The best way to think of alignment is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive. It's there to help you roleplay concepts and moral viewpoints you might not live out in your real life, not to tell you what to do or how you must act.
In that vein, it's highly interpretive (this is a feature, not a bug), so it all depends on how you and your DM agree how terms like "law" and "Chaos" and "good" and "evil" interact, and what you feel they describe when next to each other in different combos.
In my opinion, alignment isn't your personality or your beliefs. It's focused around your goals, and what you'll do to achieve them. Depending on their ability scores, a CE fiend could be a manipulating mastermind plotting to destroy the multiverse, or a lowly dretch attacking on sight. Alignment ties to your goals and means, not the way you act or behave.
For example, let's a take a human who wants to end all war. That's definitely a noble goal, but what's equally important is how they achieve it. If they wipe out war by killing half the planet's population *ahem* that makes them evil, or neutral at best. The means matter just as much as the end. But if they want to wipe out war by having various different countries sign treaties and alliances, that would make them good.
So a good aligned character has to have a goal that *purposefully* benefits others, and they have to bring about that goal in a way that doesn't have a conscious negative impact. An evil character can have the exact same goal, but they reach that goal in a way that has a conscious negative impact, often one that involves people dying or being put into poverty. Of course, a typical villainous character could also have a selfish goal- ruling the world, or getting revenge. A neutral character is one whose goal has a net benefit of 0 for society (no matter how large or small that may be ) as a whole, or one that benefits them (and possibly some others they're close to) without detrimenting anyone else.
But what about law and chaos? Well, they're tied closely to means. Let's go back to our original example. Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win. Someone who does is through treaties and alliances is lawful, since they use the law to achieve their goal without going against the rules of society. They obey the laws, even though there might be a quicker way if they didn't. That's what makes someone lawful or chaotic. A neutral person isn't concerned with either, just with what will provide the most benefit to themselves or to others, depending on whether they're good or evil. They'll follow the law not because it's the law, but because it helps them achieve their goal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win.
You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win.
You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
I can't be the only one who thinks neutral evil is comparatively poorly defined concept compared to LE, CE, and even the other neutral alignments. What exactly IS neutral evil? Lawful evil is evil on a leash, and chaotic evil is evil without that leash.
Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win.
You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
Lawful and Chaotic have nothing to do with rules and laws and everything to do with a personal code (which may or may not involve laws). Thanos is very much Lawful Evil. He’s doing what he believes in with no benefit for himself (neutral evil) or enjoyment (chaotic evil). And he is following a code, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have done what he had to do to get the Soul Stone. He had greater things in mind. His code may be evil, but it’s not selfish.
As to “what is neutral evil,” Lawful Evil is evil for a cause, Neutral Evil is evil because it benefits you (power, money, etc), and Chaotic Evil is evil because you enjoy watching people suffer. It’s about motive, even if the results are often the same.
Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win.
You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
Lawful and Chaotic have nothing to do with rules and laws and everything to do with a personal code (which may or may not involve laws). Thanos is very much Lawful Evil. He’s doing what he believes in with no benefit for himself (neutral evil) or enjoyment (chaotic evil). And he is following a code, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have done what he had to do to get the Soul Stone. He had greater things in mind. His code may be evil, but it’s not selfish.
Chaotic =/= Selfish. A Chaotic Good character isn't a selfish one, and even a CE character doesn't have to be. An LG person can be as good as a CG or NG one, and a CE person can be just as a LE or NE one. Devils aren't "better" than demons or yugoloths. Thanos I would categorize around CE or NE. He doesn't care about anyone besides Gamora, and he reflects what happened to his planet onto the galaxy. Just because he's CE doesn't mean he has to be a sadistic sociopath. He has no morals when it comes to achieving his goal, and using your example of the Soul Stone, he cares more about his goal than those he loves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
As to “what is neutral evil,” Lawful Evil is evil for a cause, Neutral Evil is evil because it benefits you (power, money, etc), and Chaotic Evil is evil because you enjoy watching people suffer. It’s about motive, even if the results are often the same.
okay i dont wanna be annoying or anything but are money and power not often the "cause" of evil?
As to “what is neutral evil,” Lawful Evil is evil for a cause, Neutral Evil is evil because it benefits you (power, money, etc), and Chaotic Evil is evil because you enjoy watching people suffer. It’s about motive, even if the results are often the same.
Those are not absolutes, those are stereotypes. Are devils evil for a cause besides power? Not really, so they'd have to be NE by your definition. But wait, they also enjoy watching people suffer, so they'd be CE. The chaotic/lawful axis is about how you achieve your goals, not why you have them. Devils obey a strict code in obtaining power, while demons do it by any means necessary. A LG character would follow their personal code while attempting to benefit society, and a CG character would obey no laws while doing the same. Both can be heroes, but they use different means. Captain America is LG, while Batman is CG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win.
1) You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
2) In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
1) A lawful character would tackle the problem in accordance with society's views; a chaotic character would tackle the problem in whatever way they think is best without considering others' opinions; a neutral character would try to find a balance between the two.Neutrals don't go against society unless they feel it's warranted; for chaotics the end justifies the means.
2) Not at all. Just like lawfuls don't obey the law for the sake of obeying the law, chaotics don't break the law for the sake of breaking the law (extremists notwithstanding). Acting in a particular way isn't a goal. Getting stuff done is a goal. A lawful character doesn't deliberately cross the street every time they get to a crosswalk to demonstrate they strictly follow traffic laws, and a chaotic character doesn't deliberately jaywalk eight times in order to break traffic laws and end up on the same side of the street they started out on. If they need to get across one will use the crosswalk and the other won't; if they don't need to get across neither will cross the street.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As to “what is neutral evil,” Lawful Evil is evil for a cause, Neutral Evil is evil because it benefits you (power, money, etc), and Chaotic Evil is evil because you enjoy watching people suffer. It’s about motive, even if the results are often the same.
That directly contradicts the PHB:
Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
But then again, this is part of why it's such a terrible concept IMHO. It is a bad attempt to vastly oversimplify a complex and nuanced set of ideals, characteristics and attitudes, and attempts to make an objective determination on a very subjective matter.
We are generally used to oversimplification of good and evil in literature, especially the fantasy genre, so it can work (even though I dislike it). However, attempting to apply this to other areas of ethics and morals using only one additional variable.... I'm not on board.
As to “what is neutral evil,” Lawful Evil is evil for a cause, Neutral Evil is evil because it benefits you (power, money, etc), and Chaotic Evil is evil because you enjoy watching people suffer. It’s about motive, even if the results are often the same.
okay i dont wanna be annoying or anything but are money and power not often the "cause" of evil?
Simply having wealth and/or power in and of itself is not evil. How one goes about acquiring them and what one does with them can determine if the person in question is or isn't evil. Acquiring wealth through honest hard work to accomplish some goal of greater good, or climbing up the ladder of power by ones own merit and skills in order to be in a position to enact positive and beneficial change would seem like acts of good to me.
Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win.
You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
I can't be the only one who thinks neutral evil is comparatively poorly defined concept compared to LE, CE, and even the other neutral alignments. What exactly IS neutral evil? Lawful evil is evil on a leash, and chaotic evil is evil without that leash.
First of all, LE isn’t evil on a leash; it’s evil holding a leash. But this is really easy to answer if you understand law/chaos as a character’s relationship to power structures. Lawful evil wants to leash everything for the sake of personal power, chaotic evil wants to destroy all leashes for the sake of personal power, and neutral evil doesn’t care about leashes; it’ll use a leash when necessary or destroy one when necessary, because the abstract of concept of leashes holds no value to it, either positive or negative.
Neutral alignments are… kind of boring. They’re for people who would rather just ignore the axis in question. If you don’t want to think critically about who gets to have power in your society and why, then NG and NE are for you.
Those are not absolutes, those are stereotypes. Are devils evil for a cause besides power? Not really, so they'd have to be NE by your definition. But wait, they also enjoy watching people suffer, so they'd be CE. The chaotic/lawful axis is about how you achieve your goals, not why you have them. Devils obey a strict code in obtaining power, while demons do it by any means necessary. A LG character would follow their personal code while attempting to benefit society, and a CG character would obey no laws while doing the same. Both can be heroes, but they use different means. Captain America is LG, while Batman is CG.
You see, again, this doesn't necessarily fit. In fact, it would be plausible to argue these the other way around, especially in particular circumstances.
Batman, it could be argued, is enforcing societies rules. He even comes when called by the police. He may be operating as a vigilante, but those he goes after are criminals. He is only breaking the law in order to enforce the law, seeing as those who should be enforcing the law are unable (or unwilling) to do so.
However Captain America, in Civil War, argues strongly against being placed under the control of a lawful body, and even specifically breaks the law in order to do what he believes is right. He strongly argues that he should decide for himself where to apply his abilities, that he knows better than those making the rules.
So, even this seemingly straightforward example falls down when seen beyond the lightest surface touch.
Those are not absolutes, those are stereotypes. Are devils evil for a cause besides power? Not really, so they'd have to be NE by your definition. But wait, they also enjoy watching people suffer, so they'd be CE. The chaotic/lawful axis is about how you achieve your goals, not why you have them. Devils obey a strict code in obtaining power, while demons do it by any means necessary. A LG character would follow their personal code while attempting to benefit society, and a CG character would obey no laws while doing the same. Both can be heroes, but they use different means. Captain America is LG, while Batman is CG.
You see, again, this doesn't necessarily fit. In fact, it would be plausible to argue these the other way around, especially in particular circumstances.
Batman, it could be argued, is enforcing societies rules. He even comes when called by the police. He may be operating as a vigilante, but those he goes after are criminals. He is only breaking the law in order to enforce the law, seeing as those who should be enforcing the law are unable (or unwilling) to do so.
However Captain America, in Civil War, argues strongly against being placed under the control of a lawful body, and even specifically breaks the law in order to do what he believes is right. He strongly argues that he should decide for himself where to apply his abilities, that he knows better than those making the rules.
So, even this seemingly straightforward example falls down when seen beyond the lightest surface touch.
The point, again, isn't that they follow the law. They follow their personal codes, which may or may not be the law. Captain America definitely has a moral code. He's not the kind of person to put the greater good over someone's life. Batman is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
The point, again, isn't that they follow the law. They follow their personal codes, which may or may not be the law. Captain America definitely has a moral code. He's not the kind of person to put the greater good over someone's life. Batman is.
Again, that doesn't really fit the PHB description. It says the L/C axis describes "attitudes toward society and order".
For Batman, society and order have completely disintegrated in Gotham. He attempts to rebuild and reinforce society and order by eliminating the elements of chaos within the community.
For Cap, he is completely willing to abandon the strictures of society and order (in the form of his superiors) to follow his own, personal moral code.
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.
Hierarchies might be too much, social structures and conventions is a better way of looking at it.
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.
Strong disagree. Lawful good says nothing about that there hase to be people with power and people without power nor that the reason for this is because it's easier. A lawful (good) person believs that there should be order to society but that order doesn't have to mean that some people neccesarily are above other people.
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.
Again, doesn't have to be like that. Rather, a chaotic good person would let the laws and norms of society to come in the way of doing what is "good".
The difference between a lawful good person and a chaotic good person is that the lawful person will, as far as possible, strive to do good within the system whereas the chaotic person won't care about if they work within the confines of the system or not.
I think people are actually OVERSTATING the law v chaos distinction; at least vis a vis good. Lawful Good and Chaotic Good each NEED the other. One explores and the other curates, catalogs, and preserves what the explorers find. Without LG people to keep the bills paid, CG people would end up swamped by boring details and couldn’t tell where they were going because nobody kept a record of where they’d been. They’d just spin their wheels in the mud until they slid down to CN. Without CG people, LG people would have nothing to do but bicker over minutiae until they slid down into LN. They keep each other honest.
The best way to think of alignment is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive. It's there to help you roleplay concepts and moral viewpoints you might not live out in your real life, not to tell you what to do or how you must act.
In that vein, it's highly interpretive (this is a feature, not a bug), so it all depends on how you and your DM agree how terms like "law" and "Chaos" and "good" and "evil" interact, and what you feel they describe when next to each other in different combos.
In my opinion, alignment isn't your personality or your beliefs. It's focused around your goals, and what you'll do to achieve them. Depending on their ability scores, a CE fiend could be a manipulating mastermind plotting to destroy the multiverse, or a lowly dretch attacking on sight. Alignment ties to your goals and means, not the way you act or behave.
For example, let's a take a human who wants to end all war. That's definitely a noble goal, but what's equally important is how they achieve it. If they wipe out war by killing half the planet's population *ahem* that makes them evil, or neutral at best. The means matter just as much as the end. But if they want to wipe out war by having various different countries sign treaties and alliances, that would make them good.
So a good aligned character has to have a goal that *purposefully* benefits others, and they have to bring about that goal in a way that doesn't have a conscious negative impact. An evil character can have the exact same goal, but they reach that goal in a way that has a conscious negative impact, often one that involves people dying or being put into poverty. Of course, a typical villainous character could also have a selfish goal- ruling the world, or getting revenge. A neutral character is one whose goal has a net benefit of 0 for society (no matter how large or small that may be ) as a whole, or one that benefits them (and possibly some others they're close to) without detrimenting anyone else.
But what about law and chaos? Well, they're tied closely to means. Let's go back to our original example. Someone who wants to end war by wiping out half of all life, no matter what, is chaotic. They don't follow any morals or laws. They don't fight fair, they fight to win. Someone who does is through treaties and alliances is lawful, since they use the law to achieve their goal without going against the rules of society. They obey the laws, even though there might be a quicker way if they didn't. That's what makes someone lawful or chaotic. A neutral person isn't concerned with either, just with what will provide the most benefit to themselves or to others, depending on whether they're good or evil. They'll follow the law not because it's the law, but because it helps them achieve their goal.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
You see, this feels more neutral to me. They don't care whether what they do conforms to any laws, they just do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal. If following the law is the best way, they will do that, but would be equally happy breaking any law needed to do what needs to be done.
In order to be the opposite of Lawful, a Chaotic character would surely have to deliberately refuse to follow any rules or laws. Even if the most effective way to accomplish their goal involved following the law of the land, they would choose a more difficult path which broke the law.
I can't be the only one who thinks neutral evil is comparatively poorly defined concept compared to LE, CE, and even the other neutral alignments. What exactly IS neutral evil? Lawful evil is evil on a leash, and chaotic evil is evil without that leash.
"h"
Lawful and Chaotic have nothing to do with rules and laws and everything to do with a personal code (which may or may not involve laws). Thanos is very much Lawful Evil. He’s doing what he believes in with no benefit for himself (neutral evil) or enjoyment (chaotic evil). And he is following a code, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have done what he had to do to get the Soul Stone. He had greater things in mind. His code may be evil, but it’s not selfish.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
As to “what is neutral evil,” Lawful Evil is evil for a cause, Neutral Evil is evil because it benefits you (power, money, etc), and Chaotic Evil is evil because you enjoy watching people suffer. It’s about motive, even if the results are often the same.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Chaotic =/= Selfish. A Chaotic Good character isn't a selfish one, and even a CE character doesn't have to be. An LG person can be as good as a CG or NG one, and a CE person can be just as a LE or NE one. Devils aren't "better" than demons or yugoloths. Thanos I would categorize around CE or NE. He doesn't care about anyone besides Gamora, and he reflects what happened to his planet onto the galaxy. Just because he's CE doesn't mean he has to be a sadistic sociopath. He has no morals when it comes to achieving his goal, and using your example of the Soul Stone, he cares more about his goal than those he loves.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
okay i dont wanna be annoying or anything but are money and power not often the "cause" of evil?
"h"
Those are not absolutes, those are stereotypes. Are devils evil for a cause besides power? Not really, so they'd have to be NE by your definition. But wait, they also enjoy watching people suffer, so they'd be CE. The chaotic/lawful axis is about how you achieve your goals, not why you have them. Devils obey a strict code in obtaining power, while demons do it by any means necessary. A LG character would follow their personal code while attempting to benefit society, and a CG character would obey no laws while doing the same. Both can be heroes, but they use different means. Captain America is LG, while Batman is CG.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
1) A lawful character would tackle the problem in accordance with society's views; a chaotic character would tackle the problem in whatever way they think is best without considering others' opinions; a neutral character would try to find a balance between the two.Neutrals don't go against society unless they feel it's warranted; for chaotics the end justifies the means.
2) Not at all. Just like lawfuls don't obey the law for the sake of obeying the law, chaotics don't break the law for the sake of breaking the law (extremists notwithstanding). Acting in a particular way isn't a goal. Getting stuff done is a goal. A lawful character doesn't deliberately cross the street every time they get to a crosswalk to demonstrate they strictly follow traffic laws, and a chaotic character doesn't deliberately jaywalk eight times in order to break traffic laws and end up on the same side of the street they started out on. If they need to get across one will use the crosswalk and the other won't; if they don't need to get across neither will cross the street.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That directly contradicts the PHB:
But then again, this is part of why it's such a terrible concept IMHO. It is a bad attempt to vastly oversimplify a complex and nuanced set of ideals, characteristics and attitudes, and attempts to make an objective determination on a very subjective matter.
We are generally used to oversimplification of good and evil in literature, especially the fantasy genre, so it can work (even though I dislike it). However, attempting to apply this to other areas of ethics and morals using only one additional variable.... I'm not on board.
Simply having wealth and/or power in and of itself is not evil. How one goes about acquiring them and what one does with them can determine if the person in question is or isn't evil. Acquiring wealth through honest hard work to accomplish some goal of greater good, or climbing up the ladder of power by ones own merit and skills in order to be in a position to enact positive and beneficial change would seem like acts of good to me.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
First of all, LE isn’t evil on a leash; it’s evil holding a leash. But this is really easy to answer if you understand law/chaos as a character’s relationship to power structures. Lawful evil wants to leash everything for the sake of personal power, chaotic evil wants to destroy all leashes for the sake of personal power, and neutral evil doesn’t care about leashes; it’ll use a leash when necessary or destroy one when necessary, because the abstract of concept of leashes holds no value to it, either positive or negative.
Neutral alignments are… kind of boring. They’re for people who would rather just ignore the axis in question. If you don’t want to think critically about who gets to have power in your society and why, then NG and NE are for you.
You see, again, this doesn't necessarily fit. In fact, it would be plausible to argue these the other way around, especially in particular circumstances.
Batman, it could be argued, is enforcing societies rules. He even comes when called by the police. He may be operating as a vigilante, but those he goes after are criminals. He is only breaking the law in order to enforce the law, seeing as those who should be enforcing the law are unable (or unwilling) to do so.
However Captain America, in Civil War, argues strongly against being placed under the control of a lawful body, and even specifically breaks the law in order to do what he believes is right. He strongly argues that he should decide for himself where to apply his abilities, that he knows better than those making the rules.
So, even this seemingly straightforward example falls down when seen beyond the lightest surface touch.
The point, again, isn't that they follow the law. They follow their personal codes, which may or may not be the law. Captain America definitely has a moral code. He's not the kind of person to put the greater good over someone's life. Batman is.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Again, that doesn't really fit the PHB description. It says the L/C axis describes "attitudes toward society and order".
For Batman, society and order have completely disintegrated in Gotham. He attempts to rebuild and reinforce society and order by eliminating the elements of chaos within the community.
For Cap, he is completely willing to abandon the strictures of society and order (in the form of his superiors) to follow his own, personal moral code.
Hierarchies might be too much, social structures and conventions is a better way of looking at it.
Strong disagree. Lawful good says nothing about that there hase to be people with power and people without power nor that the reason for this is because it's easier. A lawful (good) person believs that there should be order to society but that order doesn't have to mean that some people neccesarily are above other people.
Again, doesn't have to be like that. Rather, a chaotic good person would let the laws and norms of society to come in the way of doing what is "good".
The difference between a lawful good person and a chaotic good person is that the lawful person will, as far as possible, strive to do good within the system whereas the chaotic person won't care about if they work within the confines of the system or not.
Funny thing is, this whole discussion is just another reason why I’m thinking of using only the Good/Neutral/Evil alignments in my games.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I think people are actually OVERSTATING the law v chaos distinction; at least vis a vis good. Lawful Good and Chaotic Good each NEED the other. One explores and the other curates, catalogs, and preserves what the explorers find. Without LG people to keep the bills paid, CG people would end up swamped by boring details and couldn’t tell where they were going because nobody kept a record of where they’d been. They’d just spin their wheels in the mud until they slid down to CN. Without CG people, LG people would have nothing to do but bicker over minutiae until they slid down into LN. They keep each other honest.
90% of the people in this thread are already doing that without realizing it :p In their defense, the PHB kind of does it too.