There is no alignment column that would be against saving the world from someone else. Except Neutral, because I've never seen a Neutral of any kind take a proactive Neutral action. At least none that wouldn't invalidate their Neutrality.
I played a Neutral Horizon Walker as a sort of exorcist and protector of the independence and neutrality of the material plane. He specialized in fighting demons, but if an angel had shown up, he would've been happy to fight that too. So that's one way to be proactively neutral.
Isn't that just... Lawful? You're fighting to keep the status quo of reality, the (extra)material law, so to speak, so really that's more Lawful Neutral than anything.
You could call it Lawful if you wanted. You could also say it's Chaotic, because it's about independence and tearing down the extraplanar power structures that oppress and manipulate us. But I don't really think of Law and Chaos in that way, I think it has more to do with the character's beliefs about society and human power structures, and that character was pretty ambivalent in that regard.
Someone that is Chaotic is unpredictable and cognitively disruptive to outside observers. They can be wacky and benevolent (Good), unhinged and dangerous (Evil), or apathetic and self-indulgent (Neutral).
Someone that is Lawful follows a Code, a belief of how things should be and should be done. These Codes can be considered generally helpful (Good), generally harmful (Evil), or polarizing in opinion (Neutral).
You are not Chaotic, because you have a Code that you follow, which makes you Lawful, and the Code you follow can be argued to be either good (killing demons) or bad (killing angels), making you... Lawful Neutral.
That is only one of literally hundreds of possible interpretations of alignment, and not the one I subscribe to.
Someone that is Chaotic doesn't trust or place value on social power structures. They don't believe laws, kings, or governments are worth having, and see how they can be used to control others. They can work for the benefit of others regardless of any institution telling them to or not to (Chaotic Good), they can push back against institutions just because they're there (Chaotic Neutral), or they can do whatever benefits them with no regard for any people they hurt (Chaotic Evil).
Someone that is Lawful believes that society and organization are useful and valuable. They look for order and meaning in their lives. They can try to use institutional power to help other people (Lawful Good), they can follow the rules because it's what they're supposed to do, or because they benefit from the security and amenities of civilization (Lawful Neutral), or they can put themselves at the top and use power structures to control, abuse, and oppress others for their own benefit (Lawful Evil).
I am not Chaotic or Lawful, because I have no particular opinions on the value of civilization, or any particular kings or governments, only that us mortals should be left alone to figure it out ourselves. I often work outside the law, but not against it. That makes me Neutral.
They can try to use institutional power to help other people (Lawful Good)
And if, theoretically, the law does not allow for the helping of others? Suddenly you're Lawful good character is
They can work for the benefit of others regardless of any institution telling them to or not to (Chaotic Good)
And that's no good.
That's why I define it as
Lawful: To create and/or follow a Moral Code as a Law in and of itself.
Lawful Good: To follow a Moral Code based around helping others. (This can leave you in opposition of the law if it happens to be corrupt.)
Lawful Neutral: To follow a Moral Code that can be argued for just as easily as it can be argued against. (Such as killing Angel (bad) and Demons (good) simply because they do not belong.)
Lawful Evil: To follow a Moral Code that puts you in direct opposition of a majority of individuals. (Not necessarily against the law, but against the people. such as in a slave nation.)
Chaotic: To help, harm, or both, based on whimsical desire as opposed to strict Code.
Chaotic Good: To assist others in a convoluted and unpredictable manner. (If it amuses you, but still helps them.)
Chaotic Neutral: To focus on ones own enjoyment, either at the benefit, or the detriment, of those around you, to be decided at a whim. (This has the widest range of ways it can go.)
Chaotic Evil: To endanger or kill others in a deranged and/or macabre manner to obtain enjoyment. (A psycho serial killer that makes art from corpses would fall under my description.)
Neutral: To be unconcerned with the goings on of elsewhere until involves you.
Neutral Good: To be unconcerned with the goings on of elsewhere unless it is a dire situation. (The Greybeards of Skyrim are neutral and benevolent, but only come out of seclusion when the end times near.)
True Neutral: To not concern yourself with the greater world beyond unless it directly involves you. (Like Tibetan Monks.)
Neutral Evil: To be unconcerned with the goings on of elsewhere unless you can profit off of it. (A shifty dealer or mercenary that only cares for pay.)
And if, theoretically, the law does not allow for the helping of others?
It doesn't matter what the law actually allows. Does your character think the law should allow helping people? Do they think such a law is important or effective? If so, then they're still Lawful Good. A Chaotic Good character would actively flaunt it or try to have it overturned. A Neutral Good character might prefer such a law be changed, but ultimately it won't stop them from doing the right thing.
People get hung up on Lawful == law of the land, as in edicts issued by kings or bills passed by parliaments, but that doesn't strike me as a useful or interesting interpretation. Kings can be capricious or manipulated or shortsighted, parliaments can be corrupt or bureaucratic or slow, clergy can be decadent or impious or out of touch, laws can be outdated or poorly thought out or discriminatory, etc., and there's no reason a Lawful character should have to ignore all those possible drawbacks just because "it's the law". In fact, discovering corrupt systems and choosing how to confront them is a compelling story for Lawful characters, and playing out those stories is part of the appeal of playing them.
Institutions and power structures aren't just laws and governments, they can also be churches, charities, guilds, armies, traditions, social clubs, chivalry, economic systems, spy networks, contracts, personal moral codes, families, you name it. Anything that has rules or hierarchy or defined roles and relationships between its members can be an expression of Law. A Lawful character is one who believes that such institutions are valuable and useful and should exist, and a Lawful Good character is one who believes they are the best way of ensuring the public good and helping people. So it doesn't matter what this particular law says, it matters that there are laws.
That said, it sounds like you have a perfectly reasonable interpretation of alignment yourself. If it's helping you understand your characters and tell their stories, then it's doing its job. This is why I'm glad it's not a relevant part of gameplay anymore - ask 10 gamers what it means, and they'll give you 11 different responses, and most of them will be perfectly reasonable, and contradictory. That kind of inconsistency tells me it's either not explained very well (doubtful, after 50 years of spilling ink on the subject), or it's just not very useful. To me the only use it has, and should have, is as a sort of minimum baseline for understanding and roleplaying a character, in lieu of something more in-depth. Of course the strongest guide to roleplaying a character is having roleplayed them for a long time; or without that, a detailed backstory and psychological analysis; or without that, a set of ideals, bonds, and flaws; or without that, a couple of personality quirks; but without any of that, an alignment still gives you some measurable amount of personality that makes your character a different person from all the other characters with the same race, class, and background. It's the least you can possibly have that still gives you some idea of how a character will act. And it does it in two easy-to-remember words that fill in a blank spot on your character sheet, so even the most disinterested roleplayer can quickly pick something and jot it down.
People get hung up on Lawful == law of the land, as in edicts issued by kings or bills passed by parliaments
That why I interpret Lawful as; To create and/or follow a Code,
It doesn't have to be any preexisting institution, it only has to be a set of rules that are followed by the character. If those rules align or in fact are from some institution/group/whatever, then alright! But it doesn't have to be, which allows more creative freedom.
it sounds like you have a perfectly reasonable interpretation of alignment yourself. If it's helping you understand your characters and tell their stories, then it's doing its job
It helps interpret others' as well. If you follow a set of Codes/Beliefs/Rules, you are Lawful, whether they align with an established institution or not doesn't matter, but it helps your case if it does.
If you base your actions on how you feel like, you're Chaotic. However, Chaotic doesn't mean actively going against the established order, it means following your whimsy, whether it goes against some established rule or not doesn't matter.
Lawful and Chaotic Neutral represents those who can't be defined as only Good or only Evil.
The Neutral column is for those that do not actively support a cause, faith, or anything of that sort, but instead do so passively, if at all. Neutral Good helps those that seek them out and that they consider worthy, True Neutral doesn't care for others unless it directly concerns them, and Neutral Evil will support anyone that seeks them out if there is benefit for them.
Neutral is reserved for special people; The ancient order that you must learn from to defeat the Great Evil; The bounty hunter who's the only one that knows where and how to enter the Old Catacombs.
It's why I've been say you're character is Lawful Neutral, because, by your own logic, if there was an institution that also believed that the Material Realm should be left alone by outside powers, you would be Lawful.
59
u/UndercoverDoll49 Mar 25 '21
The evil druid in a campaign I played had the best excuse: "I have no problem saving the world, I live here"