Question on Alignment

[MichaelGoldclaw]

I am playing a character that heavily believes in freedom (a CG concept), however my character believes it should be upheld by LAW (some say that is counter intuitive but as in freedom I don't mean ability to kill/rob/assault someone. (Basically wants the basic laws and that's it))
I think I'm NG in this case

[Kelb_Panthera]

With nothing else to go by, the counter-intuitive and apparently contradictory views expressed make this a neutral good character concept. Depending on in-game behavior and stated motivations for individual actions taken it could swing either way, ethically.

[Kyberwulf]

Well, he could be neutral Good. Or he could be Chaotic Good. Being Chaotic Good doesn't mean you don't follow any rules at all. Only as long as those laws are just and don't really impede peoples freedoms. I think Chaotic Good characters would follow laws such as don't steal, don't kill, don't Lie. What they would have a problem with is if the laws starting getting too restricting. Such as Only Nobility can wear the color red. People have to pay taxes before they use any money to buy any other supplies.
It all boils down to how far he is willing to be pushed.
If it takes a lot to make him take up arms against the man, then He is probably Neutral Good. If He takes up arms against any thing more then the basic princeples then he is Chaotic Good.

[TheOOB]

The law-chaos axis isn't clearly named, and which alignment your character is would depend on how they go about doing things more than their personal beliefs(remember that alignment is an objective natural quality that determines how magical effects affect you, and not a sum of your personal beliefs).

A Lawful person is someone who tends to take a broad view of the situation at hand, and makes decisions based on their outcome for many people or over a long period of time. They greatly respect structure, tradition, and order, and tend to prefer to make changes from within a system rather than without. If they have a personal code, they are unlikely to break it, even in tough situations. A Lawful character rarely makes short-sighted or impulsive decisions, but their inflexibility can hold them back at times.

A Chaotic person is someone who takes a narrow view of the situation at hand, and makes decisions based on their short-term outcome or how they'll affect those immediately at hand. They have little respect from structure, tradition, or order, and have little problem with dismantling an old system for a new system if they feel a change is necessary. If they have a personal code, it is likely flexible, and they are usually willing to violate it if they think the outcome will be positive. A Chaotic character is quick to adapt and improvise to new situations, but their short-sightedness can cause problems in the long term.

A Neutral person(on the Law-Chaos axis), considers both the short and long term outcomes of their actions, weighing immediate results with long term ones. While they respect structure, tradition, and order, they understand that sometimes a system needs to be changed, though they'll likely try to do so through traditional means first. If they have a personal code, they follow it as best they can, but when the situation gets tough they may break it. Neutral characters can improvise and adapt when necessary, but try not to make short-sighted decisions.

[blazinghand]

TheOOB's reply is basically how I think about alignment. Law/Chaos isn't about literal laws or restrictions, but about a mindset.

In terms of Chaos versus Law in character motivations, I think things are a bit more fluid than reactions to literal law. I have a few favorite scenes from OOTS for describing what I think the main differences between Law and Chaos are in terms of alignment. Specifics in the Spoilers, which spoil events up through OOTS #772.


A good example of how they clash is Shojo vs Hinjo's ideologies. In a most obvious way, Shojo literally doesn't care about the traditions for their own sake, whereas Hinjo does, and this prevents him from abusing his authority to arrest Kubota for no reason. He doesn't want to be like his father, who to him did wrong. Elan, being Chaotic, sees no problem with Shojo's actions. This sort of distinction, between doing an immediate good and following a certain code, is how you typically distinguish lawful characters from chaotic ones. This is probably one of the easiest ways to think about law vs chaos.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0503.html

An example that's more subtle is the Shell Game scene. Part of being Lawful is a mindset that rules are followed, and you're more likely to think inside the box than outside the box. Whereas Roy and Hinjo, both Lawful capable and experienced commanders, can't understand the shell game, Haley, who is Chaotic, quickly realizes that none of the undead they see are Xykon. She doesn't tacitly accept the rules of the game, because she's not Lawful.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html

It's not that Lawful characters can't think outside of the box, but you'll note that it's Belkar who has to explain why Shojo won't want to be resurrected just to serve prison time. A Lawful character's sense of duty might call him back to the resurrection, but Shojo did what he did not out of duty to an oath of a code of honor, but simply because he wanted to do good. What should have been his last words, "Everything I did, I did for my people", show a motivation beyond Honor. He has no reason to come back and be jailed, his only motivation, as a Chaotic Good character, was to do anything and everything to help his people.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html


Probably one of my favorite examples, which shows some of the shortcomings of Chaotic thinking, are the way both Girard Draketooth and Ian Starshine think. Girard only believes that family can be trusted, and that words of honor are worthless. He's incapable of even understanding how a multigenerational oath could bind the paladins, in part because of his anger, and in part because to him, following rules like that is foreign. He still will follow the rules of his family, or his party, or whatever group he's in, but the idea of a large-scale centralized organization rather than a small clan group doesn't make sense to him. Ian Starshine thinks in the same way, that only family can be trusted, and this blinds him to the idea that some other over-arching idea could bring people together besides family-- in Haley and Elan's case, love. Ian like Girard is blinded by his paranoia and hatred, but these examples serve to show the dark side of Chaotic thought. Without a certain respect for overarching traditions and a word of honor, you can be very short-sighted or petty.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0772.html

Of course, all of these examples speak to the characters themselves as much as to their alignments, but I thought I'd bring it up.


In summary, Law/Chaos isn't about literal laws-- it's about how you tackle problems and how you think.

[TheOOB]

A practical example I like to do to show Law vs. Chaos is the example of LAwful Good and Chaotic Good, and the question of, "will you perform an evil act if it will have a good outcome?"

The classic Lawful Good characters is a Paladin, and the answer is "no". Period, end of story. A Lawful Good character would believe that an evil act defiles themselves, defiles their allies, defiles the outcome of their action, and even defiles the very concept of good themselves. Lawful characters take a long and broad view on their actions, and Paladins are about as lawful as mortals can get, and to them the metaphorical concept of good is more important that any positive outcome of an evil action. Naturally, not all Paladins can keep that up, and some may argue that in some situations the outcome is worse the evil act, and in said case they should be glad to fall(great campaign climax by the by). A Paladin may allow evil to continue by allowing no evil in themselves, but they remain pure. In short, a Lawful Good character will not use evil means to for good ends, Lawful is the "Means Justify the Ends Alignment".

A Chaotic Good character(which I'll call a Ranger from here on out for ease), will answer "yes" almost every time. If they believe more good will come from an evil act than the evil of an act itself, they will do it. They will literally sacrifice one person to save ten if need by. The metaphorical concepts of good and evil, the defilement of their morals a character, and even the possible post death ramifications of their actions means little when compared to the immediate good they can do by performing just a little evil. A perfectly Chaotic Good person would be willing to do any evil act if even a little more good would come of it than evil, though naturally not ever Ranger can keep up with that, as may will find some evil acts just to distasteful or revolting to perform. A Ranger may perform more good than a Paladin, but they walk a tight rope and the long term ramifications of their actions may be greater than they thought(and that's not even considering what happens when their evil act doesn't have the outcome expected). In short, a Chaotic Good person will perform an evil act for good ends, Chaos is the "Ends Justify the Means" alignment.

[willpell]

Chaotic characters care about freedom and individuality (their own alone if Evil, everyone's if Good, and "those who deserve it" if Neutral, broadly speaking). Some laws protect freedom - you're not free to step out your front door if there aren't laws which keep your neighbor from shooting you as soon as you come into sight. The Lawful alignment is very misleadingly named; it really should be called Orderly, as it refers not to actual laws but to a legalistic mindset - a desire to follow protocol, to be reliable and trustworthy, to take strength in a structure and recognize the individual as being less important than the group, etc. etc. By contrast, Chaos is about effusiveness, unpredictability, ability to adapt to change, and so forth; it doesn't necessarily mean refusal to obey laws that you have no problem with, but it almost certainly means a strong reluctance to accept that "meaningless laws must be obeyed without question just because they are The Law(TM) and even the slightest divergence from the ironclad rule of law can only end in madness and horror for everyone". Chaos asks whether the law is doing its job or not, and recognizes that there is absolutely nothing stopping people from just disobeying laws which they don't think make sense, other than other people who are getting something out of the law's existence, who will selfishly use their power to protect their own interests. The Chaotic tend to be bullish on the idea of actively combating that Lawful mindset, but they don't necessarily go to idiotic extremes in opposing law, any more than Lawful people necessarily execute everyone who jaywalks. Unreasonable and disproportionate attitudes can exist in any alignment.

I disagree with OOB's assessment, by the way; Chaotic Good is just as likely to believe in a sort of spiritual stain that arises from Evil deeds even if they bring about tangible Good results. It's just likely to frame the concept differently. To Law, Good is a dam holding back the tide of Evil; one tiny crack in the wall can bring the whole thing crashing down. To Chaos, Good is the water rather than the dam, flowing freely throughout the world and bringing life and growth to everyone, but poisoning the water accomplishes just as much disaster as breaching the dam - and it's a lot easier to poison the water when the dam has gathered it all in one place. The ur-example of Chaotic Good is the Rebellion in Star Wars; they fought the Empire by not being there when the Empire attacked. Chaos and Law aren't principles so much as methodologies; Law believes that regularity brings the best results, while Chaos knows that deception and havoc exist and figures that it's better to use them than to have them used against you.

[Kyberwulf]

Your Neutral Good, sounds more like just ... morally Neutral then it does Good, or neutral good at the very least. I don't know how it is in the comics, but in the movie, The Watchmen. I think Rorschach is a better example of Chaotic Good. When push came to shove, and it came to doing an evil act. He was the only one of them to actually stick to his guns.

The means matter to the Chaotic good character just as it does to the Lawful character. Otherwise, you could have PCs running around being a **** to everyone in the name of serving the common good.

As silly as this may sound. Cop comedies are good examples of the differences between Chaotic good and Lawful good characters. By the book Cop is Paired up with a end of his rope Loose cannon. Neither one will really do anything evil. The main difference is when confronted by a door to a suspects house, the "Paladin" will call it in and wait for a Search Warrant. Whereas a "Ranger" will kick in the door and look around. That's the main difference. "Paladins" will always follow the laws and rules of the society. The "Ranger" will do what he wants and as his conscience dictates.

[willpell]

One thing to keep in mind when figuring out alignments is to look at the character classes that have alignment restrictions. Monks must be lawful; that doesn't mean they have to obey the law, it just means that they must be utterly disciplined. Bards can't be lawful, but they may be neutral; they need to have a spark of inspiration and so they can't afford to be too clockwork-like in the regularity of their thought patterns ("Old Reliable!", as Willow scoffs). Warlocks take it further, the good warlocks must be chaotic, not just non-lawful, because they have energies of destruction and madness boiling through their very blood, and if they're to have any hope of doing good, it has to start with them accepting, understanding, and skillfully wielding their capacity for havoc. Druids, meanwhile, must be Neutral; a Good druid has to shun both Law and Chaos, for neither is meaningful within nature, where societies that hang together are only a means to ensure the survival and perpetuation of the individual. (Oddly, there are no base classes anywhere whose alignment specification is "Cannot be chaotic" rather than "Must be Lawful"; the only class I can think of like that is the War Mind PRC.)

Compare a good Monk, a good Druid, and a good Warlock, perhaps throwing a Paladin, a Paladin-of-Freedom, an Incarnate, and a Cleric each of Hieronious, Pelor and Kord. You'll see some very definite methodological differences in the way they approach their problems. The Lawful and Chaotic clerics can afford to let their alignment drift a little south of Good without instantly losing their deity's approval; their commitment to a goal can get in the way of their virtue. The Pelorite has no such latiitude; any Evil action has the potential to get him on the wrong side of a Holy Word spell, if it's a sufficiently defining character moment that his alignment is affected on the spot. The Druid is drawing on the same power source as his Evil counterparts, and cannot be either too emotional or too committed to making a point; if he wants to convince the other to be Good like him, he can't cite precedent or try to manipulate the other's attitudes, he has to simply let his results speak for himself. And for the relationship between the Monk and the Warlock, I really can't hope to do any better than to point the reader toward the superhero comic series "Hawk and Dove", where the titular birdbrains are literally empowered by Chaos and Law (or rather Chaos and Order, but I don't think there's a difference), and the bickering that ensues between them because of their different attitudes and operational strategies is pretty much the driving force of the whole comic.

[hamishspence]

I don't know how it is in the comics, but in the movie, The Watchmen. I think Rorschach is a better example of Chaotic Good. When push came to shove, and it came to doing an evil act. He was the only one of them to actually stick to his guns.

Given his taste for breaking the fingers of informants for further information- it has less to do with "unwilling to commit an evil act" and more to do with "unwilling to commit acts he personally has a moral objection to".

[navar100]

I am playing a character that heavily believes in freedom (a CG concept), however my character believes it should be upheld by LAW (some say that is counter intuitive but as in freedom I don't mean ability to kill/rob/assault someone. (Basically wants the basic laws and that's it))
I think I'm NG in this case

What makes you, the player, think LAW is anti-freedom? Show me a Lawful Good character who hates freedom. What does "freedom" actually mean to you?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Your Neutral Good, sounds more like just ... morally Neutral then it does Good, or neutral good at the very least. I don't know how it is in the comics, but in the movie, The Watchmen. I think Rorschach is a better example of Chaotic Good. When push came to shove, and it came to doing an evil act. He was the only one of them to actually stick to his guns.

Rorschach isn't an example of chaotic good. Rorschach is an example of why the alignment system is terrible.

[BootStrapTommy]

Free will is the ability to do otherwise. Law coerces action so that one is obligated to not do otherwise. Freedom is obviously by it nature dependent on free will.

That being said, freedom in D&D is considered Good, and it tends toward Chaos. However it is not in direct violation of Law, since Law coerces, but does not NECESSITATE. Law doesn't force, it just tacks on additional consequences to free actions.

Moral of the story, your character could really be any Good, just as long as your able to get that their ideology to stay within the bounds.

But NG is a good and safe bet.

[Kyberwulf]

I don't think so. From what I remember. Rorschach didn't go out of his way to harm innocents, he stood up for them when they needed someone. He didn't buy the estiblished lies the authority figures put out about the truth about The Comedian. He also did things outside the Laws of the City. He never sacrificed innocents. For example, he didn't any of the cops when they cornered him in the Aparment complex. Also he didn't arbitarily start offing inmates in the Prison. When pushed, he pushed back. He knew that they where in prison doing their time, so further acts of aggrestion wasn't warranted.

Granted he isn't the paragon pillar of the concepts of Chaotic Good. He did torture and maim people, but this was done to evil people. He was pushing the lines of Chaotic Neutral.

[Lord Tyger]

Granted he isn't the paragon pillar of the concepts of Chaotic Good. He did torture and maim people, but this was done to evil people. He was pushing the lines of Chaotic Neutral.

It was done to people in a bar, or, as Rorschach would probably consider them, "drunken debauched filth."

[BootStrapTommy]

What makes you, the player, think LAW is anti-freedom? Show me a Lawful Good character who hates freedom. What does "freedom" actually mean to you?

Your case and point. Captain America. Definitely Lawful Good.
Yet he valued freedom so much as to actually stand in opposition of the Law.
Like I said, freedom is Good, it only tends Chaotic.


Granted he isn't the paragon pillar of the concepts of Chaotic Good. He did torture and maim people, but this was done to evil people. He was pushing the lines of Chaotic Neutral.

Why don't we abandon the Rorschach example before a argument over his alignment starts, and just revert back to the paragon example of Chaotic Good, Robin Hood?

[blazinghand]

It was done to people in a bar, or, as Rorschach would probably consider them, "drunken debauched filth."

Rorschach could also choose to interpret regular folk as "debauched filth" (though he did not and would not)-- his moral code seems arbitrary at times. The whole part of his character that's interesting, and what makes him so interesting to read, is that he does terrible things but he really really believes he's doing the right thing. He's morally uncompromising and believes that he is the only justice in an unjust world. He also is brutal and savage. At times he seems insane, and at times he seems like the only sane character in the story. Rorschach wasn't written to easily fit into an alignment slot, and is definitely not a good example to use to exemplify any one alignment.

People say, for example, that he's chaotic-- but he has a very strict code of conduct that he follows, even if that doesn't follow the laws of the city, or even if it means going against an unstoppable enemy and facing certain death. People say he's good, or neutral, or evil, but his motivations are more complex than that. You could make arguments that he is numerous alignments. So yeah don't use him to say "this is what a CG" or "this is what an LN" character is, because if anything, as it's been said, he's the example that the alignment system fails to capture people's true nature.

[BootStrapTommy]

Rorschach could also choose to interpret regular folk as "debauched filth" (though he did not and would not)-- his moral code seems arbitrary at times. The whole part of his character that's interesting, and what makes him so interesting to read, is that he does terrible things but he really really believes he's doing the right thing. He's morally uncompromising and believes that he is the only justice in an unjust world. He also is brutal and savage. At times he seems insane, and at times he seems like the only sane character in the story. Rorschach wasn't written to easily fit into an alignment slot, and is definitely not a good example to use to exemplify any one alignment.

MESSAGE.

His name is Rorschach. In the Rorschach test, each patient sees something different in the ink blots. That's what Rorschach is like. Enigmatic, amalgamic. And different, never quite fitting anything and different from each perspective and to each person.

[Gavinfoxx]

ACTIONS are what decide your alignment. Not viewpoints.

[Water_Bear]

I don't think so. From what I remember. Rorschach didn't go out of his way to harm innocents, he stood up for them when they needed someone.

I got the general impression from the "And I'll whisper 'no.'" monologue in the beginning was that he didn't think there were any innocents left.

He also made it fairly clear his serial murder anti-heroic activities were out of a general sense of "punishing wickedness" rather than actually protecting people, hence killing that faux-villain masochist by dropping him down an elevator shaft.


For example, he didn't [kill?] any of the cops when they cornered him in the Aparment complex. Also he didn't arbitarily start offing inmates in the Prison. When pushed, he pushed back. He knew that they where in prison doing their time, so further acts of aggrestion wasn't warranted.

Yeah, firing a grappling hook into someone's chest or using an improvised flamethrower on their face is the essence of restraint and respect for the life and dignity of others.

I'm not sure about your interpretation of his activities in prison, but he did actually seem fairly restrained. Whether it was self preservation or some kind of sense of honor, he wasn't nearly as kill-happy as he was before he was caught. Maybe that shrink did him some good after all.


Granted he isn't the paragon pillar of the concepts of Chaotic Good. He did torture and maim people, but this was done to evil people. He was pushing the lines of Chaotic Neutral.

Yes, because torture is absolutely not Evil when you are doing it to people who look kind of shifty and are implied to have at one point committed crimes. Routinely torturing people is definitely not a one-way ticket to the warmer end of the alignment pool.

(I absolutely do not get people who think Rorschach was a hero. Allan Moore went out of his way to make sure the man was a portrayed as a disgusting ugly sociopath, with homophobic misogynistic and racist dialogue as well as several scenes of brutal torture and murder all "on screen." What exactly is so heroic about the guy? He's a violent fanatic who lashes out at a world his child-like mind can't understand.)

[BootStrapTommy]

ACTIONS are what decide your alignment. Not viewpoints.

In D&D this is not actually the case.
Actions have an effect, but so do motivations.
And motivations are effectively informed by viewpoints.

And when building a new character who has never taken any actions (since you just made them) motivations and viewpoints are the ONLY thing to initial alignment.
In fact what an alignment does is narrow the possible viewpoints, thus the motivations, and consequently the actions.

Also, congrats OP on starting the alignment argument.

[Oscredwin]

The reason people see Rorschach as a hero is that out of the main cast: Ozymandias, Silk Specter, Dr. Manhattan, Night Owl, The Comedian, and Rorschach there are two characters who don't go along with the villain's plan. The other is a rapist.

Rorschach is the only one who is committed to protecting innocents. He doesn't believe they exist anymore, and that's a big problem, but the other characters do see people as innocents and are willing to sacrifice them once convinced by the villain.

[willpell]

What makes you, the player, think LAW is anti-freedom? Show me a Lawful Good character who hates freedom. What does "freedom" actually mean to you?

Freedom means being able to walk into a clearly-labeled "no trespassing" zone because you feel like looking around. Lawful Good characters will arrest the trespasser because he broke the law, even if the owner of the property is secretly Evil; Chaotic Good characters will ask whether the trespasser actually did any harm, and the more vehemently the landholder objects that it doesn't matter whether he did harm or not, the more likely the CG character is going to want to Detect Evil on the landholder, while the LG character probably doesn't bother because the law is more important than any one person's alignment. (If the LG is a paladin he might check the landholder's alignment just because he's able to do so at-will, but if he's a cleric of Heironeous or the like, even a high-level one, he probably won't waste a spell slot, he'll just reason that the law is the law and that Evil which never succeeds in breaking the law is harmless, or at least tolerably repugnant and not worth the cost of prosecuting in an extralegal way.)


(I absolutely do not get people who think Rorschach was a hero. Allan Moore went out of his way to make sure the man was a portrayed as a disgusting ugly sociopath, with homophobic misogynistic and racist dialogue as well as several scenes of brutal torture and murder all "on screen." What exactly is so heroic about the guy? He's a violent fanatic who lashes out at a world his child-like mind can't understand.)

It's much the same reason that a large number of Marvel comic fans root for the Punisher, who premiered as a villain in Spider-Man and has never (well, almost never; it's not like I've read every issue he's in, I'm speaking from what I know, which is a reasonably decent-sized cross-section of random appearances) been portrayed as anything nobler than a gritty antihero on a mission to destroy things worse than himself. He's a deeply imperfect character, and he speaks to deeply imperfect readers who get a vicarious thrill out of watching someone no better than themselves do things they know they shouldn't (or at least can't without going to jail) do, but reeeally wish they could.

Preach at someone that they NEED to become a better person, and they'll get cheesed at you for looking down your nose at them. Give them a sympathetic portrayal of someone who is more horrible than they could ever hope for, yet noble in a way that they can sympathize with, and they will make excuses about how he's not that bad, because they're really talking about themselves.


Rorschach is the only one who is committed to protecting innocents. He doesn't believe they exist anymore, and that's a big problem, but the other characters do see people as innocents and are willing to sacrifice them once convinced by the villain.

Because the villain was right from a logical perspective; the two people who wanted to spite him were both violent sociopaths, one who didn't believe in anything any more, and one who had beliefs but found all of humanity inadequate according to them. Neither the Comedian nor Rorschach cared about people at all, and so their refusal to accept those people's deaths, as a necessary alternative to everyone (well, except Dr. Manhattan) dying in an imminent and otherwise inevitable nuclear WW3, looks deeply hypocritical. Rorschach wasn't protecting innocents, because the villain clearly presented the fact that those innocents would die anyway, just a little bit later and in much greater numbers. Rorschach just wanted to punish those he deemed guilty, regardless of what the cost was to anyone. The only point in his favor is that he willingly accepted the fact that the cost would end up being his own miserable life.

[Burner28]

The reason people see Rorschach as a hero is that out of the main cast: Ozymandias, Silk Specter, Dr. Manhattan, Night Owl, The Comedian, and Rorschach there are two characters who don't go along with the villain's plan. The other is a rapist.

Rorschach is the only one who is committed to protecting innocents. He doesn't believe they exist anymore, and that's a big problem, but the other characters do see people as innocents and are willing to sacrifice them once convinced by the villain.

That said, Rorschach lacks too much compassion to be anything Good (whether it is Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic).

[willpell]

That said, Rorschach lacks too much compassion to be anything Good (whether it is Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic).

This, a thousand times this. I would also deny the villain a Good alignment after his act of mass-murder, regardless of its beneficial consequences; making a trade like that is IMO virtually the definition of Lawful Neutral, caring only about the raw numbers and not about the feelings of the people they represent. (By contrast I'm inclined to consider Rorschach and the Punisher alike Chaotic Neutral, despite their use of Lawfully rigid codes of conduct; at most they're True Neutral, but I think their "lone wolf" status and the amount of personal, emotional hatred they invest into their little crusade are both clearly Chaotic. That part I'll admit is largely my interpretation.)

[Slipperychicken]

Does your character follow a strict moral code? Does he feel obligated to do what others expect of him? Having a well-defined, relatively constant moral code is an indication that your character is Lawful, as is conforming to his community's expectations. "I do what I want" is not a moral code, and indicates that your character is Chaotic. If your character does not try to follow social norms, then he is more likely Chaotic.

To what extent is your character willing to see his personal liberty restricted?

Does he value authority (that is; an actor's ability to impose its will on others) as a means of keeping order, is he indifferent to it (he would do whichever promotes the most good, without preference), or does he think it should/could be replaced with free will (i.e. people doing Good because they are good people, as opposed to being obligated to do so)?

Definitions of Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and Neutral Good in D&D 3.5e. Spoilered for length

Lawful Good, SRD
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.


Chaotic Good, SRD
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.


Neutral Good, SRD
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..



If your character is indifferent to the means of achieving Goodness (authority or personal freedom), he is more likely Neutral Good.

[hamishspence]

Personally I thought BoED provided interesting descriptions of those three alignments (in more detail) as well:


Lawful Good
Lawful good characters possess a sense of discipline, honor, and community that other good characters do not necessarily share. Lawful good characters are members of monastic or knightly orders, church hierarchies, or organizations dedicated to righteous causes. They believe that morality can be legislated, and promote the establishment of just societies whose laws and customs inculate good behaviour in their citizens. Lawful good adventurers fight evil knowing they have the support of legal systems behind them: they are bringing criminals to justice as well as opposing evil.

Chaotic Good
Chaotic good characters are strong-willed individualists who tolerate no oppression, even in the name of the common good. They usually work alone or in loose bands, rather than as part of some organization or hierarchy. They have no confidence in the ability of laws and social mores to train people in good behaviour. Indeed, they have seen all too often how people hide behind rules and laws as an excuse for evil or at least irresponsible acts. While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces- religion, philosophy, or community, for example- to encourage good behaviour and punish evil. Chaotic good adventurers fight evil because it's evil, not because it's illegal.

Neutral Good
Neutral good characters occupy an indistinct middle ground. They espouse the ideals of good and none other. As a rule, they don't care whether good is imposed through laws and customs, or encouraged by temples and philosophers; they simply want good to flourish. Legislating morality sometimes works, and is good as far as it goes. When lawful good societies begin legislating evert detail of their citizens' lives, however, passing laws on subjects that have no bearing on good and evil, the neutral good characters become impatient. They support law when it promotes good, but not law for its own sake. Similarly, they like the idea of personal freedom, but they're not sure everyone should have it: too much freedom gives evildoers too much room to prosper. Like chaotic good adventurers, neutral good ones fight evil because it's evil, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have the backing of legal authority whenever possible.

[Oscredwin]

Because the villain was right from a logical perspective; the two people who wanted to spite him were both violent sociopaths, one who didn't believe in anything any more, and one who had beliefs but found all of humanity inadequate according to them. Neither the Comedian nor Rorschach cared about people at all, and so their refusal to accept those people's deaths, as a necessary alternative to everyone (well, except Dr. Manhattan) dying in an imminent and otherwise inevitable nuclear WW3, looks deeply hypocritical. Rorschach wasn't protecting innocents, because the villain clearly presented the fact that those innocents would die anyway, just a little bit later and in much greater numbers. Rorschach just wanted to punish those he deemed guilty, regardless of what the cost was to anyone. The only point in his favor is that he willingly accepted the fact that the cost would end up being his own miserable life.

I would say that both The Comedian and Rorschach cared about people as a whole, even if they didn't give a damn about anyone specifically. Night Owl wanted to be a hero, whatever that means, Silk Specter wanted to please her mother, Ozy wanted to shape the world. Any desire to help people was incidental to their goals. It's what kept them sane. The Comedian and Rorschach wanted to save the world, but couldn't because the world was already lost (in their worldview).

I don't take it as a given that the villain was right. It's not a given that the great powers would work together based on his actions, the only thing he convinces the super being of is that the current solutions are inadequate. History and fiction are rife with examples of people a little to eager to make the hard choices and pay the terrible costs.

[hamishspence]

I think there's a reference (in the comic) that shows the Powers had backed down and opened negotiations- before The Plan went into action.

[lucky9]

To the OP: Seeing the need for certain basic laws to uphold the Good ideal of personal liberty, yet seeing the capacity for evil to come from unregulated freedom. Yes, definitely Neutral Good.

To the discussion: The alignment system is flawed only insofar as any means of classifying personality types is flawed. It's an attempt at putting the very complex individual into and easy to read/understand cookie cut. Alignment should only be used as a guideline; just as any system for understanding a person should be used merely as a tool for gaining some insight into their being.