Alignment Sucks

[Merestil_Haye]

I was reading the early part of this thread after fbmf pulled it up from the nether depths (not having been around this board when it was last posted on).

1071609863[/unixtime]]Heck, I can't even tell what Law and Chaos even are. Sometimes Law seems to be being true to yourself (example: Lawful Evil Swordsman with an unshakable, if perplexing, personal code) - while at other times it seems to be devotion to an external code regardless of personal beliefs (example: Lawful Neutral Judge who enforces all of the laws of the land to the letter). (snip)

Reading the above post (and I've just quoted the part which made me start thinking) I came to the conclusion that, there may be something these two contradictory examples of Lawful behaviour have in common, and thought I'd throw it out for discussion on whether that idea might form a better basis for definition of Lawful and Chaotic alignments than anything we currently have.

That something is Objectivity.

The swordsman and the judge both examine the situations in front of them and make their decisions based on some sort of rule framework that exists independantly of the situation and is not affected by it.

• The Judge sees an accusation, and applies the law code as it exists to the situation, determines guilt and applies punishment.
  The swordsman faces another person and acts in response to that person's status and deeds, regardless of the consequences to him personally. A warrior would be met in one way, a noncombatant in another, his master in yet a third.

We need an opposite concept, and that might best be labelled Subjectivity. A person acting subjectively would act in accordance with how the situation appears to him, without regard to prior precedent or consistency in dealings. The Subjective person may modify their actions owing to perceived consequences (I want that guy's car, but I can't afford it and if I try to take it he'll beat me senseless) or not, if the desire to act is strong enough.

None of this directly impinges on morals (I hope).

Does it serve to get a handle on an absolute Law v Chaos methodology?

One implication that occurred to me. If I implemented this in a game, would I need to houserule the alignment of animals to Subjective (or Chaotic, under the old nomenclature), while Constructs became Objective (formerly Lawful)? Are there any other implications?

Oh, and Hi to those I do not already know.

[User3]

Robin Hood is a fine example of a Neutral Good character. He knows that even though he is breaking the law(Chaotic), he will be pardoned when King Richard comes back(Lawful).

Ambivalent actions (both good and evil, or both lawful and chaotic) are neutral. Remember that “ambivalent” generally means forces in opposition or conflict, not a lack of forces. Robin Hood is a Neutral character on the Law/Chaos axis because he does Chaotic things for a Lawful end. That's why fighting in self-defense is a Neutral action on the Good/Evil axis: Its evil to kill and cause pain, but its good to prevent pain and murder to others (or self).

If Robin Hood were Chaotic Good, he’d simply kill the Sheriff and take over the land himself or give it to a god lord. If he were Lawful Good he’d go find Richard and bring him back or gather a council of lords to lawfully check the power of the Sheriff.

Robin Hood is also iconically Neutral in that he is preserving a Balance. The Sheriff has overstepped his power and so the neutral character is now in opposition to him. The sheriff is Lawful Evil, as he is using his law-given powers to do evil, but at no point is he breaking the laws of the land.

Personal codes:

Personal codes fall two ways. If your personal code is “follow the laws of the land”, you are Lawful. If your personal code does not follow the laws of the land at some point, then you are Chaotic.

Lawful really does mean following the laws of the land around you, and the laws of your homeland. Since most countries in the world share a core of laws about murder, theft, rape, etc, its really not hard to follow the laws of the land you are in. Does this make it hard to be a Paladin? Hell yes. Paladins are the closest mortal equivalent to angels, and having a strict moral code about the law is really hard for the average DnD player to follow. Most Paladin players are cheese-monkeys who just want the power with none of the responsibility. Should the class even have a Law component? Probably not, but that’s the iconic character the class represents and you are all welcome to change it if you like.

Evil swordsman with a bizarre personal codes are actually Chaotic, as that personal code often puts them at odds with the law.

[User3]

Combining this:

Stealing from someone who can afford to loose whatever you stole: Chaotic, since almost every society has a law about stealing.

With this:

Looting the recent dead: Evil. This defiles the corpse which will cause pain to the relatives of the recent dead.

is just hilarious.

So stealing from somebody who's alive is 'only' Chaotic if they can afford to lose it, but stealing from a dead man is Evil (though apparently not Chaotic) because it somehow hurts other people to see that happen. But that begs the question: why is it an Evil act to rob the dead when, unlike the living, dead guys have absolutely no need of any material possessions, and therefore can much more easily "afford to lose" whatever you stole than virtually any living person ever could.

And who gets to decide what I can afford to lose anyway? Ebeneezer Scrooge stays up into the wee hours of the morning worrying about minimizing the number of bricks of coal need to keep his miserly ass from freezing. Do you really think that stealing his purseful of gold coins isn't going to cause him any pain or anguish?

The more you look at those definitions, the crazier things get. If looting the dead is an Evil act because doing that causes pain to to their relatives for whatever reason, then what happens when the deceased has no living relatives? If you are the Last of the Mohicans, then there's none of your people left, so is robbing the graves of Chingachgook and Uncas considered Evil or not? And even if you do have a big family, why would they necessarily even care if somebody goes and steals your wallet after your corpse washes up on shore? D&D actually has creatures like Beholders who supposedly hate all other members of their own race, so they probably wouldn't worry about to much if you steal from one of their dead relatives.

You can write an alignment system that lets Robin Hood off the hook for stealing from wealthy merchants, and you can even write an alignment system that says Dr. Frankenstein is Evil because he robs corpses, but you damn well have one that says both at the same time.

[User3]

Oh, and the fact that the censor evidently can't tell the difference between the name of a James Fenimore Cooper character and a slur from the Vietnam War era is also sorta funny.

[Username17]

That something is Objectivity.

Not really. In either case what you are describing is "consistency", or perhaps "predictability" and not really objectivity or subjectivity. The question is not how things appear vs. how they are, because it's actually impossible to view a situation other than how you perceive it.

The only question seems to be that a truly lawful entity is going to be able to accurately predict its own resolutions to presented quandaries, while a chaotic entity will be forced to "wait and see", since the choice cannot be known until after it is made.

Of course, that means that there is no difference at all. Any and all questions of "choice" are untestable and therefore meaningless. Lawful characters are deterministic, and believe that their actions can be predicted (at least by themselves), Chaotic characters are free choicers - but that doesn't make any difference!

In the course of history there will have been only one set of events. Period. Whether this means that the past is fixed and the future is open (and thus, the past and present could have been different) is unknowable. Indeed, the mutability or not of the past events is also irrelevent, because of its unknowable status. The future, if unchangeable, makes no judgement or requirements upon our actions by that virtue.

And thus, Law/Chaos is not a moral or ethical choice, since by defintion no actions will be any different in either case. In one you will take a certain action because you are compelled by your beliefs, in the other your beliefs will inform a choice to take that action. But with the same beliefs and the same events, the action is the same. And in hindsight, it is fixed. And in the future it has not yet occurred.

-Username17

[Murtak]

1115838121[/unixtime]]Oh, and the fact that the censor evidently can't tell the difference between the name of a James Fenimore Cooper character and a slur from the Vietnam War era is also sorta funny.

That "censor" is a piece of pattern matching code about 10 characters long which simply replaces any occurences of certain words with "[EDITED]".

[Sir Neil]

Lawful really does mean following the laws of the land around you, and the laws of your homeland.

That didn't work in second edition, and it doesn't work now, unless you want all paladins to just explode upon entering the lands of Iuz.

[User3]

1115905018[/unixtime]]That "censor" is a piece of pattern matching code about 10 characters long which simply replaces any occurences of certain words with "[EDITED]".

Right, I realize that actually, and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I just didn't expect that to happen to my post, and I thought it looked really goofy when it did. That's all.

[Username17]

Much ink has been devoted to craptastic apologies as to what the hell Lawful and Chaotic is supposed to mean such that Lawful Good is not simply more Good than Chaotic Good. That's hard, because if you consistently perform good acts that gives you more total good accomplishments vs. inconsistently performing good acts by a considerable margin. So CG is left being unpredictable without being inconsistent - which is horse pucky.

But let's look what the actual text says the difference between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil is:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drives him to do.

Are you following that? So Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil characters actually do exactly the same thing, since they are motivated exclusively by a personal and incorrigible rubric that drives/compels them to evil. A Neutral Evil character, on the other hand, is very different, basing her actions only on the limits of the supervision of others.

So the opposite of Lawful is Neutral, not Chaotic. A Chaotic character's actions are identical to that of a Lawful character, and their only disagreement is whether their personal goals are driving them towards a course of action or preventing any other course of action. The Neutral character, on the other hand, disregards her own motivations, and takes whatever course of action is suggested by external forces.

-Username17

[User3]

That didn't work in second edition, and it doesn't work now, unless you want all paladins to just explode upon entering the lands of Iuz.

I don't think so. I mean, what are the laws of Iuz's lands? Does he have laws against murder? Theft? Rape?

I don't know the setting that well, but I expect that if he has cities, then he has reasonable laws next to the unreasonable ones. As long as the Paladin doesn't try to overthrow the government or murder the local law enforcement, he can adventure there. Being Lawful is about Not Breaking The Law.

If there are unfair laws like "the local magistrate is allowed to kill anyone at a whim", then the paladin who tries to save someone is thwarting the law.

But hey, the paladin player wanted to be a Paladin in an Iuz campaign. So, that means he just made a choice to play a game about hard moral choices, just as if he decided to play Vampire. He also decided to put the rest of the party in the postion of not doing certain kinds of adventures or else forcing his Paladin levels to periodically become NPC levels.

I mean, what's the Paladin population of Iuz's lands? Not high, I guess.

Do we expect Paladins to travel there and murder law enforcement and government officials at will? That must be a great deal for them then. You are saying that LG means that all you have to do is enter an evil land and then that you can act like a criminal and still be LG. I don't think so.

Do we expect a Paladin to lose his powers if he breaks the law about wearing the wrong color on a national holiday? No, thats just silly.

Should he lose his powers if he goes to an evil land just so he can go on a killing spree? I think so.

[Username17]

So what about Lawful Neutral and haotic Neutral?

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition or a personal code directs her.

A neutral character does what seems like a good idea.

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims.

While LE and CE are identical and distinct only from NE, for the neutrals, it is N and CN that are identical and LN which is potentially different. And even then LN has the option of being exactly the same as CN.

Doing what seems like a good idea is following your whims. Those statements are not different in the least. So CN and N are interchangeable at all times. But while LN can include doing what you are told by legal or traditional authority, it can also include following your own agency by staking out a personal guideline for your situation - which is following your own whims in everything but name.

So following the edicts of a ruler or not won't get you kicked out of the Lawful camp - since by defintion you must either follow the law or your own moral compass both of which are lawful! And on the flip side, neither action will get you kicked out the chaotic camp, since it is by definition impossible to do other than your whim.

The fact is that Law and Chaos were made up by Mr. Anderson because he thought they would be better names than Good and Evil by making the members of team evil be less comical. That's all they've ever meant. The AD&D double axis has never made any sense, as Good and Law just mean the same thing if Law means anything at all.

-Username17

[User3]

The "personal code" aspect of LN comes into play if that character is from a society with few laws or traditions and/or where his personal code is more strict that the law. LN is not "my personal code is to do whatever I want (CN)."

Neutral is different from CN in that CN will not put any limits on their behavior, where a N character will weigh the costs and benefits of an action. N characters are sociolpaths who are smart enough to know the costs of their actions, where CN guys are not smart enough to put on a show of any self control. CN characters are rebels without a cause, where N characters are not driven by any moral or ethical force at all. While they have no desire to break the law, they also do not desire to follow a law if its inconvenient. While they have no taste or pain(E), they also won't go out of their way to prevent pain to others(G).

[Lago_AM3P]

Neutral is different from CN in that CN will not put any limits on their behavior, where a N character will weigh the costs and benefits of an action.

That's complete crap, because chaotic neutral people do the exact same thing. Unless you're not in control of your own facilities, it's completely impossible to make a decision without weighing the costs and benefits.

I don't see chaotic neutral people stabbing priests in their balls just because. That would just make them insane, and AD&D manuals specifically make mention that chaotic neutral isn't insane. They have to weigh the costs and benefits of any action just as much as neutral people do. There's not a lick of difference between neutral and chaotic neutral, only that being true neutral gets you access to the best magic items and spell effects (except for the holy-word spells, where you're completely screwed).

Do we expect a Paladin to lose his powers if he breaks the law about wearing the wrong color on a national holiday? No, thats just silly.

Should he lose his powers if he goes to an evil land just so he can go on a killing spree? I think so.

I wonder if any biblical or mythological characters count as lawful good in that case. Odyessus, Arthur, and Gideon went psychobilly freakout and killed a ton of evil people in this fashion, and I don't think you can find many more characters that fit what people think 'lawful' and 'good' are supposed to be. They don't with this definition, and that's just crap.

CN characters are rebels without a cause, where N characters are not driven by any moral or ethical force at all. While they have no desire to break the law, they also do not desire to follow a law if its inconvenient. While they have no taste or pain(E), they also won't go out of their way to prevent pain to others(G).

That's complete crap, because Mordenkainen (in his ELH description, no less) and those wack-ass neutral balance druids are definitely driven by a cause.

In fact, both of these groups of people break almost every law set both by entities that can make laws in the accomplishment of their goals. It's right in the goddamn campaign setting, yet they're held up as shining examples of 'true neutrality'.

And characters who aren't driven by any recognizable moral or ethical force aren't 'neutral', they're either dumb animals or they're evil. Yes, evil. If you don't have some sort of coherent moral code that consistently prevents you from hurting other people, that makes you evil. If you have one, then it's probably recognizable against the literally hundreds of other moral codes proposed by society at some point or another.

[RandomCasualty]

I've always seen the lawful/chaos axis like this.

A lawful character very rarely breaks their personal code.

A neutral character is generally unwilling to break the code, but will do so when it becomes necessary.

A chaotic character doesn't give a fuck about the code, and may not have one at all. If they follow it, it's purely out of coincidence.

Personal code here can really be anything you want it to be. Upholding the laws of the Kingdom of Cormyr. Truth, justice and the American way. A warrior's honor. Whatever. There are lots of codes out there. So long as you keep the same code for a long period of time, it can be your personal code.

All in all, being lawful or chaotic doesn't mean a heck of a lot in the sense of the game. Unless you know specifically what code a given NPC is lawful with regards to, the description really isn't saying much.

I'd be happy if they just got rid of it entirely.

[Zherog]

1115926425[/unixtime]] That would just make them insane, and AD&D manuals specifically make mention that chaotic neutral isn't insane.

It has been a long time since I've looked at it, but I recall that the 2e PHB very specifically said that CN people were most likely also insane.

N characters are sociolpaths who are smart enough to know the costs of their actions, where CN guys are not smart enough to put on a show of any self control.

Nothing within the game prevents a CN from having a 50 Int (or a 50 Wis if you think Self Control is tied to that). While that's almost certainly not what you meant, it's certainly an implication of the statement. Nothing within the game prevents a CN from being smart enough to figure out the implications of their decisions for the next dozen years. They may choose to ignore those implications, or they may even choose to never figure them out.

***

This whole discussion is why my house rule sheet basically says, "I don't give a rat's hairy ass about the law-chaos axis. Paladins are required to submit to me their personal code, and adherence to this code will determine if they've ever crossed the line."

[User3]

1115921265[/unixtime]]
I don't know the setting that well, but I expect that if he has cities, then he has reasonable laws next to the unreasonable ones. As long as the Paladin doesn't try to overthrow the government or murder the local law enforcement, he can adventure there. Being Lawful is about Not Breaking The Law.

Iuz, for the benefit of K and others who don't really know Greyhawk, is essentially ... well, he's essentially Sauron. He is the Chaotic Evil demigod of (basically) being a Chaotic Evil villain. He is a guy who is so mean that he has his capital city decorated (and freely decorated) with human skulls. His clerics practice human sacrifice, consort freely with demons, and commit every sort of wickedness imaginable. His very existence -- much less his status as a head of state -- is an offense to everything that is right and good.

Any alignment system under which a Paladin is not allowed to attempt to overthrow this government and (if -- and only if -- necessary) kill the people who uphold its utterly wicked and vile ideals is insane.

--d.

[Murtak]

It has been a long time since I've looked at it, but I recall that the 2e PHB very specifically said that CN people were most likely also insane.

That has thankfully been changed (about the only good thing they ever did with alignments). 2nd edition had you flipping a coin every minute to see what you would do.

A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as
likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

If you absolutely have to use alingments at all, why not go from the headline descriptions?

LG - Crusader
NG - Benefactor
CG - Rebel
LN - Judge
N - Undecided (or, as I call them, "just a regular guy")
CN - Free Spirit
LE - Dominator
NE - Malefactor
CE - Destroyer

Just pick what fits your character most closely and that is your alignment for purposes of spell interaction and the likes. Now, obviously some of these "descriptions" are too vague, so here would be my spin on that.

LG - Idealist - Do you want to help building utopia? Not this "everyone has an equal chance" crap, not "well, we can't complain , really" - a society where noone should ever want for anything. Are you willing to spend your life working on this vision? Then you are lawful good.
NG - Good guy - Do you want to help your fellow man? Do you work well with others? Are you realist enough to realize that this world will never be perfect? Then you are neutral good.
CG - Rebel with a cause - Do you want to help those who are off worst right now? Do you want to free slaves and just get rid of all the evil? Then you are chaotic good.
LN - Team player - Do you like working as a team? Do you think anything can be sorted out if everyone just does their job? Then you are lawful neutral.
N - Just a regular guy - Do you just want to make a living? Does helping others out all the time seem like it is too much of a bother? Then you are neutral.
CN - Free Spirit - Do you just want to roam around? Do you hate having any obligations towards people, or worse, society? Then you are chaotic neutral.
LE - Dominator - Do you want to reshape the world in your image? Do you want everyone to play by your rules? Then you are lawful evil.
NE - Greedy guy - Do you want the most for yourself? The best horse, a sack of money, a nice house, the respect of the city? You do not particular care about those who are too weak to make it? Then you are neutral evil.
CE - Powermonger - Do you crave power? Personal power? Do you want to be the most powerful mage, the best swordfighter ever and everyone who stands in your way better watch out? Then you are chaotic evil.

Of course these definitions are entirely arbitrary. They have to be. As soon as you try to work out a system based on good, evil, chaos and law the world breaks down (as witnessed in this thread).

[Maj]

Regularly, I find myself in a position where I want to do something, but can't bring myself to actually do it.

At three in the morning when no one's on the street, and I realize I'm going the wrong direction, it would be so easy for me to just hang a U turn and go the right way. But I can't ever seem to follow up on my impulse to just do something illegal in the middle of the road.

My mother and I made my wedding dress. She put it together, and I sewed hundreds of little stars to it. The problem? I couldn't make the stars go in anything except perfect rows. I actually had to make a pattern by closing my eyes and stabbing at some paper with a pen to get a random-looking scattering. I sewed the stars in accordance to that "random pattern."

I went to Fred Meyer and took my items to the check out. In the change holder, I found $15. It totally could have been mine, free and clear, but rather than take it for myself, I picked it up and turned it in to one of the store associates. I sat in the car and just cried because I couldn't find it in myself to actually keep the money for myself when we really needed it... But I knew what I had done was the right thing to do.

I carry extra headlights, tailights, and turn signals in my cars... Just in case while I'm driving down the road one of them should stop working and cause me to get a ticket.

I don't know what "lawful" means to anyone else, but to me, it's a pain in the ass. If anyone here has seen the show "Monk," you can kind of get an idea... There are lots of times when I want to accomplish something, but for some reason - usually because I don't think it's the right thing to do, or a good thing to do - I don't. My personal code is most definitively not my personal whim.

[Username17]

I'm not going to get into the deep philosophical discussion about how the strongest impulses within you represent your actual desires in total, and any other urges that you have which are not followed up upon are reults of the fact that your mind is very complicated and has a lot of ideas that sum up to your ideas.

Nope. Instead I'm going to take you at your word, that there are things that you want to do which you don't do because you have been conditioned to not do them by the rules and stagnation of the external society. OK, reading through the descriptions, your alignment is:

Neutral Evil: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.

There you go. Doing things other than your own desires based on the limitations of the outside world is Neutral Evil. You are a damned Yugoloth.

Did I mention that Alignment Sucks?

-Username17

[MrWaeseL]

[SuicideChump]

1115977426[/unixtime]]

N - Undecided (or, as I call them, "just a regular guy")
[...]
N - Just a regular guy - Do you just want to make a living? Does helping others out all the time seem like it is too much of a bother? Then you are neutral.

In a Law/Chaos-Good/Evil regimented world a true neutral character cannot exist. You are a law-abiding commoner, or you're not. You cannot claim that a "I'm-standing-on-my-own-and-don't-break-my-balls" attitude actually represents a true neutral character, since this would overlap the CN domain (which is the self-sufficient alignment for excellence).
I see only two possibilities to act as a True Neutral character:
1) An ascetic Void Disciple (or Monk) who separated himself from the rest of the world can be the closest thing to the 'true neutrality' concept. You don't take part to anything because you decided to keep the balance among all of the forces who rule the world. Unsuitable for PCs, unless he's acting to restore the balance among the extremes (someone like Mordenkainen, for instance).
2) The total schizo. At first you flay a child. Next day you soccour the helpless. You listen to the cries of the oppressed, and you overthrow the evil tyrant. Then you become the NEW evil tyrant. If someone asks, you only have to tell: "Oh, what do you want from me? It's just that I'm an undecided character, that's all".

Oddly enough, the second type character is not considerable 'True Neutral', since his own choices shift from one side to the other of the Evil-Good and Law/Chaos axis. The PHB suggests that 'when you can't decide, assign them the Neutral alignment', so this accumulation of diverging attitudes makes him 'neutral'.

In a real-life context the 'schizo-type' I described is what is closer to everyday behaviour. Yes, really. Our abiding by the rules or by moral conventions is often dictated by circumstances. 'Being Good' or 'Being Evil' can't describe all the psychological blendings of a single real individual. One day you pay the fine, the other you protest.
Today you help, tomorrow you'll deny.
Of course, these 'alignment' shiftings develop in a framework of ethic believes (and social fears) which prevent us from letting ourselves go to extreme acts.
The whole Law/Chaos/Evil/Good thing is a strict regimentation of this framework.
It doesn't pretend (and it is not meant) to be the exact representation of a real life environment, whose 'framework' is not so definite.

So, if you ask for a complete simulation of real life, of course alignment sucks. "Good" and "Evil" should only be labels to apply to extraplanar creatures (Angels and Demons), as material embodiements of the opposite principles of Good and Evil...but a fleshy creature cannot be the epithome of Good, nor Evil.
Not to talk about Chaos and Law, whose traits are SO confuse...
"You overthrow the old retarded king who abandoned his people to anarchy to fully enjoy his senile dementia. OK, you are chaotic. No, wait: a side-note of the realm's digest of laws says that regicide is allowed in desperate cases, if the current king is going to waste the realm! Congratulations, you are lawful, since slaying the king you abode by the law! Hum...no,wait,...since the whole country is going to approve regicide, even in desperate cases...the WHOLE reign is fvcking chaotic!...But if doing something that prevents chaos is a lawful action, then you just saved the reign from anarchy and you just restore the law, so you should be lawful...A lawful one who follows chaotic laws..."
We could go on ad libitum, people.

If you are satisfied by the current regimentation, then go for it

Just my 2 cents, of course.

[User3]

N - Undecided (or, as I call them, "just a regular guy")
[...]
N - Just a regular guy - Do you just want to make a living? Does helping others out all the time seem like it is too much of a bother? Then you are neutral.

In a Law/Chaos-Good/Evil regimented world a true neutral character cannot exist.

If you absolutely have to use alingments at all, why not go from the headline descriptions? Just pick what fits your character most closely and that is your alignment for purposes of spell interaction and the likes. Now, obviously some of these "descriptions" are too vague, so here would be my spin on that.

Of course these definitions are entirely arbitrary. They have to be. As soon as you try to work out a system based on good, evil, chaos and law the world breaks down (as witnessed in this thread).

[Murtak]

Bleh, that was me. Anyways, to clarify:

There is no point in using the DnD alignment system for anything but it's interactions with the rest of the system really - what spells work on you, possibly what classes you can enter, stuff like that. As we can see in this thread they do not make any sense as far as moral guidelines go - and even if they did they should not be used for penalizing characters.

So if you are only ever going to be using them for determining who pings for Detect Evil then you might as well make the definitions completely arbitrary. Heck, they are already, so at least you will be honest. And along the way you can hopefully get rid of all the crappy discussion about what makes you evil, lawful or what not. The definition is the short blurb given in the description and that's it.

[Josh_Kablack]

1115576189[/unixtime]] There isn't a gray area, because Law and Chaos aren't black and white - they are purple and rhinocerous.

Can't beleive I forgot about GitP's take on this:

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantIT ... ript?SK=68

[Lago_AM3P]

Isn't D.tology the same thing as strict adherance to a written code, with the only difference is that every line item is given equal weight?