PDA

View Full Version : Lawful!



Zen Master
2010-02-11, 04:00 PM
I wonder if there are enough opinions about this to get a real thread going.

Naturally, this is related to the whole alignment discussion. However, this particular sliver has special interest to me - so I'll voice my own view, and ask for comments and the opinions of others.

Lawful is this: The rigid adherence to a specific set of rules.

Depending on who you are and what you are, there may be several sets of rules. Some rules may overlap, some may be in direct contradiction of each other: The legal system of the nation you're in, the religious rules of your faith, the code of the thieves guild, the regulations of the commodities market.

If you adhere strictly to any one (or more) of these - then you are lawful. None of these sets of rules is more correct or 'lawful' than the others.

If you pay only lip service, or outright break the rules that might justifiably apply to you, then you are chaotic.

On the law/chaos axis, neutral would be to bend the rules as fits the whim or situation - but never breaking them.

By this definition, naturally most rogues will be lawful if they are in a guild. If they are not, they are most likely chaotic.

Trying to sift through my memory for valid examples, I'd say Batman is lawful.

Nathan Hunt, for instance, is chaotic.

Though that is just opinion.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 04:04 PM
Complete Scoundrel would agree in placing Batman as Lawful.

Though devils seem to be built around bending (but not breaking) the rules.

Adherence to rules is a common factor in Lawful alignment though.

Zen Master
2010-02-11, 04:10 PM
Complete Scoundrel would agree in placing Batman as Lawful.

Though devils seem to be built around bending (but not breaking) the rules.

Adherence to rules is a common factor in Lawful alignment though.

Hm - devils are interesting.

Released from the hierarchy, would they still be lawful?

As I see it, devilship is a pyramid structure, with the devils on top enforcing order with an iron fist, level by level downwards to even the lowliest unfortunate marching to the relentless drums of hell.

But suppose a single devil got loose on the prime. Would it act lawful? If that meant reporting back to it's commander in hell, would it do so? Or would it set off to wreak havoc at random for it's own sake?

Bibliomancer
2010-02-11, 04:12 PM
Devils obey the letter of the rules, not the intent.

They use a lawful structure (rules) for selfish (evil) ends, because they know that if their command structure breaks, the overwhelming numbers of the demons will destroy them all.

Also, they obey the command structure even when away from it, because if there's only one baatezu left in the universe, that one will hope to rebuild the empire with itself in command.

Harperfan7
2010-02-11, 04:21 PM
By this definition, I'm lawful, but only because I made my own rules that I follow no matter what.

I don't care about laws, I'm not part of any organized religion, I don't join groups unless I need to (and even if I do, I'm not loyal to them just because we're a group), I avoid compulsion, I'm all for smaller government, I think for myself, I'm unpredictable/mercurial/devious/defiant, but I'm lawful? Because I have a few morals I chose to follow and haven't broken them?

Maybe you're right, though I doubt it.

Zen Master
2010-02-11, 04:29 PM
By this definition, I'm lawful, but only because I made my own rules that I follow no matter what.

I don't care about laws, I'm not part of any organized religion, I don't join groups unless I need to (and even if I do, I'm not loyal to them just because we're a group), I avoid compulsion, I'm all for smaller government, I think for myself, I'm unpredictable/mercurial/devious/defiant, but I'm lawful? Because I have a few morals I chose to follow and haven't broken them?

Maybe you're right, though I doubt it.

Anyone, no matter how chaotic, would claim that 'I follow my own rules'. So no, you're not. A 'set of rules' does not equate 'how I act or have decided to act'. The whole point is to act in concert with a larger number of individuals, striving towards some common goal or end - be it an orderly society, access to a pleasing afterlife, or getting ill-gotten richess without getting caught (or killed by colleagues because they didn't get their share).

Hallavast
2010-02-11, 04:35 PM
Anyone, no matter how chaotic, would claim that 'I follow my own rules'. So no, you're not. A 'set of rules' does not equate 'how I act or have decided to act'. The whole point is to act in concert with a larger number of individuals, striving towards some common goal or end - be it an orderly society, access to a pleasing afterlife, or getting ill-gotten richess without getting caught (or killed by colleagues because they didn't get their share).

If people really followed their own rules, they would indeed be lawful. Usually, however, the people who say "I follow my own rules" really mean "I don't want to follow any rules, and I make up justifications for my actions on the fly". The qualifiers of rules and law shouldn't be dependant on how many people they govern.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 04:39 PM
I think how organized a person is plays a part- a person who is naturally very organized (although maybe not to the point of OCD) and plans everything in detail, is more likely to be Lawful than a person who is disorganized, and makes plans up on the fly.

Orderly is a big part of Lawful in D&D.

Swordgleam
2010-02-11, 04:44 PM
By this definition, naturally most rogues will be lawful if they are in a guild.

I disagree with this because this:



Lawful is this: The rigid adherence to a specific set of rules.

Is insufficient. I believe lawful is "The rigid adherence to a specific set of rules for the sake of the rules themselves."

Most rogues follow the rules of a guild because it is personally advantageous to them, not because they believe in the rules. The question you have to ask is: If the guild were to no longer exist, would the rogue in question still follow as many of the rules as still apply? (eg, "tithe 10% of your thefts" would not, but "don't rob from the poor" still would)

If so, the rogue is lawful. If not, the rogue is not lawful, just smart.

Greenish
2010-02-11, 04:45 PM
On the law/chaos axis, neutral would be to bend the rules as fits the whim or situation - but never breaking them.
I'd say people neutral on law/chaos axis might break rules if they have to to achieve some other purpose, but they don't break them just for the heck of it like chaotically aligned might.

For example, if there's a "Do not step on the grass" sign, Lawful people take the long way to avoid stepping on the grass, neutral might take a shortcut through the grass when in hurry, and chaotic people would dance on the lawn. (Oversimplified, yes.)


[Edit]: If we use devils as a flagpole for lawful (evil), one could even say that "bending the rules but never breaking them" is lawful behaviour.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 04:51 PM
The Law-chaos axis is not very well filled out- however, Exemplars of Evil has a list of common villain traits, and explains which ones are associated with law or chaos.

Though I regard "always X" when mentioned here, as the same as in MM- exceptions are very rare, but they do exist.

Arrogant: Often Lawful
Trustworthy: Always Lawful
Intolerant: Always Lawful
Direct: Tend to be lawful
Obsessive: Always Lawful
Slothful: Usually Lawful
Vain: Often Lawful
Vindictive: Usually Lawful

Bibliomancer
2010-02-11, 04:52 PM
Is insufficient. I believe lawful is "The rigid adherence to a specific set of rules for the sake of the rules themselves."

Most rogues follow the rules of a guild because it is personally advantageous to them, not because they believe in the rules. The question you have to ask is: If the guild were to no longer exist, would the rogue in question still follow as many of the rules as still apply? (eg, "tithe 10% of your thefts" would not, but "don't rob from the poor" still would)

If so, the rogue is lawful. If not, the rogue is not lawful, just smart.

Yes. Devils qualify for this, since they follow the rules even if they would be better off not doing so.

I tend to register as LG when a survey attempts to determine my alignment (subset of what DnD character are you). I certainly apply this to my own rules (sometimes telling myself to do something from the Principle of the thing) and sometimes to laws/regulations (I tend to comply out of habit, but complain if the rule is arbitrary and/or stupid).

Swordgleam
2010-02-11, 04:54 PM
Slothful: Usually Lawful


What.

The rest of that list has some "that makes sense" and some "meh" in it, but that one is just, "what." That's right: I'm too stunned to even use a question mark.

KellKheraptis
2010-02-11, 04:54 PM
I think how organized a person is plays a part- a person who is naturally very organized (although maybe not to the point of OCD) and plans everything in detail, is more likely to be Lawful than a person who is disorganized, and makes plans up on the fly.

Orderly is a big part of Lawful in D&D.

Ironically, I tend to flirt with this situation on a regular basis, as I'm at any given time prepared for almost anything, but never pre-plan anything. Probably why I love my warmages...but then again, a 3rd party book has the perfect feat description : Beyond Good and Evil. It removes all alignment, because you're "off." As in a little unhinged :P

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:00 PM
What.

The rest of that list has some "that makes sense" and some "meh" in it, but that one is just, "what." That's right: I'm too stunned to even use a question mark.

The full version:

Slothful villains are rarely motivated to do much of anything. They spend their time lazing about, letting their lackeys and servants attend to them. If they manay to cook up a scheme, they rely on their minions to make it happen. Slothful villains demand that their orders be carried out and are thus usually lawful.

(Remember "usually" in the MM, simply means "more than 50%)

Swordgleam
2010-02-11, 05:05 PM
I don't know if that makes sense to me. Everyone wants their orders obeyed. I don't think a chaotic villain would say, "Why, minion #34, I noticed that you were playing poker when I told you to guard my lair. Good for you! Tell minion #33 you've been promoted."

There's a big difference between "I place enough value in laws to obey them and demand others do the same" and "I think people should do what I tell them to."

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:07 PM
true. I think its intended to represent the villain who delegates a great deal- because their organization is stable enough to work that way and not need micromanaging.

Maybe official Lawful characters in the D&D novels & campaign setting books, might be a place to start?

Manshoon, Fzoul, Artemis- All LE.

Khelben- LN

And so on.

horseboy
2010-02-11, 05:36 PM
I think how organized a person is plays a part- a person who is naturally very organized (although maybe not to the point of OCD) and plans everything in detail, is more likely to be Lawful than a person who is disorganized, and makes plans up on the fly.

Orderly is a big part of Lawful in D&D.
Like The Punisher.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:40 PM
Possibly. Could be a candidate for LN or LE, depending on the writer.

Riffington
2010-02-11, 05:43 PM
A lawful person does not arbitrarily pick some set of rules then follow them. A lawful person's rules come from somewhere important. Society's dictates, the law, tradition, Divine mandate, etc. Just because the Punisher can make up a rigid set of rules for himself doesn't make him lawful. He just needs to do that to balance out the Chaotic nature of his entire enterprise.

Zen Master
2010-02-11, 05:45 PM
Yes. Devils qualify for this, since they follow the rules even if they would be better off not doing so.

I'm reasonably sure this is opinion only. Not that my original post is any different, but really I see devils quite differently.

Devils are organised and lawful because it is forced on them. They have no means of rebelling against their oppressors - but since they are evil, it's enough for them to be as cruel to their lessers, as their greaters are to them.

Should the top dog die, disappear or otherwise no longer be making the rules - the rules would change. As some new arch devil took over, he would impose a new set of rules. Just as strict, applied with the same iron fist - but different.

Devil society would in other words be (possibly, partly) chaotic, if not for the simple fact that someone is intelligent enough realises the need for order - and powerful enough to enforce it.

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 05:48 PM
In the Faiths & Pantheons sample mini-adventures, one of the ways of spotting that the villain's son has been replaced by a devil, is that the child's room is very ordered- toys are in neat rows, all facing exactly the same way, all organized by category, etc.

In this case, it's implied to be the devil's "lawful nature" causing it to do this, even when playing a role.

drengnikrafe
2010-02-11, 05:52 PM
Rather than meaningfully contributing to a discussion, I have come to state an old line that I greatly enjoyed.

Dan: "From now on, I'm Lawful Chaotic. That means I make my own rules, and adhere to them rigidly."
Steele: "And that is different from what you usually do... how?"

Greenish
2010-02-11, 05:57 PM
I'm reasonably sure this is opinion only. Not that my original post is any different, but really I see devils quite differently.

Devils are organised and lawful because it is forced on them. They have no means of rebelling against their oppressors - but since they are evil, it's enough for them to be as cruel to their lessers, as their greaters are to them.

Should the top dog die, disappear or otherwise no longer be making the rules - the rules would change. As some new arch devil took over, he would impose a new set of rules. Just as strict, applied with the same iron fist - but different.

Devil society would in other words be (possibly, partly) chaotic, if not for the simple fact that someone is intelligent enough realises the need for order - and powerful enough to enforce it.Having order stuffed down your throat by a tyrant doesn't give you Lawful subtype. A devil would stick to the letter of the rules even without anyone watching over their shoulder, for such is their very nature.

(Or so I imagine.)

hamishspence
2010-02-11, 06:00 PM
Renegade devils do exist (Avernus has numerous powerful renegade archdevils) but I suspect that, even if they might have broken the rules of Hell at some point, their Lawful traits tend to show through.

Lawful rulebreaker is not an oxymoron.

Yora
2010-02-11, 06:02 PM
Law = Listening to your brain
Chaos = Listening to your guts

This system works perfectly in every possible situation. It's immediately understood by everyone, can never be a straightjacket, and never causes philosophical paradoxes how a character would decide or behave.
For outsiders add that they just can't imagine not using their method or why anyone else would use a different one.

Greenish
2010-02-11, 06:06 PM
Law = Listening to your brain
Chaos = Listening to your guts

This system works perfectly in every possible situation. It's immediately understood by everyone, can never be a straightjacket, and never causes philosophical paradoxes how a character would decide or behave.
For outsiders add that they just can't imagine not using their method or why anyone else would use a different one.I do like that, except I run into some troubles trying to imagine paladins actually using their brains. :smallwink:

Swordgleam
2010-02-11, 06:47 PM
Law = Listening to your brain
Chaos = Listening to your guts


I like it as a summary, but it seems to imply that chaotic characters are always impulsive and never calculating. You can be an utter scheming bastard who wants to overthrow all authority.

lsfreak
2010-02-11, 08:10 PM
Law: Follows a set of rules set down by some group (church, government, whatever). Follows the rules because they are the rules.
Chaos: Follows a set of personal beliefs, which may and often do correspond to rules set down by a government or church. The difference is that the chaotic character doesn't follow them just because they are the rules.

So, two characters.
Both are generous with their money towards the less fortunate, both respect the local authority, both try to avoid violence.

One is lawful good, being generous because of the demands of the gods to care for the poor. He is respectful of authority because without law he fears violent anarchy, in addition to believing most of the practices. He avoids violence because of the preciousness of life that was impressed upon him from a young age in the church, and the belief that it is better to allow due process of law rather than take things into his own hands.

The other is chaotic neutral. He is generous towards the poor because of his upbringing as a pickpocket, and he knows how hard it is to live that life. He is respectful of the local authority only because showing contempt in public would be a good way to get yourself thrown in in jail. He avoids violence because he had enough of it when he was younger, it draws too much attention, and it effectively cuts off a source of income for his nightly raids of upperclass houses for trinket that would go unmissed.

Eldonauran
2010-02-11, 08:27 PM
I've ... never had a problem with the Law vs Chaos aspect of the alignment system. I guess it makes sense to me intuitively. It basically breaks down to the universe being chaotic in nature and those that wish to bring some manner of order to it.

Law: Belief that Order must be brought to everything (ie, Laws, rules, etc)

Chaos: Belief that everything should be left as it is naturally (ie, allowing things to happen as they will, no need to contain chaos with order, etc)

Probably will take more time than I have to make it any clearer than that but I am sure there are others that might read this and extrapolate further.

Swordgleam
2010-02-11, 08:47 PM
Law: Belief that Order must be brought to everything (ie, Laws, rules, etc)

Everyone's definitions have some point where they break down. Which is why these discussions are so interesting. Where yours breaks down is the case of a character who follows a strict moral code, obeys the laws of their nation and guild and requires that their associates do likewise, but feels no drive to impose those standards on the entire world. By your definition, that character is not lawful.

KillianHawkeye
2010-02-11, 10:24 PM
While not D&D, I really like how this was represented in the old Werewolf: the Apocalypse books. Being that it was WoD, there really isn't any good or evil, but the Werewolf books did have some focus on order vs chaos.

In Werewolf, there were actually 3 forces which formed a triangle: the Wyld, the Weaver, and the Wyrm.

The Wyld was the spirit of chaos and change. It was responsible for generating the infinite possibilities of creation. However, if left unchecked, it would cause the unending transformation of everything because change was all it knew. Due to its connections with nature and life, the Wyld was revered by the Lupines.

The Weaver was the spirit of order and civilization. It was responsible for solidifying the chaotic energies of the Wyld so that its creations could attain lasting coherence. However, if left unchecked, it would transform reality into an eternally static environment where everything is always the same forever.

The Wyrm was the spirit of entropy and decay. It was responsible for destroying the creations of the Wyld and the formations of the Weaver so that there would be room for newer creations. However, if left unchecked, it would eventually destroy all of creation.

Thus, if left in proper balance (which of course didn't happen) these three forces would continue to manage the cycle of creation and destruction. Unfortunately, as the story goes, the Weaver got sick of having his stuff getting destroyed and trapped the Wyrm in his webs, which slowly drove the Wyrm to madness. The Wyrm eventually escaped his prison, and is now hell bent on the destruction of everything, which is why he is the brand name for all the werewolves' antagonists.

Harperfan7
2010-02-11, 10:39 PM
I see alignment threads like this all over the place, and I never really get it.

What, exactly, is the problem with law/chaos alignments that knots so many panties? (this thread has no knotted panties, I'm just talking about how people usually foam at the mouth over arguments like this)

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-11, 11:12 PM
I see alignment threads like this all over the place, and I never really get it.

What, exactly, is the problem with law/chaos alignments that knots so many panties? (this thread has no knotted panties, I'm just talking about how people usually foam at the mouth over arguments like this)

It's probably to do with the fact that, as far as I can tell from some more recent threads on the issue, alignment as written is either frustatingly vague or being anything other than true neutral almost requires being an outsider or a cliche (the second of which conflicts with the human "Alignment" section and the alignment based material in later books). Your character is either very hard to classify or nigh impossible to be wrong about, respectively.

Yora
2010-02-12, 07:34 AM
I like it as a summary, but it seems to imply that chaotic characters are always impulsive and never calculating. You can be an utter scheming bastard who wants to overthrow all authority.
It's just tendencies and no absolutes. It also does not include intelligence, wisdom, or sanity. Just say "chaotic" means a character who places great trust in his intuition and is more willing to try his luck or face the disapproval of other people. In contrast a "lawful" character sees a greater need to put back his own wishes to maintain the unity of the group and restrain himself from making haste descisions.
It does not stop the chaotic character from admiting that attempting some things would be hopeless, or a lawful character acting out of social or official rules because "it's the right thing to do". It's not as rigid as most people make it sounds in all the discussions about if a certain action in a very complex situation is lawful or chaotic. In this approach, there are no lawful or chaotic actions. Just general tendencies how a character makes descisions, which can change over time.

Grumman
2010-02-12, 08:34 AM
Yora's definition is the one I use.


You can be an utter scheming bastard who wants to overthrow all authority.
Then you're lawful. Just because you follow your plans doesn't mean you have to follow theirs.

hamishspence
2010-02-12, 08:43 AM
It's probably to do with the fact that, as far as I can tell from some more recent threads on the issue, alignment as written is either frustatingly vague or being anything other than true neutral almost requires being an outsider or a cliche (the second of which conflicts with the human "Alignment" section and the alignment based material in later books).

Its the difference between the way it's written, and the way some people interpret it.

The more books you check- the more evidence there is that it doesn't actually require most people to be True Neutral.

On the minus side, as written, it can be a little vague, but that's closer to official, than "nearly everyone is true neutral".

Gravitron5000
2010-02-12, 09:11 AM
What.

The rest of that list has some "that makes sense" and some "meh" in it, but that one is just, "what." That's right: I'm too stunned to even use a question mark.

Slothful would be obeying the laws of thermodynamics.

Eldonauran
2010-02-12, 07:24 PM
Where yours breaks down is the case of a character who follows a strict moral code, obeys the laws of their nation and guild and requires that their associates do likewise, but feels no drive to impose those standards on the entire world. By your definition, that character is not lawful.

That is correct. I would deem that person Neutral on the Law vs chaos scale. He is content to follow the rules, as they don't seem to harm him and is also willing to let others be as long as they don't impose on him. As the PHB states (pg104) "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey or a compulsion to rebel..." For all I know, the character is simply following the laws for the good of everythone (this gets my vote) or because he was raised to do so.

I should probably go into more detail than what I did previously, and now that I've had time to think (and reword my response to be oh-so politcially correct, pain in my arse) I think I can go into more detail.

I deem Lawful Alignment as a need to impose order. I don't judge alignment on a person's past action but the motivation behind the act. Why does your character do this? Is it only because he was raised that way? Is it because it is most convenient to not do otherwise? Would he rather not follow the rules if it lead to greater benefit to himself or others? "A Lawful Good character acts as a good person is expected and required to act"

Likewise with Chaotic Alignment. To me, it is the need to act as one wants, unrestricted by tradition or rules. Don't confuse that with evil, though. Evil only comes into the picture when you intentionally wish to harm another person (physcially, emotionally, finacially, etc) with your actions or simply do not care if they are harmed. "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him"

So, wrapping it up, I believe that all the axis of the alignment system (good vs evil, law vs chaos) revolves on a need to either bring order (law), help people (good), act freely (chaos) or be an evil bastard (lol). Neutrality is, in my mind, lacking one or both of these needs.

I think that's a bit more detailed than my last post and might give you greater insight into how I think. Who knows, maybe this will help clear of the alignment confusion but, if not, we all think differently anyway.

Swordgleam
2010-02-12, 07:41 PM
So, wrapping it up, I believe that all the axis of the alignment system (good vs evil, law vs chaos) revolves on a need to either bring order (law), help people (good), act freely (chaos) or be an evil bastard (lol). Neutrality is, in my mind, lacking one or both of these needs.


I like it. I wouldn't use it in my game and it doesn't jibe with my personal view of the alignment systems, but it's very internally consistent and understandable.

Eldonauran
2010-02-12, 07:46 PM
Good, good. Glad my message was understood. I added a bit more after some more thought but the overall message remains the same.

I think the most confusion about the alignment system revolves around real world logic in the game environment. Good and evil, Law and Chaos, these are very black and white concepts in the D&D universe. Not so much in the real world. Motivation or intention behind every action is key to working with the alignment system.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-12, 07:53 PM
Slothful would be obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
*blink* How so? Or rather, how would they be obeying them any more then a more active individual?

Swordgleam
2010-02-12, 08:49 PM
*blink* How so? Or rather, how would they be obeying them any more then a more active individual?

I believe it's a reference to inertia.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-12, 09:01 PM
I believe it's a reference to inertia.
Oooh. . .
***
Still not getting it.:smallconfused: Thermodynamics is about the use of energy, inertia is about how mass is hard to move.

Swordgleam
2010-02-12, 09:19 PM
Oooh. . .
***
Still not getting it.:smallconfused: Thermodynamics is about the use of energy, inertia is about how mass is hard to move.

An object in motion will tend to remain in motion. An object at rest will tend to remain at rest. Thermodynamics and motion are basically the same thing if you're not a physicist. :smallbiggrin:

Lappy9000
2010-02-12, 09:32 PM
Law = Listening to your brain
Chaos = Listening to your guts

This system works perfectly in every possible situation. It's immediately understood by everyone, can never be a straightjacket, and never causes philosophical paradoxes how a character would decide or behave.
For outsiders add that they just can't imagine not using their method or why anyone else would use a different one. That seems like an alright system. I always have such a hard time understanding the Law/Chaos axis...


That is correct. I would deem that person Neutral on the Law vs chaos scale. He is content to follow the rules, as they don't seem to harm him and is also willing to let others be as long as they don't impose on him. As the PHB states (pg104) "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey or a compulsion to rebel..." For all I know, the character is simply following the laws for the good of everythone (this gets my vote) or because he was raised to do so.

I should probably go into more detail than what I did previously, and now that I've had time to think (and reword my response to be oh-so politcially correct, pain in my arse) I think I can go into more detail.

I deem Lawful Alignment as a need to impose order. I don't judge alignment on a person's past action but the motivation behind the act. Why does your character do this? Is it only because he was raised that way? Is it because it is most convenient to not do otherwise? Would he rather not follow the rules if it lead to greater benefit to himself or others? "A Lawful Good character acts as a good person is expected and required to act"

Likewise with Chaotic Alignment. To me, it is the need to act as one wants, unrestricted by tradition or rules. Don't confuse that with evil, though. Evil only comes into the picture when you intentionally wish to harm another person (physcially, emotionally, finacially, etc) with your actions or simply do not care if they are harmed. "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him"

So, wrapping it up, I believe that all the axis of the alignment system (good vs evil, law vs chaos) revolves on a need to either bring order (law), help people (good), act freely (chaos) or be an evil bastard (lol). Neutrality is, in my mind, lacking one or both of these needs.

I think that's a bit more detailed than my last post and might give you greater insight into how I think. Who knows, maybe this will help clear of the alignment confusion but, if not, we all think differently anyway.Of course, this is wonderful. Nicely done!