Alignment: Fall 2022

[Tanarii]

2) If it's what they want to do. A chaotic person doesn't* resent being told "Get out of the fire"... they're not going to say "Well, now I'm going to burn to death, just because you told me not to."

I don't know about chaotic people, but I sure resent folks telling me something that. I won't (usually) burn myself to death to spite them, but I'll resent it.

*necessarily resent. Some people are just pig-headed.

Oh, right.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because Chaotic doesn't mean "LOL random", being drunk, never sleeping, having memory loss, being my insane grandpa, intellectually disabled, being a child with an underdeveloped child brain, ADHD, ect ect or anything else that prevents a person from forming plans, concentrating for an hour, or behaving rationally.

It also doesn't mean anti-social personality disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or any other problem that keeps people from working with others.

While I agree with you, quite a bit of gamer cultural assumptions seem to include the LOLrandom with chaotic, and that got captured by the the Real Men, Role Players, Loonies, Munchkins article from about 40 years ago.

Spoiler: The intro; you can find the full article on the internet

Show

The Real Man
The tough macho type who walks up to the attacking dragon and orders it to leave before he gets hurt.
The Real Roleplayer
The intelligent cunning guy who tricks the constable into letting you all out of prison.
The Loonie
The guy who will do anything for a cheap laugh, including casting a fireball at ground zero.
The Munchkin
Need we say more?
=== Player Relationships ===
REAL MEN:
*Real Men* think they're brothers in arms.
*Real Roleplayers* hide behind them.
*Loonies* harass them with stupid suggestions.
*Munchkins* say ``I'm a Real Man, too!''
REAL ROLEPLAYERS:
*Real Men* protect them, on the off chance they may come up with something useful.
*Real Roleplayers* sigh with relief to know they're not alone, and then get their characters involved in love affairs and death feuds.
*Loonies* harass them with stupid suggestions.
*Munchkins* say ``I'm a Real Roleplayer, too!''
LOONIES:
*Real Men* ignore them.
*Real Roleplayers* sometimes harass them back by taking a stupid suggestion and making it work.
*Loonies* declare a pie fight at 20 paces . . . and cheat.
*Munchkins* try to imitate the jokes, and fall flat.
MUNCHKINS:
*Real Men* attack them on sight.
*Real Roleplayers* trick them into being cannon fodder.
*Loonies* make reasonable-sounding suggestions that will get the Munchkin killed in an amusing way.
*Munchkins* query, ``What's a Munchkin?''

You might find this to be a description of player alignment, but I think it was more capturing player styles that had emerged as role playing grew in popularity.

Despite this, the author admitted that Elan has Intelligence as a dump-stat. I have literally played with players that ran their characters like Elan. They were literally young, stupid people playing even dumber characters.

I no longer play with people who do that. It ruins my fun. At some tables, this works very well and creates fun. If someone played Elan as he's written, he'd be in the Loonie category.

She's chaotic because she literally was raised by a freedom fighter in a place where the law didn't exist. Her father then spent years raging against a tyrant, which is going to make her even more anti-state than before. She also doesn't trust people, but hundreds of strips were devoted to how she just has trauma and personality flaws.

And like Elan, she's good looking.

Elan is still an idiot. He likely could be Lawful if he wasn't so dumb.

I am not sure he'd be lawful if he were smarter. He could still be as carefree without being so stupid.

[gbaji]

Because Chaotic doesn't mean "LOL random", being drunk, never sleeping, having memory loss, being my insane grandpa, intellectually disabled, being a child with an underdeveloped child brain, ADHD, ect ect or anything else that prevents a person from forming plans, concentrating for an hour, or behaving rationally.

It also doesn't mean anti-social personality disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or any other problem that keeps people from working with others.

It Doesn't? Are you sure?

Elan has the intellect and attention span of a child. He's literally so dumb he thinks that stripping naked will make him invisible.

He's also not a real character, not being played in a real D&D game, and he's in a comedy setting where mechanics are changed or added or removed based on what is funny.

Despite this, the author admitted that Elan has Intelligence as a dump-stat.

Also tons of stuff that happens in games actually fits the story, because the story is molded around whatever seemingly random stuff people do.

Ok. Great. Tell me what else other than those traits makes Elan have a Chaotic alignment then?

Because she's not an idiot, and she's not as dumb and short-sighted as a child. Are you ****ing me/trolling me right now? This is a weird take you've got.

No. I'm pointing out that we have two characters in OotS, both are Chaotic Good alignment, yet both characters are "chaotic" for completely different reasons. More to the point, one character has one aspect (the whole "doesn't follow rules/authority" bit) and absolutely none of the other ("engages in random acts, doesn't plan well, doesn't work well with others"). And the other has the exact opposite character traits.

It's not a "weird take". It's a valid take, that is difficult to examine because it challenges the very foundation of what many people *think* alignment should be. It's a big giant glaring blind spot in the system. I'm just trying to get you to see it.

She's chaotic because she literally was raised by a freedom fighter in a place where the law didn't exist. Her father then spent years raging against a tyrant, which is going to make her even more anti-state than before.

Great. And Elan was not, so he's not chaotic, right?

Also, Elan did those things again, because he is basically a child.

So... .Wait for it. Either Elan is not actually chaotic *or* "acting like a child" also qualifies one for the chaotic alignment.

This is not a complex thought process. Elan has *zero* of the traits that makes Haley have a chaotic alignment and Haley has *zero* of the traits that makes Elan have a chaotic alignment.

So we either have to conclude that completely different sets of things can both cause one to arrive at the chaotic alignment *or* there's some other inconsistency going on here.

Elan is still an idiot. He likely could be Lawful if he wasn't so dumb.

Do you get that by saying this, you're are simply confirming the exact opposite of what you started out saying:

Because Chaotic doesn't mean "LOL random", being drunk, never sleeping, having memory loss, being my insane grandpa, intellectually disabled, being a child with an underdeveloped child brain, ADHD, ect ect or anything else that prevents a person from forming plans, concentrating for an hour, or behaving rationally.

Which is it? If it's Elans "dumbness" (ie: random actions, failure to think things through, failure to consider others, etc) that make him chaotic, then those are the personality traits of a chaotic person. And anyone who has those traits is chaotic in alignment. Even if that person otherwise obeys rules, and is otherwise "lawful".

It's shocking that I have to spend this much effort just to get you to the first step of the logic I'm following here, but there you go. And for the record, I could make a similar argument with Redcloak and Xykon, and comparing what makes one lawful and one chaotic (and which make both of them "evil"). I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, specifically to see how much of the second line in your first statement actually aligns perfectly with Xykon's personality (and arguably are what make him "chaotic" in the first place).

Now it's step two:

If both of those make someone chaotic, then why is it *not* penalized if you fail to exhibit some or all of those traits? This ties back to an earlier point I made in this thread: That there seems to be a "gravity" of alignment. I was specifically speaking of the good/evil axis, but it also applies to law/chaos. The alignment grid in D&D is not really a square. It's more properly displayed as a diamond, with LG at the top, CG and LE at the far left and right and CE at the "bottom", with an assumed "pull" downwards away from Good and away from Lawful. It's not a balanced proposition, but the game cosmology assumes it somewhat is. To be good, you have to not only do good things, but refrain from doing evil things. To be lawful you must not only do lawful things, but refrain from doing chaotic things. But to be evil, one must only do evil things (intentionally, of course). Doesn't matter if you also do occasional good acts, as long as you are actively intentionally doing evil things, you are "evil". Same thing with law/chaos. To be chaos, all one must do is engaged in chaotic behavior (with a pretty broad set of things qualifying as it happens). Even if you occasionally do things which are lawful, you're still chaotic if you do chaotic things. Heck. In the case of both Elan and Haley, even if you consistently do "lawful" things, you are still chaotic as long as you consistently do "chaotic" things (even consistently *different* lawful and chaotic behaviors in fact).

Elan, despite seeming to have quite a respect for the rules and authority, can't help but be chaos because he acts in such random and disorganized ways. If the alignment system were balanced, we should be able to say that he's really lawful because he obeys rules and follows orders (or, well tries/wants to). But it's not, so the fact that his silly nature causes him to do random things from time to time (ok, quite often), he can't be anything other than chaotic. Haley, on the other hand, despite being very well organized in her planning and thinking, can't be lawful because for her, despite her very "lawful" way of doing things, because she doesn't respect laws and rules, she must be chaotic as well.

A lawful person has to avoid *all* of the chaotic traits. Elan proves this. That was the point. A chaotic person, on the other hand, only needs to exhibit some of the traits. That's not a balanced system at all. If it were, then my hypothetical lawful good Robin Hood character would be viable. But it's not, is it?

And yes, as I've said all along, if this is just a matter of RP guidelines or something, it doesn't matter. But the moment this becomes a restriction on deities which can be worshipped, or classes which can be taken, how spells affect/detect your character, etc, this becomes a real problem. It's what causes many character personality types not possible to actually play in D&D. Merely trying to will result in your character being "punished" by loss of alignment (again, to the point it is a punishment). And yes, I firmly believe that the result of this is that most players will simply avoid playing character personality types that don't "align" with the alignment system.

And I think that's a bad thing. And if you disagree, then let me propose that I'm playing a character in your game that is Elan. What alignment would you have me assign to my Elan clone? Why? Would that be a consistent ruling across all games I might want to play this character in?

[Witty Username]

Ok. Great. Tell me what else other than those traits makes Elan have a Chaotic alignment then?

There is that pattern of casual robbery. Leaving an apology note it naive, disregard of laws for a "really" good cause, is how Chaotic do.

I could see an argument for neutral as opposed to chaotic, but that is not as strong a claim as no chaotic traits.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a general critique of about 80% of the discussion in this thread, and D&D alignment since 2e, pigeonholing isn't a good look.

[Tevo77777]

It Doesn't? Are you sure?

There is a whole Matt Colville video where he defines the alignments using his own lived experience with multiple different editions and their descriptions.

The quintessential example of CE, the Joker in the the second Christen Bale Batman movie, is not only a literal "Agent of Chaos" but also a master planner who is one step of the PC/PCs.

No. I'm pointing out that we have two characters in OotS, both are Chaotic Good alignment, yet both characters are "chaotic" for completely different reasons. More to the point, one character has one aspect (the whole "doesn't follow rules/authority" bit) and absolutely none of the other ("engages in random acts, doesn't plan well, doesn't work well with others"). And the other has the exact opposite character traits.

It's not a "weird take". It's a valid take, that is difficult to examine because it challenges the very foundation of what many people *think* alignment should be. It's a big giant glaring blind spot in the system. I'm just trying to get you to see it.

One of them is extremely similar to behavior to Robinhood, and the other one very easily could be talked into or would behave like Robinhood.

Robinhood is written and statted as CG.

Both characters don't like authority, and both of them are very good at working with others. They are literally so similar to one another that they're dating and likely going to married, have children, all of that.

Why would anyone think they are opposites?

Which is it? If it's Elans "dumbness" (ie: random actions, failure to think things through, failure to consider others, etc) that make him chaotic, then those are the personality traits of a chaotic person. And anyone who has those traits is chaotic in alignment. Even if that person otherwise obeys rules, and is otherwise "lawful".

It's shocking that I have to spend this much effort just to get you to the first step of the logic I'm following here, but there you go. And for the record, I could make a similar argument with Redcloak and Xykon, and comparing what makes one lawful and one chaotic (and which make both of them "evil"). I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, specifically to see how much of the second line in your first statement actually aligns perfectly with Xykon's personality (and arguably are what make him "chaotic" in the first place).

Being dumb isn't a personality trait. Being uneducated is also not a personality trait.

From the beginning "Law" really just meant "Order" and "Civilization", while Chaos meant living in the woods, disorder, and decentralized authority or no authority. This is literally what Gygax wrote. You are getting way to fixated on laws, when you should be fixated on order, centralization, civilization, and urbanization (Which is a byproduct of centralization and civilization).

Elan is effectively a child, as such he is impatient and does not understand complex things, like the highly complex rule systems that exist.

However, this is not exactly related to the fact that he's effectively very similar to Robinhood, or that his typical course of action is just..... "What would be the most heroic or dramatic thing to do?"

In other words, Elan breaks laws and has poorly thought out plans, because he's not very smart. This is a separate thing from his alignment, because CG does not means bad at plans or mean doesn't obey/understand laws.

Elan's Intelligence - Elan breaks laws, is impulsive, and doesn't plan well.
Elan wants to be the heroic hero - Elan is good and does things spontaneously for dramatic effect.
Elan favors decentralization of power, less rules and regulations, freedom, people doing what they wish, and so forth. He is not the opposite of Haley, he is in many ways, a dumber, male version of Haley.

These things are sometimes parallel, sometimes intersecting, but are generally separate but similar things.

If both of those make someone chaotic, then why is it *not* penalized if you fail to exhibit some or all of those traits? This ties back to an earlier point I made in this thread: That there seems to be a "gravity" of alignment. I was specifically speaking of the good/evil axis, but it also applies to law/chaos. The alignment grid in D&D is not really a square. It's more properly displayed as a diamond, with LG at the top, CG and LE at the far left and right and CE at the "bottom", with an assumed "pull" downwards away from Good and away from Lawful. It's not a balanced proposition, but the game cosmology assumes it somewhat is. To be good, you have to not only do good things, but refrain from doing evil things. To be lawful you must not only do lawful things, but refrain from doing chaotic things. But to be evil, one must only do evil things (intentionally, of course). Doesn't matter if you also do occasional good acts, as long as you are actively intentionally doing evil things, you are "evil". Same thing with law/chaos. To be chaos, all one must do is engaged in chaotic behavior (with a pretty broad set of things qualifying as it happens). Even if you occasionally do things which are lawful, you're still chaotic if you do chaotic things. Heck. In the case of both Elan and Haley, even if you consistently do "lawful" things, you are still chaotic as long as you consistently do "chaotic" things (even consistently *different* lawful and chaotic behaviors in fact).

If this is remotely true at all, it's only true during the years that Gygax, the Lawful partisan, was part of the rulewriting process.

The reality is that a lot of the older players hint and indicate that the older books indicated that many "neutral" characters had a preference or slight tilt to good or evil.

If someone consistently does orderly things, and freedom/disorderly things, they are neutral Good/Evil/Neutral. This is what all the editions that have this option say.

Elan, despite seeming to have quite a respect for the rules and authority, can't help but be chaos because he acts in such random and disorganized ways. If the alignment system were balanced, we should be able to say that he's really lawful because he obeys rules and follows orders (or, well tries/wants to). But it's not, so the fact that his silly nature causes him to do random things from time to time (ok, quite often), he can't be anything other than chaotic. Haley, on the other hand, despite being very well organized in her planning and thinking, can't be lawful because for her, despite her very "lawful" way of doing things, because she doesn't respect laws and rules, she must be chaotic as well.

A lawful person has to avoid *all* of the chaotic traits. Elan proves this. That was the point. A chaotic person, on the other hand, only needs to exhibit some of the traits. That's not a balanced system at all. If it were, then my hypothetical lawful good Robin Hood character would be viable. But it's not, is it?

Elan is not an actual player character in an actual game. The comic strip makes up and breaks a lot of rules.

Elan also constantly sticks his tongue out, sometimes literally, at order, centralization and strict rules. He opposes tradition, he opposes strict hierarchies, and he refers to Paladins as "meanies".

When Elan complies with the rules, it's either by accident, or because he feels they don't restrict him in anyway or because he thinks it is heroic good to follow these rules.

When he respects a person of authority, it is someone he thinks is his "best friend" or someone who is very nice to him. For the most part, he avoids complying with rules that he doesn't want to follow, and are that are enforced by people he doesn't personally know.

Small clans living in the hills, the very image of decentralization and what existed before civilization, were perfectly organized. They also had leaders and hierarchies. However, there was very little wealth or power disparity.

This is literally how Robinhood lived and where he was happiest, in the woods, in a small community, where everyone knew each other, and no one outside the community could make anyone do anything.

I seriously doubt that Elan wouldn't prefer this way of life, to say... living in an empire with hundreds of rules, where tradition is everything, he gets arrested for public nudity, and there are taxes.

[gbaji]

Both characters don't like authority, and both of them are very good at working with others. They are literally so similar to one another that they're dating and likely going to married, have children, all of that.

I disagree. Elan very much respects authority and seems to try to follow rules whenever possible. He took his role as bodyguard very seriously. He felt bad about stealing (it was for a really good cause though). He obeyed a sign, even when it was absurd to do so, to the point that the (presumably lawful) soldiers with him had to tell him to break the window to steal the lute. Those are all examples of extremely lawful behavior. I mean, bordering on "lawful stupid", even.

From the beginning "Law" really just meant "Order" and "Civilization", while Chaos meant living in the woods, disorder, and decentralized authority or no authority. This is literally what Gygax wrote. You are getting way to fixated on laws, when you should be fixated on order, centralization, civilization, and urbanization (Which is a byproduct of centralization and civilization).

I'm not. I'm pointing out that as we've lumped more and more things into the law/chaos axis, it's become even less useful as a measurement of character alignment than it was in Gygax's day.

Elan is effectively a child, as such he is impatient and does not understand complex things, like the highly complex rule systems that exist.

But if, as you just said, intelligence isn't a personality trait, then Elans inability to understand the law isn't relevant, only his innate intent. That he fails isn't as important as that he tries, right? And it's pretty clear that, on the question of "following rules systems", Elan seems to clearly try to comply with them. He just fails a lot. And he uses methodologies that are incredibly random and poorly thought out, and that often produce unintended consequences.

It's that methodology that makes him chaos, but not his desire to "follow the rules". He certainly looks up to Roy and wants to do right by him. Just fails at it pretty epically most of the time.

In other words, Elan breaks laws and has poorly thought out plans, because he's not very smart. This is a separate thing from his alignment, because CG does not means bad at plans or mean doesn't obey/understand laws.

If that's true, then he should not have a chaotic alignment at all. Yet, he does. And not only does he, but virtually anyone reading the comic, with any past experience playing D&D would identify him as being that alignment, even in the absence of anyone telling them what it was supposed to be. And my question is: Why?

Elan favors decentralization of power, less rules and regulations, freedom, people doing what they wish, and so forth. He is not the opposite of Haley, he is in many ways, a dumber, male version of Haley.

Does he? He seems to follow rules even within his own... idiom, pretty consistently. As you said "what's the most dramatic/heroic way to do something"? That's not "lawful"? Why not?

He clearly does not like to see people suffering and in pain, and I'm reasonably certain would love to see his father's rule replaced with a "better kinder" rule. But he'd still want "rule". I'm reasonably certain he's not happy at all with the way things are in Greysky, and would seek to change that city if he could as well. Both motivated, not by removing power centralization, or eliminating rules and regulations, but putting ones in place that produce good/happy results. That's him being "good". He certainly doesn't like people "doing what they wish", if those things cause harm, right?

Haley, on the other hand, was perfectly ok with the way the rogues guild ran things, as long as she got her cut (ok, she wasn't happy about that arrangement once she realized how impossible it would be to bail out her father at those rates). She certainly never thought about going off on a crusade to make the streets safer or anything. I'm reasonably certain that Elan would. If he could.

So yeah, they are very very different on that regard.

If this is remotely true at all, it's only true during the years that Gygax, the Lawful partisan, was part of the rulewriting process.

The reality is that a lot of the older players hint and indicate that the older books indicated that many "neutral" characters had a preference or slight tilt to good or evil.

If someone consistently does orderly things, and freedom/disorderly things, they are neutral Good/Evil/Neutral. This is what all the editions that have this option say.

Yeah, the positions were somewhat shifted, but the same basic flaw remained. He assumed a "normal" person preferred to live in orderly, structured societies, with consistent (and fair) rule of law, and enforcement of that law, and that was "neutral". Shifting towards "lawful" required someone who is focused on improving things, or even dogmatically adherent to strict rules (for themselves and sometimes for others as well). Chaos was for those who desired to break down such systems.

Again though, where on that scale would Elan, with his "plan" to bring down his father, fall?

Small clans living in the hills, the very image of decentralization and what existed before civilization, were perfectly organized. They also had leaders and hierarchies. However, there was very little wealth or power disparity.

This is literally how Robinhood lived and where he was happiest, in the woods, in a small community, where everyone knew each other, and no one outside the community could make anyone do anything.

Ok. So I'll ask again: Why can't my Robin Hood be lawful good? Please tell me we're not pinning "lawful" to "obeys the laws of the society he's in dogmatically" anymore. So that leaves us with "follows a strict personal code" and "uses consistent methods and means to achieve goals". Which can absolutely be applied to someone fighting to oppose an evil ruler via economic attrition methods. Why not?

Heck. Let's put a classic D&D paladin in Elan's place. You're in the middle of a war, and a find yourself weaponless, and there's a weapon store that closed up, but has a weapon you can use to save many lives. Do you refuse to take it because that would "break the law"? Of course not. What if it was late at night, and you had a limited time to get somewhere and save the day from an evildoer, and the only way to get there was to break into a store and steal something needed to get there on time? Would you just not try to save the day? Or steal just what was needed and leave a note promising to come back and pay them back? You'd do the latter, right? The most upright paladin, unless we're literally playing him as lawful stupid, would have done exactly what Elan did in those situations, and for more or less the exact same reasons (to be fair though, the "pay with my movement rate" bit is a counter argument here, so there is that).

But I guess that's also part of my point. How consistently does one have to follow any given "side" of one of the alignment axis to be considered "on that side"? If our consideration of Elan's alignment is based on his willingness to break the law, or refusal to follow rules rather than his methods, then we'd have to conclude that he falls far more on the "lawful" side than the "chaotic". So either he should be lawful, or we have some serious imbalance in the system, where a small number of "break the rules" actions totally counteracts the majority in the opposing direction. Again. Consider the paladin version of Elan, he's ok if he steals the weapon, and the supplies to get him to where he needs to rescue Haley from his evil brother, but if he steals a soda because he has no money, what? He falls? Heck. Ignore the paladin (cause that comes with some assumed divine commandments or something). Let's replace Elan (CG) with Roy (LG). Would Roy lose his lawful alignment just for stealing the soda? Should he? If he does, then that represents an extremely tilted scale of measurement (one chaotic act cancels out a whole lot of lawful ones). Er, but then Roy doesn't lose his lawful alignment when he "steals" the treatment at the inn (when he was mistaken for the King of nowhere), right? Why not? He took far more than a soda's worth of free stuff from the Inn, yet suffered no ill affects alignment wise.

So why is Elan Chaotic, but Roy is lawful? I would submit that it's entirely because Roy is organized, plans things out, etc. It's the personality bits that matter here. Er. But then that brings us to Haley. Why is she chaotic then? She's just as organized and about planning and executing as Roy, but she doesn't respect rules/authorities/laws. So we're back to a jumbled mess. Sometimes, it's about obeying laws/rules, sometimes it's not. Sometimes, it's about personality and methodology, and sometimes it's not. Gah! Horrible.

I seriously doubt that Elan wouldn't prefer this way of life, to say... living in an empire with hundreds of rules, where tradition is everything, he gets arrested for public nudity, and there are taxes.

Yeah. Which is somewhat part of my point. Elan clearly fits into "civilized society" very well. He loves going to "the big city". So yeah, again, where do we put the emphasis on "law/chaos" here? It's why I keep putting it more into the personality trait side. For Elan, it's clearly not about the rules and kind of society he prefers, since that seems to lean "lawful" (but against "evil" obviously). As you said, he'd much prefer to live in Azure City (pre invasion) than in some barbarian tribes camp. So it must be the same "engages in random and out of the box methods" bit that makes him chaotic.

But if that makes *him* chaos, then what makes Haley chaos?

Yeah. Sorry. The whole thing is just a cluttered mess IMO. It's completely inconsistent and almost unworkable. And again, the only way to make it work is to cardboard cutout your character types to make it work. Which, as I've said all along, tends to put limits on the range of PCs you can play. Well, that or just handwave things away when it's inconvenient or inconsistent (which it will be a lot of the time if *not* playing cardboard cutout characters). Bleh.

I think maybe we're getting too caught up in specifics though. My broader point is that I prefer alignment systems that represents clear "sides" in some form of cosmic conflict. Leave the personality bits out of it. If you are fighting for side A, you are "alignment A", if you are fighting for side B, you are "alignment B". Alternatively, the "sides" could be more segmented into specific requirements and traits "aligned" with the worship of different deities. That method works as well. If you worship the god of money and trade, you like money, and you like to trade, especially if you can trade in ways that make you more money. If you worship the god of war and death, you like killing people, especially if you are fighting (better yet winning) a battle/war.

Heck. If you really want to do personality traits, then some systems have the concept of "virtue/vice". Have a set of those things, and play them out. The point being you can mix and match them as you wish. You have the virtue of "honesty", then you strive to tell the truth at all times. You have the vice "avarice", then you are always looking for ways to get ahead or more or whatever (usually money or power here). There are a ton of ways to do this and do it well.

But the incredibly broad "good/evil" and "law/chaos" alignment system that D&D introduced? Absolute garbage IMO. It's both too broad *and* too restrictive at the same time. Too many things lumped into these broad categories and too many (often silly) restrictions and rules associated with the resulting alignments to make it work well. And yeah, far far too many inconsistencies even just in terms of which actions fall into which alignment categories based on frankly incredibly subjective rulings.

[Tevo77777]

I have said this three or four times, compliance with the law is a red herring and is not important for judging if a character if Chaotic or not. This is a very common point made by older people and those who actually have read the different alignment descriptions in the different editions.

I have literally quoted and cited alignment descriptions that make this clear.

You literally keep bringing up stuff that I said over and over, has nothing to do with figuring out his alignment, or information that is misleading, unhelpful.

Planning again, nothing to do with alignment. Intelligence, nothing to do with alignment. Following laws or not, red herring, ignore it.

Would Roy lose his lawful alignment just for stealing the soda? Should he? If he does, then that represents an extremely tilted scale of measurement (one chaotic act cancels out a whole lot of lawful ones). Er, but then Roy doesn't lose his lawful alignment when he "steals" the treatment at the inn (when he was mistaken for the King of nowhere), right? Why not? He took far more than a soda's worth of free stuff from the Inn, yet suffered no ill affects alignment wise.

Because the law again, is a red herring and should be ignored. He also suffered no effects because the bill was literally paid by the current King, in return for saving the King's life.

By your logic, if I buy 200 dollars worth of drinks at the bar, but have an empty wallet, I am stealing. Nevermind that later on a friend runs into me and pays me back 200 he owes me, hours before the bar tab needs to be paid.

Does he? He seems to follow rules even within his own... idiom, pretty consistently. As you said "what's the most dramatic/heroic way to do something"? That's not "lawful"? Why not?

He clearly does not like to see people suffering and in pain, and I'm reasonably certain would love to see his father's rule replaced with a "better kinder" rule.

Congrats, you're describing what it means to be Good AND you're describing Robinhood. Robinhood, who is literally the example given by the designers for a CG character, is someone who helped put a good king on a throne in retelling after retelling.

This is like saying someone isn't Christian, and then describing a bunch of traits that make them sound increasingly like Jesus.

Haley, on the other hand, was perfectly ok with the way the rogues guild ran things, as long as she got her cut (ok, she wasn't happy about that arrangement once she realized how impossible it would be to bail out her father at those rates). She certainly never thought about going off on a crusade to make the streets safer or anything. I'm reasonably certain that Elan would. If he could.

So yeah, they are very very different on that regard.

"Haley can also be described as a loose "Robin Hood" sort of rogue. While staying in Bleedingham, Haley snuck out with Vaarsuvius to free slaves (although later on these same slaves were the ones burned alive to make a flaming sign for Elan). Her father, Ian Starshine, described the Thieves Guild under his leadership as a "steal from the rich, give 40% minus-compensation-costs to the poor" organization."

Oh look, it's Robinhood, again and then again.

Ok. So I'll ask again: Why can't my Robin Hood be lawful good?

If you are trying to argue that Robin Hood is lawful good, you don't understand the alignment system.

Let me make it simple for you.

Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, he is the perfect example given for Chaotic Good. Anything he does, statistically, is Chaotic Good.

If you ever get confused what Chaotic Good means, it's whatever Robinhood would do.

Think of WWJD, but make it WWRhD.

Heck. Let's put a classic D&D paladin in Elan's place. You're in the middle of a war, and a find yourself weaponless, and there's a weapon store that closed up, but has a weapon you can use to save many lives. Do you refuse to take it because that would "break the law"? Of course not.

Robinhood would steal the weapon without thinking, Superman/a 1e Paladin would spend the maximum time agonizing over the decision, and then end up having to pick one or the other.

Neutral Good is someone who spends some amount of time (Likely more than Elan) between zero seconds and the maximum amount of time.

To quote a veteran player. "Chaotic good characters will never consider the law in any of their decisions. If they happen to work within the law, it isn't because they made a decision to do so".

Elan didn't consider the law, he considered if it was Nice or Mean or Good.

But I guess that's also part of my point. How consistently does one have to follow any given "side" of one of the alignment axis to be considered "on that side"?

Enough that the GM and the other players don't get insanely confused. Again, literally that simple. If you claim to be CN and the GM, plus half the players think you're CE, you're almost definitely CE.

The US Supreme Court has an identical solution to the one I just purposed, and so does the vast majority of political systems that predate the current system of the current United States.

In any event where it's not clear how the law or rules should be interpreted, it's up to a certain number of judges (The other people at the table).

When it's time to decide if you should go free or be executed, who decides your fate? A certain number of jury members (Again, the other people at the table).

Why is this? Because the purpose of alignment is for the benefit of everyone else at the table besides you.

If we threw out any system of rules or expectations that ever was unclear, we would literally have no rules. Every single legal and political system has someone who interprets the rules. Sports have referees and/or judges for a reason.

Remember that one person (In this thread) who said that all the problems you mentioned are solved by having the GM be the referee or judge? That's true in basically almost all sports and almost all political or legal systems.

Yeah. Sorry. The whole thing is just a cluttered mess IMO. It's completely inconsistent and almost unworkable. And again, the only way to make it work is to cardboard cutout your character types to make it work. Which, as I've said all along, tends to put limits on the range of PCs you can play. Well, that or just handwave things away when it's inconvenient or inconsistent (which it will be a lot of the time if *not* playing cardboard cutout characters). Bleh.

Elan is still not a real character at a real table. Everything anyone says about his alignment is likely pointless, because again, he is not a real character at a real table.

Elan is completely broken and unworkable, he is deliberately designed as a joke character. He's not supposed to make sense.

Yeah. Sorry. The whole thing is just a cluttered mess IMO. It's completely inconsistent and almost unworkable. And again, the only way to make it work is to cardboard cutout your character types to make it work. Which, as I've said all along, tends to put limits on the range of PCs you can play. Well, that or just handwave things away when it's inconvenient or inconsistent (which it will be a lot of the time if *not* playing cardboard cutout characters). Bleh.

This is not even remotely true.

If you can't make a character that doesn't make more than half the table angry and frustrated trying to figure out who the hell your character is as a person... You're a bad player with a bad character and/or you're sitting at a very flawed table.

A character should be consistent day to day, and when they change, they should do so gradually in a way that can be understood and watched.

If a character can't be understood or they change too quickly, they are basically mentally insane, or they're lacking in agency or a defined idea who they are.

This is exactly how it works in professional wrestling and most fiction in general.

But the incredibly broad "good/evil" and "law/chaos" alignment system that D&D introduced? Absolute garbage IMO. It's both too broad *and* too restrictive at the same time. Too many things lumped into these broad categories and too many (often silly) restrictions and rules associated with the resulting alignments to make it work well. And yeah, far far too many inconsistencies even just in terms of which actions fall into which alignment categories based on frankly incredibly subjective rulings.

Bogart is my character. I have played him at table after table, and he has been very obviously someone with a highly highly complex set of moral behavior. He's literally a Paladin who used to be in his version of the Mafia. He has four babymomma's from when he was young and stupid. He has absolutely no respect for the law, and only trusts people he knows extremely well. Bogart looks down upon the rich and heavily favors the poor and dirty. If he follows the law, it is entirely by accident (Which actually fits the description of CG in 3.5)

Bogart literally picked his patron in Pathfinder 2e, based on which goddess or god would let him keep his favorite weapon, and continue his lifestyle. He literally picked the Identity/LGBT supernatural being for these reasons.

Not a single player or GM has had any problem with his alignment whatsoever. He's Neutral Good, and there are charts of things he has to do as a Good person, charts of what he has to do as a Neutral Champion/Paladin.

The Good chart overrides the Neutral requirements (Forgiveness, Redemption), and so does the requirements from his patron (Accept people for their sexuality, ect ect).

Not a single requirement on any of the tables listed say he has to respect the law, or be bad/good at planning, or any number of things you will likely use as proof that the alignment system doesn't fit him.

Lawful Good, Champion
You must act with honor, never taking advantage
of others, lying, or cheating.
• You must respect the lawful authority of legitimate
leadership wherever you go, and follow its laws.

Previously Bogart didn't lie, this version of Bogart can, he just can't be bothered to. Bogart does fit some of the descriptions for CG and NG.

However, Bogart always puts the Good part of his requirements first, and anything that would define him as CG or NG or LG is something he never thinks about whatsoever, nor does he care.

Every single requirement or description or clue that he would be LG or CG is something he either completely ignores, or doesn't care about. This is despite him knowing the legal system really well, and the criminal underworld really well. He knows the law better than lawyers, and yet doesn't care if something he does is legal or illegal.

The laws are still, a red herring. They are maybe a clue to an alignment, but a misleading one.

[Witty Username]

Recall that Lawful respects Order, not the laws of anywhere in particular nessasarily. This is how Lawful Good and Lawful Evil exist, as they believe Order is the way to accomplish things effectively.
Paladins would look weird if they had to obey every despotic warlord.
Legitimate authority is a concept for Lawful characters. Because while Order is good, there are kinds and degrees, Lawful Good sees Evil as Chaotic by destruction, and Lawful Evil sees Good as Chaotic by serving the unnecessary( i.e other people).

Chaotic characters do not have a concept of Legitimate authority, there are no legitimate authorities as authority is inherently flawed. This is because Order itself is unnecessary at best and detrimental at worst. This does not mean breaking every law, it does mean not considering it when it comes between the character and their goals.

This does mean chaos is less compromising than law, when paired with another alignment. Chaotic Good will suffer no evil within their locas of control. Chaotic Evil will pursue personal gain and pleasure to the infinite. Law demands adherence, or
Order collapses. This means Lawful Good and Lawful Evil are obligated to cooperate, at least some of the time. This primarily matters for the micro more than macro though, Empires can fight with impunity, not so much citizens unless the greater chaos is served by the conflict.

[Satinavian]

Recall that Lawful respects Order, not the laws of anywhere in particular nessasarily. This is how Lawful Good and Lawful Evil exist, as they believe Order is the way to accomplish things effectively.
Paladins would look weird if they had to obey every despotic warlord.
Legitimate authority is a concept for Lawful characters. Because while Order is good, there are kinds and degrees, Lawful Good sees Evil as Chaotic by destruction, and Lawful Evil sees Good as Chaotic by serving the unnecessary( i.e other people).

While lawful characters tend to care for legitimacy, legitimacy is not dependend on alignment.

If the rightful heir that ascends to the throne happens to be evil, he is still the rightful, legitimate ruler for his paladin subject. And vice versa. And illegitimate rulers are also seen as illegitimate not because of their alignment, but because they lack legitimacy.

[hamishspence]

Legitimacy can be forfeited though - as BoED puts it:

Divided Loyalties

For better of for worse, a paladin is not just good: she is lawful good, sworn not just to uphold the principles of good but also bound by a code of conduct, and subject to local law as well. Many paladins are also members of a specific deity's church, a knightly order of some sort, or both. At the best of times, these various loyalties - her code of conduct, her church's laws, her order's demands, the laws of her nation, and the abstraction of her alignment - are all in harmony, and her path is clear before her. When circumstances are not so ideal, she finds herself torn between conflicting demands: her superior in her knightly order commands her to kill a brutal murderer who has escaped punishment in court on a legal technicality, for example. Her personal code requires that she punish those that harm innocents, and this killer certainly falls in that category. However, her personal code also instructs her to respect legitimate authority, which includes both her knightly superior and the local law that has let the killer go free. The demands of her good alignment suggest she should punish the wrongdoer, but the demands of her lawful alignment insist that she obey the judgement of the court. It is entirely possible that either her superior or the magistrate in the case is corrupt or even possessed. Whom does she obey? How does she sort out the conflicting demands of her loyalties?

Paladins are by no means alone in this situation. Any character who tries consistently to do good eventually finds himself in a situation where different loyalties are in conflict. Chaotic Good characters might care far less about a potentially corrupt or at least ineffectual court system, but they might have other personal standards or obligations that cause conflict in similar or different situations. In the end, however, many such conflicts boil down to a question of priorities, and for a character who aspires to exalted deeds, good is the highest priority. In the example above, the murderer must at least be captured, if not killed, before he can kill again. If she has reason to suspect corruption, either in the court or in her own order, the paladin must attempt to uncover it, though it might mean being cast out of her order, punished under local law, or both. Her paladinhood and her exalted status remain intact, since she acted in the cause of good even when that required questioning the legitimacy of authority. Magistrates or knightly superiors who serve the cause of evil while posing as agents of good are not legitimate authority, and the paladin is right for exposing their corruption.

[Satinavian]

Legitimacy can be forfeited though

Well yes.

But that tends to be a complicated process. Legitimacy usually comes with bounds and obligations and you can only lose it by ignoring them. Admittedly that is what the iconic tyrannic ruler who must be desposed by revolution does, so the paladin can depose him.

But the thing is, rulers are polititions and losing their legitimacy is really bad for them. Because losing it means losing it for everyone, not just for the lawful good guys. It is also lost for LN, LE, NG, N and NE and possibly the chaotics if those cared. That is why they don't tend to lose their legitimacy if they are not completely unhinged or idiots. Or at least keep the stuff they really should not do as legitimate rulers a secret.

And that is why the paragraph talks about questioning the legitimacy and exposing corruption. It is not a given that they find anything worth forfeighting legitimacy.

[Witty Username]

While lawful characters tend to care for legitimacy, legitimacy is not dependend on alignment.

Fair enough, my line of reasoning was how it can alow for good and evil, not that it was the only way to frame the problem.

[gbaji]

I have said this three or four times, compliance with the law is a red herring and is not important for judging if a character if Chaotic or not. This is a very common point made by older people and those who actually have read the different alignment descriptions in the different editions.

Then why is Haley Chaotic?

Seriously. I'm not trying to troll here. Just trying to get a straight answer. If it's not compliance with the law, and it's not "random" personality/methodology (like Elan, but the opposite of Haley) then what is it?

And in your answer, show the actions Haley has taken in the strip that match that "chaotic" nature, but that Roy has not done, possibly worse.

And yeah, we can fall back to the "OotS isn't supposed to represent a real game" bit. But the character types are fairly well set. I'm reasonably certain that most readers would not make note of the fact that Roy is actually more chaotic by any objective measurement than Haley has been. Most would just nod along and agree that Roy is LG, and Haley is CG because that's what they "seem to be". Which, again, isn't a problem if it's just a descriptor or RP guide. But the moment you have actual afterlives, detection, and protection spells that behave differently based on alignment, it becomes an issue if we can't really distinguish between one or the other based on much more than "what did you write on your character sheet when you created the character".

Silly me. if we're going to have objective game mechanics that are affected by alignment, I want an absolutely clear and objective means of determining that alignment. D&D does not do that. Not even close.

[KorvinStarmast]

Then why is Haley Chaotic?

Her dad was an A&D 1e thief. He raised her that way. How hard is this to grasp?

[gbaji]

Her dad was an A&D 1e thief. He raised her that way. How hard is this to grasp?

Lol. So it really was just written on her character sheet and not really a measurement of her personality/actions. Check.

[Tevo77777]

Silly me. if we're going to have objective game mechanics that are affected by alignment, I want an absolutely clear and objective means of determining that alignment. D&D does not do that. Not even close.

Neither Football nor the United States Constitution have absolutely clear and objective means of determination what happened and if should be allowed (Without using referees or someone to intercept the rules).

You're still asking D&D to do something that barely any sports or things with complicated rules can do.

Lol. So it really was just written on her character sheet and not really a measurement of her personality/actions. Check.

This is a Critical Failure on a Listen Check.

It is totally a measurement of her personality, the person is just saying that she's setup that way as a joke OR because she was raised to have a certain world view.

I had also earlier said she was raised Chaotic Good.
-
I also want to point out that you seem to be the only person who thinks Roy has ever been anything besides Lawful or Neutral Good, the entire time he's been in any of the comics.

[Witty Username]

Wasn't Roy judged as Lawful Good by the celestial bureaucracy? The argument is hashed out there so it is more if you agree with it or not.

Hailey is chaotic due to operating outside of any established order, and has no interest in adhering to one.

Elan is chaotic due to operating outside of any established order, and has no interest in adhering to one. "And he is a Bard, he literally can't be Lawful."

They both tend towards "harmlessly chaotic" because they are good, and good requires the character to generally be a positive influence on others and the world at large. Hailey is less this than Elan, due to her greed and the thievery that comes with it "I'm Chaotic Good! -ish..."

I am not a fan of enforced alignment, but it wouldn't be much of a problem for any of these characters.

[Mechalich]

They both tend towards "harmlessly chaotic" because they are good, and good requires the character to generally be a positive influence on others and the world at large. Hailey is less this than Elan, due to her greed and the thievery that comes with it "I'm Chaotic Good! -ish..."

They are also 'harmlessly chaotic' because, as adventurers, they've already largely abandoned the operational structures of lawful society and reside only on its edges. Neither Elan nor Haley would function effectively in any sort of highly regimented role. Haley would be terrible at serving in a typical archer regiment, while Elan would be monstrously disruptive if placed in a 50-piece orchestra.

Most humans are lawful and obey the overwhelming majority of societal rules by default. A smaller number are neutral and obey those rules begrudgingly because they either can't think of a better option or don't think it's worth the effort. Chaotic characters always find themselves at odds with those rules, even when they agree with their moral stance. In order to survive they have to move to areas where the rules hold loosely.

[Tevo77777]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...0&postcount=23

I found a post where someone goes a good job making the case for Roy being Lawful Good, like the strips suggest.

Wasn't Roy judged as Lawful Good by the celestial bureaucracy? The argument is hashed out there so it is more if you agree with it or not.

Hailey is chaotic due to operating outside of any established order, and has no interest in adhering to one.

Elan is chaotic due to operating outside of any established order, and has no interest in adhering to one. "And he is a Bard, he literally can't be Lawful."

They both tend towards "harmlessly chaotic" because they are good, and good requires the character to generally be a positive influence on others and the world at large. Hailey is less this than Elan, due to her greed and the thievery that comes with it "I'm Chaotic Good! -ish..."

I am not a fan of enforced alignment, but it wouldn't be much of a problem for any of these characters.

Yeah, I found the strips and am reading it now.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

This last strip seems to pretty much make it clear why he is Lawful Good.

[hamishspence]

Most humans are lawful and obey the overwhelming majority of societal rules by default. A smaller number are neutral and obey those rules begrudgingly because they either can't think of a better option or don't think it's worth the effort. Chaotic characters always find themselves at odds with those rules, even when they agree with their moral stance. In order to survive they have to move to areas where the rules hold loosely.

That was more a "Gygax-era" thing - his "Most humans as Lawful, not Neutral, and Chaotic is rare" ideas were moved away from by 3.0, which portrays TN as the normal alignment for humans.

[Satinavian]

Chaotic Good will suffer no evil within their locas of control.

Now that is another thing i very much disagree with.

"Being good" is not the same thing as being some kind of holy warrior. Most good beings are far more concerned with doing good than with fighting evil. Things are a bit different for Paladins who literally are holy warriors, but in general good has a lot of space for "live and let live" attitude and peaceful coexistence.

What is more, all those guys actually fighting against evil have a way harder time to really stay good. Because all the death and destruction the fighting produces must be compensated and some more. Hurting evil beings is not good at all in itself. Even punishing evil is not a good act, that whole punishment theme belongs firmly into the law/chaos axis. Only if you actually protect and save someone, the fight against evil can be a good deed.

Far easier to be good by helping others in a different, more constructive way.

[Mechalich]

That was more a "Gygax-era" thing - his "Most humans as Lawful, not Neutral, and Chaotic is rare" ideas were moved away from by 3.0, which portrays TN as the normal alignment for humans.

Yes, 3.0 does say that, but it's wrong. The majority of humans don't behave the way 3.0 describes TN, they behave in either a LG or LN fashion, and, significantly, basically all characters and all societies written during that edition reflect this. I mean, this is the home of OOTS. V is a 3e TN character and they are nowhere near normal human moral behavior.

[hamishspence]

Yes, 3.0 does say that, but it's wrong. The majority of humans don't behave the way 3.0 describes TN, they behave in either a LG or LN fashion, and, significantly, basically all characters and all societies written during that edition reflect this. I mean, this is the home of OOTS. V is a 3e TN character and they are nowhere near normal human moral behavior.

In 3.0-3.5, ordinary TN people tend to go along with things, with the "devoted to Neutrality" version being a rare exception. Foreshadowing 4e's "Unaligned" title and description.

It's true that the top of society tends to be dominated by the Lawful (as well as really large communities - cities, large towns, etc) - but that doesn't mean that the ordinary citizenry are. Most people don't live in a city, they live in smallish communities in the country. It's the fact that cities and their rulers tend to be the movers and shakers, that creates the illusion of humanity being on average Lawful.

It's worth remembering that TN isn't most people - it's just the most common alignment. It can be just slightly more common than the next most common alignments are.

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.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

[KorvinStarmast]

That was more a "Gygax-era" thing - his "Most humans as Lawful, not Neutral, and Chaotic is rare" ideas were moved away from by 3.0, which portrays TN as the normal alignment for humans.

One of a number of things they got wrong. (My rant on sorcerers / cha casters will not be indulged in)

Yes, 3.0 does say that, but it's wrong. The majority of humans don't behave the way 3.0 describes TN, they behave in either a LG or LN fashion, and, significantly, basically all characters and all societies written during that edition reflect this. I mean, this is the home of OOTS. V is a 3e TN character and they are nowhere near normal human moral behavior.

Good point.

[OldTrees1]

It's worth remembering that ____ isn't most people - it's just the most common alignment. It can be just slightly more common than the next most common alignments are.

For example in a 2 axis alignment system with each axis given 3 labels (so 9 labels describing large regions), if 11.2% were alignment ___ and the other alignments were 11.1% each, then alignment _____ would be the most common alignment despite being a minority of individuals and only a 0.1% difference compared to the other alignments.

[icefractal]

Personally (when I've used alignment, which is not currently) I used an uneven split where neutral is more common, but still not a majority. 25/50/25 on each axis puts TN at 25% of people, for example. Even with a 15/70/15 split it would only be 49%.

That said, I'm not going with a "balance" version of neutral primarily. More often it's just not being sufficiently good/evil to fall into those categories. So you could have someone who's nice, fairly helpful, but would never stick their neck out for someone else, and they're neutral. Or someone who's a jerk, cheats people in small ways, but nothing too heinous - also neutral. I find it more useful when a good/evil alignment means something significant.

[Tevo77777]

In 3.0-3.5, ordinary TN people tend to go along with things, with the "devoted to Neutrality" version being a rare exception. Foreshadowing 4e's "Unaligned" title and description.

It's true that the top of society tends to be dominated by the Lawful (as well as really large communities - cities, large towns, etc) - but that doesn't mean that the ordinary citizenry are. Most people don't live in a city, they live in smallish communities in the country. It's the fact that cities and their rulers tend to be the movers and shakers, that creates the illusion of humanity being on average Lawful.

It's worth remembering that TN isn't most people - it's just the most common alignment. It can be just slightly more common than the next most common alignments are.

Why is it not letting me quote your quote? It alone seems to clear up so much about Alignment.

[Tanarii]

Yes, 3.0 does say that, but it's wrong. The majority of humans don't behave the way 3.0 describes TN, they behave in either a LG or LN fashion, and, significantly, basically all characters and all societies written during that edition reflect this. I mean, this is the home of OOTS. V is a 3e TN character and they are nowhere near normal human moral behavior.

5e Neutral is probably a better version for many humans by the sounds of it. (I don't recall 3e version)

Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

Personal opinion only, that fairly accurately captures the typical behavior of more people than any other single 5e alignment's typical-but-not-constantly-required behaviors do ... it also captures the majority of people.

Otoh I may just be a cynic when it comes to social and moral attitudes.

[hamishspence]

5e Neutral is probably a better version for many humans by the sounds of it. (I don't recall 3e version)

Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

Personal opinion only, that fairly accurately captures the typical behavior of more people than any other single 5e alignment's typical-but-not-constantly-required behaviors do ... it also captures the majority of people.

I did quote from the 3.0-3.5 version.

Relevant part:

Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

4e "unaligned" had an element of "don't take sides" but that was more for deities and a few unaligned people.

Unaligned

If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.

A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality.