Is Elan really Chaotic Good?

[Chaotic Queen]

I've read the whole archive twice. The first time was just for fun, the second time was to look more closely and pay attention to subtle foreshadowing and character quirks.

So far, everything I've read about Elan paints him closer to Neutral Good and not Chaotic Good. I have a number of reasons and I'll list them all. Anyone is free to. Make their counter-points. I just want to understand the characters as much as possible.

First, Elan respects any and all authority, and twice he felt a lot of guilt when it came to breaking the law. The first time was when he desperately needed a change of clothes and left an apology note. The second was when he broke into a store and grabbed a lute, making sure to leave money behind. Haley would have done both without blinking an eye and certainly would not have left money behind.

Second, Elan refused to kill Kubota when he surrendered, obviously angry at the coward's trick. Haley would have murdered him.

Third, Elan always goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can. He did help Roy, a complete stranger, assemble his party even though he had nothing to gain from it. He even saved Nale, knowing full well he was evil and to let him live would only bite him in the future.

Finally, Elan's a sweetheart! It's obvious he doesn't have a hint of jerkiness (like Lawful Good Roy) or selfishness (like Choatic Good Haley). With Haley, it's "Me first, then everyone else" while with Elan it's "My friends first, strangers second, me last", which is one of the defining traits of a Neutral Good character.

I'm not trying to question the author, I'm just making an observation. Does anyone at least understand my point?

[mootoall]

See, that analysis simply makes me think that Haley is closer to Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Good, whereas Elan's actions still all ring Chaotic Good to me.

[Kish]

First, Elan respects any and all authority,

Elan has never shown regard for authority. What he respects, is people. Which is a Good thing, not a Lawful thing.


Second, Elan refused to kill Kubota when he surrendered, obviously angry at the coward's trick. Haley would have murdered him.

Your error here is thinking Chaotic means "less respect for life." Haley is not more Chaotic than Elan, but she definitely is less Good.


Third, Elan always goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can.

...And your error here is...I can't even think of a less obvious way to put it than, "Thinking Chaotic means less good." Of course he goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can; he's at least tied for the title of most Good character in the comic. That has nothing to do with Chaotic.


Finally, Elan's a sweetheart! It's obvious he doesn't have a hint of jerkiness (like Lawful Good Roy) or selfishness (like Choatic Good Haley). With Haley, it's "Me first, then everyone else" while with Elan it's "My friends first, strangers second, me last", which is one of the defining traits of a Neutral Good character.
Okay, your error here appears to be--very blatantly--believing that Neutral Good is more Good than the other two Good alignments. You will not find that "defining trait" of a Neutral Good character in any sourcebook, especially not as a distinction between Neutral Good and the other two Good alignments.

Haley is Chaotic Good-ish. Elan is Chaotic Good.

[Chaotic Queen]

Elan has never shown regard for authority. What he respects, is people. Which is a Good thing, not a Lawful thing.

Your error here is thinking Chaotic means "less respect for life." Haley is not more Chaotic than Elan, but she definitely is less Good.

...And your error here is...I can't even think of a less obvious way to put it than, "Thinking Chaotic means less good." Of course he goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can; he's at least tied for the title of most Good character in the comic. That has nothing to do with Chaotic.

Okay, your error here appears to be--very blatantly--believing that Neutral Good is more Good than the other two Good alignments. You will not find that "defining trait" of a Neutral Good character in any sourcebook, especially not as a distinction between Neutral Good and the other two Good alignments.

Haley is Chaotic Good-ish. Elan is Chaotic Good.

Okay, thank you clearing it up for me!

[Morty]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0503.html) strip proves quite succintly that Elan is Chaotic Good. Hinjo, a Lawful Good Paladin, is reluctant to bend the laws, even to do what's right... whereas Elan sees no problem with it - just like Shojo, who was also most likely Chaotic Good.
EDIT: Ack, ninja'd in a way that makes my post quite unnecessary...

[Maxios]

I operate under the suspicion Elan is really Stupid Good.

[Felixc-91]

While Kish did an excelent job explaining things, I thought you might be interested in reading the by the rules deffinition of the alignment system found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm).

[FujinAkari]

Yes, he's really Chaotic Good. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html)

[jidasfire]

A lot of Elan's behavior could suggest Neutral Good, given that he has no particular interest in breaking laws, except that isn't the only potential criterion for Chaotic. It also implies impulsive or random behavior, which Elan exhibits in spades. Elan is probably the strongest Good in the party, which overrides is Chaotic side in terms of his behavior, but it's still there.

[Squark]

Most Chaotic Good people obey the law. What seperates them from Lawful Good people is the reason behind it; Lawful Good people follow the law because they believe following the law (barring blatantly unjust laws) is the right thing to do. Chaotic Good people follow just laws because following the law usually involves doing the right thing (not killing people, not stealing, etc.). The other big difference is their approach to unjust laws. Chaotic Good characters are likely to just ignore laws they disagree with if doing so isn't likely to get them in trouble, while Lawful Good characters are much more likely to work within the system to change the law, trying to minimize harm in the process.

[Yendor]

Elan has never shown regard for authority. What he respects, is people. Which is a Good thing, not a Lawful thing.

And because he's an optimist, and more than a little naive, he tends to assume the best in people, which naturally leads to his respect. And of course, he certainly didn't respect Miko's authority.

[Forikroder]

I've read the whole archive twice. The first time was just for fun, the second time was to look more closely and pay attention to subtle foreshadowing and character quirks.

So far, everything I've read about Elan paints him closer to Neutral Good and not Chaotic Good. I have a number of reasons and I'll list them all. Anyone is free to. Make their counter-points. I just want to understand the characters as much as possible.

First, Elan respects any and all authority, and twice he felt a lot of guilt when it came to breaking the law. The first time was when he desperately needed a change of clothes and left an apology note. The second was when he broke into a store and grabbed a lute, making sure to leave money behind. Haley would have done both without blinking an eye and certainly would not have left money behind.
your confusing Chaotic with evil, if Elan wasnt Chaotic he wouldnt ahve broken the law, he tries not to break the law but has no problem breaking it when given a reason


Second, Elan refused to kill Kubota when he surrendered, obviously angry at the coward's trick. Haley would have murdered him.
that would be an evil act, killing in cold blood is 100% evil


Third, Elan always goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can. He did help Roy, a complete stranger, assemble his party even though he had nothing to gain from it. He even saved Nale, knowing full well he was evil and to let him live would only bite him in the future.
the Roy bit was probably his knowledge of dramatic stuff and his instincts as a bard to find a good adventure


Finally, Elan's a sweetheart! It's obvious he doesn't have a hint of jerkiness (like Lawful Good Roy) or selfishness (like Choatic Good Haley). With Haley, it's "Me first, then everyone else" while with Elan it's "My friends first, strangers second, me last", which is one of the defining traits of a Neutral Good character.

I'm not trying to question the author, I'm just making an observation. Does anyone at least understand my point?

no thats jsut the defining traits of a good person, Haley still does her share of good like purposely trying to avoid killing other humans and starting the resistance

Elan isnt the best example of a chaotic person (Belkar and Xykon are better examples IMO) but hes still pretty clearly chaotic

[skaddix]

Yeah he is chaotic good. Haley would have shot Kabuto dead most likely.

[B. Dandelion]

Regarding Kubota specifically --

In one breath the guy surrenders and offers up a fair amount of legalese, remitting himself to custody in order to be brought up on charges before a magistrate. For Elan, probably only the "I surrender" part is important, but it is readable as him essentially deferring to Kubota's legal argument, which would seem odd for a chaotic character. It also seems a bit odd that Kubota spends all of his time in custody blatantly bragging about how he's planning to cheat the system, and Elan's response is to... defend the system and say the scheme won't work. Granted, he's then tentatively willing to accept Kubota's summary execution as "for the best", which is decidedly non-Lawful, but if one were to try and guess Elan's alignment from that incident alone, I think Neutral Good would be more often selected than Chaotic.

But then look at Roy. The only thing that stopped the Deva from chucking his file into the Neutral Good department was that he wanted to be Lawful Good. If you look at the given alignments of the major characters, it's actually notable how few of them wind up as any sort of partial neutral, they congregate around the corners or at the center. You've got your Lawful Goods (Roy, Durkon, Hinjo, pre-fallen Miko, Celia, O-Chul, etc.) your Chaotic Goods (Elan, Haley, Shojo), Lawful Evils (Nale, Tarquin, Redcloak) and Chaotic Evils (Xykon, Belkar, most likely Sabine and Thog). In the middle you've got True Neutrals (Vaarsuvius, Julia, Enor and Gannji). But Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Evil? They mostly seem to show up when all "sides" need representation (so Haerta alongside Jepthon and Ganonron) or when class limitations make them a neutral by default (Neutral Good Lirian and Neutral Evil Leeky Windstaff). (There's also the unknowns of this arc -- Girard seems more likely Chaotic Neutral than anything else, and Malack may be Lawful Neutral. We shall see.) I'm not sure if that's by design or what. The implication I get out of it is that few people don't have a preference towards Lawful or Chaotic, so they pick one or the other even if that preference isn't manifest as often as you might expect. In practice, both Elan and Roy might hew closer to Neutral Good than to Lawful or Chaotic, but their overall philosophy prefers one slightly more than the other and that's all it takes.

[Red.Tide]

The way I see it, Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil are both continuous spectra, and the 9 alignments each cover a variety of amounts of both.

So Elan and Haley fit under Chaotic Good more than any other category, but Elan seems a lot more Good than Chaotic and is probably 'closer' to NG than CN. Haley is CG, but probably isn't far from the TN range.

Similarly, LG Roy leans toward NG, whereas LG Durkon is at least as Lawful as he is Good.

I also think that Redcloak, while LE, leans toward LN, whereas Nale is a lot more Evil than Lawful.

[B. Dandelion]

The way I see it, Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil are both continuous spectra, and the 9 alignments each cover a variety of amounts of both.

So Elan and Haley fit under Chaotic Good more than any other category, but Elan seems a lot more Good than Chaotic and is probably 'closer' to NG than CN. Haley is CG, but probably isn't far from the TN range.

Similarly, LG Roy leans toward NG, whereas LG Durkon is at least as Lawful as he is Good.

I also think that Redcloak, while LE, leans toward LN, whereas Nale is a lot more Evil than Lawful.

This too. It seems that for many (though not all) characters, you could say both axes are relevant but they tend to regard one as more important than the other. So Elan might prefer Chaos to Law, but his preference for Good over Evil is given far more weight in any decision-making process. He's not Neutral Good, but he'd consistently pick NG over CN and not feel much conflict over the decision.

I think Redcloak cares more about being Lawful than Evil, and Nale's the reverse, where Xykon cares more about being Evil than Chaotic and Belkar's the reverse. Roy cares more about being Good than Lawful... etc.

[Dr.Epic]

First, Elan respects any and all authority, and twice he felt a lot of guilt when it came to breaking the law. The first time was when he desperately needed a change of clothes and left an apology note. The second was when he broke into a store and grabbed a lute, making sure to leave money behind. Haley would have done both without blinking an eye and certainly would not have left money behind.

Just because you observe the laws of a city doesn't make you lawful. Lawful is about living your life my a code.


Second, Elan refused to kill Kubota when he surrendered, obviously angry at the coward's trick. Haley would have murdered him.

Third, Elan always goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can. He did help Roy, a complete stranger, assemble his party even though he had nothing to gain from it. He even saved Nale, knowing full well he was evil and to let him live would only bite him in the future.

Finally, Elan's a sweetheart! It's obvious he doesn't have a hint of jerkiness (like Lawful Good Roy) or selfishness (like Choatic Good Haley). With Haley, it's "Me first, then everyone else" while with Elan it's "My friends first, strangers second, me last", which is one of the defining traits of a Neutral Good character.

What do any of those things have to do with law or chaos?

[Bulldog Psion]

Although I don't think the original post has a lot of examples that seem to have no bearing on the question (because "good" is more important in most of them than "lawful" or "chaotic"), it does seem sometimes like Elan could be more neutral good.

[Math_Mage]

Haley, Elan, and Shojo are three completely different characters who all fall under the CG alignment for completely different reasons. That's fine by me.

[multilis]

Elan is stupid in way that helps his cause like the Red Pimpernel. He is the opposite of Nale, as Nale fakes to be genius but is really quite dumb, Elan only pretends to be stupid.

Clearly he is really a secret agent for Snarl, and the New World Order. And that is why the Oracle noted it will end well for him. (As Elan knowingly works for Snarl, Nale unknowingly works for the anti-Snarl IFCC)

He is lawful, under the laws of Snarl, rather than the corrupt laws of the old world and bickering and corrupt gods. And that is why he hit the self destruct button in beginning of story, and it will end well for him once the way to Snarl is finally open as the Oracle explained.

Elan's *true* allignment is Lawful Genius.

Please help Elan and Snarl by sending your tax deductible donations to:
The Holey Brotherhood
PO Box 124, Cliffport

[Gift Jeraff]

Elan is Chaotic Good.

Haley is Chaotic Hood, yo.

[Chaotic Queen]

Alright, thanks for helping me understand. So basically Elan is more Good than he is Chaotic, but he's still Chaotic Good.

[hamishspence]

Chaotic Neutral in older editions was pretty whimsical- sometimes to the point of seeming crazy.

Elan's behaviour here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0206.html

reminded me of this. With his kind heart in other strips pushing him into Good territory.

There's probably other moments of "whimsical Chaotic" from Elan.

[Math_Mage]

Alright, thanks for helping me understand. So basically Elan is more Good than he is Chaotic, but he's still Chaotic Good.

Well, only in the sense that he's REALLY REALLY Good, not in the sense that he's not very Chaotic. He's naive and unpredictable ("I'm on an adventure!"). He places great store in personal relationships (Roy, Haley, and now Tarquin). He doesn't mind breaking the law, only doing wrong ("That would be stealing! Like, in a BAD way!"). There's probably more if I put my mind to it.

[JennTora]

Chaotic Neutral in older editions was pretty whimsical- sometimes to the point of seeming crazy.

Elan's behaviour here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0206.html

reminded me of this. With his kind heart in other strips pushing him into Good territory.

There's probably other moments of "whimsical Chaotic" from Elan.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0038.html

for example.

Yeah, Elan's chaotic because of his whimsical nature, same with belkar, which is why elan and belkar get along quite well in this panel and a number of others. Their binding factor is their chaotic alignment being expressed in a random and insane nature. haley's chaotic because of her disdain for the law but she's actually quite down to earth and logical, shojo is chaotic because he considers following the rules to be nowhere near as important as helping people.

[Chaotic Queen]

It's funny. Elan's undeniably Good nature always reminds me of Dr. Tenma. His idiotically Good nature on the other hand always reminds me of Fighter McWarrior.

[Felixc-91]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0038.html

for example.

Yeah, Elan's chaotic because of his whimsical nature, same with belkar, which is why elan and belkar get along quite well in this panel and a number of others. Their binding factor is their chaotic alignment being expressed in a random and insane nature. haley's chaotic because of her disdain for the law but she's actually quite down to earth and logical, shojo is chaotic because he considers following the rules to be nowhere near as important as helping people.
To add one more to the wimsical Elan pile i give you this: running around in a crowded festival without your clothes on (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0302.html), for no particular reason.

[The Pilgrim]

Alright, thanks for helping me understand. So basically Elan is more Good than he is Chaotic, but he's still Chaotic Good.

No. His level of goodness has nothing to say about his position in the Law-Chaos axis.

Being too Good would not put Elan out of the Chaotic alignment (or Roy from the Lawful one, for instance).

Being less Chaotic and a bit more Lawful, would.

[Fish]

Law and Chaos are not aligned 1:1 with the idea of "obeying the law and respecting authority" and "disregarding the law and eschewing authority."

You can clearly see this by asking yourself, "If Redcloak is Lawful Evil, he should have been unable to break any laws of Azure City." Obviously, he could and did. Also, you could ask, "Why would Chaotic goblins even have a leader?" Obvuously they can and do.

Law can as much about organized, systematic or logical thought; adherence to a specific moral or ethical code (or legal, but not necessarily!); or controlling, detail-oriented, habitual or routine behavior. "Lawful means obeying all local laws" is a silly interpretation.

[sims796]

This thread has helped me understand the intricacies of Law & Chaos, but I'm even more confused on the aspects of Neutrality (in regards to Law & Chaos).

Judging by what I see here, you can safely write off Neutral Good in favor of Chaotic Good, and just have various levels of the latter. I'm confused.

[Castamir]

Elan is Dumb Dumb, this dwarfs all other axes of his alignment.

[B. Dandelion]

This thread has helped me understand the intricacies of Law & Chaos, but I'm even more confused on the aspects of Neutrality (in regards to Law & Chaos).

Judging by what I see here, you can safely write off Neutral Good in favor of Chaotic Good, and just have various levels of the latter. I'm confused.

I think it suggests Neutral Good is dedicated towards actively balancing both sides, as opposed to "being willing to give either side a chance so long as it does the most good". Its a subtly different take on "fairness" which does more than simply not fall into the trap of excessive dogma.

[Gift Jeraff]

Elan is Dumb Dumb, this dwarfs all other axes of his alignment.But Durkon uses a hammer. :smallconfused:

[Gnoman]

BAsically, each alignment axis is a continuum. At some point, you aren't Chaotic anymore, but you aren't Lawful either. If you have Blue on one end, and Red on the other, there is no point along the axis where red touches blue. It blends into Purple. Alignment is much more complex, especially the Law/Chaos part, so there's no easy judge. One such scenario would be someone who hates and distrusts the laws of his city, but twists and manipulates those rules to do Good. It's rarely so clear cut, though.

[Yuki Akuma]

I think it suggests Neutral Good is dedicated towards actively balancing both sides, as opposed to "being willing to give either side a chance so long as it does the most good". Its a subtly different take on "fairness" which does more than simply not fall into the trap of excessive dogma.

There are two ways to see Neutrality.

"Balance", in which someone has a philosophy dedicated towards balancing both sides of the axis because they believe that one can't exist without the other.

"Apathy", in which someone doesn't really give a **** about Law or Chaos and just wants to be Good.

[sims796]

You guys are trying, and I thank you, but I'm still a tad confused. Do NG's go out of their way to make sure they obey the law one second, then disobeys it the next, when doing good? How is that judged on the game table?

Can somebody give me an example of a Neutral Good scenario? That should do this thread some good as well.

[Yuki Akuma]

"Lawful" does not mean "obeys the law".

It means "ordered".

Someone who obeys the law one moment and disobeys it the next isn't Neutral, he's Chaotic. And likely insane.

As for an example of a Neutral Good scenario... Rodgar the Red, Paragon of Goodness, comes across a traveler on the road. The traveler is hungry and a long way from home, so Rodgar lets him share his fire and eat his food, despite the fact that Rodgar only really packed enough for himself.

This isn't Chaotic or Lawful. It's just Good.

[sims796]

"Apathy", in which someone doesn't really give a **** about Law or Chaos and just wants to be Good.

THIS! This is what confuses me. I once made the same (apparently wrong) argument in regards to Elan being NG. I let it go, of course, what with my limited view of the alignment system.

But when I argued this, I was told that this was actually chaos; the not give a single @#$%, do what they want behavior, as chaotic people don't consciously make the choice, they'll stick with the law when it suits them, abandon it when it doesn't.

[sims796]

"Lawful" does not mean "obeys the law".

It means "ordered".

Someone who obeys the law one moment and disobeys it the next isn't Neutral, he's Chaotic. And likely insane.

As for an example of a Neutral Good scenario... Rodgar the Red, Paragon of Goodness, comes across a traveler on the road. The traveler is hungry and a long way from home, so Rodgar lets him share his fire and eat his food, despite the fact that Rodgar only really packed enough for himself.

This isn't Chaotic or Lawful. It's just Good.

With all due respect, that sounds like more of an example of Good - why wouldn't a Lawful or Chaotic person share his food as well?

I mean, I get why NG differs from LG. But NG & CG always got me confused. Didn't they get rid of neutral mixes in 4ed? Based on what I hear about it, and my own lack of understanding, Neutral Good seems redundant.

[Peelee]

You guys are trying, and I thank you, but I'm still a tad confused. Do NG's go out of their way to make sure they obey the law one second, then disobeys it the next, when doing good? How is that judged on the game table?

Can somebody give me an example of a Neutral Good scenario? That should do this thread some good as well.

To take Gnoman's color spectrum analogy a little further helps with this. Say there's a line that starts red and ends blue. The red and blue don't really touch, because there's purple in between. But even then, where exactly does red stop and purple begin? At what point does purple turn into blue? The best anyone will be able to do will be to try to make a judgement call and leave it at that.

That said, Han Solo from Star Wars is a pretty good example of Neutral Good. He follows the mold and does what he's told when it works, and goes his own way when that's better for him. There could be some debate about this - he could arguably be Chaotic Good. Which is where the Red-Blue line comes in. If I was DMing and a character played like him, I'd peg him as NG.

Seems to be a decent analogy, at least. Until someone comes up with one better.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes. That's an example of Good.

Someone who is Neutral Good is simply Good. There is no metaphysical "Neutrality" - it's merely the absence of Law and Chaos.

Someone who is Chaotic Good is more erratic and prone to doing new things than someone who is Neutral Good, and someone who is Lawful Good is more prone to sticking to the way he's always done things than someone who's Neutral Good.

None of them are less Good. They just go about doing Good differently.

A person who is Chaotic Good and a person who is Lawful Good can both perform as many Neutral Good acts as they damn well please without it impacting their alignment one iota because they are both Good.

[sims796]

To take Gnoman's color spectrum analogy helps with this. Say there's a line that starts red and ends blue. The red and blue don't really touch, because there's purple in between. But even then, where exactly does red stop and purple begin? At what point does purple turn into blue? The best anyone will be able to do will be to try to make a judgement call and leave it at that.

That said, Han Solo from Star Wars is a pretty good example of Neutral Good. He follows the mold and does what he's told when it works, and goes his own way when that's better for him. There could be some debate about this - he could arguably be Chaotic Good. Which is where the Red-Blue line comes in. If I was DMing and a character played like him, I'd peg him as NG.

Seems to be a decent analogy, at least. Until someone comes up with one better.

You have no idea how much this helps *and* confuses me.

I've always thought that was what NG was - follow the rules when it works well for you, but be willing to break them when necessary. Not so hung up about personal freedom like CG, but don't like being constraint to rules/regulations/personal code like LG.

But as you said, there are people out there that would turn that exact same analogy for CG - they don't go out of their way to spit on rules, they just live their normal lives, follow an order if it's best, and break it when necessary.

Is it that, in order to be CG or LG, you must really, really, really act the part? Haley seems a perfect example of CG. She not only screws off orders whenever necessary, but lives her life without really regarding rules in general. She'll follow the ones that she agrees with, and even then, it's on her time. They're there, so what?

Would a good example of NG be Paragon Shepard (or Paragade)? Following the rules, even the ones that he may disagrees with, but disregarding them only when necessary? But unlike a full Paragon, he won't be so uptight about always following every rule?

[sims796]

Yes. That's an example of Good.

Someone who is Neutral Good is simply Good. There is no metaphysical "Neutrality" - it's merely the absence of Law and Chaos.

Someone who is Chaotic Good is more erratic and prone to doing new things than someone who is Neutral Good, and someone who is Lawful Good is more prone to sticking to the way he's always done things than someone who's Neutral Good.

None of them are less Good. They just go about doing Good differently.

A person who is Chaotic Good and a person who is Lawful Good can both perform as many Neutral Good acts as they damn well please without it impacting their alignment one iota because they are both Good.

Wait, no, I get what Good is, and I know that, despite the fact that they have different ways of going about it, they are all Good (or evil, if need be) regardless. But it's the differences that confuse me. Specifically the differences between NG & CG; that seem so much alike at times, it's hard to tell.

[Ellye]

I think it might alright to say that Elan isn't "very Chaotic" - he's probably somewhat close to Neutral.
Thog seems like a much more Chaotic character, for example.

One thing that Elan definitely and absolutely is, is Good. All the points made in the OP are in regard to this alignment axis, and Elan is pretty much all the way to the top on the Good side.

So I guess you could say that Elan is "Chaotic-ish Good" and Haley is "Chaotic Good-ish". They are both still CG, but Elan isn't that much Chaotic, and Haley isn't that much Good.


Wait, no, I get what Good is, and I know that, despite the fact that they have different ways of going about it, they are all Good (or evil, if need be) regardless. But it's the differences that confuse me. Specifically the differences between NG & CG; that seem so much alike at times, it's hard to tell.I think the easiest way to identify a Neutral character (in either alignment axis) is to observe a relative absence of perks regarding the other two options in that axis (if a character exhibit neither a considerable number of Lawful nor Chaotic characteristics; or Good nor Evil characteristics for the other axis). That's why it might be hard to write a direct comparison between NG and CG.

[The Pilgrim]

Wait, no, I get what Good is, and I know that, despite the fact that they have different ways of going about it, they are all Good (or evil, if need be) regardless. But it's the differences that confuse me. Specifically the differences between NG & CG; that seem so much alike at times, it's hard to tell.

The key difference is that the Neutral can break the laws sometimes, while the Chaotic must play the Rebel.

A Neutral Good, for instance, will respect the laws of a Lawful Good authority, while the Chaotic Good will not.

Think of it as the diference between Soon (Lawful), Lirian (Neutral) and Girard (Chaotic).

[sims796]

The key difference is that the Neutral can break the laws sometimes, while the Chaotic must play the Rebel.

A Neutral Good, for instance, will respect the laws of a Lawful Good authority, while the Chaotic Good will not.

Think of it as the diference between Soon (Lawful), Lirian (Neutral) and Girard (Chaotic).

So my analogy of Haley and Paragade (Paragon with Renegade tendencies) was correct, then? Thanks, this helps out much more than you think.

[Kish]

"Paragon with Renegade tendencies," in my experience, is a player who does not wish to acknowledge that the Good/Evil scale in Mass Effect is a Good/Evil scale.

[sims796]

"Paragon with Renegade tendencies," in my experience, is a player who does not wish to acknowledge that the Good/Evil scale in Mass Effect is a Good/Evil scale.

Eh, whatever. It helped me understand the differences, that's all that matters to me.

[The Pilgrim]

So my analogy of Haley and Paragade (Paragon with Renegade tendencies) was correct, then? Thanks, this helps out much more than you think.

I don't know about that Paragade, but out of your previous posts:

I've always thought that was what NG was - follow the rules when it works well for you, but be willing to break them when necessary. Not so hung up about personal freedom like CG, but don't like being constraint to rules/regulations/personal code like LG.

This is correct.


But as you said, there are people out there that would turn that exact same analogy for CG - they don't go out of their way to spit on rules, they just live their normal lives, follow an order if it's best, and break it when necessary.

This is not correct. A good way to differenciate a NG from a CG is that an CG will feel compulsion to disrespect authority (Haley's case) or act in an odd behaviour (Elan's case) even when it's not for the best of it's interests. While a NG will not. Same as a LG will go out of their way to adhere to rules (Durkon's case), while a NG will not.

In all the OOTS, the best (and perhaps only) example of a NG character is Lirian from SoD.

[Ellye]

In all the OOTS, the best (and perhaps only) example of a NG character is Lirian from SoD.Lirian also doubles (or triples) as a fantastic example of a how Neutral Good character (and a druid nonetheless) isn't all butterflies and peace and love. Her fighting tactic is pretty brutal if you stop to think about it, and even her way of showing mercy is pretty rough on the bad guys. Fantastic character from the little we saw of her.

A more prevalent character that is clearly Neutral on the Law vs Chaos axis (though not Good) is V.
She's not impulsive and care-free like Elan, Haley, Belkar, Xykon or Thog; and she's also not honorable and uptight like Roy, Durkon or the paladins. She has a few characteristics from each side, but really doesn't belong in either, making her Neutral.

[sims796]

I don't know about that Paragade, but out of your previous posts:

I've always thought that was what NG was - follow the rules when it works well for you, but be willing to break them when necessary. Not so hung up about personal freedom like CG, but don't like being constraint to rules/regulations/personal code like LG.

This is correct.


But as you said, there are people out there that would turn that exact same analogy for CG - they don't go out of their way to spit on rules, they just live their normal lives, follow an order if it's best, and break it when necessary.

This is not correct. A good way to differenciate a NG from a CG is that an CG will feel compulsion to disrespect authority (Haley's case) or act in an odd behaviour (Elan's case) even when it's not for the best of it's interests. While a NG will not. Same as a LG will go out of their way to adhere to rules (Durkon's case), while a NG will not.

In all the OOTS, the best (and perhaps only) example of a NG character is Lirian from SoD.

Now I really get it. So you can't just *say* your CG, you *must* act it. It's a tad more "straight-jackety" than NG, in that regard, if I understand correctly.

One quick question. Because a NG wouldn't "feel the compulsion" as it were, the same way a CG or LG would for their respective alignments, it can also be a disadvantage at times? As a way of not making one alignment any better than the other? Like, there may be times to piss off rules, while a LG may be busy with following them, or a time to follow them, while th eNG would not?

[sims796]

Lirian also doubles (or triples) as a fantastic example of a how Neutral Good character (and a druid nonetheless) isn't all butterflies and peace and love. Her fighting tactic is pretty brutal if you stop to think about it, and even her way of showing mercy is pretty rough on the bad guys. Fantastic character from the little we saw of her.

A more prevalent character that is clearly Neutral on the Law vs Chaos axis (though not Good) is V.

I was thinking that as well, in both regards (I have SoD).

[Toofey]

I would just point out that at least in 2nd ed, Bards had to be at least part Neutral, If you take the initial system jump as the jump to 3rd ed...

[The Pilgrim]

Now I really get it. So you can't just *say* your CG, you *must* act it. It's a tad more "straight-jackety" than NG, in that regard, if I understand correctly.

You got the point.


One quick question. Because a NG wouldn't "feel the compulsion" as it were, the same way a CG or LG would for their respective alignments, it can also be a disadvantage at times? As a way of not making one alignment any better than the other? Like, there may be times to piss off rules, while a LG may be busy with following them, or a time to follow them, while the NG would not?

Well, from a powerplaying point of view, picking NG instead of CG or LG is more preferable, as you retain greater freedom of choice. But, from a roleplaying point of view, picking a LG or CG gives you more grounds for character development.

As per you queston, it depends on how do you understand the "neutral" side of your NG character. If you understand it as "I do always the goodest thing without regards of lawfulness or personal freedom" then that may be a disadvantage sometimes. If you understand it as "I seek balance between Law and Chaos" it can definitely be a disadvantage a lot of times. But if you understand it just as "I'm not bound to lawfulness or personal freedom" then there isn't really any disadvantage on it.

[Bulldog Psion]

As per you queston, it depends on how do you understand the "neutral" side of your NG character. If you understand it as "I do always the goodest thing without regards of lawfulness or personal freedom" then that may be a disadvantage sometimes. If you understand it as "I seek balance between Law and Chaos" it can definitely be a disadvantage a lot of times. But if you understand it just as "I'm not bound to lawfulness or personal freedom" then there isn't really any disadvantage on it.

Personally, I think it could be any of the three, as different personalities within one alignment clearly show in OotS. :smallsmile:

[irenicObserver]

I feel offended that the people questioning Elan's alignment associate Chaotic with wholly negative and outright evil traits.

[SevleyT]

Based on a couple of links posted in this thread, I have a couple of tangentially related questions. I've never actually played D&D myself (mostly for a lack of knowing anybody to play it with) but I like to think I have a decent understanding of the rules from following this comic and others. Questions are:


Yes, he's really Chaotic Good. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html)

This one's actually about alignments. In "O Buddy Roy" Elan sings about how he and Roy probably wouldn't meet in the afterlife. What we saw of Roy's time in the LG afterlife backs this up. Everything* I've seen about Good characters suggests that they're not only interested in helping others, but in being nice. Isn't it singularly cruel to separate friends in the afterlife based on their alignment? As much as Roy gets annoyed with Elan, and Durkon wishes to be back with his people, wouldn't Roy, Durkon, Elan, and Haley all be saddened upon their inevitable deaths to never be able to see their friends again? I have a hard time equating that with a 'Good' afterlife.

I'm guessing this isn't something dealt with much in actual D&D games as there probably isn't much roleplaying in the afterlife, but is this sort of thing very strict, or would there be room for some DM ruling about LG and CG mingling in the afterlife? (Or LE and CE, or Neutrals and either alignment for that matter)

*With some exceptions, like perhaps a certain monk-turned-paladin.


EDIT: Erased the first question. More careful reading determined the answer.

[irenicObserver]

Looking at Roy: although he expected resurrection soon he saw nothing wrong with an eternity without pain, with the loved ones he once knew, eternal everything tailored for satisfaction and like-minded individuals.

[factotum]

The descriptions of each alignment on the SRD may be helpful here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

[The Pilgrim]

Personally, I think it could be any of the three, as different personalities within one alignment clearly show in OotS. :smallsmile:

Yep, there are different ways to develope each aligment for each character. This is why I talked about how one understands a certain alignment for his/her character, instead of talking about how one understands the alignment as a whole. :smallsmile:

Two characters in the same game can have the same alignment but very different ways to represent it, and thus very different personalities. As you said, there are plenty examples in OOTS. Both Haley and Elan are CG, but while Haley is the "acts with disregard for Laws and Authority" type, Elan is more the "umpredictable person who acts on his whims and follows his conscience with litte regard to what others may think of him" type.

[King of Nowhere]

Wait, no, I get what Good is, and I know that, despite the fact that they have different ways of going about it, they are all Good (or evil, if need be) regardless. But it's the differences that confuse me. Specifically the differences between NG & CG; that seem so much alike at times, it's hard to tell.

all the different alignments can be difficult to distinguish, simply because most of the times there is a smart thing to do, and acting evil or chaotic would just cause troubles. but the three good alignments can be especially puzzelsome.
think for example of the speed limits when driving a car: a lawful person would say "it's the law", and abide by it. a chaotic person may respect it because of safety concerns, or just because he don't want to risk a fee. in fact, even a chaotic evil person would often act lawful good just to avoid troubles.
Another example is loyalty: a lawful person may be loyal to someone because he's the lawful autority in charge. a chaotic person may be loyal to that same autority because he trust him presonally. even a chaotic evil person could be loyal to someone, because he thinks that guy will take sound decisions and not betray him. see belkar, who sticks around roy.
Then the person in charge may lose his position within the lawful chain of command, an maybe the lawful person will still be loyal to him, because he's been all the time before and it would feel like a betrayal to stop. and a chaotic guy would keep being loyal to him because he was loyal regardless of the legal autority.
I'm losing the thread of my own speech, but basically the point I'm trying to make is that there can be a lot of practical reasons for a person af a certain alignment to take a decision that is normally associated with another alignment. For this reason I always felt it is much more important why you take the decision, and not which decision you take. A belief partly shared by the bureaucratic deva.

Also keep in mind that everyone has a slightly different idea of what an alignment is or what it entails.

[thrompton]

Law vs Neutrality vs chaos is a pretty simple concept.

a lawful character will feel compelled to follow the law, a code of conduit. Not because "it is the right thing to do", but because "it's the law". Period.

a chaotic character will act the way he wants. He won't care about the law, because he feel compelled to act for "a greater cause". It can either be the greater good, the good of those close of him, personnal gain, etc. If the law is on the same side as the character, fine. But if not....well too bad, he's still going to act as he wants. He can follow the law or ordrers sometimes, if he doesn't want to hurt someone for example. But not because of the "cause" at itself.

The way i see it, if the character doesn't feel compelled at all to follow the law (or order), he is chaotic. If he feel compelled to follow the rules, he is lawful. Neutrality is in between.

If the character follow the rules/code of conduit whenever he can but need to....cheat a little from time to time, he's neutral. If a direct order is given to a neutral character, he'll do his best to follow it. But if it needs to be, he'll break the rules.
For some characters, neutrality is a REFUSAL to be on the law or chaos side. They will intentionnally stop following orders/law from time to time, to show some kind of free will.

At least, that's how i play it on my games...

[Fish]

a lawful character will feel compelled to follow the law, a code of conduit. Not because "it is the right thing to do", but because "it's the law". Period.
How I wish Saint Gary had used a different word than Lawful. Organized, maybe; Structured. Inflexible, Dogmatic. Anything but to imply Lawful people obeyed every written law.

Lawful characters do not necessarily follow all earthly laws, or any earthly laws. A Lawful character might disregard all earthly authority in favor of some other, higher power or code (such as Redcloak and Miko both do/did). Both were prepared to attack and kill anyone or anything, laws be hanged, that got in the way of their perceived order or code.

[multilis]

...Elan only pretends to be stupid.

Clearly he is really a secret agent for Snarl, and the New World Order. And that is why the Oracle noted it will end well for him. (As Elan knowingly works for Snarl, Nale unknowingly works for the anti-Snarl IFCC)

He is lawful, under the laws of Snarl, rather than the corrupt laws of the old world and bickering and corrupt gods. And that is why he hit the self destruct button in beginning of story...


Lawful characters do not necessarily follow all earthly laws, or any earthly laws.

The Holey Brotherhood thanks you for agreeing.

[veti]

This is not correct. A good way to differenciate a NG from a CG is that an CG will feel compulsion to disrespect authority (Haley's case) or act in an odd behaviour (Elan's case) even when it's not for the best of it's interests. While a NG will not. Same as a LG will go out of their way to adhere to rules (Durkon's case), while a NG will not.

The idea of "a compulsion to be chaotic" doesn't sit well with me. Surely chaos is about freedom, and how can you reconcile that with compulsion? Unless you're arguing that "chaotic" is a kind of mental illness. (Which come to think of it, may be how a Lawful person might see it. Whereas from a Chaotic standpoint, Lawful could be seen as a mental illness - Lawful people are "compelled" to over-analyse and apply "rules", even when there's a simple and obvious solution.)

Take another CG character: Shojo. He circumvented or just plain ignored the laws, but I don't see any sign in his character of "a compulsion" to do that. It was simply - expedient. Ditto, with some reservations, Julio Scoundrel.

I think "chaotic" isn't a compulsion so much as a habit of mind, the way you're accustomed to thinking about a given situation. A lawful person thinks procedurally, considering (as far as they can) the whole chain of cause and effect: "How should I go about dealing with this situation? What would $MY_ROLE_MODEL do here?" A chaotic person looks at their current situation and thinks: "Of my options at this moment, which one gives me the best result, taking into account all the variables that I care about?" Thus a chaotic person is much more likely to see options that never occur to a lawful one (such as whipping out a hand puppet).

But where does that leave "neutral"? Taking V as the example, I'm thinking - someone who thinks lawfully in some areas, chaotically in others. V's normal attitude to magic is fairly lawful - she sees the universe as an intricate machine, in which you can produce the effect you want by applying exactly the right amount of force to some upstream part. But her attitude to social interaction is highly chaotic - she doesn't begin to understand psychology, so she just applies brute force.


In all the OOTS, the best (and perhaps only) example of a NG character is Lirian from SoD.

You seem to read an awful lot into her character on the basis of very scant on-panel time, and most of that time she was squaring up to villains in a situation that didn't exactly call for nuanced moral or ethical reasoning.

Her reasons for imprisoning rather than killing Team Evil were good, sure, but I don't see how to assign them any weight on the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

[Yuki Akuma]

The Law vs. Chaos alignment axis is referred to as the "Ethical" alignment axis. It's the way you think things should be done, and you feel weird and guilty if you don't do it that way.

So yeah. You are compelled to act that way. That's why it's your alignment.

You do not consciously choose your alignment. Your alignment is who you are. To change your alignment, it's not enough to act differently - you need to think differently.

And yes, someone who is neutral can totally think lawfully about some things and chaotically about others. Or he can simply think neutrally. It's not like that isn't an option. It's a spectrum.

[Ellye]

Since a lot of people seem to confuse it: Lawful and Chaotic don't have much to do with actual "laws" by nature - they often do, but mostly as a consequence of what they are.

[The Pilgrim]

You seem to read an awful lot into her character on the basis of very scant on-panel time, and most of that time she was squaring up to villains in a situation that didn't exactly call for nuanced moral or ethical reasoning.

Her reasons for imprisoning rather than killing Team Evil were good, sure, but I don't see how to assign them any weight on the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

As a Druid, she was required to be neutral on at least one aspect. If it was not her moral axis, it had to be, thus, her ethical one.

[Red XIV]

Regarding Kubota specifically --

In one breath the guy surrenders and offers up a fair amount of legalese, remitting himself to custody in order to be brought up on charges before a magistrate. For Elan, probably only the "I surrender" part is important, but it is readable as him essentially deferring to Kubota's legal argument, which would seem odd for a chaotic character. It also seems a bit odd that Kubota spends all of his time in custody blatantly bragging about how he's planning to cheat the system, and Elan's response is to... defend the system and say the scheme won't work.
Like Yendor said, Elan is an optimist. He expected the system to work properly and convict Kubota of the crimes he's obviously guilty of because that's how it's supposed to happen. The good guys are supposed to win in the end, and the bad guys are supposed to be punished.

[factotum]

Like Yendor said, Elan is an optimist. He expected the system to work properly and convict Kubota of the crimes he's obviously guilty of because that's how it's supposed to happen.

Not to mention that killing a helpless prisoner who has already surrendered isn't exactly a Good act, no matter who they happen to be...it was amazing Elan's conscience even went as far as punching Kubota.

[B. Dandelion]

Not to mention that killing a helpless prisoner who has already surrendered isn't exactly a Good act, no matter who they happen to be...it was amazing Elan's conscience even went as far as punching Kubota.

He was outgunned, not helpless. He surrendered because he'd lose if he tried to fight, that's not the same thing as being utterly incapable of resistance. It's not like Elan was punching him after he'd tied him up.

Besides, I was just saying it seemed odd for Elan to passionately defend the Due Process of Law to a Lawful Evil character who was gleefully planning to subvert it. The alternative isn't necessarily "Elan should have been stabbing him", but possibly just looking pissed off and not responding. I dunno, I guess I would just expect a lot of chaotics to think the system was very corruptible and a character like Kubota would be confirming their suspicions. Elan doesn't seem to harbor such suspicions and indeed has a lot of faith in the system to return good results. I get that "it doesn't prove he's not chaotic," but it does distinguish him some amongst the other Chaotics we've seen.

[EmperorSarda]

He was outgunned, not helpless. He surrendered because he'd lose if he tried to fight, that's not the same thing as being utterly incapable of resistance. It's not like Elan was punching him after he'd tied him up.

Besides, I was just saying it seemed odd for Elan to passionately defend the Due Process of Law to a Lawful Evil character who was gleefully planning to subvert it. The alternative isn't necessarily "Elan should have been stabbing him", but possibly just looking pissed off and not responding. I dunno, I guess I would just expect a lot of chaotics to think the system was very corruptible and a character like Kubota would be confirming their suspicions. Elan doesn't seem to harbor such suspicions and indeed has a lot of faith in the system to return good results. I get that "it doesn't prove he's not chaotic," but it does distinguish him some amongst the other Chaotics we've seen.

I think one it was his naivete speaking on how laws work. Second, he worked for and defended a paladin in charge of the country, it was probably more good than lawful to defend Hinjo and his procedures.

[Forikroder]

He was outgunned, not helpless. He surrendered because he'd lose if he tried to fight, that's not the same thing as being utterly incapable of resistance. It's not like Elan was punching him after he'd tied him up.

Besides, I was just saying it seemed odd for Elan to passionately defend the Due Process of Law to a Lawful Evil character who was gleefully planning to subvert it. The alternative isn't necessarily "Elan should have been stabbing him", but possibly just looking pissed off and not responding. I dunno, I guess I would just expect a lot of chaotics to think the system was very corruptible and a character like Kubota would be confirming their suspicions. Elan doesn't seem to harbor such suspicions and indeed has a lot of faith in the system to return good results. I get that "it doesn't prove he's not chaotic," but it does distinguish him some amongst the other Chaotics we've seen.

theres no reason a chaotic good person wouldnt followthe laws, just being chaotic doesnt mean your completely agaisnt any form of order, it only means that Elan doesnt follow rules/law as much as someone who is lawful

[hamishspence]

PHB describes Neutral (L/C axis) characters as having "neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel" with the implication that these are the traits of Lawful and Chaotic respectively.

However I'd say this "compulsion" is a very weak one- that can be resisted- and while it's common, it's not a requirement.

[Querzis]

The idea of "a compulsion to be chaotic" doesn't sit well with me. Surely chaos is about freedom, and how can you reconcile that with compulsion?

And you dont think wanting to be free is a compulsion? Surely it is just as much a compulsion as wanting to obey someone no matter what is?

Look, one thing that seems to confuse people is that there are no actions that are inherently Lawful or Chaotic. Personality traits or motivations are inherently Lawful or Chaotic. A lawful guy obey a King because hes the King. A chaotic guy obey a king because he like the guy (Belkar and Shojo) or think what he says make sense. A chaotic guy kill a King cause he hate the guy or cause he think hes evil (if chaotic good). A Lawful guy kill a king because hes the king of an enemy kingdom or because they answer to higher authority...or think they answer to higher autorithy like thinking you're the agent of the Twelves Gods. Anyway, point is, look at a character motivation and personality to see if they are lawful or chaotic, actions dont mean much.

«Disregards for authority and laws» just means that they'll ignore any laws or orders they dont agree with, not that they'll disobey an order from someone they trust and respect just for the hell of it. A chaotic person can very well never even think about disobeying any laws in his entire life if he actually agrees with all of them.

[Fish]

Elan often says things because it's in the script. He's compelled by the power of narrative, not so much by respect for the law. ("First blood: Elan!")

[veti]

As a Druid, she was required to be neutral on at least one aspect. If it was not her moral axis, it had to be, thus, her ethical one.

Yeah, but that doesn't make her any use as "an example of NG", because she doesn't give us any examples of how an NG might differ from a CG or LG. The 'N' part of her alignment is basically an informed attribute - we know it must be there purely because the rules say it must.

[Razgriez]

I have to respectfully disagree Chaotic Queen, on your thread opener, about a number of things. I'll go point by point.




First, Elan respects any and all authority, and twice he felt a lot of guilt when it came to breaking the law. The first time was when he desperately needed a change of clothes and left an apology note. The second was when he broke into a store and grabbed a lute, making sure to leave money behind. Haley would have done both without blinking an eye and certainly would not have left money behind.

Still Chaotic Good actions. He stole, but it was out of a need for a greater good, and not out of spite. It be something to keep an eye on to make sure it didn't become a habit (Which would then enter CN, and eventually CE territory) but in those cases, I'd say it was CE. In the lute case, as you noted he left money. Whether he left enough to pay for the damages to the shop, is unknown (Or if the money would stay there, given Azure City's current occupiers, or if it'll ever be reclaimed).



Second, Elan refused to kill Kubota when he surrendered, obviously angry at the coward's trick. Haley would have murdered him.

Still good in general. Killing someone who has surrendered is typically considered evil. It's only after someone makes repeated abuse of surrendering does it become anywhere close to ok to off them no matter what and even then, the intention to kill, not capture, is often stated outright at the beginning of battle, or at least shown by use of lethal force only. (Indeed, all this shows is V's first steps towards rather evil actions).


Third, Elan always goes out of his way to help as many people as he possibly can. He did help Roy, a complete stranger, assemble his party even though he had nothing to gain from it. He even saved Nale, knowing full well he was evil and to let him live would only bite him in the future.

The first is debatable, as it's an aspect of being good (Helping others). The reasons for letting Nale live is a major question. In my opinion, it's an ever decreasing level of Lawfulness/Goodness. At first, it might have been out of compassion because it was his brother and because Nale was incapacitated, but as more recent times show, this is started to become almost more out of selfish desires for dramatics. (A Chaotic, and actually CN oriented action)


Finally, Elan's a sweetheart! It's obvious he doesn't have a hint of jerkiness (like Lawful Good Roy) Last I checked, being a jerk wasn't a LG requirement. V's is/was a jerk, and s/he's Neutral (Or worse now). Belkar is a Jerk, and if I recall correctly, he's officially Chaotic Evil.


or selfishness (like Choatic Good Haley). With Haley, it's "Me first, then everyone else" while with Elan it's "My friends first, strangers second, me last", which is one of the defining traits of a Neutral Good character. Possibly NG, but again, it all depends on context. If he's doing this absolutely out of a non selfish desire, this puts Elan closer to the Lawful end. If however, he's doing this simply for the purpose of drama, and a "better" (in his opinion) story to tell and sing about, then it's more Chaotic.

[ArlEammon]

Of course Elan is Chaotic Good, haven't you ever heard of the celestials called "Elandrins"?

[Luzahn]

Of course Elan is Chaotic Good, haven't you ever heard of the celestials called "Elandrins"?

I have not. :smallbiggrin:

[factotum]

He was outgunned, not helpless. He surrendered because he'd lose if he tried to fight, that's not the same thing as being utterly incapable of resistance.

From Elan's point of view that's not relevant. While Kubota was still resisting he'd have been quite happy to let him sink to the bottom of the sea and drown, but as soon as he surrendered, he became Elan's prisoner and thus came under a different set of rules as far as Elan's conscience was concerned. Elan would not kill a prisoner because it's not a Good thing to do in his eyes--the circumstances don't change that.

[Icedaemon]

Elan is nominally CG, but has seemed more and more NG as the character's been developed.

Nale is nominally LE, but seems more and more the selfish brat whose only flimsy claim to being lawful is sticking to his daft overcomplicated plans.

It fits.

[B. Dandelion]

From Elan's point of view that's not relevant. While Kubota was still resisting he'd have been quite happy to let him sink to the bottom of the sea and drown, but as soon as he surrendered, he became Elan's prisoner and thus came under a different set of rules as far as Elan's conscience was concerned. Elan would not kill a prisoner because it's not a Good thing to do in his eyes--the circumstances don't change that.

Neither of us know for certain exactly what was going on in Elan's mind. You were saying he was a helpless prisoner at that point ergo it was shocking Elan decked him. I was providing the reasons Elan needn't have seen it that way exactly. I don't think he regarded Kubota as a helpless prisoner at that exact moment in time, ergo while it was still a breach in protocol to hit him, it was not to the magnitude of "beating on a helpless prisoner". He wasn't helpless yet, quite literally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless).

[The Pilgrim]

Yeah, but that doesn't make her any use as "an example of NG", because she doesn't give us any examples of how an NG might differ from a CG or LG. The 'N' part of her alignment is basically an informed attribute - we know it must be there purely because the rules say it must.

Her battle tactics, the organization she ran, her treatament of the defeated, her way of administering justice... it's all an exquisite balance of Law and Chaos.

So much shown in so few pages. Alas, I'm not going to spoil SoD, so I won't go any deeper.

[Ellye]

Elan is nominally CG, but has seemed more and more NG as the character's been developed.

Nale is nominally LE, but seems more and more the selfish brat whose only flimsy claim to being lawful is sticking to his daft overcomplicated plans.

It fits.Yeah, ever since I've seem this thread, I've been actually thinking about Nale's alignment.

He doesn't seem very Lawful. I might need to re-read the archives yet again, but the image of Nale I have on top of my mind is actually closer to Chaotic Evil than to Lawful Evil. Though I guess he does have a weird but somewhat strict sense of "order" and that might count as lawful. LE drifting towards NE might be it, indeed.

[Snails]

Law can as much about organized, systematic or logical thought; adherence to a specific moral or ethical code (or legal, but not necessarily!); or controlling, detail-oriented, habitual or routine behavior. "Lawful means obeying all local laws" is a silly interpretation.

The key to Law is the respect for legitimate authority, not the blanket respect for all apparent authority. What constitutes "legitimate" has very much to do with whether you are Good, Neutral, or Evil, among other things.

Redcloak does not care about Azure City traditions because its authority is illegitimate in numerous ways -- I do not think I need to go into that.

LEs tend to believe that the ultimate source of legitimacy is power itself. That being a bit of a tautology, it means even solemn contracts can be broken. Such is not often done because, in their own minds, acting on anything resembling a whim seems like a sign of weakness.

So, yes, Tarquin can break a contract. He does not do so because he considers himself very successful along a path to greater power and glory, and allowing himself to get distracted would be becoming "less Tarquin-ness". Or, in other words, to thine own self be true.

Tarquin would not break his literal word because he fancies himself "a man whose word you can count on". About those deceptions? Well, the opinion of those who do not pay attention to details is "not legitimate".

Devils do not break solemn contracts because it is not in their metaphysical nature to do so. Note that devils are famous for outright lying, something Tarquin himself would not do, yet they still hold to their literal contracts.

[ORione]

Yeah, ever since I've seem this thread, I've been actually thinking about Nale's alignment.

He doesn't seem very Lawful. I might need to re-read the archives yet again, but the image of Nale I have on top of my mind is actually closer to Chaotic Evil than to Lawful Evil. Though I guess he does have a weird but somewhat strict sense of "order" and that might count as lawful. LE drifting towards NE might be it, indeed.

He has at least claimed (http://http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html) to be Lawful.

[Snails]

Nale has claimed to be LE, and that does not seem to be the kind of thing characters accidentally or on purpose lie about. However...

We have never seen Nale make a choice that demonstrates a willingness to pay a non-zero cost in support of his affection or adherence to Lawfulness.

Elan can also come up with complicated plans. The difference is that Nale's might actually work. That is a difference of competence. The fact of plans means nothing.

I would have rated him CE or NE. His choice of girlfriend suggests he is very comfortable with the former.

Furthermore, the very nature of his feud with Tarquin strongly suggests that Nale is incapable of negotiating within a Lawful context, therefore Nale is probably CE or NE. Tarquin would have eventually handed the reins of his tyrannical empire to Nale with a smile, but that was not good enough for Nale. Tarquin clearly believes Nale just does not "get it". "It" here is not just a matter of patience. "It" is a supremely lawful order imposed on the world under a thin veneer of chaos. Nale got distracted by the shiny chaotic bits because he simply could not understand the underlying truth. "Hey, I want a crown!"

Now, none of this is proof. But Nale's claim of LE does have the whiff of a joke more than a carefully thought out identity. "You are CG, brother. I am LE. Ha, ha!"

[Gift Jeraff]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Nale comes across about as Lawful as Roy.

[Snails]

We know that Roy is a rather marginal example of Lawful. So Nale could seem "about as Lawful" as Roy to a reasonable person, and easily fit within Neutral.

[skaddix]

Honestly part of the Problem is the Lawful/Chaos Axis is a lot more fluid then Good/Evil Axis. Figuring out if a character is Good or Evil is pretty simple but Chaos and Lawful is whole lot less clear.

Roy is borderline Lawful. So I suppose if the Deva is correct intent matters. So Intent acts as the tie breaker that pushes you into Lawful or Chaotic. And if you don't care either way you get put in Neutral. Kinda of I will make the choice in any given scenario with out carrying if its lawful or chaotic

[Mike Havran]

Nale has claimed to be LE, and that does not seem to be the kind of thing characters accidentally or on purpose lie about. However...

...

But Nale's claim of LE does have the whiff of a joke more than a carefully thought out identity. "You are CG, brother. I am LE. Ha, ha!"

The claim is the strongest in-comic indicator of an allignment - characters do all sorts of actions all the time, so it is not that useful to base the allignment guess on them, especially if direct claim is available. Nale is certainly Lawful Evil.

[Callista]

I operate under the suspicion Elan is really Stupid Good.He's got a low INT score, but he's not "stupid" in the sense that most people think of "stupid good". He knows he's not too smart; he depends on smarter people to solve tricky problems. Elan knows his limits and does his best to do as much good as possible within them.


Honestly part of the Problem is the Lawful/Chaos Axis is a lot more fluid then Good/Evil Axis. Figuring out if a character is Good or Evil is pretty simple but Chaos and Lawful is whole lot less clear.I agree, at least for my own Western culture. In many places, Law/Chaos is so important that it may even be seen as more important than Good/Evil. Think of the many cultures where "honor", "loyalty", and "duty" are the number-one important things. Those are the ones where Law is seen as the ideal. Nowhere is Good seen as unimportant; but in many places, Law isn't considered particularly valuable. Here in the US, where self-determination is greatly valued and people think in terms of individual people rather than whole communities, Law isn't particularly valued--in fact, I'd argue that Chaos seems to be more accepted here. In some places, Law is outright disdained.

[Snails]

The claim is the strongest in-comic indicator of an allignment - characters do all sorts of actions all the time, so it is not that useful to base the allignment guess on them, especially if direct claim is available. Nale is certainly Lawful Evil.

As I said, it is not the kind of thing that characters seem like they would purposefully lie about. But a character being not quite correct on this topic is not without precedent.

By pursuing multiple levels of Paladin, Miko certainly was identifying herself explicitly as LG. Yet during the time we knew her, she flirted with LE incessantly.

I will point out again that the Tarquin's tale of his schism with Nale is strong circumstantial evidence that Nale is not very hip to the Lawful schtick.

[Querzis]

I agree, at least for my own Western culture. In many places, Law/Chaos is so important that it may even be seen as more important than Good/Evil. Think of the many cultures where "honor", "loyalty", and "duty" are the number-one important things. Those are the ones where Law is seen as the ideal. Nowhere is Good seen as unimportant; but in many places, Law isn't considered particularly valuable. Here in the US, where self-determination is greatly valued and people think in terms of individual people rather than whole communities, Law isn't particularly valued--in fact, I'd argue that Chaos seems to be more accepted here. In some places, Law is outright disdained.

I gotta say, I really agree with this because, when you get down to it, we come from a mostly neutral society (as far as Chaos/Law goes) where both side are totally accepted but the reason why Chaos/Law is a very important axis in D&D is that it wasnt always that way in the past (and still isnt in some culture). Some wars and battle in the past were fought purely out of Law vs Chaos or at least pit the two ideologies against each others. And in D&D this is perfectly reflected things like the fiend wars or the tension between dwarves and elves. But, from our modern perspective, I guess it just seems weird since they're mostly just considered different personality types and motivations now while it used to be those two big ideologies that clashed as often as Good VS Evil in the past.

Oh and about the Nale thing, yeah hes totally a chaotic evil man who believe himself to be lawful because of how he was raised which really explain his relationship with his father. I once made a very lengthy post just about this not long after Tarquin first appearance but basically, yeah Nale tries to do overcomplicated plans to copycat his father but he suck at it and pretty much only succeed when he start improvising (just reread his second fight with Elan where he almost convinced him to kill Haley). He can be smart if he really want to and he wanna try to conquer the world but when you get down to it, hes just a guy who devote most of his time and energy having fun by making other people suffer...not unlike another Chaotic Evil spellcaster.

[Snails]

I really like your hypothesis, Querzis. I have danced around the idea that Nale is lying about be Lawful, but purposefully lying does not quite seem right.

In fact, if he is outright mistaken about his own alignment, Nale's behavior makes a lot more sense. He wants to be a Big Man in the exact same mold as his father but his feet fit wrongly in those shoes. Tarquin senses the misfit, but his own extreme Lawful disposition prevents him from understanding the basic nature of Nale's "wrong" perceptions.

[The Pilgrim]

I gotta say, I really agree with this because, when you get down to it, we come from a mostly neutral society (as far as Chaos/Law goes) where both side are totally accepted but the reason why Chaos/Law is a very important axis in D&D is that it wasnt always that way in the past (and still isnt in some culture). Some wars and battle in the past were fought purely out of Law vs Chaos or at least pit the two ideologies against each others. And in D&D this is perfectly reflected things like the fiend wars or the tension between dwarves and elves. But, from our modern perspective, I guess it just seems weird since they're mostly just considered different personality types and motivations now while it used to be those two big ideologies that clashed as often as Good VS Evil in the past.

Aplying D&D morality to our own world doesn't works. In D&D Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos, are objective cosmic forces clashing all over the place. While, in our reality... well, this is not the place to arge about it.


Oh and about the Nale thing, yeah hes totally a chaotic evil man who believe himself to be lawful because of how he was raised which really explain his relationship with his father. I once made a very lengthy post just about this not long after Tarquin first appearance but basically, yeah Nale tries to do overcomplicated plans to copycat his father but he suck at it and pretty much only succeed when he start improvising (just reread his second fight with Elan where he almost convinced him to kill Haley). He can be smart if he really want to and he wanna try to conquer the world but when you get down to it, hes just a guy who devote most of his time and energy having fun by making other people suffer...not unlike another Chaotic Evil spellcaster.

A Lawful Evil person has fun by making other suffer as much as any Chaotic Evil. The main difference is organized, rational and planned Evil vs spontaneous, emotional and improvised Evil. It's true that one of the possible personalities of a LE, the villiain with honor who keeps his word, is preferable to the typical NE or CE types. But, as Tarquin shows, it's not always the case of the LE types.

As for Nale, Tarquin ends up improvising as much as his son does, but that doesn't means them both aren't long-term planners (and his love for overcomplicated plans is not an inheritance from his father, but from his mother, as shown in-comic).

The main difference between Tarquin and Nale, as Tarquin himself explained, is that Nale is unable to control his Ego and can't keep a low profile, shut up, or feign weakness when it's best for his interests. But that has little to do with the Law-Chaos axis. On the other hand, Nale is able to keep long-term relationships, a lawful trait that his father seems unable to comply with.

[Math_Mage]

On the other hand, Nale is able to keep long-term relationships, a lawful trait that his father seems unable to comply with.

Point of order, Nale only seems able to maintain a long-term relationship with Sabine. Tarquin has Malack, at the very least; we might also consider the other members of his old adventuring party.

[ti'esar]

Point of order, Nale only seems able to maintain a long-term relationship with Sabine. Tarquin has Malack, at the very least; we might also consider the other members of his old adventuring party.

Yeah. Tarquin's 'serial monogamy' seems to be the product of choice, not some actual inability to form long-term relationships.

[B. Dandelion]

I agree, at least for my own Western culture. In many places, Law/Chaos is so important that it may even be seen as more important than Good/Evil. Think of the many cultures where "honor", "loyalty", and "duty" are the number-one important things. Those are the ones where Law is seen as the ideal. Nowhere is Good seen as unimportant; but in many places, Law isn't considered particularly valuable. Here in the US, where self-determination is greatly valued and people think in terms of individual people rather than whole communities, Law isn't particularly valued--in fact, I'd argue that Chaos seems to be more accepted here. In some places, Law is outright disdained.

I like this observation.

It makes me think a bit of Jonathan Haidt's "moral foundations" -- "care", "fairness", "liberty", "loyalty","authority", and "sanctity". Everybody agrees the first three are important. But there's a divide on the latter three, and it correlates with left/right positioning. One group thinks only the first three are really important (sacredness in particular is barely regarded at all), and the latter group thinks they're all close to being equal in importance. I hadn't lined it up with Law/Chaos, but that does work pretty well. A lot of Western progress could be termed as a greater realization of "fairness" and "liberty" to the sometimes-detriment of "loyalty", "authority" or "sanctity". As in we secured our liberty by defying authority. Greater equality required breaking with tradition. Etc.

Though in those terms it would sort of suggest "Chaos" is more an absence of Law... where in D&D "Chaos" and "Law" are both forces of their own, and absence correlates with "neutrality". I wonder if Haidt failed to look for "foundations" for specific values like "individuality" that were present for one side but absent the other, or if that discrepancy is part of the reason D&D's setup is often elusive to people.

[Querzis]

The main difference is organized, rational and planned Evil vs spontaneous, emotional and improvised Evil.

Yes exactly (read the rest of your post) wait, you make a line like this and then you dont realize why Nale is obviously a Chaotic Evil guy trying to be Lawful? Have we been reading the same comic? When has Nale ever been rational in the slightest? Nale does everything for purely emotional reason, his overcomplicated 'plans' are incredibly silly and focus more on making people suffer in really amusing ways instead of being efficient. As I already said, actions dont matter much on the Lawful/chaotic axis, motivations does. Tarquin want to conquer the continent to create lasting order (his kind of order anyway) and tell the greatest story ever. Nale want to conquer the world purely for his ego (which, would you look at that, is an emotional reason). See the difference?

When your 'plan' to bring the police to the scene of the crime involve killing tons of people to form an arrow instead of, I dunno, sending them a letter, its obviously more an excuse to kill lots of people more then anything else. Also I very highly dislike the fact that Chaotic means for you that you cant form long-term relationship. What, you think Elan and Haley are gonna broke up anytime soon? Its not like love is an especially lawful emotion in the first place you know. Instead look at what the relationship is the in the first place. Nale: sexy spontanous relationship with a shapeshifting incarnation of illicit sex. Tarquin: Abusive and cold relationship where he sees a woman he like and simply obtain her like a prize regardless of her emotions regarding it. Once again, see the difference?

[The Pilgrim]

Point of order, Nale only seems able to maintain a long-term relationship with Sabine. Tarquin has Malack, at the very least; we might also consider the other members of his old adventuring party.

I was, of course, refering to the, let's call it "romantic", kind of relationship.


Yes exactly (read the rest of your post) wait, you make a line like this and then you dont realize why Nale is obviously a Chaotic Evil guy trying to be Lawful? Have we been reading the same comic? When has Nale ever been rational in the slightest? Nale does everything for purely emotional reason, his overcomplicated 'plans' are incredibly silly and focus more on making people suffer in really amusing ways instead of being efficient. As I already said, actions dont matter much on the Lawful/chaotic axis, motivations does. Tarquin want to conquer the continent to create lasting order (his kind of order anyway) and tell the greatest story ever. Nale want to conquer the world purely for his ego (which, would you look at that, is an emotional reason). See the difference?

Are we talking about the difference between the guy that performed a massacre on Cliffport and succesfully framed his brother for it, and the man who burned about thirty slaves on stakes just to build a big flamming sign with the name of his beloved, good-aligned, in-denial son, who finally realized that his father is EVIL with capital letters and proceeded to attack him?

Who is the guy making people suffer for his own sake here?

Are we talking about the guy who always has a plan for escaping and is willing to survive at all costs, and the man who is willing to let his goody-two-shoes son kill him in the long run just to become a legendary villiain in a legendary story?

Who is being emotional here?


When your 'plan' to bring the police to the scene of the crime involve killing tons of people to form an arrow instead of, I dunno, sending them a letter, its obviously more an excuse to kill lots of people more then anything else.

When you 'plan' to praise your CG son involves burning thirty people at the stake to form the letters of said son's name instead of, I dunno, sending him a baby dinosaur, it's obviously more an excuse to kill lots of people more than anything else.

I don't really see any difference between Nale and Tarquin in that field. Neither Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html)


Also I very highly dislike the fact that Chaotic means for you that you cant form long-term relationship.

A Chaotic person is very unlikely to keep a relationship after (if) the love has gone away. While a Lawful is more likely to keep the relationship just for the sake of it. See Roy's parents, they only broke up the relationship when the terms of the contract ("till death do us part") where fulfilled.

Also, a Chaotic person is more willing to experiment new things, while a Lawful tends to be fond on stability.

So, while nothing stops a Chaotic from keeping a long-term relationship, such event is more a lawful trait.

[Mike Havran]

Yes exactly (read the rest of your post) wait, you make a line like this and then you dont realize why Nale is obviously a Chaotic Evil guy trying to be Lawful? Have we been reading the same comic? When has Nale ever been rational in the slightest? Nale does everything for purely emotional reason, his overcomplicated 'plans' are incredibly silly and focus more on making people suffer in really amusing ways instead of being efficient. As I already said, actions dont matter much on the Lawful/chaotic axis, motivations does. Tarquin want to conquer the continent to create lasting order (his kind of order anyway) and tell the greatest story ever. Nale want to conquer the world purely for his ego (which, would you look at that, is an emotional reason). See the difference?

When your 'plan' to bring the police to the scene of the crime involve killing tons of people to form an arrow instead of, I dunno, sending them a letter, its obviously more an excuse to kill lots of people more then anything else.

I disagree. To me, Nale is Lawful with low Wisdom score rather than Chaotic. Nale understands his position as a recurring villain and a personal enemy for the protagonists and does proceed according to the tradition, see his hiring procedure at Cliffport. He wants the gates beacuse that's what a villain of his kind would do. His plans are rational in the core, but he hasn't got enough Wisdom to determine which parts are effective and which are not. And having low Wisdom doesn't shift your allignment.

The Cliffport murders were not done out of whim, they were done because he wanted to alienate Cliffport citizens. So "Nale", when arrested, would be treated without any mercy. His plan of locating Draketooths was also very rational - too bad he panicked when the Order showed up.

Really, the thing that separates him and Tarquin is about 10 points in Wisdom. Tarquin understands both his place in-story and in-universe, Nale only the former (due to the omnipresent genre-savviness).

[Snails]

Point of order, Nale only seems able to maintain a long-term relationship with Sabine. Tarquin has Malack, at the very least; we might also consider the other members of his old adventuring party.

Yup. Tarquin's crew apparently runs like a well-oiled machine, even at a distance. Quite impressive.

It is ambiguous whether Nale is even holding one relationship together, as the seeds of betrayal have rooted deep and he has no clue. If the relationship succeeds, it is because Sabine pulls off of miracle that somehow allows her to please her masters without (figuratively) putting Nale's head on a silver platter.

[Kish]

Just so long as they don't ask her to put it on a cold iron platter.

[Snails]

Are we talking about the difference between the guy that performed a massacre on Cliffport and succesfully framed his brother for it, and the man who burned about thirty slaves on stakes just to build a big flamming sign with the name of his beloved, good-aligned, in-denial son, who finally realized that his father is EVIL with capital letters and proceeded to attack him?

Who is the guy making people suffer for his own sake here?

Are we talking about the guy who always has a plan for escaping and is willing to survive at all costs, and the man who is willing to let his goody-two-shoes son kill him in the long run just to become a legendary villiain in a legendary story?

Who is being emotional here?

When you 'plan' to praise your CG son involves burning thirty people at the stake to form the letters of said son's name instead of, I dunno, sending him a baby dinosaur, it's obviously more an excuse to kill lots of people more than anything else.

I think you are fundamentally misreading Tarquin here. He lights people on fire and liquifies them, not to satisfy himself, but to teach observant survivors a lesson. It not actually clear Tarquin has human emotions, although he often recognizes them and can use them to his advantage. Tarquin truly does not care whether most people live or die or suffer.

Precipitating a confrontation with his son was not Tarquin's intention(!!!). But he correctly perceives Elan is no threat, so the cost of letting Elan live is ambiguous. Being genre savvy, he knows that if he falls, it is probably because he was already off his game.

Tarquin completely does not understand Good vs. Evil -- to him it is all about power first and foremost ( and interesting tales second).

To him Good is just a fashion statement, like a fondness for suede shoes with upcurled toes. While he can appreciate the sleek and stylish lines, he sees the toe-shape as an impractical conceit that gets in the way.

No, Tarquin did not expect Elan to be upset about the crispy prisoners. He can be that blind.

[Gift Jeraff]

"...not that I've never gotten a chuckle out of dipping people in acid..." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0849.html)

[The Pilgrim]

"...not that I've never gotten a chuckle out of dipping people in acid..." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0849.html)

Point, Set and Match.

[sims796]

So, while nothing stops a Chaotic from keeping a long-term relationship, such event is more a lawful trait.

And just because a Lawful person may have Chaotic traits doesn't make that person any less Lawful, amirite?

I mean overall, in actual D&D. I know it to be that way for a fact in this comic.

[Cuthalion]

He helps people because of the Good part and he is definitely chaotic otherwise. His genre-savvyness and singing of songs and whole attitude towards life makes sure of that.

[Burner28]

Elan is nominally CG, but has seemed more and more NG as the character's been developed.

So his whimsical tendancies don't count as Chaotic?


Nale is nominally LE, but seems more and more the selfish brat whose only flimsy claim to being lawful is sticking to his daft overcomplicated plans.


Don't forget sticking to the evil opposites theme even when it doesn't make any sense and honoring his contract with Xykon.

[ferrodoxin]

think for example of the speed limits when driving a car: a lawful person would say "it's the law", and abide by it. a chaotic person may respect it because of safety concerns, or just because he don't want to risk a fee. in fact, even a chaotic evil person would often act lawful good just to avoid troubles.
Another example is loyalty: a lawful person may be loyal to someone because he's the lawful autority in charge. a chaotic person may be loyal to that same autority because he trust him presonally. even a chaotic evil person could be loyal to someone, because he thinks that guy will take sound decisions and not betray him. see belkar, who sticks around roy.
This...

In Elansville, there are no laws, no police, if someone does something wrong he will eventually get what he deserves somehow, by the hand of someone.
People run around naked and nobody cares, it is not up to others to tell people what to do.

In Roysville, the criminals are punished systematically.
When someone runs around naked, someone goes over and kindly tells him, or insists him to put some clothes on

Neutral good has two faces.
(Apathy) One is neutral, because they do not have an ideal, they could live in Roysville or Elansville and be just as happy in either one.
(Balance) The other is neutral because they think Roysville's reliance on law will sometimes limit the society, but Elansville is too crazy to live. They have a neutralsville in their heart.

A chaotic person may obey all the laws in a society simply because he fears the consequences, or because there was no reason for him to break the law. But in his heart he may remain a free spirit.

So let's say, in Cliffport the Chief of Police did not accept Roy's offer to arrest Nale and wanted the order to stand down.

so Good -> Saving the lives of policemen, stopping Nale from hurting others
so Law -> Bringing Nale to Justice vs Obeying authority.
so Evil -> Wanting revenge on Nale

Durkon would stand down
Roy would try to convince the police to do otherwise, and would remain close by to help when they get start losing people.
Elan and Haley might outright ignore the guy and go after Nale, they may use nonlethal methods of combat to escape the police
V, may not care that some policemen will die at their own stupidity, and may or may not join to help depending on how much (s)he cares about catching Nale & co
Belkar would kill the cops if he did not have Moj

[Xelbiuj]

So let's say, in Cliffport the Chief of Police did not accept Roy's offer to arrest Nale and wanted the order to stand down.

so Good -> Saving the lives of policemen, stopping Nale from hurting others
so Law -> Bringing Nale to Justice vs Obeying authority.
so Evil -> Wanting revenge on Nale

Durkon would stand down
Roy would try to convince the police to do otherwise, and would remain close by to help when they get start losing people.

I doubt it. Good usually trumps lawful, at least for non-paladins. I can't imagine Roy accepting the police at a legitimate authority in that situation when they have NPC class levels, 3rd lvl warriors at best. They would have no chance at stopping LG so there's no reason for Roy to listen. There has been plenty of times when Roy hasn't fallen in line, telling him to stay put while innocents are murdered and their enemies enact a sinister plan? lol no.

[Knaight]

It makes me think a bit of Jonathan Haidt's "moral foundations" -- "care", "fairness", "liberty", "loyalty","authority", and "sanctity". Everybody agrees the first three are important. But there's a divide on the latter three, and it correlates with left/right positioning.
It's not a divide on the latter three. Each of the latter three (and I'd argue the first as well) is largely divided from the others. Loyalty and sanctity in particular are almost completely unconnected, demonstrated by the fierce defenders of each that abhor the other.

[ferrodoxin]

I can't imagine Roy accepting the police at a legitimate authority in that situation when they have NPC class levels, 3rd lvl warriors at best. They would have no chance at stopping LG so there's no reason for Roy to listen.
I based that assumption on what Roy did with Hinjo's orders, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)
But I guess you are right, the situation is very different.

[Souhiro]

I have read somebody writing that Elan don't mind to bend the rules.

The thing is that a Neutral Good don't worry about bending the rules. A Chaotic Good don't pay any attention to laws and rules at all.

The "I accept your surrender, but only after a blow to the face" was Neutral Good for me (If I played a Chaotic Good in that situation would have unleashed a ton of blows, some of them Non-Lethals, and carry him inconscient to the court) but also, I see Chaotic Good more like nineties anti-heroes: They're good, they're willing to sacrifice themselves, and avoid taking a life if they can avoid taking it.

But I think he accepted his surrender, because that is what daring heroes do. And he's a daring hero, and forever will be, without worrying about any alignment that could limit him.



The Chaotic part of him, I think, is about he likes a carefree, uncompromised life. I cannot imagine himself settling down: The Elan in my mind would grow bored in just two hours, so he would grab his rapier, his lute, a horse... and his beloved Haley, and go into a new adventure.

While most archetipical Chaotic characters wouldn't marry, I cannot figure any future for Elan that wedding Haley. Yeah, it wouldn't be a flamboyant wedding, with many rites, but one kickass wedding, like the one if "At Worlds End". Because he's that kind of character.


So... int he end: Most of chaotic characters just want chaos (or FORCE the freedom) for the world that surrounds them. Elan just want chaos (ie: freedom) for himself