Board 8 > Has there ever been a good definition for alignments in d&d

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lopen posted...

I don't think there's anything that says that Thanos wants "order." I'm pretty sure he just wants the universe to thrive by whatever means is most effective, not by limiting chaos or whatever.

Well then I guess that's where we disagree. Becase I don't think Thanos wants it to thrive using whatever method is best. I think he wants it to thrive in a way that is exactly in line with the standard he has already decided - the arbritary standard of "half the people are fucking dead." Thanos would consider the method AND result equally important. This deliberate process of following a specific ideal and wanting to make the entire universe follow for its own good is what I view as lawful.

But of course, nothing says that explicitly. It's all subtext and my interpretation because otherwise Thanos's plan doesn't make much sense. As I said before, if you take Thanos at his word and assume he is truly altruistic and opportunist, he is neutral.
---

guys it's literally "perfectly balanced as all things should be" not "perfectly ordered as all things should be"

thanos is the definition of neutral

now while he probably believes he is true neutral, there's a really good case for him being neutral evil

because, you know, mass genocide

lawful should literally not be in this discussion at all.

'cold, dispassionate, random.'

doesn't sound like a very lawful guy, does he?
---

Good vs Evil on some act of questionable morality, let's narrow it down to killing here, is basically

Good = does it for the sake of helping others as priority one

Neutral = does it for the sake of some outside influence, an ideal, or whatever, guiding the decision that is neither rooted entirely on helping yourself or others. The Hulk as probably the best MCU example of neutrality just indiscriminately kills things that are in his way like a force of nature-- it's not explicitly evil because he's not really doing it in a way to better himself-- like he can usually just ignore these things he kills and probably would be no worse for it.

Evil = does it for the sake of furthering themselves as priority one

Respecting the will of the victim or the ones you're helping is also part of the equation, generally respecting their will leaning you towards good. And obviously you avoid killing whenever possible as someone of good alignment but when killing becomes the unavoidable solution to a problem that's when it gets sketchy.

Overall I would say Thanos as presented is closest to neutral due to a mix of everything involved, but yeah, there is a lot that's open to interpretation there.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Well then I guess that's where we disagree. Becase I don't think Thanos wants it to thrive using whatever method is best. I think he wants it to thrive in a way that is exactly in line with the standard he has already decided - the arbritary standard of "half the people are fucking dead." Thanos would consider the method AND result equally important. This deliberate process of following a specific ideal and wanting to make the entire universe follow for its own good is what I view as lawful.

My big hangup is I don't feel like Thanos's plan doesn't really makes sense to come from the mind of a lawful person. From a neutral mind makes sense as you could buy that as a path of least resistance. From a chaotic mind it could actually make sense too if the idea of randomness is inherent to the plan being the ideal on enforcing it-- that's why I initially said I could even see an argument for Chaotic Neutral more than lawful.

While it is an ideal that could technically be lawful if you're thinking it absolutely has to be done that way and you're forcing that on the populace, if nothing else I feel like a lawful mind would be more calculated in how they make the distinction in their mass genocide rather than just randomly doing it. This feels more like a process generated by the conclusion of a mind who doesn't care how, just wants half of the things removed ASAP.
---

Lopen posted...

My big hangup is I don't feel like Thanos's plan doesn't really makes sense to come from the mind of a lawful person. From a neutral mind makes sense as you could buy that as a path of least resistance. From a chaotic mind it could actually make sense too if the idea of randomness is inherent to the plan being the ideal on enforcing it-- that's why I initially said I could even see an argument for Chaotic Neutral more than lawful.

While it is an ideal that could technically be lawful if you're thinking it absolutely has to be done that way and you're forcing that on the populace, if nothing else I feel like a lawful mind would be more calculated in how they make the distinction in their mass genocide rather than just randomly doing it. This feels more like a process generated by the conclusion of a mind who doesn't care how, just wants half of the things removed ASAP.

I probably wont be able to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound stupid, but I don't view the random killing as chaotic. On such a big scale, it's just a statistic. I cannot think of anything more neutral than reliable randomness (except doing literally nothing), which is why you're able to make the argument for it across the entire lawful-chaotic axis. The scientific method isn't any more chaotic for utilizing controlled randomness as a useful tool.

I think of the dystopian fascist society trope where people are killed by lottery as population control. Is that not a "lawful" thing for a fictional society to do? It's still extremely structured but in a way that doesn't care for the specifics of the end result. I dont think it's out of the question.
---

Yeah like I said I think there are ways to reach that I just think we need more evidence to support it. I don't think it's the implication given at all. I also don't think that's the likely approach a lawful person is taking with it either. If he said outright that's why he did it that way and had to do it way I wouldn't call the character poorly written or anything-- I'd say "that makes sense" but in the absence of a motivationdump from Thanos neutral fits best to me and it's by a pretty sizable margin. Evil vs Neutral on the G/E spectrum I think there's a bit more wiggle room.

I agree you can go with any of the three though and it's just how big of a leap you gotta make to get there. It's also possible that one of the three makes the most sense looking from the lens of comic Thanos, but I don't know comic Thanos well enough to make that distinction.
---

Nah, he's definitely not Evil.

Thanos genuinely believes he is doing what he is doing for the benefit of the universe - he's closer to Good than Evil.
---

Comic Thanos just wants some pussy, he's basically irrelevant to this.

And yeah I agree at face value, he's neutral. But I don't think it's a huge leap. It's just assuming that Thanos will turn out to be wrong, and also that Thanos is too smart to not know that on some level. But maybe I'm overanalyzing it. The alternative is that Thanos is right, which would be pretty dumb.

I guess this does show how subjective the moral axes are!
---

I mean Thanos can be right and his necessary methods can be abhorrent enough to still make him "wrong" morally. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means!
---

GildedFool posted...

Thanos genuinely believes he is doing what he is doing for the benefit of the universe - he's closer to Good than Evil.

according to this logic everyone is Good

so no
---

I'm not sure I agree with that. Plenty of villains openly don't care about the universe, society, or anything else, and are just out to get theirs.

But I also agree that being delusional shouldn't just make you good for free either. Plenty characters that are evil think they're serving the greater good or a higher cause or whatever.

Thanos's idea makes just enough sense that I can't write it off as inherently evil though. A truly neutral mind could come up with that plot I think.
---

Someone should specify that this is just for the movie version of Thanos. Because the comic version of Thanos does it because he wants to impress a girl and his daddy didn't love him enough.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Someone should specify that this is just for the movie version of Thanos. Because the comic version of Thanos does it because he wants to impress a girl and his daddy didn't love him enough.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Comic Thanos just wants some pussy, he's basically irrelevant to this.

---

MariaTaylor posted...

GildedFool posted...

Thanos genuinely believes he is doing what he is doing for the benefit of the universe - he's closer to Good than Evil.

according to this logic everyone is Good

so no

To go back to a previous example - Scar doesn't believe what he's doing benefits the pack at all. He takes the actions he takes purely to benefit himself.
---

GildedFool posted...

To go back to a previous example - Scar doesn't believe what he's doing benefits the pack at all. He takes the actions he takes purely to benefit himself.

yeah, this comes from you having this misguided notion that the greater benefit to society is universally considered good by all. most people who do things that you or I would consider evil they don't think of themselves as evil. not everyone has the same moral compass as you and just chooses to be evil. it comes from them disagreeing with your way of thinking. scar doesn't think he has a moral obligation to benefit the pack -- he thinks there is nothing wrong with looking after himself above others.
---

Man, this topic has triggered me.

First of all, Gil, you know better than to use motivation singularly to determine alignment.

Second of all, I can accept the argument that Thanos is Neutral Evil. It's his way or the highway, so that strays enough from others where I can agree that he doesn't fit in entirely within existing boundaries. My thought with him as lawful is in terms of his goals - he wants to prevent the universe from dying by reducing the population. That is strict control. If you view the desolation of finite resources and problems that ensue as chaos, then he is directly opposed to that.

Now, what I absolutely cannot fathom at all, is anyone considering Thanos as not-evil. Like... murder is evil. He murders. A lot. This is even ignoring his whole plan... he just kills whoever is in his way. Even if you're making the argument that his goal is 'good', he would come up with some other plan. Disregard for the lives of others is evil. Flat out.

MariaTaylor posted...

guys it's literally "perfectly balanced as all things should be"

Here's where I break from D&D - I think balance is inherently lawful. Everything has a place, everything needs to be at a certain proportion to run, circle of life, all of that... that's totally lawful.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Here's where I break from D&D - I think balance is inherently lawful

To be fair D&D often uses desire for balance as a form of lawfulness. Like a favored monk alignment is Lawful Neutral and yeah that's basically the reason for it.

Now that being said I think the difference between balance seeking lawful and just seeking balance goes down to the belief of the character. I never get the feeling that Thanos has some sorta creedo that makes him want to achieve balance for the sake of it being balanced as much as a balance being the means to an end of causing good things. He's not killing off the world to achieve some sort of balance with the elements or the spirits or whatever.

Now that being said while murder is bad the purpose of the murder does matter quite a bit. Having a good intention isn't auto good but murdering things doesn't make you auto bad either. Like as I said earlier, I'm pretty sure everyone would call The Incredible Hulk pretty much the definition of Chaotic Neutral, but like, he kills stuff all the time. That's just what he is, a force of nature that kills things that get in his way. Beasts in general don't have morals to measure and so mostly fall into neutral. Thanos is most similar to a beast in his mindset-- he's not murdering strictly to further himself, it's more like just disposing of obstacles-- right and wrong don't really enter the equation for him so much and his goal is (in theory) a noble one. The fact that he kills Gamora to get the Soul Stone and legit seems to not want to do it and has grief about it, yet does it anyway because the goal is that important, shows that it's more complicated than he just kills things indiscriminately because he has no value for life

Like I said I respect calling him Neutral Evil but I do think just calling him straight True Neutral is about equally as valid.
---

Eh, I don't like True Neutral as an alignment. To me, it fits with unaligned - that is, beasts and things too dumb to go a certain direction. There is no morality that guides them.

Unless they're just beasts that like killing, then they swerve into chaotic evil.

If Thanos was truely true neutral, then I don't think he would care about the universe at all. It rests as a "he wants to save the universe while killing half of everybody" midpoint, but I think there is an inherent copout in choosing neutral as a midpoint. It's not neutral. He's very much an evil dude that seeks to preserve society and life... hence why I call him lawful evil. If he wasn't evil, his initial solution to Titan's problem wouldn't have been the death lottery.

As for the Gamora thing - evil characters can have positive feelings, like love. The fact that he's willing to kill who he loves for his goal further cements him into evil, in my opinion
---

Well, I'm not saying that evil things can't love, just that the fact that he sacrificed something he loved for the sake of his goal to me is a sign that it's not as simple as disregarding the value of life as much as thinking this goal is so good as to be worth sacrifices, and that he is willing to make them as well.

But yeah I'm also not saying it's neutral because it's half and half as a copout. I'm saying it's neutral because the goal is (theoretically) good and the killing is efficient obstacle removal. If he could as efficiently achieve his goal by ways of diplomacy, I have no reason to think he wouldn't. An evil person would more likely gain some sort of pleasure from the killing, or kill for trifling reasons. If your goal is the prosperity of the universe though? There's something to spin there.

Now it's a lot of killing so I can respect calling him evil just for that. I also think that giving people prosperity without asking for their input or anything on the costs also leans him that way, perhaps even moreso than the killing itself. But I think it's a bit more complicated than "he killed therefore he is evil."
---

I just figured they went something like:

--

Lawful Good: Law abiding guy. Does things by the book and by his own moral laws no matter what even if they get in the way

Neutral Good: Guy who does general good. Not really beholden to laws but doesn't go out of their way to break them unless its necessary or in certain circumstances

Chaotic Good: Do good and what they think is right at any cost. Fuck the laws and red tape if they get in the way.

--

Lawful Neutral: Follows the rules. Just someone doing their job.

True Neutral: Does whatever they want / need to at any given time. Someone who just wants to get through whatever situation they are in in one piece and / or possibly a bit richer.

Chaotic Neutral: Random. A non malicious trickster. Someone in it for the fun and adventure.

--

Lawful Evil: Bad guy who follows a code or set hierarchy / rules. Seeks to dominate the system and others. Will likely follow agreements and such but will also try to find a loop hole in it to still fuck you over

Neutral Evil: Bad guy who does whatever they can to get what they want. Will follow the rules only when it suits them and will betray people on a dime.

Chaotic Evil: Bad guy who just wants to fucking ruin everything for everyone and just be a destructive dickhead because they feel like it. Just go nuts!
---

True Neutral is old school John Constantine or Morrison Plastic Man in my mind.
---

Pirateking2000 posted...

Chaotic Neutral: Random. A non malicious trickster. Someone in it for the fun and adventure.

The whole CN "lol so random" thing might be my least favorite part of the alignment system? I've played multiple chaotic neutral characters who aren't "random" or "a trickster" or even "in it for fun and adventure"

Movie Thano is almost the epitome of True Neutral.

He literally wants to remove half of living things to bring balance between creatures and resources.

The murder is completely arbitrary.

In the old school D&D games, the textbook example of True Neutral given is something like, a PC who completes a quest to kill monsters who were killing too many hunters, and then immediately turning around and killing the hunters because they were killing too many animals.
---

Pirateking2000 posted...

True Neutral: Does whatever they want / need to at any given time. Someone who just wants to get through whatever situation they are in in one piece and / or possibly a bit richer.

Chaotic Neutral: Random. A non malicious trickster. Someone in it for the fun and adventure.

A True Neutral person is truly neutral. They strive for balance between Good and Evil.

Chaotic Neutral is a person who just does whatever, for whatever reasons, and what sets them apart from Good/Evil is that they do both.
---

The True Neutral trope is another thing I super hate

It feels like everyone treats True Neutral as either:

1) Someone who is absolutely committed to neutrality as an ideal
2) Someone who is merely always an opportunist

But there's a lot of other possibilties. There's TONS of personality types and ideologies that fall between good and evil; good/evil and lawful/chaotic are not the only ideologies, nor are they even really ideologies themselves. True Neutral can describe a range of possible things. So can Chaotic Neutral.

Also you don't have to do both good and evil to be neutral imo

To me good vs evil:

Good: Sacrifices themselves for others often, almost never sacrifices others for themselves
Evil: Sacrifices others for themselves often, almost never sacrifices themselves for others
Neutral: Doesn't fit either of these categories

So you can do both, or you can mostly keep to yourself, or maybe it's just complicated, because good vs evil is always complicated (if your storytelling is any good)

If you don't do both, you're Neutral Good or Neutral Evil, depending on which you do do.
---

but you can do neither

Pirateking2000 posted...

Chaotic Good: Do good and what they think is right at any cost. Fuck the laws and red tape if they get in the way.

your definitions are overall a bit too simple but this is one that no one else has commented on so far. what you're describing here is honestly closer to neutral than chaotic. a neutral character might obey the laws or they might not. a chaotic character is actively opposed to the idea of the laws and will seek to circumvent them. that is a core component of chaotic characters that is often overlooked because people simplify it down to just being random.

in order to be chaotic you must be actively opposed to the rule of law and order. at the very least, mistrust and dislike of arbitrary rule and codes has to be a core component of your personality. it's not just "if the red tape gets in my way I won't follow it." the chaotic good character sees the red tape itself as a problem, and your idea of good would be to tear down the establishment that is putting up all this red tape everywhere. even if you're not always acting on it that should be your way of thinking.

although, end of the day, the main difference between chaotic good and chaotic evil is how far they go. both of them are going to think they are doing the right thing. but depending on how many people get hurt along the way you can very quickly become evil. to go back to thanos; if you genocide half of the population in order to further your ideals you are certainly evil.
---

btw Maria I kind of see what you mean by the lawful good dilemma; if you have a choice where you need to break your principles or violate direct orders to do the right thing, then you either need to fail to do the right thing and therefore not be good, or you need to fail to follow orders and therefore not be lawful. I don't think it's strictly black and white and there are gray areas that exist here, and someone can still generally strive for being both lawful and good in cases there they DON'T create conflict, but there is a problem here

Paratroopa1 posted...

btw Maria I kind of see what you mean by the lawful good dilemma; if you have a choice where you need to break your principles or violate direct orders to do the right thing, then you either need to fail to do the right thing and therefore not be good, or you need to fail to follow orders and therefore not be lawful. I don't think it's strictly black and white and there are gray areas that exist here, and someone can still generally strive for being both lawful and good in cases there they DON'T create conflict, but there is a problem here

yeah I mean I give a singular example but it's more the idea that people are fairly static. for me it's not about that one choice in that one pivotal moment. it's about all of the other times they are forced to make similar choices.

anyway I think lawful and chaotic are very interesting because you can choose which one you are. good and evil... not so much. I honestly think good and evil are way more subjective and really come down to how others view your actions.

this is where the gap between roleplaying games and reality is important. if I create an evil character, he shouldn't KNOW that he's evil. the only reason evil is written on the sheet is because I have an omniscient point of view relating to this character.

the issue with people in real life is that we are basically characters with no players controlling us. we can't see what is written on our sheets, we don't know if we're actually good or evil; most of us think we're good. but we're not all. however, you CAN know whether you are in support of lawful ideals or chaotic ideals. that makes it a lot more interesting for me to discuss.
---

also unlike D&D your beliefs and ideals can change over time without a level penalty or something else weird. someone who is lawful when they are younger might become more chaotic as they mature. and, sure, the opposite is also possible.

it's just tough for me to buy that lawful or chaotic characters can ever truly be good. because you're always putting your ideals (order vs freedom) at the front of any conversation to determine what you believe to be good. your entire idea of servicing good is just reinforcing your service to order or freedom as the ultimate 'good.'

of course I think chaotic good seems more like a real thing than lawful good, but that's only because I'm chaotic and I like to view myself as potentially a good person.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

also unlike D&D your beliefs and ideals can change over time

this is probably what the problem with the alignment system boils down to for me - what someone's "alignment" is is incredibly fluid in both the short term and the long term (I don't believe I've EVER played a character for longer than 2 months who didn't have some sort of character arc that made their alignment at least trend in a direction if not outright change it), and not only that but what someone's alignment is is also completely subjective to the opinions of the people and society around them - or the opinions of the gods, I suppose. But then at the same time, D&D makes it absolutely, 100% clear that both good/evil and lawful/chaotic are actual inherent, physical qualities that a person has, something that can actually be scientifically measured, which is really strange

Paratroopa1 posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

also unlike D&D your beliefs and ideals can change over time

this is probably what the problem with the alignment system boils down to for me - what someone's "alignment" is is incredibly fluid in both the short term and the long term (I don't believe I've EVER played a character for longer than 2 months who didn't have some sort of character arc that made their alignment at least trend in a direction if not outright change it), and not only that but what someone's alignment is is also completely subjective to the opinions of the people and society around them - or the opinions of the gods, I suppose. But then at the same time, D&D makes it absolutely, 100% clear that both good/evil and lawful/chaotic are actual inherent, physical qualities that a person has, something that can actually be scientifically measured, which is really strange

and then on top of this the alignment system just isn't very deep and doesn't describe people very well, it's just kind of... weak. good vs evil is a very boring way to define a person's character

Paratroopa1 posted...

But then at the same time, D&D makes it absolutely, 100% clear that both good/evil and lawful/chaotic are actual inherent, physical qualities that a person has, something that can actually be scientifically measured, which is really strange

Is it that strange when you consider stats and feats exist that specifically measure and define what youre able to do?

Also, I think you guys are wrong about Lawful Good.

Its not that theyre Good and they believe laws are all Good. Its that theyre Good, and they believe Laws are the best way to protect the common good. If a Law is unjust, or if something is legal but causing harm, they will act against it.

Think of them like Protectionists that also walk the walk.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Is it that strange when you consider stats and feats exist that specifically measure and define what youre able to do?

yes; physical stats can be vaguely defined in real life too (not charisma, maybe, but the others sure). it's not weird for a character to have 12 strength. it IS weird for a character to be explicitly defined as "good" by magic spells. good/evil and lawful/chaotic being explicitly made non-abstractions is very strange

the physical stats in D&D make no sense either considering in real life someone can go from like 8 strength to 12 strength pretty easily if they just start working out regularly for a while. but in D&D you have to go kill a bunch of dragons and gain hundreds of thousands of experience just to earn the stat points to increase your strength from 8 to 12, and most of the time that's not even a good idea for your build -- someone who starts with 8 strength is probably dumping Str because they don't need it.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

the physical stats in D&D make no sense either considering in real life someone can go from like 8 strength to 12 strength pretty easily if they just start working out regularly for a while. but in D&D you have to go kill a bunch of dragons and gain hundreds of thousands of experience just to earn the stat points to increase your strength from 8 to 12, and most of the time that's not even a good idea for your build -- someone who starts with 8 strength is probably dumping Str because they don't need it.

meh I'm not gonna get too bitchy about this one

Well, alignment was mechanically written out if 5e, so writers have similar thoughts to you, Para.

And Maria, your dilemmas are why I define lawful/chaotic along the lines that I stated earlier. A good character should seek to do good. Lawful/chaotic can be preferences, but they should not trump good... or else the character isn't good.

Also, it's interesting - in my opinion, I would consider the vast majority of humans on earth to be lawful good or lawful neutral.
---

lawful neutral for sure

lawful good lmao hell no
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Movie Thano is almost the epitome of True Neutral.

He literally wants to remove half of living things to bring balance between creatures and resources.

The murder is completely arbitrary.

You can't divorce actions from intent this much.

But also, balance is inherently lawful, etc
---

MariaTaylor posted...

lawful neutral for sure

lawful good lmao hell no

Lawful good most common, unless you're against thinking most people are naturally good. Lawful neutral next. Neutral good next.

I'd say people can trend chaotic good, but given the nature of the world, it's very hard to survive as chaotic.
---

alignment from most frequent to least frequent

lawful neutral: your average person who doesn't think very much about anything, but sincerely believes that laws are the only way to make everyone behave and cooperate. doesn't particularly give a shit about all of the evil stuff their government does (like drone striking the fuck out of the middle east for a decade) because 'that many deaths is only a statistic...' While they aren't truly evil they are perfectly fine allowing evil to exist (hello sweatshop slaves in third world countries!) as long as the system of law keeps them feeling safe and protected against their evil neighbor who would surely turn into a serial murdering rapist if there was no law against it

true neutral: doesn't strongly enough support one system of belief over any other to classify them as anything really. unlike the lawful neutral person, this guy doesn't seem to know or care whether the law is really the only true and correct way to make people behave. rather, they're fine just following the rules because they don't want to get punished. doesn't think much about good or evil and just does whatever suits them to get by day to day.

lawful evil: similar to lawful neutral, this variation is FAR more scary because of their intense dogmatic belief and adherence to their own personal code of morality. the most ruthless and effective thing about the lawful evil person is that they truly believe their way of doing things is right. they will never leave anyone else alone or let you do your own thing; the lawful evil person must constantly project their own personal politics into every situation and tries to moralize all situations so that they can use the excuse of morality and law to control others. while they are less common than the lawful neutral and true neutrals, these guys are about 10,000 times more annoying... and extremely dangerous if left unchecked.

(huge gap between these three and, well, anything else really)

neutral evil: criminals, basically. they don't actually oppose the idea of law and order being used to achieve a good society... they just don't care. the neutral evil person takes whatever they want and does whatever they want, very often at the detriment of others, and doesn't see anything wrong with the idea of looking out for themselves ahead of all others. often gets confused with chaotic evil but, trust me, this person would never be caught dead trying to overhaul society. all they want is to steal your iphone so they don't have to work a 9-5 job.

chaotic neutral: unsurprisingly, since we live in an ordered and polite society, chaotic folks are pretty rare. if many of them existed we would likely have a different type of social order that doesn't place such a strong emphasis on the law being morally just and righteous. the chaotic neutral character sees the many flaws inherent in their society and culture and has strong feelings against this way of living. you'll generally find this person arguing on the internet but not actually bombing any government buildings or anything like that. generally against the evils of society but realizes they don't have any power to stop it so they just quietly play along. everyone should be free to make their own decisions, but you shouldn't be infringing on other people's freedom with those decisions. the complexity of living in such a way makes this alignment very unlikely for most people (because they simply lack the level of self awareness and reflection needed)
---

neutral good: this person tries to be kind and help others, is generally self sacrificing, and tries not to harm others intentionally. doesn't have particularly strong thoughts about the law one way or the other; they'll follow the rules as much as possible but they will prioritize doing the right thing. the main difference between neutral good and true neutral is that the neutral good person has an inclination do help others rather than pure self interest and, most importantly, you can observe their actions from an objective point of view and see that they have created good in the world. one of a kind individuals who are very rare and often recognized as good people by those from all walks of life.

chaotic evil: a radicalized chaotic neutral who no longer tolerates the flaws of society and, in seeking to create a more free (and thus "good") society they accidentally commit a litany of evil acts in order to try and achieve their lofty ideals. not as dangerous as the organized military complex of lawful evils, and probably not quite as annoying if only because it's less likely to get a bunch of them organizing into one group to shame you. the scariest thing about chaotic evil is their total disregard for the comfort and wellbeing of other humans as long as they can create a world where everyone is free to make their own decisions. even if the 'free market' causes a billion people to die it's totally cool because the overall amount of freedom will increase for the survivors.

(another gap)

chaotic good: to be honest I'm not entirely sure what a chaotic good person looks like but I doubt you'll find them very commonly. I guess it's like a chaotic neutral but more altruistic. they'd be similar to the neutral good paragon I described above but with more firmly established and consistent political thoughts on what makes society as a whole a good place (rather than just their own personal version of being good and helping others). and, the society they imagine, gives as little power to the government as possible.

lawful good: requires a rare combination of three traits. first, the absolute desire to do good in all things. secondly, the strict belief that the only way to achieve good is by using law and order to keep humans under control. third, somehow, despite those two conflicting hypocritical beliefs, they are also somehow this perfect person who is able to keep their lawful impulses in check and not force their grand ideals of lawful society upon others who disagree with them (because forcing your version of morality on others is not good). as you can imagine, this happens very rarely. in fact, they basically don't exist.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Lawful good most common

you believe that because you are lawful neutral, and you desperately want to think of yourself as good
---

Like Maria I personally subscribe to "the burden of good" theory that says to be good you actually have to make meaningful sacrifices to achieve good ends that you won't necessarily be rewarded for, not merely have the intent to be good. the vast majority of people prefer a good society but it's a fairly rare number that are willing to go to great lengths to achieve it - I wouldn't count myself among that group

I also agree that most people are LN or N

MariaTaylor posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Lawful good most common

you believe that because you are lawful neutral, and you desperately want to think of yourself as good

Nah, I'm just more optimistic.

But similarly, I'd say you're actually neutral and not chaotic, given how you still subscribe to society and operate within it, despite your objections to how things are.

I think a lot of the gripes with lawful good come from the old style paladin interpretation of the alignment. I think it's a bad interpretation.

I would say that chaotic evil is easily the least common, followed by true neutral.
---

No, the average human (along with any social animal for that matter) is lawful neutral. Neutral loses all meaning if you dilute good that much.
---

It's not diluting good though.

Most people fit within their place in society, obeying its rules and social mores. Hence why I say most people are lawful. If you still fit within society but dislike how things are, wish it could change, operate a bit outside of it, then that veers you neutral instead of lawful.

The distinguishing of good neutral to me is how much you care for others. Good people want the world to be a better place - tip more, vote in ways they think help society, assist others in community groups, etc... even if you dont have a lot of impact, wanting better for other people (and not doing things to make things worse for others) makes you good, to me.

Neutral I see as apathy. A lawful neutral person fits into their spot in society, but cares considerably more about themselves than others (good people prioritize themselves too, but put more effort into others). While a neutral person may tip, vote, etc do things to make society a better place, if it's from the realm of wanting life to be better for themselves and not really caring about others so much, then that trends neutral.

Given these definitions, I still see a lot more people as lawful good than lawful neutral. But that may be my optimism speaking.

Chaotic good are like... hippies. Chaotic evil are serial killers. True neutral are hikikomori - people so apathetic and removed from everything.
---

If we define evil as "primarily looking out for one's own interests" (which I think people were saying earlier?) then I'm neutral evil and I think most people are neutral evil.

- Most of what I do is motivated toward myself and my friends/family. I don't particularly do anything to serve the greater good.
- I obey laws because it's expedient (I don't want to go to prison), and I want others to obey the law insofar as it benefits me (don't steal my stuff imo), but I don't have any inherent love of law.
---