Is it called Lawful Good or Chaotic Good?

[Nicoli20]

I reread the comic and saw that in the beginning, the Order of the Stick Guild's aliment was Chaotic Good, but when it got to the part when Nale kidnaps Roy's sister, they were called Lawful Good. I am confused.:smallconfused:

[Assassinfox]

The Order doesn't have a collective alignment, do they?

[chionophile]

The group is primarily good. Each of the members differs in specific alignment. Haley and Elan are Chaotic, Roy and Durkon are Lawful, V is likely True Neutral, Belkar is Chaotic Evil.

[AyuVince]

While Haley, Elan, Roy, Belkar and Durkon are out of the question, some still argue whether V might actually be LN. Oh well. The group as a whole has no alignment, although their actions usually help to uphold order and serve good, which is due to their leader's alignment (Roy is LG).

[Nicoli20]

The group is primarily good. Each of the members differs in specific alignment. Haley and Elan are Chaotic, Roy and Durkon are Lawful, V is likely True Neutral, Belkar is Chaotic Evil.

Ah, now I get it. Thank you chionophile.:smallbiggrin:

[storybookknight]

V's probably good-aligned, I have to say... certainly not lawful, given how negatively ze reacted to Miko's high-handedness.

[Sisqui]

V's probably good-aligned, I have to say... certainly not lawful, given how negatively ze reacted to Miko's high-handedness.

Not necessarily. A lawful character would react in exactly that fashion if the person in question was trying to impose an authority they did not actually have over him.

[Tolkien_Freak]

I reread the comic and saw that in the beginning, the Order of the Stick Guild's aliment was Chaotic Good, but when it got to the part when Nale kidnaps Roy's sister, they were called Lawful Good. I am confused.

Yeah, there's probably no 'collective alignment', seeing as how they're generally good and Belkar is Evil. He'd probably hate being called 'good'.

[kingdaughter]

Perhaps someone was trying to average the alignments? I do that when I roleplay... try to figure out where the majority of the party stands on each axis, then compare it to my own character.
:durkon: LG
:elan: CG
:haley: CG
:vaarsuvius: N?
:roy: LG
:belkar: CE

At least 4 of the 6 characters are good
3 people are chaotic (unless V is LN that's the dominant alignment on that axis)

That would mean the party tends to be chaotic good as a whole.

[bluish_wolf]

Perhaps someone was trying to average the alignments? I do that when I roleplay... try to figure out where the majority of the party stands on each axis, then compare it to my own character.
:durkon: LG
:elan: CG
:haley: CG
:vaarsuvius: N?
:roy: LG
:belkar: CE

At least 4 of the 6 characters are good
3 people are chaotic (unless V is LN that's the dominant alignment on that axis)

That would mean the party tends to be chaotic good as a whole.

I still don't see why people think Elan's chaotic.
If Elan in NG, then the party would be neutral good as a whole.

[Lizard Lord]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html
his mom was chaotic good just like Nale's dad is lawful evil. (I know it's his dad to, but the point is they got the alignment from the parent that raised them,)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html

"How were you planning on paying for the diet soda then?" "30 ft. per round movement rate."

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html
This is pretty much what choatic good is about. It is perfectly ok to commit to break the law as long as it is for a good cause, anbd nothing bad should happen to the person who does it.

Plus, seeing as how he didn't see the sign until afterwords, he really didn't need to steal the five copper.

And finally, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html

There is no way that blowing up a dungeon and waiting until the explosion is right behind you and your friend to jump out just because you think it is cool can not be considered chaotic acts. (Keeping in mind he had no way of knowing about the purpose of the gate that is.)

[kpenguin]

On V's alignment:
While V's actions seem to me to be that of a Neutral character, V was affected by an unholy blight spell back in comic 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). For neutral characters, unholy blight does not sicken and only does half damage. V would have to be good to be affected in such a way by the spell. Unless its houseruled or a new variant from the Complete Humor sourcebook.

[Assassinfox]

On V's alignment:
While V's actions seem to me to be that of a Neutral character, V was affected by an unholy blight spell back in comic 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). For neutral characters, unholy blight does not sicken and only does half damage. V would have to be good to be affected in such a way by the spell. Unless its houseruled or a new variant from the Complete Humor sourcebook.

I'm pretty sure it's just the Complete Humor thing. V's always seemed pretty apathetic to me.

[kpenguin]

I don't think the alignments of Durkon, Haley, and Elan have ever been explicitly stated either. While Durkon seems LG, Thor seems more CG and that would violate alignment rules for clerics.

[Jade_Tarem]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html
his mom was chaotic good just like Nale's dad is lawful evil. (I know it's his dad to, but the point is they got the alignment from the parent that raised them,)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html

"How were you planning on paying for the diet soda then?" "30 ft. per round movement rate."

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html
This is pretty much what choatic good is about. It is perfectly ok to commit to break the law as long as it is for a good cause, anbd nothing bad should happen to the person who does it.

Plus, seeing as how he didn't see the sign until afterwords, he really didn't need to steal the five copper.

And finally, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html

There is no way that blowing up a dungeon and waiting until the explosion is right behind you and your friend to jump out just because you think it is cool can not be considered chaotic acts. (Keeping in mind he had no way of knowing about the purpose of the gate that is.)

You forgot the most important one of all. Doesn't Haley actually say Elan is Chaotic Good at some point?

Edit: Whoops, Haley in #205 just says that he isn't lawful. Elan says that he's good when rescuing Nale. The only alternative to CG is NG, and I just don't see that happening.

[starburst98]

i think v is neutral good. a true nutral character would be roy's sister, and V is nothing like her.

[The Extinguisher]

Well he can't be lawful. He's a bard.

Also, rules. Psh. Who needs them. Durkon is obviously Lawful. Besides, when has Thor ever played by the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html)

[Querzis]

I don't think the alignments of Durkon, Haley, and Elan have ever been explicitly stated either. While Durkon seems LG, Thor seems more CG and that would violate alignment rules for clerics.

Why would the giant care? Durkon is obviously Lawfull anyway and I'm pretty sure he is good. I sure never saw him do anything else then good action. By the way, about comic 11, sure V was affected by unholy blight but the comic was still a joke comic without much plot at that time. V isnt good:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0041.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0385.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html

I could find more but I think its enough.

And if you think Elan is not chaotic, then I dont think you have been reading the same comic as me, Elan is almost the definition of chaos!

[Assassinfox]

i think v is neutral good. a true nutral character would be roy's sister, and V is nothing like her.

Characters of the same alignment don't have to act alike. Roy certainly doesn't act like Miko.

[Lizard Lord]

i think v is neutral good. a true nutral character would be roy's sister, and V is nothing like her.

Roy is nothing like Miko, but there are (or at least were) both lawful good.

[Nightmarenny]

On V's alignment:
While V's actions seem to me to be that of a Neutral character, V was affected by an unholy blight spell back in comic 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). For neutral characters, unholy blight does not sicken and only does half damage. V would have to be good to be affected in such a way by the spell. Unless its houseruled or a new variant from the Complete Humor sourcebook.
Actually when that strip first came out Giant said that only Durkon was sickened. Being that he failed a save. So its all up in the air. Come to think of it beyond being a Elf Wizard do we know anything about V?

[starwoof]

I seem to remember something somewhere that stated that Haley was neutral. It was in an earlier comic (though her usual behavior still supports neutrality).

[kpenguin]

Starwoof makes a good point. I don't remember any of Haley's actions revealing a good alignment. Cheating her party members out of loot isn't good at all.

[bluish_wolf]

"And finally, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/../comics/oots0118.html) and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/../comics/oots0119.html)

There is no way that blowing up a dungeon and waiting until the explosion is right behind you and your friend to jump out just because you think it is cool can not be considered chaotic acts. (Keeping in mind he had no way of knowing about the purpose of the gate that is.)"
Wouldn't that be a lawful act? His adherence to tradition demanded that he wait until the last minute. 'Cause that's what you are supposed to do. Same with the rune. You always hit the self-destruct button in an enemy's hideout.




And if you think Elan is not chaotic, then I dont think you have been reading the same comic as me, Elan is almost the definition of chaos!

While good and evil is pretty obvious, law and chaos isn't really. I mean, Elan's crazy, sure, but crazy isn't necessarily mean he is chaotic. That's why I went with Neutral Good - his lawful and chaotic nature kind of cancel each other out.

[chionophile]

Starwoof makes a good point. I don't remember any of Haley's actions revealing a good alignment. Cheating her party members out of loot isn't good at all.

I direct your attention to comic 393. Or, more specifically, the translation of what Haley said in 393, which can be found here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4909&highlight=Haley+Compilation

Haley: Of course not! This is absurd! I'm Chaotic Good! Ish!

[Lizard Lord]

Wouldn't that be a lawful act? His adherence to tradition demanded that he wait until the last minute. 'Cause that's what you are supposed to do. Same with the rune. You always hit the self-destruct button in an enemy's hideout.


I don't think it counts when the tradition itself is pretty chaotic and destructive. There are nations and races that are generally chaotic, so following there traditions and social norms would usually be chaotic, I think.

Plus, what about my other examples?

[Lizard Lord]

Starwoof makes a good point. I don't remember any of Haley's actions revealing a good alignment. Cheating her party members out of loot isn't good at all.

No, it is a chaotic act. Unless her party members are starving or despretly need the money for other reasons (like she despretly needed to pay for her fathers ransom) it is nothing more then that.

Remember she did help the dirt famers without hesitation and without requesting a reward.

[bluish_wolf]

I don't think it counts when the tradition itself is pretty chaotic and destructive. There are nations and races that are generally chaotic, so following there traditions and social norms would usually be chaotic, I think.

Plus, what about my other examples?

Yeah, they are choatic acts. It's just I don't think Elan is individualistic enough to be chaotic. He always relies on those around him for help and acts childish. His personality changes drastically when he is left alone, though, so it's questionable either way.

[Gunslinger47]

On V's alignment:
While V's actions seem to me to be that of a Neutral character, V was affected by an unholy blight spell back in comic 11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). For neutral characters, unholy blight does not sicken and only does half damage. V would have to be good to be affected in such a way by the spell. Unless its houseruled or a new variant from the Complete Humor sourcebook.

I lost the reference during the site overhaul, but in one of the threads, Burlew stated explicitly that Vaarsuvius' response to Unholy Blight does not necessarily imply a Good alignment.

In the thread, Burlew stated that he had never said V was Good, then someone linked him to comic 11. He had a little :smalleek: moment and recanted the unintended implications.

[Querzis]

Wouldn't that be a lawful act? His adherence to tradition demanded that he wait until the last minute. 'Cause that's what you are supposed to do. Same with the rune. You always hit the self-destruct button in an enemy's hideout.



While good and evil is pretty obvious, law and chaos isn't really. I mean, Elan's crazy, sure, but crazy isn't necessarily mean he is chaotic. That's why I went with Neutral Good - his lawful and chaotic nature kind of cancel each other out.

Pressing the self-destruct button is random and its really the sort of thing you could only do on a whim without thinking about it, its chaotic. Of course its also theatric but doing something because its been done a lot before is just stupid, funny and kinda random too, its far from Lawfull. Same thing for the «Just like Ven diesel movies.»

Elan is crazy? Miko is crazy, Nale is crazy, Leeky is crazy, Elan is just a fool. Seriously, Elan is wild, random, changing, he bring disorder where he goes, doesnt care about law at all and he always just act on a whims. Its true that law and chaos are sometimes harder to define then good and evil but I just really dont see how anyone could see Elan as something else then chaotic. And by the way, Chaotic people can be just as altruist as anyone else. Yes, Elan is not an egoist but thats more about good/evil then Law/chaos.

[bluish_wolf]

Yeah, but chaos in D&D isn't randomness or refusal to follow the law. It's the idea that the individual is more important than the group and that tradition and honor have no meaning.

If Elan truly pressed that glyph on a whim, then it would be choatic. But, I mean, he knew that it was a self-destruct rune. He also was talking like he thought it was obviously the right thing to do.

[Querzis]

Yeah, but chaos in D&D isn't randomness or refusal to follow the law. It's the idea that the individual is more important than the group and that tradition and honor have no meaning.

Ok...Chaos isnt even an idea, its just acting like you want to without any social restriction and if it was an idea it certainly woudnt be that the individual is more important then the group, thats egoism and chaotic good character arent supposed to be egoist. Tradition and honor have no meaning? Chaotic society usually have more traditions then lawfull society since the traditions pretty much serve as a replacement for law, its just that anyone can respect them or not if they want to. One of the best example of chaotic society is the vikings and just take a look at the incredible number of traditions they had.

The best example in the fantasy world about chaotic society would be the Horde in warcraft and those guys are all about honor! They obey their Warchief, help their allies and do pretty much everything in the name of honor. The only difference in Chaotic society is that they dont have to! If someone doesnt want to obey the warchief, he doesnt, thats all! He wont go in prison just because of that...they dont even have prison anyway. There is no social status in the Horde, anyone could fight the Warchief and claim his place. But the since the actual Warchief (Thrall) is loved and respected, anyone that claim his place and kill him would get killed by thousand of pissed orcs right after that. There is no law in the Horde, there is no order in the Horde, everyone in the Horde is equal in status. They have lots of traditions, but they also have lots of people who go against tradition but they are still in the Horde and nobody bother them with that.

Thats chaos, its all about acting on a whims. But you are right, chaos isnt about the refusal to follow the law, its all about not caring about law at all. Really chaotic people dont refuse law, it just doesnt exist as far as they are concerned. And as far as Elan is concerned it doesnt seems to exist either. A line of conduct that anyone must follow? What kind of silly idea is that. For the law, chaos is an enemy but for chaos, law is just irrevelant.

[bluish_wolf]

" The best example in the fantasy world about chaotic society would be the Horde in warcraft and those guys are all about honor!"

You're joking, right? The Horde is lawful to the extreme.

Like you said, they are all about honor.

[kpenguin]

What about elves? They are listed as being Chaotic Good, and yet most depictions of them have elves being closely bound by tradition. The elves, however, are more free to break them than dwarves, who take tradition to the extreme.

[Querzis]

" The best example in the fantasy world about chaotic society would be the Horde in warcraft and those guys are all about honor!"

You're joking, right? The Horde is lawful to the extreme.

Like you said, they are all about honor.

Yeah and like I said Honor got nothing to do with law or chaos, a barbarian can be just as honorable as a paladin.

http://www.docguide.com/dgc.nsf/html/English-Dictionnary.htm

synonyms HONOR (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/honor), HOMAGE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homage), REVERENCE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reverence), DEFERENCE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deference) mean respect and esteem shown to another. HONOR (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/honor) may apply to the recognition of one's right to great respect or to any expression of such recognition

Do you really think a soldier recognize his lieutenant right to great respect? Not always but hes gonna obey is order anyway because he is freaking lawfull! The orcs got a Warchief when they think that someone has this right of great respect, they dont always have a Warchief. Some orcs clans didnt even had a chieftain and one was controlled by an ogre! But even if they respect the warchief and/or the chieftains, they can disobey them if they dont think they got a good idea. They are all about honor which mean that they are all about respect and esteem shown to other, especially their Warchief and chieftains and sometimes their enemies or the random guard of the city, why do you consider this Lawfull?????

They obey their Warchief and got a Warchief because they respect him compared to a king that many people hate but follow his laws anyway.

[bluish_wolf]

What about elves? They are listed as being Chaotic Good, and yet most depictions of them have elves being closely bound by tradition. The elves, however, are more free to break them than dwarves, who take tradition to the extreme.

That's just because they live so long, they seem to be bound by tradition. Considering that, they actually adapt to new ideas rather quickly.



To you really think a soldier recognize his lieutenant right to great respect? Not always but hes gonna obey is order anyway because he is freaking lawfull! The orcs got a Warchief when they think that someone has this right of great respect, they dont always have a Warchief. Some orcs clans didnt even had a chieftain and one was controlled by an ogre! But even if they respect the warchief and or the chieftains, they can disobey him if they dont think he got a good idea. They are all about honor which mean that they are all about respect and esteem shown to other, especially their Warchief and chieftains and sometimes their enemy, why do you consider this Lawfull?????

A chaotic character may follow another out of respect, but not beacause they feel beholden to the person. Nor would they do it because it would be dishonorable to turn their back on a comrade. If a chaotic likes you, personally, he will help you, but not because he feels that he has to.

[Querzis]

A chaotic character may follow another out of respect, but not beacause they feel beholden to the person. Nor would they do it because it would be dishonorable to turn their back on a comrade. If a chaotic likes you, personally, he will help you, but not because he feels that he has to.

Go check the dictionnary, beholden mean that you are indebted moraly to someone and morality is all about good and evil, not chaos and law. If a chaotic character get his life saved by someone, yes he can follow that guy because its the right thing to do. You really seems to think that some evil things are chaotic, like egoism. Sorry but honor is just a good thing, it isnt especially lawfull or chaotic.

[bluish_wolf]

I don't know what dictionary you're using, but webster defines beholden as, "being under obligation for a favor or gift." It has nothing to do with morality.

If a chaotic character was saved by someone else, they would not feel the obligation to return the favor. They might end of saving that person's life anyway, but not because they felt like they had to.

[Querzis]

I don't know what dictionary you're using, but webster defines beholden as, "being under obligation for a favor or gift." It has nothing to do with morality.

If a chaotic character was saved by someone else, they would not feel the obligation to return the favor. They might end of saving that person's life anyway, but not because they felt like they had to.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/beholden

Adj.1.beholden - under a moral obligation to someone obligated (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obligated) - caused by law or conscience to follow a certain course; "felt obligated to repay the kindness"; "was obligated to pay off the student loan"


Sure you can also be beholden by the law but I'm pretty sure you were talking about beholden as in beholden to repay someone for kindness or for saving your life and yes a chaotic good character is gonna do that. Caused by law or conscience to follow a certain course. Its as if you have been saying chaotic character have no conscience, of course a chaotic good character is going to repay a kindness since its a good thing to do.

I think you have been stuck in the first edition where chaos was evil and law was good. And by the way, if you still think the Horde are lawfull after all of this then at least give me one good reason why honor, which is respect and esteems of other people, would be lawfull. Respect is just good, not lawfull.

[bluish_wolf]

"He helped me before in the past, therefore, I should help him," or, "he's my leader, I have to save him," isn't really something a chaotic character would do. That's not to say a chaotic character doesn't have a conscious, but it would be more likely to be something along the lines of, "I'm not going to sit idly by while someone gets killed." See, it has nothing to do with honor, 'cause they treat everyone the same.

[ShiningTed]

Respect is an emotion, not a moral or idealogical position. You feel respect, whereas you choose to do good or evil.

What an argument to have - sheesh!

[Querzis]

"He helped me before in the past, therefore, I should help him," "he's my leader, I have to save him," isn't really something a chaotic character would do. That's not to say a chaotic character doesn't have a conscious, but it would be more likely to be something along the lines of, "I'm not going to sit idly by while someone gets killed." See, it has nothing to do with honor, 'cause they treat everyone the same.

He's my leader, I have to save him isnt honorable. Did you even check the definiton or what? If someone save his leader just because he is his leader then its Lawfull but its not honorable. If someone save his leader because of honor, in other word because he respect and esteem him, then he could be of pretty much any alignement. Thats the point of the Horde, the Warchief and chieftain are the most respected and esteemed member of the Horde, thats why they are leader, not the other way around like in lawfull society.

«I'm not going to sit idly while someone get killed» and «he helped me before, thefore I should help him» are both things that any good-aligned person would say anyway. Lawfull evil and even lawfull neutral people are not much likely to say «He helped me before, thefore I should help him».

And yes ShiningTed respect is an emotion, I dont think I said it wasnt. But respect is one of the basic (if not the basic) good-aligned emotion just like egoism is one of the basic (if not the basic) evil-aligned emotion. If someone respect everyone then I really dont see how he could ever commit an evil act.

[BisectedBrioche]

Respect is an emotion, not a moral or idealogical position. You feel respect, whereas you choose to do good or evil.

What an argument to have - sheesh!

Actually respect is an attitude or opinion. An emotion is a physical frame of mind which can consist of anger/fear (responses to hazardous stimuli) sadness/happiness (social responces) disgust/curiosity/surprise/acceptance (responses to new information).

[ShiningTed]

But respect is one of the basic (if not the basic) good-aligned emotion just like egoism is one of the basic (if not the basic) evil-aligned emotion. If someone respect everyone then I really dont see how he could ever commit an evil act.Sorry but I really can't agree with this at all. An evil person - lawful, chaotic, whatever - might still respect his opponent, while plotting to destroy him: indeed, the very thing that makes the evil person respect the other, such as an acknowledgement of prowess or ability or power, might also threaten the evil person (your 'egoism') so that the response is to try to destroy the respected person to feel superior. Hence phrases like 'he felt a certain grudging respect' - grudging because it is an emotion that, like fear, the person does not want to feel, because it goes against the moral choices they make, eg 'I hate that guy and I'm gonna kill him, but I gotta admit he will be tough to take down because he's damn strong'. A certain grudging respect. But maybe we are using the word 'respect' in completely different ways. Which brings us to alignment debates in general.

Ummm, you guys do know that no alignment argument in the history of D&D has ever been settled?

[Gitman00]

I lost the reference during the site overhaul, but in one of the threads, Burlew stated explicitly that Vaarsuvius' response to Unholy Blight does not necessarily imply a Good alignment.

In the thread, Burlew stated that he had never said V was Good, then someone linked him to comic 11. He had a little :smalleek: moment and recanted the unintended implications.

Yeah, I remember this thread, too. Someone said, "I think the Giant said at one point that all the members of the OotS are good except Belkar because of their reaction to the Unholy Blight spell."

The Giant responded with, "I never said any such thing." The poster then linked to ANOTHER thread in which the Giant did, in fact, say that. The Giant then said something to the effect of, "Huh. I guess I did say that. Good thing what I say in the forums is not canon and I can recant whenever I want."

Admittedly, he never actually said which statement he was recanting, but I tend to think it was the statement, "I never said any such thing." Therefore, the original statement about the OotS all being good still stands, since it's supported by the comic, which IS canon.

So, in summation, I think that the current evidence supports V being good. Possibly lawful good, but more likely neutral good, it seems to me. Incidentally, his/her alignment in the adventure game is Lawful Arrogant.

Clear as mud? Excellent.

[bluish_wolf]

He's my leader, I have to save him isnt honorable. Did you even check the definiton or what? If someone save his leader just because he is his leader then its Lawfull but its not honorable. If someone save his leader because of honor, in other word because he respect and esteem him, then he could be of pretty much any alignement. Thats the point of the Horde, the Warchief and chieftain are the most respected and esteemed member of the Horde, thats why they are leader, not the other way around like in lawfull society.

«I'm not going to sit idly while someone get killed» and «he helped me before, thefore I should help him» are both things that any good-aligned person would say anyway. Lawfull evil and even lawfull neutral people are not much likely to say «He helped me before, thefore I should help him».

And yes ShiningTed respect is an emotion, I dont think I said it wasnt. But respect is one of the basic (if not the basic) good-aligned emotion just like egoism is one of the basic (if not the basic) evil-aligned emotion. If someone respect everyone then I really dont see how he could ever commit an evil act.

If someone is your leader, than the only honorable thing to do would be to save him. I already know what honorable means, but I'll look it up anyway.

"... deserving of honor."

Ok, let's look up honor.

"1 a : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reputation)"

So, basically, if your honorable, you have a good name and people respect you. Naturally, such a person would save their commander if he were in danger. You would only be expected to.

That's why chaotics don't mess around with honor. They don't tend to care what society at large thinks about them.

Let me put it this way. They are two fighters, one lawful neutral and one chaotic neutral. Both have been saved by this guy. Now, both of them hate this guys guts, and would gain large quantities of money if he died. The lawful neutral one would protect him, because he owes the guy his life. The chaotic neutral one wouldn't care about the debt and would just let him die.

Lastly, to quote the sourcebook:

"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government."

"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."

[Devils_Advocate]

Querzis, you say that you associate repaying others with Good and egoism with Evil. But isn't that rather contradictory? If you save X's life because he saved your life in the past, that means that you wouldn't save his life if he hadn't previously saved yours. Let's look at how that applies to a few possible sets of conditions concerning two people, one of whom once saved your life (X), and the other who didn't (Y):

1. X and Y are both upstanding, virtuous individuals who do their best to protect the innocent and help the needy.
2. X and Y are both ruthless, depraved individuals who will do anything to get ahead, be it making the right allies or destroying anyone or anything that stands in the way of their goals.
3. Y saved the life of another innocent person (not you).
4. X and Y are both good friends of yours and willing to help you however they can. But while X is very powerful, Y is rather incapable. So though Y is kind to you, he's not really terribly useful.

I guess it depends, really, on whether in "I'll help him because he helped me before", the emphasis is on "me" or on "helped". Are you equally willing to help someone who was just as helpful, but to someone else, instead of to you?

'Cuz in each of the cases above, there's a common factor in being willing to save X but not willing to save Y. And that factor is "Well, what has he done for me?" It bespeaks a habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egoism).

Look, it's not that I don't understand that perspective. "Of course how I should treat other people depends on my relationships to them! Just like how you should treat other people depends on your relationships to them! I'm not advocating a value system centered around me, personally! Gah!" Yeah, I get it. The thing is, that's a Lawful perspective, based on the concept of personal duty; it's the idea that the right thing to do depends on who you are.

But there's also the opposing Chaotic perspective, based on the concept of personal freedom; the idea that no one else has any special right to demand anything of you. If you helped me in the past, maybe I'm grateful (though if your "help" was never asked for, maybe I'm not), but whether I do any favor for you is still my choice, not yours, just like what you did for me was your choice, not mine! (Certainly, nothing you've done obligates me to infringe on the freedom of any innocent person; indeed, nothing so obligates me or ever could.)

From this perspective, then, the right thing to do generally doesn't depend on who you are. Evil wizard rules the land with an iron fist? Then it's a good thing to kill him if you can, so long as his downfall wouldn't make things even worse. You only have the chance to kill the evil wizard because you're his beloved wife, the one and only person he truly cares about, takes care of, trusts completely? Well, in that case... Is he still a cruel tyrant? Is he still responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of innocent people? Oh, he is? Then stab him through the eye as he sleeps. 'Cuz the world is better off without this guy, and what difference does it make who offs him?

Obviously, if I actually agreed to do something in exchange for your help, that changes things. That could obligate me to do a great deal. For example, maybe you said "Sure, I'll give you the potion that will cure your fatal illness... if you'll do everything I tell you to do from now on. MWAHAHA!" Still, even when faced with such a choice, a truly Chaotic character has few options (assuming that she can't successfully bargain down):

1. Agree to the deal, never intending to follow through on it at all.
2. Agree to the deal, planning to make just restitution for the other party's aid... but not the ludicrous price that they're trying to extort from you.
3. Agree to the deal, hoping that the other party doesn't become too controlling or command you to do something to which you strongly object... because then, man, you'd have to break your word, which would suck.
4. Choose the totally honest option... and, thus, death.

[Lizard Lord]

Are we still argueing if Elan is chaotic or not, or are we just argueing what the rules for lawful and chaotic are?