough, he would rain down death from above without moral stipulation (…evil…). A lawful evil druid would just plain slaughter everyone with his might, and wouldn’t even think twice about it. And what if the druid is intelligent? I mean… what if the druid is actually smarter than the average bear ( druid int > int. 2 )? How could you rationalize that that druid wouldn’t have enough sense to make his own decisions? He isn’t a druid if he doesn’t have a relatively high wisdom score, so there is nothing that would allow him to be neutral rationally if you are able to choose to be Good, and hence, are responsible for either acting or not acting that way.
My take on a druid is simply that she makes a conscious choice to put the good of nature (sans intelligent society) at a level equal to or greater than society. Hence a LN druid will follow laws and work within the laws to preserve nature from the depredations of society. A NE druid will actively undermine society to preserve and promote nature.
Also, the Barbarian can’t be lawful? What keeps a tyrannical person from flying into a rage? What happened to righteous fury? I really don’t want options for these “special cases”, like prestige classes or anything, I would like to see the restriction go away.
My personal opinion is the chaotic restriction for barbarians is simply there to show a less developed society. Granted it's parochial at best, but that seems to have been the class creator's attitude towards tribal societies.
Good, Lawful, and Evil are all good restrictions, but having to be neutral or chaotic are… awful restrictions…
Hehe, chaotic is the least 'restrictive' alignment. Neutral doesn't seem restrictive to me either. The extremes you chose are the most restrictive and are meant to be...they are the extremes after all.
So, it is always better to know and understand your place in society, no exceptions? Being chaotic means never thinking about anything before doing it?That's not what chaotic means. It usually just means that you depend on yourself and your own views more than you depend on those of others. You've only torn down a stereotypical straw man of chaotic characters. Lawfulness doesn't signify thinking about your actions any more than chaos does. In fact, lawfulness can mean that you just allow others to think for you. Disobeying an order that you believe is obviously a bad idea is a chaotic act. Even if you understand that this is an excusable and exceptional circumstance, you would still be doing a non-lawful act by not doing as instructed.
For examples of the above scenario, imagine you're in the army and ordered to guard a gate, and not to stray from it. If you saw a group of peasants being slaughtered by an orc off in the distance, would you help them? True, you would abandon your post, but are you going to let all those people be slaughtered because of red tape? Perhaps you are guarding something important, but what if there's a group of guards there with the same orders as you? Should you all take the wise and lawful path, or should you get your heads out of your arses and help them?
Also, what's wrong with a sentient being being neutral? Do you think that everything with a mind can be neatly sorted into good or evil? Three options is barely enough, saying that everyone is one or the other is insane. Okay, so there are no shades of grey at all? What about the guy who doesn't really care that much and just goes about his business? Is he good or evil? If he's good, then that's really stretching what goodness is. He wouldn’t really do anything for anyone beyond what you have to do to be accepted in society. If he's evil, that also weakens the connotations of evil itself. Evil is bad. You can't just walk to town and have a conversation with an evil turnip farmer on the road, and then see a bunch of evil children playing hopscotch, and then pass a group of evil beggars and then listen to the performance of an evil street musician. Good and evil need to actually mean something.
How is being suicidal evil? It's pathetic and sad, but it's by no means evil.
Neutrality is an option for a sentient being. It is two options, especially in the case of a fantasy setting. In the first, it is a state of indecision. Not necessarily valuing good equally with evil, or law with chaos, but simply going along with the opinions of others and things that work best for life, without sacrificing oneself for the sake of others (good), or sacrificing others for sadistic pleasure or for personal advancement (evil). In the second, it is a deliberate choice of attempting to place all sides and people in an equally advantageous situation, regardless of their respective traits of good, evil, lawful, or chaos.
The Alignment restrictions of druids are in place so druids do not forget their place next to nature. Nature is not human, as you say. It is not sentient. It is, in the end, neutral, and druids have to stay next to it.
From what I have read of your post, you believe that Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil are the only "good" choices for a player or npc.
First on this list is your treatment of Law and Chaos. You see the difference as simply a question of whether or not the person thinks before acting. However, this is not part of an outlook on life; it is part of your Wisdom score! Rather, Law and Chaos are better suited to representing the ideals of stability, status quo, and doing what works for the community, versus change (whether for good or ill), flexibility, and honoring the rights of the individual. There is a measure of planning vs. spontaneity, but not to the extent that the spontaneity is inherently foolish; some Lawful people often stick with a plan when it would have been wiser to change course.
Second is your treatment of Good and Evil as how much you value lives. While this is a valid philosophical viewpoint, it creates the issue that you have with Neutrality and the inability to understand why someone could be neither Evil nor Good. Again, the designers did well when they defined Good as "a willingness to suffer for the sake of those unrelated to you" and Evil as "a willingness to make those unrelated to you suffer for your sake". This has a bit to do with value of lives, but it also allows for Neutrality, which does not indicate an inability to make Good and Evil choices, but rather being unwilling to make sacrifices while still being scrupulous enough to avoid actively "riding the backs of others". In fact, most people are neutral.
This of course leads into your discussion of the impossible situations that Neutrality creates, which also has some major issues. It doesn't take a Lawful person to lead people to make a change for the better; in such a situation Law either does so using a careful, preset plan or else is the passive, status-quo feeling that would oppose such a change. And why wouldn't a LN druid want to do anything about the injustice against nature? Alignment does not encompass the entirety of one's motivations, nor should it; such a system would be far to complex to be modeled easily. A Lawful Neutral druid, motivated by his reverence for nature, would think out what path would be the most likely to succeed without sacrificing himself or doing further harm.
It is difficult to see where you were going with your treatise on alignment. However, your complaints are hardly sound given the multiple misunderstandings of the system as it is.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you will find many people that agree with your view of chaotic. I think a more widely accepted version might be that lawful views are that society, politics, religion, or some powerful force dictates most actions and ethics. Chaotics think that actions and ethics should largely be up to the individual.
For example, a lawful society might declare that every male must join the military at age 16 and serve for two years. A chaotic society might feel that every member of society should decide if they should server, when they should serve, and for how long.
For a second example, a lawful society might say that it is illegal to practice martial combat on the third day of every week, as that day is holy and you must rest. A chaotic society might say that the third day of every week is holy, but you should use that holy day however you feel it is best put to use.
So, a lawful character will try to impose structure, while a chaotic character will fight for personal freedoms. Most societies will have some sort of balance between the two.
If you value your life as equal to the life of another sentient being (assuming you are sentient in the first place), “Good”. Well, unless you don't value your life at all, but then, that goes back to evil...
The values one places on life have little to do with good and evil. A bully or rapist could be horrified by murder, but they are still seen as evil. Likewise, a soldier in the army may not value life as much as he does freedom/country, and they are seen as good.
D&D seems to place alignment based more on the intention of a character than their actions. This brings in personal bias as the DM is given the burden of evaluating what he perceives the character thinks, rather than their actions. This is almost an impossible problem to solve, since almost any action by itself cannot be evaluated. For proof, look at history: Rebellions, theft, even assassinations are sometimes viewed as a good thing.
You have made neutrality seem nonexistant. There are many different types of neutrality, and I will list a few:
Lawful neutral: Despite following the law, this person cares little for others. They would not cut in line to get food, but if the person in front of them went to the restroom, they wouldn't be allowed back in line. This doesn't mean they would push them out of line, or that that they would take their spot when they throw something in the trash can 5 ft away (evil). A judge would be other good example- one who cares for the letter of the law, not the meaning.
Chaotic neutral: I have a hard time understanding this personality, so feel free to disagree/correct me here. This person disagrees with law and order. While they may have a few friends, they generally care more for themselves than others. If made a true friend, they would do anything, regardless of legality, for you. Perhaps a gangmember would be an example.
Neutral good: This is the ethical person. No matter what the laws are, they do what they believe to be right. Some of the greatest of these are idolized in history: Ghandi, Mandella, Luther King Jr., etc.
Neutral evil: Another hard person for me. This person would be one who does what they can for themselves. Despite their unethical persuasion, they tend to keep the rules of groups. They may decide their rules are different than societies, but they stick with them (as opposed to chaotic evil).
True neutral: One of the hardest to classify. I dislike the two descriptions given in the PHB, but they are certainly examples. One of which is a dislike for any extremes, the other a 'maintain the status quo' personality. A strong dislike for extremes has always seemed more chaotic good to me than neutral, which is why I don't like the first example. Perhaps a philosopher would fit here.
As for alignment restrictions, I believe most of the alignment restrictions make sense, not from a "You believe this" standpoint, but from a "this is the way you were raised" standpoint. As for loss of status, that is the mechanic I disagree with. Status is more of a societal judgment than a personal decision. If a paladin following his ethics does something perceived illegal, and he loses his paladinhood, that is a societal effect, not a personal. Perhaps paladins are a bad example, as one could ascertain their powers come from a deity. Your example of a barbarian is more appropriate, but I could describe how as the character becomes more conscious of the rules, they maintain a better hold on their anger (thus keeping the ability to rage, but not increasing in level).
Lawful and chaotic are easy enough to deal with...Lawful tends to go with wisdom, and Chaotic almost always goes with foolishness. The wise think before they act, and the foolish act without thinking. They don’t even see this as foolishness, they are proud of it… yeah, great for them…
I think that you are letting your preference for alignments show through here as opposed to looking at how they can reflect personal beliefs. The most typical example of Law vs. Chaos is Sir Lancelot and Robin Hood. Both of these characters are undoubtedly good, but their methodology is quite different. Lancelot has a strict moral code and stands unflinchingly to defend the law, even when it would benefit himself (ala Guinevere, and I know that there are a few stories where he betrays Arthur, but let's look at the "good old days"), yet this does not stop him from being rash from time to time, but he is clearly Lawful. Robin Hood on the other hand has a moral code, yet does not respect the law when it does not benefit him or others. Even though the law is corrupt he makes no effort to reform the system but rather schemes and plots to take the law into his own hands and force a change through a (albeit small and orderly) rebellion. Robin Hood is clearly Chaotic, yet he plans and schemes with the best of them.
Wisdom and foolishness are not benchmarks of alignment but rather aspects of a character described in the stat line. Chaotic and lawful characters with high wisdom scores tend not to be rash in thief choices, their alignment merely shows how much they take the law into account.
My problem with Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic is that it makes Chaotic seem to be actively seeking to thwart all authority. Some Chaotic characters might feel this way but a character who doesn't even consider the law in any of their choices is Chaotic. One who worries about the law running their life and becoming to important is Neutral. Most would flip the two but Chaos shows indifference where Law shows vigilance, and Neutrality shows concern. This system tends to be a good bench mark, ex: Well meaning thieves are taking over a town, a lawful character would oppose such an action, a Neutral character would be concerned about the implications and a Chaotic character would be not be bothered by this if not gleeful.
If you “care” about your people, typically you will be “Lawful” and either good or evil based on how you define “care”, and if you don’t, you will typically be “Chaotic Evil”, because really not caring about your people at all simply isn’t good.
You keep placing Chaos with Evil. Chaotic characters can and often do care about people. If they didn't no Elf would ever love, Robin Hood would never of given and countless other examples. Caring about others has nothing to do with Law and Chaos, and everything to do with Good and Evil.
The same goes for your ruler, the more you value him, the more lawful you will be. If you where a good person under tyrannical rule, you could still “value” your ruler, because he is a powerful enemy, and you must appraise him as worthy of being taken out. Or, you could be Exaltedly Lawful Good, and try to make him see the error of his ways.
If you value your people, you would value a good leader, so these often go together. You *don't* have to *serve* something because you value it. Like I said, if an evil leader is hurting your people, you will value him enough to break whatever laws it takes to take him out, and you will (... should ) still be considered lawful.
Honoring your enemy can be construed as an example of lawful behavior, but it does not make you lawful. Take the Norse, they were far from lawful, and they honored not only their enemies but gave them high praise. If you don't buy that the Norse were Chaotic, look at Klingons from Star Trek or any of the numerous Orc tribes who tell stories of the might of certain Dwarves. Having respect for your enemy is not a Law and Chaos issue, but a Good and Evil issue. A Good character respects all life, no matter how twisted it has become, an Evil character only respects life she deems worthy of respect.
And being Lawful Good does not mean you have to favor laws over morals, if a paladin refuses to kill runaway slaves, as per the law, he is not Chaotic nor has he broken his vow. Good characters uphold just laws, Evil characters exploit laws to their own ends.
I think Good and Evil would be clearer if it was Altruistic and Selfish. Good works to help others, be it a few or many, and Evil seeks only to help itself.
As for neutrality.... Neutrality isn’t an option for a sentient being, as far as alignment goes when concerned with as good and evil. Good is the only “real” thing, and Evil is really a choice made not to do good. The only way you could be neutral is not to know that there is a choice. Hence, an animal would be neutral, but a neutral person would be impossible, either you want to do good or you don’t, and hence, are either good or evil as a result of your sentience.
Your argument has one problem, it assumes that the choice between Good and Evil is obvious. The question of what is Good and why has been debated since Humanity was born. Various definitions have been presented varying from "Knowing and staying in one's proper place" (Plato), "what ever brings the least anxiety" (Epicurus) to "strength and survival" (Nietzsche). Now a days the argument comes down to religion, and real life religion is something WotC wants to stay very far away from (see TSR in the '80's).
But without delving into religion we can look at the typical example of stealing bread to feed your starving family. It clearly is not lawful. But is it Evil? Sure it is selfish, because your starving too, but it shows that you are willing to take a risk to help others, yet you care not for the merchant you have taken from. The action is best seen as Justified. It is neither good nor evil. It is merely Neutral. Let's look at how the alignments would look at this action.
LG- Tragic, but still wrong the thief should have sought out another way to feed his family
NG- Tragic, but still wrong the thief should have made sure that he truly was not harming anyone by his actions.
CG- Tragic, but still wrong, unless the thief stole from someone who was hording food or price gouging ect.
LE- She shouldn't of broken the law, but I can't say I wouldn't do the same in his shoes.
NE- So what, it's not like she took anything good...
CE- She should have taken more, and sold it at a profit.
These 6 alignments lack three crucial reactions
LN- The law is the law, breaking it for any reason is morally wrong
TN- There is no difference between taking that a wolf eating a deer, why is this an issue?
CN- People seek to live, and live well, nothing should stop someone from that, Law or Ethic. Life and freedom is more important.
Neutrality isn't indifference, it is understanding. Good characters slip up some times, that doesn't make them Evil or even Neutral, but how a character reacts to it is a good hit towards his alignment.
Good- Sees the slip as a failure and must atone in some way, and always seek to alleviate their shame.
Neutral- The slip is just that, no one is perfect, we shouldn't expect that of anyone.
Evil- See! I told you he was no better than me. If he were in my shoes he'd of killed 'em too!
A Lawful Good druid? Impossible? Why? Is it so hard to picture a person in tune with both man and nature? Can there not be a person who can lead a group to do something good for nature? Who better than a druid to rally up a city to change its ways to include nature, but why would a “Neutral Good” person bother with the people enough to see it through. It is a big step (I’m talking “change in alignment” big step) to go from the “who cares about the laws” to “I care about the laws enough to see something done about it”.
A LG druid is impossible because nature can be a lot of things, kind, cruel, chaotic, orderly, vicious and tame, but it cannot be one thing all of the time. LG implies a constant state of both moral and ethical (legal) vigilance. A LG druid could not abide by lions slaughtering zebras, because it is wrong to kill and illegal! The Extremes of alignments take things to the extremes.
Your example has a problem, Neutral Good is not Chaotic Good. A Neutral character has no problems using laws, he just isn't all that rigid about them. A NG druid setting up a charter of clearly defined laws is an alignment change waiting to happen. But a NG proposing that a city takes nature into consideration, and even gives some vague guidelines, in not in danger of alignment change. If he starts enforcing the laws then he has a problem.
Also leading people is not always a lawful act. Otherwise orcs would only move in parties of 1-2. Some leaders are lawful and strict, others are chaotic and easygoing. Leadership does not imply Lawfulness.
Why would a Lawful (…*sigh*) Neutral druid bother talking… if he cared enough, he would rain down death from above without moral stipulation (…evil…).
You mistake Neutral for Evil. A LN would try to introduce a charter if it failed he would then, working as close to the law as he could exact the toll for those who fail to uphold charter. In effect tell the town whether they like it or not he will institute and up hold the charter.
A lawful evil druid would just plain slaughter everyone with his might, and wouldn’t even think twice about it.
Whoa! You missed that mark. Why would a LE druid kill people when he had the chance to manipulate them? If a LE druid was possible, they would probably rule to forests like tyrants, threatening both cities and animals with retribution if their will was not done. Slaughter everyone is something a stupid CE, angry NE or a desperate LE character does, not a LE working for a cause. Evil does not mean stupid.
Also, the Barbarian can’t be lawful? What keeps a tyrannical person from flying into a rage? What happened to righteous fury? I really don’t want options for these “special cases”, like prestige classes or anything, I would like to see the restriction go away. Good, Lawful, and Evil are all good restrictions, but having to be neutral or chaotic are… awful restrictions…
Why is Lawful an acceptable restriction but Chaotic not? A Barbarian is a good example, the class is based around the concept that she is so untamed she can tap into a reserve of strength that saner people wouldn't dare to. Lawful characters would refuse to do such a thing because it is to reckless and unpredictable. I'll do a case by case for each alignment.
LG, LN, LE- too reckless, it creates too many weaknesses. Anyway discipline can beat rage any day of the week.
NG, CG- Righteous Wrath! Not to be confined by law I will carve justice in any way I can.
TN, NE, CN, CE- A means to an end, whatever that may be.
Just because you dislike playing non-lawful characters doesn't mean the restriction doesn't make sense. I dislike playing characters who can't cast spells, does that mean the fighter and monk should have spell lists?
Law and Goodness are both hard choices, and evil people will sink to great depths to do what they want to do, so these are terrific specifications for alignment, but to be “Neutral”… *blahg* I say!!!!
And yet Neutrality and Chaos shape a character no less the Law, Good and Evil.
If you want to say that alignment shows wisdom, I'd say that Lawful is a lack of wisdom, and Chaos has more wisdom. Those that are lawful rely on their law and follow it, thus not needing to think for themselves, ethically anyway. Chaotic think for themselves all the time, taking each situation individually. Personally, I don't think that Law and Chaos have anything to do with wisdom, but if you want to apply it, I think it would go like this.
To say that sentient beings can't be neither good nor evil is absurd. I think most everyday people are Something Neutral. They do "good" things most of the time, but every so often find themselves doing something they know they shouldn't. So, let say a 6 year old N girl wants gum. She asks her mom. Mom says no. Girl knows stealing is wrong, but really wants gum. When mommy is paying for groceries, girl pockets a pack of gum. The week before hand, the girl helped her friend against bullies, fed some stray cats, and did her homework without needing to be told. Does this act of stealing mean that the girl is Evil. Absolutely not. Does her doing lots of good things make her good. No. She falls in between.
Evil. What defines an evil act? In my game, I define evil as how much it hurt someone else. If one of my PC stole a pack of gum, I would see it as a Chaotic act, not an evil act. Why? Who was really hurt by it? No one. If they chose to steal a magical item, I would define that as an evil act. Evil is an act taken with the intent to cause someone harm. The girl stealing the gum didn't want to hurt anyone. She just wanted some gum. A person who steals an arena Champion's +5 Keen Vorpol Longsword of Ultimate Nastiness and replaces it with a -5 Blunt Backstabbing Longsword so he will die in his next match is evil. The thief is purposefully sabotaging the fight and placing the fighter in extreme (hopefully fatal) danger. A king who takes all the food in the kingdom for himself and only gives a pound of wheat to each family for the month is evil. He knows that many will die, he just doesn't care. These define evil.
Rage. What keeps a monk from flying into a productive rage is the same thing that keeps a barbarian from adding Wisdom to AC. Their outlook. A monk is lawful because she spends her life honing her skills to utter perfection. To go into a rage is to throw all that training out the window. A barbarian is non-lawful because he spends his time wandering the wilds. The only law he knows is eat or be eaten. He flies into a rage so he can match power with a polar bear he just accidentally shot. He doesn’t have the perfect skills that a monk has, so he has to match the wild's fury with his own. The monk COULD fly into a rage (Role Playing), it just won't be very productive. As far as righteous fury, the paladin gets Smite Evil, the druid can Wildshape into an elemental, and the monk can move 90 feet to deal a d20 with her fist. How much more "righteous fury" can you get.
I personally like the restrictions on the classes. I see where they come from and like the RPing challenge.
Chaos:
I’m not joking about chaotic people being foolish. If you want to tell me that people who don’t go along with their own beliefs, and who refuse to listen to a positive authority figure are wise… go for it, I won’t stop you. But I was talking about deep, serious ethics and morals, and making a system for it, and I say that on a deeper level, it really is foolish to be chaotic. Lawfuls may ignore laws when they aren’t “good,” but chaotics don’t follow laws unless they have to. Not following *anything* that has been done before is pretty foolish, but trying out new things isn’t “unlawful.” Think about it this way: how many famous people do you know can be considered both “chaotic” and wise at the same time? Just because you are revolutionary doesn’t mean you aren’t lawful.
Suicide:
Suicidal people don’t kill themselves for other people’s sake. It isn’t suicide to die for another’s sake, or if it is, then I’m confused about the meaning of suicide. *Killing* yourself is evil, because you are destroying your ability to do good, to help people. Taking your life just to take your life is evil. I don’t think this comes up in a typical D&D game but in a deeply morally based game, it might.
My point:
1. Lawful commonly implies being stupid because players think that it means that lawfuls aren’t understanding of other people’s views, and that they value the law above the people.
2. Neutral commonly implies being confused, but is playable, because players don’t have to worry about them doing the right thing in one situation and then having to do the wrong thing later, because of arbitrary limitations.
3. Chaotic commonly implies being smart, because now characters can be all understanding, and they don’t have to arbitrarily follow *EVERY SINGLE RULE THEY COME ACROSS*
But this isn’t really what I feel lawful and chaotic should imply. Lawfuls stick to their values (however good or evil they are), and respect authority either out of concern for people’s welfare, or because of the power they can get from it. Depending on the other piece of their alignment, they might try sharing their point of view, listening to what they have to say, or forcing their views on others.
Chaotics do not have to be evil, but being stupid and foolish are almost prerequisites. Going out of your way to give the finger to authority isn’t a very wise thing to do. Evil hurts it’s ability to “climb the ladder of power” and good people aren’t being very good… Trying not to do things the way they have been done at least once before changing it isn’t a very smart thing to do, no matter what your alignment is.
Always doing things the same way doesn’t make you a paragon of law, and always trying to do things differently doesn’t make you chaotic if you are doing things differently for “the good”. Experimentation (social, political, scientific, etc.) isn’t chaotic.
What is chaotic is, for example, is throwing paint on a wall to make art. Calling that art is stupid, in my opinion. If you wanted to make art but did that to make it, that was very foolish (also my opinion). If you simply wanted to do something differently than “normal” painting, then it might be fairly silly to do something like that, but it wouldn’t call for an alignment shift. If you wanted to change a law… well, that is very much situational, but the painting example should give you the same idea.
A lawful person could easily fight a tyrant, because he *defiantly* doesn’t respect the law more than the people under the tyrant’s rule. Chaotic people disrespect all authority, so even chaotic good people would be getting in the way of progress of a good society.
A lawful person wouldn’t value restrictions *at all* unless he was really evil. Valuing guidelines and understanding consequences for actions is the path to wisdom, though, and laws made to keep people from hurting others is good.
Speed limits? They keep you from killing other people and dying. Taxes? Who the heck else is going to pay for roads? But “valuing restrictions”? No way, that isn’t a lawful/chaotic issue. That is a good/evil issue.
Neutrality:
Trying to keep a balance between good and evil, and fighting to make the balance remain, is a very sick, evil, twisted, foolish, and self destructive thing to do. Both evil and good people would constantly die because of you; you are perpetuating death, and inhibiting progress.
In the example about the druid, you are destroying nature itself, the very thing you serve as a druid, because both good and evil will need weapons and fortifications to protect from and attack the other side, and that will involve the “exploitation of nature” very heavily. Everything that they destroy will need to be replaced, and will be replaced if neither side wins completely. If you quit “preserving the balance/shooting yourself in the foot” and go to the other “extreme of neutrality” you are still evil, because that would involve killing *everybody* who doesn’t respect nature to the same level as you. And I say that is really evil.
I don’t believe that you can be truly neutral. You can be a little good, or a little evil. If you play both sides *why* becomes a very important factor. If you are possessed or are a half demon, and you do horrible things, but try constantly to redeem yourself of them: mildly good. If you only do enough to get by, and don’t help anybody at all, but don’t hurt either: mildly evil. If you only help those you know, but never go out of your way to help people you don’t know, or go to too much trouble to help: mildly good. If you value nature more that sentient life: evil.
Loving and evil family:
I don’t care about making something “new” so much as I care about making something better. I don’t like the current system of alignment for D&D, and if another system has a better one, that is great. I shall try to have a look at it, if I can.
If you *hate* your evil family, and would rather them die than be redeemed, then you are evil. If you love your evil family, and would like to see them become good, then you are good. I don’t believe in a middle ground where you could hate your family and still be good.
A “new” way of defining things:
Ethics are how well you adhere to your morals. Chaotic good may do good, but won’t always do it the right way, because you don’t even *try* to do it the right way. Lawful Evil will methodically calculate every situation you are in to find the best possible way to make yourself powerful. Lawful good will out of one’s way to make sure that you are as good as you can be. Chaotic Evil will do anything that pleases you. CE will kill someone in broad daylight in front of the town guard, and for no reason at all other than you wanted to.
I believe in grey, but grey is made of black and white. You can have 50% grey, but a 50% good 50% evil person is unimaginably weird to me. Give me a example… or are there any? Is neutral so utterly impossible that nobody can find an example?
“Doing evil” and “being Evil” are different in my mind… but if it all depended on actions, then I guess there could be room for neutrality (but that would mean you didn’t *do* anything, and hence… why would you ever even encounter them?)
Law, chaos, and wisdom:
Did I really state that *all* lawful people are wise, or did I not say “typically?” I don’t retract my views on chaos, however. Maybe the word means something different to the D&D community, but to me, chaotic=foolish (no exceptions, *ever*), and lawful is complex, where it can wise or foolish.
Lawful would mean that you have values, and you try to uphold them, where chaotic means that you have values that you don’t really try to uphold.
Who gives a flying hoo-ha whether you are ordered to stand at a post? That is more loyalty than lawfulness. Your own morals are law to you, and you are upholding them.
Good, Evil, and the ability to do them:
Why does “evil” have to be so bad? Evil is evil, be it stealing candy from a baby or murder. It is the degree of evil or good that is important. My belief is that every mortal has the capability to commit good and evil, and will utilize both abilities as we learn about.
Evil children playing hopscotch:
It is unlikely that I would say the children are evil, but is it impossible to imagine that the only reason a child wouldn’t be committing some horrible crime is because he *can’t* do it, or that he is to afraid to do it with all the grownups watching him? The same goes for everybody. Based on your abilities, do you use your ability for good or not? A beggar might not have much ability at all, but his heart is where you will find either good or evil.
The only real alignments--
Ethics:
1. Lawful: strict adherence to moral values.
2. Neutral: will act on morals typically, but is willing to "sell out" under stress
3. Chaotic: might have morals, but you couldn't tell by his actions. Often "sells out" morals to get a job done.
Morals:
"Good" is universally recognized, but "acceptable" wavers from person to person, culture to culture. How far you are willing to go from good determines how evil you are. Mortals simply aren't equipped to be completely good or completely evil, but they are capable of coming close. This means that rather than making things black and white, I'm making *almost everything* grey, but there is still a wide variety of personalities between people.
And of course, you can have a chaotic character, just like you can have an evil character. I'm just saying that I would place law and goodness over chaos and evil. How many chaotically aligned characters have high wisdom scores anyway?
In response to Battledragon5:
Respecting the cougar and the deer is different that respecting good and evil, because not only are the cougar and deer both neutral, but the cougar is hungry and would die if it didn’t eat. Human situations would be different than that, because humans have souls. I agree with monks being lawful and *sigh* “barbarians” being chaotic, but “barbarian” isn’t so much an archetype as “berserker,” and while they are reckless in combat, it doesn’t have to mean they are reckless in life.
Chaos:
I’m not joking about chaotic people being foolish. If you want to tell me that people who don’t go along with their own beliefs, and who refuse to listen to a positive authority figure are wise… go for it, I won’t stop you.
First off, it is your own definition that chaotic people don't go by their own beliefs. I say that the chaotic ones are most passionate about what they do believe, be it good or evil. Also, chaotic neutrals simply ignore laws, usually they don't oppose them, but in principle. CG will attempt to stop laws because the reduce choices, and choices are deemed a Good Thing. CE, because the laws restrict the CE's own choices.
But I was talking about deep, serious ethics and morals, and making a system for it, and I say that on a deeper level, it really is foolish to be chaotic.
A circular definition can't be proven right. You say that chaos is foolish because you define it as foolish. This is called a tautology. It is true that chaos being foolish follows from chaos being foolish, but nothing do we learn by that.
Lawfuls may ignore laws when they aren’t “good,” but chaotics don’t follow laws unless they have to.
Lawfuls may ignore laws, but they think that there is the perfect way of being and attempt to reach it. Laws are a useful tool for achieving that. Or, like me, lawful people are for laws because they want routines, to be able to focus on more important things. LAwfuls believe that there is the right way, and it should be reached for. Chaotics can follow laws without being much less chaotic. They oppose the concept behind the laws; that there is a sinlge right way. Chaotics see (this is a lawful person attempting to understand chaos, and is biased towards law, but the best I have came up with) that there are things not considered, and countless choices and situations, so sticking with laws is a bad thing. They don't oppose laws, necessarily, as much as they do what feels best at the moment. Chaotics trust on their skill at improvising, lawfuls as their skill of planning.
Not following *anything* that has been done before is pretty foolish, but trying out new things isn’t “unlawful.”
Trying out new things is chaotic. Law is a misleading term, order would be better. But, back to the point. If there is an establsihed way of doing things, lawfuls we use it. If existing ways are clearly inadequate or otherwise flawed, lawfuls will attempt to see why and adapt the old method. Chaotics, OTOH, don't have established ways, they always consider the situation as is and use what seems most efficient. This can include further research on the matter, mind.
Think about it this way: how many famous people do you know can be considered both “chaotic” and wise at the same time? Just because you are revolutionary doesn’t mean you aren’t lawful.
Jesus. No matter how much I disrespect Christianity, the founder had some worthwhile, if utopistic, thoughts. And he commonly ignored laws and customs, and such. Not lawful, at least.
Suicidal people don’t kill themselves for other people’s sake. It isn’t suicide to die for another’s sake, or if it is, then I’m confused about the meaning of suicide. *Killing* yourself is evil, because you are destroying your ability to do good, to help people. Taking your life just to take your life is evil. I don’t think this comes up in a typical D&D game but in a deeply morally based game, it might.
A hostage situation. A crossbow (gun, whatever) is pointed at a worker who knows a password for some place. Assume that this password getting on wrong hands, such as those holding the weapon, is extremely bad thing. It is a suicide, pretty much. Or a mother jumping under a car and pushing her child from getting driven over, at the same time. Have you considered that not all people are out there trying to help others? An emotionally scarred, angst-ridden youngster doing a suicide to "make it stop" is not evil. Only stupid. IMHO.
1. Lawful commonly implies being stupid because players think that it means that lawfuls aren’t understanding of other people’s views, and that they value the law above the people.
Not understanding other's views is often true. LG pretty much always values the people over the law. LN not so, necessarily. Single ones can be sacrificed for the benefit of many, LN say. LE can go either way, really. Hitler valued people, in his own (and not very Good) way.
2. Neutral commonly implies being confused, but is playable, because players don’t have to worry about them doing the right thing in one situation and then having to do the wrong thing later, because of arbitrary limitations.
I must confess, I thought that you were saying that there is no neutrality whatsoever. Sorry for that. I think that your logic has certain tiny little hole. Mainly, your thesis is that there is no neutrality, everyone is a little bit good or evil. But than you say that there are no absolutely good nor evil people, either, and don't say that there is no goon nor evil. It is the same thing. There may not be absolutely neutral people, but neither are there absolutely good, nor absolutely evil people. That doesn't stop neutrality from existing any more than it stops good or evil.
Lawfuls stick to their values (however good or evil they are), and respect authority either out of concern for people’s welfare, or because of the power they can get from it.
The positive side of Lawfulness, true.
Depending on the other piece of their alignment, they might try sharing their point of view, listening to what they have to say, or forcing their views on others.
LG, openminded, LE, respectively. LN way is thinking that the law would be good for everyone, but not necessarily preaching it. Doing as the Law says is LN, no matter the circumstances.
Chaotics do not have to be evil, but being stupid and foolish are almost prerequisites. Going out of your way to give the finger to authority isn’t a very wise thing to do.
They don't all do that! Got it? Not all chaos tries to stop or topple laws. Especially the evil ones, and many neutrals, may simply think that they are the fools for sticking with rules in an unpredictable world, their problem. Only the most active, and often (though not even nearly always) good, chaotics will go out of their way to actively oppose the very authority. The more conservative ones can attempt to reduce laws, resulting in greater freedom, though those are still active. The most independent simply don't give a damn.
Evil hurts it’s ability to “climb the ladder of power” and good people aren’t being very good…
So, laws are always Good. An easy fallacy to fall on nowadays, in a modern society. US, BTW, has pretty chaotic mindset when it comes to politics. Freedom for all, everyone must fend for themselves (pretty nonexistant social security...).
Trying not to do things the way they have been done at least once before changing it isn’t a very smart thing to do, no matter what your alignment is.
Sometimes it is. Often not. Chaotics can be as smart as the lawfuls, remember. They do what is best, not what has been done before (which may be a sign or working). The stupid chaotics can try something new and unlikely even with established working methods. Stupid lawfuls will use and reuse old methods, even if they clearly do not work.
Always doing things the same way doesn’t make you a paragon of law, and always trying to do things differently doesn’t make you chaotic if you are doing things differently for “the good”. Experimentation (social, political, scientific, etc.) isn’t chaotic.
Experiments are chaotic. doing things the same way (often referred to as "tradition") is lawful. Chaotics do not consider it an experiment, they only do it because it seems the best thing to do.
What is chaotic is, for example, is throwing paint on a wall to make art. Calling that art is stupid, in my opinion. If you wanted to make art but did that to make it, that was very foolish (also my opinion). If you simply wanted to do something differently than “normal” painting, then it might be fairly silly to do something like that, but it wouldn’t call for an alignment shift. If you wanted to change a law… well, that is very much situational, but the painting example should give you the same idea.
Agreed on modern art. Nevertheless, it is an experiment; will people appreciate it?
A lawful person could easily fight a tyrant, because he *defiantly* doesn’t respect the law more than the people under the tyrant’s rule. Chaotic people disrespect all authority, so even chaotic good people would be getting in the way of progress of a good society.
An LG one appreciated the people more. Others questionable. Chaotics take things individually, they dislike groupings. So a chaotic one would consider if a single person was worth the effort, and help or not help. Some would, of course, be patriots and consider one nationality/race a time. Few do disrespect all authority by default, but not all.
A lawful person wouldn’t value restrictions *at all* unless he was really evil. Valuing guidelines and understanding consequences for actions is the path to wisdom, though, and laws made to keep people from hurting others is good.
Lawfuls do value restrictions. That is pretty much the definition. Restrict people from risking themselves/others is what an LG person thinks. Restricting inappropriate behaviour is for the LN. LE restrict what they deem inappropriate, which is not usually very benevolent in the long run. Path to wisdom is not inherently lawful. Your tautology strikes again; because law is wisdom wisdom leads to lawfulness.
Speed limits? They keep you from killing other people and dying. Taxes? Who the heck else is going to pay for roads? But “valuing restrictions”? No way, that isn’t a lawful/chaotic issue. That is a good/evil issue.
You do know that many countries have a lot heavier taxation than the US does. In Finland they are used to pay schooling, social security, pensions, healthcare, etc. for everyone. More restrictions in the form of laws give equality to people.
Neutrality:
Trying to keep a balance between good and evil, and fighting to make the balance remain, is a very sick, evil, twisted, foolish, and self destructive thing to do. Both evil and good people would constantly die because of you; you are perpetuating death, and inhibiting progress.
You missed the point; the too great edge on anyone's part is more dangerous than keeping the balance. Good proponents of balance would try to negotiate peace, not wage wars, of course.
In the example about the druid, you are destroying nature itself, the very thing you serve as a druid, because both good and evil will need weapons and fortifications to protect from and attack the other side, and that will involve the “exploitation of nature” very heavily. Everything that they destroy will need to be replaced, and will be replaced if neither side wins completely. If you quit “preserving the balance/shooting yourself in the foot” and go to the other “extreme of neutrality” you are still evil, because that would involve killing *everybody* who doesn’t respect nature to the same level as you. And I say that is really evil.
So, it is impossible for alignments other than neutrality to not be at each others throats openly, in total war. Right.
If you value nature more that sentient life: evil.
What about equally?
A “new” way of defining things:
Ethics are how well you adhere to your morals. Chaotic good may do good, but won’t always do it the right way, because you don’t even *try* to do it the right way. Lawful Evil will methodically calculate every situation you are in to find the best possible way to make yourself powerful. Lawful good will out of one’s way to make sure that you are as good as you can be. Chaotic Evil will do anything that pleases you. CE will kill someone in broad daylight in front of the town guard, and for no reason at all other than you wanted to.
You are, of course, free to do as you want, but that certainly isn't going "deeper" on ethics, that is removing two alignments in favour of conviction.
I believe in grey, but grey is made of black and white. You can have 50% grey, but a 50% good 50% evil person is unimaginably weird to me. Give me a example… or are there any? Is neutral so utterly impossible that nobody can find an example?
Neutrality isn't always the balance of forces, it can be sufficient lack of them.
Lawful would mean that you have values, and you try to uphold them, where chaotic means that you have values that you don’t really try to uphold.
Not at all, except by your definition.
Who gives a flying hoo-ha whether you are ordered to stand at a post? That is more loyalty than lawfulness. Your own morals are law to you, and you are upholding them.
You can't deny that standing at the post, whatever happens, isn't lawful. Remember, each alignment has both positives and negatives.
Good, Evil, and the ability to do them: Why does “evil” have to be so bad? Evil is evil, be it stealing candy from a baby or murder. It is the degree of evil or good that is important. My belief is that every mortal has the capability to commit good and evil, and will utilize both abilities as we learn about.
Capacity commit and not to commit. I can very well live and not commit significantly aligned acts, on the given axis.
Are you going to tell me that a samurai killing himself because following his daimyo's orders would dishonor his family but so would NOT following them is committing an evil act? Mind you, he is killing himself in order to prevent his family's name (and his surviving kin) from being dishonored and disgraced. Yet to Christians, this is evil?
If you want to make this 'Alignments in a D&D Game Using a Christian Framework', then you're free to do so, but representing that as 'Alignment' for all D&D is very misleading. D&D morality does not use a Judeo-Christian framework, but rather an absolute framework drawn from the most positive aspects of most of the religions currently existing.
Basically, it boils down to this:
On the Good/Evil axis, good represents the willingness to sacrifice for others, evil the willingness of harm others for yourself, and neutral indicates that while you're not willing to sacrifice for others save for some extreme reason, you're also not willing to (directly) harm others for your own benefit. Conscience also matters a big deal.
The law/evil axis is a little more nebulous.
Lawful characters typically believe that law and order are necessary for society to function, and/or they are extremely ordered/structured. Neutral characters tend to follow laws out of inertia or because they feel some laws are necessary, but they'll break laws if they feel the laws aren't appropriate, or they feel there needs to be a balance between structure and freedom. Chaotic characters aren't too concerned with laws (although they may well follow them to avoid punishment) and will tend to ignore them when they're inconvenient. Chaos can also indicate lack of structure and planning, or randomness in action. Finch was lawful, while you have to agree Stiffler was chaotic.
It's perfectly possible for CE people to work together for the betterment of each, and it's perfectly possible for LG characters to be utterly opposed to each other, or even for LG kingdoms to go to war with each other.
And personally, I consider the average person to be CN with strong evil tendencies. But that's a discussion for a different thread.
LG- Tragic, but still wrong the thief should have sought out another way to feed his family
NG- Tragic, but still wrong the thief should have made sure that he truly was not harming anyone by his actions.
CG- Tragic, but still wrong, unless the thief stole from someone who was hording food or price gouging ect.
I disagree on the third, at the very least. I would argue that most chaotics would hold that merchant in question would suffer little from his loss. The average CG would say that, unless you're stealing the food from someone who’s not substantially better off than you, starvation-theft is more than justified.
If you want to tell me that people who don’t go along with their own beliefs, and who refuse to listen to a positive authority figure are wise… go for it, I won’t stop you.
Welcome to straw-man arguments. Who said that Chaotics are going to ignore out of hand the advice of an authority? A Chaotic will consider it; it's just that they likely won't consider it good advice solely because it comes from a mayor or an elder as opposed to a non-authority (unless it's an expert on the pertinent subject). Chaotics will rarely appeal to authority, because who are they to say what the best option is? But flat out reject? No. Similarly, a Chaotic is perfectly capable and willing to follow their own belief.
Your problem, Paul, is that you (ironically, perhaps) allow far greater leniency for the lawful mindset than the chaotic. Thus a Chaotic person is compelled to break every law, while a Lawful person will obey them unless he disagrees with them; I would argue that the situation is in fact more likely to be the reverse, where the Lawful person (according to one view, at least) will respect the laws and rarely break them, while the Chaotic will be more willing to break or follow at their own digression.
You can heap all manner of abuse onto the alignment you disagree with, but don't pretend that this is SRD gospel. Chaos is change, and change is chaotic; those who are lawful can innovate, but they are far less likely to than the chaotics, because they are inclined to see the virtues of the system they find themselves in; chaotics are inclined to see the faults.
A hint to this problem is the fact that everyone who answered you said more or less the same thing. If you really do wish to discuss the alignment system, read up on it. It would help you to discard that definition of "ethics" you carry around, it has nothing to do with how much you stick to your values.
Chaos:
I’m not joking about chaotic people being foolish. If you want to tell me that people who don’t go along with their own beliefs, and who refuse to listen to a positive authority figure are wise… go for it, I won’t stop you. But I was talking about deep, serious ethics and morals, and making a system for it, and I say that on a deeper level, it really is foolish to be chaotic.
Ok, maybe it is "foolish" to be chaotic. But I still say it has nothing to do with being wise. Some chaotic characters are chaotic because they don't think before they act. Not really a conscious choice to be chaotics, just how they are wired. Other are chaotic to get attention. And, still some, are chaotic because they are opposed to the law. Be it because they think it unfair, or because the law favors only a few. Communism is an example of a law, and America actively opposed communism. Actually, I think America is a great example of a chaotic entity. We go in, establish ourselves, overthrow the government in place, set up our own, then leave. Whether you think this to be good or evil is up to you.
Lawfuls may ignore laws when they aren’t “good,” but chaotics don’t follow laws unless they have to.
"Lawfuls" that don't follow a law because it isn't good aren’t lawful. Lawfuls follow all laws, no matter what. Else, they would be neutral.
Not following *anything* that has been done before is pretty foolish, but trying out new things isn’t “unlawful.” Think about it this way: how many famous people do you know can be considered both “chaotic” and wise at the same time?
Dr. Martin L King would be a very wise "chaotic" famous person. He actively opposed the law, gave one of the most famous and inspiring speeches in American history, and is loved by many even after his death. He took part in protests, demonstrations, and other activities to oppose the law (chaotic) in the name of equal rights. He died for his dream, because another chaotic person shot him.
Suicide:
Suicidal people don’t kill themselves for other people’s sake. It isn’t suicide to die for another’s sake, or if it is, then I’m confused about the meaning of suicide. *Killing* yourself is evil, because you are destroying your ability to do good, to help people. Taking your life just to take your life is evil. I don’t think this comes up in a typical D&D game but in a deeply morally based game, it might.
In the military, they have things called "Suicide Missions". They are missions where those carrying it out have a slim to none chance of coming home. I know a person that is joining the Marines because he doesn't want to live anymore. So, he enlisted, with the goal to do these types of missions until he dies. He hopes that it doesn't take long. Is he trying to end his life? Yes. Is he helping others by doing so? Yes. Is this evil? I certainly don't think so. At least his mother can bury him with the knowledge that he died serving others.
My point:
1. Lawful commonly implies being stupid because players think that it means that lawfuls aren’t understanding of other people’s views, and that they value the law above the people.
That is because they aren’t open to other's views. They say their way is the only way. So you can leave, you can convert, or you can die. There are no other options in the eyes of the lawful.
2. Neutral commonly implies being confused, but is playable, because players don’t have to worry about them doing the right thing in one situation and then having to do the wrong thing later, because of arbitrary limitations.
Neutral is the norm, I think. Most people, as I think I said before, are Neutral, Something Neutral, or Neutral Something. Why? Because people are inherently evil. Look at the news. Or the commercials for the news. What takes up most of the news cast. Murder. Theft. Kidnapping. Now, how many good things are shown, other than weather and sports? Why do they have laws? Laws are made to be broken. We all break the rules every day of our lives. We all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, we all hate, we all judge, we are all sinners. And if you say you're not, I hope that you don't get struck by lightning. So, we spend our lives trying to do good, so we can spend eternity with our maker only to keep doing "evil". What happens? We end up in the middle: Neutral. That is as close we mere mortals can get to divinity or "Good".
3. Chaotic commonly implies being smart, because now characters can be all understanding, and they don’t have to arbitrarily follow *EVERY SINGLE RULE THEY COME ACROSS*
"Improvise, adapt, overcome." This is a quote from my High School math/comp sci teacher. (He is also my son's godfather. FYI.) This is what I use to describe Chaotic. Not smart, intelligence wise (though they can be) but street smart (wisdom). They have an ability to go off the beaten path and make their own road. Then, they show others their road, and soon, people follow the road. Dr. King is a good example. Granted he didn't start the road, he certainly guided others down it. Rosa Parks also strayed from the beaten path when she wouldn't get up from her seat. It was the law.
Chaotics do not have to be evil, but being stupid and foolish are almost prerequisites. Going out of your way to give the finger to authority isn’t a very wise thing to do. Evil hurts it’s ability to “climb the ladder of power” and good people aren’t being very good… Trying not to do things the way they have been done at least once before changing it isn’t a very smart thing to do, no matter what your alignment is.
Again, intellect has nothing to do with alignment. Alignment is a moral standpoint and to say that someone’s views are "stupid" is a very ignorant and Lawful thing to say. And Evil "climbs the ladder of power" faster than anyone. Why? Because they don't care who they hurt. So, they lie, cheat and steal until they are just where they want to be. Good would never do things like that, so they are on the lower rungs. Chaos isn't about doing things different just because. It is about not letting yourself be chained down by someone else’s rules (at least, some one you don't respect). It doesn't mean you do 8,000 mph down the highway, just that you are willing to bend rules for the better good (or evil). A lawful person would go home with no food to feed his family (not a copper to his name), while a chaotic person would steal a loaf of bread so at least his wife and kid could eat.
What is chaotic is, for example, is throwing paint on a wall to make art. Calling that art is stupid, in my opinion. If you wanted to make art but did that to make it, that was very foolish (also my opinion). If you simply wanted to do something differently than “normal” painting, then it might be fairly silly to do something like that, but it wouldn’t call for an alignment shift. If you wanted to change a law… well, that is very much situational, but the painting example should give you the same idea.
... That was a horrible example. All I got from it is you don't like ink blots.
A lawful person could easily fight a tyrant, because he *defiantly* doesn’t respect the law more than the people under the tyrant’s rule. Chaotic people disrespect all authority, so even chaotic good people would be getting in the way of progress of a good society.
The chaotic would be more prone to fighting a tyrant. The tyrant may be a tyrant, but he is the law. And according to you, the lawful follow the law.
Neutrality:
Trying to keep a balance between good and evil, and fighting to make the balance remain, is a very sick, evil, twisted, foolish, and self destructive thing to do. Both evil and good people would constantly die because of you; you are perpetuating death, and inhibiting progressAs I said before, Neutrality really isn't a active choice. It is a side effect of evil creature trying to be good. Or, people not wanting to be involved in law one way or another. They follow the law, but they won't tell their buddy to.In the example about the druid, you are destroying nature itself, the very thing you serve as a druid, because both good and evil will need weapons and fortifications to protect from and attack the other side, and that will involve the “exploitation of nature” very heavily. Everything that they destroy will need to be replaced, and will be replaced if neither side wins completely. If you quit “preserving the balance/shooting yourself in the foot” and go to the other “extreme of neutrality” you are still evil, because that would involve killing *everybody* who doesn’t respect nature to the same level as you. And I say that is really evil
I say Lawful Good is evil. You force your views on those that don't share them or kill them (ruin reputation, slit neck, etc.) if they don't convert. That is not good. So, I think you need to rethink that there. As far as neutrality, on the Law/Chaos axis it means, you may not share my views, and I won't force it on you.Loving and evil family:
I don’t care about making something “new” so much as I care about making something better. I don’t like the current system of alignment for D&D, and if another system has a better one, that is great. I shall try to have a look at it, if I can.
I think you should make something new, cuz the alignments are fine as is. And my group gets pretty deep ethically.A “new” way of defining things:
Ethics are how well you adhere to your morals. Chaotic good may do good, but won’t always do it the right way, because you don’t even *try* to do it the right way. Lawful Evil will methodically calculate every situation you are in to find the best possible way to make yourself powerful.
Now, this is complicated, so bear with me. A LE would calculate methodically, but so would a CG. If both were in a pinch, they would both look for loopholes to escape through. The LE would do this so he would still be in the frame of the law. The CG would do this because, well he's chaotic. Or the CG would follow the letter of the law, using it to his advantage. Both require methodical planning in a matter of moments. One of those funny things.I believe in grey, but grey is made of black and white. You can have 50% grey, but a 50% good 50% evil person is unimaginably weird to me. Give me a example… or are there any? Is neutral so utterly impossible that nobody can find an example?
You are a walking oxymoron. When you say you believe in grey, do you mean the *color* grey? And, as I said, humans are neutral. Let’s see, a Neutral person... An Infant. A baby is devoid of sin because they don't know any better. They don't become evil until the world taints them. I'll give you this one, it is a toughie. But, WHEN I think of one, you'll be the first to know.“Doing evil” and “being Evil” are different in my mind… but if it all depended on actions, then I guess there could be room for neutrality (but that would mean you didn’t *do* anything, and hence… why would you ever even encounter them?)
I was feeling ya up to the "but."Law, chaos, and wisdom:
Did I really state that *all* lawful people are wise, or did I not say “typically?” I don’t retract my views on chaos, however. Maybe the word means something different to the D&D community, but to me, chaotic=foolish (no exceptions, *ever*), and lawful is complex, where it can wise or foolish.
I think you are Chaotic. Yep that is your alignment. Maybe Lawful Chaotic. Or Chaotic Lawful. Nevermind. Um, chaos isn't foolish. If anything it is the bravery to stand against the enemy, no matter how great, and not run. (Ok, that IS kinda foolish, but is isn't a bad thing.) And lawful is anything but complex. Lawful is, well the law. You follow it. Have a problem, consult the laws and follow what they say. Also, not a bad thing.Lawful would mean that you have values, and you try to uphold them, where chaotic means that you have values that you don’t really try to uphold.
I think there was a typo on that. Here it is again, with corrections. "Lawful would mean that you have values, and you try to uphold them, where chaotic means that you have values and you try to uphold them."The only real alignments--
Ethics:
1. Lawful: strict adherence to moral values.
2. Neutral: will act on morals typically, but is willing to "sell out" under stress
3. Chaotic: might have morals, but you couldn't tell by his actions. Often "sells out" morals to get a job done.
Another typo: "
2. Neutral: will act on morals typically, but is not willing to enforce them on others.
3. Chaotic: HAS morals, but MAY BE HIDDEN BY HIS SEAMINGLY RANDOM ACTIONS. Often "sells out" LAWS to get a job done."Morals:
"Good" is universally recognized, but "acceptable" wavers from person to person, culture to culture. How far you are willing to go from good determines how evil you are. Mortals simply aren't equipped to be completely good or completely evil, but they are capable of coming close. This means that rather than making things black and white, I'm making *almost everything* grey, but there is still a wide variety of personalities between people.
You are completely ripping gray from the spectrum. All that is left is black and white: White=Law,Good; Black=Neutral, Chaos, Evil. That ‘bout right?And of course, you can have a chaotic character, just like you can have an evil character. I'm just saying that I would place law and goodness over chaos and evil. How many chaotically aligned characters have high wisdom scores anyway?
My CG Half-elf ranger has a Wisdom score of 16. And I play him pretty wise, if I do say so myself, and also chaotic and good to the extreme. (Great story, if anyone is interested.)
I think you should make something new. But I think you should be fair. Take a neutral stance when looking at the alignments. The PH gives reasons why all the alignments are the best, not why LG is the best and the others suck. I would love to see what you end up with, too.
As for law and chaos, I don't think that these need be reflective of a character's actions so much as their opinions. To make an analogy with real life, which I do not intend to be offensive, a lawful character would, if somehow transported to the real world, vote for a Democrat or Republican in an election, and find chaotic characters irritating. A chaotic character in the same situation would probably vote Libertarian (like myself), support most positions of the ACLU, and be regarded as a fierce individualist who finds the willingness of the lawful to be told what to do infuriating. As for a neutral character, in either the moral or ethical axes, this could be reflected as either apathy or moderation in their views and\or actions.
Basically I prefer to dispense with the alignment system, save for dealing with outer-planar creatures, who I prefer to think of as representations of various philosophical viewpoints, rather than physical embodiments of real, literal moral and ethical "truths". (Curiously though, I can't stand moral relativism in real life.) Ultimately though, I believe it should be up to the DM based upon a PC or NPC's views and behaviors as to where they end up on the great wheel when they die, not a game statistic. As for how outsiders think and behave, keeping Tanari as ravening, sadistic murder machines and Baatezu as fascistic, back-stabbing despots and social climbers is fine with me. Sure, they don't embody objective moral and ethical truths the way I run my games, but they do represent philosophical extremes beyond what most mortals can comprehend. But then, this is all just my opinion.
Also just wanted to mention, I'm an atheist, and I do not worship evolution. I do not worship anything. I have never met an atheist that worshipped something. That would be like a Christian, who believes in Christ as their savior, worshipping Ahura Mazda, who they don't believe in. It would make no sense.
I say Lawful Good is evil. You force your views on those that don't share them or kill them (ruin reputation, slit neck, etc.) if they don't convert. That is not good. So, I think you need to rethink that there. As far as neutrality, on the Law/Chaos axis it means, you may not share my views, and I won't force it on you.
Right. YOU just described Lawful Evil or Neutral, not Good.
Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
Your description is, quite simply, lawful evil - as in:
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Lawful Evil would be orderly and systemic. have a respect for tradition - follow rules - and brutally put down anyone who failed to follow them with maximum prejudice.
The most lawful good mighty, by nature, do is exile or imprison you, if you break the law. You might be killed if you A: Consistently threaten the Community and B: Are completely unrepentant and cannot be dealt with by one of the other aforementioned methods. You do not have your throat slit "Just because you won't convert"
Would a lawful good policeman be 'evil'? That is a fairly ridiculous assertion - you go about as far off the deep end as the other guy went with his "Chaotic is stupid' argument.
As examples for the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments, look at the following list:
LG: Jesus Christ
CG: Martin Luther
LE: Adolf Hitler
CE: Jack the Ripper
Jesus was "obedient unto death," and.......well, everyone knows who Jesus was. Even though He spoke against the Jewish authority at the time, He wasn't speaking out against the laws of the Jews. So, He was true to the law, which would make Him lawful. Plus, obeying the will of the Father counts toward lawfulness. Jesus also sacrificed Himself, which would make Him good.
Martin Luther was basically good, wanting to please God. And he's chaotic since he split off from the Catholic Church, which was the legitimate Christian authority at the time.
Adolf Hitler was....sheesh, do I need to talk about why he was evil? Anyway, he's lawful because he basically made the laws that ran his country, making it impossible for him to be unlawful.
Jack the Ripper was CE because he senselessly murdered people for fun. Methodically ripping out their insides has nothing to do with being lawful.
These four men seem to me to fit the alignments best of all, according to your description of the alignments.
I had to learn the hard way that these forums are about a game that's supposed to be fun. It can't be taken too seriously, unless of course the posters are lost in a swirling abyss of immorality.