Lumber's Alignment Article #2: Neutral Good

[lumberofdabeast]

Yay, having another go, and this time taking one step right. The previous article, as well as a lot of boring explanatory stuff, can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38417). Here we go again...

Oh, and I am very disappointed in you all. Not one slap for my peach fuzz joke?


What is the alignment?
Neutral Good.

What does the alignment consider to be most important?
The most important thing to Neutral Good is for everyone to get along. Negotiators, diplomats, and the like are often Neutral Good.

What does the alignment hate?
Neutral Good despises those that incite conflict, especially for their own gain. There are ways to advance in society without harming others, and so Neutral Good does not understand why some would choose to harm others any way.

What methods will the alignment use to achieve its goal?
Neutral Good is the alignment that most favors diplomacy; it will often attempt to talk its way out of problems before fighting its way out. This should not be interpreted as weakness, however; if it has no other choice, Neutral Good will fight fiercely to protect those whom it cares for, and Neutral Good often shows a near-suicidal disregard for its own safety when protecting others.

What methods will the alignment never use?
Much like Lawful Good, Neutral Good will never torture anyone. In addition, a Neutral Good character is the most likely to swear not to hurt anyone, period.

When would the alignment condone killing?
If it has another option, full-on Neutral Good will never kill; however, it should be noted that few mortals are pure Good, and thus most will have a few situations where they are willing to kill.

What is the alignment's best feature?
Neutral Good's best feature is its willingness to go to any lengths to ensure everyone gets out alive.

What is the alignment's worst feature?
Neutral Good's worst feature is its insistance that everyone else gets out alive, no matter the cost to itself. (Stupid martyrs. If you die saving someone, how will you ever save anyone else?)

What makes the alignment unique?
Neutral Good is different from other good alignments because it cares only about doing good, and doesn't let issues of law or chaos cloud its vision.

What are some common misconceptions about the alignment?
1) Neutral Good means Neutral Nice. This applies to any Good alignment, really; people seem to be under the impression that a Good character must be courteous and polite. In fact, a Good character who is targetted by the bad guys is likely to start doing everything he can to drive his friends and family away, reasoning that the villans will have no reason to strike at them afterward. (Tragically, this reasoning is often incorrect.)

What are some well-known characters with the alignment in popular culture?
1) James Bond: Starting off with the controversial character here. I personally think James Bond is Neutral Good (albeit close to True Neutral) because he acts to protect the whole world, he's too Chaotic to be Lawful, and he's too Lawful to be Chaotic.
2) Link: Definitely good. I feel he's Neutral with Lawful tendancies, largely because a lot of the things he does in Twilight Princess seem pretty chaotic to me. Plus, he enters houses without permission hundreds of times per game.
3) Captain America: I'm not a comic book geek, so I'm going by what my friend tells me. Apparently, Captain America upholds the laws if they are just, but is willing to completely ignore them to do what is morally right.

[Draz74]

What are some well-known characters with the alignment in popular culture?
1) James Bond: Starting off with the controversial character here. I personally think James Bond is Neutral Good (albeit close to True Neutral) because he acts to protect the whole world, he's too Chaotic to be Lawful, and he's too Lawful to be Chaotic.
2) Link: Definitely good. I feel he's Neutral with Lawful tendancies, largely because a lot of the things he does in Twilight Princess seem pretty chaotic to me. Plus, he enters houses without permission hundreds of times per game.
3) Captain America: I'm not a comic book geek, so I'm going by what my friend tells me. Apparently, Captain America upholds the laws if they are just, but is willing to completely ignore them to do what is morally right.

Don't agree with James Bond. But here I'll make a list of those that seem NG to me. I can't think of many, so I'll try to add to the list over time.

- Will Turner in Pirates of the Carribean
- Frodo
- Harry Potter
- Luke Skywalker

... Judging by those last three, it often seems to be the "main" protagonist ...

[martyboy74]

I'm going to say the Bond is TN; after all, he's only doing his job, and he's trying to save the world he lives in. Saving your apartment flat doesn't make you neutral good, you just like your home.

[Krellen]

Cap is LG. Lawful has nothing to do with laws, and Cap always stands for truth, justice and the American Way. Always. He's very static about it. Your friend is wrong - Cap isn't NG.

[Holocron Coder]

I'd agree with Krellen. Captain America would be LG, based on the Lawful: follows a set code of conduct that may be the nation's laws or a personal edict.

Cap would fall in the later; he follows his moral guidelines and the law, if they don't conflict.

[enderrocksonall]

Would Kenshin be NG? He breaks the laws all the time but seems to stick rigidly to is own moral code.

[Krellen]

Here's one huge major thing that must be understood about Law vs. Chaos:

It has nothing at all, not even a little, to do with a country's legal code.

"Law", in the sense used in D&D, harkens back to an older use of the world where it was essentially synonymous with "Order". The concept of Law vs. Chaos also comes from the works of Michael Moorcock, who used this older concept. "Law", in the D&D sense, bears no resemblence to "law" in the modern sense. It most closely resembles definition #3 set forth here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law), as the "controlling influence", though it's independent of temporal authority.

[Lapak]

Would Kenshin be NG? He breaks the laws all the time but seems to stick rigidly to is own moral code.I'd call Kenshin Lawful Good; he believes strongly enough in the 'rule of law for the good of all' - that is, a beneficial government that helps its citizens - that he sacrificed his own moral principles to achieve it. He felt bad about it, and is clearly Good - so LN wouldn't apply - but he is a firm believer in order as a force for good, and has little flexibility for those who work against it even if they are trying to do good. Take, for example, how he faced down his own friend and took the government's side when it came down to it: he was aware that the government was flawed, but believed that on balance it was a force for Good.

[Krellen]

It's working again, so here's something from Wizards saying what I just said (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a).

[Lolzords]

I'm going to say the Bond is TN; after all, he's only doing his job, and he's trying to save the world he lives in. Saving your apartment flat doesn't make you neutral good, you just like your home.

Very true, an evil person would probably save the world he lives in if it's under attack. He doesn't give a hoot about the rest of the people that live there, he's only doing it because if the world was destroyed he would lose something precious to him.

[Krellen]

I've been thinking about it and I think it's hard to find good, literary examples of non-Lawful Goods. There's a reason for this: Lawful Good is the "heroic" alignment. This doesn't mean Lawful Good is "more" Good than Neutral or Chaotic Good, but just that Lawful Good is a far better match for what most Americans (and probably most people around the world) consider "heroic".

I blame Superman.

But to get back to the subject at hand: good examples of Neutral Good would be the honestly-good hearted trial lawyer or charity worker, who would prefer to work within the law but has no real qualms against lying or at least twisting the truth (remember, honesty is one of Lawful's big things, not the law) if it has a chance of helping more people. I can't think of any literary examples (or any media, really), because Neutral Good is one of those simple, good-hearted people alignments, not the sort stories are generally written of.

[mauslin]

^^^^

What about Phoenix Wright?

[lumberofdabeast]

^^^^

What about Phoenix Wright?

Never played the games, but I'd assume he's Lawful Good.

You know, because he's a lawyer.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I've been thinking about it and I think it's hard to find good, literary examples of non-Lawful Goods. There's a reason for this: Lawful Good is the "heroic" alignment. This doesn't mean Lawful Good is "more" Good than Neutral or Chaotic Good, but just that Lawful Good is a far better match for what most Americans (and probably most people around the world) consider "heroic".
I don't know, chaos is becoming increasingly more popular. Think "Overdone McCliche is a loose-cannon cop who plays by his own rules. Nobody has ever thought of this plot in the history of television!" Neutrality, on the other hand, doesn't get much press.

I don't know, that guy on Criminal Intent? Whassiname Gorren? Or something?

[lumberofdabeast]

I don't know, chaos is becoming increasingly more popular. Think "Overdone McCliche is a loose-cannon cop who plays by his own rules. Nobody has ever thought of this plot in the history of television!" Neutrality, on the other hand, doesn't get much press.

I don't know, that guy on Criminal Intent? Whassiname Gorren? Or something?
The only Neutral Good character not listed that I could think of off the top of my head is Vash the Stampede.

I miss that show. Pity AS is all about showing stupid crap now, and not awesome crap.

[mauslin]

The only Neutral Good character not listed that I could think of off the top of my head is Vash the Stampede.

I miss that show. Pity AS is all about showing stupid crap now, and not awesome crap.

I don't know, Vash can be pretty chaotic. Certainly the results of his interventions are extreemely chaotic; he was called the Stampede because of the sheer amount of property damage he caused.

Many times he let innocent bystandards come to harm because he refused to kill his opponents. IMO, his level of mercy puts him into the chaotic range.

[lumberofdabeast]

I don't know, Vash can be pretty chaotic. Certainly the results of his interventions are extreemely chaotic; he was called the Stampede because of the sheer amount of property damage he caused.

Many times he let innocent bystandards come to harm because he refused to kill his opponents. IMO, his level of mercy puts him into the chaotic range.

He never caused that damage, though. At least, not intentionally. It was always other people, after the bounty on his head.

[Innis Cabal]

he is chaotic good gentlemen and ladies...he is stated

[lumberofdabeast]

Where? Damn post size limitations...

[Innis Cabal]

BESM stat book, and he is clearly a CG person. He hates violence and wants everyone to live a free peaceful lie...thats CG. He is NOT lawful or even Neutral, leaves Chaotic. How do you even begin to argue he is NG, just becuase by the end he takes it upon himself to protect the human race? He is doing it for a rather selfish need, to see Knives....not Neutral

[lumberofdabeast]

BESM? Minimum message size again...

[Innis Cabal]

Big Eyes, Small Mouth, an old Tri-stat game made into a D20 game

[lumberofdabeast]

Never heard of it.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Bond is Lawful Neutral: He goes where M tells him, and is more than willing to leave casualties in his wake to accomplish his mission.
It may turn that his mission is saving the world, but he would still do his mission if it wasn't.

Examples of Neutral Good:
Alphonse Elric: He's dedicated to his brother and has a strong moral compass, but he doesn't have the singlemindedness of his LG brother. He's very willing to let life take its course and just try to find peace within it.

Ang (from Avatar): Understands his destiny but has difficulty fully embracing it. Tends to just enjoy company of friends and would, if he had a choice, just live a normal, good life.

Rick (From Casablanca): Not wholly selfish or wholly idealistic; he needs someone to push him before he acts on behalf of others, but will never let himself become totally selfish.

[Droodle]

Bond is Lawful Neutral
Examples of Neutral Good:
Alphonse Elric: He's dedicated to his brother and has a strong moral compass, but he doesn't have the singlemindedness of his LG brother. He's very willing to let life take its course and just try to find peace within it.Ed? Lawful? Huh? Judging by his constant refusal to follow orders and utter lack of respect for authority, another alignment comes to mind.....

[ArmorArmadillo]

Ed? Lawful? Huh? Judging by his constant refusal to follow orders and utter lack of respect for authority, another alignment comes to mind.....
His entire life was dedicated to the law of equivalent exchange. He didn't follow his superiors because the moral code he was dedicated to went against the bureaucratic and often immoral way they acted.

Law does not mean following the laws presented to you, it means holding your personal dogma above all else.

[Koga]

Neutral good sounds like crap and The Koga already wants to smack someone lol...

[Nahal]

I dunno... Ed's impulsive nature puts him more in the Chaotic end of the spectrum in my book.

I really don't see too many examples of NG protagonists in pop culture. Perhaps Harry Dresden? Or Faramir? Bilbo works, as does Tom Bombadil or Treebeard IMHO. Possibly Spiderman?

I think part of the reason for the rarity is that (as many have said) most "heroic" characters are LG in their actions, with "anti-heroes" being either CG or CN depending on how hardened they are. NG characters rarely get starring roles. Protagonists tend to have a driving purpose that either places them in favor of an ordered society (as with Superman, quintessential LG) or disillusioned with it or simply viewing freedom as an overriding concern (as with Robin Hood). Characters neither concerned with order nor chaos imply that their main goals often have little to do with society, which doesn't often lend itself well to storybook heroes.

Edit: Yoda!

[Koga]

What about Vash the stampede?

From that disgusting description Vash would make an excellent neutral good character.

Pacifists sicken The Koga...

[Droodle]

His entire life was dedicated to the law of equivalent exchange. He didn't follow his superiors because the moral code he was dedicated to went against the bureaucratic and often immoral way they acted.

Law does not mean following the laws presented to you, it means holding your personal dogma above all else.Actually, Ed spent most of his short life looking for ways to circumvent the principle (it was actually a principle, not a law) of equivalent exchange. First, he tried to resurrect his mother in direct violation of both the law of the land and the principle of equivalent exchange. After that failed, he made it his life's goal to find the philosopher's stone so that he could again violate the principle of equal exchange by restoring himself and his brother back to their rightful states. Get over it. Ed's Chaotic.

[Inyssius Tor]

...I don't know much about FMA, but spending your life "devoted to the Law of Equivalent Exchange" seems kind of like spending your life "devoted to the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Also: there's no way Bond is Lawful. ("Don't blow up all my stuff!" "Don't have sex with every single woman you meet this time!" "Don't shoot your boss!" "You wouldn't shoot a woman in cold blood!" "Hey, you can't go in there!" "OH GOD YOU SAID YOU WOULDN'T KILL M--")

[Piedmon_Sama]

Teh BESM bewk is rong Vash is teh epitumy of NG Jus cuz "kayos folows him" dusnt meen he starts it, its b-cuz of teh bountee on his hedd wich is entyrlee teh faltt of Knives 4 forcing him 2 blow up teh citeh of July

If Vash wer kayotic gewd he wood trakk down Knives and shewt him Instedd he livs by a rigd coed of ethics, tryin 2 hied his ablties an liev in piece Not 2 saey taht kyaotic peepul cant haev prsonal coeds but tey r a lot moer adaptable den Vash Gene Starwind is an exampel of CG he has personal standards but he well brayk frum dem if it clerlly is needed

Vash OTOH is as hung up on his morals as a Paladin but wont align himself w/teh peepl who activly try 2 destroeh evull Instead he just reacts wenn evull comes 2 him NG is clearleh teh best fit for Vash

[ArmorArmadillo]

Actually, Ed spent most of his short life looking for ways to circumvent the principle (it was actually a principle, not a law) of equivalent exchange. First, he tried to resurrect his mother in direct violation of both the law of the land and the principle of equivalent exchange. After that failed, he made it his life's goal to find the philosopher's stone so that he could again violate the principle of equal exchange by restoring himself and his brother back to their rightful states. Get over it. Ed's Chaotic.
When Ed had his first chance to make the philosopher's stone, he didn't do it, because he wasn't willing to sacrifice the laws of others.

As the series progressed, his goals changed to stopping Dante and the Homonculi, and even once they had the philosopher's stone, he didn't use it because he couldn't reconcile himself with the loss of life surrounding it.

Ed has certain moral laws that override all of his behavior and often prevent him from directly going for his goals.

He's not a strict lawful, but he's a lawful. (I run Eberron, Alignment isn't as strict in the way I'm used to seeing it)

[Droodle]

When Ed had his first chance to make the philosopher's stone, he didn't do it, because he wasn't willing to sacrifice the laws of others.

As the series progressed, his goals changed to stopping Dante and the Homonculi, and even once they had the philosopher's stone, he didn't use it because he couldn't reconcile himself with the loss of life surrounding it.

Ed has certain moral laws that override all of his behavior and often prevent him from directly going for his goals.

He's not a strict lawful, but he's a lawful. (I run Eberron, Alignment isn't as strict in the way I'm used to seeing it)Actually, not being willing to sacrifice the lives of others for personal gain is a good trait. It isn't exclusive to lawful types. Ed had no respect for authority, frequently allowed his anger and impulsiveness to guide his actions, never followed orders, and was even trying to find a way to skirt the rules of alchemy. He isn't even remotely lawful. He isn't even Neutral.

[Koga]

The Koga agrees, Ed is just like any other punk kid. Chaotic. (And he supposes good... plant a knife on him LOL...)

[Sutremaine]

Vash is utterly devoted to his moral code, even when it's a terrible idea, and the one time he broke it he had a nervous breakdown. He's LG.

[Droodle]

Vash is utterly devoted to his moral code, even when it's a terrible idea, and the one time he broke it he had a nervous breakdown. He's LG.Yeah.....but the moral code he's so devoted to isn't really a lawful one. It's important to remember how many times Vash has allowed hardened criminals to just go free when he could have dragged them to a city and had them arrested instead. He's either Neutral Good or on the gentler side of Chaos. I'm not really sure which.....but I'm more than a little certain that he isn't lawful.

[mauslin]

Vash is so not lawful. He's willing to lie, cheat, and steal for the greater good. He would rather destroy a whole city (the buildings, not the people) then allow one CE mass murderer to die.

But, after thinking hard about Vash, I'm actually inclined to agree that he's neutral good.
While on a surface level, he definitely acts chaotic, it's important to remember that he's far more powerful and capable then he lets on

If he acted as competent as he actually is, people would constantly be coming to him for help. They’d be coming to him instead of trying to fix their own problems; arguably that would cause more suffering. By portraying himself as feckless and irresponsible, he prevents people from treating him like a messiah.

I’d agree that when it comes down to the crunch, he really doesn’t seem to care whether the solution is chaotic or lawful, just that it is good.

So I’d actually call him a neutral good person who tries to convince other people that he’s chaotic neutral. Does anyone else agree with this assessment?

[DreamOfTheRood]

Teh BESM bewk is rong Vash is teh epitumy of NG Jus cuz "kayos folows him" dusnt meen he starts it, its b-cuz of teh bountee on his hedd wich is entyrlee teh faltt of Knives 4 forcing him 2 blow up teh citeh of July

If Vash wer kayotic gewd he wood trakk down Knives and shewt him Instedd he livs by a rigd coed of ethics, tryin 2 hied his ablties an liev in piece Not 2 saey taht kyaotic peepul cant haev prsonal coeds but tey r a lot moer adaptable den Vash Gene Starwind is an exampel of CG he has personal standards but he well brayk frum dem if it clerlly is needed

Vash OTOH is as hung up on his morals as a Paladin but wont align himself w/teh peepl who activly try 2 destroeh evull Instead he just reacts wenn evull comes 2 him NG is clearleh teh best fit for Vash

This is a gimmick poster, right? Perhaps we should send Candlejack after h

[Sundog]

I've always seen James Bond as LE. Devoted to his cause, and willing to do quite literally ANYTHING for it, also lecherous, murderous, vindictive and often brutal.

He will torture. He will betray his allies. He will kill innocents without compunction. Calling this man "good" is a bad joke.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

Parn, From Record of Lodoss War, goes from Being Lawful Good to Neutral Good, in my opnion ( The whole, "Light and Darkness are equal thing, and the "Knight without a Kingdom Thing.)

[ArmorArmadillo]

I've always seen James Bond as LE. Devoted to his cause, and willing to do quite literally ANYTHING for it, also lecherous, murderous, vindictive and often brutal.

He will torture. He will betray his allies. He will kill innocents without compunction. Calling this man "good" is a bad joke.

Lawful Neutral. Bond doesn't kill innocents, and when done correctly (i.e. Casino Royale) he can only kill with a heavy heart and extreme moral discomfort for what amounts to an extreme requirement (stopping global threats).

Nongood definitely, but nonevil as well.

[Sundog]

Lawful Neutral. Bond doesn't kill innocents, and when done correctly (i.e. Casino Royale) he can only kill with a heavy heart and extreme moral discomfort for what amounts to an extreme requirement (stopping global threats).

Nongood definitely, but nonevil as well.

Hmm - I think there'd be a number of Embassy Guards who'd disagree (Casino Royale), not to mention Russian Soldiers (Beginning of Goldeneye). Not that these people were uninvolved innocents, but frankly, Jimmy boy kills at the drop of a hat, and rarely shows any remorse at all ("Does it bother you to kill people?" "I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did.")

Not to mention the short story of "A View to a Kill." Where Bond coldly, calmly and simply snuffs out a human life that was no threat to him, simply because he is ordered to do so.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Hmm - I think there'd be a number of Embassy Guards who'd disagree (Casino Royale), not to mention Russian Soldiers (Beginning of Goldeneye). Not that these people were uninvolved innocents, but frankly, Jimmy boy kills at the drop of a hat, and rarely shows any remorse at all ("Does it bother you to kill people?" "I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did.")

Not to mention the short story of "A View to a Kill." Where Bond coldly, calmly and simply snuffs out a human life that was no threat to him, simply because he is ordered to do so.
Soldiers and guards aren't civilians, they work a job which has, contained within it, an inherent risk and combat orientation. It doesn't mean they aren't more innocent than not or that they deserve to die; but killing them in the service of a job is nongood, but not truly evil; it isn't malicious or out of a desire to kill, only a willingness to do so to complete his goal.

I haven't read "A View to a Kill," but I will comment on what you've said about it; that is definitely nongood but you have to look at his motives: Personal Power? Advancement? Hatred or Vengeance? No. The good litmus test is: If Bond didn't have to kill an innocent person to complete his mission under reasonable circumstances would he? Generally the answer is no.

Doing bad things under higher orders for the greater good is one of the hallmarks of Lawful Neutral.

Another Example:
Dr. Gregory House (House M.D.): A good example of LN who breaks the rules. He rests between good and evil because he stands between saving lives and using them for personal gain. The law comes from his "Sherlock Holmes" complex, when he sees a patient, helping them is always second to establishing his control over a the complex problem. Nothing angers him more than something he can't deal with, or a problem he can't solve. Also, he's uncompromising in his priority of solving the mystery (saving the life), and takes huge risks in pursuing these ends.

[Tobrian]

Law does not mean following the laws presented to you, it means holding your personal dogma above all else.

Huh? Well by that definition "lawful" has become so broad that nearly everyone would be eligible. Even chaotic characters... in fact chaotic character famously hold their own personal set of rules/beliefs/personal world view above all else, and often fight authority because it doesn't fit in with their personal dogma. Pirates? Pirate code of honor! (you can even take that trait in the GURPS system) Heck, "holding my personal dogma above all else" would be my definition of CN in some cases!

If WotC is now trying to redefine "lawful" as having nothing to do with laws at all, they're contradicting themselves. And what about paladins? They're supposed to follow the goddamn LAW unless it collides with their own LG codex, i.e. if the authorities are LE.

And even if they rewrite every alignment to fit all the game world to the Planescape/Moorcock paradigm of eternal war between forces of Good vs Evil and Cosmic Order vs Primeval Chaos, What else is Order if not following the Rules, the letter of the law? Just look at all those crazy ultra-lawful angels who put the hurt on anyone not "lawful" enough, they don'T care about personal dogma excuses.


Doing bad things under higher orders for the greater good is one of the hallmarks of Lawful Neutral.

I agree, Bond is lawful neutral. He's a government killer.

I'd debate the phrase "for the greater good". Governments always pretend that what they do is "for the greater good", doesn't mean it is. But for the movies' sake, let's assume that the gov of Great Britain is not horribly evil.

[kjones]

The problem with interpreting Bond's alignment is that there have been many, many, many different takes on the character. I would argue that the Bond from From Russia With Love is a different Bond than in Goldeneye, who is a different Bond than from (the new) Casino Royale. I remember the latter most distinctly, and I think that the Casino Royale Bond is one who is very much aware of the consequences of his actions. But there have been other takes on Bond in which he is essentially the protagonist in an FPS.

[Nahal]

I agree. Plus the character may well evolve; I haven't read the novels but certainly whatever good was in him dies at the end of Casino Royale.

[Sundog]

I can live with LN. The books tend to be a darker shade than the movies; he would probably be LE in those, LN in the movies.

[Fixer]

I believe another good example of Neutral Good would be Daredevil from the comic books.

He is a lawyer but that is only his day job. His dedication is to what is right and he uses all the powers at his disposal (both law and vigilante) to achieve those ends. He also attempts not to kill anyone, even saving villains on ocassion (not always, and especially not from their own devices).

You can pick several protagonists from comic books who are not like Captain America (LG as far as I am concerned) and Superman (also LG).

[Saph]

I can live with LN. The books tend to be a darker shade than the movies; he would probably be LE in those, LN in the movies.

I wouldn't agree with that - some of the books, like the opening story in "For Your Eyes Only" make him pretty sympathetic. In that story a group of men murder a family in Jamaica, and Bond's sent to assassinate them. He does it willingly, but only because he knows that the people he's killing are thoroughly evil, and when a civilian gets dragged into it he does his best to keep her alive, putting himself at risk in the process.

LN sounds right to me. If you want LE, look at some of the characters in the books that he goes up against, like Drax in Moonraker.

- Saph

[silvermesh]

Law: everything has a system
Neutrality: systems don't matter to me(or... I am neutral on the subject)
Chaos: systems are pointless

a neutral-good character does what is good regardless of how it affects the "system". he can use a system if that is the expedient action, or he can shatter it if necessary.

everyone getting along? well that has nothing to do with neutrality and little to do with good in D&D. in Dungeons and Dragons, good and evil are not so subjective, they are very defined, so you don't have to get along with someone who is evil, because they are obviously your opponent. neutrality equals subjectivity. a neutral good character is objective when it comes to doing what is good, but subjective when it comes to order and organization, he picks whichever path works best to accomplish goodness. just as a lawful-neutral character cares about his order and his system, but ignores any ethics behind the code. he follows it because he believes solely in that code.

the problem is that people in the real world consider themselves to be good or evil, when the vast majority are very subjective, and in D&D this would make us very neutral. D&D morality is black and white, written in the very paper of our rulebooks, and thus to our characters set very much in stone. walking the line is neutrality. Subjectivity is neutrality. is hurting people evil? if hurting evil creatures were an evil act, paladin's wouldn't have half of their class abilities... so pacifism is not equal to neutral-good. its true most people today would agree that pacifism is a "good" type of thing, but we do not live in a world that RELIES on an objective alignment axis. we don't have a detect evil spell, and even the most evil of individuals still generally see good in themselves. In our world what is good varies from person to person.
that said, i think strict pacifism is a very lawful attitude.
think of it this way. the good/evil axis most often defines what our character wants to be and what he wants to accomplish. good characters want to bring goodness to the world, etc. the law/chaos axis defines how they want to get there, what they decide is the best plan of action. a chaotic good character sees order as a burden on goodness, and seeks goodness through freedom and disorder. a lawful-good character sees order as the only way to bring lasting goodness. he lives by a code because he believes this code is what brings him closer to being good, and he may even believe that this code would bring goodness to everyone if they would just believe in it.

I look at it this way because most characters with good or evil in their alignment tends to be first and foremost good or evil. This is the more important decision to most players. it is possible to reverse the roles that the axes take, but this rarely happens because most generally a lawful and chaotic character can get along better than a good and evil character.

what is good is the same to a lawful character as it is to a chaotic character, the difference is that they each have their own right and wrong way of accomplishing this goal, and the neutral character walks a line between the two. neutral is the hardest alignment to define because there is little that is definite in neutrality. There are literally thousands of ways to play neutrality. a neutral character does some lawful things and some chaotic things. this can be seen as random and chaotic, but the key is that it's not overdone.