What's the difference between being lawful good, neutral good and chaotic good?
Are lawful good characters good by the standards of their societies (moral relativism) e.g. If a lawful good character were in a town where doing evil is a law and considered good, then would they do evil? If they followed the law then they would be lawful evil; on the other hand if they didn't follow the law, they would be the would be chaotic good.
Are chaotic characters defined by a lack of impulse control? Or some aspects of psychopathy?
It sounds like the lawful alignment reflects social conformity and the chaotic alignment reflects psychopathy or sociopathy. I think both might have behavioral issues; your either crazy (chaotic) or your subservient (lawful). So would neutral be more stable?
I don’t think the alignment system works if you base it on any kind of moral or ethical relativism.
The main difference between lawful and chaotic alignments is probably the attitude toward hierarchies.
Lawful Good characters want a well-ordered society where everyone has their place. Sure, because they’re Good, there’ll be some decent social mobility, but there will still be people with power (only those who have the wisdom to use it well, naturally) and people without (the meek who must be shepherded and protected by the strong), because that structure is easy to deal with.
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
The alignment system is a very blunt instrument describing a very nuanced thing — human behavior does not fit neatly into one of nine boxes. Your example is a pretty good one, the difference between cg and ng is really paper thin. So talk with your DM about how, or even if, they are actually using alignment in your campaign. We can give you a million different explanations for how any given alignment will behave, but what’s going to matter is how your table handles it.
Alignment is not as restrictive as that. The way the PHB explains it, LG characters do the good that is expected, NG the good that is needed, and CG the good they think is best. In other words, chaotic doesn’t necessarily mean anticonventional or antiauthoritarian - it's primarily about who or what informs your opinions and actions most: the society you live in, the specific individuals you’re dealing with, or yourself. None of these alignments imply an issue or problem.
As for doing good in an evil town meaning doing evil if your lawful, that’s silly nonsense. Evil characters don’t consider evil actions good, unless they’re delusional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
Hard disagree. A chaotic good character does not have to be antiauthoritarian. They’re more likely to bend or ignore the rules to do what they think is right, that’s all. We live in a society because that’s beneficial. Human(oid)s are social creatures. Chaotic characters can understand that and agree with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
NG is hearing your song on the radio and knowing it’s made people happy.
LG is showing up to the studio, sober, bright and early every morning and writing 50 crap songs in a row without getting depressed because you know you’re following a process that will maximize your chances of getting a good song.
NG is the hardest one to understand because moments of genuine good are fleeting in an imperfect world. CG keeps the world interesting and LG pays the bills and keeps the lights on, but both of them are aiming to increase the total amount of good. NG picks and chooses. One day it’s an explorer, the next it’s a curator.
Im deeply uneasy with attaching terms of mental health to alignment.
Personally, I think the best example I have ever seen of Lawful Good and Chaotic Good was presented in the 1988-1990 Hawk and Dove comic from DC, co-written by Barbara and Karl Kesel. There was a 5 issue miniseries, and then a 28 issue full series.
In the comic, both Hawk and Dove are good characters, but Hawk is an agent of Chaos, and Dove is an agent of Order. The writers did an amazing job of showing how these 2 different types of Good characters approach things. Dove was methodical, systematic, logical, deductive, and extremely good at seeing patterns. Dove thought first, acted second. Hawk was spontaneous, impulsive, inductive, never followed a pattern, and did not look for them. Hawk acted first, and thought second. Both were heroes. They were good, kind human beings. They both saved lives, protected the innocent, etc. They just went about it in very different ways.
There was also another chaos agent, Kestrel, who was a lovely example of chaotic evil. Emphasis on evil.
The comic focused primarily on the order/chaos angle, but they did an excellent job of not making either order or chaos good, or evil, but rather showed how both could be good, or evil.
Before someone says, how come no lawful evil? Barbara Kesel said in a letter column that she intended to have an evil Order agent show up next, but then they canceled the series due to a series of bad editorial decisions (and low circulation numbers, though not just those). So sadly, we didn't get their version of what lawful evil would look like. But you can definitely see Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Evil on full display in Dove, Hawk, and Kestrel.
They also showed a True Neutral character (named Barter) a few times.... he wanted to sell items to make a profit, and was bound to do so for reasons I will not go into here, but he didn't care to whom he sold, good, evil, neutral, chaos, law, or otherwise.
I'd argue that Hawk's girlfriend, Renata Takamuri, is probably Neutral Good. But she was just a supporting character and did not have any super powers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
Hard disagree. A chaotic good character does not have to be antiauthoritarian. They’re more likely to bend or ignore the rules to do what they think is right, that’s all. We live in a society because that’s beneficial. Human(oid)s are social creatures. Chaotic characters can understand that and agree with it.
I don't disagree that that's how the PHB presents it; I just don't think that's interesting or useful. Anti-authoritarian doesn't mean anti-society; indeed, I think it's impossible to be Good and not believe in society. I'm saying that Chaotic Good believes in a society where everyone is an equal participant, while Lawful Good believes in a society of wise rulers and the happy ruled who benefit from that wisdom without having any meaningful societal power for themselves. I don't see any meaningful distinction whatsoever between what you (and the PHB) describe as Chaotic Good and what you (and the PHB) describe as Neutral Good.
You have to remember that law/chaos axis exists independently of the good/evil axis. It has to mean something, and the way you describe it, I can't tell that it does.
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
Hard disagree. A chaotic good character does not have to be antiauthoritarian. They’re more likely to bend or ignore the rules to do what they think is right, that’s all. We live in a society because that’s beneficial. Human(oid)s are social creatures. Chaotic characters can understand that and agree with it.
I don't disagree that that's how the PHB presents it; I just don't think that's interesting or useful. Anti-authoritarian doesn't mean anti-society; indeed, I think it's impossible to be Good and not believe in society. I'm saying that Chaotic Good believes in a society where everyone is an equal participant, while Lawful Good believes in a society of wise rulers and the happy ruled who benefit from that wisdom without having any meaningful societal power for themselves. I don't see any meaningful distinction whatsoever between what you (and the PHB) describe as Chaotic Good and what you (and the PHB) describe as Neutral Good.
You have to remember that law/chaos axis exists independently of the good/evil axis. It has to mean something, and the way you describe it, I can't tell that it does.
I think LG characters can see the value of egalitarian societies, and CG characters can be realistic enough to know that doing away with a stratified society won't necessarily result in progress. Being lawful doesn't mean believing having a hierarchy is better than not, and being chaotic doesn't mean you never believe you know better than others and should thus act on that personal opinion.
Very approximatively: LG characters address the needs they know about; NG characters address the needs they see; CG characters address the needs they care about. In practice, this might mean that when there's a famine LG characters might try to feed everyone as fairly as possible even if that means nobody gets to be well fed (but everyone is treated equally), NG characters might try to distribute more food to whoever needs more (like the sick) by giving less to who needs less (young adults, maybe) to try and maximize survival rates, and CG characters will likely prioritize whoever they want to save most (children, for instance) even if that might mean more suffering for others. All these are well-intentioned, valid and good choices. Whichever way a character leans has nothing to do with the good-evil axis of alignment, it's purely about how to do good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
Hard disagree. A chaotic good character does not have to be antiauthoritarian. They’re more likely to bend or ignore the rules to do what they think is right, that’s all. We live in a society because that’s beneficial. Human(oid)s are social creatures. Chaotic characters can understand that and agree with it.
I don't disagree that that's how the PHB presents it; I just don't think that's interesting or useful. Anti-authoritarian doesn't mean anti-society; indeed, I think it's impossible to be Good and not believe in society. I'm saying that Chaotic Good believes in a society where everyone is an equal participant, while Lawful Good believes in a society of wise rulers and the happy ruled who benefit from that wisdom without having any meaningful societal power for themselves. I don't see any meaningful distinction whatsoever between what you (and the PHB) describe as Chaotic Good and what you (and the PHB) describe as Neutral Good.
You have to remember that law/chaos axis exists independently of the good/evil axis. It has to mean something, and the way you describe it, I can't tell that it does.
I think LG characters can see the value of egalitarian societies, and CG characters can be realistic enough to know that doing away with a stratified society won't necessarily result in progress. Being lawful doesn't mean believing having a hierarchy is better than not, and being chaotic doesn't mean you never believe you know better than others and should thus act on that personal opinion.
Very approximatively: LG characters address the needs they know about; NG characters address the needs they see; CG characters address the needs they care about. In practice, this might mean that when there's a famine LG characters might try to feed everyone as fairly as possible even if that means nobody gets to be well fed (but everyone is treated equally), NG characters might try to distribute more food to whoever needs more (like the sick) by giving less to who needs less (young adults, maybe) to try and maximize survival rates, and CG characters will likely prioritize whoever they want to save most (children, for instance) even if that might mean more suffering for others. All these are well-intentioned, valid and good choices. Whichever way a character leans has nothing to do with the good-evil axis of alignment, it's purely about how to do good.
Can you explain how any of the distinctions you draw engage with law and chaos? Law and chaos are about power structures. Honestly, every single one of your examples seems like "neutral good" or rather "good in such a way that law and chaos are not relevant" (though honestly, your description of Chaotic Good reads as True Neutral to me). I really don't see how the scenario you've devised demonstrates the law/evil axis in any way.
I really don't think they are. Good and Evil are about morals/ethics, Law and Chaos are more about values, about what matters to an individual.
In truth, I think the representation of one Good - Evil axis and a completely separate Law - Chaos axis does alignment a bit of a disservice, certainly in 5E. If you look at the nine alignments' descriptions in the PHB, LG is not really the Good version of LE or LN, CG is not the Chaotic version of NG or LG, and so on. The two aspects do interact somewhat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lawful Good characters value what is right just as highly as what is good, while Chaotic Good characters value what is good high above what is right. By "good" I mean what results in the most happiness for the most people, and by "right" I mean a character's internal moral code (which has nothing to do with the laws of their society).
In "Sophie's Choice," the character Sophie is forced by the Nazis to choose one of her two children to save, and if she does not, both will die. Sophie knows it is wrong to choose, but it will also result in more good, since at least one child survives. An ideal Lawful Good Sophie does not make the choice, while an ideal Chaotic Good Sophie does. So essentially, Good and Evil are about ends, while Law and Chaos are about means.
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
Hard disagree. A chaotic good character does not have to be antiauthoritarian. They’re more likely to bend or ignore the rules to do what they think is right, that’s all. We live in a society because that’s beneficial. Human(oid)s are social creatures. Chaotic characters can understand that and agree with it.
I agree, chaotic characters don't have to be revolutionaries to disagree with authoritarianism.
As many people have noted above, alignment is a guideline. No labelling scheme can be perfect, and one that labels all sapient creatures into only nine boxes is always going to be rough and inexact.
The way I have dealt with it in the past is to get a big piece of paper, write the Law-CHaos and Good-Evil axes, and then just start putting single words and phrases down.
Many years ago--very likely 25 or more--Dragon published my article on alignments.
The article I submitted was simple and straightforward, but the way Dragon's editors edited it made it incomprehensible. When I had my DM friend compare my submission to the published version, he said, "Well, there's where you went wrong. TSR [as it was then] doesn't want anyone to even consider playing Chaotic characters."
With 5e's character traits now in the game, there's now player opportunity for reasonable dynamic--not static--alignment play. It's what the character does that determines his/her/its alignment--not what it describes itself to be.
Basically, I took the four corners of the alignment grid, that would be LG, LE, CG, and CE, requiring them to choose orders of behavior or allegiances. The lawfuls accepted seven possible social allegiances, the LGs placing "self" as seventh, the LEs placing "self" as first. The chaotics, on the other hand, conditioned their behaviors on superstitions, the CGs recognizing seven ranks of good luck, the CEs seven ranks of bad luck.
So my answer to your top question is this. An LG character fixes his mores on his society, i.e., family, native land, race, company, ruler, deity, and as I said, self always ranks last. The paladin alone has a fixed social order: deity, ruler, native land, company, race, family, self. The character expresses these allegiances via some clear obligation, typically service, protection, or sacrifice. When these obligations are not met--especially for the top two in his rank, the character may suffer loss of rank or esteem, requiring atonement. The CG character's good luck centers in one each of seven areas: the heavens, animal life, plant life, energies of the inanimate (namely, minerals, metals, and crystals), abstract numbers, principal colors, ingestion of particular foods or drink. That leaves the NG character to blend 4 social allegiances and 3 superstitions, or vice versa, as the player views the character. The remaining alignments you should be able to extrapolate. Except the true neutral who will always have at least one good luck superstition and one bad luck superstition.
I still believe these particulars are eminently more playable than 5e's current traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. I wouldn't doubt that you've already had a player with a lucky number, weapon or hat, or some such, so that isn't entirely new. And no doubt you've seen a pig-headed paladin who is so rigid that he can't see the practicality of leaving one last evil opponent alive to suffer its own fate. Well, that's DnD and the many, many stories that evolve. And it's certainly possible for characters to pick up new allegiances and/or superstitions during game play. I wouldn't like them to discard any; I want characters to get unwieldy as they advance in ability.
By the way, you can find a cursory description of animism on p12 of DMG. However, I strongly recommend you read the Wikipedia article on animism, especially referring to the 12 noted authors who base their storytelling on animist beliefs. Present day anthropology no longer regards animism as primitive religion. That's a key takeaway.
As many people have noted above, alignment is a guideline. No labelling scheme can be perfect, and one that labels all sapient creatures into only nine boxes is always going to be rough and inexact.
The way I have dealt with it in the past is to get a big piece of paper, write the Law-CHaos and Good-Evil axes, and then just start putting single words and phrases down.
It's what the character does that determines his/her/its alignment--not what it describes itself to be.
Good point, a thief can make all kinds of different arguments for stealing, but when it comes down to morality it's about who that person is, their circumstances and the consequences of their actions. The most important factor of those three things is who the person is: Say the thief was poor and at the brink starvation, and he stole some food; would you blame him for stealing, it could seem arguable, because it's a life or death situation? But what if he was well-fed, rich and could have just bought it? Situations can affect our choices, but if the thief stole when he didn't need to, then that's part of who he is unconditionally.
However, although the things a person does in most cases describe who they are, it's unclear how many truly different situations a person would have to be in order to properly describe their morality, let alone their entire existence.
However, although the things a person does in most cases describe who they are, it's unclear how many truly different situations a person would have to be in order to be well-defined by their morality, let alone their entire existence.
Again, a character's morality doesn't define them. They define their morality., which is nuanced and can evolve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I enjoy a good discussion on Alignment. It is always interesting to see what people think. I don't think I've ever seen any two people agree on the finer points.
When I can't sleep, Alignment is one of the things I ponder. It is occasionally even useful for my games. So what is my take?
People seem to have a good handle on Good and Evil. Good in particular. I see Alignment in terms of what makes the character happy. What do they do to make themselves happy? What makes them comfortable? I see Good and Evil as the Moral axis, Law and Chaos as the Ethical one. Good and Evil deals with people and how you relate to them, Law and Chaos governs how you relate to society as a whole. My experience with Evil in play is that people don't go far enough. I see Evil in terms of malice and malevolence, they talk about selfishness, greed, and the desire for power. That's not Evil. My experience with Chaos in play is that people don't understand it. They don't see Chaos in terms of Freedom and Rebellion. They talk about randomness, or unpredictability.
If you want unpredictability, that is True Neutrality. That's what he majority of people actually are. The only thing they really care about is themselves. If nobody else is getting hurt, there is no Evil. Neutrality is the Alignment of I Do Whatever I Want. A Chaotic will go out of their way to do things to their own detriment in the cause of freedom.
Evil is the desire to do bad things to other people. They want to make other people hurt, to make them suffer, to destroy their things, drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentations of their beloveds. Killing isn't nearly as much fun. It doesn't last, and you can't glory in their misery if they are dead. Evil is the Alignment of Fiends. Not surprisingly, Fiends are fiendish. They are cruel. They are rude, crude, and sometimes socially unacceptable. They kick puppies, rob widows and steal things just to destroy them. Killing someone right in front of their children isn't about the one they killed, it's about the making the children suffer. They want to see those kids live a long time, so the pain and trauma can haunt them as long as they live. A Fiend might even protect those children, just so their anguish can go on and on.
Chaos is the desire to do what you want to other people. They want to make other people rebel, the make them disobedient. They champion the cause of freedom. and power is just a tool. A means to an end. Good people seek it out just as much as Evil ones do. Good people use it to help, Evil to harm. If Evil is for Fiends, then Good is for Celestials. Those are benevolent. They are polite, refined, and yet they are still sometimes socially unacceptable. They want to help and heal, to be kind, to do what is right, to be fair and just, to allow everyone to be free to follow the rules because they want to, and they may need to apply a little force to make that happen. A Celestial might rescue someone and their children, and even protect them, because that's what will make everyone happy.
Nine Alignments, and two words to describe each. All it amounts to is a roleplaying hook. Alignment is helpful if you want to play something you are not and need a little help figuring out how. If I was Lawful, how would I approach the problem of a beggar in the streets? What if begging in public is against the law? Do I give money to them? Do I donate to a charity that helps beggars? If I take the beggar somewhere private does that get around the law? The exact same questions asked of a Chaotic produce entirely different answers. How do I make myself happy and do the ends justify the means? Does might make right?
The way I look at things, the only time Alignment really matters in the game outside of pure roleplaying is if you put yourself at a disadvantage in order to help someone else. That would be worth an Inspiration Die.
Personally, I believe the 2D alignment grid is so difficult to understand and play "correctly" because it is a vast oversimplification of complex moral, ethical and personal questions. The lawful/chaotic axis, in particular, is very ill defined and attempts to bundle many potentially-contradictory characteristics into a single "value". It is often talked of as if from an objective point of view, but is entirely subjective. One person is likely to view things very differently to another.
I can see it as occasionally being a good starting point for definition of the moral and ethical makeup of an NPC, viewed from the perspective of the party, but beyond that... I'd rather think in terms of the values of the characters rather than some arbitrary, ill-defined grid.
Then again, I also don't play in any of the official settings where alignment is intended to be absolutely objective from some mystical standpoint. I dislike that view of the world, as IMHO it encourages thought patterns which I find distasteful. If you are playing in one of those settings... Good luck!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What's the difference between being lawful good, neutral good and chaotic good?
Are lawful good characters good by the standards of their societies (moral relativism) e.g. If a lawful good character were in a town where doing evil is a law and considered good, then would they do evil? If they followed the law then they would be lawful evil; on the other hand if they didn't follow the law, they would be the would be chaotic good.
Are chaotic characters defined by a lack of impulse control? Or some aspects of psychopathy?
It sounds like the lawful alignment reflects social conformity and the chaotic alignment reflects psychopathy or sociopathy. I think both might have behavioral issues; your either crazy (chaotic) or your subservient (lawful). So would neutral be more stable?
Post #131 Quote from vovuey1 >
Post #99 Quote from vovuey1 >>
I don’t think the alignment system works if you base it on any kind of moral or ethical relativism.
The main difference between lawful and chaotic alignments is probably the attitude toward hierarchies.
Lawful Good characters want a well-ordered society where everyone has their place. Sure, because they’re Good, there’ll be some decent social mobility, but there will still be people with power (only those who have the wisdom to use it well, naturally) and people without (the meek who must be shepherded and protected by the strong), because that structure is easy to deal with.
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, sees hierarchies and social stratification as inherently bad, violent structures that shackle and oppress, even if they’d being put to an ostensibly noble purpose. To the Chaotic Good character, there is no such thing as a good king, because no one is free when one person wields such disproportionate power over others, regardless of their wisdom or good intentions. Rather than shepherding the meek, the Chaotic Good character seeks to ensure they can shepherd themselves.
The short answer is, ask your DM.
The alignment system is a very blunt instrument describing a very nuanced thing — human behavior does not fit neatly into one of nine boxes. Your example is a pretty good one, the difference between cg and ng is really paper thin.
So talk with your DM about how, or even if, they are actually using alignment in your campaign. We can give you a million different explanations for how any given alignment will behave, but what’s going to matter is how your table handles it.
Alignment is not as restrictive as that. The way the PHB explains it, LG characters do the good that is expected, NG the good that is needed, and CG the good they think is best. In other words, chaotic doesn’t necessarily mean anticonventional or antiauthoritarian - it's primarily about who or what informs your opinions and actions most: the society you live in, the specific individuals you’re dealing with, or yourself. None of these alignments imply an issue or problem.
As for doing good in an evil town meaning doing evil if your lawful, that’s silly nonsense. Evil characters don’t consider evil actions good, unless they’re delusional.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hard disagree. A chaotic good character does not have to be antiauthoritarian. They’re more likely to bend or ignore the rules to do what they think is right, that’s all. We live in a society because that’s beneficial. Human(oid)s are social creatures. Chaotic characters can understand that and agree with it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
CG is writing a good song.
NG is hearing your song on the radio and knowing it’s made people happy.
LG is showing up to the studio, sober, bright and early every morning and writing 50 crap songs in a row without getting depressed because you know you’re following a process that will maximize your chances of getting a good song.
NG is the hardest one to understand because moments of genuine good are fleeting in an imperfect world. CG keeps the world interesting and LG pays the bills and keeps the lights on, but both of them are aiming to increase the total amount of good. NG picks and chooses. One day it’s an explorer, the next it’s a curator.
Im deeply uneasy with attaching terms of mental health to alignment.
Personally, I think the best example I have ever seen of Lawful Good and Chaotic Good was presented in the 1988-1990 Hawk and Dove comic from DC, co-written by Barbara and Karl Kesel. There was a 5 issue miniseries, and then a 28 issue full series.
In the comic, both Hawk and Dove are good characters, but Hawk is an agent of Chaos, and Dove is an agent of Order. The writers did an amazing job of showing how these 2 different types of Good characters approach things. Dove was methodical, systematic, logical, deductive, and extremely good at seeing patterns. Dove thought first, acted second. Hawk was spontaneous, impulsive, inductive, never followed a pattern, and did not look for them. Hawk acted first, and thought second. Both were heroes. They were good, kind human beings. They both saved lives, protected the innocent, etc. They just went about it in very different ways.
There was also another chaos agent, Kestrel, who was a lovely example of chaotic evil. Emphasis on evil.
The comic focused primarily on the order/chaos angle, but they did an excellent job of not making either order or chaos good, or evil, but rather showed how both could be good, or evil.
Before someone says, how come no lawful evil? Barbara Kesel said in a letter column that she intended to have an evil Order agent show up next, but then they canceled the series due to a series of bad editorial decisions (and low circulation numbers, though not just those). So sadly, we didn't get their version of what lawful evil would look like. But you can definitely see Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Evil on full display in Dove, Hawk, and Kestrel.
They also showed a True Neutral character (named Barter) a few times.... he wanted to sell items to make a profit, and was bound to do so for reasons I will not go into here, but he didn't care to whom he sold, good, evil, neutral, chaos, law, or otherwise.
I'd argue that Hawk's girlfriend, Renata Takamuri, is probably Neutral Good. But she was just a supporting character and did not have any super powers.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't disagree that that's how the PHB presents it; I just don't think that's interesting or useful. Anti-authoritarian doesn't mean anti-society; indeed, I think it's impossible to be Good and not believe in society. I'm saying that Chaotic Good believes in a society where everyone is an equal participant, while Lawful Good believes in a society of wise rulers and the happy ruled who benefit from that wisdom without having any meaningful societal power for themselves. I don't see any meaningful distinction whatsoever between what you (and the PHB) describe as Chaotic Good and what you (and the PHB) describe as Neutral Good.
You have to remember that law/chaos axis exists independently of the good/evil axis. It has to mean something, and the way you describe it, I can't tell that it does.
I think LG characters can see the value of egalitarian societies, and CG characters can be realistic enough to know that doing away with a stratified society won't necessarily result in progress. Being lawful doesn't mean believing having a hierarchy is better than not, and being chaotic doesn't mean you never believe you know better than others and should thus act on that personal opinion.
Very approximatively: LG characters address the needs they know about; NG characters address the needs they see; CG characters address the needs they care about. In practice, this might mean that when there's a famine LG characters might try to feed everyone as fairly as possible even if that means nobody gets to be well fed (but everyone is treated equally), NG characters might try to distribute more food to whoever needs more (like the sick) by giving less to who needs less (young adults, maybe) to try and maximize survival rates, and CG characters will likely prioritize whoever they want to save most (children, for instance) even if that might mean more suffering for others. All these are well-intentioned, valid and good choices. Whichever way a character leans has nothing to do with the good-evil axis of alignment, it's purely about how to do good.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Can you explain how any of the distinctions you draw engage with law and chaos? Law and chaos are about power structures. Honestly, every single one of your examples seems like "neutral good" or rather "good in such a way that law and chaos are not relevant" (though honestly, your description of Chaotic Good reads as True Neutral to me). I really don't see how the scenario you've devised demonstrates the law/evil axis in any way.
I really don't think they are. Good and Evil are about morals/ethics, Law and Chaos are more about values, about what matters to an individual.
In truth, I think the representation of one Good - Evil axis and a completely separate Law - Chaos axis does alignment a bit of a disservice, certainly in 5E. If you look at the nine alignments' descriptions in the PHB, LG is not really the Good version of LE or LN, CG is not the Chaotic version of NG or LG, and so on. The two aspects do interact somewhat.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Lawful Good characters value what is right just as highly as what is good, while Chaotic Good characters value what is good high above what is right. By "good" I mean what results in the most happiness for the most people, and by "right" I mean a character's internal moral code (which has nothing to do with the laws of their society).
In "Sophie's Choice," the character Sophie is forced by the Nazis to choose one of her two children to save, and if she does not, both will die. Sophie knows it is wrong to choose, but it will also result in more good, since at least one child survives. An ideal Lawful Good Sophie does not make the choice, while an ideal Chaotic Good Sophie does. So essentially, Good and Evil are about ends, while Law and Chaos are about means.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I agree, chaotic characters don't have to be revolutionaries to disagree with authoritarianism.
As many people have noted above, alignment is a guideline. No labelling scheme can be perfect, and one that labels all sapient creatures into only nine boxes is always going to be rough and inexact.
The way I have dealt with it in the past is to get a big piece of paper, write the Law-CHaos and Good-Evil axes, and then just start putting single words and phrases down.
For example:
Law: tradition, order, convention, predictability, reliability, honour, organisation, group-oriented.
Chaos: innovation, creation, flexibility, noncomformism, revolution, anarchy, individual-oriented.
Many years ago--very likely 25 or more--Dragon published my article on alignments.
The article I submitted was simple and straightforward, but the way Dragon's editors edited it made it incomprehensible. When I had my DM friend compare my submission to the published version, he said, "Well, there's where you went wrong. TSR [as it was then] doesn't want anyone to even consider playing Chaotic characters."
With 5e's character traits now in the game, there's now player opportunity for reasonable dynamic--not static--alignment play. It's what the character does that determines his/her/its alignment--not what it describes itself to be.
Basically, I took the four corners of the alignment grid, that would be LG, LE, CG, and CE, requiring them to choose orders of behavior or allegiances. The lawfuls accepted seven possible social allegiances, the LGs placing "self" as seventh, the LEs placing "self" as first. The chaotics, on the other hand, conditioned their behaviors on superstitions, the CGs recognizing seven ranks of good luck, the CEs seven ranks of bad luck.
So my answer to your top question is this. An LG character fixes his mores on his society, i.e., family, native land, race, company, ruler, deity, and as I said, self always ranks last. The paladin alone has a fixed social order: deity, ruler, native land, company, race, family, self. The character expresses these allegiances via some clear obligation, typically service, protection, or sacrifice. When these obligations are not met--especially for the top two in his rank, the character may suffer loss of rank or esteem, requiring atonement. The CG character's good luck centers in one each of seven areas: the heavens, animal life, plant life, energies of the inanimate (namely, minerals, metals, and crystals), abstract numbers, principal colors, ingestion of particular foods or drink. That leaves the NG character to blend 4 social allegiances and 3 superstitions, or vice versa, as the player views the character. The remaining alignments you should be able to extrapolate. Except the true neutral who will always have at least one good luck superstition and one bad luck superstition.
I still believe these particulars are eminently more playable than 5e's current traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. I wouldn't doubt that you've already had a player with a lucky number, weapon or hat, or some such, so that isn't entirely new. And no doubt you've seen a pig-headed paladin who is so rigid that he can't see the practicality of leaving one last evil opponent alive to suffer its own fate. Well, that's DnD and the many, many stories that evolve. And it's certainly possible for characters to pick up new allegiances and/or superstitions during game play. I wouldn't like them to discard any; I want characters to get unwieldy as they advance in ability.
By the way, you can find a cursory description of animism on p12 of DMG. However, I strongly recommend you read the Wikipedia article on animism, especially referring to the 12 noted authors who base their storytelling on animist beliefs. Present day anthropology no longer regards animism as primitive religion. That's a key takeaway.
Do you think the alignment system should be revamped in order to better describe characters?
Good point, a thief can make all kinds of different arguments for stealing, but when it comes down to morality it's about who that person is, their circumstances and the consequences of their actions. The most important factor of those three things is who the person is: Say the thief was poor and at the brink starvation, and he stole some food; would you blame him for stealing, it could seem arguable, because it's a life or death situation? But what if he was well-fed, rich and could have just bought it? Situations can affect our choices, but if the thief stole when he didn't need to, then that's part of who he is unconditionally.
However, although the things a person does in most cases describe who they are, it's unclear how many truly different situations a person would have to be in order to properly describe their morality, let alone their entire existence.
Again, a character's morality doesn't define them. They define their morality., which is nuanced and can evolve.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I enjoy a good discussion on Alignment. It is always interesting to see what people think. I don't think I've ever seen any two people agree on the finer points.
When I can't sleep, Alignment is one of the things I ponder. It is occasionally even useful for my games. So what is my take?
People seem to have a good handle on Good and Evil. Good in particular. I see Alignment in terms of what makes the character happy. What do they do to make themselves happy? What makes them comfortable? I see Good and Evil as the Moral axis, Law and Chaos as the Ethical one. Good and Evil deals with people and how you relate to them, Law and Chaos governs how you relate to society as a whole. My experience with Evil in play is that people don't go far enough. I see Evil in terms of malice and malevolence, they talk about selfishness, greed, and the desire for power. That's not Evil. My experience with Chaos in play is that people don't understand it. They don't see Chaos in terms of Freedom and Rebellion. They talk about randomness, or unpredictability.
If you want unpredictability, that is True Neutrality. That's what he majority of people actually are. The only thing they really care about is themselves. If nobody else is getting hurt, there is no Evil. Neutrality is the Alignment of I Do Whatever I Want. A Chaotic will go out of their way to do things to their own detriment in the cause of freedom.
Evil is the desire to do bad things to other people. They want to make other people hurt, to make them suffer, to destroy their things, drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentations of their beloveds. Killing isn't nearly as much fun. It doesn't last, and you can't glory in their misery if they are dead. Evil is the Alignment of Fiends. Not surprisingly, Fiends are fiendish. They are cruel. They are rude, crude, and sometimes socially unacceptable. They kick puppies, rob widows and steal things just to destroy them. Killing someone right in front of their children isn't about the one they killed, it's about the making the children suffer. They want to see those kids live a long time, so the pain and trauma can haunt them as long as they live. A Fiend might even protect those children, just so their anguish can go on and on.
Chaos is the desire to do what you want to other people. They want to make other people rebel, the make them disobedient. They champion the cause of freedom. and power is just a tool. A means to an end. Good people seek it out just as much as Evil ones do. Good people use it to help, Evil to harm. If Evil is for Fiends, then Good is for Celestials. Those are benevolent. They are polite, refined, and yet they are still sometimes socially unacceptable. They want to help and heal, to be kind, to do what is right, to be fair and just, to allow everyone to be free to follow the rules because they want to, and they may need to apply a little force to make that happen. A Celestial might rescue someone and their children, and even protect them, because that's what will make everyone happy.
Nine Alignments, and two words to describe each. All it amounts to is a roleplaying hook. Alignment is helpful if you want to play something you are not and need a little help figuring out how. If I was Lawful, how would I approach the problem of a beggar in the streets? What if begging in public is against the law? Do I give money to them? Do I donate to a charity that helps beggars? If I take the beggar somewhere private does that get around the law? The exact same questions asked of a Chaotic produce entirely different answers. How do I make myself happy and do the ends justify the means? Does might make right?
The way I look at things, the only time Alignment really matters in the game outside of pure roleplaying is if you put yourself at a disadvantage in order to help someone else. That would be worth an Inspiration Die.
<Insert clever signature here>
Personally, I believe the 2D alignment grid is so difficult to understand and play "correctly" because it is a vast oversimplification of complex moral, ethical and personal questions. The lawful/chaotic axis, in particular, is very ill defined and attempts to bundle many potentially-contradictory characteristics into a single "value". It is often talked of as if from an objective point of view, but is entirely subjective. One person is likely to view things very differently to another.
I can see it as occasionally being a good starting point for definition of the moral and ethical makeup of an NPC, viewed from the perspective of the party, but beyond that... I'd rather think in terms of the values of the characters rather than some arbitrary, ill-defined grid.
Then again, I also don't play in any of the official settings where alignment is intended to be absolutely objective from some mystical standpoint. I dislike that view of the world, as IMHO it encourages thought patterns which I find distasteful. If you are playing in one of those settings... Good luck!