Defining Law and Chaos (Warning: Alignment thread)

[Gralamin]

To avoid derailing another topic, I have made this thread. The purpose of this thread is to define what the Lawful Neutral alignment is. Then, we must also look at Chaotic neutral, so we can hopefully understand the spectrum.

To start off with, I believe a trait of law is to almost always think through a situation using logic, while chaos tends (but not always) not to think through, and instead acts.

I would say Neutral Evil with chaotic tendencies, at best. The concept that the ends justify the means is an evil concept.

This is an important idea. Ends justify the means is defiantly evil, while the idea that the means and the ends are important is Good. A Lawful Neutral character would say that the Ends only rarely justify the means, and would try to avoid using the concept if possible.

My initial impulse was to say Lawful Neutral, because axiomatic goal-orientedness without regard for compassion or decency is very much how I see the Lawful Neutral alignment (and which is why it scares the crap out of me, to be honest). The mission-based ideology is a Lawful Neutral one. Because of this, I don't see the notion that the ends justify the means as an inherently Chaotic or otherwise non-Lawful idea; there is a single overriding rule being followed with that sort of attitude, a rule to which everything else is secondary. "The mission comes first." It comes before the individual, before morality, before the welfare of a fleet of fifteen civilian ships.

This Is sort of true. The mission based Ideology is part of the entire Lawful alignment. The mission and how it is carried out determines if the alignment is good or evil. Keep in mind however the line between Good and evil is fine, and Lawful neutral characters tend to stay on this line.
Also, keep in mind that neutrality tends to prefer good over evil, or as Locke states:

Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided.

On the other hand, some of the acts that may be required in pursuit of that mission would be decidedly Evil in nature, and a sufficient number of them, or even a single sufficiently heinous incident, could push any given individual over the line into Lawful Evil. At the same time, however, the goal is not Evil. The goal is the Mission. The Mission is an amoral, rather than an immoral, ideology; it doesn't care either way about Good or Evil, and if the only way to accomplish the same ends was to donate to charity and save the lives of innocents, it would do that--in pursuit of the Mission.

This entire paragraph relates to Lawful Evil and Neutral. A neutral character is more likely to choose a good option, unless its costs would seriously put the mission into jeopardy. A Lawful neutral character would still hate to make such a decision, and would try to find another way, but would do so if it was forced to.
A Lawful evil character would do it in a heartbeat. A Lawful good character would ultimately forgo logic if needed, and do what is 'right' eg: saving another life.

The alignment section in the SRD for Law vs Chaos on neutrality has an important point:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Some Lawful Neutral characters would follow the route of Boccob, of not caring since it does not effect you, and/or it does not effect others around you that you have made commitments to.


Chaos is another part of a spectrum, one that tends to be ruled by emotions. If one feels that what is being done is wrong, they may do what they thing is right. This may not be thought through all the way or it may be. Chaos is another complex alignment that I've yet to figure out a good way of explaining.


So, what do you think?

[Tequila Sunrise]

My Definitions:

Lawful means that you believe that your way is The Way. You might murder and terrorize those who don't share your views or you might preach your ideals, but you are secure in the knowledge that your way of life is how everyone should live, in a perfect world.

Chaotic means that you reject the idea that one way is The Way. You probably have your own strong beliefs just like everyone else, but you don't try to impose them on others.

[Jannex]

I inspired an Alignment Thread? Awesome.

It didn't sound like the OP was explicitly disagreeing with my points, so I'll just say this: it's true that characters who are Neutral on the moral axis generally do agree that the values espoused by Good are to be accepted, in theory. They do not, however, necessarily feel compelled to go out of their way to defend those Good values, and will probably place things which are personally important to themselves and their beliefs in a position of higher priority.

Therefore, a Lawful Neutral character, who has no strong sense of obligation toward Good values, but does have a strong sense of obligation toward a Lawful ideology (like "the Mission"), will choose that ideology over those Good values most of the time, when the two conflict. He may regret the necessity, but he will view it as a necessity, and is unlikely to doubt his decision, ascribing it to "the things that war (or whatever other unpleasant situation) demands of us all."

A Lawful Evil character, conversely, is far less likely to feel even that much regret, and may seek situations which will "force" him to commit the same acts. Depending on his brand of Evil, the Mission might almost become an excuse for him to indulge his sadism or megalomania.

A Lawful Good character, feeling a much stronger obligation to the values espoused by Good than does the LN character, will feel a stronger sense of tension when the Mission comes into conflict with them, and may ultimately choose to place those values over the Mission.

[VanBuren]

The thing I don't like about this definition, is that it makes thinking a Lawful action. It also makes dedication a Lawful action. So any character who's intelligent and dedicated to seeing a certain outcome becomes Lawful.

[Jannex]

The thing I don't like about this definition, is that it makes thinking a Lawful action. It also makes dedication a Lawful action. So any character who's intelligent and dedicated to seeing a certain outcome becomes Lawful.

I definitely don't consider thinking to be a specifically Lawful action. Rather, as I see it, the Lawful mindset judges with absolute standards, while the Chaotic mindset avoids absolute statements, drawing significantly from context and circumstance. This may make the Lawful person seem more consistent than the Chaotic person, but the Chaotic person is, in actuality, no less logical; he merely tries to avoid blanket statements and is much more allowing of exceptions. The Chaotic person may also be more willing to allow sentiment, instinct, and individual conscience to influence his decision-making process, whereas the Lawful person might feel much more beholden to external standards and procedures.

That, I think, is where the issue of dedication also comes from. A Lawful person and a Chaotic person might each be equally passionate about a cause of their choice, but they are different in the ways each chooses to pursue it. The Lawful person is dogmatic, absolute, unwavering. The Chaotic person is more likely to deviate from the accepted patterns if he feels the circumstances warrant an unorthodox approach, and will season his actions liberally with individual judgment. Both are working devotedly toward their goals, but how they go about achieving them is what highlights the difference in alignment.

[VanBuren]

I definitely don't consider thinking to be a specifically Lawful action. Rather, as I see it, the Lawful mindset judges with absolute standards, while the Chaotic mindset avoids absolute statements, drawing significantly from context and circumstance. This may make the Lawful person seem more consistent than the Chaotic person, but the Chaotic person is, in actuality, no less logical; he merely tries to avoid blanket statements and is much more allowing of exceptions. The Chaotic person may also be more willing to allow sentiment, instinct, and individual conscience to influence his decision-making process, whereas the Lawful person might feel much more beholden to external standards and procedures.

That, I think, is where the issue of dedication also comes from. A Lawful person and a Chaotic person might each be equally passionate about a cause of their choice, but they are different in the ways each chooses to pursue it. The Lawful person is dogmatic, absolute, unwavering. The Chaotic person is more likely to deviate from the accepted patterns if he feels the circumstances warrant an unorthodox approach, and will season his actions liberally with individual judgment. Both are working devotedly toward their goals, but how they go about achieving them is what highlights the difference in alignment.

My comment was directed specifically to how I had interpreted the opening statement of the OP, but yeah, I have no issues with the definition you've given here.

[Kojiro Kakita]

I always thought of it this way

The Lawful person is the one who will never break his code of honor in achieving his goal.

The Chaotic person is more "the ends justify the means."

[Jannex]

My comment was directed specifically to how I had interpreted the opening statement of the OP, but yeah, I have no issues with the definition you've given here.

Ah, okay. Then, take my last post to mean, "I agree with you."

[MCerberus]

The definitions of law and chaos as they apply to morality are subjective. Therefore you are never going to get people to agree on what they are. If you re-read your posts here you might even find out a little something about where you truly stand on which you prefer. However, since there is nothing "factual" that you can prove her, all you will get is a collection of opinions that contradict. Woo.

As for my opinion (and people in this thread seem to have been good on labeling opinions as such) is:

Law: Structure and rules. Somewhat resistant to change. Generally Lawfuls have or like to think they have a code of conduct. When given a choice they would prefer to work inside a system in order to change it unless it is proven it doesn't work. Lawfuls think the best way for people to get along is if everyone has a place that should be protected.

Chaos: Spontaneousness. In flux and awash with new ideas that may not be acted upon. Chaos values the unknown and adaption. Chaotics have a tenancy to not go with rules the think are a bad idea. While not anarchists, chaotics tend to believe that rigid codes oppress the lower classes while

Good: The belief that one should strive to help each other out. The methods, however, depend on the law/chaos standing of the individual. LGs believe that laws and codes of conduct are needed or the bullies will take over, while CGs view oppression as the biggest threat to everyone and that one should do good as situations present themselves, maybe not so much going out looking to do good. NGs are sort of the middle ground. With using a balance of both approaches, more good gets done.

Evil: Greed and malevolence. Evil quite simply sees what it wants and takes it. LEs set up groups that combine each member's abilities towards a greater goal, while CEs are your school bully trying to get your lunch money.

Now then, central to my views on alignments is that being something on the Law/Chaos scale limits your good/evil. For example, Lawful evil. You can't just go in and take over something in one fell swoop from out of nowhere, but nobody really gets anywhere by strictly following the rules. So I believe that alignments can better be described not by a square, but a circle(radius=1). Everyone has a magnitude and angle. Low magnitudes are neutral. I hope you can make sense of any of my views... I kind of stream of thought sometimes...

[Darkantra]

To me being Lawful is to take action while weighing the action against a set of principles or rules, most of which are defined by outside authority greater than the character's own. Their own set of personal beliefs and rules apply as well, but are almost always viewed in the context of the greater authority.

Being lawful does not mean that you are bound to act within the law, just that you must weigh your actions against it and accept the consequences of doing so afterwords.


With a Chaotic character it is not so much that they act on whim alone (though that is a valid way to play the alignment), but that they have a core of actions that they take or don't take without regard for outside interference. The principles and rules of others may impact what actions they decide to take but at their core they do not need to burden themselves with these difficulties.

A Chaotic character can weigh possibilities (it's not like they don't think things through) but will often take actions regardless of the outcome, favorable or unfavorable, as long as it suits their core.

[Stephen_E]

Now then, central to my views on alignments is that being something on the Law/Chaos scale limits your good/evil. For example, Lawful evil. You can't just go in and take over something in one fell swoop from out of nowhere, but nobody really gets anywhere by strictly following the rules. So I believe that alignments can better be described not by a square, but a circle(radius=1). Everyone has a magnitude and angle. Low magnitudes are neutral. I hope you can make sense of any of my views... I kind of stream of thought sometimes...

This point is a very good point.

I've followed enough alignment threads that my personal opinions on them are pretty firm and little I see has much impact on them (both Jannex and MCerberus are vaguely in the same area as I) but this is something that I will add to my views.

Stephen

[Jothki]

In a way, whether you are Lawful or Chaotic is based somewhat on whether you see everyone else as mainly Lawful or Chaotic. A puppet master who pulls strings and expects others to completely obey his whims is probably Lawful, while a paranoid villain who is afraid that anyone could turn on him at any moment is probably Chaotic. The same thing goes for Good people, who would either believe that society in general can be trusted to serve the spirit of the law, or believe that constricting laws inherently lead to abuse and that freedom is necessary to preserve wellbeing.

[Icewalker]

Well for one thing I have to say that I utterly hate the expression 'the end justifies the means' and particularly the prejudice towards it, seeing as it is completely true and merely looked at in a far too vague way. I continue to derail the topic in the following spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

The end justifies the means, if the end is actually fully considered, instead of just some tiny piece of the end only applying to the person acting. Let's say you could torture somebody to within an inch of their life, but then remove all of your and their memories of the experience, as well as any scarring or anything, so there was no evidence it happened, in exchange for some positive change in the world. If I go so far as to say world peace or something, it becomes lopsided, so let's go with saving somebody's life.

In this case, the means is torture, and the end is somebody's life is saved, and nobody loses anything at all. This person is evil?

I don't know how to describe my point further, but I would like to note that I am looking at this from a logical point of view, not a moral one...

From a logical point of view, the means are irrelevant, as long as the end, the entire end not just the good, is considered. It doesn't matter how you do it as long as the end is a good thing. Whether the end is good (killing some for the good of all) is an entirely different discussion.

This feels badly said, but I don't know how to word it differently...

Back on topic, I think the OP makes the right idea at the beginning. Law is following through with logic, which generally means you would make the same decision. Often this fits in well with having a code, because it provides a base to work off of in terms of decision-making. Meanwhile, chaos is, in a way, acting rashly. I'm not sure how to describe it, because that sounds wrong...I'm not sure.

[Talic]

Lawful is an ethos meaning, basically, promoting and believing in order. While the order may vary from person to person (the monk believes in self discipline, the judge the need to order society, the tyrant sees a need to control and order those he considers minions and pawns), they all seek to provide structure.

Chaotic, in D&D, is an ethos promoting freedom, a lack of control. Whether it's the barbarians loss of self control, the rogues disdain for the straight jacket that is society's rules, or robin hood's attempt to prevent one from controlling the lives of others, the common concept is an inherent support of self-determination.

Neutral on this axis can be apathy, or an acknowledgement that life is full of situations requiring restraint and full of others that require abandon.


Good is, by D&D standards an ethos which supports the life and welfare of others. Note that this is not necessarily freedom. It's assuming that everyone is entitled to a life, and that life should be free of misery and suffering. Whether it's robin hood ensuring that people aren't starved by unfair laws, the paladin who jumps in harm's way to save an innocent from harm, or anything else, if it's acting for the welfare of others, it's likely a good act.

Evil is, conversely, a disregard or rejection of the above ethos. Note that disregard of the concepts of good isn't neutral. If you have no concern for others welfare or life, you're evil.

Neutral, usually, isn't apathetic on this one. Usually it's along the lines of, "Yeah, I shouldn't do this to you, BUT sometimes it's unavoidable. I feel bad, but that's the way it is occasionally. I'll make up for it later... Somewhere." It's an acknowledgement that good is better than evil, but a failing, an allowance to let the things that are wrong happen from time to time.

Lawful Neutral, then could be: A judge who firmly believes his society needs the order that the local tyrant provides. He knows that the occasional farmer loses his house and livelihood to the harsh taxes and penalties, and isn't happy about that, but believes that the result without those rules would be much worse for every farmer, him included.

Lawful Neutral generally is an administrator type, rather than a leader type (exceptions apply).

Leaders, however, are usually lawful. Generally, if someone's trying to put order to something, they're behaving lawfully. This is why chaotic evil make such poor leaders. They want the power, but don't establish any order other than "Whatever I want at the time". The key to it isn't the seizing of power of a leader, but the attempt to control. Whether it's to control certain actions, such as theft, or to control people in a direct fashion, such as a dedicated platoon sergeant is irrelevant. The importance is the order.

[Gralamin]

Sorry Homework got in way of responding!

I inspired an Alignment Thread? Awesome.

It didn't sound like the OP was explicitly disagreeing with my points, so I'll just say this: it's true that characters who are Neutral on the moral axis generally do agree that the values espoused by Good are to be accepted, in theory. They do not, however, necessarily feel compelled to go out of their way to defend those Good values, and will probably place things which are personally important to themselves and their beliefs in a position of higher priority.

No, I mostly agree with you. As for the Important to themselves part, I would say that depends on the type of Lawful Neutral character. One may act as you say, but at the same time, one may do what they feel must be done instead of what they would like to do. If that makes any sense at all.

Therefore, a Lawful Neutral character, who has no strong sense of obligation toward Good values, but does have a strong sense of obligation toward a Lawful ideology (like "the Mission"), will choose that ideology over those Good values most of the time, when the two conflict. He may regret the necessity, but he will view it as a necessity, and is unlikely to doubt his decision, ascribing it to "the things that war (or whatever other unpleasant situation) demands of us all."

I agree completely with this.

A Lawful Evil character, conversely, is far less likely to feel even that much regret, and may seek situations which will "force" him to commit the same acts. Depending on his brand of Evil, the Mission might almost become an excuse for him to indulge his sadism or megalomania.

This point is an excellent way of stating why I think Lawful Evil is the most dangerous alignment.

A Lawful Good character, feeling a much stronger obligation to the values espoused by Good than does the LN character, will feel a stronger sense of tension when the Mission comes into conflict with them, and may ultimately choose to place those values over the Mission.

I agree.

The thing I don't like about this definition, is that it makes thinking a Lawful action. It also makes dedication a Lawful action. So any character who's intelligent and dedicated to seeing a certain outcome becomes Lawful.

I suck at phrasing things right. I guess what I meant to say was that Law tends to plan things out in the longterm, while chaos tends to focus on the present, and do what needs to be done now. Both have their own merits.

I however do believe that thought based on Emotion is chaotic in nature, while logic tends to be more lawful. Disagree? We'll have a discussion.

I always thought of it this way

The Lawful person is the one who will never break his code of honor in achieving his goal.

The Chaotic person is more "the ends justify the means."

See I disagree with this, as a Lawful Person may be forced to break his code, because sometimes there is no other way.
The ends justify the means however is evil, not chaotic. The worst harm comes from the best intentions. <Comment I was going to explain with deleted in retrospect as it gets a bit close to politics>

[quote]

The definitions of law and chaos as they apply to morality are subjective. Therefore you are never going to get people to agree on what they are. If you re-read your posts here you might even find out a little something about where you truly stand on which you prefer. However, since there is nothing "factual" that you can prove her, all you will get is a collection of opinions that contradict. Woo.

Yes, but interesting ideas result.

As for my opinion (and people in this thread seem to have been good on labeling opinions as such) is:

Its an amazingly civil alignment thread so far isn't it? I blame Jannex.

Law: Structure and rules. Somewhat resistant to change. Generally Lawfuls have or like to think they have a code of conduct. When given a choice they would prefer to work inside a system in order to change it unless it is proven it doesn't work. Lawfuls think the best way for people to get along is if everyone has a place that should be protected.

Kinda of agree with you, but I think more in Jannex's direction. Also I both understand/don't understand why people believe law is resistant to change. Mind explaining?

Chaos: Spontaneousness. In flux and awash with new ideas that may not be acted upon. Chaos values the unknown and adaption. Chaotics have a tenancy to not go with rules the think are a bad idea. While not anarchists, chaotics tend to believe that rigid codes oppress the lower classes while

Kinda sort of with you. I don't like your overall word I guess. Also, While what?

Good: The belief that one should strive to help each other out. The methods, however, depend on the law/chaos standing of the individual. LGs believe that laws and codes of conduct are needed or the bullies will take over, while CGs view oppression as the biggest threat to everyone and that one should do good as situations present themselves, maybe not so much going out looking to do good. NGs are sort of the middle ground. With using a balance of both approaches, more good gets done.

I agree with this, but would make a note that Good does even better if they help people help themselves, then just helping them.

Evil: Greed and malevolence. Evil quite simply sees what it wants and takes it. LEs set up groups that combine each member's abilities towards a greater goal, while CEs are your school bully trying to get your lunch money.

I don't think anyone could argue with this.

Now then, central to my views on alignments is that being something on the Law/Chaos scale limits your good/evil. For example, Lawful evil. You can't just go in and take over something in one fell swoop from out of nowhere, but nobody really gets anywhere by strictly following the rules. So I believe that alignments can better be described not by a square, but a circle(radius=1). Everyone has a magnitude and angle. Low magnitudes are neutral. I hope you can make sense of any of my views... I kind of stream of thought sometimes...

This quote goes hand and hand with this one:

This point is a very good point.

I've followed enough alignment threads that my personal opinions on them are pretty firm and little I see has much impact on them (both Jannex and MCerberus are vaguely in the same area as I) but this is something that I will add to my views.

Stephen

And it's because of points like this that discussion is needed. As long as some of us enter with an open mind, we may learn things, and use ideas that work well with us. Plus, seeing others opinions is fun.

A circle would be better yes, and it would also illustrate how one can not be Both Completely evil and Completely Chaotic, and may need to act on one idea over the other.

To me being Lawful is to take action while weighing the action against a set of principles or rules, most of which are defined by outside authority greater than the character's own. Their own set of personal beliefs and rules apply as well, but are almost always viewed in the context of the greater authority.

Being lawful does not mean that you are bound to act within the law, just that you must weigh your actions against it and accept the consequences of doing so afterwords.


With a Chaotic character it is not so much that they act on whim alone (though that is a valid way to play the alignment), but that they have a core of actions that they take or don't take without regard for outside interference. The principles and rules of others may impact what actions they decide to take but at their core they do not need to burden themselves with these difficulties.

A Chaotic character can weigh possibilities (it's not like they don't think things through) but will often take actions regardless of the outcome, favorable or unfavorable, as long as it suits their core.

Thats a rather interesting way to put it. I'll have to mull that over.

In a way, whether you are Lawful or Chaotic is based somewhat on whether you see everyone else as mainly Lawful or Chaotic. A puppet master who pulls strings and expects others to completely obey his whims is probably Lawful, while a paranoid villain who is afraid that anyone could turn on him at any moment is probably Chaotic. The same thing goes for Good people, who would either believe that society in general can be trusted to serve the spirit of the law, or believe that constricting laws inherently lead to abuse and that freedom is necessary to preserve wellbeing.

I see your point, but don't quite agree with you. You can be Paranoid and be Lawful (I mean, I am )

Well for one thing I have to say that I utterly hate the expression 'the end justifies the means' and particularly the prejudice towards it, seeing as it is completely true and merely looked at in a far too vague way. I continue to derail the topic in the following spoiler.

Ooh! Fun! Interesting! A different view!

Spoiler

Show

The end justifies the means, if the end is actually fully considered, instead of just some tiny piece of the end only applying to the person acting. Let's say you could torture somebody to within an inch of their life, but then remove all of your and their memories of the experience, as well as any scarring or anything, so there was no evidence it happened, in exchange for some positive change in the world. If I go so far as to say world peace or something, it becomes lopsided, so let's go with saving somebody's life.

Interesting scenario that you seem to be applying an existentialism view on, I'll counter with the same.

In this case, the means is torture, and the end is somebody's life is saved, and nobody loses anything at all. This person is evil?

While this person may not be evil, the fact that you have given the ability to make torture undetectable except for a loss of hours, the fact there is this system in it's current essence is evil. Change the essence, and it may not be.

I don't know how to describe my point further, but I would like to note that I am looking at this from a logical point of view, not a moral one...

Semi-true, as your using logical to apply to a moral situation

From a logical point of view, the means are irrelevant, as long as the end, the entire end not just the good, is considered. It doesn't matter how you do it as long as the end is a good thing. Whether the end is good (killing some for the good of all) is an entirely different discussion.

This feels badly said, but I don't know how to word it differently...

If you are going to use this view point, then think out the entire end. What's stopping someone from taking your ability to torture without detection, and turn it into a way to mind control people?

As for badly said, have you seen the way I word things?

Back on topic, I think the OP makes the right idea at the beginning. Law is following through with logic, which generally means you would make the same decision. Often this fits in well with having a code, because it provides a base to work off of in terms of decision-making. Meanwhile, chaos is, in a way, acting rashly. I'm not sure how to describe it, because that sounds wrong...I'm not sure.

Rashly does sound wrong yes. I think what I said above is slightly better, maybe?

Lawful is an ethos meaning, basically, promoting and believing in order. While the order may vary from person to person (the monk believes in self discipline, the judge the need to order society, the tyrant sees a need to control and order those he considers minions and pawns), they all seek to provide structure.

Structure good, yes!

Chaotic, in D&D, is an ethos promoting freedom, a lack of control. Whether it's the barbarians loss of self control, the rogues disdain for the straight jacket that is society's rules, or robin hood's attempt to prevent one from controlling the lives of others, the common concept is an inherent support of self-determination.

I'm really liking your definition so far.

Neutral on this axis can be apathy, or an acknowledgement that life is full of situations requiring restraint and full of others that require abandon.

Fair enough.

Good is, by D&D standards an ethos which supports the life and welfare of others. Note that this is not necessarily freedom. It's assuming that everyone is entitled to a life, and that life should be free of misery and suffering. Whether it's robin hood ensuring that people aren't starved by unfair laws, the paladin who jumps in harm's way to save an innocent from harm, or anything else, if it's acting for the welfare of others, it's likely a good act.

And need to make people help themselves if possible.

Evil is, conversely, a disregard or rejection of the above ethos. Note that disregard of the concepts of good isn't neutral. If you have no concern for others welfare or life, you're evil.

I think thats a bit fare fetched. I think you take the idea of a fine-line to a pretty far extend. I can see one who thinks that life is needed even if welfare is not as neutral.

Neutral, usually, isn't apathetic on this one. Usually it's along the lines of, "Yeah, I shouldn't do this to you, BUT sometimes it's unavoidable. I feel bad, but that's the way it is occasionally. I'll make up for it later... Somewhere." It's an acknowledgement that good is better than evil, but a failing, an allowance to let the things that are wrong happen from time to time.

Yes. Neutral here is being a rational Human being that can make errors.

Lawful Neutral, then could be: A judge who firmly believes his society needs the order that the local tyrant provides. He knows that the occasional farmer loses his house and livelihood to the harsh taxes and penalties, and isn't happy about that, but believes that the result without those rules would be much worse for every farmer, him included.

I can see that as Lawful Neutral

Lawful Neutral generally is an administrator type, rather than a leader type (exceptions apply).

No. No exceptions you crazy Chaotic!

Leaders, however, are usually lawful. Generally, if someone's trying to put order to something, they're behaving lawfully. This is why chaotic evil make such poor leaders. They want the power, but don't establish any order other than "Whatever I want at the time". The key to it isn't the seizing of power of a leader, but the attempt to control. Whether it's to control certain actions, such as theft, or to control people in a direct fashion, such as a dedicated platoon sergeant is irrelevant. The importance is the order.

Yet you used Robin Hood as an example above for Chaos, and he was a leader who wanted order?
Dang you Chaotic people and your exceptions.

[Talic]

And need to make people help themselves if possible.

Hmm. Interesting. While advocating self-choice is typically chaotic, attempting to force independence on others is a form of control. I wouldn't classify enforcing self-sufficiency as Good, so much as lawful. Advocating it, could be good. Compassion for others could play a factor if you preach self-sufficiency in some situations... Like when the gobbo horde is coming at the village, inspiring people to take arms and protect their town would be both lawful and good...

I think thats a bit fare fetched. I think you take the idea of a fine-line to a pretty far extend. I can see one who thinks that life is needed even if welfare is not as neutral.

Someone who advocates the torture of others, even if supporting their right to life, is evil. He's depriving others of life. You can occasionally violate someone's life or welfare and be neutral. The Key to real evil is to have no concern whatsoever for those things. You'd deprive others of them with as much thought as you'd put into pouring a bowl of cereal in the morning. Sorry if I was unclear there.

Yet you used Robin Hood as an example above for Chaos, and he was a leader who wanted order?
Dang you Chaotic people and your exceptions.

He did inspire outlaws to organize a resistance, yes. He did so in defense of the rightful king's order. So yes, he could be considered lawful. However, several of his actions were chaotic. By dividing the order that supplanted King Richard's, he fomented chaos in Nottingham. But, really, he was attempting to protect King Richard's people while he was away. That was his foremost goal. The order was only good as long as the order was GOOD. Otherwise, protect the life and welfare of the people however he could. Strong arguement for Neutral Good.

[VanBuren]

The only problem I see with thought and emotion based logic being weighted to specific ends of the Law/Chaos axis, is that I can easily see any human being, save for the extreme sociopaths and psychopaths, being just as easily prone to both of them.

Then again, I suppose that's why the average alignment turns out to be True Neutral.

[Jannex]

No, I mostly agree with you. As for the Important to themselves part, I would say that depends on the type of Lawful Neutral character. One may act as you say, but at the same time, one may do what they feel must be done instead of what they would like to do. If that makes any sense at all.

It does. I think I worded that bit awkwardly. In that particular segment, I was talking about Neutral (on the Good-Evil axis) characters in general, not LN specifically.

Basically, what I'd been trying to get at for most of that post (and largely failing, I think) is that I see each of the extreme alignment points (Good, Evil, Law, Chaos) as having something of a "pull" on a character's conscience. If he has an extreme alignment (LG, CG, LE, CE), then he has two forces pulling at him, and may have to choose between them at some point. If he only has one strong alignment trait, and is neutral with respect to the other axis, then he will only feel a pull along the other axis. In other words, while a morally-Neutral character may agree with Good values in the abstract, he is not strongly motivated by conscience to pursue and uphold them, and is likely to go along with the stronger "pull" of his ethical conscience (Law or Chaos).

Its an amazingly civil alignment thread so far isn't it? I blame Jannex.

Kinda of agree with you, but I think more in Jannex's direction. Also I both understand/don't understand why people believe law is resistant to change. Mind explaining?

The question wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to take a stab at it anyway, if I may?

I think it's because Law implies a social order, a codified, externalized set of traditions or rules to which all members of the society are held. They must apply to large groups, and often allow for very few exceptions or special cases. They become traditional, and tradition has an impressive amount of inertia. For many (though certainly not all) Lawful characters, "because that is the way it is done" is sufficient reason for a thing, because of the inertia of tradition. Because Law trusts an externalized force to mandate proper behavior, it is trusted that there must be a good reason for a tradition, even if we do not know what that reason is.

[Gralamin]

I had a great reply typed up, and my bad internet ate it.
But it was mostly agreeing with people

[JaxGaret]

[MCerberus]

It's more the wording that creates the argument (love the motivational there though). That definitely has the classic "chaos is evil" associated with the wording. People argue because they are trying to get definitions that are objective to good and evil for chaos and law... which just isn't going to happen. Nothing will come of it but hey we get some better ideas.

[JaxGaret]

That definitely has the classic "chaos is evil" associated with the wording.

How is not playing by the rules associated with evil?

[MCerberus]

How is not playing by the rules associated with evil?

Except to describe a protagonist in a bad cop movie, when has it been associated with anything good? It makes it sound like chaos is actively trying to subvert things that work, instead of deciding "well that's a good idea". Chaos does play by some of the rules depending on if they think the rule is valid.

[JaxGaret]

Except to describe a protagonist in a bad cop movie, when has it been associated with anything good? It makes it sound like chaos is actively trying to subvert things that work, instead of deciding "well that's a good idea".

I don't know about you, but as I see things, blind obedience of the rules - which is the extreme end of the Lawful scale - is a fundamental evil. It leads only to more and more rules, and the pillaging of freedoms. Things can 'work' for a long time, but if you give other people power to take things away from you, eventually, they will.

Chaos does play by some of the rules depending on if they think the rule is valid.

Why the heck would you want to play by a rule that you think is invalid?

Of course, I lean towards being Chaotic myself.

[Kompera]

How is not playing by the rules associated with evil?

Not playing by the rules can be taken in a few different ways. In a poker game, it's called "cheating", and since it essentially equals stealing in that light, and stealing can be considered evil, that starts to lump Chaos and Evil together.

In an overly rules and procedure laden bureaucracy, the civil servant who "doesn't play by the rules" in order to get his job done, or even simply out of contempt for the rules, is more the classic definition of Chaos which doesn't make any judgments regarding Good/Evil.

With alignment, almost everything is subjective, and everything has to be taken in context.

[Stephen_E]

If you replace the horizontal axis with "Rules cover everything" and "Rules are ok in small doses, so long as you can flex them as needed" it works better.

My personal experiance is that Chaotic people don't mind playing by the rules if they're sitting down to an agreed game, or other small matters. They also don't mind rules to much so long as people accept the limits of them and accept the rules don't cover everything.

I've also known people I'd consider Lawful who who quite happily ignore the printed rules because they're only interested in playing by their rules. In general lawful people tend to have a specific set of "rules" they play by, which may not be what other people agree to, but that's not particuly important to them. The not interested in playing by rules that they don't consider "legitimate" or "making allowances for the situation".

Stephen

[JaxGaret]

Not playing by the rules can be taken in a few different ways. In a poker game, it's called "cheating", and since it essentially equals stealing in that light, and stealing can be considered evil, that starts to lump Chaos and Evil together.

There's not playing by the rules, and there's doing actively assholish things. The two are completely separate. Just because you don't bow down to legitimate authority doesn't mean that you're going to lie cheat and steal your way through life.

With alignment, almost everything is subjective, and everything has to be taken in context.

This is true. Here's something to consider: the concept of ownership of property is subjective. Without that context, theft and stealing don't exist. It's only because our society has property laws that we consider taking things that other people currently have a wrong.

[JaxGaret]

My personal experiance is that Chaotic people don't mind playing by the rules if they're sitting down to an agreed game, or other small matters. They also don't mind rules to much so long as people accept the limits of them and accept the rules don't cover everything.

I've also known people I'd consider Lawful who who quite happily ignore the printed rules because they're only interested in playing by their rules. In general lawful people tend to have a specific set of "rules" they play by, which may not be what other people agree to, but that's not particuly important to them. The not interested in playing by rules that they don't consider "legitimate" or "making allowances for the situation".

Stephen

There's also the fact that most people aren't 100% Lawful or 100% Chaotic. There's almost always a mix of the two in a person's personality.

Argh. I hate Law/Chaos debates!

[Attilargh]

I once saw Warhammer 40,000 described as "a set of exceptions with the occasional rule". I think that defines Chaotic pretty well.

[shadowdemon_lord]

I've always thought of chaotic neutral as doing what you want, other people be damned. Of course, emotional attachments play a huge role in this, as emotional attachments frequently decide what you want to do. Laws also play a role in this, as laws tend to have unpleasant punishments attached to them if you break them and get caught. How much respect a chaotic person gives to the laws, rules of games etc. depends on how arrogant they are and how confident they are that they can get away with it (and how much they fear the consequences). all of this is determined largely by the situation and the mental stats. Also it depends on what their motivation is for playing the game. Are you just trying to have a good time, or is winning the primary objective? Put into positions of leadership chaotic people can prove very competent, they just tend to be corrupt. This corruption takes varying forms depending on how good/evil/neutral they are. CE versions are the complete psychopath (think hannibal), the guy that backstabs his way to the top of an orginazation (and expects the same, so rules with an iron fist and lashes out at random with or without provocation), or the theif who has no compunctions against killing/seriously maiming people should he be discovered. The CN versions are the bankrobber who does what he does out a love of it and never intends to hurt anyone (but might if absolutely forced), or poor guy driven by desperation to do what he can to survive but who still has compunctions against killing. The CG versions is basically someone that tries to work for the betterment of those he considers work working for the betterment of, but isn't going to let rules (even those of the aforementioned group) get in his way.

Lawful people by contrast do what they think is right, everyone else be damned. They've got this idea in their head of how things should be, and are unwavering in their application of that philosophy. LE versions of this kind of a person are serial killers, dictators, and assasins. All three generally have goals they wish to accomplish, certian ways in which they want to accomplish them, and a code of ethics about their work that they wont waver from. At the same time, none of them get sqeamish at the prospect of offing someone in cold blood. LN versions of this might be the cop that is blindly loyal to his commanding officers, the middle manager or army lieutanant/captian that follows out orders regardless of their affect on the enviroment/people/own men/etc., or the judge that strictly adheres to the letter and spirit of the law, not letting his personal judgement cloud decisions. All of these take a source higher then themselves and adhere to it strictly, regardless of whether good or evil comes of his/her actions. Likely if a change were to happen in the leadership, they would simply continue going about their duties. LG versions are the leader that tries to make things good for his people, the CEO that takes that mandate for profit and finds ways to maximise profits while at the same time making life good for his employees, minimising impact on the enviroment, etc., the guard that does his duties valiantly and well but that tends to use a light touch doing so. All of these adhere to a code, but tend to try and apply it in a fair and benevolent fashion, giving people the benefit of the doubt when they can. They try to avoid being heavy handed, but can become so if the need arises.