Rather then continuing to rely on the PHB's descriptions of the Alignments, I decided to step back and look at them from the character's point of view. I focused on what values mattered the most to a character when he or she would make moral or ethical decisions. What I came up with was complex and satisfying, both to myself and the characters whom I used to find what I believe is the true meaning of the Alignments.
People make moral (Good and Evil) and ethical (Law and Chaos) decisions based on their values. The two values that seem to resonate the most among different belief systems are Justice and Honor, both of which are valued highly by just about everybody. Beliefs differ on just what those values mean.
Justice: Good vs. Evil
Moral concepts are governed by the concept of Justice: what is right, fair, and why. Good, Neutrality, and Evil differ in how Justice is applied to different groups of people and why.
Good
* Value life above all else.
* Sacrifice yourself for the sake of others.
* Everyone has a chance at redemption. Those who refuse are dangerous.
Good people believe that everyone, regardless of their circumstances, deserves the absolute best treatment, no matter what. Good gives out of itself to help improve the situation of others by sacrificing itself, whether that might mean time, money, other resources, or even one's very life. Even Evil people deserve charity and kindness, even though they may behave selfishly. That is not to say that a Good person is a living doormat that puts up with anything; in fact, a Good person may be the most zealous in defeating an Evil foe when he believes that the Evil one is beyond redemption.
Advantage: Good is always kind to anyone except the most depraved.
Drawback: Good is struck with a powerful contrast between forgiveness and righteous zeal.
Neutral
* Return good with good, and bad with bad.
* People deserve what they get, more often then not.
Neutral people believe that everyone should get exactly what they deserve: if one does bad things, one gets bad things, and if one does good things, one gets good things. Neutrals are the most likely to believe that good people always go to heaven and bad people always go to hell. Of course, a Neutral person's perspective on what is good and bad is often highly subjective.
Advantage: Neutrality treats everyone by their actions rather then their circumstances.
Drawback: Neutrality is often cruel and subjective.
Evil
* Self matters more than anyone else.
* Others can be sacrificed if they are no longer useful.
Evil people believe that each individual is only responsible for himself and no one else. Evil seems like it's just selfishness, when in fact it is a belief in the survival of the fittest. You take care of your own affairs, and I'll take care of mine, and you be damned if you get in my way!
Advantage: Evil says that each person will survive based on his or her merits: the strong will succeed and the weak will fail.
Drawback: Evil looses sight of the value of other people.
Honor: Law vs. Chaos
Ethical decisions are made according to what is honorable and what is dishonorable. Honor comes from keeping agreements with society, groups, and individuals. By agreements, I don't just mean contracts, but also unspoken agreements held up by society. Law, Neutrality, and Chaos differ on when it is honorable to break an agreement and when it is dishonorable to break an agreement.
Law
* Order is to be maintained at the expense of everything else.
* The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
* Discipline is a sign of strength.
Law says that it is ONLY honorable to break an agreement when no other alternatives are available. Even when the other party has broken contract, the Lawful person must hold up her end until it is impossible to do so.
Advantage: Law can never be broken.
Drawback: Law is difficult to keep when one is at a disadvantage.
Neutrality
* Society has rules for Honor: respect them.
* Keep your reputation clean, because you will be judged by it.
* Maintain your objectivity.
Neutral people look at Honor by what their society believes is honorable. They don't just look at just the hard letter of the law, or the way the law is actually kept, but they try to look at both equally and judge the situation objectively. They believe that objectivity is powerful because it forces you to look at things through the eyes of others.
Advantage: Neutrality maintains objectivity to maintain Honor.
Drawback: Neutrality is often so fluid that it seems to be no value at all.
Chaos
* Freedom is more important then anything else.
* Fight oppression with everything you have.
Chaos says that an agreement is only valid when both sides keep it whole. Once one party breaks the agreement, it is null and void. Even if the Chaotic person has broken it himself, he believes that sends the message to the other party that the agreement was never worth keeping in the first place, and is therefore, void.
Advantage: Chaos keeps both sides honest, since if one breaks contract, the other will break as well.
Drawback: Chaos appears untrustworthy.
As you can see, what I have here is not at all different from what the PHB says, or what has often been written elsewhere about the Alignments. I believe that Justice and Honor give the Alignments direction and purpose by using real world concepts to govern them.
I think this "system" gives a device for players to violate their Alignment, or even change it. In the case of a violation, the character should look at himself and decide if his alignment is worth keeping, and if he should perhaps change his view of things. Even better, Justice and Honor gives purpose behind changes in Alignment. Although Evil is a difficult concept to swallow, one can see why a person might turn to evil. In fact, an individual might believe that Evil is right if he has managed to accept Evil as fair to others besides just himself.
In some cases, however, one may have an ideal Alignment that they would like to be, but actually keep something different; I myself would like to be Neutral Good, but often live True Neutral. These two Alignments are usually within one step of each other, but in rare cases, they may be as far away as two steps. It is totally up to the DM which Alignment is active for game rule purposes. NOTE: this point is intended to add character depth, but it may become difficult for the players to keep up with if several PCs are experiencing this phenomenon.
In the end, Justice and Honor are merely vessels through which the Alignments should flow. Do not allow yourself to be straightjacketed by these ideas, no matter what.
Characters may only be partially lawful and thus only believe in some laws but not all. Characters may have tolerance, discipline, justice, sophistication, and be chaotic. Chaos lies somewhere in-between two extremes. Some Chaotic characters believe that no law should be followed and no punishment for breaking the law is acceptable. They would rather die than pay for a crime. One other chaotic character might believe in not causing trouble or putting up with laws despite having a desire for fewer laws (not necessarily no laws, just fewer). While they might obey the law normally, if the law seems to be failing in its efforts to enforce the punishments this type of character has no problem looting the merchant and fleeing the law and its punishment.
Other characters, and the vast majority lie in-between the extremes of chaos and law. Really consider the fact that good or evil, and lawful or chaotic both have extremes and a "middle area" where most alignments would reside. Neutral is more of the dead center of the so said "middle area." It is best represented by no strong affiliation with the law or chaos. A Neutral person will follow the law because they don't want to be punished. A Neutral person might steal from a merchant if presented with the opportunity, but unlike the chaotic person the neutral person would feel guilty if they did not turn themselves in.
A good character may do evil or something in the gray area, and would feel guilty and wouldn't enjoy doing it in any way like when Brutus kills Caesar. Brutus kills Caesar because of what Caesar may have done during his dictatorship. Brutus convinced himself it was the right thing to do after Cassius persuaded him that Caesar was evil. Then after the stabbity death of said Caesar, Brutus was not at all proud of what he had done. Brutus was a good person because of his show of guilt. In short, good people do not enjoy doing evil and feel bad for doing it. They try to redeem themselves if they realize they have done evil and believe that is a way they can get rid of the guilt. They may feel less guilt after being punished because they feel they have been punished for doing evil.
An evil character would not feel bad and may even enjoy doing evil, and will fight to avoid being punished for their actions.
Lawful good characters may do evil acts and break the law and still be lawful good characters. They would just feel guilt for doing evil and turn themselves in to be punished or try to redeem themselves for their past transgressions.
It all comes down to letting your conscience be your guide.
Aside from that little point, yes, people are ruled by their alignments, but that doesn't mean that they are deadlocked into playing out that alignment perfectly. Attitudes are subcategories of alignments, and these shift rapidly and without mercy. But just because someone's anger provokes one hasty, harmful action does not mean their alignment shifts to evil; it just means they got angry.
Now, if that action leads to other harmful actions that the person enjoys doing, then yes, their alignment would shift. But what if years down the road they realize that what they have done is wrong and want to atone for their sins? Are they locked into whatever alignment they chose? No, their alignment would shift again. Mechanically, it's no big deal. In game, it is changing who the character is at their core.
Yes, alignment is chosen by deeds, but you know ahead of time what kind of actions you are going to make your character play out, and your character knows what kind of person he is. You don't play that character from birth; he has a past before he started adventuring, and depending on what kind of background you chose for him, you choose a corresponding alignment.
If you have an evil personality, you are evil.
Actually love is defined as absolute unselfishness towards a person, and evil is defined as absolute selfishness. An evil person can "love" ice cream, and can even feel "in love", but love in the pure sense defies evil's very being. An evil person's love is the desire to treat a person right in order to keep them absolutely to themselves, not the desire to put another person's wellbeing over their own.
That's a very narrow way of looking at the human personality. The human psyche is a very complex, and D&D alignments only reflect overall personality traits. For example, just because two people are both Lawful Neutral doesn't mean that they both have the same views, or even believe in the same concept of law!
Somebody who is evil, doesn't have to be evil to EVERYBODY! An alignment of Neutral Evil means that generally someone is selfish and cruel, but that doesn't mean that he/she can't be kind and caring to somebody!
Also, there are always gray areas. Think about it. There's the cold ruthless blackguard, that seeks to bring an end to all free will and bring about the end of sentient individuality, then there's the the sleazy politician that wants to make an extra buck through underhanded deals, but stops when he gets the snot beaten out of him by the heroes. Both villains are Lawful Evil. One is a great deal more "Lawful" and a great deal more "Evil". What you had described above, I would probably describe as being "Vile Neutral Evil".
Finally, there are different definitions of "evil", "good", "law", and "chaos". From the cosmic perspective, law mean a lack of randomness, generally characterized by solids and crystalline-type stuff. Chaos means randomness and entropy, and is generally characterized by chaotically moving gases and overall "decay". Good and evil play no roles in the universe, as they are concepts invented by the human mind as guidelines for society. From a political perspective chaos would mean not following the law, and lawful would be, obviously, following it. Good and evil would depend on society; it may not be ok to eat people in most societies, but in another, it could be right as rain. At last, there is also the personal perspective, which usually differs from person to person. For example, your definition of evil would differ from mine, slightly.
Oh, and as a side note, when somebody says they "love" ice cream, it's generally understood to simply be a case of looseness of words (i.e. substituting a extreme word for a word that is not that extreme). There was no need to make that distinction.
Finally, there are different definitions of "evil", "good", "law", and "chaos". From the cosmic perspective, law mean a lack of randomness, generally characterized by solids and crystalline-type stuff. Chaos means randomness and entropy, and is generally characterized by chaotically moving gases and overall "decay". Good and evil play no roles in the universe, as they are concepts invented by the human mind as guidelines for society. From a political perspective chaos would mean not following the law, and lawful would be, obviously, following it. Good and evil would depend on society; it may not be ok to eat people in most societies, but in another, it could be right as rain. At last, there is also the personal perspective, which usually differs from person to person. For example, your definition of evil would differ from mine, slightly.
Chaos is not random. It is about choices or options. Too many of them may create an illusion of randomness. Unpredictability is also a symptom of many choices. Law is about limiting those.
Gases have greater amount of choices on where to move, as they can move, as opposed to solids.
A political perspective of law would be limiting actions people can take, usually for their own good (or such is claimed). Also things promoting equality are lawful. Everyone having similar possibility of training, everyone being equally rich (or poor), everyone always wearing the same kinds of clothes, all are lawful. Chaotic politics would center around choices, and lack of limitations. The most extreme case of this is no laws, of course.
But chaos is not random.
Chaos is not random. It is about choices or options. Too many of them may create an illusion of randomness. Unpredictability is also a symptom of many choices. Law is about limiting those.
Gases have greater amount of choices on where to move, as they can move, as opposed to solids.
A political perspective of law would be limiting actions people can take, usually for their own good (or such is claimed). Also things promoting equality are lawful. Everyone having similar possibility of training, everyone being equally rich (or poor), everyone always wearing the same kinds of clothes, all are lawful. Chaotic politics would center around choices, and lack of limitations. The most extreme case of this is no laws, of course.
But chaos is not random.
Really? As I had already stated, there are always different personal definitions to various concepts, but as I had said cosmic perspective.
Saying that chaos isn't random is the same as saying randomness doesn't exist from the cosmic perspective. From the personal perspective on a Chaotic Neutral character, he/she may be a rebel against a government, or simply a non-conformist, like today's goths or 20th century hippies. But from the cosmic (or ultimate) perspective, chaos is (as quoted in Merriam Webster):
Main Entry: cha·os
Pronunciation: 'kA-"äs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek -- more at GUM
1 obsolete : CHASM, ABYSS
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion b : a confused mass or mixture
The best definitions here are "a state of things in which chance," or randomness, "is supreme", and "the inherent unpredictability" or, again, RANDOMNESS, "in the behavior of a natural system...".
Law is about predictability. Chaos is about randomness. The end.
Firstly, stop quoting the dictionary. It doesn't apply to DnD, and only inclines others to believe you can't think for yourself.
You'll notice in DnD, many terms are used, but do not necessarily mean the same as they would in a real life setting. Druid to name one. Druids in real life is someone rather who reveres nature and believes in a druidic type religion. They do not however shapeshift or wield thunderbolts, nor was it ever generally believed they did.
Chaos is another. In our world it would symbolize spontaneity, disorder, and unlawfulness. However in DnD, if refers more so to the persons personal choices.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
How do they feel about government, laws, politicians, etc. That is the basis for chaotic characters. Chaotic characters aren't random, they're simply different than the majority of people.
The best definitions here are "a state of things in which chance," or randomness, "is supreme", and "the inherent unpredictability" or, again, RANDOMNESS, "in the behavior of a natural system...".
Law is about predictability. Chaos is about randomness. The end.
Law is about predictability. Chaos is about unpredictability. Random is part of it. Choices, options, are a much greater part of it. Randomly choosing between one option is quite irrelevant. In fact, predictable. In other words, lawful.
Chance is not randomness. Unpredictability is definitely not randomness.
Besides, that route of definition is fallacious. Use the PHB definition, if definitions are required.
Good, Evil, Law, Chaos & Neutrality as described in the PHB, are all values that are defined by human beings & the societies they create. And the definitions of alignments are further skewed by our modern Western society.
I think a good example of someone lawful would be the main lawyer on Law & Order, he tries very hard to follow the law, enforcing it even if it's unfair in many cases & many of the hardened criminals believe the laws should not apply to them and/or feel constrained by them. Now whether something like a law is good or evil also rests on our values as a society.
First order of business:
Firstly, stop quoting the dictionary. It doesn't apply to DnD, and only inclines others to believe you can't think for yourself.
Oh... I see. So stuff like gravity doesn't apply to D&D because it's defined in the dictionary. Ok. On a more serious note, I can quote the dictionary if I want to, and...
You'll notice in DnD, many terms are used, but do not necessarily mean the same as they would in a real life setting. Druid to name one. Druids in real life is someone rather who reveres nature and believes in a druidic type religion. They do not however shapeshift or wield thunderbolts, nor was it ever generally believed they did.
Chaos is another. In our world it would symbolize spontaneity, disorder, and unlawfulness. However in DnD, if refers more so to the persons personal choices.
Druid, is a relatively small concept. If all the druids in the D&D world disappeared, the game would be a little different. Chaos on the other hand, is a force inherent in almost everything in D&D. The game could not exist without it. Without any sort of Chaos, there would be no conflict. Thus, because Chaos is this major, you cannot define Chaos as, say, equaling pie, and still be able to run a game. Druid, on the other hand, it defined as pie, would merely raise some eyebrows at the game table.
How do they feel about government, laws, politicians, etc. That is the basis for chaotic characters. Chaotic characters aren't random, they're simply different than the majority of people.
Oh, so "random" CAN'T be the basis for a chaotic character? What about an insane character, hmm? One that doesn't know up from down and does whatever pops up into his head first. Are you going to tell me that this character can't exist, or that this character ISN'T chaotic? As far as I'm concerned, roleplaying is about becoming something you're not, so I believe I can use any definition of Chaos I want when making a chaotic character. In short, don't tell me what to do.
Now this choice thing you all keep bringing up. In any case, choices are always infinite. Bringing up choices is completely irrelevant. In the human body, a cell can move in one direction, move not as far in the same direction, move not as far as that, move not as far as that...etc. What defines chaos and law, is what choice of infinity do you choose. For any sort law, you can act (or not act) an infinite number or directions and lengths within a certain boundaries. For ultimate chaos, there simply are no boundaries. Which brings me to my next point. In ultimate chaos, there are no boundaries, no rules, so what defines what path something takes? The answer is randomness.
Now, how does randomness relate to your definition of a chaotic character? You have already cited freedom as one of the defining factors of a chaotic character, so I will address that first. I have already said above, ultimate chaos has no boundaries. Your average chaotic character could hardly be described as "ultimately chaotic", but you get the idea: less rules/boundaries equals more chaotic. Basically, our chaotic friend (let's name him Quentin) have few rules/boundaries, or by your definitions, alotta choices. Quentin is a traveler. He roams the lands doing whatever he wants. Quentin is clearly CN. What determines what he will do next, be it look for loot and plunder, or warm ale and a comfortable bed? Keep in mind that Quentin, being CN, has few responsibilities and obligations. The common answer to this is human will. "He does what he wants," basically. But what is human will, but synapses randomly (humans have needs, and some of these synapses fire according to rules, but we are talking about human will, so that is irrelevant) firing in an ion-rich piece of flesh? In other words, what is human will but randomness?
For your "rebel" model of a chaotic character, he/she fights for less boundaries, so that he can appease his human will (less oppression= more opportunities to do what you want), or so that he can basically, be more random.
Randomly choosing between one option is quite irrelevant. In fact, predictable. In other words, lawful.
If you only have one option, you HAVE to choose it. It by no means changes you're nature to being lawful. Besides, it's impossible to only have ONE option, as I have already stated.
Chance is not randomness. Unpredictability is definitely not randomness.
*Slaps forehead* Ok, ok, so what IS chance, unpredictability, and randomness?
Random first just for reference:
Main Entry: 2random
Function: adjective
1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b : made, done, or chosen at random
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements
- ran·dom·ly adverb
- ran·dom·ness noun
synonyms RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than design. RANDOM stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal, or regular procedure . HAPHAZARD applies to what is done without regard for regularity or fitness or ultimate consequence . CASUAL suggests working or acting without deliberation, intention, or purpose .
Note that one of the synonyms is Haphazard, this will come into play later.
Ok, now chance:
Main Entry: 1chance
Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY
3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome b plural : the more likely indications
5 a : RISK b : a raffle ticket
- chance adjective
- by chance : in the haphazard course of events
"by chance: in the haphazard course of events". Haphazard is a synonym for random. So happening by chance is random. Also, not that chance is unpredictable. Since chance is also haphazard, and by extension, random, unpredictable is already random.
There you go. Now I hope that we can get off of this, and talk about something other than chaos.
Picture a drawn world. In this world the 2d people can only see in lines. They can imagine planes in the same way we can imagine depth when we see planes. Now lets say you, a 3d creature, reach into this world. To the 2d people you would explode from a direction they cannot even perceive. Its feasible then, that there are planes beyond ours that would act the same way to us. In fact, discoveries are starting to show that extra planes may be necessary to explain our existence.
This is why there must be infinite ways to exist. Order is a 3d world, where on a random planet in space there is a race who arrogantly believe they rule all. This race conforms to certain moral codes they created themselves. It is merely a miniaturized version of the cosmic law vs chaos. In the cosmic version all the planes of existence besides the 3d one are chaos and the 3d one is order. In the miniaturized version the accepted way of living is the equivalent of the 3d plane, those who follow chaos break this moral code (for better or for worse) just like a 5d world would be "better" and a 2d world "worse". Now what applies to the larger picture still applies to the smaller picture. If there are infinite cosmic ways to exist there are infinite ways to exist within our moral code. The narrow view is thinking of breaking the mold as not wearing socks, or living in a tree. But it goes far beyond that creatures could develop entirely different senses, entirely different genetic code. Chance has EVERYTHING to do with chaos and chaos is ANYTHING but predictable.
/end rant
When you look at the fluff, Clerics of Wee-Jas are the image of Introverted Lawful Neutral people. Their primary concern is living their lives with structure and discipline. Clerics of St. Cuthbert are Extroverted Lawful Neutral as their agenda is to ensure that society conforms to law and any unlawful people are brought down.
An Introverted Chaotic Evil sorcerer may only be interested in accumulating power and pursue that goal with no regard to morality or ethics. She will not harm anyone she considers 'inconsequential' if there is no gain but neither will she shed tears for anyone she sacrifices, friend or foe, for the sake of power. An Extroverted Chaotic Evil Orc Warchief will lead an army through the countryside on an orgy of pillage, ****, and slaughter for its own sake, and when the next village is more than a couple days travel, he will pick off a couple of troublesome members along the way as an example to the rest, lest they think of doing him first.
An Introverted Chaotic Good person will simply help new acquaintances as he sees fit wherever he is. If he is presently within a repressive society, he will try and stay 'under the radar' whenever he does something that would get him in trouble, and most likely the most he would do to undermine that society is serve as a mentor to likeminded youngsters (when no one else is listening). An Extroverted Chaotic good person will beat up every bully he sees, help every damsel in distress, and if he doesn't like his government, he will form cells for a revolution.
Oh, so "random" CAN'T be the basis for a chaotic character? What about an insane character, hmm? One that doesn't know up from down and does whatever pops up into his head first. Are you going to tell me that this character can't exist, or that this character ISN'T chaotic? As far as I'm concerned, roleplaying is about becoming something you're not, so I believe I can use any definition of Chaos I want when making a chaotic character. In short, don't tell me what to do.
Insanity does not an alignment make. Insane character can have any alignment. The one you described is chaotic because he "does whatever pops up into his head first". Which is not randomness.
For ultimate chaos, there simply are no boundaries. Which brings me to my next point. In ultimate chaos, there are no boundaries, no rules, so what defines what path something takes? The answer is randomness.
Ultimate Chaos can't be understood by us. Like true infinity, true Evil, true Good, or true Law (though it is debatable). When there are no rules or boundaries, choice determines the path one takes.
Basically, our chaotic friend (let's name him Quentin) have few rules/boundaries, or by your definitions, alotta choices. Quentin is a traveler. He roams the lands doing whatever he wants. Quentin is clearly CN.
Clearly CN based on the description given or something else?
What determines what he will do next, be it look for loot and plunder, or warm ale and a comfortable bed? Keep in mind that Quentin, being CN, has few responsibilities and obligations. The common answer to this is human will. "He does what he wants," basically.
Yup. Whatever seems a good thing at present, with not much concern for future as it is unpredictable, anyway.
But what is human will, but synapses randomly (humans have needs, and some of these synapses fire according to rules, but we are talking about human will, so that is irrelevant) firing in an ion-rich piece of flesh? In other words, what is human will but randomness?
Take your science away from my fantasy. Besides, that is debatable. From what I have read, human mind consists of two parts; there is the entropic, primal part to which you refer, and creativity stems from it; then, there are the structured, aka lawful, outer parts of the brain, which store information and form the basis of sentience. Some people (like Masterful_Norg at these very boards) think that there is no randomness, it all is choice at some level.
For your "rebel" model of a chaotic character, he/she fights for less boundaries, so that he can appease his human will (less oppression= more opportunities to do what you want), or so that he can basically, be more random.
More opportunities do not equal greater randomness.
If you only have one option, you HAVE to choose it. It by no means changes you're nature to being lawful.
Exactly my point.
Besides, it's impossible to only have ONE option, as I have already stated.
Debatable.
.*Slaps forehead* Ok, ok, so what IS chance, unpredictability, and randomness?
I am really not that good at definitions, but I'll try not to make these circular.
Unpredictability: The inability to foresee the course of events from some given perspective.
Random: An occurrence that is impossible to tell the outcome of. All random events are, by definition, unpredictable.
Chance: A measure of the likelihood of a given event happening.
As for the synonyms, words (especially in English) are not exact in their meaning. Thus, synonyms are even less so.
Okay, you guys started taking it a little to personal. kaos121, your sarcasm implies they’re all stupid and that's a little unfair. The alignments in DnD are really just a guide to role-playing in a black-&-white world of morality, and the Dungeon Master can handle that area however he likes.
I think you have it backwards. How you roleplay is a guide to finding your alignment. You don't pick an alignment then roleplay. When that happens it usually goes to the extreme. You must decide how you would act in situations and what you would behave like, then find an alignment that best suits that description.